Official Report: Monday 03 February 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform the Assembly that I have received notification from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that, with immediate effect, Mr Conor Murphy has resigned the office of Minister for the Economy, that Dr Caoimhe Archibald has resigned the office of Minister of Finance and that Mr John O'Dowd has resigned the office of Minister for Infrastructure. I also inform the Assembly that I have received notification that Conor Murphy has resigned as an MLA for Newry and Armagh, also with immediate effect. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer of that vacancy, in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Before we start today's business, I will reflect on the fact that today marks one year since the Assembly resumed normal business, when it elected a Speaker and appointed a First Minister, a deputy First Minister and an Executive on Saturday 3 February 2024. I want to recognise the work that Assembly staff have undertaken to support us all in getting back to business. There will be different views in the Chamber on the circumstances in which the Assembly returned and on the progress that has been made on issues since then. Those are not matters for me to comment on, and, indeed, they may well feature in some of today's debates. As Speaker, however, the one thing that I do not have to be impartial about is being a champion for the Assembly. No matter the different views that we have, it is infinitely better that Members can raise issues in the Chamber with local Ministers.

That was very much my view last week when the First Minister and the deputy First Minister came to the House to give a statement on the response to storm Éowyn. Those of us who have been here longer than others know how responsiveness can differ when dealing with officials alone. Can improvements be made, and is there much more to do? The answer is undoubtedly yes, and therein lies a challenge for each and every one of us. We have imperfect arrangements for dealing with our society's unique history and circumstances. None of us should forget that the process of working through issues in a society with vastly different views is not an easy one. We should not, however, lose sight of the positives. One of the things that I have enjoyed most in my role over the past year is meeting the countless representatives of Governments from across the world who have come to visit. Without fail, I have been struck by their interest and in the goodwill that exists towards us. All of that indicates to me that there is so much potential for the future if we are in this place to unlock it.

We will shortly be approaching the business end of the mandate, when we will have two years remaining before the next election. I anticipate there being no shortage of items for the Assembly to deal with, and I again raised the issue of the legislative programme directly with the First Minister and deputy First Minister two weeks ago. Therefore, although there is no room for complacency, today is an opportunity to recognise the importance of the Chamber being here and of the work that we have to do within it in the years ahead.

Mr Middleton: I rise to speak about an issue that has been raised in the media over the past couple of days in relation to Lisneal College, which is in my constituency. I had already been planning to make a statement in the Chamber on the success of Lisneal College, which has just marked 20 years since its formation.

The school has been through a decade of positive transformation and has gone, as one BBC headline put it, from inadequate to award winning. It has been leading the way on new initiatives, most recently the mobile-phone-free initiative, which has received widespread positive recognition. The principal was recently named "Head Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School" in a prestigious UK-wide award. Many pupils go on to continue the school's record-breaking achievements throughout their learning, and the school continues to work closely with the community sector. Those are positive points about Lisneal College.

It is deeply regrettable that a small section of the media and some politicians have chosen to try to tarnish that reputation by shining a negative light on Lisneal and calling into question the processes that it, like other schools across Northern Ireland, has followed.

As has been stated publicly, Lisneal College continues to grow and develop, having doubled its intake in recent years. With over 1,000 pupils, it is inevitable that facilities must be restored, renewed and expanded. The project in question relates to the provision of sporting and physical educational facilities in the school in a process that began almost six years ago. The process has been through the business case and planning stages, just like all projects would be expected to. The notion that funding was awarded due to some backroom deal is not only inaccurate but completely offensive. It is also a shameful attempt at politicking and slander towards a section of our education community. The comments that have appeared across social media have caused much stress and hurt. The blatant sectarianism of some contributors online has done extreme damage.

I ask those who engage in such behaviour to stop. As a former pupil of Clondermot High School, which went on to amalgamate with Faughan Valley High School to form Lisneal College, I remember the days of wearing the uniform in Londonderry and having to keep my head down and cover the badge just because of the school that I went to. Due to the leadership of the school and its teachers and the greater tolerance within the wider city, I am pleased that pupils are now walking with their heads held high.

I have a proud record of working with all schools across my constituency. I urge all elected representatives to reach out, to get the facts and to focus on improving all educational facilities so that our children have the best chance in life.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McHugh: Is í an tseachtain seo Seachtain Mheabhairshláinte na bPáistí. Tugann sí sin deis dúinn sa tSeomra aird a tharraingt ar an ghníomh phráinneach atá de dhíth chun tacú le daoine óga a bhfuil fadhbanna meabhairshláinte ag caitheamh orthu. Mar is eol dúinn, tá easpa oibrithe meabhairshláinte cáilithe ann le freastal ar an éileamh ar sheirbhísí — éileamh atá ag ardú leis. Mar thoradh air sin, bíonn tréimhsí fada feithimh ann le haghaidh measúnú agus cóir a fháil dár ndaoine óga.

Tá ardú suntasach tagtha ar fhadhbanna meabhairshláinte i measc páistí agus déagóirí. Le dul i ngleic leis sin, creideann Sinn Féin i gcur chuige i leith seirbhísí meabhairshláinte a chumtar leis an othar, atá dírithe ar an othar agus atá bunaithe ar chearta an pháiste. Ní mór do pháistí foghlaim faoi scileanna le deacrachtaí a fhreastal agus faoina thábhachtaí atá sé labhairt faoin mheabhairshláinte ar scoil agus sa bhaile. Tá sé tábhachtach fosta díriú ar thionchar na meán sóisialta le tuiscint a fháil ar an bhrú breise a bhíonn ar dhaoine óga i sochaí an lae inniu.

Cuireann eagraíochtaí áitiúla éagsúla agus eagraíochtaí neamhbhrabúis cláir ar fáil atá dírithe ar fheasacht meabhairshláinte, ar thógáil acmhainneachta, agus ar thacaíocht do theaghlaigh. Mar sin féin, tá sé tábhachtach nach mbíonn páistí agus a muintir ag brath go hiomlán ar thacaíocht ón earnáil pobail agus dheonach. Ní mór do sheirbhísí meabhairshláinte do leanaí agus d'ógánaigh (CAMHS) freastal ar riachtanais mheabhairshláinte an pháiste aonair. Tá an idirghabháil agus an cosc luath ríthábhachtach, agus caithfidh teacht furasta a bheith ag gach duine ar sheirbhísí.

Mrs Guy: As a member of the Education Committee, I visit schools in my constituency of Lagan Valley weekly. They are all crying out for investment. The story that hit the media at the weekend about £710,000 being invested in a football pitch legitimately raised concerns. I make it clear that it is not about individual schools: every school and every child deserve great facilities where children are safe and warm and can be educated. The fact is that we have an Education Minister whose credibility is under scrutiny once again. It is right that the question should be asked and answered of whether the Minister exerted any influence on the prioritisation of that project over others. The Minister will be in the Assembly today to answer questions, and he will be at the Education Committee on Wednesday, where we will press for answers and full transparency on the issue.

Ms D Armstrong: I note that it is 11 days since storm Éowyn occurred. With power restored to almost all the 283,000 properties affected, I commend Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) for the mammoth task that it has undertaken to restore the electricity network, repairing almost the entire network in one week. My thanks go to everyone involved in the operation to turn the lights back on in the homes of so many families, including mine, which was in the dark for eight days. We can all agree that it has been a difficult and challenging time for many people.

As NIE gets the final number of properties connected today, the restoration efforts will enter a new phase and attention will turn to the connectivity issues with broadband and mobile coverage for many affected residents. All major telecom providers have sustained severe damage to the networks, and, unfortunately, it could be some time before normal services resume. I have liaised with all major providers, such as BT, Fibrus, Sky, Vodafone and O2, about the concerns of customers who have been left without service, particularly the elderly, vulnerable people who rely on connectivity to keep in touch with their families and to allow their emergency response devices to operate. The problem affects not only the most vulnerable but those who work from home and, indeed, students who need to complete online assignments.

Most providers are still assessing the damage to their networks and will likely have to rebuild their infrastructure entirely in certain areas where poles and fibre cable have been wiped out. Where such incidents have occurred, I am aware that there will be a shortage in the procurement of fibre cable and other components that will compound the delays being felt in many homes and businesses. As I understand it, many of the big providers are bringing over engineers from Great Britain to assist in the restoration efforts, which, I trust, will help. However, the lack of communication from certain providers is causing much anxiety for those who are offline. These are unprecedented times, and, whilst I understand the scale of damage to the networks, it is imperative that our rural, isolated residents have connectivity restored. I call on the telecommunications companies to expedite repairs and share information with the greatest urgency.

Mr McCrossan: As I stand here, the Omagh bomb inquiry is ongoing in Omagh. I attended it last week to meet the families of those who lost loved ones and suffered the worst possible consequences of what was the most horrendous day of our very dark past.

The pain, the anger, the frustration, the sense of loss and the void left by the lives that were stolen from many families in Omagh are acutely felt. Given what the Omagh families went through in order to get the inquiry, it is important that the House stand united today in thinking of all those who were affected: not just those who lost loved ones and those who died but the hundreds of people who were injured and the many others who were affected on that day.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will read into the record the names of the 29 victims murdered by the Real IRA on that day. They were James Barker, aged 12; Fernando Baselga, aged 12; Geraldine Breslin, aged 43; Deborah Anne Cartwright, aged 20; Gareth Conway, aged 18; Breda Devine, aged 20 months; Oran Doherty, aged 8; Aidan Gallagher, aged 21; Esther Gibson, aged 36; Mary Grimes, aged 65; Olive Hawkes, aged 60; Julia Hughes, aged 21; Brenda Logue, aged 17; Ann McCombe, aged 45; Brian McCrory, aged 54; Samantha McFarland, aged 17; Sean McGrath, aged 61; Sean McLaughlin, aged 12; Jolene Marlow, aged 17; Avril Monaghan, aged 30, who was killed along with her unborn twins; Maura Monaghan, aged 18 months; Alan Radford, aged 16; Rocio Ramos, aged 23; Elizabeth Rush, aged 57; Veda Short, aged 46; Philomena Skelton, aged 39; Fred White, aged 60; Bryan White, aged 27; and Lorraine Wilson, aged 15.

You can see from those names and ages, Mr Speaker, that so many lives were impacted on and so many were taken far too young. As I felt in the inquiry last week — I will attend it again this week — the pain is as acute today, and the void is so real for those families. We think on them as they share the stories of their journeys of such terrible and tremendous loss.

Mr Delargy: I will discuss a matter that is of significant public concern in Derry and, I suspect, well beyond our city. Over the weekend, I was inundated, as, I am sure, many others in the Chamber were, with calls from school principals, teachers and parents who are dismayed that their schools are being denied basic funding to tackle the most urgent repairs. I have visited schools in Derry with the Minister where walls are falling down and temporary accommodation has been permanent since the 1990s and have been told that no significant funding is open to those schools.

I have brought these photos to show —.

Mr Speaker: Order. You are not allowed to use those in the House. That has been a tradition of the House for 25 years. Carry on.

Mr Delargy: The photos that Members just saw of black mould are from just one school. It has been told to lodge a planning application, with the caveat that, when it does so, funding may not be available. It is a school in which three Portakabins have been knocked down due to black mould, students are taught in an IT room that is half the size of a DE-approved classroom and in which there is no staff room. I know that because I taught there.

Let me be clear: I welcome all investment in our schools, but the allocation of scarce public funds must always follow processes that are fair, open and transparent and for which there is accountability. Parents, teachers and school leaders need assurance that schools have equal access to funding opportunities and that decisions are made fairly and consistently. The Assembly must properly scrutinise the reports and all the circumstances of this allocation.

Mr Frew: Mr Speaker, the Member's forbidden prop was upside down — a bit like his argument.

Today, I will talk about the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) in London. Some Members might think, "How does that affect us and our constituents?". For many, it will not, but, for a growing number, it will, and it has. I have seen a growing trend — small numbers yet but a trickle that is getting worse and increasing — of constituents in North Antrim getting penalty charge notices from the ultra low emission zone and being asked to pay £90, £180 or even up to £270, if they do not pay those notices.

The issue is that my constituents were not in London. There is a growing trend that their cars are being cloned: the number plates are the same, and, in some cases, the make and model of car are the same. Of course, you could say, "Those people are innocent. They were not in London at that time", but they are being asked and forced to prove that they were not in London, and that comes with great anxiety and concern. They worry about their credit ratings, if they cannot prove it.

They are being asked to prove that their vehicle was at a different location via a tracker report, a statement from a colleague or neighbour, photographs that demonstrate the difference between the vehicles, proof of involvement of another enforcement agency that has confirmed that the vehicle is a ringer or a clone or proof that the customer has had previous dealings with the police in relation to the vehicle, resulting in it being recorded as a ringer or cloned. When they go to the PSNI, the PSNI tells them, "This is a civil matter", so they are left with no support in trying to prove that their car was not in London at a specific time or in a specific place, and it is proving really difficult.

It is a growing trend. I am not sure whether other Members have picked up the trend, but I worry about it enough to bring it to the Assembly to raise awareness of it.

Mr Blair: Yesterday was World Wetlands Day. I take the opportunity to mark it in the Chamber on the first available day afterwards to highlight the importance of raising awareness of those remarkable habitats. World Wetlands Day happens each year on 2 February.

Recognising the importance of wetlands allows us to appreciate their vital contributions to ecosystems, economies and communities. Areas such as marshes, bogs and swamps are essential habitats for countless plant and animal species, many of which are at risk of extinction. By safeguarding wetlands, we contribute to the survival of the rich biodiversity that is crucial to sustaining ecological balance. However, the World Wildlife Fund reports that approximately 87% of the world's wetlands have been lost in the last 300 years, predominantly since 1900.

Another striking fact is that those areas can store 50 times more carbon than rainforests. The habitats are also crucial for maintaining clean water sources. They act as natural water filters, capturing pollutants and facilitating purification, thereby enhancing water quality. Therefore, they play a vital role in protecting drinking water and promoting the health of rivers and lakes. Given the current condition of our waterways, particularly Lough Neagh, I do not need to remind anyone in the Chamber of the importance of that.

We must not overlook the essential role that wetlands play in our local communities. They offer opportunities for eco-tourism, education and outdoor activities, enriching our lives and strengthening our connection with nature, thereby enhancing our mental well-being.

Nevertheless, despite the benefits that I have just outlined, our wetlands continue to be threatened by various sources, including expanding urban developments, pollution, agricultural run-off and climate change. I am pleased that the AERA Minister has been taking active steps to address several of those issues through the Lough Neagh action plan and the environmental improvement plan. There is also the important good-news announcement by DAERA of the nature recovery challenge fund, through which grants from £50,000 are available to councils and voluntary organisations.

We all have a role to play — from what we achieve in this building to local government and individuals — in taking responsibility for protecting our wetlands.

Mrs Dodds: Thursday 30 January was Stroke Prevention Day. In Northern Ireland, around 4,000 people every year suffer from a stroke. Worryingly, that number has been increasing over the past 20 years, particularly among people of working age. Strokes change lives in an instant. It is important that we have the most up-to-date treatments available for patients in all parts of Northern Ireland to ensure the best outcomes. The Department of Health seems to have been consulting on and contemplating stroke services for a decade. We now need action.

A Stroke Association survey last month showed that 43% of people did not know that high blood pressure was the leading risk factor for stroke. Perhaps more concerning, 36% of people who have experienced a stroke, through either their own diagnoses or that of a loved one, did not know that high blood pressure was the biggest risk factor. To mark Stroke Prevention Day, the Stroke Association is encouraging people to have their blood pressure regularly checked.

While stroke is most likely to impact on those over the age of 65, it can happen at any age. My constituent Andrew Oliver from Lurgan had a stroke in 2017 at just 22 years of age. Eighteen months prior to his stroke, Andrew was hospitalised for having high blood pressure at twice the recommended limit. At the time, he was unaware that high blood pressure is the cause of almost half of strokes.

Andrew and the Stroke Association are encouraging adults of all ages to have their blood pressure checked regularly. That will equip them with the knowledge of whether they are at risk of having a stroke, so that they can take steps to reduce their chances. Blood pressure checks are available via GPs and many pharmacies. I encourage Members to share the social media messaging from the Stroke Association about the prevention of the catastrophic illnesses caused by strokes.

Dr Aiken: Today, our Prime Minister is in Brussels, working on a much-needed reset in relationships between our nation and the European Union. The meeting rightly focuses on our combined need to resist Russian aggression in Ukraine and to kick-start a much-needed rearmament of the EU and the United Kingdom in order to challenge Putin's use of hybrid warfare and disinformation and his attempts to reinforce Russian power and hegemony over eastern Europe and beyond.

The war in Ukraine has reached a critical stage. Putin's use of North Korean forces was an unprecedented intervention in European affairs. The fact that the bravery and determination of the Ukrainian military has blunted and inflicted massive casualties on Kim Jong Un's army does not extinguish the peril that Ukraine faces. Attacks by drones, ballistic missiles and artillery, as well as full-frontal attacks, which appear no different to the grim conditions experienced in the First World War and the Second World War, show that Putin, far from seeking a peaceful resolution to the war, is determined to fight on to the last conscript, the last North Korean and the last Ukrainian. If he wins, he will, inexorably, move to challenge the Baltic states, Poland and eastern Europe. The horrors of Kyiv, Odesa and Mariupol will be visited on other European cities.

The lessons of history cannot be ignored. Our nation has to show leadership, including, no matter how unpopular, increasing our expenditure on defence from 2·3% to 3·5% or even beyond. Those who think that that is too much should be aware that Ukraine currently spends around 26·9% of its GDP on defence.

Recognition of the threat from Putin and his fellow travellers is, regrettably, not universal across Europe. One nation stands aside as a security freeloader par excellence, a nation that lectures everyone on peace but relies on NATO to protect its wide-open sea and airspace. It is a nation whose head of state uses a children's science contest to castigate those whom it needs to secure and defend its very economic and social well-being. Later today, we will have an Opposition day motion on a shared island. Maybe Ireland should start sharing its responsibility for our collective European defence. Just maybe, when the Taoiseach sits around the European leaders' table tonight, Ireland, instead of pontificating, will actually do something and join the rest of us to secure our continent.

Ms K Armstrong: I wish to highlight Tinnitus Week. This year's theme is the title of Tinnitus UK's report, 'Ringing the alarm: The tinnitus care crisis', and this week seeks to raise awareness of that crisis. Tinnitus is the name for the hearing of noises that are not caused by an outside source. It is common: around one in seven adults has such ringing all the time or regularly. Most often, tinnitus is linked to hearing loss or other ear conditions. Thankfully, it is rarely a sign of a serious condition, but it is a condition that can be debilitating. The persistent noise causes headaches and exhaustion. It feels like your brain never quietens. Help for people with tinnitus is provided in Northern Ireland by RNID and AdaptNI, which provide vital services for deaf, hearing loss and tinnitus communities across Northern Ireland. AdaptNI was formed to provide specialist employment, pre-employment and training support for people who are deaf or have tinnitus. Despite the need for that type of support, support for deaf people is under threat, as funding to enable specialist help has not been made available.

With the imminent introduction of a sign language Bill, for which I am very grateful, there is a unique and pressing opportunity to ensure that sustainable service delivery is provided. That landmark legislation will increase the demand for accessible workplaces, career opportunities and training services. To that end, I call on the Minister of Health and the Minister for Communities to lead the charge to provide stable funding to provide support for individuals and organisations to meet those new standards. There is an opportunity to secure a sustainable future for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and those who have tinnitus.

Mr Gaston: One year on from the return of the Executive, the uselessness of the arrangements supposedly put in place to justify that return is now clearer than ever. The DUP deal, which was sold as Safeguarding the Union, is now seen to be what many of us always said that it was: a con. The Irish Sea border has, far from disappearing, become harder. We see that the Stormont brake, now that it has been tested, has no brake pipes attached at all. The guarantee that no community could impose its will on the other has been completely thrown out the window. As we sit here today, 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland are made by people whom no one in Northern Ireland elects. Importantly, those vital laws that shape our economy are the same laws that shape the economy of the Irish Republic. All the while, unionist Ministers continue to implement the protocol by virtue of the office that they hold.

Has Stormont delivered on the laws that it does control? If we strip back the bluster, the harsh truth is that it has not. We do not debate legislation in this place. Day after day, we debate motions that are non-binding and have no impact on anything, apart from making people believe that something productive is happening in this place. It is time for unionism to realise the folly of returning to Stormont with the protocol still in place. Doing so meant that we surrendered the one strong card that we held. Day by day, the Union is being eroded. It is time to realise that and to put the constitutional status of Northern Ireland before the ministerial limos.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish to talk briefly about the trade war that it looks like the president of the United States is to inflict upon the world. Obviously, we did not have a vote in the US presidential election in November, although there are strong opinions on the election of President Trump, for and, in my case and the case of others, against. You do not have to be a supporter or an antagonist of Donald Trump to know that unilaterally imposing swingeing tariffs on your nearest neighbours and allies and then threatening the other biggest trade blocks in the world, namely the EU and indeed, by inference today, the UK, with tariffs and trade war escalation is not in the interests of workers and consumers in your own country, let alone stability around the world. It is deeply concerning that, at a time when the international rules-based order is under threat, particularly from President Trump and his acolytes, we face into a very destabilising situation.

Northern Ireland has the potential benefit of being at the turning point of two markets: the UK and European markets. I want us to take advantage of that, but, in the context of trade barriers being re-erected by leaders, doing so will be deeply challenging. The situation should worry all of us in the Chamber, whatever our perspective. I therefore condemn the escalation by President Trump, and I hope that businesses and workers here will be protected from it. I will be calling on the newly appointed Minister for the Economy to engage as widely as she can to establish protections for people here.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I wish to update the House on support arrangements for controlled schools. The controlled schools sector is the largest such sector in Northern Ireland, comprising 49% of all schools. It is a particularly diverse sector, supporting nursery, special, primary, secondary, grammar, integrated and Irish-medium schools and teaching almost 150,000 of our children and young people.

I previously outlined my view that the current system is failing controlled schools owing to its construct, as per the findings of the independent review of education. The review report highlighted:

and proposed:

It outlined controlled school leaders' perception that the Education Authority (EA) is:

As a result, in September 2024, I established a task force comprising senior representatives from the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC), the Education Authority and my Department. The group was asked to develop a proposed model for controlled schools support, to include a dedicated body with managing authority responsibility. Its task was to identify immediate solutions to provide the sector with effective and equitable support and management in the short and long term. I instructed the group to commence that work without delay, and I asked it to report back with proposals by the end of December 2024. I appreciate that the timetable was challenging, but the interests of schools and children cannot be subservient to bureaucratic delays. I am reminded of the response of Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, to being told that something just could not be done. He said, "It's really interesting that you say that, because we are going to do it".

I am particularly grateful to Mark Baker for chairing the task force and to senior officials in DE and the EA for their work to make that happen in the timescale that was provided. As a result of that intensive work, rather than a prolonged period of navel-gazing, I hope that changes will begin to be made in the coming months and that the difference will be felt on the ground before too long.

The task force has since reported to me, proposing delivery in two phases. Phase 1 is a controlled schools unit (CSU) established in the Education Authority. It is to be an interim, collaborative model designed to facilitate the delivery of tangible improvements for controlled schools in the short to medium term. That is broadly consistent with the interim proposal from the independent review panel. The unit should aim to be in operation by the start of the new school year in September 2025.

Phase 2 is a managing authority for controlled schools that will be a dedicated body with managing authority responsibilities, developed to provide focused governance and strategic leadership for controlled schools. The model will require legislation to transfer identified duties and functions to it. Phase 2 will also incorporate evaluation and learning from phase 1. Efforts will be made to establish the managing authority for controlled schools in the current Assembly term, if possible.

The proposal is informed by further exploration of the challenges facing the controlled sector in Northern Ireland. It builds on evidence from the independent review of education and involved substantial stakeholder engagement, particularly with school leaders. The evidence underlined, amongst other challenges, the need for enhanced dedicated support; development of a controlled-sector ethos; support for leaders and effective governance; and improved collaboration across and beyond the sector.

I support the proposal. This approach can achieve the best of both worlds: preparing for a dedicated managing authority in the medium term, while bringing about improvements for the support of our controlled schools in the shorter term. That will provide tailored, proactive, relational and consistent support for our largest school sector. The independent review outlined the disparities in educational outcomes between controlled and Catholic maintained schools, which it partly attributed to differing approaches and support for the sectors. It stated:

An analysis of inspection data by the task force also outlined that controlled schools are more likely to enter formal intervention than Catholic maintained schools. To borrow a line from George Orwell:

Changing structures will not, in isolation, fully address those challenges, but improved support for the sector can play a part in bringing about greater consistency and equity of support in our education system, as promoted by the independent review. Given the scale and reach of the controlled sector, such changes will also support the effective delivery of my broader reform agenda.

Some may ask why I have identified this solution rather than the single managing authority that was envisaged by the independent review panel. My response is clear: I have prioritised the greatest need that the review itself outlined for the largest sector. I do so in the knowledge that targeted solutions are typically brought to fruition more quickly and effectively than broader change, however well intentioned it is. That in no way precludes greater collaboration or further changes to the structure of our education system to support our schools to enable every child to be happy, learning and succeeding. I have asked the relevant organisations to prioritise the implementation of those changes, and I will provide updates on progress as appropriate.

Finally, in relation to the press story at Lisneal College, contrary to what has been reported, the project was funded within the normal EA minor works budget. The EA has delegated authority for projects up to £1 million. The EA followed its own procedures in selecting the project. The project predates my time in office, with the pitch being identified for replacement after a safety inspection in December 2019. A feasibility report was conducted in May 2022 and a business case submitted in June 2022. Planning permission was received in 2023 and a construction tender was awarded in December 2024. That is the normal timeline for such projects.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Quite a few Members want to ask a question so I would like you to keep your questioning concise.

Ms Hunter: Minister, obviously all schools can apply for minor capital investment. Will you confirm what your Department states is the upper limit for minor capital works?

Mr Givan: As I just said in the statement, for the Member's benefit if she missed it, £1 million is the delegated authority that the EA has for minor works schemes.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. The EA's chief executive stated to the Education Committee that he did not accept the characterisation that controlled schools have been failed by the EA. The teaching unions have also provided evidence to the Committee that they do not consider a managing authority for controlled schools to be required. When we visit schools in all sectors, the principals advise that they have difficulty in accessing the services that they need. On that basis, why has the Minister not gone for a single managing authority, which would benefit all schools and be a genuinely transformative intervention, and instead gone for one narrow, additional layer of bureaucracy in an already overloaded system?

Mr Givan: As part of the work of the task force, research was commissioned, and, overwhelmingly, the response from controlled schools was that they were being failed by the Education Authority. I quoted the independent review in my statement, which highlighted the failings of the Education Authority towards the controlled sector. I have outlined the rationale for taking this forward. I hope that Members are not saying that controlled schools have to be second class when it comes to our education system, because that is what the Member is implying when he says, in respect of my proposal, that we should not be taking forward a narrow agenda.

The controlled sector comprises 49% of all schools. It is diverse. I outlined it. Irish-medium schools are included in that sector. It is very much an inclusive sector in our education system, and I trust that the Education Committee will recognise those failings and support the changes that need to be made in order for those principals and schools to operate effectively for the benefit of the pupils. Ultimately, the pupils have to be at the core of what we do. The evidence has shown that pupils who are in the controlled sector, particularly those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, are a consideration. Given that Protestant working-class boys are the cohort that is failing the most, which is not the same in our Catholic maintained sector, I really hope that Members are not saying that we should not provide those people with the support that they need.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Danny Baker, let me say, Minister, that we have quite a few Members to get through. I appreciate your full answers, but if you could keep them slightly more concise, that would be good.

Mr Baker: The Minister is intent on establishing a new managing authority for the controlled sector, contrary to the recommendations of the independent review. Adding that to the case over the weekend of £700,000 investment to a school, will the Minister accept that there may be a perception that he and his Department are offering preferential treatment to one education sector over others?

Mr Givan: No. I say this to the Member: do not judge me by one's own sectarian standards.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: Do not judge me by your own standards. I have been the Minister of Education for all sectors.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: I have engaged with the Members opposite in their own schools, listened to the concerns and provided support. If the Member is so concerned about the capital needs of the education sector, for which I have bid well in excess of half a billion pounds, he should speak to his Finance Minister, who has not supported me.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brooks: Given the inferences of some across the media and, indeed, in the House in recent weeks that make our controlled schools feel less than and maligned, will the Minister take this opportunity to thank those who work in our controlled schools for all the important work that they do for everyone across our community?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that. He rightly highlights the excellent work that is taking place in our schools despite the structural deficits that exist in the education system to support controlled schools. I have been hugely impressed by the work that I have seen across the education system, but we have to do so much more to provide those who are involved with that support. That is why the statement today is critical. The Education Authority is the managing authority for the controlled sector. That is a unique function that it has. It is there to provide services to all sectors, which it does, but it has a unique managing authority role for the controlled sector. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), which is not part of the Education Authority, is the managing authority for Catholic maintained schools. Controlled schools are managed by the EA, and not particularly well when it comes to the processes and the decisions that it has been taking. This is about equality of treatment, and I often hear people in the Chamber, particularly those opposite, talk about equality and treating everybody the same. Let us just test how well people treat people when it comes to equality.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what specific resources for staffing and funding will be allocated to ensure that the CSU delivers tangible improvements on the ground? How will you measure success?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. We envisage that supporting the controlled schools unit in the EA will require around £1·2 million of resource to be provided. That will allow the unit to be set up and established, which will then create a better service for supporting our controlled schools. That investment will be money well spent.

Mrs Mason: Minister, trade unions are opposed to the establishment of another management authority, the independent review of education recommends a single managing authority and the chief executive of the Education Authority, who you appointed, disagrees with your assessment that the EA has, in fact, failed controlled schools. Why have you set yourself against those key stakeholders and the expert recommendations of the independent review?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. It is not a case of setting myself against what people have outlined. I listen to MLAs in the Chamber from all parties. Since I have been in post, every political party has expressed its concerns about the Education Authority, but now, when it suits one's agenda, the Education Authority is a paragon of efficiency and efficacy. People see that for what it is — certainly, we see it for what it is. This is very much grounded in the evidence of supporting the controlled sector schools. I trust that people will be open to recognising the challenges that many principals in the controlled sector face and that they will support this, because it is about benefits for the children who require us to be engaged in the issue. I quoted the independent review in my statement, and I note the inability of Members to quote back at me what the independent review said. This decision is based on the independent review; this is an evidence-based approach. It is based upon the feedback from principals. If Members want to ignore what those principals are saying, that speaks to the bigger problem that they have in supporting controlled schools.

Mr Martin: Minister, may I say how much I welcome the statement and the fact that delivering equality for controlled schools across the sector has been the driver? I know that many principals and boards of governors will also welcome that. Does the Minister believe that the title "controlled schools" is misunderstood, considering that some of those schools are more diverse in their community backgrounds than schools with "integrated" in their names? Does he consider that a new title for controlled schools would be appropriate?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments — I share his thinking. The controlled sector comprises schools that are controlled by the Education Authority. That is what it is. Some put a negative connotation on what that means, but our controlled schools represent the most diverse sector in our education system in terms of pupil background. Members need to have a look at this — without their own political agenda — and then recognise the excellent work that is done in our controlled schools, because they do a disservice to all those principals and teachers by the way in which they continually run down the controlled sector. That is what they hear; that is what they tell me.

The Member raises an interesting point, and it is one on which I have engaged with the Controlled Schools' Support Council. When it comes to taking this forward, we need to reflect on the terminology used in law that defines the schools that are run by the EA as controlled schools. They are schools that are there to be reflective of the community, and I hope that, in the engagement that will take place as we go forward, that can be reflected, because schools from the controlled sector very much could be called "community schools". That is what they are.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Guy: I am sure that the Minister will agree that controlled schools deserve capital investment, as do all schools in Northern Ireland. However, he will be aware that the news story that broke over the weekend has called into question, once again, his credibility. The question that the public expect me to ask him directly is this: Minister, did you influence in any way prioritising that investment over other schools that also require minor works?

Mr Givan: I have noted the Member's contribution on social media. She may want to reflect on that, as I certainly am reflecting on what she and others have been putting on Twitter and the inferences that are being made. I outlined in my statement that I had no role in taking the decision to fund this scheme. The Education Authority had £29 million available to it for minor works projects. I am not involved in deciding what funding goes where, because it is a delegated limit of £1 million. In fact, other parties have a greater say in that funding than I do, because they have elected reps on the board of the Education Authority. If Members want to ask questions of the Education Authority on the decisions that it has taken, they must consider the fact that there are Sinn Féin members and representatives from other political parties on the board. They have a greater say in the funding decisions for minor works schemes than I have.

Let us not repeat a false narrative. It does not matter how many times you want to retell the past and try to phrase the truth in a different manner: facts are facts. The Member's opinion and conjecture on this have been completely wrong. The Member, and others, should retract such statements —

Mr Frew: Apologise.

Mr Givan: — and apologise —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: — not only to me but to Lisneal College and the principal of that school. It is an outstanding school that supports the controlled sector in that part of Foyle. That is what Members should do when it comes to that issue.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, you referred to the independent review on a number of occasions. The independent review recommended that we look at simplifying things and having a single management authority for schools. Was that part of your considerations? Why are you pressing on with your approach, rather than looking at that simplification process?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It is a good one to ask about the independent review's recommendation on a single managing authority. Before we can get to a single managing authority, we need equity. We will not move, all of a sudden, to a single managing authority that will incorporate the Catholic maintained sector and other sectors. We need to address the immediate short-term failings, which are in the controlled sector.

Of course, if people want a single managing authority for all sectors, I am happy to have that conversation. That is a valid point for Members to raise, but it should not be to the detriment of addressing the failings that exist now for one particular sector: the controlled sector. My statement is very much about correcting that inequality and providing the right support. I encourage that collaboration to take place across all our sectors. Should it lead to a single managing authority, I would be very much open to trying to pursue that as an ultimate objective, but let us not leave the controlled sector behind.

Mr Brett: Minister, I thank you for your statement and commitment to the controlled sector. Will you confirm that, despite biased political media and naked sectarianism by some parties in the House, you will continue to treat all aspects of our education system with fairness and equality, as you have done since taking office?

Mr Givan: I understand the frustration and sentiment that the Member expressed. The story was put out on Friday, despite the information that had been provided to make sure that accuracy was associated with it. A statement was released by the Education Authority over the weekend, which provided the facts. Yet Members are either unwittingly or, as I feel, deliberately, which is certainly what the school feels, trying to use it for their own political agenda. I am happy to be held to account by Members in the House on policy and decisions that we need to take on things such as the curriculum and all the rest of it, and I am more than capable of answering for that. However, I will not stand by while my integrity and the integrity of others who were involved in that particular issue is denigrated wrongly in pursuit of Members' own political agendas.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you referred to Lisneal College. You know that I have raised St Macartan's Primary School in Clogher, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, with you on many occasions. That project also originated in 2019 and was also approved for money on essential works to be spent in 2022, yet you told me twice in November that there was no capital to move forward with it. How much of the £710,000 that was awarded to Lisneal College was needed to address safety concerns?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right to challenge me about the support that is needed for the school that he mentioned, just as many Members whom I have met have challenged me, the Department of Education and the Education Authority about maintenance requirements in our schools. The needs that are required to be fixed are well documented. That is why I ask for way more than the amount of capital funding that I am granted, because I know that we need to get the support for our schools. A total of £29 million was allocated for minor works schemes. The delegated authority for the Education Authority to take those decisions is £1 million. That decision, then, does not sit with me.

I am responsible for major new schools and school enhancement programmes. When I announced major new capital programmes for new builds this year, they were for a balanced number of schools reflective of all sectors. People can rightly scrutinise decisions that I have taken, but they cannot make allegations about decisions that were not my responsibility and were for the Education Authority.

I want to support all schools. I trust that, when it comes to the Budget that will be passed in the Assembly in a number of weeks, Members will support the Department of Education on that. Then, we will be able to do so much more for all our schools.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. Good progress has been made. Minister, how can you keep up the momentum to ensure that our controlled sector receives the support and equality that it deserves?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. She is right: a lot of good work has been done by the task force to get us to this point. I set a really challenging date for the task force to complete its work. To build on that progress, I have asked the EA, the Controlled Schools' Support Council and my Department to prioritise this work. I have asked the task force to continue its role, which will aid effective collaboration across the organisations and beyond, as the proposals are implemented. I will also expect to receive regular updates on progress to ensure that the momentum continues.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, it has been a typically arrogant and evasive question-and-answer session from a Minister whose credibility is once again under fire. I will ask the Minister this question again, and I would like a yes or no answer, please: did you or your officials, at any stage before or after your meeting with the principal of Lisneal College, discuss the application with the EA or its board representatives?

Mr Givan: I am sorry to disappoint the Member — it is probably not the first time — but it will take more than a one-word answer. He certainly wanted to frame his question with a particular agenda. Members whom I engage with when I meet schools, including from the Alliance Party, say openly, "Minister, we need funding from the Education Authority for these windows to be replaced", or, "for a car park to be extended". Are the Member and the Alliance Party now saying that never again will any of Alliance's elective representatives advocate or challenge for funding from my Department or the Education Authority? No, they are not saying that. Of course, they are going to do that. Not for the first time, there is hypocrisy from the Alliance Party.

I commend Gary Middleton for championing the cause of a school in his constituency. He is absolutely right to fight for that school, just as every Member is right to fight for their schools. You should do more of it, but I commend those that do. I repeat that the decision to fund that project was not taken by me; it was taken by the Education Authority.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, your theatrics in waging your culture war today would, I am sure, get you on the stage of any school drama project.

I want to focus on something that you mentioned earlier, which is facts and the factual position. You referred to Lisneal College as a "minor" project. I direct you to your Department's website, where it says in black and white that a minor work costs less than £500,000. Separately, to make it absolutely clear, it says that a major work is a capital project that costs in excess of £500,000. Is the Department's website wrong, or does the Minister need to correct the record?

Mr Givan: The journalist who asked the question knew that the Department's website was wrong. Before the article was published, information was provided confirming that it was wrong. The departmental position was updated, because the delegated limit is £1 million. I thank the Member for asking the question. Whilst we have provided factual and accurate information, people in the Assembly and elsewhere have deliberately manipulated it, and you have to ask yourself why. Why would people want to deliberately manipulate it when they have the accurate information? I will leave others to judge why they are so opposed to Lisneal College receiving that funding. We see it for exactly what it is.

Mr Delargy: Minister, I have taken your advice: I have championed many schools in my constituency, as you know. We were recently on a visit there. I have championed Bunscoil Cholmcille, Gaelscoil Éadain Mhóir, Holy Child Primary School, Lumen Christi College, St Brigid's Primary School, Carnhill and many others. Those schools have questions around why they have not been prioritised and one school has. Will you explain how that project has been funded, when many other projects that have pressing health and safety concerns have not?

Mr Givan: Setting aside the Member's remarks in his Member's statement, which I was here for, I will say that he has brought really helpful information to me on classroom assistants, the work to support them and other issues, and he has shown a genuine and sincere interest in how we can help our education system. I appreciate that, at times, you have to go out and do the party political stuff, and that is what the Member is doing today. I will set that aside.

What the Member does not say is that St Joseph's Boys' School in Londonderry received over half a million pounds for a 4G pitch in 2023. In the last five years, £7·6 million has been spent through minor works schemes on non-controlled schools in the Foyle constituency. Where is the commentary on the funding provided for schools that are not controlled? Where is the fairness? Where is the equality? Again, we pose this question: why single out that school? I think that it is obvious why that school is being singled out and why the decisions are being questioned.

Mr Buckley: We had another statement filled with sanctimonious slurs from the Alliance Party. It is right that that is called out by the Minister and others on these Benches.

The Minister has rightly identified a problem and is taking action to address it. In his statement, he talked about changing the system or changing nothing. Does the Minister agree that there also needs to be a change in mindset from some Members? Instead of racing to shameful slurs on Lisneal College, they should, on the other hand, look at clear and practical examples of where schools that are in need receive appropriate funding from the Department to ensure that they can carry on with providing quality education for all our children.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Unless you are deemed an officially integrated school, the Alliance Party does not care. That is why it has opposed the Strule Shared Education Campus. At every opportunity, it has opposed bringing together 4,000 children at an iconic, landmark educational campus in a town that was blighted by the Troubles and suffered one of the most heinous crimes and largest losses of life. Here we are leading an iconic way forward for Northern Ireland, and who is against it? The Alliance Party. It and others need to open their eyes and become somewhat more progressive and broad-minded, because it certainly does not demonstrate that when it comes to articulating views on controlled schools. It is only the integrated sector that matters to the Alliance Party.

Miss McAllister: Minister, your Department told the Audit Office in November, I believe, that it could afford only urgent repairs and statutory requirements. My question relates to Lisneal College's football pitch. Why is a football pitch that needs to be made to Northern Ireland Football League (NIFL) standards an urgent repair or statutory requirement? That is a genuine question.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the genuine question, because, certainly, the churlish shaking of the head that is typical of the Member has not demonstrated sincerity when it comes to it.

The pitch is 20 years old. Such pitches normally have a life cycle of around 10 years; it is 20 years old. An assessment was made in 2019 that it needed to be replaced. I outlined in my statement the process that was followed when it came to the Education Authority's decision. If the Member has concerns about how the EA took the decision, she should, given that her party has a member on the board, ask the question of those who took the decision. Sinn Féin also has members on the board: ask the question. I encourage Members to do that, as the Education Authority took the decision on that minor works scheme.

Again, you do not want to get to the facts. You do not want the truth. You want to use the issue as a party political tool. You have lifted Lisneal College and are trying to use it as a rod with which to have a go. It is shameful and disgraceful the kind of politics that the Alliance Party, as well as Sinn Féin and the SDLP, engages in. I will be equitable in my judgement. I will be fair to all. It is blatantly obvious what this is about. Please retract and apologise to Lisneal College for your disgraceful behaviour.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call William Irwin.

Mr Buckley: It was to be Maurice Bradley.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Brian Kingston, then.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the Minister for his welcome announcement. He has already highlighted the diversity in the controlled schools sector. Many schools in the sector are actively involved in shared education initiatives with other schools, including schools from other sectors. Will the Minister confirm that shared education and good relations remain a priority for him in the establishment of a new managing authority for the controlled sector?

Mr Givan: Very much so. The Member highlighted the importance of shared education, which I very much advocate. I have said to all schools, "You should be inclusive". Where there are barriers preventing people from the local community from going to their nearest school or where there is a perception of particular barriers, the school should try to address them. Shared education programmes are hugely beneficial. I have a statutory duty to promote them, and I will do so. I have a statutory duty to promote them in capital builds, and that is why we have taken forward the development at Strule. Limavady is an example of somewhere that we took forward shared education work. Ballycastle, where a school from the controlled sector and one from the Catholic maintained sector will be part of a shared education campus, is another example. Shared education is something that I encourage and that I see happening across all our schools.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, the DUP could have a branch meeting at the Education Authority. Nepotism is alive and well [Interruption.]

What process did your Department go through to establish a 50% inflationary increase on minor works? How and when was that increase communicated to the schools, and how many schools are currently engaged in minor works in excess of £500,000? [Interruption.]

Mr Givan: Again —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am sorry, Minister. Will you resume your seat, please?

Mr Givan: Yes, of course.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, this is a robust debate and an appropriate one, but I cannot have chuntering from the Back Benches, particularly from you, Mr Buckley. It does not fit you.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have answered the questions. The Member frames hers to suit her particular narrative. Again, that is not surprising. I say to the Member, who represents the Foyle constituency, that, if she has not been — maybe she has, but I do not know — she should go to Lisneal College. She should speak to the principal about his feelings and the school's feelings about the way in which her party and others have responded to the matter. She should try to be an MLA for all her constituents in Foyle, not just one section.

Ms McLaughlin: You did not answer the question [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, this is a robust debate. This is about democracy, and that is fine, but I will not — [Interruption.]

Sinéad, steady. I will not put up with people chuntering from a sedentary position. Members have ample opportunity to speak [Interruption.]

Justin, I have already reprimanded them. I have no difficulty in doing such a thing. Let us keep the debate flowing respectfully. Thank you very much.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement, the theme of which was equality. Can the Minister outline some of the inequalities that the controlled sector currently faces?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. In my original comments, I documented the evidence base upon which the decisions were made. It was well documented in the independent review of education that there were systems that were not serving the controlled sector well and structural deficits that needed to be changed. I have highlighted the differential in outcomes for those children from a poor socio-economic background who go to Catholic maintained schools. Those schools do excellent work in creating aspiration and giving children the best life chances, but the evidence has shown that, particularly in working-class communities, controlled sector schools need more support to help their pupils. There is inequality of treatment when it comes to our school sectors and there is inequality of outcomes. We need to make sure that everybody gets the best opportunity in life.

Mr Durkan: I have been to Lisneal College and have seen people playing football on the pitch that the EA statement says has not been used since 2019. I welcome the investment, but rather than fire barbs across the Chamber, surely the Minister can understand the queries, questions and concerns from schools that have leaking roofs and classrooms that are neither safe nor DE compliant, as to why a pitch is being prioritised over those pressing needs. The Minister quoted Orwell in his statement. Does he agree that all schools are equal and that none should be more equal than others?

Mr Givan: The Member went on to say that £7·6 million has been spent on non-controlled schools in the Foyle constituency. No, he did not; that is right. The Member did not give the facts on the allocation of funding. There is deliberate misrepresentation by the Member and others in the way they try frame this issue. They are struggling to understand the facts that relate to the minor works schemes, because they do not suit their narrative. The Education Authority has a delegated limit of £1 million on decisions that are taken. It decides on the funding for the minor works schemes.

If the Member for Foyle has been to the school — I trust that he has — I encourage him to pick up the phone, talk to the principal and ask him how he feels about being dragged into this very unseemly, nasty and petty political squabble that the Members on the opposite Benches have introduced when it comes to the funding for that school.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for coming to my constituency last week to visit Castle Tower School. I am unapologetic when I say that I hope and trust that he will look on that school fondly when he is deciding on his Department's priorities.

One of the struggles facing controlled schools is their historical budget deficits, which often have an impact on their teaching ability, and which arose because of dither and delay from the EA. Will anything in your statement address the historical deficit issue in the short to medium term to allow schools to get back to delivering first-class teaching?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question and for the invitation to visit the schools in his constituency. I pay tribute to the work of those schools. He unashamedly advocates for, and calls on me to, direct funding to those schools. There are always criteria and a process that are followed, and the schools that I have visited will be subject to the same criteria and processes, just as Lisneal College had to comply with the processes and the criteria that are operated by the Education Authority.

The Member speaks to the wider issue of the underfunding of our education system. There are cases in which a number of schools have surpluses — some of them significant — and others have significant deficits. However, the two do not balance out: there is a net deficit in our education system when it comes to the funding of our schools. There needs to be greater equality of funding through the common funding formula, but that does not solve the fundamental problem. We need to provide much greater levels of funding in our education system and push that into our schools through the normal budgetary process. That is what is undermining our schools in delivering for children and young people. Investment in education is the best life opportunity for every single child in Northern Ireland, and I am determined to continue to advocate for all our children, irrespective of their background.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I note that there is nothing in the statement about reducing the workload of those who are in the controlled and non-controlled sectors, and I urge you to proceed at pace with that. With the announcement of a new managing authority, presumably with new roles and positions, what guarantees can you give that the people who will fill those positions will not be current or former DUP elected reps?

Mr Givan: Again, that is one of those typical cheap shots that the Member and others have become accustomed to making. I am quite happy for everybody to scrutinise in great detail every single process that I have followed. I will be at the Education Committee on Wednesday. I look forward to at least two hours of engagement with the Committee. I hope that the Committee members are ready for it, because you have just had a flavour of 38 minutes of it. Wait until we have it for over two hours. You had better be ready.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McNulty: Minister, your statement references the need for "improved collaboration across and beyond" the controlled sector and talks about "disparities in educational outcomes". We have heard a lot of talk about fairness and equality. Will the system be changed to work collaboratively across sectors in order to address waiting lists for autism assessments, with appropriate supports being put in place to ensure that every single child can reach their full potential?

Mr Givan: There absolutely has to be collaboration across our education system, and the task force for the controlled sector engaged with other sectors. In my engagement with CCMS, it challenged me on aspects of its role that it wants to see enhanced. I see an opportunity to provide support not just to the controlled sector but to other sectors. We then need, however, collaboration right across our education system, and I want to see that driven forward. The best way that we can do that is by creating equality of treatment in the managing authority status and for controlled schools to be better served than they have been to date.

The Member asked about statements and providing support for children with autism. I will publish tomorrow the detailed delivery plan and timeline for the special educational needs transformation, which I spoke about only a few weeks ago. That is another example of driving forward changes in our education system.

Mr Dickson: Minister, in the discussion on your statement, Lisneal College has been mentioned many times. Members who asked you questions were not asking about the school; they were asking about the process. The word count of this discussion will show that you said "Lisneal" more than any other person in the Chamber. However, here is a question to you: you referred to the creation of a controlled sector council, so will that require bringing legislation to the House?

Mr Givan: This might come as a shock to the Member, but there already is the Controlled Schools' Support Council. It exists, and the fact that the Member does not even know that tells you exactly the problem with Members' attitudes to the controlled sector.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: It has charitable status, unlike others with statutory legislative underpinning. As Education Minister, I am not going to tolerate those in the controlled sector being treated as second-class citizens in our country.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: Therefore, I have announced the changes in the controlled sector support unit that the EA will establish, and, yes, I will bring legislation to set up a managing authority [Interruption.]

It will be a test for everybody in the House to see how genuinely committed they are, when it comes to it, to a society for all.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: When they talk about equality, we will see how Members respond to the treatment of the controlled sector. That will be the litmus test for those who proclaim to be for everybody, because that has not been evident in the past 45 minutes.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Baker: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In reply to my question, the Minister said:

There is not a sectarian bone in my body, Minister. If you cannot take the question, you may be in the wrong job. We will be ready for you on Wednesday, believe me.

Some Members: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Steady. Mr Baker, you have made your point, and it is on the record. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the comments that he made.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the Education Minister's answers to questions, he repeatedly referred to a £1 million limit for capital maintenance. That conflicts with the information on his Department's website. Would it be in order for the Minister to account for the inaccuracy on the website or clarify the remarks that he made in the Assembly?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Tennyson. Your remarks have been noted and are on the record. I believe that the Minister said on several occasions that the website was wrong, but it may be up to the Minister to reflect further on that and provide further answers.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Several times, the Minister said that my party colleagues needed to apologise to the principal and the school for begrudging them the funding. I sat through the whole session; not once did I hear an Alliance MLA say anything like that. Will you look at the Hansard report and come back to tell us whether the Minister is right to call for an apology when one is not warranted?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Bradshaw, that has been duly noted. We will reflect on Hansard. Ladies and gentlemen, please —.

Some Members: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I think that Mr Carroll got in there first. Over to you, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During what you might call that question session, the Minister refused to answer a number of questions, including mine, about whether any former DUP elected representatives would make up

— let me speak —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Quiet.

Mr Carroll: — the new managing authority. Will the Speaker's Office direct the Minister to answer all those unanswered questions?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Your point of order has been duly noted and is on the record. That may be something for the Education Committee to reflect on.

Mr Gildernew: On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I asked the Minister a specific question on the decision on Lisneal. It was on how much of the £710,000 was allocated to address safety issues on the pitch and, by extension, how much was for improvements, given that pupils in my constituency cannot even sit down together to have a meal. The Minister is responsible for the Education Authority. I asked a specific question, and he did not address it at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK. That has been noted and will be on the record.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the number of points of order, I ask the Speaker's Office to review the serious abuse of points of order during this session.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Buckley, thank you very much indeed for raising that point. I have no doubt that the Speaker's Office will do so.

Ladies and gentlemen, please take your ease while we change the top Table for the next item of business.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Given that the motion calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, is it in order that no Minister is in the Chamber? What level of disrespect does it show to the Opposition in this institution that no Minister is prepared to come and answer when they are directly referred to in a motion? Can the Speaker's Office look at whether, on Opposition days in other legislatures, Ministers bother to turn up to hear what the Opposition have to say to them?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I thank the Member for that point of order. Those comments will be referred to the Speaker's Office. I suggest that, as the Opposition's Chief Whip, the Member could, perhaps, also raise that at the Business Committee.

Without further ado, I call on Matthew O'Toole to move the motion.

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 in which 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: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What a difference a year makes — or not, if you are one of the people of Northern Ireland who is on a waiting list, if your child is waiting for a special educational needs (SEN) referral or if you are waiting to get a housing development built but cannot get a waste water connection. In all those areas, a year of the Executive having returned has not meant the kind of progress that people were led to believe that they would see.

We have been here for a year. The Executive have been in office for a year. Rather than making progress, they have largely been marking time. As the official Opposition throughout that year, we have done our best to provide real and robust accountability. We said that we would be a constructive Opposition, and, at every turn, we have been. We have brought practical proposals to the Chamber. Sometimes Ministers turned up to hear our proposals. Sadly, however, as my colleague said, neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister nor even a junior Minister has done us the courtesy of turning up today. I am sure that there is a really important photo opportunity somewhere around the Stormont estate that is detaining them. We have done our job of providing accountability throughout that year. We have acknowledged where Ministers have made progress and there have been positive steps. For example, there was an intervention on childcare: we have acknowledged that and other specific areas.

The truth is that we have failed. Specifically, the Executive have failed. They have failed to start the work of rebuilding trust in our politics. People deserve better than a Government who simply demand credit and demand a birthday card and bunting for simply turning up and saying, "We're here. We've done our job". Leading is about more than turning up. Some of our constituents will be preparing for their end-of-year assessments or appraisals with their managers. Their managers will ask them, "What have you achieved in the past year?". If they say, "Well, boss, I turned up. I've been here. I didn't resign", the boss is hardly likely to say, "Well done. That's great. Same again next year". We need to get serious and real about what we have and have not delivered in this place.

Our motion is about rebuilding trust and accountability in our politics, returning to a theme that we discussed on our first Opposition day, last year, when the question that I posed to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, moments after they took office, was whether they would pledge not to resign their seats and to stay in their jobs until the end of the mandate. They did not do it then, and they have still not done it. We need deeper reform of our institutions to ensure that no party can collapse the institutions and collapse government on a political whim because it suits their interests at any given moment. We need deeper, further reform that looks at how we do government here and at changes to the ministerial code, which is what our motion talks about.

When we came here last year, the First Minister and deputy First Minister said that the discussion on reform should properly be done in the Assembly Executive and Review Committee (AERC). Sadly, that Committee has met just once or twice, and, when a Member from the Alliance Party and I attempted to ensure that the issue of reform was on the agenda, it was batted back by Sinn Féin and the DUP. We need to get real. We need to endorse it at the Assembly, and we need to practically deliver it.

I turn to the question of delivery over the past year. Reform and accountability are so important, ultimately, because all of us who seek a mandate to this place have to be honest with the public about what we will use that mandate for. We are treading water. Waiting lists are going up, not down, and the Health Minister has not brought forward a plan. His colleagues in the Executive, despite having the largest-ever financial settlement, have not worked with him to produce a meaningful plan to reform our health service and get waiting lists down. Our waste water infrastructure is crumbling. There is no plan from the Infrastructure Minister — there is a new Minister today — for how we will deal with that. What we get instead is vague waffle and aspiration. Last week, a court in Belfast heard that the failure by the Executive, one year on, to produce an anti-poverty strategy is "appalling".

I am not here simply to whine, moan and list grievances; I am here to hold the Executive to account for what they deliver or do not deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government (PFG) is shockingly vague. It has not even been signed off yet. Last week, in Dáil Éireann, Pearse Doherty TD said that the Irish Programme for Government contains "very little that is new", is "lacking specific commitments" and is a "continuation of existing policies". Well, Pearse, you ain't seen nothing yet, compared with what is happening north of the border.

We have a job to do in this place. We need to get real. We need to rebuild trust among the people who send us here. We simply cannot mark time and expect the public to cheerlead us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: It is time for actual delivery and reform of the institutions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. I call Michelle Guy to move the amendment.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Michelle. 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.

Mrs Guy: The restoration of the institutions a year ago was welcome. Any sense of relief, however, was tempered by the scale of the damage inflicted by collapse on already fragile and struggling public services. Waiting lists went up; transformation programmes stalled; policy development was shelved; and challenges facing education, infrastructure, policing and our environment were allowed to escalate over time. The DUP opted to wager our public services against the thin hope that the EU and the UK Government would U-turn on a Brexit agreement that took years to negotiate. The DUP lost that bet, and we all had to suffer.

We have no issue with the overarching premise of the motion. We want the Executive to deliver. We want to restore public confidence in democracy here. The motion references the Executive's "promised legislative programme". The SDLP has been in every Executive since the Good Friday Agreement bar that in the past year, so it knows well that legislation takes time. It takes preparation; it requires consultation; and, in the context of a reduced mandate, it takes real determination to get it done. I make no apologies for highlighting that the only two Departments to bring forward substantial Bills so far are Justice and Agriculture, the two Alliance Ministries.

I know well that delivery is how we start to regain the trust of the public, but delivery requires stability, so we must end the cycle of crisis and collapse through institutional reform. On that aspect, our amendment adds something that the original motion lacked: substance. We have added specifics from our suite of reform proposals, which we tirelessly advocate. Our party leader wrote recently to the UK and Irish Governments about reform to try to make progress on the issue.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Did the Justice Minister or the Agriculture Minister specifically request that the Alliance Party's reform proposals be included in the Programme for Government?

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

Mrs Guy: Thank you.

I do not sit on the Executive, so I cannot confirm that for you.

Our advocacy of reform is not to secure a win for the Alliance Party; it is because we need political stability to restore confidence not just in the institutions per se but in those of us who occupy and operate them. The Alliance Party's focus on reform links to a wider vision and aspiration: to make Northern Ireland the best version of itself for everyone who lives here. For us, no opportunity to do that is limited by adherence to an overarching constitutional objective. If we can make this place better by exploiting the benefits of dual market access, we are ready to make that case. If we can get a grip of our health service by committing to transformation or working across this island, we are up for it. If we can make our institutions more sustainable and make them function more effectively through reform, we are eager to get started.

The reform proposals noted in our amendment are modest. They remove vetoes that prevent us from having a Government and vetoes that can be deployed in government to frustrate the functioning of our democracy. Tomorrow, the Assembly Executive and Review Committee will make a third attempt at agreeing priorities. The leader of the Opposition and I have signalled that we want institutional reform to be progressed through that Committee. The First Minister recently indicated that Sinn Féin reps will endorse that work. I hope that we can get consensus from all parties. The real measure, however, of commitment to reform will be to see an output from the work of AERC. Our public services cannot withstand another collapse. We must show the public that we are capable of coming together to do that work now, in a moment of stability, and not as the outworking of another crisis negotiation. It would be a significant moment, demonstrating actual political maturity and commitment to governing this place, if we could produce agreed reform proposals. A first step would be to agree our amendment, which proposes actual mechanisms for reform, rather than just sentiment. Alliance is up for the work of reform. I guess that we will see who else is.

Ms Sheerin: I think that we can all agree that accountability in government is important. It is important in all aspects of life. As somebody who is now on what may be the fourth reset of her "New year, new me" plan, I can attest to the fact that what gets measured gets done. Although this speech is not sponsored by My Fitness Pal, I assure you that I understand the premise of what the proposers of the motion are trying to say.

It is important that we acknowledge that governing in the North is not without its challenges, but I will reflect on the positive work that has happened over the past year, how well we have all worked collectively and how important it is that the commitments set out by all Executive parties are addressed and priorities fulfilled. Look at the work that has been done on childcare; ending violence against women and girls; the reform of Invest NI; the regional imbalance piece that our departing Minister, Conor Murphy, has done so much important work on; and the fair investment in public services and the increased revenue in that respect. All of that is to be celebrated. There is more work to do. I remind Members that the correct forum for conversations about reform is AERC, whose specific remit is that discussion.

Mr Harvey: The past 12 months has shown a willingness on the part of parties in the Executive to work collaboratively for the betterment of citizens the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. People want to see the House and those who sit on these Benches delivering for them on the issues that impact on their daily lives.

One feature of the past 12 months has been the depressingly bleak narrative coming from the party of Opposition. Accountability and scrutiny are vital. The presence of an Opposition in the House is welcome on that basis. However, it is important that constructive politics is a feature across all parties in the Chamber, be they parties of government or opposition.

On that basis, I first acknowledge the hard work done over the past year by the Executive as a whole and by individual Ministers on a range of issues of importance to my constituents. The resolution of a wave of industrial disputes and pay settlements across the public sector has benefited many financially. Delivery by Minister Givan on childcare costs has eased the burden on 15,000 families and working parents. The ongoing work on special educational needs is long overdue and will have a positive impact on education as a whole. The recently published housing supply strategy, the extension of welfare mitigation payments and the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls all point to an Executive working positively to effect change.

While those achievements should rightly be acknowledged, there is always room for improvement. I think that it was Churchill who said:

The DUP has proven time and again that, where efficiency and reform will be of benefit, we will not be found wanting. No one denies the degree of work required to demonstrate the ongoing effectiveness of the institutions in making a positive difference to the lives of people, but to say that there has not been progress is not only inaccurate but facetious.

'Life in the UK 2024', which is cited in the motion, noted no significant difference in overall collective well-being scores across the UK. It is clear from the report that, despite the attempts of the Opposition to characterise them to the contrary, attitudes here largely mirror those across the UK. The leader of the Opposition should not attempt to misrepresent the report's findings to suit the SDLP's narrative. Public trust in political institutions —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Harry.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Butler: The Ulster Unionist Party has an unwavering commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland has stable and credible government. That is not in question. At a time when we were emerging from a dark and challenging period in our history, the Belfast Agreement was a seismic shift for the people of this special part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the island of Ireland. It was built on generosity, compromise and the fundamental belief that democracy should work for all. We must also acknowledge that it is now 2025 and we have not travelled as far as we should have done, but we need to be clear that we are not where we once were. Progress has been made, and, while challenges remain, we must move forward with determination and vision.

Review and improvement should always be at the heart of good governance, but let us not pretend that all so-called reforms have served the people well. The changes made at St Andrews and at Stormont House stripped away much of the original spirit of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, replacing it with some siloed political ambition. Those changes rubber-stamped the dominance of Sinn Féin and the DUP, which, despite Mr Harvey's contention, has led to stagnation and a lack of progress. The motion, while well-intentioned, does not tell the full story. Yes, there is no doubt that the Executive are struggling, but much of that is down to the fact that, yet again, we are operating within a compressed legislative time frame. Five years out of the past nine without a functioning Government has left Northern Ireland's health service in crisis, our education system under strain and our public services starved of direction. That must never happen again.

We welcome the call in the motion for a firm commitment from the First Minister and deputy First Minister not to collapse the Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland deserve stability, not political brinkmanship, but let me go further. If we are to talk about real reform, let us commit to ensuring that any substantive change has, like the Belfast Agreement, the confidence of the people whom we serve. Let us put any significant proposals to the people of Northern Ireland, because political stability cannot be built on deals done behind closed doors or on a political wish list from the Alliance Party. It must be rooted in public trust. The Ulster Unionist Party stands ready to work constructively —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: One second, please.

The Ulster Unionist Party stands ready to work constructively for a Northern Ireland that governs effectively, that delivers for all and that earns back the trust of the people. I will let the Member come in very briefly, because I will get no additional time.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for giving way. I would appreciate it if you could outline what our "wish list" is?

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

Mr Butler: In proposing the amendment, the Member for Lagan Valley admitted to it being a bit of a wish list from the Alliance Party's asks. From the New Decade, New Approach negotiations and subsequent talks that I have been involved in, the party to my left will know how difficult it is to get those things over the line. If we are to get them over the line, we will need the will of the people, not just the will of the people in the Chamber.

Mr Kingston: The DUP has reiterated the need for a period of restoration and prolonged political stability prior to the advancement or agreement of any proposals for reforming the political institutions. That is not to say that we are opposed to improving how devolution works from day to day; as has been the case since 2007, we are committed to increasing efficiency, transparency and accountability in the institutions. The DUP supported the reduction in the number of Departments, the reduction in the number of special advisers, the reduction in the number of MLAs per constituency and the creation of an Opposition. In the here and now, however, let us be clear: the focus should be on delivering on bread-and-butter issues and improving the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland. That is what the electorate expects, and it is what the DUP is committed to achieving.

Any programme of reform and any agreement should be led by the local parties, with a primary role for the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and be fully accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. Where is the reference to the AERC in the motion?

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Briefly.

Mr O'Toole: I happily joined the AERC, really enthusiastic about progressing reform, but the Member's party and Sinn Féin then pushed it into the long grass at the AERC. I more than welcome the fact that there will be a meeting tomorrow, and I hope that his party will be on board.

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

Mr Kingston: As I said, if the Member thinks that it is an important vehicle, it is surprising that his motion does not mention it.

When appropriate for the purposes of framing any potential changes to the 1998 Act, there should, of course, be consultation with the Government and other relevant stakeholders. Let us be clear, however: the Irish Government must not have a role in directing or influencing reforms of the strand one institutions, nor should they be afforded a say in the governance of Northern Ireland as a result of any such changes. That would be a direct violation of previous agreements.

Any review should not be bit part, which is to say that it should not be focused only on strand two or discrete elements of the operation of strand one, such as, in this case, ministerial appointments, to suit individual parties. In what executive branch in the world would political leaders be expected to give a cast-iron commitment to never having personal or political cause to consider their position in government? That is entirely impractical.

The Alliance Party's grand plan for reform is simply to exclude and reduce representation from one tradition, even in circumstances in which the most significant concerns are raised by one of the two main traditions.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, again briefly.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. We want to see a situation in which there is stability here and a party cannot block. We do not want to exclude anybody — we want the Assembly to work — but if you are not prepared to work, we would like to get on with the job.

Mr Kingston: Time is running out. As I said, I regard the Alliance amendment as self-interested and fanciful about ensuring the effective functioning of government here.

I say again that our focus should be on delivering on bread-and-butter issues and improving the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland. That is what the electorate expects, and it is what the DUP is committed to achieving.

Mr Gaston: I could not agree more with some aspects of the motion. It is particularly welcome that it notes the lack of trust and accountability in our politics.

Last week, the House debated a motion that lambasted the report on the Michael McMonagle scandal. Without a vote, it was passed. We all agreed that the conclusions drawn in what was supposedly a robust probe into the abuse of public money in this Building were simply not credible. What now? Will there be a fresh report? Will the First Minister, whose party provided the only voice to say that the report was sound, return to the House and correct the record? If Mrs O'Neill believes that we should accept the report, she accepts that, on 7 October 2024, she misled the House, which should be a resigning matter. Will the other parties insist that, as called for in last week's motion, a robust audit system is put in place to ensure that Sinn Féin creaming off public money to fund its press operation does not continue?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, could you return to the subject of the debate, please?

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Will they put the process before trust and accountability? Moving outside the Chamber, we have seen efforts to ensure that trust and accountability are paramount in our Committees. Sadly, that is not the case. We saw a junior Minister shielded by a Committee Chair. Ms Bradshaw even asked —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — if she had seen a paedophile enter this Building.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. Thank you. I ask you again to return to the substance of the motion. If you persist in not doing so, I will ask you to take your seat and you will not be called to speak.

Mr Gaston: Principal Deputy Speaker, this is all about trust and accountability, and I am giving instances and examples of where trust and accountability have been trashed in this place. It has been trashed in the Chamber, in the TEO Committee, which you are a member of —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — and I think this is an opportunity —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — when I should be allowed to progress my concerns.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Thank you.

I have persistently asked you to return to the subject of the motion, which the official Opposition had the ability to table. It is their motion. Do not disrespect their motion, and do not disrespect me either. I am not going to call you to speak, OK?

The Member who will be asked to speak after Question Time is Paula Bradshaw, who will wind on the amendment. I am just letting you know, Paula.

Members, take your ease until Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to Question Time, I advise Members that I have received correspondence from Liz Kimmins advising of her resignation as Chair of the Health Committee with immediate effect.

Mr Speaker: I further advise the Assembly that the nominating officer for Sinn Féin has nominated John O'Dowd to the office of Minister of Finance; Dr Caoimhe Archibald to the office of Minister for the Economy; and Liz Kimmins to the office of Minister for Infrastructure. Mr O'Dowd, Dr Archibald and Ms Kimmins accepted their nominations and affirmed the Pledge of Office in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly this afternoon. I wish them every success in their new roles.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I thank the Member for her question. Communities in Transition is part of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, and, since 2019, it has delivered over £26 million of support across eight areas where there has been a significant history of activity and coercive control. The CIT areas were identified by independent research commissioned by the tackling paramilitarism programme board and completed in 2017. Researchers identified areas that were at particular risk from ongoing paramilitary activity by analysing a range of data sources, including the media, datasets, academic literature, research reports and stakeholder meetings. Areas were scored against a number of indicators of paramilitary activity, including verified and claimed incidents of paramilitary intimidation and paramilitary assaults and shootings.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your answer. Given that we are 27 years past the agreement, when is it envisioned that we will complete the journey of transition so that some of those funds can be diverted into things such as neighbourhood health projects or tackling rural equality and rural isolation? In my constituency, in places such as Armoy, whilst they do not qualify for funding —.

Mr Speaker: I think that we are getting into a statement. We have got the question. I ask the deputy First Minister to respond.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Let us be very clear: there is absolutely no place for paramilitarism in 2025; indeed, in my view, there was never any place for paramilitarism or paramilitary activity. Of course, the PSNI takes the lead on the criminal aspects of that and must do everything in its power to ensure that those who continue to be involved in such behaviour are brought to justice.

On the community aspects of that, yes, there are many programmes throughout government in many Departments that deal with the very issues that the Member rightly highlights. Of course, all Ministers would want to do more of that, but the Communities in Transition programme particularly looks at those who may be vulnerable to being dragged into that type of behaviour. It is very much a programme that focuses on prevention and community resilience and, in particular, working with young people who are at risk to ensure that they do not end up going down that pathway. That includes mental health programmes, training programmes and different types of community-based programmes, which are all based on that best practice.

Mrs Dillon: I begin by offering my apologies. I understand that I was called for a question last week. It was my understanding that the question had been withdrawn, so apologies. I am not sure where the confusion was, but I was not here due to a family emergency.

I want to put on the record the really valuable contribution that the Communities in Transition programme offers in building communities free from paramilitarism and coercive control. Does the deputy First Minister agree that building resilient and empowered communities with true co-design at grassroots level is key to the building blocks in tackling paramilitarism and organised crime in our communities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Absolutely: over the last 20-odd years that I have worked in politics, I have seen a big change when it comes to this type of policy development and, indeed, even project and initiative development. It is now much more towards that collaborative design and co-production approach, and the projects are much the stronger and much the better for that. We know that those who are on the ground are often in the best position to identify the problems and the barriers to success and to find the types of initiatives and interventions that will work best in the areas that they serve and live in.

Absolutely, that co-design process should be mainstreamed in all programmes, but it has particularly helped and supported the development of the projects under the CIT.

Mr O'Toole: Nearly six months ago, we gathered here to talk about the race riots in Belfast. Can the deputy First Minister confirm whether her Department has investigated whether any recipients — past or present — of Communities in Transition funding have had any involvement in the ongoing activities around race violence in Belfast and other towns and cities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Certainly, if they have been, it has not been drawn to my attention. As the Member knows, the Department has been looking at all of the issues that gave rise to and impacted on the race disorder and violence of last summer. We are absolutely determined that we do not see a repeat of that. That means working in communities to identify what went wrong, what the attitudes were, where they were coming from and how they can be tackled.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As part of the wider £3·2 million investment, £1·2 million has been allocated to the regional change fund to support organisations with the expertise to lead on driving society-wide action. The eight community and voluntary sector organisations funded will bring years of experience and expertise that will ensure that the projects delivered will make a difference. The regional change fund will enable the organisations to expand prevention work across the whole of society and in all types of settings, including schools, communities, youth groups, sports clubs, prisons and beyond. That will help to ensure that everyone understands what violence against women and girls is and how to prevent it, so that, together, we can deliver meaningful change. The regional change fund is in addition to the local change fund that will see £2 million shared across all 11 council areas to support community networks and grassroots organisations and provide opportunities for all to play their part in tackling violence, harm and abuse against women and girls.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for her answer. I acknowledge her efforts and those of the First Minister in making tackling violence against women and girls an Executive and Programme for Government (PFG) priority. Will the deputy First Minister give details of why the eight organisations that were chosen for the regional change fund were chosen?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From the outset, when, this time last year, Michelle and I took up these positions, we made it clear that the issue was a key priority for us. The level of violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is appalling, and we need to tackle it and, indeed, eliminate all violence against women and girls. I am pleased that it has been a key aspect of the delivery from our Department throughout the past year. Not only has the strategy been produced; we have also seen the important delivery plan and the important funds get out on the ground.

We are working with the eight delivery partners. They were very much the organisations that advised us throughout the process. It was a collaborative co-design process and one that has worked extremely well. They are the organisations that are designated to be experts in the field, and we believe that they are the right organisations to help and support us to deliver on that key initiative.

Ms Forsythe: Today marks a year since the institutions were restored. It was excellent to see that, at the outset, ending violence against women and girls was recognised as a key priority. Will the deputy First Minister outline what work has been undertaken in the past year to end violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that kind acknowledgement of the work that we have been carrying out. As I indicated in the earlier answer, a significant amount of work has been done. I pay tribute to the co-production team, which sits within the Executive Office but, of course, works across a number of Departments, for the research that it has carried out and all of the incredible hard work that it has done. Most of all, I pay tribute to the co-design partners who often volunteered their time to make the strategy and delivery plan what they are.

We have launched that strategy and the delivery plan. We also launched the small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund. That was very much about setting out two challenges and asking businesses and small organisations to consider what could meet the challenge and how the outcomes that we desired could be best met through a different type of initiative from a grant-funding scheme. We also launched the local change fund with councils to allocate £2 million to support local grassroots groups, and we launched the regional change fund. Just recently, we supported the local Power to Change campaign by the Department of Justice and the PSNI to promote bystander awareness and intervention.

Ms Egan: Minister, as you know, changing attitudes is a large part of your ending violence against women and girls strategy. Will the Executive Office consider working with others in the Assembly on a code of practice for legislators as to what constitutes misogyny?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I have not heard that proposal before. We will certainly look at it. I will perhaps liaise with the Member about the detail of her proposal.

Mr Gaston: Deputy First Minister, 20 years ago, on Thursday past, Robert McCartney was brutally stabbed to death by the IRA. In the aftermath of his murder, his sisters were subjected to a campaign of intimidation by the republican movement that you partner with in government today. Will the ending violence against women and girls strategy ensure that no other woman or girl suffers the same intimidation as the McCartney sisters?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is an important one. When we look back over the decades of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, we see that there was violence towards and the targeting and harassment of women. We also have to remember the young people and children who were indiscriminately targeted by bombings and those who were subjected to child abuse through punishment beatings by paramilitary organisations. I pay tribute to the many women who were murdered by paramilitary and terrorist organisations as well. That was all abuse and violence towards women and girls. It was entirely unacceptable. I can stand and say clearly that I condemn all of that activity and all terrorist activity. There was never any justification for it, and there still is not. There was always an alternative.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Guard security and CCTV were put in place at Ebrington when the site was largely vacant and under development. Today, Ebrington is a thriving hub of activity, much like the city centre, with a wide range of daytime and night-time businesses. In the coming months, we will see the arrival of a number of different businesses, including Ernst and Young, at the site. In 2026, the exciting launch of the Derry/Londonderry North Atlantic Museum will take place. The Department remains committed to ensuring that Ebrington continues to be a safe and shared space for everyone to enjoy. The site will continue to be monitored 24 hours a day via the 34 CCTV cameras on site. That is in line with the city centre arrangements. Further integration of Ebrington with the city will ensure that it continues to play its part in the future growth of the city and region.

Mr Durkan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. At a time when the overdue development of Ebrington is finally making tangible progress and we have more people using the site as a place of employment and leisure, there are concerns in my constituency that the decision will reduce safety for users. Those concerns have been compounded by a few unsavoury incidents lately. It will also cost jobs at a site where we are trying to generate employment.

Mr Speaker: Is this a statement or a question, Mr Durkan?

Mr Durkan: Will the Ministers review that decision?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We have received correspondence from a number of Members, including his colleagues and mine, on the issue. When this was put in place, we did not have the same infrastructure. I am really pleased that £37 million has been invested in the Ebrington site. Anybody who goes up there can see the transformation that has taken place. That includes businesses with their own security. The security that was paid for centrally by the Executive Office was being passed on to the residents and lessees on the site, who were already taking their own measures.

My understanding is that there was a strong sense that the security was not needed, as the site was monitored by CCTV. I emphasise that all the evidence that we have suggests that it is a very safe site. As the Member rightly recognised, the number of those who visit, enjoy and use the site has increased year-on-year. That is welcome.

Mr Delargy: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the Ebrington site is a key driver to the social and economic regeneration of Derry and the entire north-west?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. From the outset and over the past year, we have made clear how important it is that the entirety of Northern Ireland is a place that can thrive. That does not mean just the greater Belfast area. We will ensure that it means every part of Northern Ireland, from Fermanagh to the north-west and throughout. Ebrington is a key economic driver of that. It is looking very well and seems to have been a great success thus far. We will continue to work on and invest in the site to ensure that it can maximise its potential.

Mr Middleton: I welcome the investment by the Executive Office not only in Ebrington but in areas right across the Foyle constituency. I thank the deputy First Minister for her role in delivering those projects. Will she provide an update on those investments by the Executive Office in my constituency?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Department remains committed to investment in the Londonderry area, with some £72 million invested in the area since 2016-17. That includes over £37 million to transform and regenerate Ebrington, which is now a hub of creative industries, cafes, restaurants, a hotel, a microbrewery, hairdressers, healthcare and commercial offices. However, we have also invested an additional £34 million in a range of other programmes, including Urban Villages and projects to promote good relations. Indeed, the Member will recall that, right back at the time of the development of the Urban Villages scheme, we had that conversation when I visited the city as a junior Minister. He was a great champion for the Fountain area and the city at that time. It is amazing how those conversations can lead to the development of programmes that genuinely bring a real difference to people's lives. The investment of many millions of pounds means that that work is taking place to the benefit of the citizens of that city.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As of 31 January 2025, the HIA Redress Board had received 4,904 compliant applications and made determinations totalling over £100 million. A total of 56 applications are still to be determined by a panel. The turnaround time for validated applications is 7·5 weeks, with a success rate of over 88% for applications that fall within the board’s jurisdiction.

The Executive Office has engaged closely with victims and survivors’ representatives on enhancements to the wider redress process, including providing additional resources to the Victims and Survivors Service to ensure that applicants can be supported in a trauma-informed way with their statements of experience.

As the final date for applications — 2 April 2025 — is fast approaching, we encourage all victims and survivors who have not yet applied to contact the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse as soon as possible for information and advice.

Mr Kearney: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. I noticed recently that the First Minister and deputy First Minister met a number of groups that have been working with those in need for years. Will the deputy First Minister give an update on the memorial for the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is on an issue that not only have we been working on for some time but, indeed, you, Mr Speaker, have been engaged in this important matter. It was a recommendation in Judge Hart's report and one that we are very keen to see implemented as quickly as we can. We know that there is a range of different views across the sector on what the memorial should look like. We have met and had a very good engagement with those groups and are, hopefully, moving forward at pace to find a resolution and to ensure that the memorialisation can happen in this Building and, of course, elsewhere as well.

I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the huge amount of work that those organisations have done for many years not only in fighting to get the inquiry but in working with victims and survivors and communicating that sector's needs to the First Minister, me and others.

Mr Buckley: We all know that the legacy of institutional abuse continues to leave a dark cloud over many lives in Northern Ireland. I welcome the progress on an appropriate memorial. However, does the deputy First Minister accept that certain survivors have criticised the redress board for causing them re-traumatisation? Is appropriate action being taken to address that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Executive Office deals with many areas that are incredibly sensitive. We have adopted what is often referred to as a trauma-informed response and approach to the issues. I am disappointed to hear that that has been the experience of some victims. Of course, the recounting of such experiences is, in itself, hugely traumatic. I pay tribute to those victims and survivors who came forward and put themselves through the process. There is, however, a safety net in place through the support that is given. That is provided not just through training — all the panel members are trained in trauma-informed response and its techniques — but through the funding that goes to the Victims and Survivors Service to support victims and survivors who are going through the process. I therefore appeal to anybody who feels that they need help in that area to approach either the commissioner or the Victims and Survivors Service to get such help and support.

Ms Bradshaw: Deputy First Minister, you mentioned the work of the historical institutional abuse campaigners. You will know that they are very concerned that a lot of people will not be able to submit an application for redress. Given that the redress board was up and running during the pandemic, when people were not travelling or communicating, have you given any thought to extending the deadline to ensure that all people receive the justice that they deserve?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. In her role as Chair of the Executive Office Committee, she will know that we are aware of the issue and of the communication on it. We are advised that the submission of applications to the scheme has slowed down significantly and that there is no indication as this stage that there is demand out there for an extension to the date by which applications must be submitted. We anticipate that, as we head towards 2 April 2025, there will be a small increase in the number of applications, and understandably so, perhaps because those yet remaining to apply will, in light of the closure date, be motivated to put in their application in and around then. Year-on-year, the number of applications has decreased significantly. In 2024-25, we were down to 472 applications.

As the Member will also be aware, we have endeavoured throughout the period to publicise the scheme, including by putting a leaflet through every single door in Northern Ireland and by working with the commissioner on online campaigns and international campaigns. We are therefore satisfied that we have done a significant job of publicising the scheme. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation to assess whether there is further need to do so.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Cameron to answer that question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We thank all those who responded to the 12-week consultation that closed in September 2024. The 269 responses to it were reviewed, and a draft report was then shared with the consultation forum to ensure that the terminology used was sensitive to victim and survivors. A copy was also provided to the Committee for the Executive Office. The final consultation report was published on the Executive Office website in January this year.

Although we are pleased with the many areas of broad agreement, further discussions with Executive colleagues are needed on some complex and sensitive policy issues before the final decisions can be made. It is also important for us to continue to engage with and listen to victims and survivors in the period.

We hope to introduce the legislation as soon as possible in this legislative year, once pre-introduction steps are completed. We, along with Members of the House, remain committed to helping victims and their loved ones get the answers and support that they deserve.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach.

Will she outline the next steps in the truth recovery programme, le do thoil

?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. The next steps in the truth recovery programme, following Executive consideration of the final proposals, are to finalise draft legislation, after which we can press ahead with the introduction of the requisite legislation. Meanwhile, work is ongoing to establish the practical requirements for the public inquiry and the redress scheme. Alongside that work, as part of the integrated investigation, the independent panel is taking testimony from victims and survivors and is working with the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) on the issue of access to records. Officials continue to engage with victims and survivors to keep them involved in and central to the process. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister look forward to meeting them in the coming weeks.

Miss McAllister: Given that the consultation showed that there is no consensus around the redress scheme, and given that it must proceed and that time is of the essence for victims and survivors, will the Minister outline when the redress scheme will proceed?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her question. We are not in a position to provide a definite timeline for the opening of the standardised payment, because we need to follow the Executive and Assembly processes to pass the required legislation. However, we remain committed to progressing that work at pace and are keen to ensure that victims and survivors receive financial redress as soon as possible.

Mr McNulty: Junior Minister, back in June, the deputy First Minister and her colleague the First Minister committed themselves to introducing legislation on these issues by the end of 2024. Do they regret missing that deadline, and what are the implications of their missing it for the people who have been affected?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for the question. There is some finalisation happening, and we appreciate that some victims and survivors may choose not to come forward to the independent panel. We must respect that, and it is an important part of the agreed process. There is clear value and expertise that that non-statutory independent panel can provide. Obviously, the focus of the independent panel is on gathering the oral testimony and archival records to examine the evidence and develop conclusions on what happened. The panel announced recently that the closing date to register and provide oral testimony is Thursday 1 May. To date, over 100 people have shared their testimony with the panel, and we encourage anyone who has knowledge or experience of the relevant institutions to come forward. We have agreed to the panel's request for a six-month extension to its tenure, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that as many people as possible are able to engage in the first stage of the integrated investigation.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Programme for Government (PFG) will represent the shared vision of the Executive. It is important, therefore, that all members of the Executive are given the opportunity to consider and agree any new commitments to be included in the PFG before they are announced to the Assembly. That having been said, the draft Programme for Government sets out a number of commitments that are aimed at reducing poverty for people of all ages, including children and young people. The commitments in the Programme for Government include key areas such as health, housing and growing the economy, all of which will help reduce poverty. Those include additional support for families that are struggling with the cost of childcare; support for people affected by fuel poverty; investment in new homes; and improved support for people who want to build skills and work in better jobs. What is more, the Department for Communities is in the process of developing the anti-poverty strategy, which will minimise the risks and impact of poverty and help all in our communities, including our children and young people.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, deputy First Minister. It is a year since the Executive were restored, and, last week, the High Court in Belfast said that the Executive's lack of an anti-poverty strategy was appalling. Thousands of children across Northern Ireland today are using food banks, deputy First Minister. Are you ashamed that the strategy has not yet been brought forward, and when do you believe it will be?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for the opportunity to make it clear that the absence of a strategy does not mean that there is not a significant amount of work occurring throughout every Department to tackle poverty. I know that from speaking to my colleague Gordon Lyons, who supports everything from Sure Start to neighbourhood renewal. There are schemes being run in every Department; for example, the Department of Education is running the uniform financial support scheme. There are many, many hundreds of schemes throughout government that support those in poverty. Just days ago, I was glad to see the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that said that, across the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has the lowest levels of poverty among children and young people. However, the levels are still too high, and we want to reduce them further. That is why there is a commitment. We know that, for example, the cost of childcare takes a huge amount of money from hard-pressed families. A scheme has already been rolled out to implement key actions in that area. That will be enhanced to provide improved support.

We know that the lack of affordable housing and social housing is having a significant impact on outcomes for people who are on lower incomes and their families.

All those measures will be designed to support people, but I assure the Member that we are doing everything that is in our power across a wide range of actions. A strategy will support that, but that is not the first step. Those actions are happening right now.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We are one year in, and we have a determination to deliver against those key priorities. That must mean a reduction in health service waiting lists. We understand that there has been a small reduction across a number of those health waiting lists, but it is not enough. We know that it is unacceptable that too many people have been on those health waiting lists for too long. Reducing them is a key priority in the draft Programme for Government for a reason, and that is because we know that it matters to people. We have a determination to work with the Health Minister to reduce those waiting lists. Indeed, over the next year and the next number of years, we will be focusing on that.

Mr O'Toole: The problem is, deputy First Minister, that there is no clear plan or target for cutting waiting times. The reason why that is important is that, like a whole range of other things, whether it is the absence of an anti-poverty strategy or the failure to produce any form of serious intervention on waste water, it appears to the Northern Ireland public out there that you and your colleague the First Minister are marking time and doing photo opportunities in lieu of taking decisions to improve people's lives. Please, deputy First Minister, just for once, can you tell people when, specifically, will waiting times fall?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I outlined, waiting lists have already begun to fall across a number of areas. More must be done, however, and it must be done more quickly. We will do everything that we can to support the Minister of Health. He is bringing forward further plans and proposals, some of which are being discussed in what they can do. We are discussing with the Finance Minister and across the Executive not only the resources that are required but how best to achieve deliverables. That is why we are establishing a delivery unit and looking not just across the United Kingdom but internationally at the mechanisms that will support delivery on this important issue. We know that it matters to people, and we are determined to deliver on it. That absolutely means identifying what the problem is, identifying the right solutions and supporting them financially. That is the work that we have been getting on with.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I do not know the specific details of what she is talking about, but I understand that she may be referring to a proposal from the former Minister of Finance about alternative funding mechanisms for North/South bodies. I assure the Member that those things have all been previously discussed and agreed. There is a careful balance in all those things, and the balance in the contribution, North and South, to those bodies is to ensure that the work that happens in those bodies is balanced in their North/South aspects.

I understand that the former Finance Minister was, perhaps, proposing to break that and to facilitate the South increasing its contribution without its being linked to Northern Ireland's contribution. That is not something that I am in agreement with, and, therefore, there is simply not agreement on that proposal at this stage. We will engage with the new Finance Minister if, indeed, that is what the Member is referring to. However, it is important to remember that, in this place, there will be some things that we do not agree with. The Executive are all about trying to find a consensus way through. We will endeavour to do that, because I believe that, thus far, we have been able to do it.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire.

Will the deputy First Minister commit to bringing to the next Executive meeting a proposal for a new funding model, which could bring vital funding to the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I can speak only for myself, but, to be absolutely clear, if I was not clear in my initial answer: if the only alternative funding model on the table is one that breaks the balance between the contributions of the Republic of Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland Government to North/South bodies, that is not something that I am in agreement with. I am in agreement with that being balanced across the two jurisdictions. That gives both jurisdictions a balanced say in the activities and the funding model. That has been the agreed model thus far, and I see no reason to change that at this stage. Indeed, I see challenges in changing that.

The Member may not be aware but, a number of years ago, there had to be a reduction in the contribution from the Irish Government because of budget constraints that they faced at that time, and we had to work with them on that. Maybe that is what the Member is referring to. If not, I am happy to follow up on her questions in writing.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It has been an incredibly busy week, not least for those who were out in all weathers working hard to restore power, reconnecting water systems, and clearing trees and obstructions from roads. I pay tribute to all the workers who worked tirelessly to perform such a mammoth task. The damage was unprecedented, with some 100,000 more electricity disconnections than NIE Networks had ever faced, so it has been a mammoth task.

As soon as we received advice on the incoming storm, we sent a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland to stay at home and stay safe. We held two press conferences on the Thursday to emphasise that advice. The Executive moved quickly in requiring schools to close. We sent a clear message to the Civil Service, the public sector and businesses to let staff work from home, if possible, and avoid going out.

I think that those who woke on the Friday morning and heard the storm recognised how bad it was. It was miraculous that no people were injured or worse, and I am thankful for that. Of course, the past 10 days have been very much focused on the recovery and response. We have been doing everything in our power to make sure that the reconnections happened as quickly as possible and that issues were identified.

I pay tribute to Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Minister, and the entire team in the UK Government, who responded to our request for help. That was for everything from generators to water, helicopters to identify downed lines, chainsaws, tree cutters and electrical engineers. A huge effort was put in, and I pay tribute to all the workers who made it happen.

Mr Crawford: Deputy First Minister, I think that we all echo your thanks and appreciation. Has your Department any plans to update emergency response plans for future extreme weather events such as storms, floods or severe snow?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There will certainly be learning from this. The civil contingencies frameworks that we stood up immediately worked very well. In a red alert, the PSNI takes the lead, and that then moves to the relevant departmental leads depending on the issue. There was good communication internally, and we tried to be at the forefront of external communication. We were in regular contact with NIE, NI Water and others throughout. However, there is learning from this. For example, the fact that the electricity was off had an impact not just on electricity and heating in homes but on water connections and communications and mobile connectivity. Those are big issues, and, looking forward, civil contingency planning needs to take them into account and make sure that we have contingencies to hand when the unexpected happens.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is absolutely right. The communication among our blue-light services and between people in their homes, without water or electricity, and the likes of the Ambulance Service and the police is critical when we are hit with that type of storm event or crisis. We need to look at that urgently. A number of the mobile towers went down because of the lack of connectivity to electricity.

Communications are a big issue. There have to be contingencies, should that mean a backup of battery packs and generators in the relevant areas. It is critical that our police, Ambulance Service, Fire Service and emergency services are able to communicate and that vulnerable people in their homes who may need an ambulance or emergency care are able to get through and speak to the right people at the right time to get the help that they need in a crisis.

Mr Brooks: You rightly spoke about the support that we received from across the UK during that incident. Will we look at best practice across the UK and elsewhere to see what we can implement here?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member may be aware, we held an emergency Executive meeting on the Friday evening to get a good sense of what the impact might be across the Departments. There were impacts on all Departments from the damage to buildings and the interruption of service due to the lack of electricity. That was a useful engagement; indeed, the Executive endorsed and committed to reaching out to the UK Government for additional support. That happens on the basis of mutual aid. The mechanisms are there under civil contingencies to ensure that each place can get what it needs when it needs it.

We spoke to the Prime Minister on the Saturday afternoon. We participated in what is called a COBRA M, which is a UK-level ministerial meeting, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, who was excellent. I pay tribute to him for his responsiveness to what we asked for. He was very responsive on the coordination across UK Ministers to get us that aid.

An awful lot of the coordination between the electricity companies is done through other commercial companies, but there is no doubt that the political will from here and particularly on a UK-wide level really helped to get the additional electrical engineers. They were on the ferry on the Saturday night, on their way to Northern Ireland to help and support us. We are hugely thankful to all those people who came from Great Britain and beyond to help the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. She will be aware that ending violence against women and girls is a priority issue for us. We have met a number of agencies with our team, and we met the PSNI recently. I am pleased to say that that statistic is not accurate. It was based on flawed data. Our levels of violence are too high, but Northern Ireland is not the most dangerous place for women and girls. I hope that that gives the women and girls of Northern Ireland some assurance, because I know, from speaking to people, that that statement caused huge concern. The question that was always asked of us was, "Why is that the case?".

Our levels are too high. We want to eliminate violence against women and girls, and we will continue to push those actions across local government, central government, schools and society to say, "That is wrong. We need to stop it now".

Ms Brownlee: No women or girls — at all — should ever feel any fear here in Northern Ireland, but I want to touch on those with additional needs or disabilities. How are the Executive supporting them to ensure that they, too, are protected, heard and listened to in the document?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is really important in all our consultations, particularly as we move towards a co-production, co-design process, that we include the maximum number of people and groups. It is important that, at the early policy development stage, we feed in the needs and perspectives of groups including people with disabilities and those with particular needs. That is very much mainstreamed in the Department.

Likewise, we need to ensure that it is mainstreamed and considered throughout our community organisations, councils and funding schemes. It is a vital aspect. When we look, perhaps, at older people in care homes or in different types of facilities or situations, we see that some of those people are the least able to speak out and to be heard when they raise concerns. It is vital that support mechanisms are in place to ensure that those people are also part of the campaign.

Mr Speaker: Time has elapsed. We will move to questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Members will be aware that, on 13 January, I committed to a bespoke review of the Jonathan Creswell case. It is vital that we understand and learn from the case in terms of both safeguarding victims and managing offenders. I am keen that the review begin as swiftly as possible. To that end, my Department has prepared draft terms of reference for the review. I have written to the Chief Constable, the chief executive of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) and the chief executive of the Western Health and Social Care Trust to share and invite comment on the terms of reference and confirm their organisations’ involvement in the review. The Prison Service is also committed to engaging in that exercise. I am reflecting on the feedback received to date.

In addition, my Department has engaged with a prospective independent reviewer who, I am confident, will take the review forward in a sensitive and comprehensive way. I intend to write to the Justice Committee shortly to confirm the final terms of reference and to provide details of the reviewer.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, can you confirm that the review will go wider than the justice bodies? I understand that it is your review, but there were failings across the piece, including in Health. Can you confirm that that will be the case and that there will be a North/South element to the review?

Mrs Long: With respect to my jurisdiction, I can go only so far with the review. I am clear, however, that it needs to operate on a multi-agency basis. I have already named the primary agencies: the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the Western Health and Social Care Trust. However, other organisations represented on the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI) or the multi-agency risk assessment conferencing (MARAC) arrangements, which are aimed at supporting victims, may also be invited to participate in the review at the discretion of the reviewer.

Miss McAllister: The murder of Katie Simpson was an absolutely horrific event. The failings that occurred before Katie's death and in the investigation afterwards are a blight on our society. It is important that none of that is repeated. As the previous Member referenced, not just the PSNI but many bodies are involved. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that there is compliance from all the agencies involved?

Mrs Long: Not only is compliance essential; it is the very least that we can expect from the public bodies that were involved at any stage with Jonathan Creswell, Katie Simpson or any of Jonathan Creswell's alleged previous victims. I expect that key agencies will want to engage positively and constructively with the review, so I welcome the feedback that my Department has already received from agencies on their involvement.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her commitment to carrying out a review of that horrific case and the horrendous handling of it. Will the Minister commit that the review will also engage with those most hurt by the case, be they relatives of the victim or others who suffered from the fallout?

Mrs Long: It is hugely important that we engage with the family. We have been doing that when looking at the terms of reference for the review and at how we intend to move forward with that. It is important that Katie's family are at the very heart of the review. They feel that their questions have not yet been answered and, indeed, that more questions have arisen than answers provided. I want the independent reviewer to be in a position to engage with Katie's family as a priority as the work commences.

Mrs Long: In November 2024, I announced the extension of the adult sexual offences legal adviser — SOLA — pilot scheme for a further two years until 31 March 2027. The SOLA service is available to all adult complainants in serious sexual offence cases up to the point of trial and has provided free, independent legal advice to 2,000 complainants since its launch in April 2021. The pilot service, which is delivered by Victim Support NI, was initially established for two years with the option to extend in order to test the arrangements further.

My Department is also consulting on legislative proposals for inclusion in a victims and witnesses of crime Bill that would allow SOLAs to provide representation for complainants at court pre-trial in certain circumstances. I encourage all those with an interest to respond to those proposals.

Ms Egan: Minister, will you provide an update on whether you have any plans to include a similar service for children?

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that I am keen to extend the service to young people. I am delighted to be able to update Members on that: later this week, in partnership with Victim Support NI, I will officially launch the children's sexual offences legal adviser scheme. The scheme has been specifically designed to meet the needs of child complainants in serious sexual offence cases and will run for an initial two-year pilot phase. The new children's service will run in tandem with the adult SOLA service until March 2027, when both pilots will be fully evaluated to inform the development and procurement of mainstream services. The new pilot will provide support to some of the most vulnerable of children and marks another important step towards improving victims' experiences in sexual offence cases and helping them to navigate the criminal justice system. One key benefit is that free advice on the criminal justice system will be available even prior to any offence being reported, which will help victims to make informed decisions and may help to increase reporting.

Mrs Long: At the outset, I record my condemnation of the two most serious recent paramilitary-style shootings that occurred: one of a teenager in Ards, the other of a pensioner in Coleraine. Such barbaric brutality has no place in our community. Those attacks must stop.

Statistics provided by the PSNI indicate that, in 2024, there were 28 casualties of paramilitary-style attacks, a significant reduction from the 50 recorded in 2023. Within that, there were five casualties of paramilitary-style shootings, approximately a quarter of the number that occurred in 2023.

Whilst there is likely to be a range of factors affecting the reduction, I must commend the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) on the work being done to address this complex societal and generational issue. Over the last eight years, EPPOC has been testing innovative interventions aimed at tackling paramilitary harm in the here and now and breaking the cycle of violence for future generations. Those interventions include those that support victims of paramilitary harm, improving outcomes for individuals and helping to break the victim-perpetrator cycle. Targeted youth work that is delivered in a variety of ways, including through street-based initiatives and even in emergency departments, and help to prevent young people at risk of paramilitary exploitation and abuse from becoming engaged in criminality in the first place are just some of the structures that we have put in place.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for her comments on the two recent events. Will the Minister outline the interventions that the programme makes to provide specific support for victims of paramilitary-style attacks?

Mrs Long: Since 2021, the programme has developed and tested a range of interventions involving over 2,500 victims of paramilitary harm who have been directly supported by the programme. That is helping to break the victim-perpetrator cycle for future generations. Key interventions include the Insync project, the first bespoke service designed for victims of paramilitary-style attacks. It was commissioned by EPPOC in 2022 and is delivered by NIACRO. As well as providing support for victims of paramilitary violence, it is actively learning about effective approaches and informing work on tackling violence and paramilitarism more generally. The hospital-based Connect project for youth work places youth workers in three hospital emergency departments. They work as navigators, engaging young people when they first arrive at the hospital and through community-based follow-up.

As well as the work to change the language around paramilitary violence, the programme helps to raise awareness of the specific nature of the trauma caused by paramilitaries. That may mean that more service providers are better able to identify those requiring specific help and support.

Mr Beattie: Does the Minister agree that the statistics on paramilitary attacks do not tell the whole story? When you add moneylending, racketeering, extortion and intimidation, all that activity has a negative effect on society and can be just as harming as paramilitary-style attacks.

Mrs Long: Without doubt, the reach of harm that paramilitaries inflict on our communities is extensive and wide-ranging. The Member has namechecked a number of the most common types. Of course, it is not limited to those. We know that child sexual and criminal exploitation, among many other things, is a feature of paramilitaries in our community. Ultimately, whilst I want to reduce the harm of paramilitaries in communities, I want more than anything to end the existence of paramilitaries in our community. That is a permanent solution to what we face as a community, and it needs to be accelerated.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, one of the activities that paramilitaries have been engaged in in addition to, if I can call them this, traditional paramilitary-style attacks is hate crime, particularly race hate crime, in South Belfast. What is her Department specifically looking to do to address that? Does it include hate crime legislation?

Mrs Long: As the Member knows, paramilitaries will act under any banner that allows them to justify their existence to a local community or to pretend that they are protagonists acting on behalf of that community. The truth is that they feed off the misery in those communities. The Member will also be aware that I intend to implement the aggravator model, which Judge Marrinan recommended in his report on hate crime, as part of the sentencing Bill that we hope to introduce in the autumn of this year. The following year, we hope to introduce legislation on victims and witnesses of crime that will see more protections for vulnerable victims and witnesses extended to victims of hate crime. There are, however, things that we can do and are doing in the meantime, including providing bespoke support to members of ethnic minority groups and different racial groups in society and giving reassurance through the work that the Department is doing more widely to combat those ills.

Mr Carroll: Last week, the Minister for Communities removed intimidation points for victims of paramilitary-style violence. Minister, does your Department have any concern about the impact that that will have on people's safety and on their ability to live a life free from paramilitaries?

Mrs Long: I was clear in my statement that, while I welcome the fact that the criteria for extra points relating to paramilitary harm have been changed to reflect the wider harms that happen in our society, such as domestic violence and sexual abuse, which were very much a secondary consideration when it came to claiming points for homelessness, I recognised the importance of ensuring that people are no longer being driven from their homes by such organisations or individuals. The Executive now need to focus on how we can ensure that people can remain in their home safely rather than allow individuals to dictate where and when people can live at peace and get on with their lives.

Mrs Long: As Justice Minister, I am acutely aware of the daily and cumulative impact of trauma, because the justice system is often the place of last resort for people and communities with trauma. Justice agencies such as the Youth Justice Agency and the Probation Board are leading the way in showing how to adopt trauma-informed approaches in specialist services. That includes rethinking how we make every point of contact with service users an opportunity for support rather than potential re-traumatisation. That is essential, if we want to stop the revolving door of hurt and futility that passes through generations affected by trauma. It also matters because trauma — complex trauma, in particular — is costly: adverse childhood experiences alone cost Northern Ireland an estimated £1·3 billion annually. That is most acutely felt across the justice, education and health and social care sectors. The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime has led the way on championing a trauma-informed Northern Ireland and for trauma to feature in the Programme for Government.

It is not just about providing specialist services. We all need some understanding of trauma and how it affects our decision-making and perspectives, as well as how it affects our communities and public-sector workforces.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for her answer. She referenced the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. Will she give examples of the work that that programme is doing on the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on young people?

Mrs Long: At the moment, EPPOC is the sole funder of the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland's work on developing trauma-informed approaches across the system and has been briefing all parties and the Justice Committee on what has been learnt through the programme. That applies to paramilitary harm, but it goes much wider than that. On 6 February, we will plug a significant gap in our knowledge when EPPOC launches the findings of new, groundbreaking research into the prevalence of trauma in the adult population in Northern Ireland. I will attend the launch, and all other Ministers have been invited. I encourage all Members to attend the launch and/or read the report and its findings when available. Our challenge will then be to develop a comprehensive response that matches the scale of the needs identified.

Mr Crawford: Will the Minister outline how she is tackling the issue at source in schools in collaboration with the Department of Education?

Mrs Long: The Executive-wide programme includes work that goes on in schools, and, indeed, there are many good initiatives in the school system on tackling paramilitarism, particularly those that look at trauma-informed approaches. I can think of two clear examples. The first one is the trauma-informed approach in the Encompass programme, where we inform schools if a child has been subject to a domestic abuse incident or has been in a household in which a domestic incident occurred overnight so that that child will receive a more trauma-informed response when they arrive at school. The second one is the work that is being done on child criminal and sexual exploitation. The Health Minister, the Education Minister and I jointly launched a strategy to deal with that issue because we recognised that many of those vulnerabilities will often present in either a healthcare or school setting, and it is important that people fully understand the kinds of red flags that they should watch out for.

Mrs Long: Work has progressed at pace since I announced the programme on 2 December, and I have now published the programme delivery plan for consultation. The consultation will be critical in ensuring that we examine issues in the right order and properly take account of interconnectivities. I have been clear, however, that we do not have the luxury of time if we are to deliver the system that our citizens deserve, and I intend to make progress wherever possible while the consultation is ongoing. That includes steps to give effect to an uplift in fees for publicly funded advice and representation, the consultation on which also launched last week. I have prioritised that work to ensure the continued viability and stability of the system, but other actions will follow and follow quickly. I am conscious that each set of proposals in the plan will require detailed engagement and supporting legislative and administrative frameworks, so we cannot delay the realisation of the benefits if we are to seize the opportunity that the reform programme presents to ensure a fairer, more accessible, proportionate, responsive and cost-effective system that places the citizen at its heart.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she clarify whether the delay in publishing the delivery plan has delayed the implementation of the fees uplift?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for the opportunity to provide clarification. The answer is no it has not. When I launched the programme in December, I noted my intention to progress a fees uplift as soon as possible and to consult on the proposed uplift in January, with a view to implementing the changes in May. There is a significant amount of work involved, and the timetable is ambitious, but I have committed resources to ensure that it can be achieved, with the publication of the fees consultation last week remaining on track to deliver on that schedule.

Ms Bunting: Given the Bar's decision to extend its strike, what engagement has the Minister had with the profession recently on the Burgess review? Whilst I am aware of the consultation, what more might be done to move all this towards a resolution in weeks rather than by the end of the consultation, which will be in months? What does she consider to be the social value of legal aid?

Mrs Long: I will answer those questions in reverse. The social value of legal aid is that is provides access to justice for those who could not otherwise afford to access justice. I see it as being part of the welfare system and the security net that is provided for our citizens. Therefore, it is important that we are able to ensure that it is directed to the most needy and vulnerable at the right point in time.

The Department and I have had ongoing engagement with the criminal Bar over recent weeks and months. I will meet representatives of the Law Society and, indeed, criminal solicitors tomorrow. I will also meet representatives of the criminal Bar tomorrow afternoon. My objective is to bring the action to a close because I believe that we have moved some considerable way. The original demands were for the Burgess review report to be published, and it has been published. I was then asked to provide whatever uplift Burgess asked for, and I have said that 16% will be provided. I cannot do that immediately, which is the latest request. It is impossible to provide it immediately, but I can provide it. Another ask was to implement the recommendations of the Burgess review, and, if you look at the wider enabling access to justice landscape, you will see that that has been met. Indeed, one of the reasons why I delayed going out to consultation from December until this month was to take account of concerns that the criminal Bar had raised about some of the measures that we were proposing in the programme. I have adjusted the programme to take account of that to try to get a resolution. However, when you seek to meet someone halfway, it is important that that person does not regress from their position if you are going to have any success. Hopefully, tomorrow, we will be in a position to close the gap rather than simply move the gap to a different place.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, how are you and your Department tackling continued fraud and error in the legal aid budget?

Mrs Long: There has been a significant reduction in fraud and error in the legal aid budget in recent years, and our accounts have made great progress over that time by bearing down on the elements of the legal aid system where there are errors. In the majority of cases, by the way, it is error rather than fraud. It is also important, as part of the enabling access to justice programme that I have just spoken about, that we take all the opaque aspects of the legal aid system and shine the light of transparency and accountability into them in a way that has not been able to happen previously. That is part of the reform that I want to make so that we can account for public money in a way that the public can see; we have full insight into the mechanisms that are being used to grant legal aid, whether by the courts or the Legal Services Agency; and that we have confidence that money is reaching the people who are in greatest need at the point of their greatest need.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister confirm whether and how she has ensured that justice users, practitioners, NGOs and other experts have been and are structurally involved in inputting into the review from day 1? Will the Minister explain her reference to bringing "all publicly funded legal services" within the purview of the Department? Does that mean, for example, the PPS?

Mrs Long: No, that refers not to the PPS but to other ways in which we can deliver front-line justice. Many organisations, particularly third-sector organisations, offer competent legal advice in a structure that is different from that which we normally focus on with individual legal practices. We want to make sure that their voices are also heard in the conversation. We have talked about the Burgess review report. That was only one element of a number of reviews of civil and criminal legal aid. Throughout the process, the professions, other providers and, crucially, the public have been involved.

At the end of the day, I am not the employer of the professions. I am there to provide legal aid to the citizen so that they can employ someone to represent them in court. It has to be about what is best for the citizen. I respect the need for us to have a thriving legal profession. It is about striking the balance in the right place, however, and not letting anyone who may have a pecuniary interest in legal aid to dictate the terms for how we provide it.

Miss Hargey: I welcome the fact that you are meeting the associations tomorrow, Minister, on legal aid. You said that a 16% uplift will be provided. Will you give the detail on when?

Mrs Long: The intention is that the secondary legislation that underpins that will complete its passage by May. As you know, I have foreshortened the consultation on it to eight weeks because it is a targeted consultation, given that it affects a narrower group of people. We will have further conversations tomorrow about the commencement date for the 16% uplift. It is important to recognise, however, that I did not pluck the figure of 16% from the air. That is a recommendation that was based on evidence in the Burgess review report. Those who are now telling me that it is a paltry sum, that it should be discounted and that I should go with some other, more inflated figure therefore need to come to the point of realisation that, without an evidential basis, that is not on the table.

We have to look at what Tom Burgess recommended, and we have to get it delivered. I have said that we will do that as quickly as possible. We then have to get people back to work, because, at the core of all this, victims are being retraumatised by delay in the criminal justice system. People are using the Crown Court — we are talking about rape victims and the families of murder victims — and waiting for trials to take place. It is incredibly retraumatising for them to be told that their case is not only adjourned but indefinitely adjourned because there is no end in sight.

I want to bring this to a conclusion. I do not believe that strike action was necessary, given that I was about to publish my intentions. We have moved some considerable distance since I did so. I do not believe that the extension is necessary either, but I will sit down tomorrow, and we will work through this, because it is in all our interests, including those of the criminal Bar, that we bring it to a conclusion.

Mrs Long: The work of prison officers is challenging, complex and often overlooked, but it is critical to the safety and security of Northern Ireland and of people who are held in custody. In 2020, there were 32 assaults on staff; in 2021, there were 71; in 2022, there were 66; in 2023, there were 59; and, in 2024, there were 96. The Prison Service's experience is that a higher population and crowding are the most significant factors contributing to prison instability, incidents and violence.

Any assault on a prison officer is unacceptable, and the Prison Service continues to maintain a clear focus on the safety of staff at establishments. In addition to the support services available to all civil servants and in recognition of the front-line challenging role of prison officers, the Northern Ireland Prison Service provides additional support to officers through the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT).

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for her answer. I agree that every attack on a prison officer is beyond comprehension and should be condemned rightly in this place. However, that the number of attacks should treble in four years is quite astonishing. What is the Minister's assessment? What are the numbers in specialised prison officer units that deal in combat with extreme and violent prisoners? Are enough people recruited to that particular aspect of prison life? Has overall recruitment to the Prison Service been impacted on by the startling rise in attacks?

Mrs Long: To be clear, in 2020, when we had our lowest prisoner numbers during COVID, there were 32 assaults on staff. To compare what happened this year, when we are at our largest ever prison population, with that year is an unjust comparison. For example, if you look back, you see that, last year, the number of assaults was 59 and, the year before, it was 66. It goes up and down each year. However, we know that the size of the prison population will directly impact on the level of volatility in the prisons.

Every prison officer is trained to deal with conflict, de-escalation and restraint and in ensuring that violence in the prison is contained as quickly as possible. It is important that that is the case because prison can be a volatile place and, therefore, violence can happen. We have recruited additional numbers of prison officers. We continue to do so, and there is no indication that the level of violence in our prisons has been an issue that has in any way deterred people from applying. In fact, when we seek prison officers during a recruitment process, we are normally well oversubscribed.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her interest in the Prison Service. She is right to say that recruitment is often oversubscribed, but staff retention is incredibly difficult. I contend that one of the reasons for that is the circumstances that are held in the Civil Service staff handbook. The Department of Finance has said that it is no longer appropriate for those details to be held in the Civil Service handbook. Does the Minister of Justice agree?

Mrs Long: I am not aware of the Department of Finance having changed its position with respect to the employment of prison officers under the normal Civil Service code. However, the governance of prisons, as the Member knows, is through the application of normal prison rules. Where someone assaults a prison officer, we expect that to be prosecuted where possible. That pertains in the prison system. We have additional measures in place that would not be available to the wider Civil Service, when it comes to support for officers who have been subject to psychological or physical trauma. We find more and more that people are taking those up and are welcoming of the support that they get.

Mrs Long: I am keen that there should be greater openness, transparency and accountability in the conduct of court business, as I believe that increasing the public's understanding of what the judiciary does and how judicial decisions are made will enhance confidence and trust in the justice system. One initiative that, I believe, would assist in delivering that would be to permit the recording and broadcasting of certain court proceedings. Work on that proposal is well advanced. I hope to launch a public consultation in the next couple of months, but, in the meantime, I will be discussing that and other potential transparency measures with the Lady Chief Justice.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the information provided. Does she agree that reporting on proceedings in the family courts would help to increase transparency in the justice system?

Mrs Long: That issue has been raised with me by many people who have been victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse and then find themselves in the family courts after the breakdown of their relationship. I am of the view that permitting media reporting of proceedings concerning children in the family courts would be a helpful initiative to increase openness in the family courts, provided that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of the children and families involved. That is incredibly important, given the sensitivity of the issues that family courts deal with.

The issue has been raised with me, and my officials are undertaking scoping work, including looking at the judiciary-led reporting pilot in England and Wales.

Further to that work, I intend to raise this with the Lady Chief Justice shortly in the context of the wider discussion about what we can both do to enhance the openness and transparency of the justice system.

Mrs Long: My Department is not in the business of putting people into boxes, nor is it a responsibility of the Department to define the number of gender categories that exist. Our responsibility is to support everyone who comes into contact with the justice system, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, health, disability, age, sexual orientation and many other considerations. Many of those who come into contact with the justice system are among the most vulnerable in society and have a range of very complex needs, including addictions and poor mental and physical health. Indeed, many have suffered trauma or have been victims themselves. It is for that very reason that all those who come into contact with the justice system are treated with respect and as individuals, with their own needs and complexities, irrespective of how they identify.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: There are a number of reasons why there are more women in prison today as opposed to during the pandemic. First of all, there was a concerted effort to remove people from the prison system during the pandemic, and many people have brought cases forward post pandemic that might otherwise have happened during that period. That is one reason: delay. The second reason is the economic crisis. Many of the women who are committed to our care will be guilty of acquisitive crime. It may be drugs-related or it may be out of desperation, but it will often lead people to be in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the increase in numbers, I suppose, tallies with that.

However, there is a wider issue that the Member hints at, and that is the number of people in the prison system more generally who are on remand. The Criminal Justice Board is doing a bespoke piece of work to look at the reasons for remand, because the numbers seem to be incredibly high. They are incredibly high throughout the UK, but they are higher in Northern Ireland. We need to look at the reasons why people are committed to prison rather than given community-based sentences, and, as a Department, we are also looking at how we can build more confidence in community-based sentences that will allow judges not to send people to prison where a potentially better alternative rehabilitation measure may exist in the community.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. The question related to the number before the pandemic, not during the pandemic. Can the Minister outline what measures her Department and her Executive colleagues are adopting and implementing to tackle the reasons for offending, including challenges faced around housing, addiction, poverty, trauma and employability?

Mrs Long: As the Member demonstrates in his question, many of the issues that will prevent offending are not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. They fall to other Departments, whether that is the Department for the Economy, the Department for Communities or, indeed, other Departments beyond that. It is important, however, that we take a trauma-informed approach. We recognise that our women's prisons and those people in our women's prisons are a different category of offender, often driven by different motivations and behaviours. Therefore, it is important that we factor that in to the rehabilitation of the women who come into our care. That is something that the Prison Service has been leading on, in addition to all the work that goes on while people are in prison, to ensure that, rather than recycling people through the system, we can successfully rehabilitate people outside the prison system by finding them accommodation before they leave prison and by assisting them with access to, for example, key services such as the health service, the Housing Executive and others whilst they are still in prison, to set up a path for success rather than a cliff edge for failure.

Mrs Long: As I noted previously, the demands appear to have evolved over recent days. I believe that I met the demands that were set out in November: publication of the Burgess review report, implementation of an uplift in fees without delay and a timetable for reform. Further requests were received in December, including that I abandon the legislative and governance processes to uplift the fees immediately; that the Burgess review recommendations be implemented in full, including the appointment of independent chairs to working groups and legal aid advisory boards; and that I abandon my proposal to review the approach to cases left on the books.

I have addressed those issues insofar as is possible. I delayed the publication of the delivery plan to respond to them, and I reiterated my commitment to implementing the 16% uplift at the nearest opportunity. Consultation to enable that to be implemented in May launched last week. That uplift cannot be applied any sooner, and I cannot and will not circumvent due process. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. I also cannot abandon the exploration of policy issues that, evidence suggests, might produce better outcomes and a better use of resources for the public. Policy development cannot be subject to a veto of one stakeholder group, but I have sought to reassure that, as always, exploration will be in conjunction with stakeholders. Each of the proposals in the delivery plan will be subject to detailed consultation in its own right. Having listened to the professions, I have amended that plan to reflect that I will consider some issues in slower time to allow that engagement to come to fruition.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister consider that those demands can be met?

Mrs Long: Where I can meet demands, or at least offer compromises, I have already sought to do so. I am willing to continue to try to do so. However, some of the demands, such as the immediate change to legal aid, are simply impossible. I will be making it clear to the criminal Bar representatives when I meet them tomorrow, as I have in the House, that I am willing to meet them halfway. I want this to be resolved. I want people to be back at work. I want cases to proceed.

Whilst I focused in my previous answer on the impact on victims, be under no illusions: when victims withdraw cooperation from the PPS and cases fail, the guilty and the innocent walk free. That is not good for society. It places us all at risk. We are talking about serious criminal cases. The impact that this is having on service providers across justice — in, for example, victim and witness care, the PPS and victim services — is not insignificant. We need to get back to a point at which we are looking at what can be achieved, what is realistic and what is possible. I am willing to lean in and try to get a resolution to this situation that is as pain-free as possible, but there are some things that simply cannot be done. Taking direction on what I can and cannot consider as a Minister is, I am afraid, one of those non-negotiables.

Mrs Long: No, because it is not my decision whether PSNI stations remain open or closed, are refurbished or anything else. The estate strategy is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable, and he is answerable to the board. I cannot provide the reassurance that the Member seeks, because it is not within my purview. I encourage him to engage directly with the PSNI about the matter.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she provide an update, if she is aware of one, on the new PSNI Kinnegar training facility, and what point the process is at?

Mrs Long: Again, that falls outside my purview. The PSNI's decision to purchase the Kinnegar barracks is now a matter of public record. My understanding is that it has been taken to the board. I suggest that the Member speaks to his colleagues who sit on the board about progress in that regard, and to the Chief Constable directly, as they will be the people who direct this. It will have to come from within the PSNI's existing resource base, as has already been made clear. I cannot give any other update on that.

Mrs Long: Our prisons are incredibly safe places, compared with other similar prisons. If you look at recent reviews of the prisons estate by CJINI, for example, you will see that levels of violence are lower than in comparable establishments elsewhere. However, as the Member, rightly, says, any attack on a prison officer is unacceptable, so the first thing is to make clear to every prisoner that when their behaviour is unacceptable, or when they resort to violence or abuse, it will, first, be dealt with through prison rules and have an impact on their regime and privileges. Potentially, it will also be escalated to a police investigation, where that is possible, because it is important that we hold people to account if they abuse a prison officer or, for that matter, a police officer doing their job. One of the things that I hope to do in the sentencing Bill, which I hope to introduce at the end of the year, is to introduce an aggravator for those who attack someone who works in the public service or delivers a service to the public. I hope that the aggravator will act as an added deterrent.

Prison officers are trained in de-escalation techniques, restraint and the use of protective measures so that they are able to keep themselves, their colleagues and other prisoners safe. We intend no significant changes in that regime, because, to date, it has been reasonably successful and without serious incident.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister believe that there is sufficient health and well-being support for officers who have suffered attacks in prison?

Mrs Long: We can always do better. I never want to stand here and say, "Yes, I think it is sufficient". However, good support is in place, whether that is through work in prisons on resilience, the training of new officers or access to the PRRT. If we look at the uptake for that service from serving and former officers, we see that people value the ability to get psychological support, physiotherapy and other physical interventions that may help them to return to work more quickly, or, where that is not possible, to be rehabilitated and able to find other opportunities to work in the community.

Mrs Long: I completely agree with my colleague, as no one will be surprised to hear. I have prioritised violence against women and girls and domestic and sexual abuse and violence throughout my time as Justice Minister. When I took the proposal to the Executive about wanting to have a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, it was important that I said that it was not for the Justice Department to take that forward but that the matter should be taken forward by the Executive Office on behalf of the whole Executive. If we know anything about violence against women and girls, we know that it is about challenging not only actions but the microaggressions and attitudes that are the foundation on which those actions and violent attacks are built. Those insidious attitudes and behaviours underpin gender-based violence.

It is important that we not only work with women and girls but listen carefully to the voices of young men and men in general about the contribution that they have the power to make in order to change society and ensure that women and girls are better protected. Many young men are being radicalised online by a form of extremism linked with misogyny or incel culture. Call it what you wish, but it is an incredibly dark place on the internet. It is really important that the PSNI, the Executive Office and my Department have come together with that programme, which hands the power back to people in real life to challenge the sorts of attitudes, behaviours and microaggressions that can make young women and girls feel unsafe.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Minister, for your answer and for the important work that you do in that space. How will the campaign evolve?

Mrs Long: Initially, the focus is specifically aimed at encouraging men and boys to consider their attitudes and behaviours towards women and girls and to challenge attitudes and behaviours that women and girls find unacceptable. It is about giving them mechanisms and a safe way in which to do so. The campaign will then evolve to cover the steps that wider society should take to end all gender-based violence. There are real opportunities through using the online toolkit for us to open up a wider conversation about how we treat women and girls in society. It is not enough that women and girls have to raise the issues. They are not "women's issues"; they are societal issues. Until women and girls feel safe in our community, we still have much work to do.

Mr Speaker: A brief response, please, Minister.

Mrs Long: The enabling access to justice reform programme seeks to ensure that processes and procedures aid efficiency and incentivise early resolution. The programme looks at supporting ongoing work by the Criminal Justice Board to reduce delay and enable structured early engagement by ensuring that remuneration structures support those objectives. The procedures add value, expedite and encourage resolution and aid transparency.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice. I am glad that you are feeling a bit better this month, Minister.

Mrs Long: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mrs Deborah Erskine has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for the Economy. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I thank the Member for raising that important issue.

Mobile and broadband connectivity is absolutely vital to people's ability to communicate with family and friends, access services and run their businesses. The loss of connectivity as a result of Storm Éowyn has therefore caused real hardship. Telecommunications are the responsibility of the British Government, however, with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) holding policy responsibility.

The restoration of connections on the telecommunications network is led by the private-sector telecoms companies. The Department for the Economy has no contractual relationship with any telecoms company apart from Fibrus Networks. My officials have, however, been working closely with the electronic communications resilience and response group (EC-ERG) and with the civil contingencies division in the Executive Office, which have been engaging with the telecom companies regarding restoration of the networks. The telecoms companies are working closely with NIE, and services are being restored where it is safe to do so.

A post-incident review of Storm Éowyn, led by the London Government, will take place on 10 February and assess the impacts, lessons learned and future impacts following the storm.

Mrs Erskine: I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment.

Ten days ago, the storm took out five telecoms masts, even threatening critical blue-light communications, yet customers, many of whom are elderly, vulnerable or running businesses, are still without broadband and mobile services with no estimated restoration time. While NIE has been able to provide restoration times, multimillion-pound companies such as Vodafone, BT, EE and Fibrus have failed to do the same. People in my constituency are being forced to travel to access networks at their own expense.

This is not a time for telecoms companies to hide. They must communicate with customers urgently, and action must be taken. Will the Minister commit today to taking immediate control of the situation, convening an urgent meeting with the telecoms companies and the UK Government and ensuring that services are restored in the coming days for people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I concur with much of what the Member has said. Real inconvenience is being experienced by so many people, and the impact of the lack of connectivity is really significant not just for households but for people, particularly in rural communities, who are trying to do business. As I said, the Department for the Economy has limited levers to deal with those companies directly, but we are engaging through all channels. As the Member said, I have been in post for only a few hours, but I will absolutely make sure that we get the answers that we need from them. I will impress on them the need to take urgent action to ensure that people are connected as quickly as possible.

Mr McGuigan: Ar an chéad dul síos, déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire faoina post nua agus guím ádh mór léi.

Minister, given the response that you have given about taking urgent action and encouraging broadband and telecommunication companies to do the same, will you also encourage those companies to compensate customers who have been left without connectivity for long periods?

Dr Archibald: I have seen that some of the companies are already doing that. It is only right that, where people have faced significant inconvenience for some time, compensation is forthcoming, and those companies should certainly look at how they can do that and support their customers.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the new Minister and wish her all the best.

To follow on from what Philip said, there has been talk of compensation schemes from NIE and the telecommunications companies, but it is vital that the compensation comes out of the profits of the companies, not out of the pockets of the householders affected. Will the Minister give an update on any work that is being done on that to make sure that people do not pay to compensate themselves?

Dr Archibald: I am not over the detail of the compensation payments that the telecommunications companies will make and how exactly that will work. Certainly, I will ask officials to look at that.

The Member referred to compensation payments from NIE. The detail of that is still being worked through with NIE and the Utility Regulator. DFE officials continue to engage with them on that. The Member will be aware that, under the British scheme, for example, the cost of compensation for severe weather is covered collectively by other customers. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that people are compensated for the inconvenience and hardship that they have faced and deciding where that compensation is paid from. The detail of that is still being worked through.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the Minister coming to the Chamber today. I wish you well in your new role. I thank my fellow MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for raising the issue, as I did this morning during Members' statements.

When Project Stratum was being finalised with the successful contractor, Fibrus, why were obligations not applied at that time, so that Fibrus would have been part of the Ofcom automatic compensation scheme in the same way as other providers?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her good wishes.

I do not have the detail of the Fibrus contract in front of me, so I am happy to write to the Member on that issue.

Mr McGlone: Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire.

You are in at the deep end.

I think that £165 million of public moneys were spent on Project Stratum, which has been referred to. Minister, will you get your officials to urgently convene a meeting with those providers, because, at the moment, it seems that absolute non-communication with their customers is run-of-the-mill for them? I referred five cases to Fibrus this morning, and, in the last five minutes, I have been informed of another case in which a business has been told that it will be 10 February before anyone will be out to attempt to repair its supply.

Dr Archibald: As I have said to other Members, the relationship that the Department has with the telecommunication companies is limited, except in the case of Fibrus, with which officials have been engaging. It is important that there is proper communication with customers. Fibrus has tried to increase the number people staffing its customer helplines. I am happy to convey the message that we need to see that communication improving, because people need reassurance about when they will be reconnected, if that is not happening now. We need to see that happening as quickly as possible. I am sure that all Members will appreciate that there are health and safety issues at play as well. There have been dangerous situations as a result of electricity wires being down, and other things have had to be repaired before work could be undertaken to restore broadband and other connections. It is important that people get that reassurance.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, I congratulate you on your new post and wish you the very best.

In Coalisland, in my constituency, a number of businesses and GP surgeries lost connectivity. Thankfully, we were able to speak with engineers fairly quickly and get them reconnected, but it was a worrying time, particularly for the GP surgeries and chemists. Will you check whether the broadband companies are able to provide interim solutions, such as dongles and other things that may be available to them, so that people can be connected in the interim?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her good wishes. In preparation for responding to today's question for urgent oral answer, I raised that issue with officials and asked whether it could be explored. Obviously, as I have indicated, there are limited direct relationships between the Department and those companies, but TEO and the civil contingencies group have a line of communication as well. We should look at where there will be delays in reconnection and whether any potential mitigations can be put in place. I am happy to take that away.

Mr Brett: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment.

Minister, you have made more public comment on the impact of the storm than your predecessor did, and you have been in place for only two hours, so I congratulate you on that.

There will clearly be an interest from the private sector in Project Gigabit, in which public funding will be rolled out to the providers. I am sure that the companies interested in availing themselves of that public funding will look well on a Minister wanting to speak to them to see what action they will take. Will you outline what steps you, personally, will take, Minister? Officials do important work, but we need political leadership at this stage, so will you outline to the House what steps you, as Minister, will take today to contact those companies?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes.

As I have indicated, the relationship between me, as Minister, and the telecommunications companies has limitations, because that is a reserved matter. However, we have publicly funded contracts in which there is a direct interest and communication. Looking at this experience and at the impact of the storm, I can see that lessons need to be learned, and that falls across a number of areas. I am happy to look at that and engage in any way that I can. Any leverage that I can bring to bear to find solutions for people who continue to be without connections is something that I am more than happy to do. However, as I say, they are private companies that are regulated by Ofcom, and direct lines have to be gone through because of that. As I said, I am happy to look at what I can do.

Ms Mulholland: As others have done, I wish you good luck in your new post, Minister.

Will you detail what engagement your predecessor or your Department have had with TEO, specifically the civil contingencies policy branch, about preparation and preparedness for this storm and any future events?

Dr Archibald: I have not been fully briefed on all that at this point. I thank the Member for her good wishes. As she would expect, the appropriate lines of communication between my officials and the civil contingencies group are there, and they continue in the response to the storm. In the aftermath, we will look at the lessons learned and how we can improve while taking account of what has gone right in this instance. Some things have gone quite well and according to plan, and the response has been good. There are a lot of lessons that can be leaned more broadly than just how we, as an Executive, can respond. For the likes of the communications companies and everything else, there are certainly things that we will want to take on board in planning for the future.

Mr Middleton: I too wish the Minister well in her new role.

I support my colleague Deborah Erskine's call for a meeting with providers. Minister, Fibrus has indicated that, if your internet has been off for more than 48 hours, you are entitled to compensation. A constituent has told me that Fibrus has told them that that has to be 48 working hours. Does the Minister agree that that would be an unacceptable situation, and will she agree to raise it with Fibrus?

Dr Archibald: That would be unusual. If you are without communications at home or even if you own a small business, 48 hours is 48 hours. I will be happy to take that one away and get to the bottom of it.

Dr Aiken: I will probably not join other Members, because you will be missed from Finance. Economy's gain is Finance's loss.

Have your Department or your officials been in contact with the providers of mobile telephone communication systems in particular? Those are items of critical national infrastructure, and they seem to have failed at the first hurdle. There do not seem to be any examples of battery backup or internal power supplies to keep the systems working. That is probably contrary to what Ofcom would recommend. Can you say whether your officials are engaging with Ofcom directly and with the companies? What can we do to ensure that critical national infrastructure is, in fact, critical and looked after?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes.

As I indicated, a post-incident review of the storm will take place on 10 February, and it will assess all of those impacts and lessons learned. Clearly, there are lessons that have to be learned in respect of mobile and other connectivity. Officials are, of course, engaging through the structures that are there with all the relevant parties to ensure that, first, the response is happening but then to assess the way forward.

Ms Forsythe: I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. As Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, I thank her for her work as Finance Minister over the past year.

Throughout the storm response, there were regular updates from NIE and Ministers on how many properties were without power. We could see the scale of the problem and its steady reduction. Does the Minister know how many properties, including homes and businesses, are currently without broadband?

Dr Archibald: We have sought that information from the telecommunications companies. We did that last week, and we will re-engage to look for some of the information because it has not yet been forthcoming. We have information from Fibrus, where we have a relationship. My understanding is that 6,000 premises on the Fibrus network are currently without connection. Those are mainly in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Mid Ulster. The figure has reduced from 40,000 premises at its peak, so it is clear that good work has been done in that regard. Obviously, it is a huge inconvenience to remain without connection, so all efforts need to be put into connecting the people who remain without connection as quickly as possible.

Mr McNulty: Ádh mór ort, a Aire

in your new role.

Minister, you will know that the First Minister's call for a goodwill payment put serious duress on NIE in the midst of the storm. Two days after the storm, the company received 7,000 calls from people seeking information about goodwill payments. The announcement of payments from Fibrus is positive and welcome, but what are the eligibility criteria for accessing those payments?

Dr Archibald: It will be a matter for Fibrus to set out what compensation payments it will put in place and what the criteria for those will be.

Ms Nicholl: Congratulations, Minister, on your new role. As a member of the Economy Committee, I look forward to working with you.

What work is planned or under way to assess the impact of the storm on the local economy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member and all Members for their good wishes. As she will appreciate, we are still in the response phase of the aftermath of the storm. As I said, we will look at the lessons learned, and I will be happy to consider whether there is any potential for taking a wider look at the economy.

Mr Brooks: I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment.

My colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who tabled the question for urgent oral answer, has told me today that one of her constituents has been told that it will be 16 February before Fibrus links them up again. Does the Minister agree that that is wholly unacceptable, and will she push Fibrus to bring that date forward?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes.

As I have indicated, if you remain without connection, that is a huge inconvenience. That date for restoration seems to be quite a long way away. Clearly, there will be reasons for the time frame that is being projected. I do not know all of the reasons for that, but all efforts should be put into expediting those reconnections for all properties. As I mentioned in response to some other Members, there may be health and safety reasons why some things will take longer, but, whatever the reasons, we need to address them and ensure that everybody is reconnected as quickly as possible.

Mr Buckley: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment to a Department that had nobody at the helm throughout the storm. We know that the storm caused significant damage across Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the many agencies that put in sterling work to get people reconnected. That was lacking from Fibrus; there were no communications, and constituents still face huge challenges in relation to broadband connection.

I think that I picked the Minister up right when she said that her Department had had limited contact in its relationship with Fibrus. Is that the case, and does she agree that the first port of call for Fibrus should have been the Department for the Economy and not individual political parties, which, I understand, it has already met?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his good wishes. I do not agree with his comments about the Department.

What I said was that the Department had limited levers with a number of telecommunication companies. They are private companies regulated by Ofcom, and telecommunications is a reserved matter. Fibrus is the company that we have a relationship with, and there has been engagement with it. I am happy to relay the comments that are being made today, and I am sure that they will be taken on board.

We need to see reconnections happening as quickly as possible and, as some Members have said, an improvement in contact with customers. I am sure that the company would tell us that that was, perhaps, lacking because the efforts were going into the reconnection effort. However, people need to be reassured about the work that is going on and the time frames for reconnections. Clearly, there is a need to step up that communication.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. May the grass not be allowed to grow under your feet in the Assembly. Thank you for that.

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

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before Question Time, my contribution to the debate on enhancing accountability and trust in government was cut short by Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, who ruled that my remarks were out of order. I respect the Chair, but, for the benefit of lowly Back-Benchers such as myself, will you review Hansard and tell me exactly where I stepped outside the remit of the motion? I believe that, when we were talking about accountability in these institutions, I was addressing issues inside the Chamber and in Committee, which was within the scope of the motion.

Mr Speaker: I have not had the opportunity to address that, but, for Members generally, when you are participating in a debate, you need to focus your remarks on what is actually contained within the debate itself. If you have a motion before you, you need to address your remarks to that motion. There is always a degree of flexibility, and Members will always test that flexibility. I think that the Member has tested it quite considerably in his time here, but you always need to realise and recognise that, when you are asked to come back to the scope of the debate, you attempt to do that. If you do not attempt to do that, it would be the duty of a Speaker to bring you back into order.

I will look at it, but, essentially, it would be within the framework that I have just outlined. There will be no discrimination against any Member in the House: it will on the basis of whether they fall within the scope of the debate or do not. It is for the Speaker or, indeed, the Deputy Speakers to make those judgement calls when in the Chair.

Thank you for the point of order. We will take our ease while the Chair changes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next speaker is Paula Bradshaw, who will make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Paula, you have three minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. While agreeing that we would like to get on with governing rather than just administering, as Matthew O'Toole said, there is a case for raising the simple reality that meaningful change takes time. I am sure that he will agree that his colleague Nichola Mallon, when she was Infrastructure Minister, realised that when she was on the previous Executive.

Michelle Guy set the tone well by emphasising the scale of the challenge caused by collapsing the institutions, which is why it is essential to address the ability to use the sectarian veto to collapse the whole thing. It should have been apparent to the SDLP long ago, not least from the absence of any Executive Office Ministers at the debate, that appeals to Sinn Féin and the DUP will be ignored. Michelle also raised the importance of doing it in a managed way, and I put on record the fact that my party leader, Naomi Long, recently wrote to the British and Irish Governments to raise again the need for reform.

If we accept Emma Sheerin's view that we have made some good progress, there should be no delay in confirming that her party will not collapse the institutions and, indeed, agreeing a system that disables any minority party from doing so. Likewise, Harry Harvey made a case for two DUP Ministers' work over the past year. If their work has been so effective, there should be no delay in ensuring that devolution cannot just be collapsed.

I agree with Robbie Butler that the St Andrews Agreement was a step in the wrong direction, although it demonstrated that reform is possible, contrary to what some claim. However, he was wrong to talk about political wish lists. Frankly, it appears that he did not read our amendment —

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will just make this point.

That is not the first time that the Ulster Unionist Party has not read our amendment.

Go ahead.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. It is good to hear that the Member's leader has written to the British and Irish Governments, but, as I pointed out, the Belfast Agreement was mandated by the people of Northern Ireland. They are the people who should decide. Does the Member not agree?

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

I absolutely agree that it should be up to the people of Northern Ireland to take forward any change. Our party's reflection is that, when the Assembly was first created, we had only a small number of MLAs but we now have 17. Our mandate is growing and will continue to grow. We feel that we and the people who vote for us are disenfranchised by the current system.

Brian Kingston talked about the need to maintain devolution but then made what seemed to be a contradictory argument: that we should leave the institutions in place with the ever-present risk of collapse. He said that we should deal with the bread-and-butter issues, but, given that the Assembly was down for five of the past eight years, we were not dealing with the bread-and-butter issues. That is why we have seen decline in our public services in far too many ways. However, I agree with Brian that a cast-iron commitment never to resign is impractical. The purpose of our amendment is to say, "Look, there will be circumstances in which Ministers have to resign". Conor Murphy resigned a while back and again today for legitimate reasons that were not to destabilise the institution.

Unfortunately, Timothy Gaston drifted off-topic and continued to mislead the House. It is interesting that he talked about the motion's scope, given that he keeps referring to my trying, at that infamous Committee meeting, to bring him back to the First Minister's departmental role and responsibility rather than her responsibilities as the Northern leader of Sinn Féin.

Moving on —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paula, your time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the motion on behalf of the official Opposition. Sinéad, you have five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

As many Members have mentioned, it is positive that the Executive have been in place for a year with a sense of relative stability. In Northern Ireland's politics of low expectations, I have no doubt that some people, if asked about how our Government are doing, will shrug their shoulders and say, "At least the Government are sitting". They are accustomed to the bar for politicians here being set at the level of simply taking their seats around the table.

It is scarcely a surprise that we have the lowest level of democratic well-being in the UK, with 54% of people expressing low trust in the Executive. That low level of trust is the direct consequence of the political cynicism and poor faith that, all too often, have characterised how the biggest parties have treated the institutions. Today's debate illustrates that fairly well. The fact that no Ministers from the Executive Office are here shows contempt for the Opposition. Indeed, earlier, the Education Minister practically called most Members of the House sectarian because we questioned the decision mechanism for school funding.

Our politics has prioritised dramatic stop-start, cyclical collapse over the hard graft of good government.

People out there know that politics have real consequences, including the longest waiting lists anywhere across these islands, with people in all our communities waiting in chronic agony for years; childcare costs that have spiralled to more than £10,000 a year, even with interventions having been made; housing bills that fall far short of the targets that we set; and no clear pathway to tackling poverty in our communities, allowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots to grow. It is shameful. Those are the consequences of the lack of reform, and, if another crisis comes along, we will see those metrics fall still further behind. No one can say what that crisis might be, but we all know that it could come tomorrow, and these institutions are as stable today as they were the day before they last collapsed.

I will concentrate my closing remarks on reform and how we do government. We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and it feels like we are still shackled to our past by a politics that belongs in the past. Let us change the approach. The anniversary of the return of these institutions is the right moment to once more press the issue of reform and to demand accountability and leadership on this issue from the two biggest parties in this place. The First Minister and deputy First Minister, despite their warm words on the day that Stormont was restored, were unable to give a commitment not to collapse this place. They should have corrected that today, had they been here. Once they had done that, they should have started the work of putting right the instability of this place through a proactive programme of reform so that we could give the public a guarantee that veto is no longer the name of the game and that government is treated as a serious business in Northern Ireland.

Of course, the exact form of that reform is the subject of the process itself. It might be in other parties' interests that the posts of First Minister and deputy First Minister simply pass on to the next biggest party, but this is about the interests of people, not parties. The SDLP has put forward very clear proposals for the common good. It is clear to us that the best way to reform this place is to undo the damage that the St Andrews Agreement did to the original premise of the Good Friday Agreement on the joint election of First Ministers. We should end for good the veto on government by reforming those formal processes, unlocking progress and allowing for this place's evolution. We should reform the manipulated and misused petition of concern and make substantial changes to cross-community voting to end the excessive focus on designation. We should make fundamental changes to improve the way in which this place delivers and, through a new Budget Committee, strengthen oversight and accountability. We should improve the Pledge of Office so that it emphasises collective action. Those changes are in all our interests, and, most importantly, they are in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

This is an opportunity to go further than that. Each of the agreement's strands is interlocking and independent. Reform of the agreement is relevant to all three strands. To that end, the AERC is a toothless Committee, and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous. This is an opportunity for the acceleration and deepening of cooperation between all parts of these islands, including the deepened —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad, your time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — formalisation of North/South structures.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, that is much appreciated.

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 the Division.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for this 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. Colin, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will see how far my voice gets me through this.

One year ago, this place returned after two years of collapse. On the restoration of this place, we were told that health was a priority and that we needed to transform health. One year on, are we in a better position? Are people waiting less time for an appointment? Are they getting sick less? Are health service staff getting the right resources to meet people's needs? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. I take no pleasure in saying that. It is simply a reality check.

Credit where it is due: there have been some wins, as the Minister stated in his video on Friday past, he is bringing "hope back into health delivery". These included: being on course to deliver pay parity, a women's health action plan and enhanced respite care for children with complex needs. Those are all good and positive outcomes. However, people are still waiting unacceptably long periods for appointments. They are not getting any less sick, and our staff do not have the full resources to meet people's needs. Our health service is situated along the edge of chaos, which is a precarious place between stability and collapse. I think that we can agree — at least I hope that we can agree — that none of us wants to see our health service collapse.

Every symbolic step that the Department takes towards stability, it asks our health trusts to make hundreds of millions of pounds of so-called efficiencies. We have to call those out for what they are: cuts. Waiting times remain unacceptably long. Primary care practitioners have been depleted, where the only thing that is shifting left is the workload, and our Ambulance Service is held up for hours outside emergency departments (EDs), forcing our valued ambulances to wait for hours before they can get back on the road and respond to those in need. These are all systemic and historical issues. How do we address them? The Minister tells us that he does not have any levers to pull, but a Minister without levers is like a doctor without medicine. Both can diagnose the problem, but neither can offer any real help.

As to the amendment, while we welcome the proposer's commitment to reform of the health service, regrettably the amendment removes accountability from previous Health Ministers. We have been talking about transformation for years. Do the authors of the amendment not believe that it should have been a priority for Minister Wells, Minister Hamilton and Minister Poots? They will undoubtedly say that it should have been a priority for Minister O'Neill, but that fault should never be found at their own door. Given that the challenges that we are facing are systemic and historical, we cannot support the amendment.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Very quickly because I get no extra time.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Does he also share concern about the amendment's talking about taking "difficult decisions", which usually means closure and running down services? Will he express concern about it for that reason also?

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

Mr McGrath: Not necessarily, but we need to tease that out if we have conversations. I wish that we were at least having conversations.

If we are to effectively transform the health service and bring it to a place of genuine stability, it must be a continuous, proactive and strategic process. The Minister tells us that he does not have enough money to transform the health service, but the other Executive parties say that he has more than enough, with half of the total Budget. Can we, please, park the petty party politics? Plenty of people are getting sick, but let me tell you this: everyone I meet is sick to the back teeth of the squabbling, the mud-slinging and the lack of delivery from the Executive. What we need from the Minister is less media performance and more substance.

We have waited a year for the overall strategic plan for transformation, and we have not got it. It is not the job of the Opposition to deliver a government plan; it is our job to hold the Executive to account. When we call on the Minister to deliver the transformation plan by September, that is the latest that we want to see it. We feel that that is a reasonable task. We are at the edge of chaos. If the Minister cannot deliver the plan by September and still has no levers to pull then, the media mask will finally fall and our health service will move further away from stability and ever closer to total collapse. Whose responsibility will it be then?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Dodds to move the amendment.

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane. You will have five minutes to propose your amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. Diane, open the debate on the amendment, please.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Lots of people, when asked for their opinion on devolution, say clearly that they had high hopes for change, particularly in the health system. The motion and the amendment reflect the frustration and, indeed, the cynicism out there at the pace of change. Minister, it is not a reflection on you personally. The system is difficult and ponderous. It is like turning a tanker a little bit at a time. However, the most significant paper that has been published is now subject to a long consultation period, and people struggle to understand why consultation is necessary. It is hard to find what is novel in the 'Hospitals - Creating A Network For Better Outcomes' document. We have had high-level principles many times. Everyone knows that change is required. Eight years on from the Bengoa report, the Minister's officials should be clear about what represents the best configuration of services for Northern Ireland. It simply requires the Minister and the system to get on and deliver that.

In Northern Ireland, we have the largest-ever number of people waiting for a first-time consultation. Frankly, waiting times are a disgrace, yet, sometimes, when officials appear before the Committee, it is a bit like there is an acceptance of long waiting lists and a sense that they are inevitable given the situation that we are in. Many of my constituents and, indeed, MLAs talk about a two-tier health system where those who can afford to go private can go private, but I think that it is more broken than that. There are deep structural inequalities in the health system in Northern Ireland, different levels of interventions in health trusts and different responses on social care, particularly respite care for young adults with complex needs.

Our workforce is organised to deal with the regular annual workload. That is fine, but it will not clear the backlog. We perhaps need more honesty in our debates about the unavoidable requirement for much of the elective backlog to be carried out by staff outside of our local trust staff. The Department's elective care framework envisages additional hundreds of millions of pounds still leaving waiting lists extending into years, yet normal business in the health service continues to grow. We really have no answer to how we will deal with that backlog so that people will not always be waiting for hip replacements or knee replacements or whatever it is.

The Minister has moved on breast cancer but only after performance against breast cancer waiting time targets had collapsed to indefensible levels. That was evident in the published figures in June of last year: in the South Eastern Trust, I think, only 4·6% of women were seen within the 14-day referral period for a first appointment after discovering something wrong that needed to be investigated. Those are time-limited and life-saving things that need to be done, and we need to get on and do them.

I have pointed out many times in the Chamber, in the Committee and in questions for written answer the need for greater productivity. That is evident when we talk to others. A couple of weeks ago, we had the Royal College of Surgeons at the Health Committee. They are frustrated by the lack of coherence in the system, which means that productivity in theatre sessions can sometimes be very curtailed. That is incredibly important.

I hope that the Minister's bid to the transformation fund is successful. However, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has said that, even if it is not successful, the Minister should reorganise in order to find the money for multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in our general practices. Having listened to the raw emotion of GPs at the Committee last Thursday, we know how important that is. It is about not just workload but delivery for patients in Northern Ireland.

Finally, the predicted income at the start of the year —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Diane, your time is up.

Mrs Dodds: Sorry. Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I hate interrupting you; I appreciate that.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposers of the motion and those who tabled the amendment for bringing the issue to the Floor.

We need to be solution-focused. As the proposer of the motion said, let us take the politicking out of this. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber has ever said, at any point, that the Health Minister has more than enough. I can absolutely stand over that. I start almost every debate by telling him that I understand that he does not have enough. That is clear and has been made clear in the Chamber by all who speak on health. He does not have enough. Yes, he has a significant budget — over half of the Budget — but it is still not enough. What is important is how we spend what we have. Whilst what he has is not enough — this is not the first time that I have said this — what is important is how it is spent and how we use those limited resources.

I totally understand that the Minister needs an increase in the Health budget in order to recruit more staff and to modernise facilities and technology to improve our health service. Whilst the Health budget has had a funding uplift and inflationary increases, the increased service cost and significant increases in demand have placed pressures on our resources. How do we spend what we have? We have talked about winter pressures, but they are no longer winter pressures; they are all-year-round pressures.

Social care needs to be seriously looked at and invested in. I know that there is a lot of work going on in that space. It is our job to support that work and to look at where we can offer solutions. I would like to see the implementation of a targeted recruitment and retention strategy. That is important, because we know that we are failing miserably in recruiting and retaining, particularly in the social care aspect of our health service. We need to look at how we will improve that. We need to address the staffing shortages across our health service. That is everything from social workers to doctors, GPs, nurses and domiciliary care — all healthcare workers across the piece. We need to ensure that we have a better recruitment and retention strategy.

We need to introduce measures to streamline patient pathways. When I speak to people, it seems that that is a really difficult part of the health service for them. It is clunky. It is going to your GP, returning to your GP, going back to your GP, going somewhere else and going back to your GP. We are finding that there are not clear pathways. Again, that is often a resource issue or not being able to get people off a waiting list. We need to look at innovative ways of reviewing the situation. Some patients on waiting lists should no longer be on them. We are not having the type of review to make sure that people are not on waiting lists that they should not be on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. Sorry, Linda.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Opposition for tabling a motion on the most critical issue that we face: the crisis in our health service. We have just discussed how important devolution is for Northern Ireland, and the repetitive cycle of institutional collapse has had a devastating impact on our democracy and on the public's trust in our political institutions.

Let us look at the practical impact of having no Assembly and no Executive in place. No Health Minister meant no progress on many of the issues raised in the motion; no action on tackling some of the worst waiting times in Europe; no capacity to address the growing mental health crisis; and, as the amendment states, no further progress on the potential for "digital capability, innovation and research".

The motion rightly states:

I respect and acknowledge the difficult position that Minister Nesbitt, like all Ministers, is in. He is dealing with not only an extremely challenging financial settlement but the loss of time that could have been spent developing vital strategies and legislation. We have had a Health Minister in place for only three of the past eight years, two of which were occupied by the COVID pandemic. That left our health service without the necessary leadership and accountability and led to the development of a two-tier health service, with many people in Northern Ireland now paying huge amounts of money for healthcare from their savings, from borrowing or from their family.

I agree with the SDLP motion that a key problem is:

To date, my party and I have been disappointed by the Department of Health's slow progress on addressing the urgent need for transformation. We have to acknowledge, however, that several parties in the Chamber are failing to support the need for transformation in their constituencies. They often do so for short-term, narrow purposes when they should be looking at what might be successful in the long term. I will give one example. In November last year, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council members debated the closure of the out-of-hours GP service at the Knockbreda Wellbeing and Treatment Centre, which is set to move to the Mater Hospital. The current model leads to significant overspending, and that transformation is in line with the Department's No More Silos policy. Transformation will never be delivered, if it is not allowed to start. The proposer of the motion spoke about the fact that we have been talking about transformation for years, so it will be telling for us all to see whether Members from certain parties in the Assembly join protests at healthcare facilities that are earmarked for transformation.

Northern Ireland is not a large place, and we need a more efficient health service. That will not be possible if all parties do not commit to the Bengoa principles from nearly a decade ago. I support the motion and cannot disagree with it in principle, but it is disappointing that the party that tabled it has a history of calling for Executive parties to make difficult decisions at Assembly level while opposing such difficult decisions at a local level.

Finally, we welcome the call in the amendment for a "health service rescue plan". As it states, it should include:

as an urgent priority, but it should also encompass transformation more widely. We also need to invest —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, your time is up. Sorry about that.

Mr Chambers: Opposition parties have a crucial role in any parliamentary democracy in scrutinising policies and, when necessary, proposing alternative ones. An effective Opposition is to everyone's benefit. Unfortunately, on the 1st anniversary of the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly, the motion falls short of what I would expect from a constructive Opposition.

I will focus my initial remarks on the motion's final line and its call to introduce a further plan by no later than September this year. Frankly, I was surprised to see such a demand, especially from the Opposition. I thought that they would have believed that enough reports had been written and strategies published. Instead of more reports, patients and staff, I am sure, would much prefer to see the multitude of existing reports being delivered in full, including the three-year plan, the publication of which was announced by the Minister in the Chamber less than two months ago.

The motion, aided and abetted by the amendment, calls for the implementation of "meaningful reform". It is clear that people in different parties have different interpretations and definitions of reform, but they rarely, if ever, set out what they mean in practical terms. Equally, when the signatories to the amendment called for the delivery of digital capability and efforts to tackle:

they must have done so while apparently being unaware of the progress that has already been made in that area.

Not one patient or health worker will benefit from the motion. The debate smacks of political parties trying to score misguided political points.

The health and well-being of our society are far too important to be used in such a manner.

Mr Gaston: I wish to focus my remarks on a local issue in my constituency of North Antrim, which I believe falls within the scope of the motion.

In September 2024, I spoke about a mental health charity in my constituency that provides an invaluable service in crisis intervention, counselling and family support. As of today, Turning Point NI in Ballymena remains without secure long-term funding, despite continuing to provide an essential service across North Antrim. At the end of March, the National Lottery funding that directly pays four members of its staff will stop. The next round of allocations will not be assessed and awarded until September 2025, which puts the vital charity at risk of closure.

Turning Point specialises in tier 3 and tier 4 cases, which include those with complex diagnoses, often dual diagnosis, and those who, sadly, present as wishing to end their own lives. The crisis intervention and de-escalation front-line service that it provides is essential and cannot be left by the wayside. Indeed, it is often referred the most complex of cases by the community mental health team, under the banner of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and other public bodies. Yet, none of these agencies has directly offered or provided funding for that work to continue. Last September, it was estimated that the work carried out by Turning Point has saved the trust in the region of £70,000 —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and that figure continues to rise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, will you return to the scope of the motion? I appreciate that you have mentioned much-needed services in your constituency, particularly around mental health and de-escalation, but will you please return to the scope of the motion for the remainder of your time?

Mr Gaston: The motion before us talks about how we fix the health service and issues with mental health services. I believe that my comments about that charity fall within that. To me, it is clear that the Northern Trust is simply not well enough resourced to deal with the most complex mental health needs. Yet, it is expected that a charity in my area will continue to pick up the slack for free.

I dread to think what will happen to the people who are failed by the system should Turning Point disappear from the landscape. To where will they turn, who will care for them and where will the almost 100 people currently on its waiting list go? Who will intervene when they are most vulnerable? Perhaps, we could look at other trusts that are doing crisis intervention and de-escalation, and, after raising the issue in the House for a second time, along with the other letters of support from elective representatives, local authorities and statutory agencies, it might finally be taken seriously.

I invite the Minister to visit Turning Point NI to understand the issues and address them accordingly before it is too late. That charity was based and created on the back of too many lives being lost in the Ballymena area. I trust that we will not get to the point at which we see the number of lives being lost increasing because that charity has run out of money.

Mr Carroll: It is abundantly clear that our health and social care system is in crisis. For the past decade, waiting lists for an initial outpatient appointment have risen by more than 200%, which is totally unacceptable. Our waiting lists are by far the worst on these islands. Compared with England, in the North, we wait seven times longer for hospital care. The morale of health and social care workers has plummeted almost as low as their pay in real terms. At the same time, attacks on healthcare workers have risen.

Since the Assembly was restored last year, we have debated ambulance waiting times, delays to the maternity and children's hospital, social care reform, mental health provision, funding for health transformation and much more. To be frank, all that talk has not made a bit of difference. In fact, a year on from the Executive's restoration, the crisis facing our health service has only got worse.

It is undeniable that something needs to change. First and foremost, we need investment in our health and social care workers, who should be paid a decent wage and be employed under good terms and conditions. We also need to listen to those who are working on the front line when proposals for change are being developed. They are the experts, but engagement with workers is, too often, nothing more than a tick-box exercise. Any plans for reform that see a growing role for privatisation should be explicitly rejected. Outsourcing health and social care to the private sector is astonishingly poor value for money, yet some parties are content to pump millions each year into the private sector in the hope that multimillion-pound companies somehow have a sincere interest, which is not motivated by profit maximisation, in solving our waiting list crisis.

The amendment calls on the Minister to:

Too often, that is simply code for the closure of local services. For that reason, I will oppose the amendment. People should protest against those forms of service reconfiguration. Shutting down maternity units, minor injuries units and urgent care centres before clear and safe alternatives are put in place shows a complete lack of care for the communities that work in and use those services.

Finally, the small but growing private healthcare sector in the North is a massive red flag for where the crisis is headed. Between 2019 and 2023, private hospital admissions in the North more than tripled. Those who have the means to pay out of their pocket or through private insurance plans are fast-tracking their way to treatment. Those who cannot afford to go private languish on waiting lists whilst their conditions worsen, and many will die waiting for treatment. The health crisis has a real human cost, and that cost is death and disease, especially for those who do not have the wealth and privilege to pay for private care.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Health, Mr Mike Nesbitt, will respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not hang about, then.

I normally welcome debates in the House but not so much today. The tone and content were a bit disappointing. I have never, ever argued that it is all about the money. Many of the issues are the result of over a decade of Tory austerity, repeated instability and stalemate in this place and, frankly, decisions that were made in the Division Lobbies, such as voting for the 2024-25 Budget despite being warned of the consequences for health delivery.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: You are a bit quick.

Dr Aiken: I know; I thought that, Minister.

For clarification, we both sat at Hillsborough Castle many times when Health was not just a priority for all the other parties but the priority. Will the Minister reflect on the things that the other parties have said?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that, before the restoration of the Executive, all the parties appeared to prioritise Health. I heard Jayne McCormack of the BBC say this morning that, in her first conversation with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, they said that if they could achieve anything and do one thing well in this mandate, it would be childcare, which is not part of Health.

The motion calls for yet another plan. I am surprised at that. I thought that Members, especially those from the Opposition, have had enough of plans. I certainly have. From the day that I entered the Department, I have made it clear that I want the focus to be on delivery, not on plans, promises and strategies that do not have the budget for the annual delivery plans. To be clear, I already have a plan. My three-year plan was published less than two months ago. It outlines my ambition for the health service for the remainder of the Assembly mandate. Moreover, there are several other detailed plans in place: for example, the elective care framework, the cancer strategy and the mental health strategy.

As for costings, those, too, have been produced.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I am going to make some headway now.

For the three-year plan, I am committed to publishing an annual implementation plan once budget allocations have been agreed. I previously identified my priorities for the mandate, which are delivering reform, tackling waiting lists, improving cancer services, addressing mental health and, above all, confronting persistent health inequalities. Those priorities are based on three pillars, which are driven by the finances in the budget.

Stabilisation comes first. Can we preserve what we already offer, and then can we achieve reform and delivery? That will require more investment in all parts of the system: primary; community; social care; and secondary care. Stabilisation of services includes mitigating the inevitable challenges as a result of budgetary pressures.

I will give way to the Member briefly.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. Does the Minister agree that the mental health strategy cannot help to combat the mental health crisis that we are in when it is not being funded adequately?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely agree. This year's action plan has provision for a spend of £42 million. The actual spend is £5·9 million. I have to warn Members that, next year, the gap between what we can spend and what we are hoping to spend will widen. We might get up to just over £6 million, but the plan is for delivery of over £75 million in the financial year.

Members will recall that, last October, I welcomed back Professor Bengoa, and he reflected on whether Northern Ireland was on the right trajectory. Some Members think that the Bengoa report has sat on the shelf since 2016: it has not. His view is that we are heading in the right direction. Hearing from him that Northern Ireland is not an outlier in international terms was heartening, but I am very clear that it is not an excuse to relax or take the focus off what needs to be done. I am focused, and it is important to be clear that root-and-branch reform is not something that can happen quickly. We need to involve those who use the services and those who deliver them when we develop and implement changes. I will return to Diane Dodds's comments in a moment.

My Department has already taken further action to deliver my ambitions. For example, in elective care, we have established more mega-clinics and more elective care clinics, and we are investing further in two rapid diagnostic centres. We are driving forward targeted measures to ensure that trusts are delivering 100% of all commissioned sessions and that efficiency and productivity across the elective care centres is maximised. Members will recall that I have already said that we took £2·3 million off a trust for the non-delivery of 100% of commissioned sessions. In the most recent plan, I have challenged health and social care trusts to deliver 46,000 additional outpatient assessments and 11,000 additional treatments annually by the end of the mandate.

Somebody talked about pathways. Mrs Dillon talked about two things that she wanted to be prioritised: recruitment and retention. I absolutely agree with her, and that is one of the reasons why I am committed to introducing, within this calendar year, the real living wage to social care. That will have a significant impact on recruitment and retention. Mrs Dillon also mentioned pathways, but I have to say to her that we already validate waiting lists. That does happen. As for going to your GP and going back and the pathways being overcomplicated, GPs are already beginning to direct patients to urgent care units, not acute hospitals, so bypassing EDs. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) report on the temporary dislocation of general emergency services, moving them from the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) to Altnagelvin, made the point that we have to move away from double ED assessments. If you get assessed at the SWAH and sent to Altnagelvin, you should not have to go through a second assessment in the Altnagelvin ED; you should go straight to the part of the hospital that you are supposed to.

Mr Carroll surprised me by talking about the closure of urgent care centres. I have been at only the opening of urgent care centres. If there are any that have closed on my watch, I will be very happy to hear about them.

Let me stress that we are not unique in the United Kingdom. The Westminster Government recently published a health service plan that reflected similar themes and challenges to ours. This opens up great opportunities for cross-jurisdictional working. I have already met counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales, and the Government of Ireland, to discuss mutual concerns and share issues, and I will continue to do so, with regular engagement at official level as well.

As I have said, reform is already happening. However, it is inevitable that the pace of reform is going to be impacted on by the level of funding available. Although cutting waiting times is included in the Programme for Government, I hope that Members have noticed that no additional funding has been made available for that purpose — not a single penny. Indeed, the narrative from the draft Programme for Government makes it clear that things will get worse before they get better. When MLAs from all parties write to me, as they do daily, asking for things such as the reinstatement of the cross-border reimbursement scheme, I ask them to realise that their decisions on the Budget have unavoidable consequences. Just for the record, I would love to bring back the cross-border reimbursement scheme: it works.

Mrs Dodds talked about too much consultation. I say to her, gently, that it is not possible for me to do what she suggested, because these changes are effected by the trusts, not by the Department, and the trusts have a legal obligation to consult.

If you look at the resistance to change in the Northern Trust over one proposal to move one service from the Causeway Hospital to Antrim Area Hospital or the resistance in Fermanagh to the temporary closure of one service that was being moved from the South West Acute Hospital to Altnagelvin Hospital, you get a measure of how difficult it is to achieve reform. When you listen to Mr Gaston pointing out the really invaluable service delivered by a community and voluntary sector group in his constituency, he emphasises the fact that all healthcare is not just personal but local. People want everything locally, but we cannot do that because we cannot afford to do it, and nor is it the right thing to do, because we need areas of specialism. When you need a service, you will go somewhere where they do it daily.

Finally, the proposer of the motion said that efficiencies were cuts: what an extraordinary statement. If none of the £200 million saved this year by the trusts is not an efficiency, no efficiencies are needed. The debate is worthless because the Health and Social Care system is perfect. Who would go for a cut before an efficiency? Yet, you say that they are all cuts.

That is why I have found the debate a little disappointing. Some of the comments that I have heard do not stand up to first contact with logic; in fact, I will have a glass of what you are having, without the water.

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

Mr Robinson: OK, thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am on pretty safe ground today when I say that the crisis in the health service is not a new challenge that has just appeared on the horizon. It has been building for many years not just in the Province but across the UK. We have multiple debates in the Chamber about our health service, but, so far, we have not seen a lot of the changes that we wish to see.

The facts for this place speak for themselves. Waiting lists in the Province are the worst in the UK. There are half a million people on waiting lists to have a first appointment and tens of thousands of people have been waiting for more than a year — some much longer — for treatments and surgeries. Our constituency surgeries are crammed with examples of people who are living in pain, parents who are unable to care for their children or individuals faced with having to leave their job because of their health needs. We have debated that, but, so far, we are not seeing the changes that we need.

Our mental health services in Northern Ireland are in a dire state. The Province has the highest rate of mental illness in the UK. We have young people who have been waiting for months and even years for mental health interventions. What about the health workforce? There are nurses, doctors, paramedics and care staff who are exhausted and demoralised. There are staff who are overworked and stretched to the very bone. People will even say that the health service is surviving on goodwill. Some staff are being asked to do the impossible every day. I speak to staff, and some are leaving the profession because they cannot take any more or because they can receive better pay and working conditions elsewhere. We have debated that too, but we are not seeing the big changes.

Access to a GP is in crisis, as is access to A&Es. Through no fault of its own, the Ambulance Service is in crisis. Social care is in crisis. Millions of pounds have been lost on the new maternity and children's hospital project, and there are new revelations about millions being spent on consultants, and so the circle continues. We are not seeing the changes that we need to see, and the health service is awash with multiple reviews — reviews on top of reviews, strategies and consultations, including the Bengoa report. They have all outlined the changes that we need.

Members will have been a little bemused to see the Department complaining that over £8·4 billion in resource in next year's draft Budget will be insufficient and hundreds of millions short. It may be one thing to argue that you are under pressure to make sure that you come in on budget for the end of the current financial year, but that is £8·4 billion up to the end of March 2026. There ought to be ample time to prioritise spend. Not everything that the Department invests in is in front-line care. Professor Bengoa put it relatively politely when he was here in the autumn: if there is not a changed approach, the Department will soon be asking for 100% of —.

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

Mr Robinson: OK. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. I call Daniel McCrossan to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Daniel, you have five minutes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

As many colleagues have said, it is a year today since the Assembly and Executive returned. It is clear that there is absolutely nothing to celebrate, given the critical issues that face our people. Indeed, what people forget, when they talk about the return of the Assembly a year ago, is that we should have been here three years ago, when we were originally given a mandate by the people across Northern Ireland to come here and do the work that we are elected to do, which is to fix the problems in the health service and a wide range of other serious issues. In fact, if health were such a priority for the two parties that were culpable for collapsing the institutions on separate occasions, they would never have collapsed at all. That speaks to the truth. Health is not a priority for some parties. They talk about it and react to it, but there is no proactivity whatever when it comes to bringing about solutions to the critical issues facing our people.

The truth is that the health service is in crisis. That is a word that we hear a lot in the House. However, it is also a fact that, since the Executive returned, the situation has worsened. The Executive parties point at each other instead of sitting down and asking, "What can we actually do to resolve this problem?". We talk about a lack of funding. Yes, we all agree that there is a funding issue, but that is not the only issue. There are wider issues in relation to management. There are things that can be fixed. There are things that we could see more progress on.

I know that the Minister is frustrated, because I hear it in his voice. I know that he is frustrated with us and with the tone and content of the motion. However, the fact is that we are reflecting the feelings of the people across our constituencies who are sitting in hospitals and suffering on waiting lists. People are dying, when they should have received treatment in a timely fashion. Those people are taxpayers. They make their contributions every month and work tirelessly to pay into a system that is, in truth, failing them. That adds to their suffering.

It is not good enough to sit in the House time and again and listen to the same old excuses. As the Minister rightly points out, it is eight years since Bengoa. He says that that report has not sat on a shelf, but it is frustrating for anyone in the House who remembers that the concerns that the Minister raises today are the exact concerns that were raised by the then Health Minister, Michelle O'Neill, when the Bengoa report was launched in the House eight years ago. The now First Minister forgets to mention that.

Yes, the problems that we face may be similar to those in other areas, but they have been worsened by a lack of political responsibility and leadership. Parties here duck and dive around the critical issues, but health does not discriminate. Every Member in the House will be affected. In turn, the lack of action and resolution of some of the problems that we face is having a direct impact on the health and well-being of the very people whom we rely on to help us — our healthcare workers, who are burnt out and exhausted.

I listened to Members across the House, and I agree with their various frustrations. This is an issue that unites us and that we want to resolve. Let us stop talking about these things and get down and do it. This is a small place: it is six counties, 11 council areas and 18 constituencies. It is not rocket science. If there were the political will to resolve the problems in the health service in this place, it would be done. That is why I am so disappointed by the DUP amendment. Instead of facing up to the emergency, some want to water down the motion with a weak amendment that does nothing but give the Executive an easy way out. For too long, the Executive have had too many easy ways out.

A total of 400,000 people are on a waiting list, suffering daily. Countless people are sitting in emergency departments for over 20 hours. People who are struggling with mental health and addiction sit, today, in desperate need of an intervention. Whilst all that suffering continues and our people plead with us as their elected representatives, turning to us in desperation, all we say to them is, "It's being looked at. We recognise the problem". It is not good enough. People demand better.

There was a plan for transformation: a £200 million reform budget. If it were such a priority for the Executive, why did that entire budget for reform not go to the Minister of Health to help him to reform our health service? The Minister knows what the problems are; Mrs Dodds knows what they are; Linda Dillon listed what they are. We all know the problems. The Minister of Finance, along with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and their Executive colleagues, need to put the funding where it needs to be in Health and help to drive a reform agenda to fix the problems.

Our people have suffered enough. They have listened to the excuses. They have seen the failures of this place. We have one opportunity. It needs to be fixed now, before others continue to suffer.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease.

Mr Durkan: 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 in which to propose and five minutes in which 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 time for the debate.

Mr Durkan: I propose the motion and acknowledge the increasing difficulties facing first-time buyers, making what was once a common rite of passage for many an impossible dream for more. For generations before us, homeownership was seen as the foundation of security and the springboard to stable lives and a sense of belonging in society and established communities. That has become a pipe dream. It is no longer a goal for those trapped in the instability of the private rental sector, who face rising costs, short-term leases and little hope of saving for a home of their own.

After much delay, we saw and welcomed the introduction of an intermediate rent scheme that, I hope, will improve long-term rental options and give tenants stability. That is part of a long-awaited housing supply strategy that talks about unlocking supply but makes no mention of support for first-time buyers. It promises 100,000 homes over 15 years without, in our view, a real road map to get us there.

I fail to see how that figure will ever be attained at a time when we would be lucky to hit half of this year’s target of 2,000 social homes and the rate of housebuilding is at a 60-year low. Addressing the impact of water issues on housing development barely gets a mention, yet that drives up costs for first-time buyers and all buyers and renters of property across the North.

Another flaw in the strategy is the exclusion of any mention of empty homes or of a desire to bring 21,000 vacant properties back into use. That approach would not just alleviate pressure on new builds but avoid the complexities of water infrastructure connections. The delivery of adequate housing supply is contingent on having a suite of comprehensive reforms, including a help-to-buy scheme. One cannot thrive without the other.

The average house price in the North is rising faster than wages. In 2023, the average monthly rent across the North was £817, which was a 5% increase on the previous six months. It has mushroomed again since then. It is barmy that there can be 50 applicants for one rental property. Entry into private rental, never mind homeownership, is laden with barriers. In my constituency, we recently saw £900 a month charged for a two-up two-down, the quality of which left quite a bit to be desired. That was almost double what it cost less than five years ago. Extortionate rental costs make private renting impossible, including for people who are in full-time employment. They push people out of their home and on to the social housing list. Improving access to homeownership would reduce demand on rental properties and therefore reduce demand on social housing.

It is hard to understand how people who currently pay £1,200 or £1,300 a month on rent are considered by lenders to be unable to afford an £800 mortgage payment. We have to try to make that make sense. Co-ownership has been pushed by successive Ministers as being the be-all and end-all. It certainly has value, but there has been little consideration of alternative support. Co-ownership provides an entry point into the housing market, but it does not work for everyone, because buyers face limited financing options. Rising rents and interest rates can make the scheme less affordable over time, while reselling can prove complicated. We also have a rent-to-own scheme, which is run by Co-ownership, but it is not much used, probably because it is not, or has not been, much use.

An equity-based — it is important that it be equity-based — help-to-buy scheme would provide a much-needed lifeline that would reduce the upfront deposit and lower the amount that buyers needed to borrow. It would prove to be an investment for the Executive and ensure that funds could be reinvested to support future buyers. That, in turn, would boost construction, create jobs and stimulate the housing market. Such a scheme cannot work in isolation, however. Rather, it needs to be one element of a wider suite of interventions that would increase housing supply and deliver a sustainable housing market.

Although we agree with the sentiment of amendment No 2, we are fairly ambivalent about whether it is made, and we will oppose amendment No 1, which we believe dilutes the intent of the motion and, effectively and unsurprisingly, lets the Minister off the hook.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Brian, you have five minutes in which to propose the amendment and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can point to many examples of the DUP's strong record of delivery in the housing Ministry, and its actions speak louder than words.

The DUP has been supportive of the co-ownership scheme. Our Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, increased the upper value limit for qualifying properties in order to help more people into homeownership through co-ownership. Over the period 2020-21 to 2024-25, £150 million of financial transactions capital (FTC) funding has helped over 4,400 households into homeownership. During the financial year 2023-24, 91% of co-ownership purchases were made by first-time buyers. Shared ownership is a crucial part of the affordable housing market in Northern Ireland and continues to support people into homeownership. The DUP has taken action to ensure that co-ownership keeps pace with house prices, meaning that more people can find a home to suit their needs. The DUP has also helped working families by launching the intermediate rent product, whereby a long-term, low-interest loan is offered to an operator to develop a supply of affordable homes for rent at a 20% discount to the market value. Furthermore, among all the competing demands on the departmental budget, Gordon Lyons has provided a 6·4% increase in funding for the Supporting People programme in this financial year. That programme supports a range of statutory and voluntary support services for vulnerable and homeless people.

There are clear challenges facing housing in Northern Ireland. However, the DUP and our Minister have tackled those challenges head-on. Just last week, the Minister announced the removal of intimidation points. That will level the playing field in housing allocation for everyone who has suffered intimidation or the threat of violence. While others have talked about the issue, the DUP Minister has acted.

First-time buyers are under extreme pressure when trying to secure a home. Simply put, supply is not keeping up with demand. The Chartered Institute of Housing has advised that the number of new houses built here in the 2023-24 financial year was the lowest in a decade. The most recent house price index shows that average house prices in Northern Ireland have increased by 5·7% over the past year. That is impacting on the affordability of mortgages and deposits. Economic challenges have been forecast to continue, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicting that interest rates on mortgages will rise to 4·5% in 2027. Its forecast following the Labour Budget is that house prices will rise 2·5% more than predicted in its March 2024 forecast.

Housing affordability is a growing problem. That is recognised in objective 1 of the housing supply strategy, which is to:

There is a steadily increasing gap between supply and demand, and I trust that all Members will agree that we need to increase housing supply across all areas. For that to happen, we need to see a speeding up of the planning system and ensure that the necessary infrastructure, particularly the waste water infrastructure, is in place. The housing supply strategy sets out the levels that are needed to increase supply. That includes increasing land availability and improving our knowledge of public land that may be suitable for housing.

Housing has been secured as a priority in the draft Programme for Government. We must provide more social, affordable and sustainable housing. It is a complex issue, which requires work across the Departments, especially Communities, Health, Justice and Infrastructure, as we work towards increasing housing supply. The new housing supply strategy has provided a long-term framework for the actions that are required to increase supply and address the main barriers to supply here. We recognise that transforming housing supply will require not only a collective response from the Executive but real collaboration from local government, community groups, the construction industry and financial bodies. I commend our amendment to the House.

Ms Ferguson: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Ciara, you have five minutes to propose and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have three minutes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Whilst we all agree on the need to provide meaningful support to first-time buyers, given some of the challenges that they face, with ever-increasing house prices and rental costs, I urge huge caution over any attempt to propose the roll-out of equity based, help-to-buy schemes as a solution for first-time buyers. I am sure that Members here have reviewed the extensive body of research that shows that, instead of improving affordability, such a policy has the opposite effect. One has only to look at a number of the pieces of research from the London School of Economics (LSE) that use evidence from the British help-to-buy model on the economic impacts of the mortgage credit expansion policy to see that its roll-out contributes to rising house prices. The findings are very stark. The policy does little to help young, lower-income households. It is baffling, therefore, that it has been pursued for so long and is being advocated again here today in the face of such incontestable evidence that it does not work.

Let us be very clear across the House today: we absolutely need to help prospective first-time buyers. Far too many are struggling to save for substantial deposits whilst living in family spare bedrooms or in the social or ever-increasingly unaffordable private rented sectors. They dream of having a foot on the property ladder and of having an increased sense of stability, security and freedom. However, we categorically should not advocate a policy that has been found to push up house prices, saddle working people with unsustainable, unaffordable debt, thereby locking the next generation further out of homeownership. The policy is the antithesis of those stated objectives. Inflationary demand-side subsidies have benefited some but not those who need help the most. They have been to the benefit of developers and landowners, not new buyers. Any progressive policy solution should be focused on the delivery of never-before-seen levels of social and affordable housing. Additional work to develop initiatives on stricter use-it-or-lose-it policies to tackle speculation and land hoarding, rent regulation, investment in infrastructure and better prioritising homeless prevention are just some ideas that have actual merit. It is about data-driven policymaking.

The past three decades have seen house prices significantly outstrip income growth, which has further expanded wealth inequality. That has contributed to falling homeownership rates for young people. A presentation from PropertyPal's Jordan Buchanan starkly put it in context by stating that, if other items had grown at the rate of house prices since the 1970s, a loaf of bread would now cost £5. People should not be facing inequality of access to a place that they can call home.

The current unjust situation, in which homeownership probability in the short-to-medium term is reliant on having some form of family support or a huge income, cannot be allowed to continue. The fact is that, since 1990, an average of just 900 social homes have been delivered here per annum, which is approximately three homes per 1,000 in the population, versus five to six per 1,000 in previous decades. What is left runs the risk of being lost at significant discounts, comparative to what it would take to replace.

Recent labour market success has not been reflected in significant pay growth. If wages cannot keep pace with inflation, house prices, the cost of childcare and average rents, it is little wonder that our social housing waiting list stood, as of September 2024, at over 48,000 households. Many first-time buyers are forking out a minimum of £30,000-plus deposits over a 30-year term, borrowing more for longer to try to keep payments manageable. The average age of a first-time buyer has risen from 30 in 2008 to 33. Instead of policies that service the financialisation of the housing agenda, we must deliver affordable, sustainable and decent homes in which people can live. We must not compromise the current generation's prospects or those of future ones. Homes are the foundations for life. They should help, not hinder, economic security, health and well-being.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Kellie Armstrong. Kellie, you have three minutes.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may speak quite quickly, then.

I think that everyone here understands that becoming a first-time buyer is expensive. It is now possibly the most expensive that it has been over the past 70 years. There are two distinct parts to measuring the affordability of becoming a first-time buyer. The first is the cost of buying the house, and the second is the cost of owning. The Building Societies Association's property tracker shows that the affordability of mortgage repayments has become the biggest barrier to purchase. Prospective first-time buyers now find themselves in a very difficult situation, but, unfortunately, many of the proposed solutions to help them, which were dependent on low mortgage rates, are no longer as effective or even viable.

It is also important to understand the possible lifetime costs of buying and owning a property and how those compare with the costs for previous generations. That helps our understanding of how the housing market works and the implications that it has for potential policy solutions. For example, comparisons across generations raise questions about long-held assumptions, such as whether the housing ladder still exists.

Given the substantial deposit barrier, the ability to become a first-time buyer is increasingly dependent on the so-called Bank of Mum and Dad, while successful first-time buyers increasingly need to have two incomes that are higher than the average wage. Meanwhile, those without family help or in single or lower incomes have been excluded from homeownership.

It is a balancing act. The number of first-time buyers is closely linked to the state of the mortgage market, housing market and wider economy. As such, there is an inevitable balance between support given to first-time buyers and the effects of that support on the housing market and the economy, both immediate and in the future — a point that Ciara Ferguson raised. It also works in reverse, with policies that impact on the housing market or economy having direct and indirect effects on first-time buyers. An important balance is the compromise between financial stability and first-time buyer numbers. The past decade has seen the balance tilted in favour of financial stability, with the inevitable cost of many being excluded from homeownership. It is now time to debate the costs and benefits of the current approach.

I believe that the Department for Communities should continue what it has started to do with the housing supply strategy and look to commit to having a package of housing policies and reforms that can achieve a successful housing market here in Northern Ireland. Working with lenders, the wider housing market industry and the public, the Department for Communities should aim to make homes more affordable, more available and more appropriate to the needs of those living in them and the world that we live in.

I will move on quickly, because I am running out of time. Our priorities have to include improving the supply of existing and new homes, including the increased delivery of affordable homes, and revising the planning system, with a greater focus on strategic planning and less focus on development control. Westminster could reform property taxation to increase market liquidity and encourage more efficient use of existing homes. However, the lessons of using stamp duty land tax —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Kellie, can you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Ms K Armstrong: — to favour first-time buyers should not be lost. As such, Alliance supports both amendments to the motion because we believe that more has been done, can be done and will be done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Kellie.

Ms D Armstrong: This critical issue further highlights the deepening housing crisis that is gripping Northern Ireland. Rising house prices, soaring rental costs and increasing mortgage pressures are making homeownership an impossible dream for too many. As a result, we are seeing greater reliance on social housing, as has been mentioned, placing even more strain on an already stretched system. For young people and families across Northern Ireland, the aspiration of owning a home is slipping away. In Belfast, for example, as of June 2024, the house price index reached 159, indicating a 59% increase in house prices since 2015 and a 6·3% rise compared with June 2023. Across Northern Ireland, the lack of affordable housing is forcing people to leave their communities in search of somewhere that they can afford.

At the same time, rental costs have skyrocketed, making it more challenging than ever for prospective homeowners to save for a deposit; yet, despite many paying rents far exceeding what a mortgage would cost, lenders often do not consider those payments when assessing mortgage applications. That is yet another unnecessary barrier that must be addressed. We cannot allow an entire generation to be priced out of homeownership. While the housing supply strategy provides broad ambitions and the Minister's intermediate rent announcement in May 2024 is welcome, the reality is apparent. We must go further and deliver tangible support for first-time buyers. Amendment No 1 rightly emphasises the need to increase housing supply and ensure affordability across all tenures, and that must be done without delay. We also must build on the success of co-ownership, which has helped thousands of people to access homeownership.

The challenges facing first-time buyers demand a bold, evidence-led response. That means delivering more affordable new builds to meet rising demand; expanding co-ownership, ensuring that it remains a viable option for those unable to secure an entire mortgage; exploring an equity-based help-to-buy scheme, reducing upfront mortgage costs; and exploring how lenders might consider rental history so that those who have consistently paid high rents are not unfairly locked out of homeownership. The Minister and the Department must urgently explore every avenue to increase the range of housing options available. That could include the measures that I have outlined as well as learning from successful models used worldwide. Regardless of the approach, one thing is abundantly clear: the scale of the housing crisis demands immediate, evidence-based action to deliver meaningful and lasting solutions.

Ms Mulholland: I really welcome the chance to speak on the motion. It is on an issue that I see time and again in my constituency office: the lack of housing in general but particularly for first-time buyers, especially young people. There are two interconnected issues. First, house prices are too high — we know that — owing to a chronic lack of supply exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis and not-fit-for-purpose waste water infrastructure. Secondly, first-time buyers face an even steeper hill to climb because they do not have existing housing equity to leverage, unlike those who are already on the property ladder and can sell one home to help fund the next.

The root of the problem is a major housing shortage; we know that. Whilst the Minister for Communities has an important role to play, this has to be considered as a shared responsibility. The Department for Infrastructure has to take responsibility for the persistent failures in waste water infrastructure that are simply stifling housing development. Approximately 19,000 housing units cannot be connected due to a capacity issue. That is an enormous number of potential homes sitting in limbo. Every delay only adds to the supply problem, which, in turn, drives up prices and makes it even more difficult for first-time buyers. The current funding model for NI Water is a major obstacle. The previous Minister for Infrastructure insisted that the model was fit for purpose, but industry experts, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and NI Water all say otherwise.

Then there is the direct affordability challenge for first-time buyers. Prices continue to rise due to the supply-and-demand imbalance. In August 2024, it was estimated that a first-time buyer in Northern Ireland needed a deposit of £17,300. In the current economic climate, with the cost of rent, food, energy and transport continuing to rise, how can anyone be expected to scrape that together? The days of 100% mortgages are long gone. That has led, unsurprisingly, to Northern Ireland having the highest proportion of anywhere in the UK of young adults aged 25 to 35 who live with a parent: 23% compared with the UK average of 18%. That is a staggering statistic. It highlights, once again, how far behind the times we are in addressing the everyday realities of our young people.

The challenges that first-time buyers face cannot be tackled by the Department for Communities in isolation; it is a cross-departmental issue. I support the call for a comprehensive package of interventions to be part of that solution, but unless we fix the structural issues that limit housing supply and improve economic conditions for first-time buyers, those interventions will only be a sticking plaster.

Mr Carroll: As the housing crisis destroys communities across the North and wage growth stagnates, falling far behind house prices, homeownership has never been more remote for working-class communities across the North. More people are finding it impossible to get on the property ladder. They are trapped in an under-regulated and extortionately expensive private rented sector. Others have no option but to move back into the family home, which is, as we have heard, their only hope of saving for a deposit.

We need to reflect on the reasons why people want to own their own home. Most people do not want to own property for the sake of it. They want to be free of the whims of private landlords who can hike rent or evict them at a moment's notice. Above all, first-time buyers desperately want independence, affordability and security. The sentiment behind the motion is well-intentioned, but there are serious concerns about help-to-buy schemes. I echo those raised by the Deputy Chair of the Committee. They cannot be ignored. The warped logic behind help-to-buy schemes dictates that, by stimulating housing demand, supply is sure to follow. In practice, help-to-buy schemes have pushed up house prices and private rents in the UK and Ireland.

The campaign group Priced Out calls the policy, "help to sell", because the scheme serves only to help prop up house prices that are already out of reach for most working-class people. The UK's National Audit Office reports that more than half of the 211,000 people who used the help-to-buy scheme could have bought a home without state support. As well as giving a hand up to people who could already afford to buy, the scheme massively boosted the profits of developers. Help to buy is a failed housing policy in the vein of Thatcher's right to buy. It is, at best, misguided to try to resurrect that in the name of supporting first-time buyers.

Pumping money into the help-to-buy scheme is not a solution to the housing crisis. Even that well-known radical organisation, the House of Lords, recognised that in 2022. Its Built Environment Committee concluded that the help-to-buy scheme:

and does —

The Minister and parties should take note.

Let us focus on what works, which includes cracking down on profiteering landlords who charge extortionate rents and massively expanding the supply of social housing. The Minister, and, in fairness, previous Ministers, have refused to do that. Those solutions would benefit everyone, including first-time buyers. That is what I will attempt to do through my people's housing Bill, which will introduce long-overdue rent reductions and turn empty houses into homes. I encourage Members to support that when it comes to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call the Minister, I point out that, 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 if earlier. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the comments that have been made in the debate. One thing that most of us can agree on is that homeownership is a shared aspiration that resonates deeply with many of us. It represents more than just bricks and mortar. It offers security, stability and the foundation for building a future. It provides the chance to put down roots, foster strong communities and enhance people's health and well-being. That is why I am firmly committed to making home ownership accessible to all.

Evidence shows that the first-time buyer market remains strong in Northern Ireland, but I understand that for some, especially our young people, the dream of owning a home can seem increasingly out of reach. High house prices, limited supply and the challenge of saving for a deposit can leave people feeling as though they are locked out of the housing market. I am determined to provide, where it is needed, the necessary support to overcome those barriers. In the past five years, my Department has provided more than £150 million to co-ownership, helping over 4,000 households, most of them first-time buyers, to become homeowners. More than 10,000 households are buying their home through co-ownership.

Saving up for a deposit is often one of the biggest challenges that people face when buying a home. For working people on lower incomes, it can feel impossible. Buying through co-ownership means that deposit requirements are significantly lower than they are when buying with a traditional mortgage. In many cases, there are no deposit requirements at all. That can be life-changing for anyone who desperately wants to own their own home but struggles, month to month, to save what they need.

Co-ownership and its support for first-time buyers has been an important feature of our housing market for decades. Without it, many more people would find themselves trapped in the private rented sector or forced to live with family or friends. Its track record is impressive, having helped over 33,000 people into homeownership since opening. Ensuring that that crucial initiative continues to receive the funding that it needs is one of my top priorities.

In proposing the motion, the SDLP called for the introduction of further schemes to help first-time buyers, including the roll-out of an equity share help-to-buy scheme. However, lessons from other places teach us that simply putting more money into the hands of first-time buyers just inflates house prices. The schemes may help people on to the first step of the housing ladder at first, but, very soon, that first step just becomes even more unaffordable. I find myself repeating this: the answer lies in increasing housing supply. We need to increase the number of houses that we build. That will reduce pressure across the whole housing system, including for first-time buyers. That is where we should focus our collective efforts.

The Executive's housing supply strategy, published in December, provides a 15-year framework for the transformational change required to deliver increased supply across all tenures. It recognises that housing affordability is a growing problem. The first objective in the strategy is to ensure that we deliver more affordable supply and new products across all tenures. Work is under way to set up cross-departmental structures to develop the first short-term action plan. That work will consider the range of actions to be prioritised over the next few years and align to the five strategy objectives.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way to the Member.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Minister. I declare an interest as a first-time buyer. On a number of viewings that I have had recently, agents have talked about cash buyers coming in and, essentially, wanting to turn homes into Airbnbs, and, even when advised that that is not allowed, they seem to be continuing with that intention. Do you agree that there is a need for greater regulation of subletting in that way and, indeed, enforcement?

Mr Lyons: I agree with the Member; in fact, the impact that Airbnbs are having on housing in Northern Ireland has been raised many times in the Chamber, particularly how they are driving up costs in some of our tourist hotspots. I had a conversation on that topic with the now former Minister for the Economy, and I know that work was being taken forward on that to see how there could be greater regulation. What the Member said is yet more anecdotal evidence of people not caring about some of the rules that are already in place.

One of the products that I am taking forward is funding the delivery of a new supply of affordable intermediate rent homes, levering in additional private finance through a private operator. The intermediate rent scheme will provide good, affordable private rented housing with enhanced security of tenure to low-income households. The discounted rents, which are available at 80% of the rental cost on the open market, could help those who cannot yet afford to access homeownership to start to save towards a deposit.

We have had a number of contributions today. I have to say that I think that there is broad opposition around the Chamber to the SDLP's proposal. That is interesting, and the Deputy Chair was certainly forthright in her analysis of the situation. People should take note: when Gerry Carroll and I are on the same page

about the impact that equity loans will —.

Mr Durkan: That was my aim.

Mr Lyons: The Member says that that was his aim. He is obviously trying to bring us together in opposition to him, and he has certainly succeeded in that today.

The reason why there is such broad opposition to the proposal is that we can all see that simply injecting more money would just drive up the cost of homes and make them unaffordable for those who come next. Therefore, we should not take that approach. It has been tried elsewhere, and, where it has been tried, it has been recommended that it be withdrawn or it has been withdrawn, so, for goodness' sake, let us take an evidence-based approach, see what has gone before and make sure that we learn from that.

What is the key in all of this? The key for us is to increase housing supply. That is exactly what we are attempting to do through the housing supply strategy. We also continue to invest in areas where we have had great success, such as co-ownership, and I will keep pushing to ensure that they have the funding and resources necessary to provide an affordable path to homeownership for everyone who needs it. However, as I have said, the challenges in our housing market will not be solved by that alone. We have to increase housing supply across all tenures in Northern Ireland, and that will require a commitment from across the Executive.

To increase supply, we need to make it easier and more straightforward to build homes in Northern Ireland. That means that we have to look at planning regulation. We need to look at the role of statutory consultees, and I am pleased that, when I came into the Department, I identified an issue with the historic environment division and the length of time that it took to respond to consultation. I put extra resources in place, and we have seen a significant improvement in response times. We need to make sure that that happens across all statutory consultees. We need to deal with the waste water issues, zoning requirements and whatever else it may be. Let us take concerted action and work together to make sure that we make it as simple and straightforward as possible to build homes in Northern Ireland. That is what will tackle the issue, and I look forward to working with my Executive colleagues to deliver on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Colm, you have three minutes.

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

I start by thanking the Members who tabled the motion. At the outset, it is important to state that it has never been more difficult for young people to access the housing market as first-time buyers. Over recent decades, house prices have soared far beyond what most young people can reasonably afford to pay. That has left many of them locked out of homeownership with little or no prospect of ever owning their own home.

As my party colleague Ciara Ferguson stated, we have serious reservations about help-to-buy schemes as a means of supporting first-time buyers. Help-to-buy schemes have been shown to contribute to increases in house prices and have made little or no impact on the number of young people in homeownership.

That having been said, there is no doubt that more needs to be done to support first-time buyers. We need to see the delivery of the housing supply strategy, which will deliver over 100,000 homes in 15 years. Only by delivering the required housing supply to meet people's needs can we drive down house prices to an affordable level. We also need to ensure that wages are increased broadly in line with house prices as far as is possible, and creating and sustaining good jobs, particularly west of the Bann, will be an important aspect of improving living standards and wages.

Some interesting and valid points have been made in this afternoon's debate. I thank Members for that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Maurice, you have up to three minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very important motion for debate. While I agree with the use of some sort of equity-based help-to-buy scheme and broader interventions to support first-time buyers, there are potential drawbacks. A help-to-buy scheme, without a corresponding increase in housing supply, could increase demand, driving up house prices further and making homes even less affordable in the long run. The scheme would need to be paired with an aggressive housing supply expansion, including incentives for new builds, streamlined planning and public-sector development. I do not foresee there being much progress on increased housebuilding during this mandate, given the often highlighted lack of infrastructure. I also worry that any proposals could prevent those on lower incomes and those deemed to have lower mortgage affordability from purchasing. I ask this question: should assistance be limited to first-time buyers?

We have had a good debate. In the previous debate, Daniel McCrossan highlighted the need for hard decisions to be made in this place. That is what is necessary in order to make the improvements to the waste water, sewerage and fresh water infrastructure that would allow housing to be built. There are lots of hard decisions to be made in the House.

Mark Durkan raised concerns that co-ownership and the rent-to-own scheme have not been the success that they should have been. Ciara Ferguson urged extreme caution over any policy that could have a negative effect on housing stock and called for affordable, sustainable housing. Kellie Armstrong highlighted how low mortgage rates are as relevant today as they were years ago. She singled out first-time buyers' reliance on the Bank of Mum and Dad and called for continued work on the housing strategy. Diana Armstrong raised the problems of rising rents and mortgages, saying that they are putting greater pressure on social housing stocks. She also called for more affordable housing.

Sian Mulholland said that house prices are too high and that first-time buyers, because they need a £17,000 down payment, do not have the equity to get on the property ladder. Gerry Carroll said that the lack of housing has a negative effect on communities. He worries that help-to-buy schemes often benefit only the developers. David Brooks expressed concerns about cash buyers snapping up properties for Airbnb and buy-to-rent. Those and other concerns need to be carefully teased out to ensure sustainability. That is why I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cara Hunter to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Cara, you have up to five minutes.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members from across the House who have contributed to this important debate. Housing is a shared aim of us all. I recognise that it has been a good opportunity to promote and provoke a discussion on housing in our communities.

I will reiterate the experience of many across the North who are seeking to buy their first home. For too long, young people and families have faced unnecessary hurdles when trying to secure a family home. The Government have ignored the crisis that is unfolding in our housing market. So many people whom I meet in my Coleraine constituency office work days and nights — often in two to three jobs — but the rightful dream of owning their own home is so far away. As someone who is under 30 for the next year, I feel strongly about the young people who are keen to work hard, get on their feet and build a life for themselves and their family but are overlooked. They need increased support. Several of my friends, when they were approaching buying their first home, were heavily reliant on their parents, grandparents and family to gather a deposit, and those are the ones who were lucky enough to have familial support. So many others feel that the dream of owning a home is now dead. Sadly, they would much rather get out of Northern Ireland and save to go to Australia instead of putting roots down and growing their families here. That is the sad reality for so many.

Mr Gildernew spoke well in accurately acknowledging the cost-of-living crisis and highlighting the fact that it has put incredible pressure on families and young people who are seeking to build a life for themselves. I am contacted every day by families who are being crushed by the rising rents and bills. Many young people, as Ms Mulholland rightly mentioned, live with their parents. They do not want to rent, because they want to save for a house, but, while they are doing so, they feel that they are missing out on the joys of being 25, 26 or 27. I note that the lack of available housing is an issue north and south of the border, which, no doubt, contributes to a lack of well-being.

We are really in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. The average house price in Northern Ireland far exceeds what many first-time buyers can afford. Wages have not kept pace with house price inflation, and the cost-of-living crisis has made it increasingly hard to save for a deposit. There is much that we can do to support young people who are stuck in rental cycles with no clear path to homeownership. We need meaningful reforms and real solutions to tackle that.

With rising interest rates, mortgage affordability has become an even bigger challenge. Many families with whom I have spoken feel smothered by their mortgage, particularly when they are paying for things such as childcare on top of that. Recently, I spoke to a couple who had saved a deposit for a home. The first phase of homes had been affordable, and they were waiting for the second phase to be finished. In that time, the house price went up between £10,000 and £15,000. Builders face increased financial challenges in building affordable homes, and we should acknowledge that. Families are under significant stress, and it is locking more people of all ages out of the housing market.

An important thing to acknowledge that has been reiterated across the House and of which we have a shared understanding is that our big failure is the availability of social and affordable housing. Waiting lists continue to grow, and private rental costs are soaring, making it even harder for first-time buyers to save. What needs to come out of the debate is a commitment to building more affordable homes and to having a plan to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland has a fair chance of homeownership. It is also important to acknowledge that there are many hidden costs when you buy your first home. Young people are not always aware of those costs, such as legal fees, taxes and survey costs, which quickly add up. The Executive could do more around that. They should do everything that they can to challenge rising costs and regulate them.

I feel strongly that we can do more to support first-time buyers and ensure that we do not fail the next generation. If we really want Northern Ireland to be a place that our constituents are proud to call "home" and to build and grow the next generation in, we must do much more. Until then, we need to continue to have the conversation about how we can support first-time buyers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. 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 (Dr Aiken): Welcome, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Apologies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Not at all. I welcome the Finance Minister. Congratulations, John, and thank you for gracing us with your presence.

Mr McGlone: 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. All other Members who wish to speak will have three minutes. Patsy, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Agus mé ag moladh an rúin, ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Tionól go gcreidim go fíor, agus go daingean in aontacht phobail na tíre seo. Bíodh sin go síochánta, le cóimheas agus le comhréiteach ar mhaithe linn uile.

I believe in that passionately and have worked through many years to facilitate and bring about that aim.

We have outlined in the motion our many issues and proposals on positive cross-border cooperation and the benefits that can accrue from it. In doing so, I have to say that the Executive have shown a lack of ambition in their Programme for Government. Indeed, that contrasts very deeply with the detailed commitments that are in the Irish Government's Programme for Government on the Shared Island initiative and others. I will return to that in a moment or two. It is very important that we make the case for such cooperation, and it makes sense for economic integration. Many companies on this island, particularly in the agri-food and agriculture sectors and others, are already doing that. That emphasises the benefits of cross-border cooperation and shared economic planning. It is not just about that, because we could be working on many other issues together; however, that is not being done properly, whether it be health, the environment, education or the multitude of other key policy issues that both Governments could facilitate and work on on this island. There has been very little practical action from Sinn Féin on cross-border cooperation, despite its power to secure mechanisms, such as shared budgeting, and there has not really been any substantial progress on that.

We returned to the North/South Ministerial Council, which really has failed to live up to its full potential due to ongoing political instability, particularly the repeated suspension of the institutions here in the North. The Irish Government's Programme for Government commits to a comprehensive shared island programme, including funding for cross-border infrastructure, economic planning and healthcare integration. In contrast, the Northern Ireland Executive have yet to produce a final Programme for Government and have not prioritised cross-border cooperation.

A number of key asks in the SDLP manifesto were around the expansion of the Shared Island unit. We already have a commitment from the Irish Government for an additional €1 billion on that front. In their Programme for Government, there is a commitment to operate on a cross-border basis — North/South and east-west — in the area of renewable energy. They also refer to deepening:

Other issues include examining the establishment of an all-island skills task force, with a focus on planning, construction and infrastructure development; developing the vision set out in the all-island rail review; developing an all-island plan to improve water basin management, water quality and nature restoration; and creating an all-island nature and climate fund. All those issues were priorities in the SDLP manifesto, and they have been included in the Irish Government's visionary Programme for Government, which deals with North/South issues.

Economic modelling by ESRI confirms that greater economic integration would benefit both jurisdictions. Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic on key economic indicators. Increased collaboration could drive economic growth and investment. All the issues that I have highlighted are to our mutual benefit. Nobody can refuse them. Nobody can say, "No, we can't go with that".

Despite Sinn Féin's rhetoric on a united Ireland, there has been a failure to progress meaningful mechanisms such as shared budgeting, which could facilitate cross-border infrastructure projects and service delivery. From our point of view, our motion highlights the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to match the ambition of the Irish Government's Shared Island commitments. It calls for concrete actions in the form of shared budgeting —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Patsy, will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Mr McGlone: — to ensure practical cross-border cooperation in key areas such as healthcare, infrastructure and economic development. No one, but no one, can dispute that.

Mr Kearney: The effective operation of the North/South Ministerial Council is central to our peace settlement. Sinn Féin has consistently argued for the strengthening of the NSMC and expanded areas of all-Ireland cooperation. In the past, unionist boycotts and other attempts to disrupt effective all-island cooperation have, indeed, negatively impacted on the resilience of the NSMC. The reality is that no institutional strand of the Good Friday Agreement can be unpicked or set to the side without having negative consequences for the entire agreement framework.

All-Ireland cooperation is an essential condition for good government in the North and maintaining stable institutions. Shared approaches across the island on issues such as health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, climate and tourism all make sense. It is the way forward. However, Brexit, demographics, political realignments and the outworking of our peace process have all reshaped the political landscape, so constitutional change is on the political horizon. That is a powerful incentive to develop increased areas of all-island cooperation.

The Irish Government's new Programme for Government points to how increased cooperation can continue to be advanced. However, the new PFG does not address the need to systematically plan and prepare for Irish unity. The PFG, in fact, represents a failed opportunity to integrate current and future cooperation in key policy areas with a strategy for reunification as a political and policy objective. There is no explicit political recognition that a unity referendum under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement is, in fact, inevitable.

The PFG could and should have embraced a step change by designing an approach to support constitutional transition, and that should extend to establishing a citizens' assembly on unity, publishing a Green Paper on constitutional change and, indeed, establishing a Department with a Minister who is dedicated to the reunification process. The Irish Government should also begin a conversation with the British Government on developing an intergovernmental road map to enable a unity referendum within this decade and to prepare for a smooth path to Irish unity.

Members, change is happening. Increased cross-border cooperation carries huge transformative potential, but it is time for the Irish Government to frame that dynamic within the political objective of planning for Irish unity.

Ms Forsythe: I congratulate the Minister on his new role as Finance Minister.

The DUP supports practical, sensible and targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. People on both sides of the border share close economic and social ties, and we are pleased that those ties have improved significantly over the past 25 years. We do not feel that our British and unionist identity is under any 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. Indeed, the DUP wants that vital work to continue.

I represent the border constituency of South Down and see at first hand the benefits of assets such as the Carlingford ferry enhancing the economy on both sides of the border. However, the arrangements underpinning cross-border cooperation must have due regard for and respect the constitutional place and position of Northern Ireland. Crucially, they should also be accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. We make no apologies for the fact that the North/South Ministerial Council has not lived up to its potential, as the SDLP sees it. Prior to St Andrews and the safeguards that we secured at that time, there was scope for an expansive approach that undermined Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and was corrosive to local community relations.

It is unsurprising that the motion from the leader of the Opposition criticises the Executive's lack of ambition when it comes to cross-border cooperation, but he needs to accept that the political and economic conditions in this place are far removed from current events in Dublin. Mr O'Toole suggests that the Executive ought to replicate the additional €1 billion being invested in Shared Island initiatives by the new Irish Cabinet. Where does he propose we draw that funding from? What public services, which specific schools, hospitals and roads, does he suggest that that money be taken from? As Chair of the Finance Committee, he is acutely aware of our financial situation.

Does the leader of the Opposition also accept that, for unionist Ministers in the Executive, their ambition with respect to North/South cooperation will naturally be tempered by a desire to promote and strengthen links with their counterparts in Great Britain? Surely that goes without saying for unionist Ministers in the Executive and all unionists in the Assembly.

There are synergies in the two documents as we look at them. For example, the all-island rail review is listed as a priority in the Programmes for Government in Dublin and Stormont. We welcome that. The DUP believes that there is no contradiction between its pro-Union stance and support for growth-orientated and mutually beneficial expansion of transport links between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. As I said at the start, the DUP supports practical, sensible and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Can you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Ms Forsythe: — targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: I also wish the Minister well in his new role.

I have been at, I think, every Shared Island event and meeting that has happened in the South. Part of it comes from what reconciliation is and what it looks like in 2025. We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, so what does reconciliation look like in the next five, 10 or 15 years? For Alliance, reconciliation is a core value of our party. We work for a shared future. We sit outside the two ideologies of constitution — unionism and nationalism — but we give an inclusive alternative base for sharing and reconciliation. We do not form policy based on or filtered through the two uniteds — whether you want a United Kingdom or a united Ireland. We simply base our policy on evidence and research and the simple value of delivering better for everyone.

I was asked last week, or the week before last, to give the top three issues in Northern Ireland. My answer was health, education and the economy, and you can flip them around depending on the day, but all three require a shared island approach if we are to deliver solutions for people and to deliver better. Health should be fundamentally based on getting the best possible care: an all-island solution to deliver better, reduce waiting lists and provide better care as quickly as possible, with easy access for treatment.

Organising healthcare throughout the island would yield massive benefits. Children's cancer services are an example of that. A constituent of mine has a young girl who had to travel to Manchester for treatment. At her lowest and most vulnerable point, she had to go on a commercial flight, with all the potential to pick up bugs and infections, rather than there being a solution on the island that she could have availed herself of.

In education, let us look at giving our young people opportunities to study throughout the island, as well as to go across to England, Scotland and Wales. We need to remove the barriers to that. One of my kids went to university in England, and I have one in Dublin. In 1998, 10% of Trinity College students were Northern students, but, today, that figure is less than 1%.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, go ahead.

Ms K Armstrong: Why would we want to deny our young people opportunities to expand their knowledge base that may not be available in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the best way to do that is through partnership?

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

Mr Honeyford: Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. I totally agree. Recently, the Economy Committee looked at creating a north-west hub on the Magee campus. That is an example of collaboration. We could work with the Letterkenny campus to deliver a university there for young people on both sides of the border and enable them to access the highest level of education.

As regards our economy, we need to sell this island as one. Just as we do with tourism, we need to use relationships North and South to allow our businesses to scale, grow and export. Invest NI should work in collaboration with IDA Ireland, not try to compete with it. We are nowhere close to the economic figures of the South, and we are only 78% of the average UK gross value added (GVA). We need to focus on an all-island economy that exports to GB and has dual-market access and exports to the EU and world markets. We do not have manufacturing or dual-market access strategies, however. A lot of the manufacturing in the South is outside Dublin, so this would all feed into creating regional balance.

I started with reconciliation and I will end on it: what will reconciliation look like moving forward?

Mr Butler: The SDLP tabled the motion as an Opposition debate, but it is similar to the earlier motions in that, from my perspective and that of my party, it lacks a little detail in what it sets out. It is right to point to the North/South Ministerial Council and some of its failings. It has not met as it should have done, but, when it does, it is the correct vehicle for better cooperation on the island.

I am not sure what David Honeyford meant when he described the divisions that still exist. Are you talking about divisions North/South or in the Chamber? Having met many Southern counterparts from the Government that went out and the Government that is now in, I am not aware that there is that much of a rub between us; there is more of a rub in this House.

When Declan Kearney from Sinn Féin spoke — I am not criticising Declan for it, because his republican credentials are there for everybody to see every time he speaks — we heard how he sees this very much as another opportunity to advance the united Ireland project. As a unionist with huge ambitions for Northern Ireland and these islands, I think that that might be at the core of the drive. We have achieved much in the 27 years since the Good Friday Agreement, but could we do better?

The North/South Ministerial Council met over the border just before Christmas. We discussed issues including perinatal mental health and childcare. Our compatriots in the South share similar frustrations to those that we experience. I will be honest and say that it was a good forum, where we could share experiences. I have no issue with that. However, we have serious issues at hand in this Government. One of the things that concern me about Sinn Féin — I do not mean to focus on you guys — is that you sit in opposition in the South and in government in the North. When you criticise what is happening in the South, it is hard to see why it would be of any benefit to collaborate on some issues.

Now, there are areas in which collaboration is absolutely good, right and proper and has been shown to have value: tourism, for instance. I used to work in the Fire and Rescue Service, where there was cross-border cooperation and memorandums of understanding to allow services with very different configurations to operate well together. Certainly, more can be done. We know that the Minister of Health made a bid to the Executive for reintroduction of the cross-border reimbursement scheme, but, unfortunately, that did not get Executive support. That could make a fundamental difference to people's lives by driving down waiting lists.

This is a good enough topic for the SDLP to bring for debate. There is a long way to travel before it is exploited and expanded any further. I hope that some of the things that I said have registered with certain ears.

Mr Frew: First, I will state a fact and a truth, which is that we share this island. We absolutely share this island. The two states share this island. Many peoples share this island, and so it should be. That is the way that it is meant to be. That is the way that you would want to be treated by your neighbour in your development, and that is how you would want to treat your neighbour in your development. It is the same thing with states. We live on such a small island that, surely, it should not be that hard, but, of course, knowing our history, I can say that it has been hard. That is a real shame.

Back in the 1920s, we had an opportunity to share the island, and strides were made. However, that was undermined on many occasions. Collins, when he faced down the anti-treaty republicans, received support from, of all people, Winston Churchill and Britain, and he was armed. What did he do with those arms? He used the surplus to arm Frank Aiken to terrorise Northern Ireland. He undermined the state of Northern Ireland at every opportunity. There was the border campaign of the 1950s and the Provo campaign euphemistically called "the Troubles", which caused great despair and harm to all peoples, including the Catholic population of Northern Ireland. When you learn from our history, you can understand why we are not in the healthy place that we should be.

The mood and trend of the motion can be equally attributed to sharing these islands. The Opposition are not necessarily opposing or scrutinising the work of the Executive. Basically, they are pushing their constitutional position and philosophy into the amendment, which is OK. The Opposition have the right to put down motions as they see fit, but I would love to see them using more of their energy to convince the Westminster Government to understand this place better — all its arts and parts and all its people — so that, when we talk about sharing, we talk about sharing understanding throughout these islands. Believe it or not, even the British Isles are a small place, let alone the island of Ireland, so more work must be done in that regard. We would get a far better bang for our buck if we could convince Westminster to understand this place and all its diverse parts much better.

Mr McNulty: The motion highlights the stark reality that, despite the immense opportunities in effective cross-border cooperation, the North/South Ministerial Council has not lived up to its potential. The dividends of cooperation and working together are being squandered by political dysfunction. It is vital that we recognise and realise the immense opportunities that lie in building closer ties between the two parts of our island, opportunities that could reshape our economy, our healthcare system and our infrastructure for generations to come.

The Irish Government's programme for government, particularly its focus on Shared Island initiatives, shows a forward-thinking and ambitious approach. It acknowledges the importance of deepening cooperation across the island and fostering collaborative working in practical ways.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member find it strange, if not a tad hypocritical, that Executive parties here criticise the programme for government of the new Government of Ireland when, a year since getting this place back together and over 1,000 days since the last Assembly election, we have not seen a Programme for Government other than in draft form?

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

Mr McNulty: You took the words out of my mouth. It is, indeed, hypocritical.

I turn to the North. We have our first nationalist First Minister, but there is still no mention of a shared island in the Executive's Programme for Government — hypocritical indeed. A thousand days have passed since the last Assembly election, and still we have only a draft Programme for Government. There is a distinct lack of ambition when it comes to exploring and embracing the full potential of a shared island, and we must ask ourselves, "Why have the Executive been so reluctant to match the ambition demonstrated by the Irish Government? Why?".

The motion calls on the Minister of Finance:

That is a crucial step to addressing the deep-rooted issues that we face. Take cross-border cooperation on health. When it was working, the cross-border healthcare directive acted as a lifeline for people languishing on Northern waiting lists. Reimbursement for treatment in the Republic alleviated pressures on our waiting lists and, more importantly, provided people with timely access to healthcare and to improved health outcomes and overall quality of life. Another example of sensible partnership is found in the North West Cancer Centre, a life-changing initiative that allows people in the north-west to access cancer treatment without having to travel hundreds of miles.

I have long maintained that Daisy Hill Hospital in my constituency is unfairly disadvantaged because of its proximity to the border. In the eyes of the Department of Health, Daisy Hill is a peripheral hospital in a peripheral region: peripheral to what? Newry sits at the heart of the Belfast to Dublin corridor, the most populated region on this island, so I ask this again: peripheral to what? Throughout the pandemic, we heard repeatedly and saw writ large that illness does not recognise borders. That is the truth. If illness does not recognise borders, why should healthcare? Why should people in my constituency be expected to accept poorer access to healthcare and poorer health outcomes simply because they find themselves peripheral to a contrivance? Are we not entitled to expect a bit of ambition and forward thinking from our Executive? Where is the plan or even the plan for a plan to establish Daisy Hill Hospital as a cross-border area hospital?

Let me be clear: this is not about pushing the unity agenda for unity's sake, although I believe passionately in a reconciled, dynamic, diverse and united new Ireland. Rather, it is about recognising the potential for progress, prosperity and shared responsibility. It is about acting on the findings of best practice and expert research and investing in a future in which all the citizens of Ireland can benefit and flourish on a stronger, more interconnected island. I urge the Assembly to support the motion and to press both Governments to take the necessary steps to foster closer, more effective cooperation across the island. That starts here, not with pointing the finger at Dublin. Start it here. For the sake of our economy, our people and our future, let us embrace the transformative power of unity and cooperation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am delighted to be here this evening to address the House in my new role as Minister of Finance. I thank my colleagues in the Department for Infrastructure for all their hard work and assistance over the past year. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald. I am committed to building on the positive progress that Caoimhe made on our public finances.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It should come as no surprise that I do not just recognise the potential of cross-border cooperation but see it as a vital element of our daily work. It is crucial if we are to improve the quality of and access to public services across the island, particularly along the border and in more rural areas. Cooperation is also important to growing the all-island economy that will deliver a better standard of living for all our people. We saw the importance of partnership working most recently when Governments North, South, east and west focused on urgently supporting the people and communities hardest hit by storm Éowyn.

Of course it was disappointing that the North/South Ministerial Council could not meet when there was no Executive in place. Since Ministers returned this time last year, however, there have been two plenary meetings, one institutional meeting and 10 sectoral meetings, not to mention the bilateral meetings that will have taken place separately between Ministers or in the margins of those other meetings. Ministers and their officials have regularly engaged with their counterparts in the Irish Government to deliver for citizens, communities and the economy across the island. Last year, for example, my predecessor, Minister Archibald, had separate meetings with the Irish Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to discuss a range of important cross-border matters of relevance to my Department. She also accompanied our Minister of Education to the NSMC meeting in education sectoral format last year.

In my predecessor's meeting with Minister Donohoe, they discussed the vital work of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), which my Department sponsors jointly with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and, in particular, how the €1 billion PEACE PLUS programme would be delivered across the North and the island's border counties.

The North/South bodies, of which the SEUPB is one, are perhaps the most prominent examples of how cooperation can work and is working in practice, with each being funded by the Assembly and the Government in Dublin. We continue to work with the Irish Government through the PEACE PLUS programme, as we did through its previous iterations, to deliver transformative shared spaces and to strengthen cross-community and cross-border relationships. The Peace programmes have touched many areas of life here including health, the environment, the economy and transport. They have helped to deliver a new transport hub in Derry, which has improved connectivity in the north-west.

There are many other examples of what Ministers and their Departments are doing outside the formal North/South structures. For example, in my previous role as Minister for Infrastructure, I progressed the all-island strategic rail review with my counterpart in Dublin. That is an excellent example of how we can plan on an all-island basis. With sufficient time and funding, that should provide services that better complement the development of the north-west transport hub. We have recent examples of how that can work in practice. The increased frequency of the rail service between Belfast and Dublin is an example of how, under the current structures, we can work across government and across the island to connect communities, unlock economic benefits and have a positive impact on people's lives. That was enabled by funding allocations from government bodies, North and South, and it will be further enhanced by Peace funding. It is critical that we continue to engage and deliver through North/South cooperation in order to meet our shared challenges and objectives. An effectively functioning North/South Ministerial Council is essential to that work.

Many Members have touched on cooperation on health, including through the all-island congenital heart disease network, which is a single service for children and young people across the island that has been cited in the Irish Government's Programme for Government as an exemplar that could be followed when it comes to other healthcare matters. Other Members mentioned the North West Cancer Centre. Cooperation on health provides an excellent example of long-standing cooperation, but the Shared Island initiative has unlocked further opportunities for us to work together on an all-island basis.

Departments already work in partnership with their counterparts in the South on many aspects of the Shared Island initiative, with some co-funding having been provided. The Department for the Economy works collaboratively with a range of Irish Government Departments on areas of mutual interest, including the single electricity market and on energy more generally. It is working closely with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to develop a new shared-island enterprise scheme that will focus on female entrepreneurship, cross-border networks, clusters and collaborative cross-border green investment. That is green as in green not green as in green. [Laughter.]

That will strengthen all-island coordination and all-island research and increase scale through inter-agency collaboration. The Department of Education's RAISE programme is another example of how collaboration across the island supports people in the areas of most need.

The announcement of an additional €1 billion allocation from the Irish Government to their Shared Island Fund and the introduction of Shared Island targets for each Department in the South are extremely welcome. Looking ahead to the Chancellor's spending review, I am hopeful that new regional growth funds will be made available to our Executive, enabling us to unlock new investment opportunities.

We have an ambitious draft Programme for Government that sets out clear priorities and our longer-term mission. As we strive to do what matters most, we must be mindful of opportunities to maximise value wherever we share common goals that are aligned or complement each other and build on the existing strong joint working. The draft Budget for 2025-26, which, as Members know, is out for consultation, sets out the suggested funding that is available to Departments to do that next year. Unfortunately, the fiscal position is highly constrained because of decisions taken elsewhere. That only strengthens the need to exploit existing opportunities for greater collaboration.

I noted Members' reference to the new macroeconomic model, which was produced jointly by the Economic and Social Research Institute and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. That is an exciting development, and their report clearly demonstrates the interdependence of the all-island economy and how we benefit from having close economic relationships on these islands and internationally. The new economic model will improve our understanding of how the economy here operates and help to give us a deeper insight into how much we can target investment and growth. I look forward to seeing how the model is used and evolves over the coming years. My officials, along with officials from the Department for the Economy, are engaging with the researchers to establish how we can harness the model to inform considerations in that regard. The new model really helps to show why North/South cooperation is so important.

In closing, let me say that I have set out how Ministers have been meeting regularly on a North/South basis since the institutions were restored this time last year, including via the North/South Ministerial Council. There are strong examples of how Departments are working together to deliver better outcomes on a cross-border and all-island basis. Again, just last week, First Minister Michelle O'Neill held discussions with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste not only on the storm but on the importance of delivering transformative projects, such as the A5 and Casement Park, which have the potential to bring real, lasting change to communities across the island.

Looking forward, we will continue to build on the cooperation that there has been so far in order to deliver better infrastructure and public services for all our citizens. Growing the all-island economy through deeper North/South cooperation will increase prosperity right across and benefit all parts of the island. In these times of limited resources, we must continue to work in partnership and collaboratively with the Irish Government to exploit existing opportunities. I am committed and look forward to continuing to deepen our relationship across the island, formally through the NSMC and informally. In doing so, we can better coordinate our efforts to invest in public services and delivery across the island. That is the best way to maximise the impact of our spending in order to deliver on our Programme for Government and our plan and to make real changes for the people whom we all represent.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I call on Matthew O'Toole to conclude and wind on the debate. Matthew, you have up to five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Five minutes is, of course, nowhere near long enough to cover the breadth of Members' contributions and the importance of the subject.

It is important to say a couple of things at the start. Lots of Members talked about constitutional change. Indeed, as my two colleagues said, our party proudly aspires to constitutional change on this island and is unabashed about that. However, it is important to say that the motion does not mention constitutional change. It does not oblige anyone to support a united Ireland, but lots of people went there pretty quickly and felt that it was important to critique it from, for example, a unionist perspective, because they felt that it was committing them.

As a representative who believes in a new and united Ireland, I want the Northern Ireland Executive to work collaboratively with the UK Government as well as they possibly can. I want the maximum financial settlement, and I want collaboration. That does not undermine or change my view of the constitutional future. It is sensible and obvious. The motion does not threaten anybody, and it is completely rational. It is completely rational because of what is in the joint ESRI-NIESR report. I am glad, to be fair to the Minister, that he referenced that report. The report is, in a sense, an east-west collaboration between ESRI in Dublin and the National Economic and Social Research Institute in London. They have found the potential benefits. The report is a look at how a model of the Northern Ireland economy could be built to see how it could interact on an all-island basis. However, they missed the very real potential not only for economic growth but for joint investment in things such as infrastructure.

That is why our motion is not simply about the end of the NSMC meetings. North/South Ministerial Council meetings are important. The DUP thwarted them for years on end, which was a crude violation of the Good Friday Agreement and the ministerial Pledge of Office. However, meetings are not an end in themselves. Simply showing up and having meetings are not the outputs that our citizens seek. Transformative partnership is what we need to see, whether that is in the provision of healthcare or the delivery of infrastructure.

The Shared Island unit has marked a step change. The aspirations that are in the Irish Government's Programme for Government are significant. Declan Kearney made some comments about that not going far enough on Irish unity. There is some legitimacy to what he says, but I also say this: would that the Northern Executive match that. Sinn Féin Ministers hold the three biggest economic Departments — Finance, Economy and Infrastructure. I would like to see Sinn Féin Ministers show what they are doing to build the structures and muscle memory of North/South cooperation, rather than simply pushing it to Dublin all the time. I will hold him to his word and his colleagues to account.

I did not quite hear from the Minister a commitment to push for shared budgeting on a whole range of things. Shared budgeting would be an important step forward. There are some areas of shared budgeting. Diane Forsythe, my very able Deputy Chair in the Finance Committee, asked me this about shared budgeting:

to match the Irish Government. I will answer two of her points. Nowhere in our motion do I say that we should exactly match the Irish Government. Here is one of the reasons why: we cannot afford to. Why can we not afford to? It is because their economy is much stronger and healthier than ours and because they generate loads more tax than we do.

I acknowledge that Diane said that healthy North/South cooperation does not threaten anyone from a unionist or British perspective. I welcome that. It is important that she acknowledged that. She is right. All the unionist representatives who spoke acknowledged that. That is a positive step forward in how we debate these things in this place.

David Honeyford, as always, is very engaged on these subjects. I say this in the nicest possible way: I and, I think, one or two others from both a unionist and nationalist perspective slightly bristle at the idea that having a view on the constitution — my view is that the island of Ireland will function better when there is not an international border on it — is some profound failing, that it is a rigid ideology, and that only the Alliance Party is smart enough and ethical enough not to hold to such rigid, outdated ideologies. That is not me, nor is it my party.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, because you are going to get me an extra minute.

Mr Butler: I mean this very respectfully: some members of the Alliance Party do hold constitutional views. In fact, the late Anna Lo was not shy about sharing hers. She was commended by Kate Nicholl, because she was seen as being very brave for having shared that.

Mr O'Toole: You have put that on the record. Anna Lo —.

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

Mr O'Toole: I am going to move on to some other points.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way? No?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way, because I do not have enough time. We can talk about it outside the Chamber. It is not really the main thrust of what we are talking about.

The purpose of our motion is not to presuppose a constitutional outcome but to talk about the potential for building cooperation on this island. I have no qualms about saying that I think that we will be much better off when there is not a border on the island of Ireland. For a whole range of reasons, the best future for Northern Ireland is back in a new Ireland, inside the European Union. However, until we get there, and even if we do not get there, which is the aspiration of unionist Members, we need to grow and deepen North/South cooperation. We need much more ambition than we have in the current Northern Programme for Government, which has very little. Justin McNulty talked passionately, as he does, about healthcare provision in Daisy Hill. He is exactly right: whatever your view on the border in the long term, it should not be the limits of our aspiration or ambition for our people. We should see beyond it, whether that is building all-island rail infrastructure, green jobs for our people, better healthcare or all the other opportunities.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.