Official Report: Monday 03 March 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we begin, I extend a warm welcome to the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil Éireann, Verona Murphy TD, who is making her first official visit to Parliament Buildings and is present in the Speaker's Gallery. I know that she is used to a more rumbustious outfit than we have at Stormont, but that is no excuse for Members to start misbehaving today. I am sure that Members will all be on their best behaviour. Ms Murphy, we sincerely welcome you today and thank you for your attendance.

Mr Sheehan: Tá tús curtha ag peileadóirí agus iománaithe Aontroma ar a bhfeachtais sraithe náisiúnta, agus tá cluiche Chraobh Uladh le himirt sa bhaile i gcoinne churaidh na hÉireann, Ard Mhacha.

Bhí cluiche na craoibhe le himirt in ionad baile Aontroma — Páirc Mhic Ásmaint ó cheart. Ina áit sin, imríonn foirne Aontroma i bPáirc Uí Chorragáin. Ach tá fadhb ann, nó níl Páirc Uí Chorragáin mór go leor don fhreastal mhór daoine a bhfuiltear ag dréim leis. Ar an drochuair, in áit dul chun páirce le curaidh na hÉireann, bhí ar imreoirí, ar bhainisteoireacht agus ar bhord Aontroma dul i mbun feachtais eile in aghaidh an athraithe ionaid a bhí beartaithe, rud a d’fhágfadh foireann Aontroma faoi mhíbhuntáiste. D'aontaigh Coiste Uladh an tseachtain seo caite go n-imreofaí an cluiche i gContae Aontroma, rud a thabharfadh an buntáiste baile do fhoireann Aontroma, mar ba cheart. Ní bheadh sé sin ina fhadhb dá mbeadh Páirc Mhic Ásmaint réidh.

Bliain eile, séasúr eile, moill eile ar fhorbairt Pháirc Mhic Ásmaint.

Tá níos mó i gceist le Páirc Mhic Ásmaint ná staid de chuid CLG ag painéil an chontae: is mol pobail í, is buaicphointe do Ghaeil óga í, agus é mar aidhm acu cluiche a imirt inti an lá is faide anonn.

Bhíothas le cluiche de chuid Euro 2028 a imirt i bPáirc Mhic Ásmaint, plean a chuir sceitimíní ar thoghthóirí, nó chuirfeadh cluiche chomh tábhachtach sin borradh mór eacnamaíochta faoin cheantar. Ba mhór a rachadh an borradh eacnamaíochta sin chun sochair don toghcheantar, chomh maith leis na poist a chruthófaí de thairbhe lucht leanúna spóirt agus lucht freastalta ceolchoirmeacha.

Ach fealladh ar na gealltanais a tugadh, agus is léir uaidh sin gur bealadh taobh amuigh de bhéal a thugtar dár gcluichí, dár gcultúr agus dár bpobal.

Níl aon mhoill le déanamh sa scéal seo. Ní mór Páirc Mhic Ásmaint a fhorbairt chomh luath agus is féidir.

Mr Brooks: I welcome the Prime Minister's resolute commitment to Ukraine, as demonstrated by the announcement of a £1·6 billion support package that includes the provision of over 5,000 air defence missiles that will be manufactured right here in East Belfast. That initiative not only reinforces our dedication to international peace and European security but carries significant implications for our workforce in Northern Ireland.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is not a distant concern, and the overwhelming support for Ukraine has been clear across our communities and the UK since the beginning of the conflict. The missiles that are destined for Ukraine's defence will be manufactured by Thales in its Castlereagh facility. Members will have noted that that is projected to create 200 jobs and sustain hundreds more, thus invigorating our local economy and reaffirming Northern Ireland's pivotal role in global defence manufacturing. I welcome that as a constituency MLA and as the deputy chair of the all-party group (APG) on aerospace, defence, security and space, which was established by and is chaired by my colleague Steve Aiken.

Thales's presence in Belfast has long been a cornerstone of our defence industry. The company's expertise in producing high-precision weaponry, including the renowned STARStreak, which is a lightweight, multirole missile system, has positioned it as a clear leader in the defence sector. Perhaps none of its products has been more renowned than the next generation light anti-tank weapon (NLAW), which became such a symbol of Ukrainian resistance in the early stages of the illegal Russian invasion. It gave local communities significant pride to know that that was Belfast's contribution to opposing tyranny. The recent surge in demand has led to a doubling of production at Thales's Northern Ireland facilities, with expectations of further growth. The collaboration between Thales and the UK Government exemplifies the synergy between public commitment and private industry. The Government's strategic investment not only bolsters Ukraine's defence capabilities but ensures the sustainability and expansion of our local industries. The partnership highlights the indispensable role that our skilled workforce plays in addressing global challenges.

The development is a testament to the dedication and world-leading expertise of the employees of Thales in Northern Ireland, who contribute to the defence of sovereignty and preservation of peace on an international scale. Their products are symbols of solidarity with the people of Ukraine, embodying our collective stand against aggression and support for democratic values. Moreover, the initiative serves as a catalyst for economic growth in our community. The creation of new jobs and the reinforcement of existing ones will have a ripple effect that will benefit not only those who are employed directly by Thales but the broader local economy.

The Prime Minister's statement underscores a broader vision for Europe's security architecture. His determination to assemble a coalition of willing nations to support Ukraine, while underlining the necessity of US backing and continuing cooperation with our closest ally, is welcome. There is a need for European nations to contribute more significantly to the region's defence and perhaps a greater need for those who have been freeloading under a guise of neutrality for so long to pay more than lip service to the defence of democratic values.

Ms Egan: I rise to speak of the absolute necessity of expanding the scope of the pending Southport public inquiry to include in its terms of reference Northern Ireland and other nations across the UK. What happened in Southport last summer was evil, senseless and incomprehensible. We all must learn lessons to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. Three little girls, Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King and Elsie Dot Stancombe, were horrifically murdered, and 10 more were injured by an individual who had previously been referred three times to the anti-extremism programme, Prevent. It is clear that there were failings, and a public inquiry is needed.

As well as looking at that individual case, the inquiry will examine the wider issue of youth violence and extremism. That is a challenge that is, sadly, common across the UK. The online world is constantly growing and uncontrollable, filtering in extremism and facilitating actions of violence across all our communities. Entrenched attitudes of racial hatred and social media misinformation have reached the phones of our young people. There are no borders in online spaces, and very few ways to police and stop the spread of such toxic content.

Youth violence and extremism have unique characteristics in Northern Ireland, where we see our local young people being groomed into violence and wider criminality by paramilitary gangs. It is also incredibly relevant to the Executive's strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls as the online world is driving the very violence that we are all dedicated to tackling. It would be an incredibly worthwhile exercise to extend the scope of the pending independent public inquiry to include Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland and Wales, so that we can collaboratively develop a holistic approach to those major challenges. Alliance's MP, Sorcha Eastwood, wrote to the Home Secretary last week to make that clear, and I reiterate that call today.

Dr Aiken: Before I start my remarks, I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on aerospace, defence, security and space.

Last week, in the Oval Office, we saw a dramatic but long-signalled change in our geopolitical world. I am afraid that certainties about our transatlantic relationship, which was first established 82 years ago by a boiler-suited Prime Minister and his US contemporary, are no longer there. Probably rightly, the US complained that Europe has been ignoring its defensive security for far too long. As 'good Europeans', we cannot ignore that reality. On Sunday, the Prime Minister made clear that we are at a once-in-a-generation moment when it comes to the security of Europe. While we must all wish him well in his attempts to create a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, it is difficult to see how it could lead to a peace that the dictator Putin finds acceptable.

No matter the Prime Minister's laudable peace efforts, we will have to rearm, as will the rest of Europe. We know from history that the failure to deter means a much heavier price later on. We in Northern Ireland will have our part to play. The welcome announcement of the £1·5-billion-plus order for Thales is a great start. Our industries have capacity and capability that will be needed. There is much that our R&D sector can and must contribute in everything from cyber, AI and novel materials. There will also be a strategic role when it comes to our food and energy security.

We will also continue to serve with pride in our armed forces, placing ourselves at the forefront of deterrence. However, our Executive cannot be half in, half out. It is regrettable that Sinn Féin and People Before Profit are outliers when it comes to condemning Russia's attacks on Ukraine. Instead, Sinn Féin and Ireland's far-left MEPs have, bizarrely, blamed the West, when they should have been blaming Putin. Our Economy Ministry and Invest NI must not throttle but promote investment in our defence and security sectors. Remember: despite what those parties think, Russia threatens us all, regardless of identity.

It is noteworthy that Ireland, now recognising the threat, is looking to invest in undersea cable protection with the Royal Navy. It is, at last, building an air force that has actual fighter aircraft, and it is becoming more closely integrated with the European defence structures. For that, the Irish Government should be applauded by all parts of the House, as the security of the Republic of Ireland is also our security.

Finally, maybe we can look forward to a joint statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, all the Executive parties and the leader of the Opposition that supports the Prime Minister's initiative and welcomes his call for increased defence spending across all these islands. Slava Ukraini.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome Verona Murphy to the Assembly.

Today marks the beginning of Endometriosis Awareness Month, which highlights an issue that is really close to my heart. One in 10 women will be impacted by endometriosis, which roughly translates to 1·5 million women in the UK. It could impact on anywhere up to 50,000 women in Northern Ireland, yet many are unaware of the condition and the profound impact that it has on the lives of those who are affected.

Nine and a half years: that is the average time that it takes for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis. There is only one specialist endometriosis clinic in Northern Ireland, which is held once a month. Given that fact, it comes as no surprise that it takes so long to be diagnosed. How can there be only one clinic once a month for a condition that progresses so quickly and the prevalence of which is so widespread? Women's healthcare in the North is shocking. Women are expected to deal with endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions with little or no support. They are often told that it cannot be treated or that doctors are not sure what is causing the pain. Women in Northern Ireland deserve better.

Many constituents have reached out to me to detail their healthcare experiences, and, frankly, their stories are deeply upsetting. One of my constituents cried sorely as she spoke of the delayed treatment following her diagnosis, which has prevented her from ever having a child of her own. The really sad part is that a timely diagnosis and treatment would have made that outcome not inevitable. The way the health system has let those patients down is painful, and the consequences of those experiences are often long-lasting. The impact on their loved ones and their families' lives must not be understated. I have met many women who have had to give up their successful careers due to the vicious nature of the spread of the disease to multiple organs in their body.

The lack of women's healthcare in Northern Ireland has resulted in some seeking private healthcare: that is not right. Women should not have to choose between financial strain and accessing gynae healthcare because our health system has failed them. That is why women's healthcare needs to be a priority. This month and beyond, I urge my fellow Members to continue advocating for better healthcare for women in Northern Ireland by raising awareness of the difficulties that women face day in, day out. As we mark Endometriosis Awareness Month, I urge Members to support women to be diagnosed and treated for that debilitating disease in a timely manner so that they can move forward to have fulfilling lives with good health outcomes.

Ms Ferguson: Child mental health and access to services is an issue that is close to my heart as a mother, a sister, an aunt and a grandmother. If any one of us were to review the child and adolescent mental health statistics, we would see that the situation is just not acceptable. Consistently, over 2,000 children and young people are waiting for an initial assessment, and over 1,200 are waiting way past nine weeks — sometimes six months and sometimes a year.

The recent statistics for the Western Health and Social Care Trust area, at 31 December 2024, show that 513 children and young people throughout that area are waiting for an assessment, while the figure for the year before was 372. It is not getting any better. Additionally, almost 70% — 353 of the 513 — of those referred to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) are experiencing unacceptable delays in accessing support, with waiting times exceeding the nine-week target. I have written to the Minister of Health to ask for his assessment of those recent statistics, and I am sure that he will share my assessment that any hold-up in that regard is deeply disappointing.

The outworkings of those statistics can have significant consequences for the children and young people who are waiting for help. I speak regularly to parents and grandparents who are watching their loved ones struggle with anxiety, panic attacks, low moods, dealing with bereavement, trauma or emotional difficulties. For young people in crisis, immediate interventions can be paramount to ensuring their recovery. Equally, any considerable delay can discourage them from continuing to seek further much-needed support. Imagine building up the courage to finally ask for help, only to be told that you have to wait, maybe for months.

We know that too many young people are now presenting with high levels of complex need. They deserve effective and timely treatment. We have a duty to alleviate their suffering and support them to continue to flourish in education, support, volunteering, employment, building relationships and life more generally. Whilst the mental health strategy that runs until 2031 commits to the promotion of acting early, preventing mental ill-health and providing the right support at the right time, we should all re-emphasise today the importance of getting to grips with the existing delays that continue to happen. I call on the Minister of Health to ensure that no child is left behind. Much support is needed, and we need to ensure that children and young people are supported to get the right care from the right person at the right time.

Mr Robinson: I want to wish good luck to Limavady Grammar School's 1st XV rugby team, which will pitch itself in battle against Ballyclare High School at the Kingspan Stadium this Wednesday in the Danske Bank Ulster Schools' Bowl final.

The road to the final was not easy, with the team having battled with Friends' School in the semi-final, eventually winning the contest 12-10, and, at 27-21, the team won against Portadown College in the quarter-final. My understanding is that few, if any, tickets for the game remain such has been the response from the school's pupils, with supporters' buses set to be packed.

I congratulate the team and its coaches for getting this far. I say, "Well done" to all the boys. Enjoy this very special moment in your lives. They should all be very proud of themselves, and, from the Northern Ireland Assembly, Parliament Buildings, I wish you all the very best for your big day on Wednesday, and I hope that you bring the trophy home.

Ms Mulholland: I take this opportunity to correct the record and respond to comments made during last week's private renters debate by a fellow Member for North Antrim. During the debate, Mr Gaston claimed that so-called uncontrolled immigration was driving up rents, particularly in deprived areas, such as in certain parts of North Antrim. That claim is completely false, and it is vital that the Chamber does not allow misinformation to go unchallenged, so let me put the facts on record.

The most recent census data is clear: 86% of all housing in Northern Ireland is occupied by people born here. In North Antrim, that figure actually rises to 88%. In the private rented sector, 72% of tenants across Northern Ireland were born here, rising to 73% in North Antrim. In social housing, 88% of tenants across Northern Ireland were born here, rising to 89% in North Antrim. In owner-occupied housing, the picture is the same: 89% across Northern Ireland, rising to 91% in North Antrim.

If immigration was truly driving up rents, we would expect to see a much higher proportion of private renters being migrants or clear links between migration hotspots and rising rents, and that is simply not the case across the entirety of the Province. The latest official data shows that net migration represents just 0·3% of our 1·9 million population — a tiny fraction. To describe that as uncontrolled is wildly misleading. To suggest that a small number of people could cause a housing crisis is simply not credible.

The answer to the question of what is driving up rents is no mystery. It is a chronic shortage of social housing, rising construction costs, delays in the planning process, water infrastructure that cannot support new development, and, of course, the growing Airbnb effect whereby properties that could house families are instead being turned into short-term lets, which is something that we see across North Antrim. That is the real housing crisis.

Mr Gaston also conveniently ignored the positive contribution that people from other countries make to our society, particularly in North Antrim. A total of 900 migrants work in health and care roles, filling essential vacancies to keep services running. Over 180 migrants in North Antrim work in education, helping to teach our children. Migrants play a vital role in agriculture, hospitality and local businesses, keeping North Antrim's economy afloat, and I thank them for that.

The reality is that racist incidents in Northern Ireland now regularly exceed sectarian incidents. In 2023 alone, there were over 1,300 racist incidents compared with 1,091 sectarian incidents. That is the power of misinformation, demonisation and the othering of our fellow human beings. Blaming immigration for a housing crisis is not just wrong; it is dangerous scapegoating and a deliberate distraction from the real work that the Assembly should be doing. The truth is straightforward: our housing crisis will not be solved by blaming migrants; it will be solved by better decisions, better investment and better government.

Mr Gildernew: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Cheann Comhairle agus roimh na hoifigigh eile ón Dáil chuig an Tionól anseo inniu.

Cuirfear tús ar Sheachtain na Gaeilge inniu, coicís d'imeachtaí bríomhara lena ndéanfar ceiliúradh ar neart na Gaeilge nach bhfuil inse béil air agus ar an áit thábhachtach atá ag an Ghaeilge inár sochaí. Tá an teanga ag borradh léi, agus bíonn sí le feiceáil thart timpeall orainn gach lá, rud a bheadh doshamhlaithe tá tamall beag gairid ó shin féin. Seirbhísí aistriúcháin agus ateangaireachta anseo sa Tionól, comharthaíocht tráchta agus sráide i gcodanna den Cheathrú Ghaeltachta, Acht na Gaeilge, fógraí as Gaeilge ar an chóras iompair phoiblí, straitéisí Gaeilge na gcomhairlí, agus coimisinéir le bheith ann amach anseo; níl iontu sin ach cuid de na céimeanna chun tosaigh atá déanta againn mar shochaí.

Is í an Ghaelscolaíocht an earnáil is mó fás san oideachas. Ní raibh riamh oiread páistí ag roghnú bheith ag foghlaim tríd an Ghaeilge, in ainneoin a mbíonn de dhúshláin roimh scoileanna agus múinteoirí gach aon lá. Sin ráite, ní san oideachas amháin atá fás mór faoin Ghaeilge. Tá méadú suntasach ag teacht ar úsáid na Gaeilge sna healaíona, sa spórt agus inár bpobail ar fud an oileáin.

Agus Seachtain na Gaeilge ar siúl, molaim do gach duine sult a bhaint as an cheiliúradh is mó sa bhliain ar an Ghaeilge agus ar chultúr na Gaeilge agus páirt a ghlacadh in imeachtaí áitiúla. Tá moladh tuillte ag na daoine sin a d'eagraigh imeachtaí faoi choinne Sheachtain na Gaeilge as a gcuid oibre.

Leanfaimid orainn ag cur na Gaeilge chun cinn lena chinntiú gur féidir le hathbheochan na teanga dul i neart go gasta ar fud an oileáin. Ach ní mór maoiniú cóir a bheith mar chuid de sin.

Mrs Dodds: On 22 February, news reports came through that over 70 Christians had been murdered — beheaded — in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to reports from multiple groups that monitor terrorism and persecution, the 70 Christians were beheaded with machetes or other large knives by Islamic militants in the DRC, yet the world remains silent on the slaughter. The 70 Christians were rounded up by Allied Democratic Forces, a group that is said to be affiliated with the terror group Islamic State, or ISIS, according to Open Doors, which monitors Christian persecution around the world. All were reportedly from Mayba in the territory of Lubero and were forced out of their homes on the morning of 13 February, with the rebels telling them to get out, yet the world remains silent.

They were taken hostage and moved to a small Christian church in the village of Kasanga. Inside the building, which, until then, had been considered a sanctuary, they were first tied up, before all 70 of them were beheaded — 70 men, women and children were beheaded — yet the world remains silent. A coordinator of a local community protection committee is quoted by the global fight against terrorism funding organisation as saying:

yet the world remains silent.

While I am an elected Member of the House, I will continue to raise such issues in order to highlight the ongoing persecution of Christians in so many parts of the world. We simply cannot remain silent.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: Over the past few weeks, we have discussed in the House the deaths of four IRA terrorists who set out with murderous intent to kill police officers. Today, I will talk about the carnage that such gangs created for police families. Forty years ago, on 28 February 1985, the Provisional IRA launched a despicable mortar bomb attack on the police station in Newry. The attack killed nine RUC officers and injured over 40 others. It would become the highest death toll ever recorded or suffered by the RUC. A 50 lb mortar bomb was launched off the back of a lorry on to the top of a Portakabin in which serving officers were having their lunch.

The nine dead officers ranged in age from 19 to 40 years old. Seven of them were male and two female, while seven of them were Protestant and two Catholic.

John Dowd, Denis Price, Alexander Donaldson, Paul McFerran, Ivy Kelly, David Topping, Geoffrey Campbell, Sean McHenry and Rosemary McGookin: officers killed while serving our community. That is the type of action for which the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, said there was no alternative. Those are the types of officers who face trauma to this day. Forty were injured on that day, and people who set out to do a day's work, protecting communities, were killed. We cannot go silent, folks. We cannot allow the narrative to be rewritten. Those officers set out to protect life. That stands in stark contrast to the actions of the cowards who attempted to take theirs.

That was not the only attack. Following that successful attack in Newry, the IRA carried out a further nine mortar bomb attacks. The loss for the policing family was hugely significant. Those were men and women who had signed up to protect the rule of law. We must never fall silent in honouring their memory. We must never allow the narrative to be rewritten. We must always mark their sacrifice. Over 300 officers were killed during the Troubles. They will never be forgotten.

Mr Speaker: You have two minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Last month, we learned that the Information Commissioner's Office had ruled that the councillors behind the illegal call-in to stop the flying of the Union flag at war memorials in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area will not be named. My message is simple: if public representatives are not prepared to be named when it comes to their decisions, they should not be entrusted by the electorate to make those decisions. Transparency and accountability are essential to build public confidence. Allowing those councillors' names to remain hidden further erodes the electorate's trust in their elected representatives.

I will also highlight some facts about the Executive Office and its commitment to respond to FOI requests. In the aftermath of a meeting of the Executive Office Committee for which the First Minister was provided with questions in advance, and during which Mrs O'Neill was shielded from further questioning by the Chair, I lodged two FOI requests: one asking for all information relating to the meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and another requesting information relating to the decision to request that meeting. That was in November 2024. I was promised a response to my first FOI request by 16 January 2025, and my other request has simply been ignored. More than three months later, TEO has not provided any of the requested information. It is important to remember that FOI requests should be dealt with within 20 days.

Whether at the level of the councils or the First Minister and deputy First Minister, it is time for there to be openness and transparency throughout government in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for sticking to the time, Mr Gaston.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours for the debate. The First Minister and deputy First Minister will have up to 40 minutes that they may divide, at their discretion, between moving the motion and making a winding-up speech. The leader of the Opposition will have 10 minutes in which to speak, and all other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. I call the First Minister to open the debate.

Mrs O'Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I also take the opportunity to welcome Verona Murphy, Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann, to the Assembly on such a significant day. It is significant because today is a significant milestone for the Executive as we introduce the finalised Programme for Government (PFG).

On taking up office, we promised to create hope and opportunity. We pledged to work for everyone and reassured people that we would be on their side. We said that we would work together and show that power-sharing could succeed and that, under our leadership, this would be an Executive of partnership and an Executive of progress.

On 3 February, it was one year since devolution was restored and I took up my position as First Minister. Somebody commented on that day that the challenges that so many families face throughout the North are the same no matter where they come from or what they believe. It is those shared problems that we have to focus on. It is those shared problems that blight too many lives and that we can work together on constructively and urgently to address. I also said that, as an Executive, we would not always agree on everything, but there are many things that we will agree on, and those are the things that we should focus on. We agreed that families need support to deal with the cost of childcare. We agreed that our teachers need support and that our public-sector workers need properly paid. We all agree that drugs destroy communities and that the police need resources to put the dealers out of business. We all can agree that economic prosperity is a game changer for every community.

Those are all major issues that face our society and that we are committed to tackling head-on. That is why they are now reflected in the Programme for Government as our priorities. It is a programme that sets out what matters most today. I believe that the Programme for Government shows what we need to prioritise to make this a better place to live, work and invest in. However, we know that, to do that, we must invest in and improve our public services.

Every Member of the Chamber is aware of the challenging financial context in which we are operating. Budgets are exceptionally tight. That is why reform and transformation are central to the Programme for Government. I am pleased to say that good progress has been made to lay the foundations of that transformation. We have established a new delivery unit in the Executive Office to provide support to the Executive in reforming and transforming our struggling public services. That work is underpinned by a £235 million transformation fund that will make much-needed investments to deliver better, more accessible and more efficient public services.

The Programme for Government does not belong to just the Executive; it belongs to every one of us here. We want the plan to deliver for everyone, which is why the consultation period was so important. A total of 1,400 responses was received. That is a greater response than to any previous Programme for Government consultation. We are grateful to every individual and organisation that took the time to respond. Your feedback has helped to strengthen the Programme for Government, because we have listened to what you had to say. As a result, we have introduced targets and annual objectives that will be updated each year in alignment with our Budget. We have stepped up our commitments to all communities and are doing more for older people and rural communities.

As well as our nine priorities, we recognised the need to build new foundations and improve our infrastructure to facilitate delivery. By investing in water and waste water, roads and transport, we will encourage businesses to invest, enable housebuilding and support greater energy efficiency and affordability. Those investments will also improve our sporting infrastructure, help to create a healthier society and attract world-class events.

All of us in the Executive agree that our obligations do not end with this mandate. To realise our vision of a brighter future, it is vital that we lay the foundations needed for longer-term improvements. Shaping a better tomorrow is an important part of the programme. In it, we have set three long-term missions: people, planet and prosperity. Those missions are underpinned by an overarching and cross-cutting commitment to peace. They provide us with a driving ambition for the future and a lens through which to prioritise and ensure that we deliver improved well-being, long-term sustainability and a thriving economy.

We believe that the Programme for Government reflects the shared ambitions of the Executive, and I commend all Ministers for their commitment and the collaborative approach that they took to the development of the agreement of the programme. The public are relying on each of us to act in their interests. I hope that the Programme for Government shows the public that we are willing to work together to do right by them.

As we continue the vital work of delivery, we want to be open about how we do. That is why we have developed a well-being framework that looks at progress under our missions of "People", "Planet", "Prosperity" and that cross-cutting commitment to peace. We are committed to improving the well-being or quality of life of everyone across our society by keeping track of that information, so that we can always understand where we are, monitor our progress and address the things that matter most. We will update our actions annually. We will keep everyone informed about the Budget position, and we will publish annual reports. We will be open and transparent about the progress that we are making, and we will take every possible step to ensure that the programme is delivering what we set out to do.

We bring the Programme for Government to the House today as another step forward in our efforts to improve people's lives. It is about making a positive difference and making things better for people. We will not be found wanting when it comes to doing everything that we can to deliver for people not only today but into the future. It is, ultimately, for all of us elected here to the Chamber. Politics is about people. It is about working together to make that real and positive difference in people's lives, families' lives, workers' lives and communities' lives. It is about ensuring that no one gets left behind. I will always do everything that I can to support you all in that endeavour. We face tough challenges ahead, no doubt, but we know that. Together, we can make a real difference in improving people's lives. Together, we can build a future for all who call here "home". No matter your background or where you come from, the Executive will have people's backs, and we will do everything that we can to keep leading. Certainly, I am committed to delivering and leading positive change.

Now we need to work together as elected representatives, as Members of the Assembly and across our whole society to get on with the job of delivery. We welcome all contributions from Members today, and we look forward to working collaboratively with you all going forward.

Mr O'Toole: I associate myself with the welcome to the Ceann Comhairle, Verona Murphy.

More than 1,000 days since the election and nearly 400 days after the Executive were formed, we have the first Programme for Government since 2011. I was in my 20s then: I am in my 40s now, so that gives a sense of how long we have been waiting. For too long, our politics has been defined by either absence or improvisation. When the institutions were not collapsed, they were cobbled together and then held together by the coincidence of passing party political interest rather than the common good. For half a decade, there was no devolved government, and for none of that decade was there an agreed Programme for Government. The absence of a Programme for Government was both a symptom and a cause of dysfunctionality. In agreeing on the PFG, therefore, the Executive have made progress on the shamefully low bar that was set.

When we in the SDLP entered Opposition, we were determined to be constructive. We have fulfilled that pledge to the extent that the final PFG contains slightly more clarity on certain interventions and targets. It is clear that the presence of an official Opposition has been a force for accountability. However, despite the Executive's desire to be garlanded for simply existing, you do not get a passing grade for showing up to the exam hall. The document contains aspirations that we share, but it is far short of the clear targeted plan that the people of Northern Ireland deserve after so many years of failure. In the First Minister's remarks, warm though they were, I did not hear a single clear target. On days such as this, we need to keep sight of who and what matters and of how we work to make life better for the 1·9 million people whom we serve.

After the PFG fiasco last week, someone got in touch on social media to say that they had been red-flagged for referral to a consultant gynaecologist a year ago. When she phoned recently to ask how long the waiting list was, she was told that it could be years. She and the other hundreds of thousands on waiting lists are not obsessed with the mechanics of politics or process, but they deserve a clear sense of how those who sought and achieved power intend to use it to improve their lives and the services that they rely on.

The programme is better than nothing. It is a modest improvement on the draft, but it is a missed opportunity. It is nowhere near good enough. I say this to the First and deputy First Minister and, indeed, to all Ministers: is this it?

As I said, I acknowledge the areas in which the PFG offers more clarity in its final version than the draft. On social housing, it promises to start work on at least 5,800 new homes. That may be modest and far short of the kind of trajectory needed to deliver the 100,000 new homes promised by previous Sinn Féin Communities Ministers, but it is at least time-bound and measurable.

We also welcome the commitment to create a delivery unit. We will, of course, need to see delivery from the delivery unit.

The key theme of our approach as a constructive Opposition has been asking those with power to take responsibility rather than shift blame. On the economy, the PFG says that it prioritises low productivity but does little to address it, delaying and curtailing phase 2 of Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) and having no plan, despite what the First Minister said, to increase investment in waste water infrastructure. On improving the quality and conditions of work, the Executive are already backsliding. Despite big talk on good jobs, the target for 2027 is simply to have considered the introduction of an employment rights Bill. On the collapsing health service, it is remarkably vague. It promises at least 250,000 assessments or diagnoses this year but then says, a few paragraphs later, that there were 260,000 last year. How will waiting lists and waiting times reduce when the number of people being seen is flatlining or even decreasing?

All too often, in lieu of an actual target, the PFG promises another plan or strategy to follow at some point. For the backlog in special educational needs, they will produce a plan. Perhaps that plan will have a target. Too often, the target is not a target or even a policy or a law to be passed but a post-dated promise for a further plan at some point in the future. Too often, the document is a Russian doll of more documents and more verbiage and more plans. The PFG, for example, promises to implement the Lough Neagh action plan, but that plan was mostly not action but, rather, scoping exercises and reviews. Most frustratingly, the promises on the reform and transformation of public services have utterly lost momentum. The document completely fails to set out any clarity or ambition as to how public services are to be reformed or how the associated bodies, including the public-sector transformation board, will work. By the way, it is still an interim board.

Each of the parties in the Executive sought power and now have it. Yes, they are constrained by coalition. Yes, they are limited by finances. However, those things are true of virtually every democratic government in Europe. The test of Governments is not how well they describe the problems but how they use the power that they have to improve people's lives. Sinn Féin sought and received an historic mandate to lead an Executive, but now there is precious little to show for that beyond symbolism. Having had the Finance Ministry for half a decade, it has made zero progress on devolving fiscal powers, despite constant complaints about our current funding model.

The Budget section in the document is one page. I will hold it up for those who want to see it. There is one page, without a single table or chart and no clarity on whether any of the promises, such as they are, will be funded. There are no promises or pledges on fiscal powers in the PFG, despite our being told repeatedly by Finance Ministers that they want to devolve more fiscal power and that too much power was in London. It goes without saying that we have a 10-year rates review cycle that appears never to be ready to report.

Critically, the document contains shockingly little on cross-border public service delivery, despite lots of words about that. When you compare it with the Southern Programme for Government, as some have done, including in this Chamber, you see that there is barely any reference to the transformative potential of greater cross-border provision; indeed, one of the most significant mentions of the Shared Island Fund comes from a DUP Minister's Department. Page 85, the prosperity section of the document, appears to put two entities that emerged from a secret DUP/Tory deal — the East-West Council and Intertrade UK — on the same footing as the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), the British-Irish Council (BIC) and InterTradeIreland. Those are bodies that were agreed at multiparty talks and enshrined in treaty. Just as Van Morrison is back playing the blues in Belfast, the DUP appears to be back playing its old tunes and not just in relation to international politics. It is blocking Executive papers and stalling progress on Casement Park and the Irish language. The deputy First Minister shakes her head: perhaps she can clarify that for me in her remarks later.

The Alliance Party also won an historic endorsement at the last election, campaigning heavily on the need to reform Stormont and prevent repeated collapse — there is a lot of agreement between our parties; that is a vital subject — but it appears to have made absolutely no progress on getting the issue into the Programme for Government. Perhaps it made no attempt.

Earning power and taking office have to mean taking responsibility and being held accountable for it. We make no apology for being a constructive but robust Opposition. Given that the First Minister's party is fighting a battle over the rights of the Opposition in the Oireachtas, she will surely agree that opposition matters. If the Irish people deserve constructive opposition on one side of the border, they deserve it on this side of the border.

Our job is to speak for the people and to demand better. They have been failed too often. They deserve delivery, not empty words. They need to be confident that they can access healthcare when they need it. They need to know that their children will be supported to achieve their potential and that there will finally be some attempt to restore our degraded environment. This document does not deliver for them. It is not just a day late and a dollar short; it is a thousand days late, and there is no Budget at all. Every day, in the Chamber and outside it, the SDLP will speak for the people who have been let down for too long, even if it makes others in the Chamber uncomfortable. We will hold others to account for the power that they have sought and received. We will insist on the Executive parties taking responsibility rather than simply shifting blame. Our people deserve so much better. We will speak up for them every day and demand better than this late, limp, listless Programme for Government.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for tabling the motion and for the briefing that the Deputy Chair and I had with them earlier.

I welcome the publication of the 'Programme for Government 2024-27'. It is a long-awaited document — it is more than 10 years since the previous Programme for Government — and the Committee has sought to engage in the development process. In October 2024, the Committee wrote to the other Statutory Committees for their views on the consultation on the Programme for Government. The Committee received responses from the Committee for the Economy; the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; the Committee for Justice; and the Committee for Infrastructure. The Committee for Communities agreed to give individual party responses. The Committee heard evidence from the Department on the consultation responses and from the Older People's Commissioner on the Programme for Government and received written input from the Youth Assembly. The Committee collated the responses and submitted them to the Executive Office to inform the development of the final Programme for Government. The other Statutory Committees will speak for themselves. The Committee has not yet had the opportunity to meet to discuss the final PFG, so I will confine my remarks to high-level themes from the Committee's work on the consultation.

In relation to monitoring and reporting on the PFG, the Committee is keen to stress that progress has to be measured with relevant indicators, using data with a firm baseline that may be comparable to other jurisdictions. There is also a need to ensure that reporting is based on progress on indicators towards targets under the priorities set out in the Programme for Government. In looking at accountability and transparency, members thought that the PFG should tie Ministers to outcomes and that it should be linked to the Budget. Linking the Budget and the PFG is a challenge, not least because of the differing timescales, and the Committee will explore with officials how that may be achieved. The Committee's view was that a full equality impact assessment (EQIA) should be produced, together with a report on the consultation responses, and requested a copy of that report so that it could be circulated to Assembly Committees before the final PFG was considered. We will follow up on those issues as part of our scrutiny of the PFG.

The Committee's view was that the targets in the PFG should have been set through engagement with the relevant Assembly Committees. The Older People's Commissioner and the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly raised the issue of the representation of older people and young people respectively in the PFG. The Committee will explore, among other things, how the Executive plan to make the PFG accessible and meaningful for everyone in Northern Ireland.

The Committee will now begin its work on the PFG and, as a first step, will receive a briefing from the Department at its meeting later this week. It looks forward to playing its part in scrutinising progress on the actions in the document as they unfold. We will examine the indicators of progress and seek meaningful outcomes for our communities.

I will now make some remarks as an Alliance Party MLA. As I said, I welcome the publication of the Programme for Government. I put on record my party's appreciation of the community and voluntary sector stakeholder organisations that responded to the consultation. We appreciate that those responses can be time-consuming matters, and it is important that we recognise the effort put in.

We need to maintain a system of government that is fit for purpose in the post-agreement era. Whilst we recognise that there are some underwhelming factors in the Programme for Government, we acknowledge that it is a mandatory coalition. We submitted our own consultation response, and it is right and proper that people can see where the Alliance Party would have gone further in certain aspects of the final document.

Let me be clear that the Programme for Government should not and must not be the height of the Executive's ambition. It sets out a bare minimum for what the public should expect, and it should not be regarded as a complete list for ministerial delivery.

On reform, the Alliance Party recognises that the three overarching missions are important, but, in our consultation response, we stressed that peace and peace-building should have been better integrated into all aspects of the document. We welcome the introduction of the delivery unit hosted within the Executive Office. Like my South Belfast colleague, I look forward to hearing more about what that delivery unit will do and how it will influence the reform and transformation of our public services as that is taken forward, agreed and, most importantly, bedded in.

We cannot hope for a shared society without reforming our public services, but we also need to reform the institutions. We will continue to push for that within the Executive. If we are going to deliver for our communities, we need to ensure that our way of governing reflects our changing society.

As regards issues related to the Executive Office, we welcome the work on the mother-and-baby institutions. We would have liked to see, written in the document, the memorialisation programme for the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse and recognition of the ongoing issues for victims and survivors of the Troubles, not least with the ill-fated Legacy Act.

We will keep pushing for meaningful delivery above and beyond what is set out in the Programme for Government. We do not want to see our society continue to be defined along sectarian lines. We recognise that we are now a diverse, multicultural society and that the Programme for Government needs to deliver for everyone, regardless of their background.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the publication of the Executive's Programme for Government. It is a positive step, and it demonstrates collective commitment to delivering better public services for all citizens right across the North. Better public services will mean better outcomes for people, which is why there was such a good response to the consultation. I thank the individuals, groups and sectors that responded to it.

I speak as my party's health spokesperson. From that perspective, I welcome the narrative in the Programme for Government that key to achieving better health outcomes is a focus on preventative measures to keep people well for longer in the first instance, combined with early detection and timely intervention when required. With over 500,000 people currently on a waiting list to have their first consultation with a specialist, I welcome the fact that cutting waiting times is an Executive priority and that addressing health inequalities is recognised as being part of that solution.

The Executive's commitment is evidenced by the significant proportion of the block grant, over 50%, that has been allocated to the Department of Health.

That in itself is by no means a silver bullet. The current challenges in the health service are great and have been discussed at length many times in the Chamber, most recently during the Budget Bill debate. We are still dealing with the impact of the COVID pandemic on our waiting lists. Our health service has growing demand and need, coupled with workforce and capacity challenges, and we have an ageing population with co-occurring and complex needs.

Despite the difficulties and pressures, we must do all within our power to reduce the unacceptable waiting lists. As I said, over 500,000 people — a quarter of our population in the North — are on a waiting list to have their first consultation with a specialist. That figure is unacceptable, and we need to see action taken in the year ahead so that we can start to turn the corner and reduce that number. That is especially the case for cancer waiting lists and services, where urgency is key to treatment, key to outcomes and, indeed, key to saving lives. It is clear that tackling that priority in the Programme for Government will require long-term planning, as well as multi-year Budgets to support the health service to deliver a consistent, high-quality and sustainable level of care and to provide better health outcomes for our population, regardless of where they live. I therefore welcome the commitment to the target to invest up to £135 million a year to reduce waiting lists by treating an additional 70,000 patients, as well as to invest a further £80 million a year to increase elective care capacity through the expansion of elective care centres and mega-clinics, which will reduce the demand on capacity that causes our waiting lists to grow.

As with any Programme for Government, there is always more that could be included and always more that needs to be done, even within the identified priorities. There is, however, a growing acknowledgement that the Executive simply do not have the Budget or the fiscal levers to generate finances at the level required. We all know that the North has been chronically underfunded in the past and the impact that that has had on our public services. Indeed, we continue to be underfunded. As a devolved institution, our ability to deliver for our population will always be constrained by decisions made in Westminster, where the interests of the people here will never be a top priority.

The only way in which to truly address the challenges that we face in health, and across all our other public services, is through constitutional change. That is a discussion that is gathering pace, and one that can no longer be easily dismissed. In the meantime, the Programme for Government is undoubtedly a positive step. The achievements of our previous and current Finance Ministers in securing additional funding from the British Government represent a step forward and are significant, as is the argument for maximum devolution of fiscal powers to the North. That argument must be pursued, but our ambition for our people has to be greater and based on our having the maximum ability to shape our own decisions. That is why the conversation on constitutional change is so important and must continue at pace. It is the route map to truly addressing the issues with all our public services and to delivering better outcomes for all the people whom we represent.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I will declare two interests at the outset. During my contribution, I will touch on unadopted developments. I live in one and intend to introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject. I will also touch on the A5, along the route of which my husband's family are landowners.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure. In October, we received oral evidence from Department for Infrastructure officials on the draft Programme for Government 2024-27. The Committee heard that, although the Department does not take the lead on any of the nine priorities in it, a number of them are particularly relevant to DFI's core functions, which are to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy; to provide more social, affordable and sustainable housing; to protect Lough Neagh and the environment; and to reform and transform public services. In responding to the draft Programme for Government, the Committee highlighted the fundamental role that the Department will play as an enabler in achieving the priorities and in shaping a better tomorrow.

The Committee has taken evidence from a wide range of stakeholders on their concerns over the length of time that it is taking for planning applications to be processed. The Committee welcomes recent legislation to provide councils with the power to publish planning application validation checklists, which are anticipated to reduce processing times for applications. More, however, needs to be done to support that key area in order to grow our economy. It is apparent that delays can often be caused by the timeliness and quality of the responses from statutory consultees. Therefore, the Committee urges all Ministers, Departments and agencies that undertake a statutory consultee role to ensure that they are well resourced with sufficient staffing and have measurable processes in place to ensure timely and meaningful responses to planning applications. Delivering an effective and efficient planning system will not only contribute to economic growth but support the delivery of an appropriate housing supply strategy, which is key to the delivery of the Programme for Government.

As Members will be aware, unadopted developments is a frequently recurring issue that can impact on the quality and maintenance of our roads, our street lighting and our water and waste water infrastructure, which, in the worst cases, can be problematic and place an expensive burden on homeowners who have to undertake remedial works to meet the required standards or risk being unable to sell their property. Water and waste water infrastructure are crucial, too, to economic growth and facilitating the provision of more social, affordable and sustainable housing. Inadequate waste water infrastructure impacts on the delivery of that. Whilst there are some initiatives to introduce developer contributions, the Committee considers that those will not be sufficient, given the scale of the overall investment needed. The Committee has taken a keen interest in capacity constraints, particularly with regard to waste water infrastructure, and looks forward to receiving detail on how that will be improved.

Both water and flood-risk management will be important factors in the achievement of the Executive's priorities. The Committee is supportive of the Department's ambition to develop a new flood forecasting system. The water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill will be introduced in the coming weeks. However, we still await its introduction. Given that its objectives are likely to include seeking to reduce pollution, strengthen resilience to extreme weather events, introduce more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions to manage the water resource and reduce and mitigate flood risk. it is important that the Committee takes sufficient time to scrutinise those proposals.

I turn now to our transport infrastructure. It is clear to the Committee that a well-maintained, safe and reliable road network and public transport system will contribute significantly to the successful achievement of the Programme for Government priorities. Maintenance of the wider road network is an ongoing concern for the Committee, particularly due to the scaling back of an effective and well-funded winter service and the potentially detrimental impact on road safety. Measures such as progressing the delivery of the A5 will not only improve road safety and save lives but create jobs and benefit the economy. In addition, developing the rail network and providing more public transport for our rural and disabled communities are essential to keep pace and to support our economic goals.

I turn to Lough Neagh and the environment. The Committee is acutely aware of the importance of Lough Neagh, given that it supplies 40% of Northern Ireland's drinking water, and is concerned about the issues that have been caused there by blue-green algae. Although not the only cause, pollution incidents from waste water treatment works and septic tanks are key contributors, and that must be addressed.

In addition, the commitments under the Climate Change Act will require investment. The Committee has been actively engaging with the Department and stakeholders to find out how that can be supported. The Committee played its part in supporting the vehicle emissions trading scheme (VETS). It is essential that the electric vehicle network be sufficiently developed to facilitate that. I urge the Executive to look at options such as financial transactions capital (FTC) as a means of borrowing to enable the private sector to support growth in our private charging network.

Active travel is identified as a key indicator of the "People" mission in the Programme for Government. The Committee looks forward to considering the results of the consultation on the active travel delivery plan.

Reform and transformation of public services will require significant investment. However, the Committee has heard about the difficulties faced by the Department due to budgetary constraints and the impact of those on its vacancy rates.

The Committee considers that the Programme for Government must be underpinned by robust and measurable milestones. It would be helpful if the First Minister or the deputy first Minister could set out what they consider to be the key infrastructural milestones and provide an assessment of whether those will be achieved in the context of the draft Budget. That is particularly in the context of the investment strategy, which is coming imminently, and the statement in the Programme for Government that the Executive are:

"Shaping a Better Tomorrow" will require collaborative working and innovative approaches. In working to shape a better tomorrow, the foundations of funding will need to deliver long-term improvement.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. My comments are mainly in the context of the oral evidence session that we had with officials on 10 October 2024 and the subsequent response that we sent to the Executive Office Committee on the draft PFG. As the final PFG was issued to Members last Friday, naturally, the Committee has not yet had a chance to consider it.

Overall, the Committee was supportive of the short-, medium- and long-term actions under the three headings of "Doing What Matters Most Today", "Building New Foundations" and "Shaping a Better Tomorrow", with its three long-term missions of "People, Planet and Prosperity". The Committee was glad to hear that DAERA's 2024-25 business plan had clear links to the draft PFG's priorities and missions. In our response to the Executive Office Committee, we highlighted the insufficient commitment to public engagement at departmental business planning level and said that we wished to see a public engagement strategy to connect the public with what is being delivered by the Department.

The first pillar is "Doing What Matters Most Today". We welcomed the fact that "Protecting Lough Neagh and the Environment" was one of the nine immediate priorities in the draft PFG and remains so in the final PFG, with a target of 2027 for delivering the Lough Neagh report and action plan. We will discuss that further on Thursday at Committee during our first evidence session with DAERA's Lough Neagh project manager. The Committee has been following the progress of the small business research initiative for shorter-term solutions to blue-green algae. At the stage of the draft Programme for Government, phase 1 had launched, and five organisations had been selected to develop a proof-of-concept solution. The Committee hopes that the funding for both phases has been secured.

The Committee recognised the importance of the first environment strategy's setting carbon budgets and developing a climate action plan in helping to reach the goal of net zero by 2025. However, we were concerned that the delay in the publication of plans potentially undermines the Executive's position in addressing those matters. The Committee looks forward to the development of an Executive-agreed climate action plan, which is to be consulted on in 2025, and seeing the detail of the cross-cutting steps to reduce carbon emissions and deliver across aspects within DAERA's remit, including agriculture, land use, forestry, waste and fisheries. We highlighted to the Executive Office Committee in our response to the draft Programme for Government the fact that the interventions in response to the environmental crisis at Lough Neagh are part of a legal obligation, such as the delivery of an environmental strategy, and the need to be cognisant of that. However, the Committee recognised that some Members will be disappointed that there is no commitment to the introduction of an independent environmental protection agency.

The Committee has concerns about delays in service delivery, such as the processing of planning applications, and is advised that not having sufficient staff is part of that problem, so it is good to see the proposal of apprenticeship routes as one method of increasing staff resource at the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). We will request updates on the transformation of public services and on DAERA's share of the £235 million transformation fund.

The second pillar is "Building New Foundations". Members felt that the draft Programme for Government lacked a focus on rural development. In November 2024, we held our meeting in Cookstown to hear from rural development groups and networks about their main concerns. Some members believe that the loss of rural development funding post-EU exit continues to undermine support for rural areas. The Committee will be keen to see the delivery of a new rural policy framework to build prosperous rural communities, which will be developed collaboratively with rural communities.

The "People" mission is part of "Shaping a Better Tomorrow". We highlighted to the Executive Office Committee the fact that the Welsh just transition model is underpinned by well-being to ensure that people thrive, as well as the economy. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the just transition commission and supporting DAERA to secure funding for a just transition fund for agriculture.

On the "Planet" mission of "Shaping a Better Tomorrow", growing the economy is, in some cases, in opposition to climate change actions. A balanced approach is needed. Members highlighted the fact that the development of environmental commitments should be underpinned by legally binding targets.

Although there was high-level commentary on agriculture in the draft Programme for Government, we felt, and still feel, that there is a lack of detail on some statements, such as that the Executive:

Given the emphasis on delivering multiple objectives from land use, the Committee feels that there are opportunities and risks that need to be dealt with more strategically, potentially via a land use framework.

On the "Shaping a Better Tomorrow" section and the "Prosperity" mission, the Committee highlighted the fact that rural, micro and small businesses need support to thrive and grow. The Committee will, no doubt, consider whether the final Programme for Government goes far enough in addressing rural affairs.

I will make a few comments on my behalf and that of my party. The beginning of the Programme for Government document that we have before us rightly notes what we can achieve together in the remainder of the mandate, which the First Minister mentioned, but let us take a moment to imagine what could have been achieved if we had had a full mandate in which to deliver and stability, continuity and shared determination to make progress year-on-year. The fact that this is the first Programme for Government since 2011 is both good news and, frankly, a source of deep shame. It is good news, because it signals progress, consensus and a collective effort to govern. It is a shame on all of us, because it should never have taken this long to produce.

Imagine where we could have been had we had successive, fully implemented Programmes for Government and an Executive who worked through their difficulties rather than collapsing under them. We are in a slightly better fiscal position than we were in previous years not because of new investment or a bold economic strategy but largely because we have been underfunded for so long that any uplift, sadly, feels like relief. While we may be in a better political position than we were when this place was empty, the scale of repair and transformation that is required is absolutely enormous. Those who choose political abstinence in this place must take a long, hard look at the consequences of their actions not in the abstract but through the lives of the people who have suffered from years of stagnation in this place.

There is much to welcome in the Programme for Government's priorities, but we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to be abundantly clear and honest about the pace of delivery and not just progress. People do not need political platitudes; they need results. They need to know when their lives will get better, not just how we plan to make them better. The legacy of the Executive and Assembly cannot be one of short-term aspiration but must be one of long-term delivery. That can be achieved only with multi-year Budgets, stable and reliable government and a commitment to interdepartmental collaboration that delivers real value for money. We must regularly review what we are doing, challenge inefficiency and refuse to allow outdated ways of working to hold us back.

Let us not perform like Assemblies of old. Let us do more, do it better and do it together for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will contribute to this important debate on the Programme for Government in my capacity as Chair of the Committee, but I make it clear that my remarks do not represent an agreed Committee position given the timing; rather, they reflect the concerns, comments and priorities that members from across the political spectrum have raised repeatedly in Committee. If time allows, I will also make comments as Sinn Féin spokesperson.

One of the Committee's most pressing concerns has been the lack of progress on key social strategies, including the anti-poverty strategy, the disability strategy and the language strategies. For too long, the North has lacked a coherent and resourced approach to tackling poverty. However, the updated Programme for Government explicitly commits the Executive to bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy. That is a welcome step forward and a direct result of the tireless campaigning of the Cliff Edge Coalition, the wider voluntary and community sector and, indeed, the Committee, which has consistently called for action on poverty. The strategy must not be a box-ticking exercise. The Committee will scrutinise its development closely to ensure that it is adequately funded and backed by clear timelines and delivers real and measurable outcomes for those experiencing financial hardship. The Executive have recognised that tackling poverty requires a cross-departmental effort, including addressing educational attainment gaps, health inequalities and housing stress. Those commitments must now be translated into urgent action.

Alongside the anti-poverty strategy, the Committee has regularly pressed the Minister on the status of the language strategies and the disability strategy, all of which are crucial components of a fairer, more inclusive society. The strategies have been subject to repeated delays, leaving many in our communities without the support and recognition that they need. The disability strategy in particular is crucial to ensure that government policy actively removes barriers for disabled people, promoting their full participation in social and economic life. The failure to deliver the strategy in a timely manner undermines commitments to equality and inclusion. Similarly, the outstanding language strategies must be progressed as a matter of urgency to ensure that linguistic diversity is respected and promoted in a manner that enhances cultural inclusion.

The Committee remains clear in its expectations that all of the social inclusion strategies should not be sidelined but must, instead, be central to the Executive's broader commitment to rights and equality. We have also repeatedly pressed the Minister and the Department to engage proactively with the range of co-design groups that have contributed to that work to ensure that their input is reflected.

The Programme for Government acknowledges the urgent need for increased housing supply, particularly social and affordable housing. The Committee certainly welcomes the commitment to building 5,850 new social homes by 2027. Housing stress continues to rise, with more than 47,000 households on the waiting list. While the Department for Communities has set ambitious targets, delivery will remain the key challenge across a range of issues. Furthermore, the Committee has raised concerns about the fuel poverty strategy, which must be brought forward urgently. The cost-of-living crisis has left too many households struggling to heat their homes, and we must ensure that commitments in that area lead to real action. The loan to acquire move-on accommodation (LAMA) fund announced in the Programme for Government is a welcome step to support homelessness charities in securing housing solutions for those in greatest need. However, we must see greater ambition and long-term investment to tackle the root cause of homelessness.

The redevelopment of Casement Park has been a long-standing issue, and, while the Programme for Government includes a commitment to progressing the project, the Committee remains concerned about funding and delivery timelines. Casement Park is not just a sports stadium; it represents a key investment in community infrastructure, tourism and economic development. We urge the Executive and the Minister for Communities to provide greater clarity on funding arrangements and delivery schedules. The Committee has noted and welcomes the progress that is being made in the implementation of the subregional stadia NI football fund programme.

While the Committee welcomes the overarching ambitions of the Programme for Government, we remain concerned that key social priorities, particularly those within the Department for Communities, have not been given the urgency and attention that they require. We cannot have a Programme for Government that fails to prioritise those most in need, overlooks long-standing commitments on social inclusion or delays critical infrastructure projects that will benefit communities for generations to come. The Committee therefore urges the Minister and the Executive to ensure that those matters are not only acknowledged but acted on with clear commitments and tangible outcomes. The Committee is also keen to undertake robust and effective scrutiny of those cross-departmental priorities. We look forward to continuing to scrutinise the Minister's approach to the issues and will remain resolute in advocating the delivery of long-overdue strategies and projects.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin's spokesperson for housing and communities. I start by welcoming the fact that a Programme for Government has been agreed by the Executive. As some Members have pointed out, this is the first time in over a decade that we have reached that point. The PFG contains many important commitments that will improve the lives of everyone, along with such priorities as reducing waiting times, making childcare affordable, growing our economy and protecting our environment. I particularly welcome the high priority placed on housing in the Programme for Government. The housing supply strategy sets a target of 100,000 new homes in 15 years. That is the scale of what is needed if we are to seriously tackle the current housing crisis. We need to see the Housing Executive building homes again, and that will require a substantial increase in investment. It will also require the British Government to sign off on a new financial model for the Housing Executive that will allow it to borrow the funds that it needs to invest.

I turn now to the social inclusion strategies. Again, I welcome the commitment given to delivering an Irish language strategy. Gaels have waited long enough to have their language given the status that it deserves. We need an Irish language strategy to enhance the provision and promotion of the language, as agreed in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. There is great concern in the Irish language sector that the Minister for Communities is dragging his heels on the issue, and it was disappointing that he was unable to commit to a timeline for the delivery of the strategy at last week's Committee meeting. In a similar vein, we need to see the delivery of an anti-poverty strategy. The delivery of that strategy has never been more urgent. I welcome the Minister's commitment to present a final draft to the Executive before the end of this month.

We need to see a much more proactive and forthright approach from the Minister, particularly in his engagements with the British Government on the need for a funding package for Casement Park. I conclude my remarks there.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Colm. I call Diane Forsythe, Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I speak today on behalf of the Finance Committee as the Chair focuses on his role as leader of the Opposition. I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for bringing forward the Programme for Government and for their words in the Chamber today. It is important for me to state that, as the finalised Programme for Government was published only on Friday afternoon, the Finance Committee has not had time to consider it. It would have been helpful if time had been provided for Committees to consider the PFG before the debate. However, we are where we are. Therefore, my speech will reflect the scrutiny that the Finance Committee undertook of the draft PFG.

The Committee was briefed on the Department of Finance's aspects of the PFG on 2 October 2024. During the briefing, the Department of Finance officials highlighted the fact that, as well as its financial oversight role with respect to the PFG, the Department has a vital role in other key elements under the reform and transformation of public services, which is the immediate priority. As officials have regularly reminded the Committee, the ongoing budgetary restrictions mean that that priority is central to the Programme for Government. Central to that is the work of the interim public-sector transformation board and its efforts to make recommendations to the Finance Minister on utilising £235 million of transformation funding over five years. The Committee has applied considerable energy to scrutinising that body and has further scrutiny plans. The Committee notes that the final version of the PFG indicates that that work is now being led by a new reform and transformation unit in the Executive Office. The Committee will seek clarification of the Finance Minister's role in the ongoing scrutiny that the Committee seeks to apply.

Officials also informed the Committee that financial sustainability will be key to transformation. The Department's work with the Budget sustainability plan examines improvements in the Budget process, including how best to connect the Budget process with strategic decisions, including PFG targets. That has been a key ask from the Committee and has been highlighted by multiple stakeholders. The Budget must be linked to the Programme for Government for both to be properly scrutinised by Statutory Committees. Only when the two are linked will there be proper clarity and transparency regarding Executive and departmental priorities. It will then be much easier for Committee members to see where budgets are going and better exercise their advisory role with respect to Ministers.

It is important to remember that the Programme for Government is a legislative requirement in paragraph 20 of the Belfast Agreement:

We have not yet truly arrived at a fully Budget-linked PFG; indeed, page 88 of the PFG is titled "Funding the Programme for Government". That single page describes the need for reform and transformation and highlights the difficult fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. There is no detail about Budget-linking to the PFG, and that is disappointing. The PFG also references the interim fiscal framework, to which the Committee has also applied considerable scrutiny. The interim fiscal framework was signed by the previous Finance Minister in May 2024. It is expected to put the Executive's finances on a more sustainable footing to allow delivery of the high-quality public services that people expect and deserve. Work around that has entered a new phase, with the engagement of Professor Gerry Holtham, around our relative need and the level at which our fiscal floor should rest.

I indicated that the Committee received commentary on the PFG from various stakeholders, including Ulster University. They expressed a concern that the PFG focuses too much on immediate pressures and a restricted set of priorities. They suggest that a longer and more strategic view should be taken, with greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Like the Committee, they emphasised the need for a multi-year Budget linked to the Programme for Government. Essentially, the building blocks to achieve the Programme for Government's priorities need to be more clearly identified alongside much greater cross-departmental working and budgeting. Work now needs to be done to make the PFG tangible for our communities. Our people need to see how the Programme for Government makes their lives better and takes us forward. On behalf of the Finance Committee, I welcome the publication of the Programme for Government, and we will continue to play our part in scrutinising its delivery as well as offering advice on how it can be made more effective.

I will speak briefly as DUP MLA for South Down. I welcome the Programme for Government. It is good to see that we are in a position where it is agreed in advance of agreeing the 2025-26 Budget, with a view to aligning the priorities and ensuring that budget flows through to them.

I particularly welcome the priority to deliver more affordable and accessible high-quality early learning and childcare, which is a critical priority for working families in Northern Ireland and in ensuring that every child has the best start in life. In advance of the Programme for Government being agreed, it was excellent to see childcare being identified up front as a key priority of the Executive and the Assembly, with £25 million being ring-fenced in this financial year. I am very proud that, with that somewhat modest allocation, the DUP Education Minister, Paul Givan, progressed at pace and delivered on childcare in this financial year. It is critical that funding is able to flow for that Programme for Government commitment. With that £25 million, within four months of making an announcement, the Education Minister delivered the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which has put over £4 million back into the pockets of families here in Northern Ireland, with over 14,000 children registered.

We have seen £7·6 million invested in existing programmes, including Sure Start, and a major expansion of preschool provision, with an extra 2,500 children moving to full-time nursery school places from September 2025. Research has commenced, and a strategy is progressing. Our DUP Education Minister has proved that he can deliver and can make a difference on childcare. I encourage progression to enable him to have budget flowing under the Programme of Government, because, if Paul Givan has more, he will deliver more for working families in Northern Ireland.

Mr Tennyson: Like other Members, I welcome the Programme for Government as a step forward. For the first time since 2011, the Executive have agreed a Programme for Government that sets out the vision, priorities and direction for the remainder of the mandate. Of course, it goes without saying that the document is not an exhaustive list of everything that Executive Ministers will deliver over the next two years, nor should it be seen as the ceiling on our ambition, but rather it is the foundation from which we should all seek to build together. This is not a document that Alliance or, to be fair, any other party in the Chamber would have written in isolation. It does, however, set out a series of positive proposals in a number of areas where there is consensus amongst the four parties in the mandatory coalition.

On that note, before I turn to the substance of the document, I want to address some points in relation to the process and how we got here. The process, at times, was fraught with needless delay and lacked the spirit of genuine cooperation and collaboration that is referenced in the document itself. Four months after the consultation closed in November 2024, Alliance Ministers should not have had to ask for a summary of consultation responses and equality and rural impact assessments, nor should those Ministers have had to ask for the final version of the document on the eve of when the Executive were due to meet to agree it. I do not wish to dwell on those challenges, but I sincerely hope that those lessons will be learned and recognised and that we can commit today to moving forward together in a spirit of genuine collaboration and cooperation as we seek to deliver together.

There is much in the way of positive progress in this Programme for Government, including important commitments that will improve the lives of everyone whom we represent. There are commitments to tackle paramilitarism, speed up our justice system and enhance police officer numbers to build safer, stronger and more vibrant communities. For the first time, there are commitments to tackle the ecological crisis in Lough Neagh, ensuring that that issue receives the billing and the attention that it deserves, alongside action to protect our environment and combat climate change.

It is important to stress that, be it protecting our environment and improving water quality, building a vibrant economy or delivering the social housing to which the Programme for Government aspires, that requires progress in respect of infrastructure as a key enabling function. I want to associate myself with some of the remarks that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee made in that regard. So, too, is it welcome to see clear targets in respect of the number of participants in programmes that raise awareness around the issue of violence against women and girls, given the particular scourge that that issue imposes on our society, as well as cross-party commitments to childcare and tackling health waiting lists.

Of course, there are other areas where we would have liked to go further, be that in respect of exploiting the opportunities that are presented to us by dual market access, having a greater focus on poverty or, as the Chair of the Communities Committee referenced, the need to deliver on social strategies that are long overdue. For our part, Alliance will continue to articulate arguments in favour of progressing the disability strategy, the gender equality strategy, the LGBTQIA+ strategy and others. Our ability to deliver in this mandate has been constrained by the state of our public finances and by the fact that, again, we are operating in a constrained mandate.

I will refer to a couple of comments that the leader of the Opposition made. I gently say this to him: when he comes to the Chamber to point the finger at other parties, at least be consistent. The SDLP sat on previous Executives where there was no Programme for Government at all. In fairness to the SDLP Ministers who sat on those Executives, I think that they tried their best to deliver. There were also Executives on which it sat where the SDLP voted against the Programme for Government yet continued to participate in the Executive.

As I said, this is not a Programme for Government that Alliance would have written. We are, however, willing to give it a fair wind, because if it is operated in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration, I believe that we can prove to be successful as an Executive. I want the Executive to be successful, because the success of our people, our communities and our public services depends on it, so I will be supporting the Programme for Government today.

Mr Sheehan: The publication of the Executive's Programme for Government is a hugely welcome step as we continue to drive forward on delivering for people here. The Programme for Government is ambitious, and rightly so. It focuses on critical issues such as delivering affordable housing, reducing childcare costs, cutting health waiting lists and transforming special educational needs provision.

As my party's spokesperson on education and as a member of the Committee for Education, I will focus my remarks on our education system. For too long, too many children have been left behind. Educational underachievement remains one of the most pressing challenges that we face, and tackling it must be a priority. Education, like our other public services, has been starved of the vital and necessary investment that it has required owing to over a decade of British Government austerity. It is in that context that we have to be absolutely sure that we are spending money properly and getting bang for our buck. Investment in education must be based on objective need. That means directing resources to where they are needed most and ensuring that children from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of their postcode, have access to the same opportunities as everyone else.

We know that poverty and education outcomes are linked. Children who grow up in deprivation are more likely to struggle in school. Without intervention, that disadvantage follows them into adulthood. We cannot allow that cycle to continue. The Programme for Government recognises the need to break it, and we must ensure that that commitment is backed up by funding and action. The Minister of Education must make tackling educational underachievement a priority.

Supporting children with special educational needs is another crucial element. For too long, families have struggled to access the assessments, resources and support that their children require. It is not enough to acknowledge the issue. Instead, we need a system that delivers by providing the funding, staffing and structures that are necessary to give every child, regardless of ability, the chance to thrive.

Childcare is not just a family issue but an economic issue, a gender equality issue and an education issue. The emphasis in the Programme for Government on making childcare more affordable is not just an aspiration. Rather, it has already been backed up by action. Prices are coming down for families, but more can and will be done. The Education Minister has been given £25 million in this financial year to deal with childcare, and next year he will be getting £50 million. That is a sign of the Executive's ambition. No parent should have to choose between work and their child's future because childcare costs are too high. No child should miss out on the early years support that high-quality childcare provides.

While today is a good day and we welcome this Programme for Government, we must also acknowledge the reality that the Executive do not have the resources or the fiscal powers to invest in public services to the level required. For years, our public services have been undermined by austerity policies imposed by the British Government. Sinn Féin has been clear that we need proper funding for the North. Our Finance Ministers, past and present, have made that case to the Treasury time and again. We continue to call for the maximum devolution of fiscal powers so that we, in the North, can decide how to invest in our public services and our people.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): The last time that a Programme for Government was agreed in this place, I was studying A-level politics. It is a pleasure that I get to make remarks on behalf of the Committee.

The Committee scrutinised the draft Programme for Government along with the Department's 2024-25 business case and transformation bid. The draft Programme for Government indicated a number of priorities for which the Department for the Economy would be in the lead, particularly to:

The Committee strongly welcomed the Executive's clear commitment to economic improvement for all the people of Northern Ireland, as evidenced by the prominence of the economic elements in the draft PFG. The Committee welcomed the prompt delivery of important supporting measures, including the return of the SKILL UP programme, the new apprenticeship challenge fund, the roll-out of the energy efficiency capex fund and the 10-year tourism strategy. However, the Committee still awaits the skills action plan, the renewable energy support scheme and the circular economy strategy.

On the PFG well-being framework, the Committee noted that economic progress is to be measured through a limited set of data based on economic activity and employment levels, the number of exporting businesses, the Nation Brands Index and the R&D spending level. The Committee was surprised that the skills measure was not focused on the missing middle at both level 4 and level 5. Members remarked also that the data sets do not yet include multi-factor Northern Ireland-based productivity measures, although they are understood to be in development by the Department. Members, therefore, noted with concern that the plan and very substantial changes to employment law being progressed by the Minister are unlikely to be informed by up-to-date Northern Ireland-based information.

The Committee lately considered the draft budget for 2025-26 for the Department and has yet to see any information on the impact of the proposed cuts by the Minister on skill places, higher education or arm's-length bodies, including Tourism NI and Northern Ireland Screen. The Committee hopes that lessons will be learned from the previous PFG experience, and that accountability and linkages to financial provision, including the investment strategy, will be clear and easy to scrutinise. That concludes my remarks as the Chair of the Committee.

I will make some remarks as the DUP's economic spokesperson. I warmly welcome the Programme for Government's clear prioritisation of growing Northern Ireland's economy. That is the first priority set out in the document and, indeed, one of its later themes. This party has been and will continue to be unapologetic in its clear desire to grow the Northern Ireland economy to ensure that people in all communities, wherever they are in Northern Ireland, have access to the best possible jobs, opportunities and education.

On inclusion in the Programme for Government, this party has, in recent mandates, been to the fore in updating employment legislation. The former Economy Minister, the Member for Upper Bann, was key in securing bereavement leave for parents. The introduction of domestic safe leave in the coming years was, again, supported by this party. The substantial proposals being brought forward by the current Minister do not have consensus across the private sector. It is incumbent on the Minister to engage with all stakeholders if we are to achieve support for the 'good jobs' employment Bill.

I will turn to investment zone funding, for which the Executive have secured £150 million from Treasury. That announcement was made 18 months ago, and we have seen limited progress from the Minister on that vital funding. In my role as DUP spokesperson on the economy, I will continue to champion the Minister's bringing that forward.

My party has always been unapologetic in wanting to grow the economy across Northern Ireland and ensure regional balance. For me, regional balance means not just investing in one geographical location in Northern Ireland; it means investing in all communities, particularly those such as I represent in Belfast that live in the shadows of factories and large investments but do not get to reap the financial benefit of being employed in those sectors. Our party will ensure that all communities, not just one section of Northern Ireland, benefit from regional balance.

The words in the Programme for Government about supporting our higher and further education sector will be tested and judged when the draft budget is brought forward by the Economy Department. All parties want to see the growth of the Magee campus, but that cannot be done at the expense of other universities or further education institutions. The cuts of £10 million to Queen's University rumoured to be proposed by the Economy Minister would cost up to 1,400 university places and 300 academic posts and could endanger city deal projects. My party will not sit by quietly while that is allowed to go on.

The leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out the DUP's fingerprints on the document. I am proud of that, because, whether people like it or not, we are a joint head of government. Our deputy First Minister has been tenacious in ensuring that DUP manifesto commitments were delivered in the document. The non-inclusion of dual market access seems to be a matter of concern for some. They may wish to take that up with the head of Invest Northern Ireland, who has made it clear that, to date, no such opportunity for delivery has come. That is why it is so important that there is a clear commitment by the Executive on page 85 of the document to engage with Intertrade UK and the new ministerial arrangements secured by my party. The delivery unit will be key to achieving the progress that we all want to see. When I made my maiden speech, I remarked that the return of this place would be judged by our actions and not on our return. Under DUP leadership, I have no doubt that we will deliver.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for bringing the motion to the House. Many of us across the House understand the significance of the Programme for Government and the importance that it has in our role as legislators working hard to bring positive change to all our constituents and communities across Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind, however, that the ambition and the commitments in the Programme for Government are not reflected in the Budget. I am concerned that many of the commitments may not be delivered, especially without adequate resources and long-term strategic financing through multi-year Budgets. That said, as my party's economy spokesperson and, more important, as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I will add some positive commentary.

The Programme for Government contains commitments and actions that are needed to deliver a competitive, productive and sustainable economy. It is essential that our economy be given the tools and opportunities to grow and prosper, and some positive avenues for delivering that are available in the Programme for Government. I particularly welcome and will watch closely developments in the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund, the skills fund and the tourism strategic action plan. They are key areas of interest for me and will help to streamline and promote growth for the next decade. There is a growing trend of and enthusiasm for apprenticeships. More and more young people avail themselves of them, and, given that International Women's Day falls in this week, it is important to highlight the fact that more and more women avail themselves of apprenticeships and to train in sectors in which, traditionally, men were often the dominant participants. The fund is necessary to bridge the growing skills gap in Northern Ireland. Countless businesses tell me that they cannot get the skills that they need to grow. Investing in apprenticeships is an investment in our future, and I know that many colleagues feel the same. In addition, the investment in the skills fund is a welcome commitment and will be the spearhead that is needed to deliver the skills needed to boost the economy and tackle low productivity by upskilling and reskilling the workforce, particularly women returners. The competitive nature of the jobs market and continued demand for specialisation and skills hold many businesses back from expansion, as the workforce simply is not there.

As many of you may know, a passion of mine is the tourism sector. Growing up in and being a representative for the Fermanagh lakelands, I feel passionate about the forward-looking face of tourism and how pivotal it is in demonstrating all that is good about our country. That is why it is hugely welcome to see it highlighted in the Programme for Government, with an investment of £1·3 billion to stimulate regeneration and tourism across Northern Ireland. That follows the publication last month of the tourism strategic action plan.

The Programme for Government represents a positive step forward in outlining the Executive's commitments. However, we must start to see delivery of and accountability for those commitments and, importantly, a Budget framework that matches the targets.

Miss Hargey: I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for tabling the motion. The publication of the Executive's Programme for Government is a welcome step. It represents a commitment by the four-party Executive to work together in the interests of everyone in our society.

We are all too aware that we are working within an extremely tight financial situation that has been exacerbated by 15 years of austerity Budgets from the British Government. That fact has been acknowledged across the Chamber, highlighting the impact of austerity on our Budgets and the deficiencies in the level-of-need funding. Despite those challenging fiscal environments, having the Programme for Government is a good step forward in setting out Executive priorities and delivering better public services and outcomes for our people.

It is good to see key outcomes on ending violence against women and girls and on safer communities. Feeling safe is an essential part of how we feel in our communities, in our places of work and when socialising. It is a key quality of life factor for all of us. I am glad that those important issues are highlighted in the Programme for Government. Violence against women and girls is a critical area that has a devastating impact across our communities, and we have seen more than 20 women killed since 2020 and many more cases where women and girls are being harassed, intimidated, beaten and threatened daily. The collective effort to prioritise that and to tackle its root causes is important. A minimum of 100,000 participants will be engaged throughout the programme, and there will be a change fund through which funding is being directed through our 11 councils into our local communities, with grassroots engagement and participation ensuring that there is impact at a local level. The ongoing work of the ending violence against women and girls strategy, domestic abuse strategy, the Power to Change campaign and the establishment of sectoral groups all contribute to ending violence against women and girls and creating safer communities for all of us.

Speeding up access to justice and creating safer communities are essential in determining how people feel and the impact that that has on their quality of life. It is good to see that expanding the use of out-of-court disposals and community resolution notices are priorities. They will be an essential part of the work and are welcomed, along with the business case, in advancing and looking at sufficient policing numbers.

Dealing with trauma, tackling hate and prejudice and reducing offending and reoffending are important areas of work that I am glad to see in the programme for work. Early intervention and prevention are critical in tackling those issues. The commitment to joined-up, integrated working and investment in digital capabilities is also critical in the transformation that we need to see. That work also needs to be underpinned by an anti-poverty and equality lens, as we know that those who are most impacted on are from working-class and minority backgrounds.

We know that the programme for work is not the final or exhaustive list of priorities for the Executive or individual Ministers, and nor should it be. We will work to have scrutiny of Ministers to ensure that we see delivery on the ground. However, the programme provides an important framework and a commitment to working collectively to deliver positive change and outcomes in the interests of our whole community.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): As I have publicly stated, as First Minister, I have taken the decision not to travel to Washington DC over the St Patrick’s Day period this year. Junior Minister Reilly will also not be travelling to Washington, but, along with junior Minister Cameron, she will be travelling to Brussels to engage in St Patrick’s Day events with key stakeholders, undertaking a programme of engagements that I am sure both junior Ministers will be happy to update Members on after their visit. The deputy First Minister and I are joining an NI Chamber of Commerce trade delegation to North Carolina next week, where we will both be working hard to encourage investment here, to grow connections and to deliver on our prosperity agenda, as outlined in the new Programme for Government. You will also be aware that the deputy First Minister is travelling to Washington to undertake a series of engagements there.

Mr Carroll: I welcome the decision not to go to the White House this St Patrick's Day, and I pay tribute to all the activists who put pressure on Sinn Féin and other parties not to go. Why is the First Minister allowing the deputy First Minister to go to the White House this St Paddy's Day, and will she join the calls to say that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste should not go to the White House this Paddy's Day?

Mrs O'Neill: I have taken the decision as First Minister not to attend events at the White House this year. That is my decision. It was a decision that I did not take lightly, but it was a decision that I took as a principled stance because I believed that it was the right thing to do at this time. There are times when there is a responsibility on all of us to call out injustice, and this was that moment. I am very comfortable with my decision, and I am equally comfortable with the fact that the deputy First Minister has a different view and will travel to be part of the White House reception and other events this year. That is entirely her call, and I am comfortable enough with that decision also.

The Taoiseach is a different offering insofar as the Taoiseach is uniquely in a position where he will have the opportunity to engage directly with the US president. That is an opportunity that he has to take, because only he will have the opportunity to have that one-on-one time. Perhaps he can — I hope that he does — take the opportunity to drive home the message about the depth of feeling right across Ireland on what is happening in Palestine and on the recent commentary by the US Administration in particular on the taking of Palestinian lands and the removal of the Palestinian people off their lands. The fact that they have moved away from a two-state solution, which is a solution that we all want to see achieved, is something that he needs to be very firm on in any engagement with the US president.

Ms K Armstrong: Is it possible to have a list of the invitations received by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in the week around St Patrick's Day? I know that you have said that there are certain meetings that you want to have, but what invitations came into your offices?

Mrs O'Neill: The invitations that have been received to date include the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action leadership forum; the Ireland Funds national gala; the US Speaker's luncheon; the Washington Ireland Programme (WIP), which Members will be familiar with; the Ulster University breakfast event; and, over the weekend, late Saturday night, the White House reception invite as well.

Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, given your answer, do you regret going to the US last year?

Mrs O'Neill: No, I do not. It is important that, at moments in time, we take our opportunity to take a stance, and this was that time. The fundamental difference is that the US Administration have now moved away from what was a united two-state solution that we all want to see — peace and security for the Palestinians and peace and security for the Israelis. We want to see that solution found, and the only way that you will do that is by having dialogue and involving all partners. Unfortunately, that is not the view of this US Administration and this new president. They have taken a decision to move towards the mass expulsion of the Palestinian people, they have taken a decision to seize Palestinian lands and they have taken a decision to move away from that united position of a two-state solution. Therefore, for me, at this time, this is not about politics but about humanity and about doing the right thing.

Mr Robinson: Does the First Minister agree that having good relations with the US Administration, regardless of which party occupies the White House, is crucial to the economy of the Province in FDI terms and for local companies that wish to set up in the United States?

Mrs O'Neill: We can do more than one thing at once. I can take the principled stance that I believe in, but I also believe in our strong roots in the US. Particularly for our economic prosperity, that is really important. Those roots run deep, and it is important that we continue to nurture them. It is also important that we continue to look for opportunities for our economy. That is why, over the next week, the deputy First Minister and I will be in North Carolina on what will be very much an economic mission. Alongside that, our Economy Minister will be in Boston and New York with Invest NI. That is, again, about drumming up trade and saying that we are very much open for business.

We can continue to further our economic links — grow our economy, create jobs and investment and do all such things — while, on this occasion, I take the principled position that I have.

Mr Gaston: First Minister, will you take this opportunity to inform the House and share with us all the cost of the trip to Washington for St Patrick's Day 2024? Your Department has sat on the answer for some seven months. It would be good if you could confirm to the House when I can expect an answer or, indeed, to know the cost of the trip?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that we will furnish you with that information. I do not have the detail as to why you do not have it, but we will make sure that we get it to you.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer this question.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Last week, we announced a £9 million extension to the Urban Villages capital plan. That will allow the development of four fantastic new projects in Belfast and Derry, providing much-needed physical regeneration, creating safer communities, and making a positive difference to people's lives. The updated capital plan also ensures the successful continuation of the 70 capital projects that are already being delivered across the five Urban Villages areas.

The Urban Villages initiative is providing funding for skills and training in areas such as capacity building and sustainability to all key project promoters to ensure that they can deliver on long-term objectives as well as social, economic, environmental and good relations outcomes over the next two years.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Minister, will you provide an update on the programme's next steps?

Ms Reilly: Thank you for that question. We know the significant impact that the Urban Villages programme has on communities. Successful delivery of the remaining capital projects will increase access to shared-space facilities and continue to promote integration across the five Urban Village areas and beyond.

The strategic direction for Urban Villages that we have set out includes completing the current Urban Villages plan, with a focus on delivering the remaining capital portfolio projects; investing over the next few years to help secure the sustainability of capital projects that will be delivered through grant support for capacity building to support community organisations in taking forward large capital projects; and planning for the future by establishing a working group to take forward the development of phase 2, which includes joined-up delivery by Departments to catalyse the linkages that Urban Villages has made in supporting ministerial priorities. That will fully demonstrate TEO's impact on the Urban Villages areas.

Ms Murphy: Minister, can you give us any additional detail about the projects that have been added to the updated Urban Villages plan?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for her question. In general terms, the Urban Villages initiative has supported a range of community-led, cross-cutting and capital projects to improve good relations outcomes and to develop thriving places where there has been a history of deprivation and community tension. As of 31 January 2025, there has been £49·8 million in capital investment, revenue investment sits at £15 million, the number of event attendees has reached in excess of 1·1 million, and almost 3,500 training courses, with almost 4,000 workshops, have been delivered.

The additional £9 million investment will allow Urban Villages to develop four new capital projects: the Realm, in Derry, which will see a range of high-quality public realm improvements across the Fountain, the Bogside and Bishop Street; Westland Community Centre in north Belfast, which will deliver a new community centre, providing an innovative community-led service for the area; and the market arches in the Markets area of Belfast, where eight tunnels in former railway arches will be regenerated, providing new social and commercial spaces. Lastly, the former School of Music in Donegall Pass in south Belfast will be home to a range of social economy, charitable and creative ventures. Those investments are making a real, tangible difference to the communities in which they are located.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the junior Minister give us an outline of when the final draft of the review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) programme will come forward, with particular reference to the refreshed approach to good relations that has been talked about?

Ms Reilly: The T:BUC review is under way, and a number of good relations projects sit under that. I do not have a time frame in front of me, but, if the Member writes to me, I can provide that for her.

Mr Durkan: Does the junior Minister agree that there should be full transparency of what is being funded by Urban Villages, why and the exact role of TEO in that? I ask because I recently asked the First Minister whether she had received an invite to the official opening of the Peacemakers Museum, a project that she had previously told me had nothing to do with the Executive Office. She said that she had not, or at least that she did not recall receiving an invite to that. I have subsequently acquired —.

Mr Speaker: Does the Member have a question?

Mr Durkan: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I learnt through an FOI request that she had not only been invited to the official opening but that she and the deputy First Minister had subsequently been invited to a pre-opening tour. Will the junior Minister explain why those invitations were not accepted or even recalled?

Ms Reilly: I am not sure what the exact question is, but, of course, there should absolutely be full transparency. I have visited many Urban Villages projects, and it is clear that they have achieved a transformative impact or that such transformation is under way. I look at the Colin area of my constituency in West Belfast. It has been transformed and has been changed so much for the better as to be unrecognisable. We want to build on that, and that is why we have put together a working group to take forward the development of phase 2 of Urban Villages, which will also look at criteria. We must remember that Urban Villages was a first. We can learn from it for the next phase: what phase 1 looks like and how it can be improved on. We will certainly look at doing that.

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member is aware, the purpose of the East-West Council is to strengthen cooperation between us and other parts of the UK by bringing together key representatives from the government, business, education, trade, transport and culture sectors and by encouraging collaboration between Ministers and industry experts. The arrangements and timings for meetings of the Council are, in the first instance, the responsibility of the British Government, and those will inevitably reflect the availability of their Ministers and ours. We are, however, considering a number of potential dates for the next meeting of the Council and hope to be able to confirm details in the near future. We should say that, even in the absence of an East-West Council, we have had numerous opportunities to engage with ministerial colleagues from other Governments through the other forums set up for intergovernmental relations. In the past year, we have attended eight ministerial intergovernmental meetings, including meetings of the Interministerial Standing Committee, the Council of the Nations and Regions, with the Prime Minister and the heads of devolved Governments council, as well as British-Irish Council summits.

Mr Brooks: Does the First Minister agree, having spoken of some of those connections, that the establishment of Intertrade UK is an important step in resolving some of the frictions in east-west trade?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not know an awful lot about the working of Intertrade UK, other than it is to be established. It is essential that any trade bodies work to iron out issues where they arise. That should be a principle that we all aspire to. We do not want disruption of trade, whether it is North/South or east-west. I do not want to see disruption of trade. I want free-flowing trade that allows our people to benefit by growing our economy and creating opportunities for growth. Where issues arise, let us find pragmatic solutions to them. We will work with whatever bodies are in place to ensure that that is the case.

Mr McNulty: Given that one of the key missions of the Council is to offer advisory support to implement major projects and that, as you have said, Casement Park will be built on your watch — have you raised or will you raise the issue of Casement Park with the British Government?

Mrs O'Neill: With all due respect to the Member, I doubt that the East-West Council will discuss Casement Park. I assure him that I raise the issue of Casement Park with the British Government at every turn.

Mrs O'Neill: As First Minister, I have taken the decision not to attend the events in Washington DC this year, but, together with the deputy First Minister, we will join the NI Chamber of Commerce trade delegation to North Carolina. The deputy First Minister has confirmed that she will go to Washington DC, and that programme is still in final development. We will, of course, be happy to report back to the Assembly Chamber once all invitations have been received and considered.

Mr Kingston: The First Minister is aware, given her previous answer, of the series of events that take place in Washington DC in the week of St Patrick's Day, in addition to the shamrock ceremony in the White House. All of those events provide excellent opportunities to promote the interests of people in Northern Ireland. Does the First Minister not acknowledge that, if she truly wants to be a First Minister for all, she should set aside her personal and party preference for which party occupies the presidency and join the deputy First Minister in attending as many events in Washington DC as she can that week?

Mrs O'Neill: First, let me be clear: this is not about party politics. This is about humanity. This is about standing up against injustice. This is about taking a stand when a US Administration have decided to annex the people of Palestine off their land and when they have moved away from a two-state solution — a solution that we all should want to see delivered in the Middle East. I want to see peace and security for the Palestinians and the Israelis, and I want to use every international effort that is conceivably possible to work towards that agenda. Unfortunately, that is not the resolve of the current US Administration, so, at this point in time, I am taking a stand for humanity and against injustice. I can do that whilst advocating for our local economy, which is what I do.

I have engaged with many US presidents from both sides of the House. We have many friends on Capitol Hill who, in a bipartisan way, support the Good Friday Agreement. Those relationships will endure. We have strong relationships with trade unions in the United States. We have strong economic links with businesses. We attract investment and export. We have a mutual relationship that we can continue to build. I am assured by the fact that the deputy First Minister and I will attend in North Carolina. That is part of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce economic event. Our Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, will be in Boston and New York. Our economic links will continue. However, there come times in our life when we should take a stand, and, at this moment in time, I side with humanity.

Ms Sheerin: First Minister, do you agree that it is essential that we continue to maximise economic opportunities in the US?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I have said that I absolutely do. If we reflect on our long-standing links and the roots that run very deep, we should be proud of the work that we have done to grow those relationships over the years, particularly the economic links. The US is our largest export market outside of Britain and is the largest source of high-value FDI, including in our priority sectors for future growth, so that economic work needs to continue. We can do that whilst taking a stand at a certain moment in time.

Caoimhe Archibald, as the Economy Minister, is leading delegations. The deputy First Minister and I will be in North Carolina to sign a memorandum of understanding between our Chamber of Commerce and the one in North Carolina. That, in itself, gives us a unique platform on which to sell our wares. We will continue to drive on with the economic work to enhance our economy, grow investment and create jobs. That is front and centre of our Programme for Government and is what we are determined to do.

Mr Beattie: Minister, our party always argues against boycotts; other parties like boycotts. Some parties complain about boycotts and then partake in boycotts themselves. I ask the First Minister to be absolutely clear: will the deputy First Minister be going to the White House to represent Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, the deputy First Minister will be there representing our office. I will not stand in the way of the deputy First Minister. She has her view, and I have mine. We can have respect for each other's view.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle

, junior Minister Reilly will take the question.

Ms Reilly: We are committed to updating and strengthening racial equality law so that everyone can benefit from a fair and inclusive society. Following an extensive 12-week consultation on the review of the Race Relations Order, a report on the responses that included more than 50 potential changes was published last August. We intend to introduce the legislation in the Assembly as part of the 2025-26 legislative programme, which will move us a step closer to providing the best possible legal protection against racial discrimination and ensuring that everyone is valued and treated equally.

Mr Blair: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Given that incidents of race hate continue, as seen, sadly, in south Belfast at the weekend and, to a worrying extent, in my constituency of South Antrim last summer, and given that the consultation was such a long time ago, may we have some detail today on what work has been done on drafting amendments?

Ms Reilly: Thank you for your supplementary question. I think that we all agree that having a diverse society only enriches the cultural and economic life of absolutely everybody who calls here "home" and that we want a society in which people are protected and treated equally. Our officials have already started to engage with the minority ethnic sector to support and develop how we move forward on racial equality beyond 2025.

As I mentioned in my initial answer, we intend to introduce legislation in 2025-26. We have seen disgraceful behaviour in recent times and again at the weekend in south Belfast by those trying to instil fear in our communities. We utterly condemn the attacks and stand with those who were targeted. Tackling racism and racial inequality is a priority for us, as is making sure that there is legislation to protect people.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the Minister provide an update on the refugee integration strategy, please?

Ms Reilly: Yes. I am delighted to say that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have approved a refugee integration strategy and associated delivery framework that will be brought to the Executive next month for agreement.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased, junior Minister, that there will be a refugee integration strategy. I acknowledge that as progress. The Programme for Government, however, contains, by my count, seven or eight words on tackling racism. After not just the violence that we saw last summer in Belfast but the attack at the weekend, people of colour deserve better than warm words. They deserve clarity and focus, a stand-alone hate crime Bill, the Order being updated — finally, after years — and a racial equality strategy. Why is the issue so absent from the Programme for Government?

Ms Reilly: Let me start by reiterating that racism and hate have absolutely no place in our society. I mentioned the disgraceful behaviour during the summer and the behaviour that comes with that. It was absolutely disgraceful to see racist graffiti in south Belfast, but we will call that out at every opportunity. Work is being done. Our officials have started work on a review of the racist attacks here last summer, including why they happened, the response to them, who was involved and actions to prevent such attacks from happening again.

The Executive Office formed a cross-departmental working group, which it chairs. There is an application for an area-based education and myth-busting piece, which will potentially be funded under PEACE PLUS. That piece of work has been submitted. If it is successful, it will aim to build positive relations in our communities that, we hope, will address potential future incidents of racism.

Mrs O'Neill: We recognise the immense economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the site and are committed to working with the board to maximise that potential for the benefit of all. Pending decisions on the way forward, the development corporation is charged with maintaining and managing the site, carrying out essential health and safety works and supporting the existing tenants. The board's role is to provide leadership, strategic direction and guidance to ensure that it effectively discharges its obligations and fulfils the aims and objectives agreed with TEO. The board also seeks to maintain a state of readiness for future development. That includes continuing engagement with TEO officials to consider possible approaches to regeneration of the site and the provision of advice and options for the future.

Mr Butler: I thank the First Minister for her answer. TEO has, indeed, held the reins of the MLK site for over a decade. The board has proffered examples during its tenure. However, Lisburn council has a development plan. Under the current Sinn Féin/DUP First Minister and deputy First Minister, will we see tangible change and the delivery of economic opportunity in Lagan Valley for the people who have been promised it for so long?

Mrs O'Neill: The site has the opportunity to be transformative. I want us to get there. We need a political agreement, obviously, to get there. I am working to make sure that we can, hopefully, get to that point. The board is doing its job and is working away to maintain the site and ensure that it is ready for development. There have also been some developments on the site. Its potential is as yet untapped, but we have spoken before in the House about that potential. I assure you that that is what I want to achieve. I will work to get the political agreement that is required to ensure that we can have the site opened up. The economic benefit that will come from it will be transformational.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the First Minister for committing to work with the board to maximise the benefit for everybody across our community. First Minister, will you confirm that the regeneration of the site remains a key priority for the Executive?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. As I said in my previous answer, it is an area that has massive potential, and we must really tap into that. You can see the regeneration of the site in the same vein as other transformation projects, such as Windsor Park, Kingspan Stadium, the Ebrington site, Crumlin Road Gaol and what we will see in Casement Park. Developing all those sites creates huge opportunities for us, and we must get on with that. They are economic game changers. They mean so much to the local community, even in the rate take and what that means for local investment in councils. They can be such game changers.

We know what the barriers are. We have to continue to try to make progress. There needs to be political agreement on how we move forward, but let us do that in a way that delivers benefits for everybody while dealing with the sensitivities about the site. I visited the site last year, along with the deputy First Minister. We met the board. I do not need to be convinced of what we could achieve on that site if we were to get political agreement.

Mr Harvey: Will the First Minister brief Members on whether Air Ambulance will remain on the site?

Mrs O'Neill: Absolutely. We are very committed to having Air Ambulance on the site. Air Ambulance is an amazing charity that everybody knows. It works in partnership with the Department of Health to provide a helicopter emergency medical service from the site. It has been called out over 4,500 times. Its work speaks for itself. The corporation will continue to work with Air Ambulance, because there is potential for it to have a longer-term base there and move away from the current temporary situation.

Mr Dickson: First Minister, given the inability to reach agreement on the use of the site, how is the work of the board evaluated regarding value for public money? How does it work through its objectives, given that there are no agreed objectives for the use of the site?

Mrs O'Neill: Its objectives are very much aligned with the development corporation's current remit, which includes the maintenance and management of the site. It also has to carry out essential health and safety works and support the existing tenants. The corporation continues as far as possible to maintain a state of readiness for future development, including continuing to consider possible approaches to the regeneration of the site and provide advice and options for the future as and when required. The board is dealt with in the same way as any other public body when it comes to value for money so is absolutely accountable for every penny spent. That is not something that we are concerned about. I cannot remember the exact budget — I think that it oversees £1 million capital over a year — but we are assured that all public accountability mechanisms are in place for the board.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: At times, things do not move as quickly as we all would want them to move. That can be true of all Ministers at different times. I am not here to point-score off anybody today; I am here to get business done.

Mr O'Toole: I asked that question, First Minister, because, from the look of the Programme for Government document, which shows zero progress on Casement — it has exactly the same language as in the draft Programme for Government — zero progress on the Irish language, DUP/Tory bodies such as the East-West Council and Intertrade UK being placed on the same footing as Good Friday Agreement bodies such as InterTradeIreland and the North/South Ministerial Council and much less ambition than the Irish Government's Programme for Government on shared island or cross-border services, people will conclude that the DUP is running rings around you and your party. Tell us this: who is taking whom for a fool? Is the DUP taking your party for fools, or is your party taking the rest of us for fools?

Mrs O'Neill: That is more of a fool's question, to be honest. From day 1, I have said that I will work constructively with the Opposition, but there is making a point and using Question Time to best effect, and then there is getting up to play games. That question is playing games.

I am determined to lead in the Executive and to work with the deputy First Minister and all Ministers. There are four parties around the Executive table. They are a four-party Executive, and I am committed to making that work. The rest of the four parties here turn up every day to try to make that work, despite the challenges. You have the luxury of sitting out in comfort and biting from the sidelines, while the rest of us are focused —

Mr O'Toole: Like Mary Lou McDonald? Like the Opposition in Dáil Éireann?

Mrs O'Neill: Let me finish my point. The rest of us are trying to get the work done. Throughout the day, we will have the Programme for Government discussion, and you can have your say on how you feel about all of that. The rest of us — the four parties of the Executive — will focus on trying to get things done.

The Executive are not perfect. If anybody who walked in here on day 1 thought that they would be, they were mistaken. The rest of us are committed to working together to deliver for people.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I was pleased that the Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, announced last week that the land had been purchased. That was obviously a key part of the Magee expansion, so I am delighted to confirm that we have reached an important milestone with all three sites having been acquired to accommodate the growth to 10,000 students by 2032. The expansion of Magee has the potential to be a real economic game changer in the north-west, helping to attract investment, create more jobs and better opportunities and showcase everything that the region has to offer. It is another step in the right direction as we continue to work towards the target of 10,000 students at the campus.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

Will you confirm, Minister, that you will do everything in your power to ensure that we reach the target of 10,000 students on the Derry campus?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I absolutely give that assurance. That has been a commitment from Sinn Féin Economy Ministers since day one, and Conor and now Caoimhe have continued that vital work. We will continue to work alongside others, because such things happen in partnership, and you get so much more done when you work in partnership. It is about the Executive working with Derry City and Strabane District Council and the university to deliver on the transformative vision that we all share for Derry, which will create enormous and exciting opportunities for everyone who calls the north-west "home".

Mrs O'Neill: I will be absolutely clear: it is long past the time for such groups to exist in today's society. We are 27 years post the Good Friday Agreement. There is no space for those groups to exist in our society. They exist to keep their foot on the necks of the communities in which they live. We should do all that we can to ensure that they are disbanded.

The initiative by the two Governments is for them to answer to. I share the Member's concerns. Anything that comes forward cannot be a case of throwing money at the groups; I do not agree with that. The Governments should do nothing that allows the groups to exist for even longer. I share the Member's views.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the First Minister for that answer. First Minister, will you and the deputy First Minister commit to make representations to the Secretary of State so that it is not done in the name of us in the Assembly Chamber?

Mrs O'Neill: We are yet to agree an Executive position. I assure you that both Governments will be aware of my views, and I am sure that every other party in the House will take the opportunity to make its views known also.

Mrs O'Neill: That is one of the issues that is very much highlighted in our Programme for Government, which is being discussed today. Cutting childcare costs and keeping money in the pockets of struggling families has been a day-1 priority for our Executive. Recently, I was pleased that we were able to double the funds: we have gone from investing £25 million initially to a total of £50 million for this year in the draft Budget. That is about us trying to make childcare more affordable for parents, supporting struggling providers and creating more places for children with additional needs, because we need to be inclusive. We have also included it, as I said, as a Programme for Government priority, because that puts it up in lights as something that the four parties of the Executive are committed to delivering on.

Childcare is one of the most pressing issues in society right now. The burden of childcare falls on women in particular. Often, we all meet women who tell us that they think that they have no option other than to stay at home, because of the cost of childcare. It is one of the things that the Executive need to deliver on and one on which, I believe, all four parties of the Executive are willing and ready to participate and deliver.

Ms Flynn: I thank the First Minister for her response. Will the First Minister continue to work closely with the entire Executive to further reduce the costs?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We have demonstrated what we can do in the first 16 or 17 months. We have prioritised it; we have put money towards it; and we have made advances in it. However, we must not be complacent: we know that there is still a lot more to be done on that front. For our part, I can say to the Member that, yes, childcare is a priority; yes, we will continue to invest in childcare; yes, we will be inclusive; and yes, we will help take the burden from families. We will also help our providers to provide the spaces and ensure that we bring down costs for families. It is about accessibility; it is about the cost factor; and it is about ensuring that we have the right number of places in the right areas.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Baker, I remind the House that I notified the Assembly some weeks ago of the dress code introduced by Mr McLaughlin when he was Speaker. I only call Mr Baker because he is on the list.

Mrs O'Neill: The announcement of a £671 million investment in a new state-of-the-art children's hospital is fantastic news for children and families across our society. It will provide children in need of care with the best facilities and the latest technology, offering them world-class healthcare here at home. It is obviously an enormous investment in children here and in healthcare more widely. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have on so many lives — from young patients and their families through to the dedicated healthcare workers who provide invaluable care.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat

, First Minister. Does the First Minister agree that the project will be a game changer for families across the North?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely do. The deputy First Minister and I had the pleasure of being on site last week to see the plans for ourselves and to meet some of the staff. There is no doubt that it will be a real game changer in the care of our sick children, and it will bring a much improved experience at a difficult time for the families. It will also be an improved experience for the staff. Having spoken to the staff who work in the current, more difficult surroundings, I think that it will be a real pleasure for them to go to work as they provide excellent care to our young people. Once completed — I look forward to that day — it will be a game changer for children and young people across the North.

Mrs O'Neill: First, he focus of the international community should always be on working towards negotiation and peace settlements. That is my approach to such things. It is only through lasting peace and genuine and constructive engagement that you arrive at a peace solution. Our example here tells us that. The support of the European countries for Ukraine absolutely needs to be solid. I welcome the fact that we have that back on an even keel and that there is no ambiguity around European support for ending the war in Ukraine.

Ms Sugden: To go back to the specific question, given that company's role in relation to Palestine, does the First Minister support the £1·6 billion deal that the UK Government announced this morning?

Mrs O'Neill: No. I am really incredulous. At a time when public services are being cut left, right and centre; when we have endured 14 years of austerity; when winter fuel payments to older people are being cut; when lots of small local businesses will go to the wall, because they cannot afford the hike in National Insurance; and when our farmers are worried because of the inheritance tax, I would rather see the money being invested in public services than in buying weapons of war.

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that, when funding is handed out by the TEO or any other Department, all due diligence is applied to any funding or grant application that is received by a Department.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. You do not keep a list: the response to the question for written answer that I tabled says that you do not. The question is this: will you take that position when you ask for funding applications in relation to ending violence against women and girls? People who are involved in domestic abuse, sexual abuse, rape and child abuse could receive funding. Nobody wants that.

Mrs O'Neill: Of course, nobody wants that, particularly not in those sensitive areas, but let us not make policy on the hoof. Let us be considered about how we do things. In order to bring forward such policies, you need to ensure that there is proper documentation and lists and that you are able to refer to records. Let us not make policy on the hoof. I get the general point about making sure that you can stand over any application for funding. That is an important point.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. I have just referred to it. I welcome the Member to the Chamber, given that she has newly joined us. She is welcome, and I look forward to engaging with her.

Yes, the hike in National Insurance contributions is and will be deeply concerning for many of our small businesses. All of us will have been contacted by businesses that are afraid that they will have to close their doors or let staff go because they do not know how they will absorb the cost of National Insurance contributions. We have raised the issue at every turn with the British Government and the Treasury. The Finance Minister has done so and will continue to do so. Last week, our Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and made that case to him directly. As an Executive, our collective view is that we will continue to call for change of approach.

It is not too late. There is still time for it to be changed. Our local businesses cannot absorb the cost. We need there to be a rethink of the Labour Government's policy position.

Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat

to the First Minister for her answer. I want to reiterate this: does the First Minister agree that public-sector employers must be fully supported by the British Government in meeting those costs?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The challenges are being acutely felt across the public sector, which was already feeling challenged and was struggling because of 14 years of austerity. Put simply, when you are trying to deal with all those years of underfunding, lumping that additional cost on top of all that will be catastrophic for many people. I again call from the Chamber for a rethink of that policy. The National Insurance contribution hike will cause damage to so many people and our public sector. A lot of businesses are really worried about it. We will continue to do all that we can, and I assure the Member that we will not give up on fighting the case for local people.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, First Minister.

Members, take your ease for a moment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney is not in his place.

Mr Lyons: My Department is actively engaged in ensuring that claimants and those in vulnerable groups are aware of preventative measures to take in order to avoid online scams. Such measures include ensuring that claimants can detect potential scams, what action to take and whom to contact. Benefit information on nidirect sets out how my Department will liaise with or contact customers. Many of our online information pages signpost to the public sector's ScamwiseNI campaign, which provides advice on how to recognise and report a scam.

In addition, universal credit claimants have access to a guide within their online account that provides information on how to stay safe online and how to keep their universal credit account secure. My Department regularly uses social media messaging to promote scam awareness. The messages make it clear that we will never ask for details by text, email or a weblink. We also encourage customers to report anything suspicious to Action Fraud or its local office. Digital and IT courses are run regularly across the library network through the Go ON NI programme to help people develop their digital skills and to raise awareness. Those include courses on topics such as common internet scams and how to avoid them. Libraries NI also links up with partners to deliver activities as part of national initiatives such as Cyber Week and Safer Internet Day.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered how he might fund some of our excellent community and voluntary organisations to deliver outreach initiatives to raise awareness of ever-changing scams and thus prevent individuals from falling foul of them?

Mr Lyons: We want to do as much as we can to ensure that those who are especially vulnerable to scammers have all the information that they require in order to remain as vigilant as possible. If community and voluntary sector organisations wish to do that work, it will be up to them to fund it from their budget and to make the Department aware that such initiatives are part of the services that they provide so that funding opportunities can be considered.

Mr Speaker: They may not have realised, but I remind the Members who just took their places that they should not walk in front of the Minister and the Member to whom he is responding.

Mrs Guy: Ministerial announcements such as that on the winter fuel payment trigger scammers to target beneficiaries. Given the number of older pensioners who are not online, what non-digital communication is the Minister providing to raise awareness of how the payment will be made and of how to avoid scammers, especially those who use the telephone to trick pensioners?

Mr Lyons: In all the media announcements that I have made on the issue, I have made it clear that we will not ask people for any information, nor will we be sending out text messages. Instead, the winter fuel payment will be made automatically, and I hope that the Member will join me in making sure that our older people are made aware that we will not be contacting them via text message, and especially not to ask them for any information.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you have said that your Department will not send out texts about the winter fuel payment, given that there are those who are trying to scam people of whatever age. Can you provide an update on how the roll-out of the winter fuel payment is going?

Mr Lyons: First, it is important to say that we will be contacting by letter those who are eligible, but we will not ask them to respond to it or to provide any information. As I said, the winter fuel payment will be made automatically. As I previously promised, the payment will be with those who are eligible for it by the end of the month, and we are still on track to make sure that that happens.

Mr McGlone: Some scams have become so sophisticated — "good" is probably the wrong word to use — that it is very hard to determine what the real thing is and what the scam is. What interaction or collaboration has there been between your Department, the Department for the Economy and the PSNI to make people more aware of, and thus prevent, those awful scams, which, in some instances, have cleaned out people's bank accounts?

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, I encourage people to be vigilant. We need to make sure that people are encouraging others to be vigilant as well and for them to consider whether they need to give out the information for which those scammers may be asking. We certainly do engage on a regular basis with the Department for the Economy. My Department, as the Member will be aware, sponsors the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, who has worked closely with the PSNI on the Scamwise initiative, which aims to raise awareness among older people of scams. The commissioner played a key role in establishing that partnership. I hope that people are aware of that and will take part in it. There is a responsibility on us all, as MLAs and as individuals, to do everything that we can to make sure that people are alert to the issue and recognise the importance of withholding information and not giving it out when it should not be given out. It is always best to take care, check and verify.

Mr Lyons: The Department for Communities has led the development of a suite of social inclusion strategies, including a gender equality strategy, on behalf of the Executive. I have taken time to consider the work to date, alongside the unprecedented pressure on resources across Departments. Given the challenges that we face, I decided to move forward with reinvigorating the ongoing development of the social inclusion strategies on a phased basis. Work on the anti-poverty and disability strategies is ongoing, and details of the proposed next steps in developing the gender equality strategy will follow shortly. While the Department for Communities is leading on the development of the strategies, final decisions on their content, publication and implementation will be subject to Executive agreement and public consultation.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for the update. I was glad to see, in the Programme for Government that we are debating today, the references to the social inclusion strategies, ending violence against women and girls, gender equality and women returning to the workforce. It is important that you bring forward the gender equality strategy as soon as possible. The women's groups that are lobbying for it would probably appreciate a firmer timeline for when that will happen.

Mr Lyons: If the Member's question is to ask me for that timeline, I will say that I do not have it right now. As I said, I am taking those strategies forward on a phased basis. There has been a promise for many years that the anti-poverty strategy would be in place, and it is not. It is right that I take a phased approach, but I will, of course, update the House in due course.

Ms Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that some of the gender ideologies espoused by the Alliance Party may, in fact, be detrimental to women?

Mr Lyons: The Member, not for the first time, is absolutely right. I do not think that the Alliance Party actually cares about this issue. What it is most interested in is tipping its hat to the gender ideologies that she mentioned. When it comes to choosing between standing up for women or adherence to those gender ideologies, the Alliance Party will choose those gender ideologies every single time. Worse still, the Alliance Party cannot even define what a woman is never mind stand up for one.

Mr McNulty: Minister, of the clients who accessed community advice services during 2023-24, 58% were women. Will the gender equality strategy recognise the disproportionate impact on women of many cuts to benefits?

Mr Lyons: The whole point of the gender equality strategy is to make sure that people are protected where there is a difference in outcomes. It will be up to Departments to decide individual actions, and those will require Executive approval. The whole point of the gender equality strategy is to make sure that those issues can be addressed.

Mr Carroll: I urge the Minister not to engage in trans bashing. It is not a good look.

As part of the gender equality strategy, has the Minister's Department discussed introducing a financial payment to help women to flee situations of domestic violence where they are at risk?

Mr Lyons: Of course we want to help those who are at risk, and that is work that the Housing Executive is taking forward.

I take issue with the Member's first comment. It is easy for him to say that anytime anyone is critical of the gender ideology that he espouses, it is "trans bashing". It absolutely is not. We simply want to protect women. The policies that he espouses would actually harm women and put them in difficult and dangerous situations. He can throw whatever insults he wants at this side of the House, but we will continue to stand up for what is plainly and evidently the truth.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister take this opportunity to enlighten the Member who tabled the question for oral answer on how many genders there are?

Mr Lyons: There are two genders.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: My officials have been working closely with Ards and North Down Borough Council and the developer, Bangor Marine, and, as a result of that work, heads of terms have now been agreed with the Crown Estate. The developer, the council and my officials are finalising the legal agreements to enable a start on the site. Those discussions are close to completion, and I will provide a further update in the next few weeks.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for that very welcome news. Locally, there has been a lot of ill-informed and negative speculation that the current development plans were going to fail. Will the Minister offer some reassurance to the local population? In the past, people have been failed so many times at the last hurdle. Will the Minister give some level of reassurance that this development is on course to start?

Mr Lyons: I am fully aware of the frustrations that exist on the ground. On one of my first ministerial visits, Mr Dunne took me along to meet the people who are most involved with that project. I know how long it has been going on — it has been decades — and I know the frustrations that exist. The Member has my commitment that I want to do everything that I can to make sure that it moves forward. My Department has been acting appropriately in that regard to make sure that we can make progress, because this has the potential to be a game changer. People have waited for too long, and I will not be found wanting in making sure that we do everything that we can to ensure that it proceeds.

Ms Egan: I hope that the Minister appreciates that this is really frustrating for people in Bangor. Does the Minister have a timeline for when building at Queen's Parade will start?

Mr Lyons: I do not have a timeline for that. There are still some issues to be worked out, but, as I have said, I recognise the concerns and the length of time that it has taken. I want to make sure that we push it forward as much as possible, and I will certainly do everything that I can in the Department to make sure that that is the case.

Mr Martin: Minister, the Queen's Parade scheme and its completion have what you might call "legendary status" for the residents of Bangor. Will the Minister ensure that there is continued local engagement on the development in its final stages?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely, I can commit to that. My Department leads a project board for the Queen's Parade development scheme, and we have created a subgroup to make sure that we can focus on communication and stakeholder engagement. We will continue to engage with local stakeholders throughout the delivery of the scheme, especially when we approach key milestones, to ensure that they are engaged and informed. Bangor Marine will also keep the local community informed of progress throughout the consultation phases. I know that businesses in the area are crying out for action to be taken. I understand the frustration, and I commit personally to making sure that I do everything that I can to progress it.

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive administers the disabled facilities grant on behalf of my Department. The grant provides funding for adaptations for those with a disability who live in private-sector homes. In the 2024-25 financial year, the Housing Executive received £14·75 million in funding for private-sector home improvement grants, which include the statutory disabled facilities grant. The Housing Executive has advised that it expects to invest £13·91 million of that funding in adaptations via the disabled facilities grants. Those grants and adaptations are in response to need, so each year’s allocation is based on the estimated requirement. Therefore, I cannot confirm investment in disability housing adaptation schemes for 2025 and 2026 at this stage.

Following Executive agreement of the draft 2025-26 Budget on 19 December, the Department of Finance launched a 12-week public consultation period, which is due to close on 13 March. My officials have commenced work on options to live within a further year’s constrained budget and the impacts of that. An equality impact assessment of the Department’s 2025-26 Budget allocation will be drafted and published for consultation to inform the final 2025-26 Budget allocations.

I assure the Member that my Department is committed to ensuring that funding is available for those who require disability-related adaptations that will enable them to live safely in their home.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. It is good to hear about the amount of money that is being invested in that way, because it is being invested on behalf of the most vulnerable people in our community. I hope that you will have a reasonable budget for that.

I also hope that you understand the issues with the disabled facilities grant, including the number of reports that have to be made in order to gain it. Minister, will you commit to looking at the case of a young constituent of mine who is disabled and living in a downstairs bedroom and who urgently needs a disabled facilities grant in order to live her best life?

Mr Lyons: I want to make sure that we have the budget to cover the needs of everyone in Northern Ireland who needs that help. I will certainly do my best to ensure that that financial support is there. I am sorry to hear about the individual case that the Member raised. We should want for her constituent, and for everybody else who needs them, those adaptations to be in place. We will all have heard stories of people who find it difficult to get by and to just to live their life in the accommodation they are in without the changes that they require. I suggest that the Member contact me directly with those details, and I will be happy to chase up that issue on her behalf.

Ms K Armstrong: During the most recent meeting of the Committee for Communities, it was made aware of the fact that the disabled facilities grant may be funded but that no budget would be allocated to the Housing Executive for it to make disability adaptations to its properties. In the shameful absence of the disability strategy, does the Minister agree that failing to provide accessible housing to meet the needs of tenants is discrimination?

Mr Lyons: I brought forward a housing supply strategy for exactly that reason: to make sure that we have the necessary homes in place. That is why a target is in place for 10% of new-build starts of general needs units to be wheelchair accessible. I am making sure that I do everything that I can to ensure that we have the facilities there. Clearly, I want to make sure that, at the same time, we have the ability to adapt existing buildings. The Member will understand the constrained budgetary environment that we are operating in, but yet another reason why we need to see the revitalisation of the Housing Executive is so that we can fund the improvements and adaptations that our constituents need.

Ms Hunter: There are 1,079 delays to adaptations to the housing of people living with a disability. Minister, what are you doing to end those delays and speed things up?

Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member is aware that, as part of the Housing Executive-administered private-sector grant review, we are working closely with the Housing Executive and the Department of Health to identify measures to improve the operation of the disabled facilities grant and to reduce end-to-end processing times. One of the measures that is being considered is a fast-track process for people with life-limiting illnesses. I have asked my officials to prioritise that work.

Since 2022, the Housing Executive has reduced the average wait time for the disabled facilities grant by 141 days. That is a significant improvement, but the current wait time for adaptations is still too long, and, as part of the review, I am keen to reduce it further. My officials are looking into what further changes can be made in partnership with Health and the Housing Executive.

Mr Lyons: The terms of reference for the task and finish group are being drafted. As I set out in my statement to the House on 11 February, that group will look critically at every intervention that we take and focus on the high-risk areas in order to maximise the return on investment for hard-working taxpayers. That will include exploring digital developments to support counter-fraud activity. The task and finish group will also examine prosecutions, data retention, the recovery of fraud overpayments and official error to ensure that we are using every tool that is at our disposal to get the right money to the right people at the right time. That is a priority for me and for people right across Northern Ireland, who place their trust in the integrity of our welfare system. Through the task and finish group, I want to recognise the importance of the safety net that our welfare system provides and the imperative of ensuring that every penny goes to those who are genuinely eligible.

The focus of the task and finish group will be about building on the good work that is under way in my Department and ensuring that we have robust mechanisms in place to identify fraud at the earliest opportunity, to stop money going out the door and, importantly, to recover money that has been claimed under false pretences.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. What action is he taking to ensure that concerns from his members of staff, particularly in jobs and benefits offices, are heard and that action is taken?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising those questions because the members of staff to whom he refers are at the coalface. I want to make sure that they are heard. There are processes in place to raise concerns, and I encourage all those with information or concerns to continue to raise them through those channels. I send a message to my staff today that I want to work with them; we are in this together. I will work with them so that we can tackle that critical issue, and if further action needs to be taken, it will be taken, because I believe that fraud is wrong. Some people in the House have said that £163 million is only a small figure. I believe that that money can be better spent on public services and on protecting the people in Northern Ireland who need it.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, your statement referenced the decision to change the policy around so-called naming and shaming. What evidence did you look at to justify that change?

Mr Lyons: The first bit of evidence that stood out was the fact that we have seen a doubling of welfare fraud in percentage terms over the past number of years. Quite simply, I believe that if you have been found to have deliberately misrepresented your circumstances, it is right that, as part of the judicial process, you be named. I hope that that will be a deterrent to those who might be tempted to do it and that it might send a message to the public that we are taking the issue seriously.

Mr Dickson: Given that customer error overpayments totalled some £50·8 million in 2023, what analysis has been done to understand why those errors are occurring, and how can systems be simplified to prevent them in the future?

Mr Lyons: Those are also issues that we take on board. We do have a record of tackling official error, but we need to go further, so, in addition to management checks in individual benefit branches, specialist teams use a risk-based approach to target areas that may give rise to official errors. That amounted to over 23,000 cases being reviewed last year for accuracy, leading to the adjustment of benefit in 4, 447 cases. All errors are highlighted to staff to aid continuous learning. I want us to tackle fraud, but we need to tackle error as well.

Mr Lyons: It is my assessment that the musical instruments programme, which is an important capital investment programme delivered by the Arts Council on behalf of my Department, aligns well with the principles and priorities that I set out in my written ministerial statement of 3 July 2024 on the heritage, culture and creativity programme. Those are: focusing on the contribution that each of the sectors can make in equality of access and opportunity across socio-economic grouping, age, geography and so on; encouraging greater participation, particularly from people and communities that might feel that heritage is not for them or that their cultural or artistic activities and traditions don’t quite fit; and exploring the potential for encouraging new and deeper collaborations and partnerships, supporting greater financial sustainability across the sectors and identifying approaches and opportunities that maximise the value of those important assets and their potential for identifying, measuring and increasing their contribution to achieving Department and Executive policy outcomes, including in relation to health and general well-being, education and the economy.

I want to ensure that priority is given to providing support that reaches younger people from more deprived areas, those living in rural areas and areas that are distant from Belfast and those not currently engaged in cultural activities. With a total investment of £823,000 in 2024-25, all eligible applicants were supported through 119 grant awards to 75 bands, 13 professional and non-professional performing groups and 31 professional musicians. From marching bands and school groups to traditional musicians and musical societies, musicians can replace older worn-out instruments and purchase new ones, thereby increasing the quality of music-making in Northern Ireland.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. I know some of the benefits that this has brought to some of the folk who have received it. Can the Minister, at this early stage, give any indication of how many people might have benefited from the scheme?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The investment — it is an investment — will mean that 4,500 people will directly benefit across every constituency in Northern Ireland. It is unusual for a grant scheme to have made such a significant impact across such a wide geographic area, and I will look to expand on that work in the future.

Mr McMurray: Given that more than 85% of the latest round of musical instruments for bands funding was awarded to those from one particular background, how does the Minister's Department intend to ensure that the funding reaches a diverse range of musical genres and cultural traditions in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I have the full list of all those who were eligible. First, the funding is awarded on a fair and equitable basis. There should not be any indication coming from the Member that that was not the case. Many different organisations from many different backgrounds have applied for the musical instruments scheme. We have bands, yes, from all backgrounds, we have individuals from all backgrounds, and many professional and non-professional performing groups from all over Northern Ireland got the funding that they require to increase the musical capacity in Northern Ireland. We should welcome the investment. We should welcome the fact that it was made all over Northern Ireland. We should welcome the fact that it will encourage more people to get involved in the arts, often from communities and backgrounds that might not normally have the opportunity. I am very proud of what we have been able to deliver.

Mr Lyons: I fully recognise the potential impact that the financial constraints faced by NI Water may have on the delivery of the Executive's housing supply strategy. Indeed, the necessity of addressing waste water capacity limitations is referred to clearly throughout the strategy. I have had a number of meetings in recent weeks with representatives of the construction sector who have spoken to me about the growing impact of these constraints on their ability to deliver homes. In light of that, I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure to highlight my concerns about the issue and to express again the need to identify new actions to address it. I look forward to working with her and her Department to develop those actions. It is important to emphasise that the strategy is centred on a whole-system approach to supply and that the Executive are committed to working collaboratively to address all barriers to supply, including water infrastructure.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that this is a DFI issue, which has cross-cutting consequences that impact on all other Departments. What further action is the Minister taking to ensure that DFI addresses the waste water infrastructure challenges that we are facing?

Mr Lyons: First, we now have two documents that highlight the importance of the issue — documents that have been called for over a long time. First, we now have in place the housing supply strategy that was agreed by all Executive Ministers, and I expect that it will be given the priority that it deserves. People signed up to that. It is important that we work together to deliver on that issue. We have said that it is a priority for the Executive, and the Programme for Government published today recognises that it is a priority. Again, for many years, there were calls for housing to be a stand-alone outcome in the Programme for Government, and that is something that I have delivered.

I want to make sure that all Ministers are aware of the responsibilities that they face, and, to that end, I have asked for a meeting with the Infrastructure Minister so that we can make sure that the commitments that we have promised in signing up to that document are fulfilled.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: First, we have delivered on the issue by having a stand-alone outcome in the Programme for Government. For the first time, we have an Executive who have recognised the issue's importance. Secondly, we have a housing supply strategy in place. I have ambitions for this place and for our housing in particular, which is why I have not waited for a draft Programme for Government to be published before I have taken action. We have made sure that there is more funding available for social housing. When I came into office this year, we thought that, with the money that we have, we would be in a position to start only 400 homes. I have increased that, and, this year, we will start over 1,400 homes. That is not the height of my ambition, but it shows what we can achieve when we put our mind to it. I want to make sure that we increase even more, not just social homes but supply across Northern Ireland. That is what I am committed to doing.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. Given the pace at which government operates in this place, the question that we probably all have is about when they will be finished. Given that one of the key hurdles in delivering housing in Northern Ireland is a lack of waste water infrastructure, as someone who sits at the Executive table, Minister, are you disappointed that the lack of investment in waste water infrastructure has not even been mentioned in the document? Is your target an actual target?

Mr Lyons: I want to go beyond what we have said. It is the same with the housing supply strategy. We have set a plan for 100,000 homes, but I want to make sure that we increase that and go further.

On waste water, if the Member had been listening to my answer to the previous question, he would know that I have set out the concerns that I have and the action that we need to take. Certainly, I will not be found wanting in making sure that we push the issue and get delivery.

Mr Lyons: It is because the expectation, when it comes to funding for publicly owned grounds, is that they will pay a greater contribution than those in the private sector.

Mrs Dillon: Can you outline what engagement you or your Department had with the councils in the development of the co-design of the football fund? Forty per cent seems quite substantial.

Mr Lyons: My understanding is that that is in line with other funding pots that are in place. We have to remember that the fund is coming forward because there is market failure and because additional support is required and some may not have the finances to do that themselves. We understand that it is generally the expectation that councils find themselves in a different position, but, of course, I am more than happy to listen to any concerns that people have expressed.

Mr Lyons: That has been one of my top priorities since coming into office. It is led primarily by the Department of Finance, but I have used every opportunity that I have had with every UK Government Minister to highlight the importance of Housing Executive revitalisation, and I will continue to do so. Progress has been made. The case has been made to Treasury. It is a sound case, and I look forward to Treasury making that decision so that we can see real change and, potentially, one of the most important and transformative things that we can do during the mandate.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will certainly recognise that that has been an Ulster Unionist commitment for many years. I am sure that the Minister will also agree that housing supply and increasing energy efficiency will contribute to the overall well-being of our citizens. Will the Minister therefore advise whether, if the Northern Ireland Housing Executive were to be given that ability tomorrow, how quickly it could move and what improvements renters would see in the short, medium and long term?

Mr Lyons: I want to make sure that we are ready to go, which is why, in our discussions, I have asked the Housing Executive to make sure that, when the treatment rule that, I hope, will be put in is put in, we are ready to go. I have confidence in Grainia Long and the leadership of the Housing Executive to make sure that we are ready to go on day 1. There are short-term things that we will be able to progress, as well as longer-term issues such as building more homes. I am assured that a plan will be in place that can be taken forward.

Mr Lyons: My focus right now is on doing what the Assembly has mandated me to do on the private rented sector, which includes increasing notice to quit periods.

Mr Carroll: That is a disappointing answer. Does the Minister think that it is morally acceptable that landlords can evict people and throw their life up in the air for no reason? What assessment has he made of the impact of no-fault eviction on growing waiting lists year-on-year?

Mr Lyons: I am aware of the growing waiting lists. The private rented sector needs reform, and that is why we are taking a serious of measures. Ultimately, it all comes back to supply across all tenures. My focus is on making sure that we have everything in place to build more homes across all tenures so that we can make housing more affordable.

Mr Lyons: That is largely out of my hands, because work is ongoing on the development of the Irish language and Ulster-Scots strategies. A cross-departmental working group has been set up to look at the potential actions that could come from that work and at the cost of such actions. I fully respect the rights of people in regard to their cultural and linguistic heritage, and I want to make sure that we balance those rights with the costs that may come with that work. The working group will come back to me, but it will ultimately be for the Executive to decide the way forward.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I respect that, but the question I asked was approximately when you will take the strategy to the Executive. I will follow up with a question for written answer.

You have been in office for over a year, and Conradh na Gaeilge has repeatedly asked for a meeting with you about progress on the strategy. Will you confirm whether you have any intention of having that meeting?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I do. It is the same approach as those I have taken to the disability strategy and the anti-poverty strategy. The work has been done. The co-design groups and expert panels have done their work. That work came to the Department, and I then sent it to the other Departments, through the cross-departmental working group, to come back with actions. As is the case with all the strategies, once that work is completed, we will engage directly with groups before taking a strategy to the Executive.

Mr Lyons: It is my intention to bring an anti-poverty strategy to the Executive before the end of the month.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, how will you ensure that the anti-poverty strategy is fully implemented?

Mr Lyons: I set up the cross-departmental working group so that it can take actions and make sure that the strategy is realistic, feasible and affordable. It will be up to each Department to take its actions and make sure that those actions are funded and that it proceeds with them. That is how we can make sure that the strategy is implemented and why it is important that I took recommendations from the Departments rather than not having any engagement before throwing a document down on the Executive table in order to get support for it. That is not how I do business. I want to make sure that what we have is realistic and achievable, which is why I am taking the approach that I am taking.

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to say that the consultation closes on 6 March. I do not have the figures, but I will be happy to share them with him when I do.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. On nearly every issue, he has highlighted the challenging budget scenario that his Department faces. Will he give a guarantee that the fuel poverty strategy will be robust and will lift households out of poverty in the context of the challenging environment that he faces?

Mr Lyons: We have funding in place that we currently use to tackle those issues. I look forward to that budget being best used when we bring forward the next fuel poverty strategy. I want to make sure that we can scale up some of that work. It is absolutely my intention that it will be effective. Fuel poverty is a significant issue for many people across Northern Ireland, and this is a significant tool that we have to defeat poverty.

Mr Lyons: I have asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State. I have written to him asking what contribution he is willing to make to sport in Northern Ireland. I heard the comments that were made. It is regrettable that they were made, because everybody is being treated equally when it comes to sports funding in Northern Ireland.

We have to recognise the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. Ravenhill and Windsor Park got their money and their refurbishments in their respective sports. Casement Park has not been able to draw down the full £62·5 million not because of any action or lack of action on my part but because of issues around safety certificates that were investigated by the Assembly prior to 2016 and because of planning permission, judicial reviews and construction companies going into administration.

It is easy for people to send out a message that it is about inequality and "Bad unionists not doing what we want them to do". However, no sport is getting a hostile environment; in fact, only one sport fell victim to politics, and that is football. For 14 years, football was not given the money that it wanted to draw down for the Northern Ireland football fund because Sinn Féin Ministers made sure that that was connected to Casement. They were determined that the football fund would not proceed if Casement were not proceeding. I am more than happy to make sure that the money promised goes to Casement, but there was no reason for the money for football to have been held up.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, among the public, there is enthusiasm about and knowledge of the transformative impact that Casement Park could have. There is also knowledge that that enthusiasm is not shared by the Minister, who should be knocking down the door of the British Government to get that meeting.

Moving on, Minister, last week, the president of the GAA said that he feels that the GAA is operating in a hostile environment with regard to the failure of unionist politicians to condemn the erecting of anti-GAA signs in Randalstown. What will the Minister do to address those genuine concerns?

Mr Lyons: To address those concerns, we will first make sure that we tell the truth. It has been alleged that my party has not condemned the signs that went up: that is absolutely false. Trevor Clarke, as the local representative, was out doing just that. Let us make sure that we introduce truth into the discussions.

As to the "hostile environment" that has been talked about, it might be worth bearing in mind that the money has been made available on the same basis as it was to everybody else. Engagement is ongoing; in fact, my Department meets the GAA at least once a month. There is an idea out there whereby some people feel that they are being targeted or that there is a hostile environment. However, this is about the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in and the sums of money required to complete the project. Over the past 14 years, there has been delay, but that delay cannot be laid at the feet of any unionist. Perhaps the Member should look closer to home for some of the reasons for those delays. I am more than willing to engage with the Secretary of State, the GAA and others, but people should think of the best way to progress the project and not just about what will get a cheap headline.

Mr Speaker: That brings Question Time to a conclusion.

Ms Brownlee: Today, we are discussing something that truly matters: what this means for people on the ground. For too long, families, young people and educators have been navigating a system that does not always work for them. A Programme for Government is not just about the policies; it is about action and making real change that improves lives. When it comes to special educational needs, those changes are long overdue. That is why I welcome the focus on SEN in the Programme for Government. It recognises that our system must do better, not just in words but in real, tangible improvements for children and young people, their parents, their carers and teachers.

One of the most critical commitments in the programme is the utilisation of data. Too often, we have failed to identify needs early and respond efficiently. If we are serious about delivering real change, we must ensure that the collection, sharing and analysis of data sit at the heart of reform. This is not just about a number. It is about ensuring that every child receives the right support at the right time. It is about making sure that we plan for the future, project needs accurately and establish a clear, structured pathway for young people with SEN beyond the ages of 16 and 18. No young person should be left behind, yet, for many families, the transition from school is a time of deep uncertainty. Where do they go? What support will they receive? What opportunities are available? That is why I welcome the commitment to improve post-school protections and pathways. The Department of Education, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Health and others will work together to ensure that young people with SEN have clear routes into training, education and, of course, employment. We must ensure that cross-departmental collaboration is not just a phrase but a real working partnership that guarantees access to services, workforce planning and a school estate that meets the actual needs of our young people.

The commitment to streamline the statutory assessment and review process is also welcome. We cannot continue with a system where families wait in limbo and face delays in and uncertainty about school placements. It is vital that the statutory time frames be met and that schools and families have clarity at the earliest stage possible. I also welcome the phased approach to removing the supernumerary status for children with statements of SEN. That, of course, must be done carefully and in a way that enhances the support available to young people.

We also need to empower our schools. Too many teachers and support staff feel overwhelmed and under-equipped to meet the needs of children with SEN, and that is why we must invest in our education workforce and ensure that it has the skills, training and resources to provide effective, evidence-based interventions in the school setting, which will reduce the need for external support, where possible, and ensure that needs are met at the earliest stage.

We cannot ignore the reality that some trust has been lost. Parents feel unheard, young people feel overlooked and teachers feel unsupported. However, we are very serious about delivering real change, and we must start by improving communication, ensuring that young people and children with SEN, their families and educators know what is happening, understand their rights and can trust that the system is designed to support them. That means clear, ongoing communication at every stage of assessment, placement and the transition to long-term opportunities. It means listening to those with lived experience and ensuring that their voices shape policy and delivery. We can get this right, and we will build a stronger, fairer and more effective system and one where children and young people with SEN are supported, empowered and given real opportunities for the future. That is an absolute priority of my party and our Government. The Programme for Government gives us the framework, and it is now our time to deliver.

Ms Egan: Today is an important milestone for the mandate, with the publication of a finalised Programme for Government, which is something that the Assembly and our public have not seen in 13 years. Cooperation and collaboration across our Executive are the very least that those who voted for us, and those who did not, should be able to expect.

That said, this is a milestone, but purely capturing words of ambition on a page cannot be our Assembly's end destination. We need to ensure continued progress and delivery. The document is not perfect by any means, but it is a foundation for progress — a foundation to build upon, build homes, build a workable healthcare system, build our nature recovery, build an increasingly improved education system and build safer communities. The document should certainly not be the ceiling of our ambitions; it certainly is not that for the Alliance Party.

The programme is rightly titled 'Doing What Matters Most'. For our communities to succeed, they need to be able to do that by feeling and being safe. That means safe physically and safe to live as themselves without fear. That is the key to ensuring that people can be fulfilled and reach their potential. The commitment across our Executive to "Safer Communities", by including it as a core priority, is incredibly welcome.

I will take this opportunity to run through some of that and pull out two extremely pertinent points. First, the responsibility for building safer communities cannot fall to our Justice Minister alone. Our Justice Minister has shown throughout multiple mandates, that, with or without a Programme for Government, she will lead, do her part and deliver. She will deliver on legislation to increase protections for those who are experiencing domestic abuse, deliver on doing all that she can to tackle organised crime and paramilitarism and deliver by doing her best for victims and the extremely hard-working people right across our criminal legal system who prop it up every day. She will do all that while her Department remains historically underfunded.

Looking forward, now that we have a Programme for Government, we need to increase and stabilise our policing numbers, deliver on a domestic and sexual abuse strategy, ensure a trauma-informed welfare system, including legal aid availability, and speed up justice so that those who seek it are not left waiting years without closure and the ability to move forward. That includes transformation and exploring solutions outside the courtroom. Those issues cut across Health, Education, the Executive Office, Economy and other agencies. I could go on. As the programme highlights, it will be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

That brings me to my second point. Work on prevention and recognition of its importance is vital for us to achieve many, if not all, of the goals that we have set out. Such work is work to relieve pressure on the Justice Department many years from now. Prevention means working to dismantle a cause or issue before it takes form. That is incredibly relevant for so many different areas of work for the Executive, be it embedding preventative healthcare to ensure that people are healthier for longer, an accessible education system to ensure pupils' success and prevent a lacklustre economy, or preventative measures to shape culture and reduce crime and offending so that people across our communities do not just feel safer but are safer.

I am extremely proud to be my party's spokesperson on ending violence against women and girls, and I welcome the integral place that that has in the programme. Part of that is about ensuring that we have a justice system that recognises harm beyond physical violence and that looks beyond the outworkings. We so often focus on what happens after someone has been hurt that we forget to look behind us and learn the lessons of how we could have stopped it in the first place. Northern Ireland is still one of the most dangerous places in western Europe to live as a woman, with the victim being female in 20 domestic homicides since 2020. That is despicable, and I wish that I could say that it is unbelievable. If you speak to any community and voluntary organisation that spends time on the ground every day with victims and offenders, it will tell you that actions that are rooted in prevention to shift our culture away from misogyny and into progression and equity are the way forward. Ending violence against women and girls and, more broadly, across our society means everyone working together and staying together. That goes for so much of this. We need to get on with it now and do what is needed, including transforming our public services.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I concur with her sentiment. Does she express any concern about the Communities Minister's comment earlier when he went on to attack "gender ideology", seemingly sticking the boot into the trans community when asked a fair question about the gender equality strategy? Does she have any concerns about those kinds of comments being made in the Chamber?

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

Ms Egan: Not only do I have concerns about those comments but the women's sector and our LGBTQ+ sector will have concerns about them, especially as they were from the Minister who is responsible for social inclusion strategies. I thank the Member for his intervention.

I think about my constituents in North Down, from whom I hear every day. Like, I am sure, so many of your constituents, they want us to focus on bread-and-butter issues, such as good-quality housing, affordable food, fulfilling jobs and an Executive that will protect them from being in harm's way. The document is a road map and pathway, but it is only the baseline of what we should achieve. I know that the public will hold us to account in that regard. Alliance is all in on doing what is right. We welcome the Programme for Government and look forward to delivering on it — and more — together.

Ms McLaughlin: It has been more than 13 years since the previous Programme for Government was published. I am glad that, finally, we have the opportunity to debate a finalised Programme for Government today, albeit it is one for the next 26 months, rather than for five years, as it should have been. I am also glad to read the commitments included in the document, such as an end to violence against women and girls, the promise to address the childcare crisis and the commitment to the expansion of Magee. Those are all things that I welcome and hope can be achieved.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the mention of regional balance in the document. Its inclusion marks a positive step in the right direction. We must ensure that it is accompanied by the appropriate action. Several attempts have been made by Governments here over recent decades to address regional imbalance in Northern Ireland, and yet disparities between regional economies continue to grow. The gaps between those who have and those who have not are getting bigger. The reasons for that are many, but the failure to close those gaps is rooted in the fact that the responsibility for addressing regional imbalance has always lain with the Department for the Economy. That can no longer be the case.

The SDLP wants legislation that helps to address regional imbalance by mandating all of government to make deliberate and proactive interventions to support left-behind places. That legislation would play a key role in supporting the interventions that are outlined in the Programme for Government rather than act as an alternative to them. The lack of a commitment to legislation on that issue really is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to tackle poverty and support better health outcomes, including increased life expectancy for those who live in areas that have been left behind.

The SDLP is frustrated, as many members of the public might be, by the lack of time-bound and measurable targets in the document. When we debated the draft version in October, the SDLP made it clear that the document's success would be defined by its ability to generate real change in the lives of people and that the lack of targets would act only as a barrier to doing so. However, here we are, six months on, and the final version has only a small number of targets.

The targets do not align with previous promises. In January, it was said that the childcare strategy would be brought to the Executive by the autumn of this year. However, the Programme for Government states that a strategy will be in place:

Parents and providers will be aghast at the lack of urgency and ambition. Which deadline is it? Which one are we meant to believe? I question how the Executive plan to address the childcare crisis without setting a target for cutting childcare fees. I also question how the Executive plan to build 5,850 new social homes while our waste water infrastructure remains broken. Unfortunately, those are questions that have not been answered in the document.

Not only is the success of the document limited by the lack of targets; it is set to be limited by the Budget. We are in the midst of a very difficult financial situation, but that is made worse by the lack of alignment between the Programme for Government and the Budget.

In summary, the final version of the Programme for Government is disappointing. It lacks the seriousness and urgency required. It also makes no mention of the elephant in the room, which, of course, is the instability of these institutions. The First Minister and deputy First Minister seem set on refusing to address that concern. The truth is that, without reform to stop one of the biggest parties pulling down these institutions, little else in the Programme for Government can be guaranteed. Our public services are in crisis, but the people out there are becoming increasingly frustrated by false promises and the lack of delivery.

I worry that the final document will do little to calm those nerves.

Someone just messaged me on WhatsApp to ask, "What is the biggest difference between the draft Programme for Government and the final Programme for Government?". I said, "Well, there were 24 photographs in the draft programme, and there are 64 photographs in the final version". The photos are all well and good — they are very nice — but the devil is in the detail.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I just want to finish this point. I will come back to you.

As I said, the PFG's success will be judged by the improvements that it makes in the lives of the people whom we are all here to serve.

Mr Kingston: Did the Member not notice that the final Programme for Government includes the targets and objectives that her party has been calling for? They are there.

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

Ms McLaughlin: I acknowledge that there are some targets that were missing in the draft Programme for Government, but there are very few. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members.

Ms McLaughlin: There are very few targets in the Programme for Government. Surely our ambition is greater than the content of this Programme for Government. I suggest that the Member's ambition for his constituency is greater than what is in here. Today is an important day, but tomorrow and the day after are more important. The Executive need to deliver.

Mr McAleer: The Executive's Programme for Government rightly focuses on economic growth, sustainability and regional balance. I welcome its publication, as it outlines a framework for the future in which farmers and food producers should and must remain central to those ambitions. Our rural economy depends on agriculture, which supports thousands of jobs, from family farms to food processors and supply chains. The Programme for Government recognises the importance of regional economic development, but recent inheritance tax announcements by the British Government highlight ongoing inequalities. While tax cuts benefit the wealthiest in Britain, farming families here face an unfair burden when passing land to the next generation. Those inequalities must be addressed to create a thriving agriculture sector here. To support farmers, investment in rural businesses, agri-tech innovation and infrastructure must be a priority. Investment in broadband, transport links and energy security is also essential to ensure that rural communities remain connected and resilient amid global challenges.

Brexit has created uncertainty for our family farms, and the removal of a ring-fenced budget for agriculture and rural affairs has deepened that instability. One of our most vital industries now faces a lack of financial security, making it difficult for farmers to plan ahead. We cannot allow agriculture to become a casualty of poor decisions that, in many cases, as with inheritance tax and Brexit, are in opposition to the wishes of people here. The Programme for Government must work to ensure that the sector is given the stability that it needs.

We must also address the ongoing challenge of bovine TB. Farmers have been waiting too long for a comprehensive strategy that balances disease control, animal welfare and economic sustainability. The Programme for Government commits to prioritising eradication policies, but we urgently need to see meaningful action. Sinn Féin is seriously concerned about the lack of progress on a new rural policy. Rural communities and services have suffered greatly through lack of investment since we were forced to leave the EU rural development programme (RDP). The AERA Committee recently heard at first hand the impact that that is having when it held its meeting with rural stakeholders in Loughry college in Cookstown. I call on the AERA Minister to engage with Executive colleagues, rural communities and stakeholders to bring forward a replacement rural development programme at the earliest opportunity.

The Programme for Government also recognises the importance of environmental sustainability. I welcome the fact that Lough Neagh is listed as a key priority. Farmers play a critical role in helping the North to meet its environmental and climate targets. There must be strong partnership with farmers, backed by practical investment. That means supporting sustainable farming to strengthen food security, protect the environment and maintain soil health. Farmers need better incentives for carbon sequestration and biodiversity initiatives, along with targeted funding to help them transition to sustainable practices without compromising food production. Clear and fair policies on ammonia controls are also crucial, allowing farmers to upgrade or replace infrastructure while maintaining a competitive agriculture sector.

Our agri-food sector is world class, yet food producers face rising input costs, supply chain disruptions and changing market demands. The agri-food investment initiative is a step in the right direction. It offers support to innovate, boost productivity and reduce carbon emissions. However, funding must be accessible, practical and tailored to the real needs of producers.

A significant success is the achievement of the all-island protected geographical indication (PGI) status for grass-fed cattle. That designation, as it does for Parma ham, for example, enhances the reputation of our beef, strengthens market opportunities and boosts consumer confidence in its quality and traceability. The Programme for Government also commits to a just transition for agriculture and the establishment of a just transition fund. Rural communities cannot be left behind in the transition to a greener economy. A just transition must deliver benefits to farmers and rural areas, ensuring that they are supported through that transformation.

The Programme for Government lays a foundation for agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. We need action and a commitment to real, sustainable change for our farmers, rural communities and the environment. Now is the time for a clear, practical approach to securing the future of our rural communities.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairman of the Committee for Justice on the Programme for Government. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The Committee took oral evidence from Department of Justice officials on the draft PFG on 10 October last year. While the Department will be required to work towards the achievement of a number of the priorities, it will, obviously, play a major role in leading the safer communities priority. That priority encompasses a range of important actions, including the embedding of trauma-informed, responsive systems; a speeding up justice programme; digital transformation across criminal justice organisations; the development of a cross-governmental strategy to reduce offending and reoffending; and the implementation of the strategic framework for youth justice.

The PFG recognises the importance of ensuring adequate resources within justice agencies to respond to and deal with crime. That includes increasing the number of police officers; having the necessary prosecution resources and scope in the courts and Probation Board to process cases; and having the capacity in prisons to hold people safely and support rehabilitation.

Adequate resourcing will be essential to delivering on the proposed actions within the priority. Members will be aware that the PSNI currently has 6,300 officers — the lowest number in its history. The Chief Constable has advised of his concern that policing was not given more focus in the draft PFG. The Committee was pleased to note that the business case to increase the number of officers and staff over a three-year period was recently approved by the Department and submitted to the Minister of Finance. It is expected to cost £206 million over five years. It is important that it is fully funded and that the PSNI is provided with the resources that it needs to keep our community safe. We must also bear in mind the time that it will take to get the service back to adequate numbers of police officers.

The PFG includes a commitment to work collectively to develop a cross-governmental strategy to reduce offending and reoffending. The need for collaborative working has been recognised by the current Committee and its predecessors. The Probation Board recently pointed out, for example, that many of the factors that contribute to reducing reoffending are outside the scope of the justice system, particularly with regard to accommodation, drug and alcohol addiction treatment and mental health support systems. A cross-departmental approach to health and social care issues could prevent individuals from offending in the first place or provide better outcomes for those who enter the justice system. The inclusion of that aim in the PFG is, therefore, to be welcomed, and the Committee will be keen to monitor progress in that regard.

Specific reference is made to the justice system in the reform and transformation priority, with attention drawn to the length of time taken for a case to progress through the criminal justice system; the increase in the prison population; and, as I have mentioned, the number of police officers being at an all-time low. Three of the Department's transformation bids are still under consideration by the interim public-sector transformation board. They are clearly linked to the specific outcomes mentioned in the PFG. The success of those transformation bids will be critical to reforming practices and introducing initiatives aimed at making improvements on those issues.

Justice will also be a key partner in the delivery of the ending violence against women and girls priority. An important element of that will be the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which is jointly led by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health. The PFG also aims to introduce better access and support for victims and survivors in the criminal justice system and more ways to hold perpetrators to account, thus preventing further harm and building confidence in the justice system. Given the inclusion of a priority to end violence against women and girls in the PFG and its clear relevance to the justice sector, it is somewhat disappointing that the Department's transformation bid for reducing harm from domestic and sexual abuse and violence against women and girls has not been progressed. The bid aimed to bring forward an integrated package of measures and approaches to enhance protections and transform outcomes that would have contributed significantly to the achievement of the PFG priority.

In my capacity as chairman of the all-party group (APG) on terminal illness, I am grateful to see the Executive's commitment to all stages of life and, in particular, the mention in the PFG of their cross-departmental commitment to providing better:

After a long and meaningful campaign for its inclusion, that is extremely welcome. The issue is significant and important for all in our society, particularly in these times of complex grief and because death and bereavement come to us all. While it is not a KPI, I look forward to working with APG members and stakeholders, as well as with Ministers, to see how we can move towards the destigmatisation of the subject and bring the pledges to bear practically for the benefit of our citizens.

Ms Mulholland: It is with mixed feelings that I welcome the publication of the Programme for Government. It is bittersweet that we have had to wait this long for it, but I hope that it stands as a foundation for the delivery that the public deserve, especially if all Departments consider it a baseline and foundation from which to work rather than the ceiling of their ambition.

I commend the clear commitments on decarbonisation, sustainable agriculture and the urgent need to restore and protect our natural environment. Those are essential pillars of our future, and I particularly recognise the work of Minister Muir, who is already leading the way in DAERA through his sustainable agriculture programme, which aims to bolster the agrisector's economic viability while addressing the key environmental challenges.

As the PFG rightly highlights, Northern Ireland needs an economic transformation that embraces the opportunity for green growth. It is really important that we have seen that in the PFG. Crucially, we cannot achieve green growth without meaningful support for our agriculture sector, which is why the farming carbon scheme, the carbon footprinting project and the beef carbon reduction scheme are so important. They are practical tools that are designed to help farmers become and remain climate leaders while maintaining the production of high-quality and world-class food for local and global markets. It is another way in which to bust the myth that it has to be either farming or the environment, when, in fact, our farmers are so often the custodians of our countryside. I hope that the Minister can continue to support the farmers who see the protection and nurturing of our environment as such a massive part of their role.

Ambition needs certainty, however, and that is why the ring fencing of the agriculture budget in Northern Ireland, unlike in other parts of the UK, that Minister Muir has secured is so vital. We need to see that sustained. Such a financial commitment can give farmers the stability that they need to plan, invest in and drive forward sustainable change when so many other factors impinge on their certainty.

I welcome the recognition given to the economic importance of our agri-food and fisheries sectors. They do so much more than just contribute to the economy. Our farmers, fishers and food producers keep us going. They provide the food that we rely on, and they have built a reputation for quality of which Northern Ireland should be really proud. That value cannot be measured in pounds and pence; it is about people, place and pride. I am also pleased to see continued support for fisheries through the marine environment and fisheries fund, which will ensure that our coastal communities, none more so than those in my constituency, have the resources that they need to adapt and thrive in the face of climate and economic change.

We cannot talk about environmental and agriculture challenges without mentioning Lough Neagh. The unprecedented crisis that we have seen at the lough in the past two years shone an international spotlight on Northern Ireland, sadly for the wrong reasons. It was and remains one of the most significant environmental disasters that we have faced in a generation. I welcome the Executive's eventual commitment to delivering the Lough Neagh action plan, but delivery must mean action and accountability. We need clear mechanisms in place to track and report progress on nutrient management, septic tank regulation and pollution enforcement. They go hand in hand.

Let us be honest, however: Lough Neagh is not just a DAERA issue; it is a public health emergency, an economic risk and an environmental catastrophe all rolled into one. Lough Neagh affects our drinking water, tourism, agriculture and infrastructure, meaning that the response simply cannot sit solely with one Department. It needs joined-up, cross-departmental action from Infrastructure, Economy, Health and beyond. We must build real partnerships with communities, farmers, environmental groups and councils around the lough. Let us be clear: this is not about blame. It is about creating the conditions for everyone to work together to restore the lough and protect it for future generations.

Whilst there is so much to welcome in the PFG, I, as the Alliance Party's poverty and social security spokesperson, cannot avoid expressing disappointment at the way in which it handles poverty. It is welcome that the Programme for Government gives greater attention to poverty, but it is deeply regrettable that the Executive have not made it a central driving priority. Poverty permeates every vein of government: health, education, housing, employment, our children's futures and families' ability to heat their homes or put food on the table. Every Department, every policy and every Budget decision should be seen through the lens of this question: does this lift people out of poverty or risk pushing them further into it? The Programme for Government rightly acknowledges the need for a cross-departmental approach, but, without naming poverty as a core priority, we risk seeing it slip into the background once again. For too long, Northern Ireland has relied on temporary mitigations rather than tackling the structural causes of poverty head-on. The Programme for Government was a real opportunity to embed anti-poverty action at the very heart of government, but, sadly, that opportunity has not been fully seized.

As the chair of the all-party group on arts, I need to express a bit of disappointment about the lack of meaningful attention given to the arts and cultural sector in the Programme for Government — there is no mention of it at all. The passing reference to a "Culture Strategy" feels like lip service and a bit of an afterthought, rather than the recognition that our amazing creative industries so rightly deserve. The arts sector is not just an add-on to our economy; it enriches lives, supports mental health, drives tourism, creates jobs and helps us to tell our story to the entire world. The arts sector in Northern Ireland punches well above its weight, as we have seen at recent awards ceremonies. I wish that the Executive had put their weight behind the arts sector. That is a bit of a missed opportunity.

While I welcome the Programme for Government, particularly the work led by my colleagues Minister Muir and Minister Long, I have to stress that poverty and the arts should not be seen as side issues. Hopefully, however, the Programme for Government sets out a greener, more sustainable future. I hope that the Assembly and the Executive can go further and work together to ensure that the future is not only green but inclusive and culturally rich for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the publication of the Programme for Government, which is an important step. As others have outlined, it is a compromise in the context of a cross-party Executive, but it is promising that parties have worked together to produce it and lay out the priorities that we all want to see delivered for the people whom we represent. Looking at it from an economic perspective, we can see clearly laid out in the document the fact that economic prosperity in the North has not always been felt by everybody. I welcome the fact that regional imbalance is being tackled. That work is already under way. The Department for the Economy wants to address it and ensure that all areas of the North receive a fair bite of the cherry and that all our communities can benefit from good jobs and investment. We can see that work starting already through Invest NI.

The Programme for Government references the proposed employment Bill, and we know that the Department for the Economy has already consulted on that, which is welcome. The Economy Committee heard a presentation last week from our trade unions, which laid out clearly that providing people with better working conditions, a fair day's wage for a fair day's work and better access to rights is not only the right thing to do but leads to greater productivity. A happier workforce is a more productive workforce: that is common sense. It will be borne out, when we see progress on that Bill, that we will have more prosperity across the North.

I welcome the Programme for Government. It is a positive step, and I look forward to seeing progress on all its objectives. It is great to see all the parties in the Executive working together to deliver for all the people whom we represent.

Mrs Dodds: I will focus my remarks on the health section of the Programme for Government. As a DUP MLA who campaigned in the election on reducing waiting lists, I am glad to see that as a tenet of the Programme for Government.

The Health Minister often describes health as a personal issue, and he is right. It is the most real and personal issue that our constituents experience, and waiting lists and the length of them are a terrible burden on so many of them. We must acknowledge that, while we complain about waiting lists, there are amazing people in the health service who do amazing work, but they are frustrated by the limitations of their position and in what they can deliver. Most importantly, they are really frustrated by the detrimental impact on their patients.

Just recently, I received a letter from the chief executive of the Western Trust that confirmed that the average waiting time for a routine hip replacement was in the region of nine years. That is nine years of deterioration and pain. In the same week, I was speaking to a GP who spoke of a patient with a potential cancer diagnosis. That patient was referred by their GP at the start of February and was told that it would be April before they could be called for an appointment with a consultant. I ask the House to imagine the fear and anxiety for that person, who has to wait that length of time for a consultation. Ultimately, that patient had to gather together some money and make a private appointment, and therein lie the two particular problems with waiting lists. Those are the real-life problems that our constituents face: waits for life-improving issues such as hip and knee replacements; and waits for life-saving cancer care. There are also waits for elective care and emergency interventions.

As we all know, around half a million people in Northern Ireland are waiting for a first consultation. The Department must be honest with us and say that it has never met a cancer target in Northern Ireland since it put cancer targets in place. That is not something that any of us in the Chamber should be proud of. Therefore, I welcome the priority and targets in the Programme for Government on this very, very important issue. The ambition to invest a further £135 million to reduce waiting lists and a further £80 million in elective care capacity is welcome, but it will require the Department to step forward with coherent plans in order to do that. Otherwise, those waiting lists will continue in the same vicious circle.

We cannot tackle waiting lists without sorting out social care. We have just experienced January and the furore about people waiting in hospital beds who are able to go home but cannot because of a lack of care packages or appropriate placements. If we do not sort out social care, we cannot sort out waiting lists, because we will not have the capacity in our hospitals.

Last October, Professor Bengoa told us that, without reform, the Health budget would soon take up 100% of the block grant that comes to Northern Ireland. Currently, it has about 52%. That is just not sustainable, and we have the worst waiting lists in the United Kingdom, with the most expensive per capita costs. Therefore, I also put on record that the Department needs to take more control of its spending. Over the past year, I have been dragging information out of the Department and the Belfast Trust about the new maternity hospital and the proposed new build for a children's hospital. Just last week, I heard further disturbing commentary about the new acute mental health building and the number of repairs that are needed to deal with the structural damage that has been done to it. More money for remedial repairs means less ability to deliver on waiting lists and for our constituents. It will be impossible to sort that out if we do not sort out the issues of investment in our health estate. It means that those who live in the north-west will still be without a new ED in Altnagelvin; my constituents in Upper Bann will see no required investment in the Craigavon site; and we will still have no mother-and-baby unit, despite that being an Executive priority.

The health service's greatest asset is its staff. That means those who work in a broken system trying to deliver the best that they can for patients. We have now spent about 10 years trying to get a workforce strategy together for the health service. I do not know what that says about the workforce in the Department. I am told that that strategy may appear in 2025 or possibly 2026, which is when we can look forward to having optimum numbers in the workforce. However, delivering on a workforce strategy will be core to delivering on waiting lists.

The commitments in the Programme for Government are good, and the House should welcome them. We want to see waiting lists reduced. That is not a simple problem, however, and we must address the plethora of other issues that surround the issue in order to successfully deliver on it. As the DUP's health spokesperson, I will support a reasonable plan to do all those things, but we need to see that plan from the Health Minister.

Mr Chambers: My comments today are about my disappointment with something that does not get one direct mention in the Programme for Government. Belfast lough should be a jewel in the crown of what Northern Ireland has to offer visitors and residents alike as a recreational and leisure facility. What is the reality, however? Due to pollution levels, the harbour area around the popular public Titanic Quarter is out of bounds for events that require sporting use of the water, such as triathlons. I have been receiving reports about leisure sailors who are using the waters off the coast at Holywood developing serious infections in their ears, eyes, throat and gut simply due to exposure to polluted sea spray.

Back in November, I asked Minister Muir this question:

The Minister's reply was:

Just last week, in a supplementary question, I asked the Minister about the sewage pollution that statutory and government agencies are still putting into waterways. Part of his reply was:

Yet, there is not one mention of Belfast lough in the Programme for Government. The level of unacceptable pollution is moving —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Chambers: Sorry, I want to make progress.

The level of unacceptable pollution is moving steadily down the lough, starting with the already heavily polluted waters in the harbour area. That is having an adverse effect on the mussel-farming industry in the lough. There is already a disaster there, but it is heading for a greater crisis that will eventually replicate the crisis in Lough Neagh. Again, however, there is no mention of it in the Programme for Government.

A number of waste water treatment works and pumping stations in the greater Belfast area were scheduled for urgent upgrades that would make them compliant by 2027 and stop them contributing to the pollution in the lough, but what has happened? The upgrades have been mothballed due to a lack of funding. Why have the Executive chosen to bury their head in the sand with regard to this crisis? A document called 'Story of Belfast Lough' was published recently. Given the absence of an action plan from the Executive, perhaps it should be renamed, "An Obituary of Belfast Lough".

I understand the Budget constraints that the Executive face, but there is a solution to the problem, which is also a policy of my party: to grant mutual status to Northern Ireland Water. To do so would open up many funding opportunities for Northern Ireland Water. It is beyond the time for that solution to be actively considered.

Ms Dolan: The publication of the Executive's Programme for Government is a positive step. It sets out clear priorities and commitments that will improve the lives of workers, families and communities here. Many of the challenges that we face are cross-cutting and require a collaborative approach, which means locally elected representatives working together and putting the interests of our people first, following 15 years of austerity measures from the British Government that have starved our public services of the resources that they need. Investing in vital infrastructure that provides people with what matters most is a key part of the Programme for Government, with a focus on reducing childcare costs, enabling parents either to remain in or to rejoin the workforce, improving people's health and well-being by cutting waiting lists, providing affordable homes for people and taking measures to protect our environment.

Another welcome commitment of the Programme for Government is to address a legacy of regional imbalance through a commitment to work with councils and other partners to deliver a subregional economic action plan. The delivery of city and growth deals such as the Mid South West growth deal in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is evidence of the type of investment needed for economic development. I recognise, however, that the Executive's ability to deliver the public services that our citizens deserve continues to be constrained by decisions made in Britain, as shown by the upcoming rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, a decision of the British Treasury that has put added pressure not just on public services but on the community and voluntary sector and our local small and medium-sized businesses.

Going forward, we need to see maximum devolution of fiscal powers to the North, providing us with more levers to develop the local economy. I support the work of the Finance Minister in his negotiations with the Treasury to ensure that we are funded at our level of need. Therefore, while the Programme for Government is welcome progress for the North, our ability to address the challenges that our public sector and local economy face remains restricted by the artificial barriers created by partition, which limit us from unlocking our full potential. Constitutional change would offer us the opportunity to build something new, provide us with full control of our affairs and enable us to address how we can deliver better public services and build an economy that meets the needs of every one of our citizens.

Mr Kingston: I will speak as a DUP member of the Committee for the Executive Office and the Committee for Communities. I warmly welcome the publication of the Programme for Government. I acknowledge the work that has gone into it across the four-party Executive and add my thanks, in particular, to all those who submitted responses to the draft Programme for Government during the consultation period.

As others have said, the PFG is not an encyclopedia of every action and all new legislation and ongoing provision that will be undertaken by each Department in the remainder of the Assembly mandate. Rather, the PFG sets out key priorities that will be expedited in the years up to 2027. The programme retains the nine priorities set out in the draft, along with the three missions on "People", "Planet" and "Prosperity" and the cross-cutting commitment to "Peace". Underpinning those, the Executive have previously adopted an outcomes-based accountability approach in order to evaluate government actions, which are assessed against nine defined outcomes and linked to 10 strategic domains of well-being. That involves asking simple questions: "How much did we do?", "How well did we do it?" and "Is anybody better off?"

Critically, the final Programme for Government, as I pointed out to the Member for Foyle, adds targets and annual objectives against which the public can judge progress made during this Assembly term. That increases the accountability of the Executive as a whole and of individual Ministers, along with their officials and arm's-length bodies, to the Assembly and to the public. Our Assembly Statutory Committees play a key role in that accountability through scrutiny and challenge, through seeking detailed information and by engaging with relevant groups to garner their specialist knowledge and lived experience. The DUP believes strongly that the Assembly must be judged on delivery. We will continue to push all Ministers and all Departments for delivery against the commitments and targets in the Programme for Government.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way, briefly, yes.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for his comments so far, particularly about how the Programme for Government, in his words, allows us to hold Ministers and Departments to account for their actions. Does he agree that the Programme for Government is the baseline and that the height of ambition should be for Departments and Ministers to go way above everything that is set out in the Programme for Government? It simply sets a baseline. It certainly should not set the ambition for Departments.

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

Mr Kingston: Thank you. I agree with the Member: it should not be a restriction on ambition or on what can be delivered. In many cases, it does say "at least" and sets minimum standards. It is right that we have those standards, that we deliver them and that, where possible, we go beyond them, so he is right to make that point.

Whilst specific Departments and Ministers are tasked to take the lead on various new strategies, many of them are devised on a cross-departmental basis, with action points identified and agreed across all Departments. When launched, such strategies are branded, rightly, in the name of the Northern Ireland Executive as a whole. Indeed, I would, perhaps cautiously, suggest that there is an increased element of cross-departmental working during this Assembly mandate in the interest of delivery, although there is always room for improvement.

As for the Executive Office, we welcomed the launch of the ending violence against women and girls strategy last year, along with an associated cross-departmental delivery plan. That includes a change fund and challenge fund to support initiatives at community level to challenge wrong attitudes and promote positive attitudes.

The Communities Minister has published the housing supply strategy, also branded as an overall Executive strategy, with actions for different Departments and Ministers. As one of its priorities, the Programme for Government includes providing more social, affordable and sustainable housing. Over the course of this mandate, from 2022 to 2027, the Communities Minister commits DFC to start work on at least 5,850 new-build social homes. Over the coming year, the Communities Minister has committed to delivering 847 shared-ownership homes, with that number forecast to increase to 1,900 shared-ownership homes by the end of the mandate in March 2027. He is also to launch the loan-to-acquire move-on accommodation fund of £10 million, helping homeless charities purchase properties as a route into housing; and, this year, to publish an Executive-agreed fuel poverty strategy, to support those struggling with the cost of living. The Communities Minister also committed to bringing forward an intermediate rent operator, which will also increase access to affordable homes.

I strongly welcome the fact that the reform and transformation of our public services has been retained as a priority in the final Programme for Government. The DUP will continue to push for efficiency and effectiveness in our public services and to challenge where savings can be made, particularly where there has been a rationalisation of public bodies. Getting on with the job and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland should be our focus and the measure of our success.

Mr Donnelly: I will speak on the Programme for Government in my role as the Alliance Party's health spokesperson.

It is important to begin by welcoming the publication and agreement of the Programme for Government that outlines the Executive's priorities for the remainder of the mandate. Of course, it should have been agreed and published in 2022, within months of the most recent Assembly election, but, as we all know, the Assembly was prevented from functioning until February 2024. I appreciate that any Government involving multiple parties will take time to negotiate their Programme for Government. However, in the South, it took the two parties and associated independents two months to publish their Programme for Government, which is a more reasonable time frame than three years. The solution here is reform. We must reform the institutions, so that the Assembly and the Executive can properly function without interruption for five years. If we do not do that, the cycle of dysfunction will continue.

We welcome the Programme for Government, and, specifically, I welcome the commitment made to act on cutting health service waiting times as one of the nine main priorities. Over recent winters, we have witnessed, at first hand, the unprecedented pressures on our hospitals, staff and ambulances, with patients waiting outside hospitals in ambulances or in overcrowded A&E departments or lying on corridor beds in wards for several days or even longer. I witnessed those pressures when I worked as a nurse, and things have significantly worsened in the years since I started working in the profession.

I am encouraged by the inclusion of addressing waiting lists in the Programme for Government, particularly the £76 million investment approved for 2024-25 and the focus on supporting those on cancer and time-critical waiting lists. The Programme for Government rightly states that current funding is not enough. That is true, and, as I have said in previous debates, I understand the Minister's frustration with the lack of funding. However, it should not be forgotten that the Department of Health gets over 50% of the entire Budget.

The Minister's plan to shift left must result in investment in primary care to stabilise GP practices, community pharmacies and other service providers. We must take decisions that will deliver genuine reform and transformation, which will save money in the long term. HSC transformation, including hospital reconfiguration, based on the Bengoa principles, will deliver better outcomes for patients in Northern Ireland and reduce waiting lists, but that requires all parties to back it, rather than supporting it in principle and then opposing it the moment that a difficult issue arises in their constituency. It also requires the political stability to deliver multi-year Budgets: another reason why institutional reform of the Assembly and Executive is desperately needed. It has been said that the Assembly is as stable today as it was the day before the last collapse. To reform the health service and improve the delivery of healthcare in Northern Ireland, we need stability in our political institutions.

All Departments are under huge pressure and should take steps to use existing resources as efficiently as possible. Some ways in which the Minister of Health could do that are, for example, by focusing on prevention so that fewer people need to be on waiting lists in the first place; moving towards a single-system approach that can more effectively arrange and deliver specialised services in a smaller number of locations; making greater use of surgical hubs and other similar organisations; and ensuring proper governance arrangements for all aspects of spending.

We have seen examples of trusts signing care home contracts worth over £600 million a year without the normal procurement processes. I encourage the Minister to focus his attention on practical ways of ensuring that the services that his Department provides are more efficiently managed and delivered, while maintaining the highest standards of service that our constituents deserve.

It also reflects the need for action on social care reform, which has been referenced. We can improve the outcomes for patients who rely on social care only through the fundamental reform and transformation of key services. That will bring practical benefits, such as improving the flow through hospitals, releasing some of the pressures on areas in hospital settings, including on staff, their time, the beds available and all the associated costs. It will, therefore, play a key role in reducing waiting times and waiting lists. While the Programme for Government does not provide more detail on reform and transformation, a timeline for those actions should come in this mandate.

There are other examples of strategic projects that could improve outcomes and save money that do not seem to be being prioritised. They include the new care homes contract and developing Northern Ireland Ambulance Service mental health practitioners, just to give two examples. As the Programme for Government states:

There are some useful guidance points about investing in the workforce, delivering digital capability and innovation and, most significantly, taking the difficult decisions on reconfiguration. From some of the parties in the Chamber, however, we have sadly not seen that reflected in reality.

Some important individual actions refer to mental health. Under the "People" mission, reference is made to the overlap between economic deprivation and poor mental health and to the importance of sport and exercise in maximising community well-being and mental health. We need to support mental health services, including through the full implementation of the mental health strategy 2021-2031. Mental health should be prioritised on exactly the same basis as physical health.

It is important to welcome the Programme for Government as a direction of travel and to have all parties working together on it. I highlight the point that just because something is not in the Programme for Government does not mean that it will not happen. The document is the baseline for delivery, not the height of our ambition. Hopefully, this is the first of many regular Programmes for Government, given the huge gap since the previous one due to two Assembly suspensions and a pandemic. I hope that we will be back here discussing the next Programme for Government shortly after the 2027 Assembly election. From a health perspective, I welcome the focus on reducing waiting lists, and I hope to see further details and plans, along with a wider approach to all aspects of physical and mental health in order to stabilise and improve the health service on which we all depend.

Mr McGrath: The Executive constantly accuse the Opposition of lacking positivity, so, in the spirit of kindness, let me offer them a "Well done": well done for doing just about enough to fulfil the absolute minimum expectation of any Government by finally agreeing a Programme for Government. Let us be clear, however, that it has not been implemented. It is not fully funded. It does not even contain clear accountability mechanisms or targets, but, yes, the Executive have agreed a document.

I will focus my remarks on the details or lack thereof of the health commitments in the Programme for Government. As we all know, Northern Ireland's health service is in a state of crisis. There have been years of neglect, inadequate transformation of public services and a failure to address growing waiting lists. The deepening problems in our system have brought us to this point. What a claim we have to make that we have the worst waiting times in all of Europe. Given that, one would have thought that health would be the defining priority for the Executive in implementing their first Programme for Government since 2011. It was certainly a strong election promise. Does anyone remember the extra £1 billion that was being promised?

What does the document tell us? It gives us a vague overview of the problem. It is sprinkled with buzzwords such as "close the gap" and "reconfiguration". It has taken over three years for us to be given an overview of what is already being done. It mentions investing in primary, community and social care but with no finance, no action and no plan to help those sectors. It lays out a target for 2027, with the hope — the hope — of investing £135 million a year, treating an additional 70,000 patients a year and spending an extra £80 million annually on elective care. Seriously, is that the best that can be done? That is not a plan but a collection of empty promises and fluffy language designed to pacify the public, who are dying on waiting lists and dying while ambulances remain stuck outside emergency departments.

Last year, £76 million funded 263,000 assessments, treatments and diagnostics. The document states that, this year, the Executive will invest the same money and deliver 250,000 assessments, treatments and diagnostics. With a flat-cash Budget for next year, there is no prospect of those fortunes being reversed. The £135 million target has already been significantly missed. What we are saying is that, this year, we did less than last year and will probably do less next year. Is that really the plan? Is that the ambition with which you are happy to go to your constituents and say that it is how you will sort out our health service? Is that the most exciting thing that you can go out with as you tell people here that you will address the issues for them?

What about mental health? We have a mental health strategy that was costed at £1·2 billion over 10 years. This year, the Department was meant to allocate £62 million. Guess what? It has not been allocated. The agreed Programme for Government says that the Executive will work with the community and voluntary sector to address mental health. Again, are you serious? You have just slashed the core funding, and the groups that are hardest hit are those that support people with acute mental health needs.

The Health Minister has repeatedly told us that he does not have enough money to achieve health outcomes or to resolve pay disputes with staff. He even voted against his own Budget, yet here we are with an agreed Programme for Government that offers no substantial financial commitments or arrangements, no plan for the staffing of the service and no vision for transforming our health service. The document, insultingly subtitled, "Doing what matters most", even has the audacity to say:

If that is truly doing what matters most, I cannot imagine what the Executive, with no ambition, no accountability and no regard for the public, would consider to be doing what matters least. This is a Government who have set the bar for health so low that they are already guaranteed to miss their targets. If this is the best that the Executive can offer, I fear that the only thing that is more broken than our health service is the Executive's ambition and that the only thing that is growing more than our waiting lists is the Executive's complete disregard for the people whom they are meant to serve.

Mr Boylan: I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for coming to the Assembly with the Programme for Government. Notably, it highlights the importance and value of having locally elected Ministers in place, doing all they can in challenging financial circumstances to deliver for workers, families and communities.

When we look at the PFG and its overarching aim of doing what matters most, it is clear that we need to do what we can to protect people and public services from the austerity of the past 15 years that was forced on us by the British Government. Never is that more evident than when we look at our waste water infrastructure and the work that needs to be done on it. Years of underinvestment is showing, and I am therefore glad to see commitments in the PFG on waste water infrastructure investment and plans for managing our water and for delivering improved environmental outcomes. As the Infrastructure Minister and her predecessor have said, addressing waste water infrastructure and capacity will require support from the entire Executive. Progress on that issue will be a key component of housebuilding and enhancing the economy.

We are all aware that, since the reform of planning in 2015, issues have remained and that there is more to be done to improve the system. Therefore, I welcome the commitment in the PFG to the continuation of the planning improvement programme involving local government and other stakeholders. I share the Executive's goal to make our planning system work for businesses, people and the environment. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister for Infrastructure on the matter.

As we continue to work to achieve our climate change targets, it is clearer than ever that an improved public transport network will be instrumental in decarbonisation. It is therefore imperative that we create the opportunities for people in every community across the North to access reliable public transport across roads, buses and rail. We must see construction begin on the A5 western transport corridor and progress on the recommendations of the all-island rail review. It is important to recognise the commitment in the PFG to invest £26 billion of public funding in the next decade, and I look forward to seeing more detail on that in the upcoming investment strategy.

The PFG is a positive step forward for the North, but our ambition and the potential of the North are much greater. Sinn Féin looks forward to playing its part in delivering for workers, families and communities in order to improve their lives and livelihoods.

Mrs Guy: I support the Programme for Government. Imperfect as it is, it is the first PFG since 2011, and that is worth acknowledging as a positive for Northern Ireland, for the power-sharing institutions and for the Executive. No member of my party will stand up today and gush about the document or oversell it to the people of Northern Ireland. It does not include everything that Alliance wants to see, but we have made our mark in it, and our Ministers, along with every other Minister, will have scope to go further and deliver more than the specific priorities identified in this publication.

The influence that Alliance has had on shaping the Executive priorities extends beyond our two Ministries. For example, we are pleased that the DUP has followed Alliance's lead in dropping the failed free hours model of childcare and adopted our policy of a subsidy scheme. That scheme has made a positive impact, but it must now be bolstered; uplifted to meet increased costs; and expanded beyond preschool as part of a wider package that includes placing early years on a statutory footing and a comprehensive early learning and childcare strategy.

Investing in affordable childcare is also an important anti-poverty tool. Whilst we acknowledge and are frustrated that tackling poverty has not been given the prominence that it deserves in the final document, we know that expanding investment in childcare and early intervention, along with initiatives that address the cost of participation in formal education, can play a role in easing some of the outworkings of poverty on low-income families. For example, later today, we will debate and welcome the Second Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, which was introduced by the Education Minister to address school uniform costs and includes a move towards a cost cap, as per our party policy. That again illustrates how Ministers can go and are going further than the boundaries of these 100-odd pages to introduce legislation and tackle disadvantage.

I expect every Member in the House to welcome the inclusion of better support for children and young people with special educational needs, so pressing is the need in that space. Our SEN children are not a burden; they are individuals, just like every one of us in the Chamber. They are individuals with needs and ambitions, but they have been failed, and that has left a huge need to be addressed. Therefore, we should all recognise the importance of the inclusion in our PFG of a dedicated section focused on those inspiring, valued and integral members of our education community. Delivering for them will be a test of our ability to work together across Departments. We have to start using the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015. Delivering transformation requires the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy to work with the Minister of Education to implement the published SEN reform agenda and a delivery plan. Economy and Education must link to provide post-16 and post-19 learning and career options.

At this point, I pay tribute to our SEN parents, who fight every day for their children. They should not have to fight. They should not have to make a name for themselves in the public eye to get recognition in documents such as this to ensure that their children can access the educational opportunities and outcomes that will enable them to fulfil their potential. However, Alma White, who is mum to Caleb, has done just that. The words "post 19" may seem small, but their inclusion in the document creates the great expectation that we will deliver for those young people. I know that Alma will hold every one of us to account on that.

In health, data sharing and embedding allied health professionals in local impact teams, along with protecting nursing provision in our special schools where it is needed, must be a priority. I will use this platform to echo the call of so many Members from across the House to protect and, in fact, reinstate the nursing provision that was removed, without adequate explanation, from two of our special schools. We cannot be comfortable with classroom assistants being responsible for skilled medical interventions on our most vulnerable children. A cross-departmental approach to SEN transformation must deliver an inclusive vision for the future, clearly define the purpose of SEN education and address the workforce crisis. There must also be more emphasis on early intervention to identify and tailor support so that we can start to address problems before they develop and become more complex.

As I said at the start of my remarks, this document is not what Alliance would have written. From our perspective, a clear omission is a strategic commitment to integrated education, which two thirds of people believe should be the main model for our education system. The cost of supporting a divided education system is not sustainable. The Education Minister speaks of the need for more money for Education, but it is not reasonable to keep asking for more resource if you are not prepared to tackle systemic duplication and inefficiency in how we spend money.

Finally, all the measures that are in the education section of the PFG are under way in some way or another, but what remains to be seen is whether those plans are implemented in full. I sincerely want the Education Minister to succeed with those plans, whether it be delivering quality, affordable childcare or reforming our system so that those with special educational needs get the support that they need. Families need him to succeed. By the end of the mandate, the only thing that will matter, as a measure of success, is the impact of those provisions on the lives of the people who matter: the children and young people and families.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Members who have spoken so far. A lot of the debate seems to be about health, and that needs to be recognised, because health and dealing with the considerable issues that we have should be the number-one priority of the Executive and, indeed, the Assembly.

Some of us sat in Hillsborough Castle quite some time ago — it was well over a year and a bit ago — listening to the conversation and debate about the importance of developing a Programme for Government that puts the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland first, and it was very clear then that health was going to be the number-one priority. We all know what has happened since, given the numerous debates that we have in the Chamber when the Health Minister is invited to implement one particular idea or another, a new programme or a new development. I will be honest: the Health Minister would really like to be able to do that degree of transformation. The issue is that there is no money for it. Indeed, time and time again, when the Health Minister has been fighting his corner in the Executive, he has been turned down. We have to recognise that, if we are to prioritise health, we should make it the number-one priority in what we are trying to do.

However, the reality is that we have a Budget, and we need to be able to operate within that Budget. The question of where that prioritisation lies is the fundamental question that all the Executive parties need to address. It is important that we use the moneys that we have to be in a position to support our health service, where help is needed. That includes in mental health, in MDTs and in making sure that we have mega-clinics. It is about making sure that we are actually doing things to start driving down waiting lists. A lot of those things are already happening. If any MLAs have had opportunities to talk to the health trusts to see what is happening in various places, they will know that things are happening and are improving. However, there are some things that we need to make a commitment to. We are talking about transformation. There is a transformation fund. Shortly, we are going to hear about a — I do not know whether it will be an interim or an actual — transformation board that is looking to bring in extra money to help make changes. Some of that may go into digitisation, and some of it may go into other areas. If we are serious about health being the priority in the Programme for Government, as we have always said, we need to invest a lot of that transformation money in making sure that the health service works. The Department of Health has a plan to do that. It needs the support of the Northern Ireland Executive to make it happen.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Yes, Colin. Over to you.

Mr McGrath: You mentioned the trusts and what they do. Does the Member agree — his Minister has said this at different times — that it will be incredibly difficult within the current financial envelope when they are asked next year to make £200 million worth of savings? I am at a loss as to how they will be able to do more when they are saying that they do not have enough to do it at present, and, next year, they will be asked to do it with £200 million less.

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

Dr Aiken: The Member not only makes a very good point but absolutely puts his finger on the issue that we have with health. Health should be the priority. We know that the Department of Health needs to make efficiencies — we have to. Mrs Dodds is normally in here berating the Health Minister at every available opportunity about not making enough efficiencies. Health has to be improved. We need to be able to deliver, and we need the resources to do that. We know, particularly when we look at things such as transformation and transformation funding, that some of that funding should be sent in the direction of Health and should be ring-fenced. That is an important piece, and I would like the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, in their winding-up remarks, to comment on what we are going to do about transformation.

The other issue that I have a concern about — I have quite a few concerns — is transformation and the transformation process. We seem to have imported a cuckoo into the nest. We seem to have imported the NIO into the centre of the Executive in the transformation board process. That raises these questions: what role does the NIO have in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, and what role does it have in the Programme for Government? Does it have a veto role in the transformation process? What is it lining up to do? That is another question that I would quite like the deputy First Minister to comment on when she is making her remarks. It is an important issue that we need to be aware of. What role does the NIO have in the devolution settlement, and what role will it have in the transformation funding? That is key.

There is no doubt at all that successful Programmes for Government are linked to deliverables. Those deliverables include the Budget, budget lines and legislation. I do not want to go around sounding like my learned friend from the Opposition, but where is the legislation that is linked to these issues? Where are the budget lines? We, as a party, have said time and again, for many years, that the Programme for Government has to be linked to deliverables. Again, there are no real deliverables in this document. There are ideas in it; there are, let us say, head marks for us to aim to; and there are some, but not many, targets, and we need to look at those to try to improve upon them as well. We need to make sure that we start attaching real deliverables. If we do not, how will we explain to the Northern Ireland people what we are trying to do? We have heard various laudable statements in here. I do not think that the Civil Service, when it produced this document, did not produce a laudable statement within it, but where are the deliverables and where are those linked to the outcomes that the people of Northern Ireland need? That is the appropriate thing that we need to do.

It will come as no surprise that, even though we have real concerns about the Budget, funding for Health and the commitment of the rest of the Executive parties to make sure that Health is given the priority that is needed, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Programme for Government. We have signed up to it; it was important that we signed up to it. Health is the number-one priority — it must be the number-one priority — and that needs to be lined up.

Ms K Armstrong: I am very grateful to those who spoke for less than their seven allocated minutes so that I am able to get in today. I am very grateful to Mr Aiken for saying that he supports the Programme for Government, because, for a wee while, I thought that he had joined the Opposition Benches.

This is a foundation document. As my colleagues have said, it is not everything that Alliance wants; it is a baseline for us to work from. I saw a consultation response that said that some sectors and groups could not see themselves in the Programme for Government and wanted more clarity on how it would support them. They included older people; mental health; poverty; arts; disability; culture; social care; LGBTQIA+; rural areas; community, voluntary and social sector enterprises; the business sector; and minority ethnic and Irish language groups. That just shows how much work we have to do to bring people along with us and ensure that their voices are heard. I look forward to, at some point within the 25 months that are left of the mandate, seeing an active ageing strategy, an anti-poverty strategy, a disability strategy, a gender equality strategy and a sexual orientation strategy finally coming from the Department for Communities.

I ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister in their feedback to state whether, when we deliver the Programme for Government, we can ensure that we respect all the individuals with whom we work as partners when it comes to co-production and co-design. At the weekend, I spoke to some people involved in the disability co-production group for the disability strategy who are very harmed and hurt by the fact that it sounds as though we are starting all over again with the disability strategy, instead of carrying it forward. They invested a lot of time and energy into the working groups that were involved in developing what could become the disability strategy, and they feel that they have been set aside. Part of the way forward for the Programme for Government is to make a positive change for people. One of the ways in which we can do that is by respecting our partners who help us, and by making sure that they feel respected and seen in our documentation.

It is time — again, I ask that this be included in the feedback at the end of the debate — for us to remember the RHI inquiry recommendation:

My party is in the Executive, so of course we are going to support the Programme for Government, but I am also an MLA; I am here to support and scrutinise Ministers. It is becoming extraordinarily difficult to do so when some Ministers are withholding information from Committees. I am making a call-out to say that that is no longer appropriate. They should not go to the media first and then come to Committee as an afterthought. All Committees are here to support the Executive, and we look forward to doing so. I am on the Committee for Communities, and the work that needs to be done on housing will prevent people from entering the health system because, instead of having 47,000 people without a proper home, we will give people a roof over their head and a safe place in which to sleep and improve their health and well-being and their education and employment outcomes. However, while working through the priorities, we must continue to learn from the RHI inquiry to ensure that effective scrutiny is being carried out. Although housing is in Communities, I need to see from Infrastructure that work is being done on the waste water treatment system and that planning is being updated so that we can achieve our climate change targets. Removing fossil fuels from the heating systems in our houses is key.

We need to have cross-departmental examination. How will the Executive ensure that we no longer hear Ministers say, "That's not my Department", and that, instead, we hear them say, "Here are our solutions, and here's how we brought everybody together to create the solutions"? We need to make progress on key social strategies. We have priorities that have been set down, but it has to be done with consideration of the ministerial code of conduct in the back of your mind.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way in the spirit of our being constructive. She is right about the silo thing, which is one of the most pernicious things in our politics. A couple of years ago, there was a recommendation to change the ministerial code or introduce a law — a duty of obligation for Departments to work together. Would she be interested in looking at that?

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

Ms K Armstrong: I absolutely would be. Perhaps the Member will write to me, as the Chair of the Committee on Procedures, and ask whether we need to update Standing Orders.

Bearing in mind the ministerial code of conduct and the Members' code of conduct, we are supposed to work in this place to make things better for others. If the LGBTQIA+ community cannot see itself in the Programme for Government and after what we heard earlier about what a woman is — I am a woman — and the disregard for trans women in the feedback, how can I have absolute assurance that objectivity and equality will be taken forward as the Programme for Government is being delivered? I do not want to sit in the House and know that some Ministers are not treating everyone equally.

It is an exciting time. I came to the House in 2016, and, at last, we have a Programme for Government. We have something to work towards and deliver. I am up for the challenge, and I hope that everyone in the House is.

Ms Hunter: As a member of the Opposition, I welcome the opportunity to raise the aspects of the Programme for Government that I welcome and to highlight where the Executive have fallen short. I feel strongly that the document lacks the ambition that the public would have liked to see.

The Programme for Government agreed by the Executive this week is the first since the Government of 2011-15, but that is no cause for celebration. Many people of my age, including me, can reflect on the years when the institutions collapsed and on the lack of trust between the public and people like us — politicians — and the lack of faith in our institutions that that created. The previous draft Programme for Government, which was agreed in 2016, was never even delivered. With this Programme for Government, I am deeply saddened that reform to prevent another collapse has not been included or mentioned. If you do not reform how a Government function, can you really properly fix our public services? Can you really say that this place will not collapse yet again? One of the key pillars in the document is the mission of "Peace", but how can you have peace if you do not have political stability? I am disappointed, but, like the public listening today, I am, sadly, not surprised.

We have had significant discussion at length in the Chamber about the realities of things such as Lough Neagh, which is an environmental disaster that closed businesses in my constituency of East Derry due to pollution. The pollution interrupted entire ecosystems, but, judging by the document, all we see coming forward is yet another plan with no tangible action.

Reading through the document as a member of the Education Committee, I welcomed the fact that there was a conversation and movement on a SEN reform agenda, but many parents of children with special educational needs will feel frustrated today. While that agenda is welcome, it is sad that it may take up to two years to complete. The Programme for Government took 13 months to be made, so I am bewildered by the lack of emphasis on supporting our young people with special educational needs. I would have liked to see further detail on the workforce, which is, undoubtedly, stressed out, overworked and under-resourced, and there is no further detail on addressing ongoing waiting lists for our young people with ADHD and those with autism. To be honest, I found it an unbelievably vague document that will fail to bring confidence in our system, especially for those who have children with special educational needs.

I agree with Michelle's comments about how admirable Alma White is with her campaign, Caleb's Cause. She has put at the front of all our minds what happens to our young people with special educational needs, who are full of promise, when they transition out of school post 19. I thank her for her incredible dedication and commitment to that cause, and I hope that we can see more on that issue.

One thing that I welcomed in the document is the emphasis on being trauma-informed. In our jobs, we all impact on people who have endured trauma, whether they are rape survivors or have been affected by the Troubles. Trauma comes in all shapes and sizes. Our society is diverse and so is the trauma that our constituents have experienced. We have a particularly high level of adverse childhood experiences in the North of Ireland, so I welcome the fact that page 87 of the Programme for Government refers to upskilling our public-sector staff and making them more trauma-informed.

It really struck me that the document, which is nearly 100 pages long, mentions the word "suicide" only once. I am so disheartened. I am extremely passionate about suicide prevention. It is unfathomable to me that, even though the incidence of mental illness is 25% higher here than it is in the rest of these islands, suicide and suicide prevention are mentioned only once. There are roughly 200 suicide deaths every year in this place. It is incredible that that is not mentioned.

Mental health is mentioned on page 72. A lot of the emphasis in the Programme for Government is on pushing mental health support services back into the community. We all need community support. Mental health support in a community setting is a great thing, but there is no word on how it will be funded.

That is similar to the discussion of ending violence against women and girls. Page 35 refers to a joined-up approach and a challenge fund. Where will that go? What will it look like? Whom will it help, how quickly and where? Those are some of the details that I and, I know, the public would love to see.

I find it strange that £2 million is mentioned in the Programme for Government for ending violence against women and girls, yet, just last year, we saw massive slashes of up to 50% in government funding to the likes of Women's Aid. I do not think that £2 million is anywhere near what we need to have an impact on ending violence against women and girls in the North of Ireland. The document mentions that the Executive want to have 100,000 programme participants: with £2 million of investment, that is £20 a participant. That is not a realistic amount of money. I have previously highlighted the lack of inclusion of spiking in the ending violence against women and girls strategy. That was a missed opportunity, and I am disappointed that it is not even alluded to in the document.

I welcome the inclusion of tackling poverty, after it was absent from the initial list of priorities, despite the lack of an anti-poverty strategy. Poverty is not going away; it is only worsening in our communities. It has a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of our constituents, disproportionately affecting women. It is madness that tackling poverty was not included in the initial proposals.

As a passionate Irish nationalist, I am genuinely surprised at the lack of cross-border engagement included in the Programme for Government. I am bewildered that the Irish language is mentioned only twice. That is disappointing, particularly for a sector that is remarkable for how effective it is in its campaigning. It will be disappointed today, as I am.

The document has chapters on "Building New Foundations" and "Shaping a Better Tomorrow", but it does not mention reform of the institutions. It talks about suicide only once. How can we prepare for a better tomorrow if we are not addressing the critical issues of today? I feel strongly that the document seems like an opportunity for the Executive to smile and have their photos taken, while being entirely non-committal on their policies, on funding and on any timelines and just hoping that the public will not notice. The Executive see the weight of the problems that our people face, but the document does nothing more than provide vague, aspirational language as an illusion that they are solving those problems. It offers no hope, no real plan, no promises and no funding. I am incredibly disappointed in it.

Mr Gaston: The wait is finally over for our Stormont cheerleaders. The spin document has arrived. It has been unveiled for those who championed the restoration of Stormont and promised all of us that that would solve all the problems. I sense from the Opposition today that they are maybe a wee bit less enthusiastic now than they were before the institutions came back.

Let us have a look at what this glossy document tells us. Page 30 —.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will make some progress, and then, be assured, I will let you in.

Page 30 tells us that the Executive will invest up to £135 million this year:

That works out at around £4,000 a patient. We are not aiming to perform many hip replacements if that is the associated budget provided.

I will move on. There is not a word about additional officers for the PSNI at a time when it has just 6,278, which is over 1,000 fewer than, the Patten report stated, we need.

There are other things, however, that the document talks a lot about. Indeed, it talks a lot. Let us consider childcare, as it is mentioned at least 30 times. On page 27, we are told that the Executive are:

That sounds like a catchy headline for the media, as it is trumpeted as a major achievement. Let us see what the reality is. At Question Time earlier today, the First Minister told us that the figure was up to £50 million. The Executive got a cheque from Westminster to fund a scheme similar to that in England and Wales. The sum on that cheque was not the £25 million mentioned in the document or the £50 million that the First Minister told us about earlier; it was £57·2 million. Nowhere in the document do the Executive explain where the millions have gone. In fact, what is the figure? Is it the £25 million that we see in the document unveiled today? Is it the £50 million that the First Minister told us about at Question Time? Regardless of what the figure is, what happened to the missing £32·2 million or £7·2 million? Either way, working families in Northern Ireland are being short-changed by the Executive.

Some of the missing millions may be going to the three nationalist demands mentioned in the document. This is a Programme for Government that commits to the expansion of the Ulster University Magee campus while making no solid promises to any of our other higher education institutions. This is a document that promises that the Executive will fulfil their duties to deliver on the Irish language when it comes to the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 and pledges to work on an Irish language strategy. This is a Programme for Government that makes promises on the redevelopment of Casement Park, but where is the section on how the Executive will deal with the protocol? It is not as much as mentioned.

Let us turn to the economy and what the Programme for Government says about planning, which is important on two fronts. The biggest barrier to planning is a lack of waste water infrastructure. In the document, there is no commitment on the level of investment for Northern Ireland Water or the areas that will be targeted. How has our planning system worked since its day-to-day functions were devolved to councils in 2015? Through the review of public administration (RPA), Stormont allowed councils to move from one set of policies that governed all of Northern Ireland to creating 11 different local development plans. If the Executive want to address the issues in our planning system and are serious about attracting inward investment, there is a need to go back to one set of planning policies that govern all of Northern Ireland. As it stands, I do not see how planning works for business or for our people.

More fundamentally, when it comes to the economy, as I have stated, there is a lack of any mention of the protocol. You cannot grow your economy while trashing the UK's internal market. You cannot grow a globally competitive economy while cutting this part of the UK off from a possible UK-US trade deal, as the protocol leaves Northern Ireland trapped in the EU customs union and single market for goods. I ask unionists who claimed that they would fight the protocol in the arena of Stormont this: how is that working out for you? What progress have you made? The protocol is not even deemed worthy of a mention in the document.

Some might respond to that by saying, "On page 85, there is a mention of Intertrade UK", yet that same paragraph also deals with InterTradeIreland. Let us contrast the two bodies. InterTradeIreland, thanks to the Budget passed by the House last week, was handed £6 million in resources: Intertrade UK is not getting a penny from this place. InterTradeIreland has permanent offices and a growing staff: Intertrade UK has neither. InterTradeIreland has a statutory basis: Intertrade UK has no such standing. It is not hard to work out which body will be able to deliver on its objectives.

The final point that I will pick up on is about the ending violence against women and girls strategy. For months, I have been pressing the First Minister and deputy First Minister on their agreed position on violence against women and girls. Was violence against women and girls wrong in the period between 1969 and 1998? Just last week, I finally got an answer. The agreed position of the Executive is that:

That sounds good, but it leaves wriggle room.

When the Women's Rights Network came to the Executive Office Committee recently, I took the opportunity to ask it for its thoughts on the policy. First, it was not even consulted on the document. It was the only gender-critical organisation, and it was left out. No gender-critical organisations were allowed —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, your time is almost up.

Mr Gaston: It is indeed. Secondly, in the absence of an agreed definition —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is now up. Mr Gaston, your time is up.

Mr Gaston: — the policy lacks any credibility.

Mr Carroll: The Programme for Government is a clear indication that the Executive are out of touch with the people whom they claim to represent. As has been said, this is the first Programme for Government agreed by an Executive since 2011. The mere existence of the Programme for Government has been hailed as a cause for celebration, but is the bar really that low? Do ordinary people not deserve better?

It beggars belief that the draft Programme for Government was devoid of any real, measurable or time-bound targets. The fact that the Executive were forced to go back to the drawing board to add a few concrete goals shows what they would happy to get away with if given the chance. The final version is a minor improvement on the vague, aimless original, but it still lacks the detail and urgency needed to turn things around for the ordinary people languishing on health waiting lists, the people spending a fortune on childcare, the people who are homeless, the children with special educational needs, the women and girls experiencing violence and many, many more.

The Executive plan to invest up to £135 million a year to reduce health waiting lists. Where exactly will that money be spent? Will it help to address the workforce crisis and ensure safe staffing levels, or will it go, once again, to the burgeoning private health sector? Will it mean that our overworked and burnt out Health and Social Care staff are finally paid what they deserve? The Royal College of Surgeons reports that it will take a decade of sustained investment to turn the catastrophe around. We need consistent, high levels of investment to finally put an end to people dying needlessly on waiting lists.

When it comes to early years provision and childcare, Ministers talk about the importance of early intervention and the crucial first 1,000 days of a child's life, yet they cut statutory services for early years, depend on the community and voluntary sector to fill the gaps and then deny core grant funding to charities and organisations working in early intervention, putting organisations doing vital work to support communities at risk of going under. The warm words in the document are completely at odds with the actions of Executive parties. I will continue to judge the Executive by their actions, not their words.

Some £25 million has been allocated to support parents struggling with the cost of childcare. Previously, however, the Education Minister said that at least £400 million would be needed to implement a childcare strategy. A pittance has been allocated so far, and the Programme for Government completely neglects the issue of school-age childcare, another glaring omission from the document.

Children with special educational needs from working-class communities are being badly let down by the Executive. The Executive signed off on the recommendations in the 'A Fair Start' report to address educational underachievement and disadvantage. Then, the Department of Education allocated just 6% of the funding needed to implement those recommendations. The Education Minister devised the rightly maligned RAISE programme to tackle educational disadvantage, departing from well-established and effective measures of income deprivation. At a time when all school pupils should have access to counselling and mental health support when they need it, the budget for Healthy Happy Minds was axed in 2023 and still has not been reinstated. The Executive will now produce a SEN reform agenda and delivery plan by 2027. Given the Minister's previous dismissive comments about the value of one-to-one support from classroom assistants, education support workers will be and are worried about the content and implications of the final SEN reform agenda.

The goal of providing more social, affordable and sustainable housing is to be welcomed, but the Programme for Government misses many obvious opportunities to prevent homelessness, which would involve cracking down on profiteering private landlords, implementing a no-fault eviction ban and introducing rent controls. Unfortunately, once again, the Minister for Communities ruled that out today. Executive parties refuse to acknowledge the reality that preventing homelessness will mean questioning and challenging the power of landlords; instead, they adopt a firefighting approach, throwing good money after bad and spending over £34 million a year on temporary accommodation, most of which goes into the pockets of multimillion-pound companies and private landlords.

Tackling poverty is still not defined as a key priority for the Executive; instead, we get a few vague, aspirational paragraphs with a fleeting reference to the Executive bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy. Will that come with funding attached? The same question applies to all the other social inclusion strategies and the language strategies. Will the anti-poverty strategy be based on objective need? Will it increase household incomes and reduce child poverty? We will wait and see. One in four children in my constituency of West Belfast lives in poverty. Poverty impacts on every aspect of their young lives: their health, their education and their social and emotional development. Even if the Executive somehow manage to meet the aspirations in the Programme for Government, that will not make a bit of difference, if people still live in poverty without their basic needs being met.

On climate, the programme commits to increasing renewable electricity capacity by 40% by 2027. The Climate Change Act 2022 mandates a target of 80% renewable by 2030: does the Programme for Government put us on track to reach that target? I highly doubt it. There is also a goal of consulting this year on a draft climate action plan that was supposed to have been published over a year ago. By 2027, the Executive plan to deliver the actions in the Lough Neagh report and action plan. That is a testament to the continued pressure from environmental campaigning groups and climate activists such as the Save Lough Neagh campaign.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will know that child poverty costs our society £1 billion a year. I am not sure whether he saw this, but a report by the King's Trust last week suggested that almost half of young people in Northern Ireland feel anxious daily about their future here. Does he agree that the document does little to alleviate those worries and that, in fact, it is quite depressing and does nothing to offer hope to people across our society?

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

Mr Carroll: I agree, but I remind the Member that his party was in the Executive for many years and failed in attempts to reduce poverty. However, I agree with his earlier point.

Like I said, the fact that the Lough Neagh report and action plan is in the document is a testament to the continued pressure from environmental groups and activists such as the Save Lough Neagh campaign and many other people. It was their and others' endless campaigning that brought us to this point. Without the necessary resources and funding, however, I am worried that the action plan is doomed to fail. If climate breakdown does not warrant quick and urgent action from the Executive, it seems as if nothing will. Time is of the essence, and the time for action is now.

Ms Sugden: The Programme for Government sets out a series of commitments, but, at the end of all the speeches, we must ask ourselves this: will it lead to the real change that the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve or simply repeat what we have heard before? I ask that mindful of a significantly reduced mandate and a difficult Budget.

I hope that the programme will lead to good change, but we have seen similar pledges in the past on health reform, childcare, tackling paramilitarism, housing, education, social care and economic growth. Time and time again, however, progress has been slow, and many communities still feel left behind. They lack confidence that the institutions have the ability to deliver. The outcome of the programme will be whether we can deliver. We can talk today about what is and is not in the Programme for Government, but, realistically, for the people of Northern Ireland to realise that this Building has any value, we have to deliver. They are tired of words. They need action and want to see real change that improves their daily life. They want to see a Government who make a real difference, not just a list of ambitions that never move beyond the page.

The programme is built around nine priority objectives, each of which is tied to a Department. I am concerned by that approach, because, again, it shares out priorities rather than focusing on what Northern Ireland genuinely needs. Some of the most pressing issues do not fit neatly into one Department, which is probably why they are not in. Post-19 education, as others have said, is a clear example. We have failed young people with learning disabilities for years, yet the Department of Health, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education cannot decide which of them will take charge on it, so they simply do not. Such young people have spent years navigating a system in which no Department takes ownership, leaving them without proper support. That is shameful. Adult social care has been debated endlessly, yet meaningful progress has stalled, because, again, no single Department will take charge. That is similar to ending violence against women and girls. Whilst I welcome that, without embedding it in education on misogyny and without legislation making misogyny a hate crime or taking action against online harms, its impact will be limited. Tackling deeply rooted attitudes requires more than awareness campaigns. While our Government are divided in that way, which we have seen since their inception, real problems fall through the cracks. That is why Northern Ireland has not been able to progress in the years since the Good Friday Agreement.

If the programme is to deliver real change, it must focus on outcomes that matter to the Department, not just flagship departmental priorities. I remain disappointed that the approach that was taken in 2016, with an outcomes-based accountability model, has not progressed further. We need to look to other jurisdictions on these islands to see that this is about outcomes. It is not about ticking boxes or departmental aims and objectives; it is about the people of Northern Ireland. We all acknowledge that demand for public services far exceeds the available funding, and, without that clear financial strategy, the risk is that many of the commitments will remain just aspirations.

I also want to talk about the transformation fund: £235 million is a significant amount of money, and there is an opportunity not just to modernise services but to drive structural reform of how government operates. As I have mentioned, other regions, such as Scotland, have moved towards outcomes-based Departments rather than rigid ministerial structures. Northern Ireland could use the fund to advance significant structural change, ensuring that policies are developed with collaboration and long-term impact in mind. We could also use the fund to gather and improve data collection, ensuring that we base our priorities on real evidence rather than assumptions. Without a strong understanding of where our greatest needs are, resources will continue to be stretched thinly rather than targeted effectively.

We should not only address today's challenges but prepare for the future. Government in Northern Ireland has always been reactive rather than proactive. If we do not turn off the tap, there is no point in emptying the sink. We heard it in the Bengoa report. It was published in 2016, yet we still have not implemented it — primary care and early intervention.

The investment in childcare is welcome, but it only brings Northern Ireland up to the standard that other regions have already reached. What about school-age childcare, working families and middle-income families who earn too much for benefits but cannot afford private options?

The housing policy also lacks ambition, but, again, we see no direct aims and objectives to address the issues around water and waste water capacity.

Early intervention should be at the core of all policies, and I recognise that. Schools, community and organisational professionals all highlight the concerns, but what about parenting support? There is no clear plan to help families provide the stability that children need. If we fail to address the issues early, they will place even greater pressure on the services ahead.

I welcome the recognition in the final draft of the Programme for Government that Northern Ireland's ageing population must be reflected in the way that we plan for public services. It follows a motion last week in the Assembly and tireless campaigns by the age sector. However, recognition alone is not enough. This cannot be a token gesture: it must be embedded into the way that we approach policy and service delivery.

I will talk about regional balance briefly. It has to be more than Belfast and Derry. We are a rural Northern Ireland, and we need to look to both our urban areas and rural villages if we genuinely want to bring everyone onto an equal footing.

Mr Honeyford: I speak as the Alliance spokesperson for the economy and welcome the fact that we have a Programme for Government that seeks to show a path forward that is positive and much-needed. However, any programme is only as good as the ambition and the focus on delivery. We now need to get on with delivering for our economy. It is on that detail that I want to raise a couple of points.

The fundamental truth is that our economy is not growing at any acceptable pace, and that has been an issue for decades. We are not closing the gap between here and GB, and the gap continues to widen between here and the South. We need to address the fundamental reason why that is the case. I appreciate that the Minister has launched an economic vision that intends to bring through good jobs, decarbonisation and productivity, for example. While I share that ambition for the creation of good jobs, Northern Ireland will continue to struggle to attract inward investment without political stability and political direction to create the conditions on which business can be built. Businesses, whether local start-ups, indigenous businesses or international firms looking to invest here, all need certainty. Yet, by not confronting reform head-on, we continue to dangle potential instability. We need political reform not as some abstract ideal but as a practical necessity to unlock potential, which is the bedrock, along with stability, for us to grow our economy.

I will move on to speak about the decarbonisation of our economy, which is one of the Minister’s core principles. I completely agree with the principle, but we need much more than just principle: if things are to change, we need delivery, and the devil will be in the detail. We hear a lot about "80 by 30", but it is not just a slogan; it is about having 80% renewable energy by 2030. That is only five years away, and we have been here for a year. We need to get moving if we are to bring all the benefits: not just environmental benefits but energy security and reduced costs for every household. We have the ability to generate home-grown electricity so that we never have the massive increased cost of electricity, caused by the cost of fossil fuel imports, that all our constituents have had to suffer from in the past couple of years. Renewable energy growth has stalled at approximately 45%. If we do not have a renewable energy support scheme that supports the ambition of "80 by 30", we will not see the growth that we need. When we have one energy system across the island, any scheme must match the entry levels in the South. It has to be based on encouraging our local renewable companies to grow and not creating further barriers for them. Without that, investment will continue to simply move to the South or to Scotland, where conditions are easier and support is better.

From a Lagan Valley perspective, there is a lot of potential to grow jobs in the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor. There was a conference on that last week, which was really welcome. There is so much untapped potential there, staring us in the face, to work together to maximise economic growth. I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver positive outcomes on that.

Another issue that we need to move on — it is disappointing that this is not mentioned in the PFG — is the Maze/Long Kesh site. We have momentum, and we need it. We do not need more delay. Developing the road infrastructure around that site and linking it to the M1/A1 is a vital way of improving the access and starting to build momentum for that site. I hope that the First Minister and deputy First Minister can agree to move on that as soon as possible. Maybe they can update us on that in the winding-up speech.

Our unique selling point for inward investment is as a place that has access to both GB and EU markets for doing business. We need to sell that dual market access around the world. It is welcome that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government that Invest NI will undertake three promotional trips for investors. If, however, an investor simply goes to Invest NI's home page and clicks on "Why choose Northern Ireland?", the next page leads with the statement:

rather than a statement about the trade advantage that we have with our dual market access. It is baffling that we do not lead with that, shouting about it from every platform. The Programme for Government barely mentions it. If we do not champion that dual market access, we will not gain from it. It is as simple as that.

I will touch, finally, on three areas that are critical to growing jobs and our economy and on which we look forward to clarity coming through. Research and development is the engine of innovation. Why should businesses come here if we are not prepared to invest in it, creating opportunities for ourselves? If our universities do not get investment for R&D, we will not have spin-off companies such as B-Secur, which has 57 highly skilled jobs and which developed the intellectual property for heart monitors in watches and other devices, in Belfast in the future. Also, childcare is not just a social good; it is an economic lever. Parents cannot work if childcare is unaffordable or inaccessible. That needs to be expanded on further, although I appreciate that the First Minister developed it a little bit earlier. On planning reform, we all know that the current system is a bottleneck, holding back housing, infrastructure and business investment. The Alliance Party has been consistent on those three points, but our economy needs specifics and action on planning reform to come through quickly. If we do not address the planning system and tackle waste water infrastructure, economic investment will continue to move to the South, as that infrastructure is unavailable here. That is essential to unlocking our economic growth. It is time to work to create conditions in which our businesses and our economy can flourish and grow.

I support the overall economic aims of the Programme for Government, but potential alone is not enough to make a difference. As Alliance spokesperson for the economy, I look forward to working with the Minister for the Economy and other Ministers to deliver for our constituents. I look forward to seeing legislation coming through to help deliver that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, you are listed to speak, but the time remaining will limit you to three minutes. I hope that that is okay.

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

I hosted about 40 members of the OK Club in Meigh here today. It was lovely for the First Minister to say, "Hello", when she passed us on her way to the Chamber. Would it not be fantastic if we put those strong south Armagh women in charge? They would have this place straightened out in no time; I am sure of that.

The redevelopment of Casement Park, with the commitment to its redevelopment made in 2011, is, sadly, no further on. That commitment was reaffirmed in relation to the Euros, but that opportunity was, sadly and disgracefully, missed. In the Programme for Government, the only reference to Casement Park is the commitment to deliver progress. There is no finalised timeline, no detailed funding strategy and no clear road map for delivery. So much for the First Minister saying that Casement Park will be built on her watch. There is not much evidence of any prioritisation of Casement Park in the Programme for Government, and that is on top of scant regard for our Irish language. All show, no go.

The North's waste water infrastructure faces significant challenges, chronic underfunding and systemic inefficiencies, with stalling development everywhere — 19,000 homes in 23 towns stalled — and house prices rising as a consequence. Up to 80,000 people are homeless. Commercial development is being kicked to the kerb, and the regeneration of our town centres is stagnating. However, the Programme for Government commits to working with NI Water to facilitate housing growth. Are you kidding me? Again, there is no detailed funding strategy and no timeline for delivery. All show, no go.

Discussions on constitutional change have been centre stage in political discourse. Preparations for a new and united Ireland are a moral imperative, says Sinn Féin. It admonishes the Irish Government for a lax approach, even though the Irish Government have been pumping in billions of euros for the cost of the Shared Island unit and initiatives on costing out a united Ireland. Sinn Féin admonishes the Irish Government for that, yet this Sinn Féin-led Government in the North have not uttered one word on Irish unity. What is with the partitionist approach from Sinn Féin? Why the bluster in public and the hand-wringing in private? Sinn Féin waxes lyrical in the Dáil and in communities across Ireland, but it melts like spring snow off a ditch when it sits down at the table with the DUP. All show, no go.

On health, the Programme for Government acknowledges that waiting lists have grown by 216% since 2014. At the same time, the Programme for Government aspires to limit further deterioration of cancer and time-critical waiting lists: limit further deterioration, not reduce, not eliminate, but prevent further deterioration. That is hardly a lofty or inspiring aspiration. God be with the people and the families with loved ones languishing on the health waiting lists, waiting for hope from this place. All show, no go.

On education, the Executive have served us another word salad: the Programme for Government acknowledges the significant increase in the number of children with special educational needs, and yet, in the Government response, detail is thin on the ground. The big commitment made by the Executive in relation to special educational needs —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up, Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: All show, no go. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members.

I call the deputy First Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Deputy First Minister, you have up to 33 minutes.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My goodness, how does one follow that? [Laughter.]

However, I will try.

We have heard a significant number of contributions from right across the Chamber. The First Minister and I welcome that. We welcome the interest in the Programme for Government and the range of issues raised, because, of course, this is a Programme for Government, so it covers many different elements of what we do. However, we made it clear from the outset and in the introductory remarks by the First Minister that this document is not the totality of our ambitions; not even the totality of the ambitions of the Executive and, certainly, not for the individual Ministers. It is, of course, about prioritisation, and prioritisation is always difficult. We are in a fiscally constrained environment. It is difficult to fund everything that we want to fund, and that requires hard decisions.

Nonetheless, I have a message today, in spite of some of what I have heard, and that is a message of hope.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is a message of ambition, and it is a message of seeking to do everything in our power to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, throughout Northern Ireland, on the things that matter most to them.

The Programme for Government provides a road map to grow our economy, strengthen our communities and support hard-working families. My aspiration is to have as many happy, thriving people and families as possible in every part of Northern Ireland — this wonderful place that we call "home". I want to create a Northern Ireland that is one of the best small, open and agile economies in the world, if not the best. I genuinely believe that we can do that. We have the opportunity, regardless of how challenging the circumstances may be.

The other day, I was at a conference at which somebody referenced the concept of being small enough to do big things. Northern Ireland is small enough to do big things, but that means transformation, and transformation requires investment. Transformation requires difficult decisions to be taken, but I can say to the people of Northern Ireland and to those in the Chamber, hand on heart, that the Executive are working hard to genuinely improve the everyday lives of the people of this place.

It is very challenging to respond to so many contributions, but I will endeavour to do so as quickly as I possibly can. I will start with the positive, upbeat and hopeful contribution from the leader of the Opposition, Matthew O'Toole. [Laughter.]

There were plenty of reflections from him. I am not sure that I would describe his contribution as either a constructive or a critical one from the Opposition, but he did talk an awful lot about what the Executive ought to do. In order for us to benchmark ourselves against what can be only, I imagine, a document of excellence, I looked up the SDLP's plan. At first, I could not look it up, because the link was broken. The party may need to check its website. I did, however, eventually manage to get my hands on it. There are 14 pages in the plan, two of which are entirely blank. It could be argued that those pages are the best in the plan, but I would not be uncharitable enough to say that, because, in among the 14 pages, there is an entire page containing a picture of Matthew O'Toole. The SDLP is very keen to criticise the First Minister and me for taking photographs, and I am not saying that our Programme for Government would not have been improved by having a full-page picture of Matthew O'Toole, but the SDLP's plan is a short document indeed. Perhaps most surprising of all is the fact that it took the SDLP some eight months to come up with its plan, despite the fact that it was negotiating only with itself.

Today is a momentous day, and not just because of the substance in the Programme for Government. Yes, the document has ambition and quality, but it is a momentous day because the four Executive parties have agreed on prioritisation. We talk an awful lot about delivery, and delivery is key, but, let us be realistic, it will not be delivery of the full Alliance Party manifesto and its aspirations. It is not going to be delivery of the full Sinn Féin manifesto or the full DUP manifesto. Rather, the document contains the areas that the four parties can agree to prioritise and focus on, and that means compromise.

I turn now to the contribution from the Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office. First, I extend my thanks to the Committee for all its work. It is very tricky to coordinate all the different responses across many different policy areas, some of which fall outside the Committee's remit. The Chairperson raised a number of important points, particularly about the well-being indicators and how we measure the document's success. There is a range of targets and objectives in it. Some will simply require additional funds, and that is a challenge for me, the First Minister and the entire Executive to meet. We have made a commitment to do what we can to drive efficiency and transformation in Departments.

We have committed in the document to creating a delivery unit, which will be very much about determining how we can do things differently. How do we do them better? How do we free up the money that we need in order to invest in the prioritised areas? The document mentions the agreement to create an office of AI and digital to use innovation and technology to drive efficiency and to find a better way of doing things. None of those things will be done tomorrow or next week, and we know that. The Programme for Government is not going to find significant savings in that time, but we must work together to turn the curve on what we want to achieve, should it be by addressing the mental health of the people of Northern Ireland, ensuring the affordability of childcare, driving down health waiting lists, growing our economy, providing good jobs or creating opportunities for all our young people, no matter in what part of Northern Ireland they live.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, deputy First Minister. I really liked your comment about driving the economy and making the economy work, but how can we say that when, today, the First Minister, when asked a question about bringing £1·6 billion worth of investment and 200 extra jobs into Northern Ireland, was incredulous?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his comment. We have a fantastic aerospace and defence industry in Northern Ireland, so much of which concerns supporting people to secure peace. We all want to see peace. We want to see a peaceful outcome negotiated, but we should support our industry and be proud of its world-class products and the contributions that they make in very important areas.

The Chairperson of the TEO Committee went on to speak in her party capacity. She welcomed the publication and said clearly that government needed to be fit for purpose: that is absolutely true. We hear, time after time, so many people calling on the Government to increase bills for ordinary working families across this place. Our responsibility to the people must be to do government better and make sure that, as custodians of the public purse, we invest the money that we get for public services in a way that gets the best outcomes possible. Our government and our processes must be fit for purpose.

Philip McGuigan spoke from a health perspective and referenced health inequalities. We know that a key part of the agenda has to be the prioritisation of tackling health waiting lists and transformation in our health sector. That is the number-one issue that is brought up with me when I go about in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I hear all the time about access to GPs, people sitting on waiting lists and the pain and issues that people face day in, day out. Let us be clear: it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to me or to the First Minister. I do not believe that it is acceptable to any one of us in the House. We understand that, for those individuals, as Diane Dodds referenced, it is personal. If a person is living in pain week in, week out and month in, month out and being told that their operation or intervention will not happen for many months or years, that causes a despair that we can do something about. That is why we will use the new delivery unit to support the Health Minister to find new ways of working. We will do our best, working with the Finance Minister, to secure additional resource that is ring-fenced for those interventions in the Department. We recognise that, yes, health is the key priority in the document. We need to drive down those lists. Further to that, we need transformation to prevent what has happened with those lists from happening again. That will be critical.

Deborah Erskine spoke as Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee, and I thank her for her contribution. We hear all the time about potholes on roads, schools that need interventions and making sure that the capital projects that we invest in come in on time and on budget. I have said before in this place that, if we can bring in capital projects on time and on budget, that will free up much more capital resource with which we can do more. We know that the demand for capital investment always outstrips the capital that we have available. It is not only that: through the investment strategy for Northern Ireland, which we hope to bring to this place in the next number of weeks, we will seek additional capital for that budget to help with the £26 billion of capital investment for infrastructure that we predict over the next 10 years. I look forward to discussing that issue in the House in due course.

Robbie Butler spoke from his perspective as Chair of the Agriculture Committee. I pay tribute again to all the incredible work that our farming community does. It is a challenging time for our farming community. Many people either do not want to hear that or just want to dismiss it. We should not dismiss it, because, at the heart of farming, are farming families who are out from early in the morning to late at night in all weathers and in a tough financial environment, doing what they can to provide locally sourced, locally grown, locally produced, high-quality food. The security of food supply is such a critical issue in a globally unstable context. It is right and proper that we look at all those issues, including, as the Member mentioned, the impacts of planning and delays on our farming and agri communities and how the just transition can make sure that, as we move towards some of our environmental aspirations, we do so in a way that does not disproportionately burden our farmers.

Colm Gildernew spoke from the communities perspective. He talked about the anti-poverty strategy and other strategies, including language strategies, and about the ongoing housing crisis and access to affordable housing. That goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve with the Programme for Government, because the impact of not having a warm and secure home is huge. It is huge for the whole family, and it is significantly detrimental to children and young people who grow up in that environment. It is one of the keys that unlock children's ability to thrive. We want those children to fulfil their potential, contribute to society and live happy and thriving lives. That also touches the core of health inequalities. It is a perfect example of how other departmental policies are critical to what we are trying to do.

We know that there are far too many people with avoidable illnesses on health waiting lists. If we catch those avoidable illnesses early, we can change some of the issues and have a transformative effect. Mike refers to the "Shift left" agenda for tackling public health issues: that is critical. It will not take only the next number of years: it is an agenda for the next five, 10, 20 or 30 years in this place. We may not see the results in health waiting lists until we are 10 or 20 years down the line, but, my goodness, we know that it is truly transformative. We know that making those interventions and supporting those children pre-birth and through birth and early childhood is critical to their life outcomes.

Diane Forsythe spoke from a finance perspective because the Chairperson of the Finance Committee spoke as leader of the Opposition. One of the big challenges that we have faced is undoubtedly the lack of a multi-year Budget. We are dictated to in that because of the Treasury's cycles. The First Minister and I have raised that issue directly with the Chancellor, and we believe that she wants to move to multi-year Budgets. There is no doubt that that would make our planning much better. When that happens, we will — this is a commitment to the House — revise our targets and plans and look at our Programme for Government in the context of that multi-year Budget so that we can look ahead not just to what we are committing to this year but to what we are committing to in year 2, year 3 and, hopefully, beyond.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the deputy First Minister's giving way; I enjoy a bit of banter with her. It is up to her and the First Minister if they want to put my photograph in the document. They have used the same photograph of Donegall Quay in Belfast three times, so they may want to find another one, but that is fair enough.

I will ask about the Budget — it is a genuine question — because there is not much in the document by way of a table of indicative Budgets. Will you commit to working with the Finance Minister and coming back to us with a multi-year horizon? Even if it is not a legally signed-off multi-year Budget, it would be something to show us how this thing could be paid for. I genuinely think that that would be helpful for us all.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Yes, indeed, it is a really important issue. Some in the House have raised concern about the ambition in the document, but I can pull out a small number of key commitments that we have made: the expansion of affordable childcare; the investment of £135 million in tackling healthcare waiting lists above and beyond the £73 million specified; and the target of getting to over 7,000 police officers, which has been costed. With that small number of key objectives alone, we are probably looking at about £500 million of additional expenditure per annum. That is the scale of what we are talking about. That is before we even look at the additional investment in NI Water and our infrastructure, fixing the potholes more quickly, which everybody across Northern Ireland wants, and the many other issues that are referenced in the document. We do not underestimate the scale of that, and the Member is absolutely correct.

It is also important to note that all the measures are scalable. With, for example, targets for affordable and social housing, the more capital money we can secure, the more such housing we can build. Those things very much depend on the amount of money that we can get. Our promise to this place is that we will endeavour to find as much additional resource as we can to invest in all those issues.

I will move to Eóin Tennyson, who is not in his place. He had an awful lot to say at the weekend, or so somebody said to me. He said that the Programme for Government should not be the ceiling on our ambition. He also said that we should all work together in a spirit of cooperation. I very much agree with that. People do not want the likes of us playing politics in this place, having petty squabbles about things or not being realistic about what we can achieve. The people of Northern Ireland want us to work constructively together, get on with it and deliver on the things that matter to them. The First Minister and I, working across the Executive, have really applied ourselves to that over the past 13 months, and we will continue to do so. Yes, a four-party coalition can be frustrating, and nobody will get everything that they want in the way that they want it. However, we endeavour, week in and week out, to do our best to find a way through and to find agreement and compromise. That is what we have done today.

Phillip Brett spoke from an economic perspective about prosperity and good jobs. I am really pleased that Northern Ireland has unprecedented levels of low unemployment. Just a couple of weeks ago, the figures on that came out. We have the lowest unemployment levels that we have had for a very long time. That is a good thing, but we have levels of economic inactivity that are much too high. We have challenges in productivity. Across the United Kingdom, there is stagnation in economic growth. Among the issues raised throughout Members' contributions — I may not be able to get to all of them — was the National Insurance employers' contribution. We are a small to medium-sized business economy, and, when we talk to businesses, we hear how that prevents them from expanding; in fact, it prevents them, they indicate, even from standing still. They may have to cut back in order to fund the measure. That is not acceptable. If we want our economy to grow, we need to support our businesses, and the Executive need to be able to do that. It also means investing in skills, tackling educational underachievement and trying to identify why so many people become economically inactive. We need those people in our workforce. We talk to companies week in and week out that say that they want good people with the right skills. If they can get those people, they will expand. We are world-leading in cyber, the creative industries, aerospace and defence. They all want good people. We can provide those good jobs with a good wage. We also know that that is the best way out of poverty. It is transformative not just for that person but, in due course, for their family, including their grandchildren.

Diana Armstrong referred to the need for multi-year Budgets, which, as I mentioned, are key. She said that targets should align with the Budget, and that is also critical. As soon as we can get more information on that multi-year Budget, we will look at our plans and targets and make sure that we fit that in. A number of objectives in the Programme for Government require further work by Ministers. That will be the work of Committees. Those sitting in the Chamber will work on those Committees and ensure that the plans that come forward meet the objectives in the Programme for Government and are brought forward swiftly, while, critically, ensuring that the Budget is aligned to enable the relevant Minister to deliver against that aspiration.

Deirdre Hargey referenced digital innovation. Hopefully, this week, we will be able to bring forward more information about those transformation projects. Steve Aiken referenced that as well. We have the additional £235 million that was secured. The UK Government, through the NIO, sit on that board because the funding is additional to our block grant and was granted on condition that they also sat on it in terms of what would be done. That is potentially a useful thing. Across Whitehall, initiatives and interventions are happening in transformation, particularly in digitisation. It would be good to hear from them, through someone who sits on the transformation board, about some of the ideas that we could work on here. Steve Aiken is absolutely right. It is also important, as a core principle, that issues pertaining to devolved matters in Northern Ireland are left to those who have been elected to this place and are for Executive to decide.

I assure the Member that that is absolutely the case. While the transformation board looks at those and puts forward some recommendations, ultimately, it will be the Northern Ireland Executive that agree them, ergo giving it democratic accountability.

Cheryl Brownlee spoke about the really important issue of SEN. Indeed, a number of Members did. Apologies if I do not get the opportunity to refer specifically to each one, but I know that a number of Members referred to SEN. We know how challenging it is for parents to try to navigate their way and get the help that they absolutely need. There have been so many campaigns about this. We want to do more. I know that the Education Minister is committed to driving forward the necessary transformation in that area. That is why I am particularly pleased that SEN is right at the heart of the Programme for Government. We recognise that special educational needs is a significant and growing issue that is not being dealt with in the way that we want. Therefore, it is right and good that we are looking at that. As Cheryl said, we can get this right, and now is the time to deliver on it. That is absolutely important.

Connie Egan referred to the increase in police officer numbers, which was also referred to by the Member for North Antrim Timothy Gaston. Indeed, on page 48 — I am sorry that the Member for North Antrim was not aware of it — of the Programme for Government, there is reference to fulfilling the New Decade, New Approach commitment that was set down to increase police numbers to 7,500 officers. A significant amount of work has happened. We know the cost of that. The challenge is now over to the Finance Minister to try to [Interruption.]

It is page 48, the fifth paragraph. It is really important that we do this, because we know how important policing is on the ground. You will see from the commitment to this that it:

That is 7,500 police officers. I am really pleased that that is in the Programme for Government. It is something that we very much support. We know that that will require significant additional resource, but we are very much working to support a year-on-year increase to move towards that number.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am really tight for time, unfortunately, so I will try to cover as much as possible.

Joanne Bunting raised a number of issues from a justice perspective, including the cross-departmental approach to tackling justice issues. Again, we know that far, far too many people are sitting in the criminal justice system, particularly in relation to drug and alcohol challenges. That requires a cross-cutting, joined-up approach. She is absolutely right on that, and I know that the Committee will be driving that work forward, as well as the important work on ending violence against women and girls.

I also want to say a huge thank you to Joanne for all the work and lobbying that she did on palliative care inclusion, and particularly in relation to death and dying. That is a very important issue, and we have to learn many lessons about that from the COVID pandemic. Of course, it is also so important because every family is touched by it at some point. Dignity and support is something that we really need to address. I thank her for her intervention on that issue. She will have seen the result of that in the final document.
I also want to refer to the hard work that many Members did on older people and older people's advocacy, including Claire Sugden and others on the Committee. We have reflected that in the changes to the document. A number of Members referenced a number of social inclusion strategies, and it is critical to us that every person in Northern Ireland feels that they are included in these priorities. It is not that there necessarily needs to be dedicated action just for them in order for them to feel that they are heard and seen. When it comes to all the key issues, we are very conscious of the mainstreaming of those considerations.

I apologise for not getting to cover all the many, many contributions. I think that there are probably about another 20 here, but I have talked for too long and cannot go into all the details.

In conclusion, I want to, as I said, give a promise to this place. We are determined to deliver, and what we have heard from this place gives a little bit of a flavour of how many issues there are. It is fantastic that our representatives are champions of so many different issues. Members are making sure that those issues are heard and articulated and that the concerns are out there. Many of those issues will be for particular Ministers, but core to the work of the Executive will be driving forward that prioritisation. At the heart of it is creating a peaceful, thriving society, growing our economy and making our public services work for people. That is so important, and it is very much what we are committed to doing. We look forward to working with all of you in the months and years ahead as we deliver against the Programme for Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Deputy First Minister, thank you for that conclusion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Committee and Members from across the House who have supported the Bill and its progression through the Assembly.

Since the introduction of automatic enrolment in 2012, there has been significant growth in the membership of workplace pensions, and saving for retirement has become normal. In 2013, the proportion of employees in Northern Ireland who belonged to a workplace pension scheme was 44%. By April 2023, that figure had increased to 75%. Workers can choose to opt out of automatic enrolment. However, every three years, an employer must re-enrol those eligible employees who exercised their opt-out of automatic enrolment with that employer. The percentage of employees in Northern Ireland aged 22 to 29 who are members of a workplace pension scheme has increased from 25% in 2012 to 76% in 2023. Over the same period, membership of a workplace pension scheme among those aged 17 to 21 has increased only from 1% to 16%.

The Bill provides the power to lower the age for automatic enrolment from 22 to encourage saving for retirement from an early age. That helps to continue to normalise pension saving among workers and, of course, to simplify automatic enrolment processes for employers. Employees will be able, as they are now, to opt out of automatic enrolment.

The Bill also provides my Department with the power to make regulations to reduce or repeal the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band. Removing the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band means that pension contributions would be made from the first pound earned, thereby increasing total pension saving and simplifying contribution calculations for employers and individuals. That improves the incentives for those in multiple jobs to opt in to their workplace pension scheme, as they will benefit from an employer contribution for every pound that they earn in every job up to the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band. That will proportionately affect the contributions of lower earners the most. It means that more workers will have access to a pension with an employer contribution and greater pension pots, supporting those with lower earnings and multiple jobs.

Given the UK-wide nature of the changes, my Department will work in tandem with DWP to ensure that an effective communication strategy is in place and, in particular, that young people are aware that automatic enrolment will begin at a younger age and of the advantages of starting pension saving at an early age. Similarly, workers in general will be made aware of the changes to the minimum level of the qualifying earnings band and what it means for pension saving.

Finally, the Bill provides a requirement for my Department to review, report and:

In summary, the Bill gives my Department the power to lower the age at which qualifying workers are automatically enrolled in a workplace pension and the power to reduce or repeal the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band so that contributions are calculated on more of a person's earnings. Additionally, the Bill requires the Department to review and report its assessment of the impacts of any changes after the first regulations come into operation.

By most standards, automatic enrolment can, I think, be considered a success. The measures in the Bill are intended to continue to normalise pension saving among workers, help more earners to build resilience for retirement, support individuals in multiple part-time jobs and simplify automatic enrolment for employers. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. Although the Bill is relatively small, its implications are significant, particularly for younger workers who will now be able to start saving for their retirement at an earlier stage in their career. The Bill is a crucial step towards fostering a culture of long-term financial security and responsible employment practices.

Throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill, we undertook thorough scrutiny and engaged with key stakeholders. One of the highlights of our work was our productive and insightful meeting with Members of the Youth Assembly. The young people who engaged with us demonstrated a keen interest in understanding and contributing to legislative decisions that directly impact on them.

Additionally, the Committee carefully examined the impact of the proposed changes. Automatic enrolment has been an important policy since its introduction in 2012, increasing workplace pension participation significantly. Here in the North, 73% of employees were enrolled in a workplace pension scheme in 2021. We hope that the Bill will increase that further. To give a comparison, similar policies in other countries have demonstrated long-term benefits, further supporting the necessity of the reforms.

The Committee also discussed concerns about the financial impact on employers and the public purse. We were reassured that, while no immediate costs would be imposed on businesses, the benefits of increased pension savings for workers would far outweigh potential costs over time. Furthermore, individuals will retain the ability to opt out if they so choose, preserving personal financial autonomy.

Recognising the importance of monitoring the Bill's effectiveness, the Committee sought, and the Minister subsequently agreed to, an amendment requiring a review to assess whether the Bill is achieving its intended impact. The Committee appreciates the Minister's willingness to take the amendment forward, which, we believe, has strengthened the Bill and will provide essential post-legislative scrutiny. Furthermore, the Committee made a recommendation in its report that pensions should be incorporated into the curriculum under learning for life and work (LLW). I see that the Minister of Education is here, so, hopefully, that recommendation will fall on open ears. We were informed that the Department has been working with other organisations to promote financial capability and develop educational resources such as the after-school world of work (WOW) initiative, which explores topics such as student finance, earnings, tax and pensions.

The Committee also emphasised the need for a robust communications strategy to ensure that young workers are aware of their rights and of the benefits of automatic enrolment. Traditional government websites may not be the most effective means of reaching that demographic; instead, innovative and youth-friendly communication channels should be employed to engage and inform young workers.

It is important to acknowledge the individuals and groups that assisted the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill. I extend my sincere thanks to the departmental officials for their patience, expertise and willingness to provide detailed responses to our queries and to the Assembly's Bill Office staff for their invaluable support to ensure that we carried out our scrutiny effectively. I also thank the Research and Information Service (RaISe) team for its diligent research and advice, as well as our Committee Clerk and her staff team, who facilitated our work throughout the course of the Bill. Their combined assistance has been instrumental in ensuring that the Committee examined the Bill thoroughly. I hope that the strong working relationship between the Committee secretariat and the departmental officials continues as we move on to consider the Sign Language Bill, which has now reached Committee Stage.

In conclusion, the Committee supports the amended Bill. The Committee has taken its scrutiny role seriously and engaged meaningfully with stakeholders, particularly young people, pensions experts and academics. By introducing pension saving at an earlier age and ensuring robust post-legislative evaluation, the Bill marks an important step towards financial security for future generations. The legislation is not just about policy but ensuring that our workforce, particularly young people, are given the best possible start in preparing for their future financial well-being. I encourage Members to support the Final Stage of the Bill as the Assembly takes this progressive step forward.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to us at Final Stage. I agree with the Chair of the Committee that we had a good engagement with the Members of the Youth Assembly, who understood that, if an employee typically contributes 5% to their pension pot, their employer will add another 3%, so there will be additional income in the long run. They understood the importance of engaging on their pension pot at an early stage.

There are two particular things that I want to mention. First, this enabling legislation will match legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, where, I understand, changes have not yet been made but are expected to be made both to the minimum age at which people are automatically enrolled in a pension unless they opt out and to the level at which their contributions are calculated. That means that we in Northern Ireland will be able to match GB, if and when those changes are made. That will be particularly beneficial where companies are employing people across the UK and will expect pension arrangements to be the same.

Secondly, I want to highlight the fact that, last week, we had a very positive debate on a motion that Claire Sugden proposed on strategic planning for an ageing population. This is relevant to that: the need to encourage young people to invest in their pension pot at a young age and to put the onus on employers to enrol people in a private pension at the earliest stage. Those early contributions are particularly valuable, as they will accumulate a greater value. Many people — including myself, I might say — wish that they had contributed more at an early age, so anything that encourages people to contribute to their pension pot at an early age is valuable.

This is important enabling legislation, and I am sure that it will be supported by the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate for their remarks.

I will pick up on a couple of comments. I assure the Chair of the Committee that an effective communications strategy will be in place, and it will include social media. I will be happy to take his advice on the channels that he thinks will help us to engage most with young people. I am sure that he is in touch with them and can give good advice. Perhaps he will even star in a TikTok on behalf of the Committee, telling people what the changes are. That ties in to the point that Brian Kingston made that this change is being made across the UK, and there will be communications with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that we are getting the message out to everybody who needs to hear it.

I thank Members for the positive part that they played in progressing the Bill through the Assembly. The overall aim of the measures in the Bill is to continue to normalise pension saving among workers, help lower earners to build resilience for retirement, support individuals in multiple part-time jobs, and simplify automatic enrolment for employers. Employees will, as now, still be able to opt out of automatic enrolment.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call on the Minister of Education to open the debate. Over to you, Minister.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When, just over a year ago, I took up office as Minister of Education, I made it clear that I wanted to make a difference to hard-working families and to ensure that no child's choice of school was determined by the affordability of its uniform. Today, I am pleased to bring forward legislation to address the cost of school uniforms. I look forward to the scrutiny and support of Members as the Bill moves through the legislative stages so that we produce the best legislation possible.

I believe that this is an area in which we can achieve consensus across the Chamber. We can all agree that families in our constituencies need support with uniform costs, that action to address the affordability of school uniform requirements is needed to deliver that support and that the legislation that we debate today will form the basis of the action needed.

The role of the Bill is to provide the necessary powers to ensure that the statutory guidelines have authority, and it does that. To be clear, it is not the role of the Bill to replicate the contents of those statutory guidelines. It is important to note that the Office of the Legislative Counsel, to which I afford my thanks, drafted the Bill based on the policy instructions from my Department. The Bill sits along existing legislation, and is drafted in that context. The Bill sets out a legislative framework that provides the necessary powers to make statutory provision through the guidelines to deliver the key principles and purpose that were consulted on. My officials are working in parallel to develop draft guidelines based on the Bill as introduced, building on existing guidance that schools should be familiar with.

The consultation on the policy proposals underpinning the Bill received a high response rate. Almost 7,500 people replied, and over 4,000 of those were children and young people. That does not always happen and highlights the importance of the issue and the legislation. It has also been reflected in media coverage, including viewpoints from parents welcoming the Bill since I introduced it on 18 February.

The Bill contains 16 clauses over three chapters. Whilst I do not intend today to talk through each clause, I will point to specific provisions throughout the Bill. It is based on principles that received a high degree of support in the consultation, namely that school uniforms should be affordable, comfortable and sustainable, with policies that are developed in partnership with pupils and their parents, published and regularly reviewed. A key purpose of the Bill is to make departmental guidance to schools about their uniform policies statutory. That is achieved through a combination of clauses 1 and 6. Clause 1 places a duty on the Department of Education to:

and clause 6 places a duty on relevant schools to adhere to those guidelines and to publish all required information. Transparency is at the centre of the statutory arrangements. The Bill will apply to all grant-aided and independent primary and post-primary schools, with a power to make regulations through the draft affirmative procedure to place a duty on preschool providers, should that prove necessary in the future. The information to date indicates that it is at the post-primary and then primary level where cost pressures are being felt by parents. I consider it prudent to future-proof the legislation so that, if an issue arises in the future at preschool level, it can be addressed. I pay tribute to all schools across all stages and sectors for all the work that they do to benefit our children and young people, and I thank those who already consider affordability for families when setting their uniform requirements.

To be clear, it will remain a matter for each school to decide whether it wishes its pupils to wear a uniform. That is not something that my Department or I intend to mandate. While I recognise the benefits of a school uniform for ethos, safeguarding and the avoidance of peer bullying based on outfits, schools are best placed to work with parents and pupils to decide what their uniform should be. What will be different once the Bill comes into operation is that all primary and post-primary schools will have to put affordability at the centre of their uniform policies, including addressing unfair costs aspects. "Unfair costs aspects" are defined in the Bill as including aspects of school uniform policies raising questions about the cost of items, limited suppliers and branded items, all within the context of the impact on lower-income households. Schools will have to publish information about the rationale for the uniform requirements and consult parents and pupils in developing and reviewing them, with this information also to be published alongside cost and supplier details. To be clear, a school cannot conduct a tick-box consultation and then ignore the outcome. It will be set out in the statutory guidelines that the consultation must be with its parents and pupils and be meaningful, and the outcomes must be published. Reasonably, it means that if the parents and pupils have a strong view, it will be published, and any attempt to overlook such a view, strange as such an approach would be, will be visible, require explanation and be challengeable.

The Bill provides the necessary powers to ensure that sustainability is considered with regard to the reusability and recycling of uniforms, uniform banks and value for money. It provides the necessary powers for comfort and practicality, accessibility and consideration of fabrics to be key in school uniform policies. We know that those points matter for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in particular. Rightly, the detail of much of this will sit in the statutory guidelines and, as I have said, my officials are working in parallel to develop them. There has been discussion on the Floor of the Chamber across two debates in the past year about capping the costs of school uniforms. We see that, in England, they are having to make further primary legislation in addition to making their guidance statutory in 2021, albeit schools there merely needed to have regard to that guidance, whereas, under the School Uniforms Bill, they must adhere to the guidelines or the Department can direct them.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in England seeks to place a cap on the number of branded items that primary and post-primary schools can require as part of their uniform.

I do not want to have to come back to the Assembly with further legislation to address the issue. You will see that, in clauses 3 and 4 of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, the power to put in place a cap is covered. Flexibility is built into the Bill for that to be a cap on the numbers of branded items — clause 3 — and/or the cost of individual items or an entire uniform, as set out in clause 4. It can also be a combination of those factors. Those clauses provide the necessary powers to enable such a cap to be set and allows for it to be modified, lifted or reinstated as necessary, as time progresses and cost issues are addressed.

There was a high level of support for a cost-control measure in the response to the consultation. A cap was one such measure, but others were suggested, such as banning expensive blazers or branded PE kit. An even higher level of support was expressed for ensuring a competitive market for school uniforms. Open competition is the means by which expert bodies such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) suggest driving down and keeping down costs. It may be that a cap is brought in for a time-bound period or, if needed, once we see the impact of the statutory guidelines. The important point in relation to the Bill is that the necessary powers are in place via clauses 3 and 4.

Colleagues in the Executive agreed to the underpinning policy proposal that powers relating to a cap should be enabling and permissive. In their consultation response, members of the Alliance Party acknowledged that further consultation on the detail of any cap, including who would set, monitor and review it, is needed. My officials are looking at that detail. I know that some Members have suggested that an independent body would be needed to set and manage such a cap, but that would bring with it an additional cost for which my Department has no budget. That suggestion again highlights the need for careful consideration of how a cap could be appropriately operated and by whom.

Clauses 3 and 4 are drafted to come into operation via commencement orders. That means that further work on the detail of how a cap might operate can be taken forward in parallel with but without delaying the implementation of statutory guidelines. I am mindful of the uniform suppliers, many of which are small to medium-sized enterprises. They work so hard to support schools in the provision of their uniforms, and I want to take care that no unintended consequences materialise that cannot readily be addressed.

As with everything, a balance needs to be struck. The starting point for that is to ensure that the necessary powers are set out correctly in the Bill. The Bill provides the necessary powers for the Department to require schools to include "transitory, transitional or savings arrangements" in their uniform policies or for changes to be made to them. That allows the guidelines to specifically include advice to schools about transition periods when making uniform changes.

The cost of branded uniform, particularly PE kit, is frequently raised as a matter of concern, and the School Uniforms Bill provides the necessary powers to address the cost of PE kit, including branded sportswear, as part of the statutory guidelines that schools will have to adhere to. As I said, clause 3 provides a power for the Department of Education to limit or cap the numbers of individual:

That is drafted by reference to "specific styles". The term "specific styles" is defined in clause 9 and includes clothing:

The term is utilised throughout the Bill, including in relation to the definition of unfair costs aspects in clause 8. Unfair costs aspects must also be addressed in relation to school uniform policies. In addition, clause 2 provides that the guidelines can provide for:

in terms of branded uniform items in either daywear or PE kits.

As Members scrutinise the Bill, it is important that they think about the interlinkages between clauses, including where definitions are provided, and about the balance between how a power is articulated in legal terms in the Bill and what that enables the statutory guidelines to address.

Of course, the work will need to be monitored to ensure that it has the necessary effect and makes the necessary difference for parents. The Bill states that the Department must review its guidelines from time to time. Understanding how effective the guidelines have been in addressing the issue of affordability for parents and carers will underpin any such review.

The Bill requires schools to publish their uniform policy and a range of other information on which I touched earlier, so information will be readily accessible. In addition, there is a specific reference in clause 7 to Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) reports as a source of information when the Department is considering whether a school has materially failed to adhere to the guidelines or is subjecting its pupils to disciplinary measures due to a breach of uniform policy. Throughout this school year, the ETI is working to develop case studies of good practice to assist schools. In addition, my officials are engaging with the ETI about the potential for inspectors to include questions about the consultation process and the overall uniform cost and policy for parents and pupils of a school as part of its inspection. There is also scope to commission an evaluation by inspectors. Again, my officials have begun those discussions.

The Bill also provides for a specific complaints route to the Department for anybody concerned that a school is not adhering to the statutory guidelines. In any circumstance in which the Department determines that a school, following engagement and consultation with it to ensure balance, is not adhering to the guidelines, it can direct it to do so. That provision has legal force, so it ensures that the Bill will be enforceable and will have teeth. It is the start of the process, and I am keen to put in place good legislation to help parents and to address cost issues relating to school uniforms.

Clause 14 extends access to the uniform grant operated by the Education Authority (EA) under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to pupils at independent schools. That corrects an anomaly whereby a low-income family can currently access a uniform grant only if their child attends a grant-aided school and not an independent school. While the Bill will require schools to ensure that its uniform is affordable for all families, I recognise that the EA's provision of uniform grants is an important support for low-income families to help them meet the cost.

As Members will be aware, the eligibility criteria that apply to uniform grants have recently been consulted on. The consultation received over 700 responses, which my officials are currently analysing. I expect to receive a report on that analysis in the near future. We need to be realistic, however, and understand that any increase in the number of families eligible for a uniform grant or any increase in the rate of uniform grant can happen only if it is affordable to do so. I have spoken on many occasions in the House about how my Department is chronically underfunded. I will have to consider the uniform grant issues alongside the many other competing funding priorities that my Department has. It should be remembered, though, that it was my DUP colleague Michelle McIlveen who raised the rate of uniform grant by 20% from the 2022-23 academic year, after it had remained unchanged for over 10 years.

While I recognise that the rate of the uniform grant is one way in which to reduce the impact of uniform costs on low-income families, I believe that schools seeking to minimise the cost of their uniform can be of even greater benefit. Giving statutory effect to departmental guidance, placing a duty on relevant schools to adhere to that guidance, providing a power of direction in the event of non-compliance and specifically defining key terms to be addressed via a school's uniform policy, such as specific styles and unfair costs aspects, will, when taken together, make an impact. My focus is on making an impact for the families most in need, and I trust that Members will scrutinise the Bill through that lens.

I commend the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill to the House.

Ms Hunter: I welcome today's debate. The SDLP will support the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill at its Second Stage. Any discussion on potential capping of school uniform costs is most welcome.

School uniforms are meant to promote equality, discipline and school identity: in reality, their high costs create barriers for families across all our communities. A staggering 94% of parents believe that current uniform prices are unreasonable. The average cost of a uniform, including PE kit, stands at £378 for a post-primary-school child and £173 for a primary-school child. Those costs, we can all agree, are ridiculous and act as a barrier to education. Even more concerning, a 2020 report from the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) found that one third of parents fell into debt just to afford a school uniform. The financial burden is growing year-on-year, yet the uniform grant provided is the smallest across these islands. Northern Ireland lags far behind and offers only £73 for children under 15 and £78 for those over 15. We can do much better, so I welcome today's discussion about a uniform cap.

Branded items, such as blazers and embroidered sports kits, add to the burden and inflate the cost by up to 50%. Schools that require parents to buy from exclusive suppliers often make matters worse, as those retailers can charge up to 150% more than regular supermarkets. There is a need for reform. We must ask ourselves this: should any child should be excluded from school or sent home simply because their family cannot afford a school uniform? Of course not. The Children's Society estimates that half a million children across these islands have been sent home due to inappropriate school uniforms that are seen as policy violations. That undermines the very purpose of school uniforms, which is to create an equal playing field for students across these islands.

Furthermore, the rigid nature of school uniforms can disadvantage certain groups of young people, particularly young girls. Often, rigid school uniforms do not allow trousers to be worn. It needs to be mentioned that a more modern, flexible approach that allows the wearing of comfortable, practical clothing, such as leggings or trousers, would be helpful and would put young women at ease.

I would like the Minister to emphasise the importance of schools having recycling schemes, which my SDLP colleague and councillor Paul Doherty does very well in west Belfast, to support parents with the rising cost of school uniforms. As for the impact on communities, between June and September last year, that scheme kitted out over 800 children before the new term. That is just one area, and it shows the demand and pressure that parents are under. Sadly, the cost of school uniforms has been an issue for years. We see recycling initiatives in some schools, and I would like them to be broadened out. It should be emphasised that those initiatives are so valuable, as well as being good for our environment.

If an increasing number of families struggle to put food on the table and heat their home, where will they find the extra £90 for a school blazer or £100 for a PE kit that will likely be worn only once a week? Schools have told us that some parents are not sending their children to school at the start of term simply because they cannot afford a school uniform. Essentially, that is a failure by us, and we can do more, which is why I am glad that we are debating the issue today. It is time to make school uniforms more affordable, practical and inclusive. Today's discussion is a strong step in the right direction. We need to implement a fairer system. Our schools must be required to regularly review the cost of uniforms and look at the tendering process for suppliers. It is on each of us to promote second-hand uniform sales, whether that is through school initiatives, parent groups or charity shops.

Uniforms should foster pride, discipline and a sense of belonging but not at the price of the financial hardship that is often faced by parents. We need change. By making school uniforms more affordable, inclusive and practical, we can ensure that no child is unfairly disadvantaged. I welcome the fact that we are working together. The SDLP will support the Bill at Second Stage so that, when it comes to school uniforms, we ensure fairness and allow for choice and, most important, affordability.

Mr Sheehan: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Bill.

The cost of school uniforms has been a serious issue for families across the North for far too long. No parent should have to choose between heating their home, putting food on the table and ensuring that their child has the correct school uniform. Sinn Féin has consistently called for action on the issue, and I welcome the Minister's recognition that reform is needed.

The Bill is a welcome step. It places a legal requirement on the Department of Education to issue clear guidance to schools to ensure that affordability is central to uniform policies. That is an important move. The commitment to addressing unfair costs, promoting clothing banks and supporting uniform lending schemes are positive measures that should help hard-pressed families who are already struggling in the face of a cost-of-living crisis. However, while the Bill lays the groundwork, there are areas where it must go further to ensure real change.

For too long, families have been locked into costly single-supplier agreements for school uniforms, and the Bill rightly seeks to challenge that. We must ensure that it fully ends the practice of schools restricting parents to one expensive provider. Schools should be required to permit non-branded alternatives and ensure genuine choice for families. Likewise, the excessive cost of PE kits needs to be tackled head-on. Parents should not be forced to purchase expensive branded sports gear when perfectly suitable and affordable alternatives are available. There must be a clear and enforceable limit on branded items in uniform policies.

I also note the potential for a financial cap on uniform costs, which is an important measure. However, Sinn Féin will press to ensure that that is not left as an optional guideline but is a firm and enforceable limit that genuinely reduces costs for families. Sinn Féin is committed to fairness and equality in education. No child should be at a disadvantage because their family cannot afford an expensive uniform. The Bill is a step forward, but we will work constructively at Committee Stage to strengthen it, ensuring that it delivers for families not just in words but in real, enforceable action.

Uniforms should not be a barrier to education, and the Bill has the potential to ease financial pressures on parents and ensure a fairer approach to school uniform policy. With the right amendments, it can make a real difference to working families across the North. Sinn Féin will continue to stand up for families who are struggling with those costs, and we support the passing of the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr Brooks: Today's discussion, as we can already see, will be one where, while we may have some differences around the nuances and details, there is broad support for the direction of travel. On that basis, I thank the Minister for introducing and advancing the Bill, and I welcome the fact that he has done so. Like other Members, I look forward to the discussions at Committee and the scrutiny that we can give the Bill there.

The Bill delivers on a DUP manifesto pledge that was made in recognition of the ongoing financial pressures on families and the need to better support working parents. We all understand the significant and recurring cost of school uniforms, which becomes even more burdensome for families with multiple children, some of whom may attend different schools. Many of us will remember from our childhood the financial strain on parents as they tried to afford expensive uniforms. I certainly recall visits to the local independent outfitters where blazers that were a little too big were bought in the hope that they would last a little longer. On top of that came the cost of school shoes, bags and stationery. Those trips to the local outfitters often coincided with visits to Eason or local sports shops for the other bits and pieces that you needed. There are costs upon costs at the tail end of a summer when parents have often faced the increased costs of meeting children's needs through the holiday period.

The DUP wants to ensure that all schools and school leaders prioritise affordability and consider the financial burden on families when setting uniform requirements. That aligns, as the Minister said, with the public consultation in June 2024: over 77% of the 7,500 responses supported making school uniform policy guidance statutory. Like them, I welcome the Minister's clear and decisive action in advancing the policy through legislation. While the majority of schools already act responsibly in this regard, the Bill sends a clear message to any minority that may continue to prioritise image and vanity over family finances that such practices will no longer be tolerated.

The purpose of a school uniform is, of course, to instil professionalism and discipline while ensuring pupil comfort, but, crucially, it is also meant to prevent children from being judged by what they wear and to avoid a stark contrast between the families who can afford expensive brands and the families who cannot. It is deeply counterproductive when uniforms themselves become a source of financial pressure, reinforcing rather than reducing social divides. No family should ever feel that the cost of a uniform determines whether they can send their child to a particular school. No child or parent should ever feel that the child's place on a school sports team is unattainable because the kit is not affordable. That is why I welcome the Minister's decision to require schools to consult parents and pupils.

Thanks to the Bill, as has been said, schools will have to publish information on how they have met that obligation, along with the rationale behind their uniform policies. I strongly support the Minister's giving legal force to uniform guidance. Some naysayers have downplayed that move, but let us be clear about this: the Department is no longer asking schools to review their policies; it is mandating them to take action. The Minister is not only embedding the rules in legislation but ensuring that the ETI, in future school inspections, will hold our schools accountable, preventing any school ignoring the guidance without oversight.

There is often talk of being able to buy generic items in supermarkets rather than buying from independent retailers because of the value of those items. The Bill will, helpfully, see schools publish the places where their uniform can be purchased, and it will guard against exclusivity agreements that, at times, can restrict a market and make parents captive to a set product and price. That can be an unacceptable practice. Rural Members, particularly but not exclusively, will know, however, that some of our independent retailers provide a great value-for-money service and can ensure the availability of items in a way that supermarkets and other providers ultimately cannot. It is important that we are fair in that.

Most of us here have been pushing in the same direction on the issue; however, I recognise that some aspects are more complex than they may initially seem. I know from discussion on 'The Nolan Show' in recent weeks that there is some enthusiasm for completely banning branded goods. I support the Minister in his position that branded PE kits should not be made compulsory. There are some things to consider, however — we will probably bring this out in Committee — particularly on branded sports gear. There are different levels of brands, so it is about how we deal with that, because these things can sometimes make for simple sound bites. The likes of Adidas and Nike and so on are at the top of the chain. Other brands that we are familiar with from team wear that we have seen in schools, such as Kukri, O'Neills and others, are mid-level. I know, as do others who have played sport — it has been some time, admittedly, since I played sport, as you would know

; thanks to my colleague there — that some team wear, such as Prostar, from back in the day, provides very good value for money for sports kit at a low level, but, technically, it is branded. I fear that, in looking at these things, we sometimes simplify them and risk reducing choice and value. That is probably getting into the weeds of it, but it is important that we have those discussions at Committee Stage, because things that provide sound bites sometimes need further investigation.

While the Minister is not proposing a price cap, he has reserved the power to do so if necessary, and that serves as a deterrent.

I appear to have lost the last sheet of my speech, which is helpful. The Minister, as he said, has future-proofed many aspects of the Bill so that, if schools do not comply in the initial stages, they know that the legislation will have teeth to ensure that they will and that there is fairness for all our families.

I welcome the Bill, as I think that we all do, and I look forward to engaging with it at Committee Stage.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and his officials for their work to get it to this point. As a relatively new Member, it is wonderful for me to have a piece of legislation to work through, especially one that is as worthy as this.

Every child has the right to a high-quality education, and there should be no barriers to that right. Families have long called for measures on the cost and availability of uniforms, so it is good that, following the relentless cycle of Assembly collapse, we, as legislators, can finally respond to those calls. In reality, however, families face financial barriers in sending their children to school, the cost and availability of uniforms being just one of them.

Save the Children published research in 2023 that showed that one in three parents has had to borrow money to cover the cost of school uniforms and PE kits. That is an unacceptable and untenable situation, so we must not miss the opportunity that the Bill offers to give such families certainty that the legislation will deliver for them. The level of engagement with the consultation on the Bill, at over 7,500 survey responses, shows the strength of feeling and reflects lived experience. I look forward to working on the Education Committee and with the Minister and his officials to ensure that the legislation delivers on its intention to remove or, at the very least, reduce one of the financial barriers to children's education: the cost of school uniforms.

I also look to the legislation to ensure that uniforms are comfortable and appropriate for our children and young people and to ensure that clear consideration is shown to children with special educational needs, who deserve a school uniform that, again, is not a barrier to their right to education.

As it stands, I have concerns that the Bill will not create the change that families need to see. The Department has had non-statutory guidance in place since 2004, which urges schools to ensure that school uniforms are affordable. Many schools do that. Some, as is clear from the numerous reports and the consultation responses, continue to require families to purchase items from particular suppliers or spend huge amounts of money on specific items. Therefore, we welcome the move to place the guidance on a statutory footing.

The legislation, as it stands, will give the Department as much scope as possible in what to include in that statutory guidance. That makes sense. However, it means that the delivery of the ambition for the legislation rests on what the Department chooses to place in the guidance. It is important, therefore, to understand the direction of travel of the Minister and the Department as to what they intend to include and act on and what they want to ensure that schools will adhere to. For example, the legislation says that the Department "may include" provision on styles and numbers of clothing items that are deemed to be reasonable. Also, in clause 4, it allows "provision" for a cost cap. Essentially, the Department may or may not introduce a cost cap. I am yet to be convinced that statutory guidance alone will ensure that families in coming years will not continue to face huge costs. The response to the consultation was clear: 88% of respondents were in favour of cost controls, and so Alliance still feels strongly that a cap should not just be talked about but should be implemented, ideally by an independent body or person. I look forward to exploring that further in the Committee Stage.

There must be clarity on how the Department will ensure adherence to new statutory guidelines. I ask the Minister to provide further information on how that process will work. Clause 7 appears to ensure engagement with the school manager if complaints are received, which is right, but it does not appear to ensure engagement with parents, young people or whoever is making the complaint before a way forward is decided upon.

School uniforms are important in ensuring a sense of community and equality. There should not be barriers either to accessing education or to fully participating in it. I welcome the legislation and look forward to working, on a cross-party basis, to ensure that it delivers for pupils and their families.

Mr Crawford: As Ulster Unionist Party education spokesperson, I welcome and support the Second Stage of School Uniforms Bill. The legislation deals with an important aspect of our children's education. It is essential that we support policies that enhance equality, reduce financial burdens on families and promote a positive learning environment. The Bill, which seeks to regulate the cost and availability of school uniforms, addresses those issues in a fair and constructive manner.

While the subject may seem mundane, its implications reach far beyond simple dress code. It is about important values such as equality and the significance of providing every student with the same opportunity to succeed, regardless of background or financial circumstances. The idea of school uniform is deeply rooted in the values of unity, discipline and equality. Uniforms are intended to create an environment where students are not judged by their attire but by their character, achievements and behaviour. They help to foster a sense of belonging and community in our schools, regardless of the student's background or economic status. The Bill reinforces those values by seeking to ensure that uniforms remain accessible and affordable.

I acknowledge the core principle behind the Bill, which is to ensure that school uniform policies are fair, affordable and reasonable. The first issue that we must address is the financial burden that the current status of school uniforms places on families.

For many parents across the Province, the cost of uniforms is a significant strain. As we all know, the cost of living continues to rise, and the expenses associated with education can be overwhelming. By setting clear guidelines around pricing, the Bill will make uniforms more affordable for families and ensure that no child is denied quality education simply because their family cannot afford the uniform.

For too long, we have witnessed how the rising costs of school uniforms and unnecessary brand requirements have placed excessive pressure on parents and guardians. This is not just about saving money; it is about alleviating financial strain on households and giving each and every child the opportunity to focus on their education without being worried about the price of their uniform. We all know that school can be a difficult time for children. Peer pressure, bullying and the need to fit in can take a toll on a child's mental and emotional well-being. An excessively expensive uniform can make those pressures worse. Many families find themselves restricted to specific retailers, often leading to inflated costs. Families should have more flexibility in how and where they purchase uniforms, making it easier to find affordable options without compromising on quality or adherence to school guidelines.

The School Uniforms Bill is a positive and necessary step in the right direction for tackling poverty and inequality in our education system. We cannot allow something as simple as a uniform to become a barrier to learning. By supporting the Bill, we are standing up for families who struggle to make ends meet and ensuring that their children can attend school with dignity and confidence. As members of the Ulster Unionist Party, we are committed to creating a society where opportunity is available to all. Education is the foundation of that society, and we must do everything in our power to remove barriers that would stand in the way of a child's success. The Bill, I hope, will help level the playing field for all students in Northern Ireland.

Any legislation on school uniforms must include the following key considerations. The first is affordability. Uniforms should be affordable and accessible to all. That means ensuring that schools provide flexibility in uniform policies, such as allowing parents to purchase generic items from a variety of retailers rather than being restricted to expensive branded suppliers. We support setting reasonable price caps on school uniforms and encouraging schools to work with local retailers to offer competitive pricing. It is essential that any changes to school uniform policies are developed in consultation with the parents and students who will be directly affected. Schools should engage with their communities to ensure that uniform policies reflect the needs and concerns of families. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work in a society as diverse as ours. We should focus on education, not clothing. While school uniforms play a role in fostering discipline and unity, we must not lose sight of the primary purpose of our education system, which is to provide quality education and opportunities for all our children.

In addition, the Bill will help improve the overall learning environment in our schools. When students are not preoccupied with concerns about their appearance or how they compare with their peers, they are more likely to focus on their studies. Uniforms promote a sense of discipline and order — qualities that are essential for fostering a productive and respectful atmosphere in our classrooms. I look forward to the Committee Stage, when we will look at this further and test and test again to ensure that we deliver something that brings about tangible change.

The legislation will bring a small change in the context of the broader education landscape, but it is one that can have a profound impact on the lives of our young people. As Members of the Assembly, we must ensure that we move forward to create an education system that is accessible, inclusive and fair for all. This is a common-sense measure that will relieve financial pressure on families, promote equality in our education system and help create a positive learning environment for our students. By supporting the Bill, we are sending a message that every child in Northern Ireland deserves the chance to succeed and that no one should be left behind because of financial hardship.

Mrs Mason: It is welcome that the Minister has moved the Second Stage of the legislation to attempt to make school uniforms more affordable. The legislation should be a real opportunity to finally cut the cost of school uniforms and ease the pressure on families. Each summer and throughout the year, parents face astronomical costs when buying school uniforms and PE gear. The pockets of workers and families are hit. Parents are already struggling with rising living costs. They need and deserve our support. We need to make sure that going to school is as easy as possible for every child. That means removing unnecessary barriers to education. That can start with making school uniforms more affordable for all families, which is what the legislation must do.

This issue is very close to my heart and something about which I feel very strongly. I will never forget the day that I sat with a grandmother in my constituency office, watching her break down in tears, completely overwhelmed with worry about how she would afford the new uniform of the high school that her grandchild really wanted to go to. That moment reinforced my determination to push for change. The situation cannot continue. That is why I proposed my Member's Bill to tackle the issue head-on. Although I welcome the Minister's progress on the legislation, it must be strong, robust and truly effective in making a difference. I am grateful that a local school uniform swap was able to help the woman who was in my office that day. That initiative has already brought relief to so many families.

Last year, when I was researching for my Member's Bill, we undertook a survey that asked families for their views on the subject. The response was overwhelming; it really highlighted just how much pressure was being put on parents and children. We cannot have a single parent having sleepless nights, worrying about whether they can get their child an expensive blazer; a family member working extra hours to get a PE uniform; or a grandparent spending their much-needed pension on their grandchild's branded jumper. Families are already struggling to make ends meet, and, when the summer comes around, the cost of school uniforms really can be the final straw.

Sinn Féin wants to see legislation that will make a real difference to bringing down the cost of school uniforms. We need strong, robust legislation that meets the needs of all children by ensuring that school uniforms are affordable. For that to be achieved, we must pass legislation that will drive down costs by ensuring that schools have competitive tendering processes, remove requirements for expensive branded items and permit the use of affordable high-street alternatives. Families need to see action urgently, so I, alongside my Education Committee colleagues, will work to ensure that the legislation is the very best that it can be and is passed through the Assembly as quickly as possible to ensure that money goes back into the pockets of families as soon as possible.

Mr Martin: I, like others in the House, very much welcome the Bill this evening. I am a parent, so I know at first hand about the cost of school uniforms in general and, particularly, the cost of PE kit for our children. We have three children: two at primary school and one at a post-primary school. We, as a family, are in no doubt that, year-on-year, the cost of uniforms mounts up. Janet Ward, who is a mum and runs the ADHD hub in Newcastle, said that the Bill:

I know how she feels, and I echo her comments.

I assume that the Bill is supported across the Chamber. I welcome the fact that various issues have been highlighted, because that demonstrates how important this piece of blue paper is. It is legislation. It is what we are meant to be doing in the Chamber. It will have a positive effect for families across the Province.

At the moment, boards of governors have the legal right and duty to decide on uniform policy. My party believes that school uniform is important as it provides a sense of identity and should level socio-economic backgrounds and unify a school through dress code. As other Members have said, a school uniform and its associated cost should never be a consideration when parents are deciding on the most appropriate school for their child. The Bill will ensure that that will never be a worry for parents. As the Minister said, the legislation will place a duty on the Department of Education to create clear guidelines for school uniform policy. The Bill also places a duty on schools to follow that policy. My colleague referenced the findings of the consultation, which, as the Minister mentioned, were overwhelmingly to make school uniforms affordable, comfortable and sustainable. Policy options were available in the consultation document, but the option outlined in the Bill is the one that will develop and deliver the best outcome for parents.

Is there a time limit on the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No, there is not, Peter.

Mr Martin: I will therefore take my full 45 minutes.

Clause 2 addresses the unfair costs that parents have to pay. Clause 8 deals with the definition of those unfair costs. Without going into the legal meaning of the clause, I will say that it is about the conversations that parents have when they go into a shop and find out the cost of a blazer. Clause 7 provides the Department with the ability to direct schools to comply with the guidance. That process can be started by parents or by the ETI's inspection process and will effectively be as a result of non-compliance with the Department's guidance. As Members have said, clause 8 deals with what "unfair costs" means and the vexed question that the Member opposite asked about the limited choice of suppliers. Clause 9 addresses the expensive, branded items that can considerably raise the cost of uniforms, especially sportswear, as has been discussed. Other views may be available in the Chamber, but my view is that navy leggings are navy leggings, while white polo shirts are white polo shirts. Parents understand that. As the Bill progresses through its legislative stages, never before will navy leggings and white polo shirts have been discussed in the Assembly so much.

My party has led the way on the issue. Four years ago, Peter Weir, the then Minister of Education, urged school principals to be flexible on uniform rules. That work was continued by the next Minister, Michelle McIlveen, who, in 2022, instructed Department of Education officials to implement guidelines requiring schools to make uniforms more affordable for families. She went on to increase the school uniform grant by 20%, which was as much as the Department of Education budget could bear at the time. After the guidelines were issued, many schools put in place a sensible school uniform policy, and I have experienced that as a parent. As with many other situations in life, however, there are always outliers. Hopefully, the legislation will close the gap. Furthermore, it will mean that schools will have to consult pupils and parents directly on their uniform policy and publish information about it. They will also have to provide a rationale for their policy.

Early in the Assembly mandate, the current Education Minister, Paul Givan, said that he would introduce legislation on the issue. It is a credit to him that he has done so, and done so so quickly. Not every Minister could make that claim. I quote the Minister directly:

That is what the Bill should stop. Never again should any child or family in Northern Ireland face the prospect of having to choose a school on the basis of the cost of its uniform.

These are not green or orange issues. They are not nationalist or unionist concerns. All families face them, regardless of their background.

The legislation will make a positive impact across all of our communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill, as my friend has mentioned, will ensure that this party fulfils the promise made in our manifesto to deal with the cost of school uniforms and the associated costs. The practical outworking of the legislation will mean that the final financial obstacles to school choice should be removed and that parents will no longer face that trip in the summer to buy next year's school uniform.

I thoroughly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Baker: A chairde,

Sinn Féin wants to see the legislation delivered to make uniforms affordable and require schools to have a competitive tendering process, remove unnecessary branded items and replace them with cheaper high street alternatives. There is no doubt that the school uniform policy should be regulated by the Department of Education to ensure fairness. Any guidance that is placed on a statutory footing must be robust and clear in directing schools to ensure that they take the measures and implement the changes to make the difference for children and their families. Going forward, it is vital that consideration is given to the needs of children and young people, including those with special educational needs. We all know of the challenges experienced by children with special educational needs and their families regarding school uniforms. They are often reported as one of the biggest barriers to attendance. Some children with special educational needs have dyspraxia, practical difficulties and sensory difficulties. Collars and blazers may be too stiff, buttons too tight, ties too restrictive, labels too itchy and formal shoes uncomfortable.

The transition between schools can also be a real worry for children with special educational needs, particularly with regard to the uniform policy. Many of those children and young people face further increased school uniform costs as they might require an additional uniform or alterations in order to meet their needs. Providing for the wide range of adjustments and flexibility required to accommodate children with special educational needs is essential in any school uniform legislation. All schools have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for pupils with different needs. The School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill provides the Minister with an opportunity to enhance the rights of children and young people with special educational needs.

I welcome the key principles in the Bill that uniforms should be affordable, comfortable and sustainable. It is also a positive step that there has been engagement with children and young people. The Minister should consider the inclusion of a further principle: that school uniforms should be part of the creation of an inclusive school environment taking consideration of all protected equality characteristics, including physical disabilities and sensory needs, and respecting the identity of the young person.

As a member of the Education Committee, I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and further working on delivering real change for our children and their families.

Ms Sugden: I rise to support the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill at Second Stage. Every year, as the summer holidays draw to a close, I hear the same concerns from parents that the cost of school uniforms is simply too high. It is not just an occasional complaint. I have been advocating on the issue for many years, so I welcome the Minister bringing forward a tangible action that will, hopefully, ease the burden that many families across Northern Ireland feel.

In my constituency, parents have told me that they spend hundreds of pounds to ensure that their children meet uniform requirements when they start post-primary school. It is not just a blazer and a tie any more. Families are expected to purchase multiple sports kits, expensive branded items and specific-coloured shirts that are not available in standard shops. It all adds up, and, for those on lower incomes, the strain is even greater. For families with more than one child, the cost multiplies, and, for those already struggling with rising household bills, the pressure is significant.

I fully support the principle of school uniforms. They promote a sense of belonging, reduce social pressures and contribute to school identity and safety, but a uniform should not be a financial obstacle. If a school uniform exists to unite pupils, it should not divide families on the basis of what they can afford.

The Bill is a step in the right direction. I welcome it, but, for it to be truly effective, it must do more than set out good intentions. It must deliver practical, enforceable change that will ensure that families see a real reduction in uniform costs. The Minister has referred to how the Bill will do that.

The Bill rightly places a duty on schools to consider affordability when setting uniform policies. That is an important step. However, affordability means different things to different people, and, without a clear definition, there is a real risk that schools will technically comply whilst still setting expensive uniform requirements. If a school continues to demand multiple branded items, restricts where uniforms can be bought or insists on specific colours that are available only from one supplier, parents will still be left with high costs. Schools must be able to demonstrate how they have reduced financial pressures on families and not simply state that they have considered affordability before carrying on as usual.

The timeline for implementation also needs to be clear. Parents who struggle now need relief sooner rather than later — certainly before the end of this summer — yet some of the key provisions of the Bill will take effect only when further commencement orders are made. That means that families could still pay high uniform costs for another few years before they see any difference. I would welcome clarity on that from the Minister. Schools need time to adapt — I appreciate that — but there is a difference between a reasonable transition period and unnecessary delay. If we are genuinely serious about reducing costs, we need a clear and realistic deadline for schools to implement the changes so that families can benefit from the legislation as soon as possible.

One of the most significant aspects of the Bill is that it limits the single supplier policy. That is welcome. Parents should never be forced to buy from one expensive retailer when there are more affordable alternatives elsewhere. While that change is positive, again, it must be properly enforced. If a school removes a single supplier policy but still insists on a blazer in a unique shade of green that is not available anywhere else, the cost problem remains. The restriction must be watertight, if it is to ensure that families have real flexibility when purchasing uniforms.

Transparency is another welcome part of the Bill. Schools will now be required to publish their uniform policies, and the Department will have the power to intervene if schools impose unreasonable costs. That is an important step, but, again, enforcement needs to be practical and accessible. Parents must have a clear and straightforward way to challenge uniform policies, if they feel that they are unfair. If a school continues to set unaffordable uniform requirements, families need to know what steps they can take. There must be confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously and acted on. The Department must ensure that a robust process is in place so that schools are held accountable and families are not left struggling year after year. Schools themselves need to be supported, as it is a new policy that will put an extra burden on them. They should be supported with that as well.

It is also worth recognising that primary schools tend to take a more balanced approach to uniform policies. This does not seem to be an issue in primary schools. Many allow parents to buy standard-colour items from supermarkets, which keeps costs low while ensuring a sense of uniformity. The most expensive item in a primary-school uniform is often an item with a badge or crest, but, even with that, there are ways to make it more affordable. If primary schools can ensure uniformity without excessive costs, there is no reason why post-primary schools cannot do the same.

The Bill is a positive step forward in ensuring that school uniforms remain a source of identity and pride rather than financial stress. It takes important measures to give parents more choice, make affordability a central consideration and extend financial support to more families. However, for the legislation to be as strong as it should be, schools must do more than simply acknowledge affordability; they must show how they are actively working to reduce costs. The timeline for implementation must also be clear so that parents feel the benefits sooner rather than later. Enforcement must be accessible so that families who struggle to meet uniform costs have a clear route to challenge unfair policies.

I support the Bill and its aim of ensuring real and meaningful change for families across Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: I thank all Members who have participated in the debate. A number of Members spoke about the detail of the clauses, but some provided examples of the motivation behind what I am trying to achieve. Peter Martin spoke of being a father and the costs that he has. I have three girls in my house, and, come the end of the summer, the cost of purchasing school uniforms that has to be met is significant. I do not expect the public to have too much sympathy for a Minister in meeting those costs, but it is a real issue for a lot of families.

I had two brothers and two sisters when I was growing up and regarded our family as working-class. We did not qualify for uniform grants or support of that nature, but we were very much a working-class family. I remember Mum regularly having to save up the family allowance that we received to try to meet the cost of purchasing the new shoes and school uniforms that we needed. It is a real financial challenge for a lot of families. That is why we are taking the Bill forward: it is about making a difference for families who struggle with the cost of school uniforms.

That drives the need for the legislation and is the reason why I brought the Bill forward. I know that, across the Chamber, we have points that we disagree on, but supporting families and making sure that school uniforms are affordable for all and are not a barrier for any child in the school that they attend are points that, I know, we can agree on. I welcome the effective scrutiny of the Bill. That is our role as elected representatives. Effective scrutiny will always support good legislation, and it is incumbent on all of us throughout the Chamber to make good legislation.

We can debate the "mays" and the "musts", but let us do so from the reasonable perspective that everyone who is working on the matter has the same shared goal. I come back to our making a difference for struggling families. If you consider that a particular matter should be covered by the legislation and do not see the form of words that you expect, by all means ask me or my officials, and we will work with you to clarify and support the legislation.

I remind you that the Bill has been professionally drafted in order to provide the necessary powers to ensure that the statutory guidelines have authority, which it does. I reiterate the fact that it is not the Bill's role to replicate those statutory guidelines. Michelle Guy asked this question: will it do what we want it to do? Reassurances have not been provided that every school is following the current guidance. Many schools are following the guidance, but there are those that are not. The Bill was introduced to make sure that the guidance works. I would not waste the Assembly's time bringing forward a tick-box exercise in legislation. The Bill has to have teeth and have an impact, and I am confident that it will.

We talked today about capping the costs of school uniforms and the costs of branded PE kit in particular. We talked about the importance of children and young people's views and of parents having a meaningful say. The Bill contains all the necessary powers to address those matters. As I stated in my opening remarks, the Bill provides a power for the Department of Education to limit or cap the number of individual items of clothing or sets of clothing. That is in the reference, which I mentioned, to "specific styles". The term "specific styles" is defined and includes clothing "of particular makes or brands". That term is utilised throughout the Bill, including in the definition of "unfair costs aspects" and on what may be deemed reasonable for schools to require their pupils to wear.

Additionally, the Bill provides a power for the costs of individual uniform items or costs of total uniform requirements to be capped. My officials are actively working on further details on how an effective cap could be set, monitored and managed. The correct powers in the legislation are needed now, including making sure that we do not set requirements that prevent us managing any unintended consequences that arise from any cap.

As far as possible, we as legislators need to look to the future, and the Bill allows for that. It provides for clauses that are specific to a cap to come into operation via commencement orders. That means that further work on the detail of how a cap might operate can be taken forward in parallel with, but without delaying, the implementation of statutory guidelines. The Bill also provides the power to make regulations through the draft affirmative resolution process that will apply statutory guidelines to preschool providers, should that become necessary. I remind Members that statutory guidelines will also apply to independent and grant-aided primary and post-primary schools once the Bill comes into operation.

The Bill delivers the policy proposals that were highly supported through the consultation process. It gives statutory effect to the departmental guidance and places a duty on relevant schools to adhere to that guidance. It provides a power of direction in the event of non-compliance, as well as specifically defining key terms that are to be addressed via a school uniform policy, such as "specific styles" and "unfair costs aspects". It provides access to a uniform grant for eligible pupils who attend independent schools.

All those actions, when taken together, will make an impact. I heard from some Members who suggested that the Bill does not go far enough to ensure compliance with policy. First, let me recognise that many schools work hard to reduce the costs of uniforms and have developed some innovative practices. I thank those schools for their work in that area. To other schools that may need further support to change practice should that be needed, the scrutiny period for the Bill does give them time to review their policies, placing affordability for parents at the centre. We will share case studies and examples of best practice that the Education and Training Inspectorate is developing, which will help those schools. Schools that are currently not doing what we want them to do, do not need to wait for the law to come into place to do the right thing. They can take action now, and they have the opportunity, as the legislation works its way through the Assembly, to put their own house in order.

What is important is that no child is prevented from applying for a particular school because their parents cannot afford the uniform. Ultimately, the Department will have the powers, through the Bill, to direct schools to comply with the legislation. I am confident, however, that taking all the measures in the Bill and the subsequent guidelines will result in a reduction in the costs of uniforms. I know that every school wishes to do its best for children and young people.

We move next to the Committee Stage, subject, of course, to the vote today. I thank Members for their remarks during the debate. The pace at which the legislation will now proceed will be determined by the Members of the Assembly and by the Committee for Education. I have carried out the consultation process. I have brought the legislation through the Executive, secured the appropriate support, commissioned the Office of the Legislative Counsel and introduced the legislation — and I sought to do that at pace. It is now a matter for the Assembly to decide how quickly it wishes to take this forward.

The introduction and the Second Stage today will allow the Committee to carry out its work and the subsequent stages to be passed in the Assembly before the summer recess.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. I am not sure whether you are aware, but my party colleague, who is the Chair of the Committee for Education, is not well and has not been in the Chamber today. Just in case you were wondering why he was not in the Chamber.

Mr Givan: Thank you. I suspected that there would be a good reason because I know that the Chairman of the Committee has an interest in this area, but thank you for putting that on record. I know that he will seek to carry out diligently the important scrutiny work without any undue delay.

It is important that we get this right. I do not want to it to be rushed. I very much want to get it right, but I believe that the efficiency of the Assembly, its procedures and the Committee will allow the legislation to be passed before the summer recess. Its introduction and the Second Stage today will facilitate that within the normal time frames of the Assembly. The legislation is now a creature of the Assembly. I have introduced it. I will work diligently with and support the Committee, but the timing of its conclusion will be for the Assembly and its Members to determine.

As you all scrutinise the Bill, I will make some final remarks. I remind Members that there is a clear interlinkage across the clauses, including where definitions are provided, and the balance between how a power is articulated in legal terms in the Bill and what that enables the statutory guidelines to address. Those are important points to think about as Members mull over any amendments that they would wish to make.

The School Uniforms Bill delivers. It delivers the necessary powers to make statutory provision through the guidelines and delivers the key principles that were consulted on. It delivers the necessary powers to cap branded items and/or uniform costs. It delivers access to uniform grants to eligible pupils attending independent schools. It delivers, and I commend the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.