Official Report: Monday 31 March 2025

Mr Speaker: It is not normal for me to reference specific media reports while in the Chair, but, at the start of our business today, I want to acknowledge the important reporting by Darran Marshall and the BBC team last week on the all-too-frequent abuse that Members face; in particular, I thank all the Members who spoke about their experiences. While many of the tools to tackle these issues lie beyond the role of the Speaker and the Assembly Commission, I can inform Members that there has been good, proactive engagement with the PSNI and we are engaging with the Electoral Commission. I encourage Members to ensure that they report any threats or harassment that they receive to the police. It is important that we recognise the problem of abuse and do not accept it as the norm, which, I know, many of us have got used to doing.

Ms Sheerin: I rise this afternoon to highlight the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme, which the British Government have been implementing since the beginning of the year, ahead of its scope being broadened on 2 April, when European visitors will be required to submit an ETA application before coming North.

Since 8 January, all non-European international visitors have had to apply for an ETA before they can cross the border. I have already had constituents come to me with increasing anxiety about that. B&Bs and self-catering accommodation outlets that are normally, at this stage of the year, fully booked for the summer are seeing a massive decrease in numbers, and their owners are very concerned about the impact that the scheme will have. We know that there is already a disparity between our tourism and hospitality sectors North and South, and the scheme is set to cause more chaos for our Northern outlets. Added to the worry that our businesses feel is the fact that the price is increasing from £10 to £16 on 9 April. It just feels like there is an onslaught on our tourism operators across the Six Counties.

Regardless of anyone's political affiliation or feelings about it, the reality is that, worldwide, people do not understand the intricacies of the British border in Ireland.

The vast majority of international visitors see Ireland as one country and want to visit Antrim as much as they do Galway or Donegal. The pubs in mid-Ulster are every bit as good as those in Galway. The beaches on the north coast are every bit as nice as those further south. We want to encourage the businesses that have suffered for so long and are only beginning to flourish to continue to do so. We know that 67% of those who visit Northern destinations for tourism reasons do so via the border because the vast majority of our international ports, airports and docks are located in the Twenty-six Counties, but there is great hesitancy from people when they are faced with that bureaucracy in order to come North. We want to encourage our tourism sector and support the industry. I add my voice to those of Dr Joanne Stuart and others representing the industry in calling for the British Government to stop using the scheme and rethink the damage that they are doing.

Mr Harvey: I rise to raise awareness of a very important charity that supports individuals in Northern Ireland who have made immense sacrifices in service to our country: Blesma, the limbless veterans' association. Blesma is a national charity with a strong presence in Northern Ireland, providing lifelong support to veterans and serving personnel who have lost limbs or the use of limbs. Since its foundation over 80 years ago, Blesma has worked tirelessly to support those who have experienced life-changing injuries. Its work goes beyond physical rehabilitation, encompassing emotional and mental health support, advocacy and practical assistance for everyday living. The charity's efforts extend to ensuring that those affected by such injuries do not face their challenges alone. Blesma offers a strong community in which individuals who have experienced similar difficulties can connect, share experiences and find comfort and understanding. From supporting prosthetics to providing tailored rehabilitation, Blesma's impact on the lives of our service personnel and veterans is immeasurable.

I particularly highlight the exceptional work that Blesma does in Northern Ireland, where our veterans, young and old, benefit from the charity's services. It works tirelessly to ensure that, no matter the injury, every individual receives the care and support that they need to rebuild their life with dignity and hope. On Friday of last week, it was my pleasure to host a fundraising coffee morning in support of the vital work carried out by Blesma. I was delighted to see so many Blesma veterans, members of the public and colleagues in attendance. I urge all Members to familiarise themselves with the invaluable contribution that Blesma makes not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom and to support it as best as possible. Whether through volunteering, fundraising or simply spreading awareness, we can all play a role in supporting those brave men and women, who have given so much for our safety and freedom. Let us show our gratitude and respect to, and support for, Blesma and the veterans whom it serves. Together, we can ensure that those veterans are not forgotten and that their sacrifices will never be overlooked.

Ms Egan: Last Thursday, I attended the launch of the Girlguiding girls' attitudes survey report alongside the Justice Minister, Naomi Long. The report underlines the fact that:

Girlguiding plays a vital role in the lives of young girls across the UK, giving them a voice and community to ensure that they grow into women who know that they matter. I recently visited Lorne estate, the hub of Girlguiding in Northern Ireland, where I learned more about the brilliant work that it undertakes. There are thousands of groups UK-wide that are run by volunteers, who come every week to inspire and nurture the next generation.

I am sure that every woman in the Chamber knows the feeling of being treated differently — being looked at differently, seen differently, and talked to as though they are less than — just because they are a woman. What the report on girls' attitudes encapsulates, however, is how young that feeling can begin. It is startling but, unfortunately, not shocking. It was reported that three in four girls aged 11 to 16 see or experience sexism. That increases to 95% for young women aged 17 to 21.

Some 69% of girls aged seven to 10 feel as though they are expected to behave differently because they are a girl. More than one in five girls aged seven to 10 has seen rude images online, a figure that has doubled since 2021. Half of the girls surveyed feel anxious about their future, with 57% of 11-to 21-year-olds worried about not having a secure income or being able to afford a home. That data reflects the sad reality of what I hear from my young constituents in North Down and across Northern Ireland, and it is why the work of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework is so vital. Everyone across our society has a role to play in eradicating misogyny and changing the prevalent culture of sexism that exists to this day.

It is not all so bleak. When those girls were asked about what they wanted the future to look like, they talked about the regulation of social media companies, protecting nature, curriculum change, more money, better houses and jobs and communities of welcome and acceptance. They talked about a future where equality and equity play a key role in any society.

I thank Girlguiding Ulster for inviting me to the report's launch and for undertaking that vital work. We must not lose momentum on tackling violence against women and girls and gender inequality. We must do better for those girls and for girls all around the world who find themselves at risk just because of their gender.

Mr Stewart: "Carrickfergus Rugby Club, Junior Shield champions 2025" has a lovely ring to it. Following my sending best wishes to the club last week, I am very proud to stand here and congratulate them on an excellent success. I had the privilege of being at Ravenhill on Saturday for a fantastic game of rugby when Carrick triumphed 17-13 over Ards after a roller coaster of a game. I commiserate with Ards and their supporters. They fought hard on the pitch and sung hard off it, but, thankfully, Carrick came up trumps.

I congratulate all the Carrick players on a fantastic performance, delivering the first silverware to the club in 20 years to the delight of hundreds of travelling supporters, who, I know, partied and celebrated on Saturday and into the wee small hours of Sunday morning. The sense of pride and the buzz around the town in the build-up to and on the back of the victory have been really impressive to see, and I congratulate and salute everyone associated with the club for all that they have done.

It is also really inspiring to the many young players who are watching on and seeing what can be done and what they can strive for. To the captain, Conor Cambridge, man of the match, Mattie Hadden, and the entire team, I congratulate you all on a very special win and on putting Carrickfergus back on the rugby map. Not to be outdone, Carrickfergus under-18s shared the U18 Bowl on Saturday, drawing 12-12 with Clogher Valley/Omagh. That was also great to see. I know that the under-18 team would have loved to have been at the final to watch the first XV, but they did not want to be outdone and came home with silverware as well. It shows that the future is bright among the youth at Carrickfergus Rugby Club, and we wish them all the best for the rest of the season.

Ms Brownlee: I, too, raise the fantastic achievements of Carrickfergus Rugby Club. I do not think that we can praise them too much for their fantastic achievements over the weekend. Of course, the first XV lifted the Junior Shield, securing victory against Ards at the Kingspan Stadium on Saturday after a fiercely contested match. Carrick showed immense dedication, defence, strength and teamwork to secure a 17-13 win, bringing home their first silverware since 2016 and appearing in their first senior final at Ravenhill since 2002. In challenging conditions, the team displayed resilience and composure, and standout performances from Ryan McGonigle, Mattie Hadden and Fionn McCormack alongside a full squad effort saw them hold off a late Ards push. Their hard work throughout the season, of course, has truly paid off, and the victory is a testament to the club's commitment and passion for the game.

Adding to the celebrations, of which there were many, Carrick's under-18s put in a fantastic performance in their U18 Bowl final, eventually sharing the trophy after a hard-fought 12-12 draw with Clogher Valley/Omagh at the Meadowbank Arena. It was a brilliant achievement for the club's rising stars. This success is not just about the players on the field. It is a reflection on the coaches, volunteers and loyal supporters who continue to drive the club forward. Carrickfergus Rugby Club has a rich history and a strong community, and this latest triumph is a proud moment in their journey.

It has been a pleasure to work closely with the club in recent years, supporting its work to improve facilities at its home ground and increase its community outreach and engagement across the east Antrim area. With the McCrea Cup semi-final still to come, there is even more to look forward to — there will probably be two Members' statements in the Chamber after that as well.

Congratulations, once again, to Carrickfergus Rugby Club — a club that is built on passion, resilience and an unbreakable team spirit. Well done.

Mr McMurray: I rise to shine a spotlight on water sports and their reliance on clean water. Water sports have always been popular, but interest and participation took off over the COVID pandemic. I understand that, not just as a participant but as someone who used to work as an instructor and who did a lot to try to encourage people on to our waterways.

Over 300,000 people participate in some form of water sport on our lakes, rivers and seas, and six of our seven medals at the 2024 Olympics came in water sports. The many benefits of water sports are well understood, but the impact that water quality is having on those sports may be less well known. We may know a lot about the environmental and economic impacts, but the societal impacts of our poor water quality are perhaps slightly less amplified. Lakes, rivers and seas do for water sports what pitches, halls and courts do for our traditional sports. They are absolutely essential playgrounds for water sports, but they are not reliably available in the way that other sports facilities are. Some of the disruption is inevitable, but, increasingly, man-made pollution is curtailing participation in water sports.

NI Water has almost 2,500 storm overflows, which spill 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water into our waterways every year. Four of every 10 overflows are classified as "unsatisfactory", which means that they discharge much more frequently than they should. As a result of those discharges and other sources of pollution, none of our rivers or lakes has "good" overall water quality. For water sports, that means that, more and more often, events are cancelled, postponed or moved and, in some cases, participants become ill. Angling, triathlon, paddling, canoeing, open-water swimming, sailing, windsurfing and rowing are among the sports that have reported those negative effects. I am pleased to be able to sponsor an event by the Clean Water Sports Alliance this Wednesday, and I encourage Members to come and hear about the impact that pollution is having on sports across Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, I will paraphrase what I have said here before: as Ratty said to Mole, there's nothing quite so much fun as messing about on the water.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise to speak, once again, about what is happening with rail provision in the north-west. It is not a misunderstanding or an oversight; it is a deliberate and sustained act of regional discrimination. For years, Derry — the second city in Northern Ireland — Castlerock and Bellarena have been treated as second class when it comes to rail services.

Let me give you the facts, again: every station east of Coleraine gets 13 Sunday trains in each direction, which is, essentially, a service every hour, while stations west of Coleraine get just six — a train every two hours. That is not just unfair but absolutely absurd. Only one train from Derry reaches Belfast before 9.00 am on weekdays. That is a complete failure of public transport planning, and it cripples opportunity for workers, students and the wider regional economy. The last train from Belfast to Derry is at 9.10 pm, and, on Sundays, it is even worse: 7.10 pm. After those times, passengers to the north-west are cut off. That is not due to tunnels or trains, or down to technical limitations; it is a political decision that is rooted in outdated thinking, and which has been tolerated for far too long. In fact, the three stations — Derry, Castlerock and Bellarena — each receive 2,400 fewer services per year than their eastern counterparts. That is over one million fewer seats for a city that is trying to grow its university, attract businesses and retain young people. For what? We are told that the cost to fix it would be in the region of £1·5 million a year, which is barely a footnote in that departmental budget. It works out at less than 8p per rail journey across the network, which is a tiny price to pay to end a glaring inequality that has persisted since 2017.

Let us not forget that the situation affects more than just commuters. With a growing university in Magee, which is already facing a shortage of accommodation, many students commute into Derry, but only one train reaches the city by 9.00 am. That is unacceptable.

With major events such as the Open in Portrush this summer, the failure to provide proper Sunday services west of the Bann will once again undermine Derry and the wider north-west as a destination for visitors, investment and growth. That is no longer a quiet policy flaw: it is a loud message to the people of the north-west that we are not seen; we are not prioritised; and we are not treated equally.

Mr Martin: A couple of weeks ago, I met Nicola Armstrong, the Northern Ireland lead for Beat Eating Disorders, a charity that is doing great work to shed light on the obstacles faced by those affected by such illnesses. I was struck by how many are affected: one in 50 across the UK. The eating disorders anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa have the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric disorders. Sadly, far too many people living with those illnesses feel misunderstood when describing their situation or are just put off talking about it at all. The stigma is then deepened when we consider how difficult it is for people to access the treatment that they need in Northern Ireland. Currently, no trusts provide intensive community and day treatment services for both children and adults. What I am most concerned about is the impact on our children and young people, especially young girls. The impact of social media and the instant accessibility of communication feed into a very unhealthy culture of body image sensitivity and what it means to be seen as attractive to the opposite sex.

The issue is personal to me because, for many years, I supported a young girl called Mary Bower, who had the illness. Alongside her mum and wider family, I watched as Mary deteriorated to the point where, due to a severe lack of potassium, she nearly died twice from cardiac arrest. She was sent to centres in England and Scotland, because there was no specialised inpatient or day care suitable for her in Northern Ireland. For a substantial time, the clinical support that she received was patchy at best. That has to change in the future. Mary made it: she beat the illness and is now supporting other young girls who are battling their demons in her role as an expert by experience, and she is getting married to Sam in a couple of years.

This afternoon, I strongly urge the Health Minister to progress the clinically specific recommendations of the mental health strategy to ensure that people with eating disorders receive the support that they need and the help that they very much deserve.

Mr Carroll: It is fair to say that I and many others did not expect much from the Labour Government. The bar was set so low because of how awful the previous Conservative Administrations were. However, I and many others did not believe that things would be this appallingly bad so quickly. It is not even a year into this Administration and look at the havoc that they have wrought. If anyone really believed that the Labour Government's cuts to welfare were driven by a genuine desire to support more people back into work, last week's spring statement burst that bubble.

The Office for Budget Responsibility told the Chancellor that she had done her sums wrong, so she had to scramble back to the drawing board to find more cuts in order to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. A total of £500 million of cuts were found, once again, from the pockets of sick and disabled people: proof, if it were needed, that it was never about supporting people into work. The majority of people on social security are in work and need the support to top up their poverty wages. Many disabled people rely on the personal independence payment (PIP) to stay in work. The cuts were only ever about saving money and satisfying the British ruling class.

The Government's own analysis predicts that there will be an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, living in relative poverty by 2030 as a direct result of the benefit cuts. We are witnessing Labour's attempts to create a moral panic about benefits spending. It has pointed the finger in all directions, blaming individuals for taking advantage of the system, blaming clinical professionals for over-diagnosing mental health conditions and blaming the Tories for maxing out the national credit card. The Labour Government seem incapable of acknowledging the human cost of 15 years of austerity and neglect and the privatisation of our public services. They want to continue the pain. Health waiting lists are spiralling out of control; school buildings are crumbling; and the homelessness crisis is tearing apart working-class communities. Is it any wonder that more people are sick and poor? Many sick and disabled people are rightly worried that cuts to PIP and universal credit mark not only the dismantling of the welfare state but a return to austerity.

We saw classic red flags of austerity throughout last week's spring statement: decreases in day-to-day Government spending, 10,000 Civil Service job losses and cuts to administrative spending for public services. All the while, defence spending will increase by £2·2 billion. Austerity is back with a red rosette, and it is a foolish economic policy in response to Trump's tariffs for Europe. Austerity is a deadly political ideology that we must oppose at every turn.

It is worth asking what the Minister for Communities and his party are focusing on in this period. They are focusing on bilingual signage. They should grow a spine and lead the fight against those disgraceful and deadly cuts against our communities. It is time to get the priorities right. We need to demand that there should be money for welfare, not warfare.

Mr Honeyford: It is a disgrace that, in 2025, female sport has much fewer numbers, a lack of funding and a lack of facilities and that barriers to participation and growth remain across a range of sports. I recently addressed those issues at the Alliance Party conference with Mollie Davies from Ulster Rugby, and Alliance highlighted, as a party, the ability of sport to build on our values of inclusivity, equality, uniting our community and building a truly shared society.

Despite those barriers, teams in Lagan Valley have had some incredible success in recent days. I want to give a massive shout-out to two teams, be a champion for their success, and make sure that there is always equality in the Chamber.

Wallace High School — your old school, Mr Speaker — has had unbelievable success with the boys' rugby team, but now the girls have backed that up. The girls' netball team has won the senior schools cup final, which was a fantastic achievement. I pass my congratulations on to the girls and to the coaching team and teaching staff at Wallace.

Yesterday, the Lisburn ladies' rugby team secured the league championship. I have mentioned those girls before in the Chamber, and I have loved watching and supporting their journey. I have championed the club as a whole, but now, to be league champions is an incredible achievement. It is absolutely amazing for the club, so well done to the girls and to their coaching team. The girls have added so much to the club, and it is so good to see Lisburn Rugby Club's new extension, with facilities being added to the clubhouse for the girls in the club. The building is well under way, and it shows the club's commitment to equality and to making sure that the girls have the same facilities. That is an important lesson to learn right across sport.

I congratulate both teams and wish them well.

Dr Aiken: It has been 24 days since our First Minister stated that she was "incredulous" that export credit scheme money would be used to help Thales to build air defence missiles for Ukraine in its fight against Putin. Last week, she said that UK defence spending was a "macho agenda of militarisation".

In that 24-day period, Putin's armed forces conducted 1,318 attacks by drones, ballistic missiles and glide bombs on Ukraine's infrastructure. The attacks have included power stations, factories, schools, hospitals, apartment blocks and just about anything else that the Russians designated as a target. At the same time, there were over 800 incidents of heavy shelling, and well over 1,200 engagements between the Russian and Ukrainian armies. Remarkably, with that intense bombardment, the Ukrainians managed to beat off or shoot down the majority of the attacks. However, they still resulted in over 95 civilian deaths and two or three times that number of casualties. Even as we speak, somewhere over Ukraine the wail of air raid sirens is going off, along with alerts across the Ukrainian civil population's mobile phone apps.

The reason why the casualty figures are not worse or why Russia has not occupied Odessa or Kyiv is that the Ukrainians have been able to make use of defensive weapons, many of which, I am proud to say, were made here in Belfast.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Aiken: That is something that we should all be proud of.

Putin and his apologists have stated that they have no alternative to their invasion of Ukraine. He states that he has a legitimate right to use force in flagrant breach of territorial sovereignty and international norms. The First Minister says that she believes in diplomacy, but it is a diplomacy that is Trumpian in its terms and would deny President Zelenskyy the means to secure Ukraine's peace.

The hypocrisy of the First Minister's remarks are bad enough coming from a political leader who has no qualms about saying that there was "no alternative" to the murderous and genocidal campaign of the Provisional IRA. More worryingly, however, she attempts to speak as a political leader on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland about events on the other side of Europe. She does not do that in my name or in the name of the majority of our people who will, rightly, stand up for Ukraine and our support for its fight. As an avowed apologist for the IRA campaign, she is entitled to speak as the deputy leader of Sinn Féin. She is not, however, as "First Minister for all", entitled to represent the views of Northern Ireland in her appeasement of Putin.

Mr Bradley: I congratulate the staff and inmates at Magilligan prison who marked a very special milestone recently. Most of us are familiar with the weekly parkruns that take place all over the world. Recently, on a Saturday morning, Magilligan prison marked its 250th parkrun. I believe that Magilligan's Lower Drummans parkrun is the only parkrun inside prison grounds in Northern Ireland and only the second such parkrun to be established in the UK. In January, Lower Drummans parkrun celebrated its 7th anniversary, followed by its 250th event. Over 200 inmates have taken part. Inmates also cover all the parkrun roles, which include timers, scanners and tail walkers. There is a clear link between physical health and mental health that contributes to a reduction in reoffending. Very well done to all involved, and I encourage all concerned to keep up the good work. Congratulations on reaching both significant milestones.

Mr Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston. You have a couple of minutes, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: Last Tuesday, I lodged a petition in the Business Office to refer Minister Kimmins's divisive move to the Executive and subject it to a cross-community vote. In order for that petition to be successful, 29 other names are required.

Minister Kimmins's decision has caused significant unease amongst unionist MLAs. I welcomed Deborah Erskine's statement last week that correctly described the move as "controversial". I also welcomed Gavin Robinson's announcement that a marker is to be put down on the issue. Some MLAs recognise that the community of Sandy Row had already been treated like dirt when it came to the road closures in that area to facilitate the building of the station. However, words are not enough. It is time for unionism to take a united stand for the loyalists and unionists of south Belfast. I am not precious about how that is done. Whether the decision is stopped by the petition that I have lodged or by unionist Ministers calling it into the Executive and blocking it, I simply do not care. If, however, the issue exposes the fact that Richard Bullick was correct in his article of July 2020, in which he warned that the Executive Committee (Functions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2020 would significantly weaken the ability of unionists to stop republican Ministers going on solo runs, the whole basis for devolution is, once again, called into question.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

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

The regulations give effect to an agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications that the UK and Switzerland signed in June 2023 that relates to the legal profession here. Supporting regulations have been made in Westminster for a variety of professions. The British Government's regulations place a duty on the Law Society and Bar Council here to recognise comparable Swiss professional qualifications and provide them with the necessary legal powers to do so. They do not, however, make certain required changes to our local legislation, the Solicitors Order 1976, hence the need for the Department to make the regulations. The draft regulations ensure a smooth and transparent system for Swiss legal professionals to have their qualifications recognised, thus providing certainty for those who want to work here. It is worth noting, however, that there have been no applications in the past five years from Swiss lawyers to work here, and I do not expect there to be a sudden influx of applications arising from the agreement. In parallel, Switzerland has passed legislation that requires Swiss regulators to recognise our qualifications, meaning that professionals from here also benefit, as a result of reduced barriers to their working in Switzerland.

I am using powers that are contained in sections 3(1), 3(2) and 13(1) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 to make the regulations. The Act's powers were first used in December 2023, when the British Government implemented the recognition of professional qualifications provisions resulting from the UK's free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I will hereafter refer to those regulations as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) regulations. The provisions under the agreement are very similar to those in the UK's free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, with Switzerland since added as a specified state to the EFTA regulations. The draft regulations are subject to the Assembly's affirmation and will come into force tomorrow, 1 April.

I will now outline the regulations that give effect to the agreement. They place a legal duty on regulators — in this instance, the Law Society and the Bar Council — to recognise comparable Swiss qualifications that relate to the legal profession. They prescribe the procedures that regulators must follow in recognising Swiss qualifications. They enable regulators to refuse to recognise Swiss professional qualifications where certain conditions are not met. They prescribe compensatory measures that regulators can require a Swiss professional to take in certain circumstances, such as completing an adaptation period. They amend sectoral legislation to enable regulators to meet those requirements, which regulators do not currently have the power to do.

I assure the Assembly that, under the draft regulations, it remains the regulators' responsibility to set standards for the profession and to decide who meets those standards. Regulators will need to decide whether a qualification from Switzerland is comparable to our qualifications, and they can refuse to recognise a qualification where certain conditions are not met. The regulations prescribe compensatory measures that a professional can be required to take.

In accordance with a statutory duty under section 15 of the Professional Qualifications Act, the Whitehall Department for Business and Trade (DBT) carefully consulted regulators about the implementation of the agreement. A formal consultation ran from February to April 2024 that sought views on the implementation approach and on the regulations. Respondents were supportive. DBT also consulted devolved Administrations in 2024, including here, in accordance with a statutory duty under section 17 of the Professional Qualifications Act. Our response to the consultation was published on the GOV.UK website. My officials further engaged with the Law Society and the Bar Council before our draft regulations were developed and laid in the Assembly.

The regulations will bring into effect the recognition of professional qualification systems contained in the agreement as they relate to the legal profession here. They will ensure that we are meeting our obligations under international law and will provide certainty for regulators and professionals now that the provisions in the Swiss Citizens' Rights Agreement (SCRA) have expired. Qualified professionals from here who are looking to practise in Switzerland will continue to have access to a streamlined recognition process. I commend the draft regulations to the Assembly.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): In the absence of Matthew O'Toole, the Committee Chair, who is on paternity leave, I will speak about the Committee for Finance's scrutiny of the draft statutory rule (SR). I thank the Minister for his comments.

The Committee has considered the draft statutory rule to implement the agreement between the UK and the Swiss Confederation on the recognition of professional qualifications insofar as they relate to the legal profession in Northern Ireland. The agreement requires the UK and Switzerland to recognise comparable professional qualifications or experience obtained in each state.

The policy proposal, in the form of the SL1 letter, was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 15 January. Members noted the Department's consultation with the Law Society and the Bar Council. The Department indicated that the Law Society had subsequently notified the Department of its willingness to implement the agreement should the Department require it. Members confirmed that they were content with the policy proposal brought forward by the Department, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

The original statutory rule was laid in the Business Office on 24 January as SR 2025/10. However, following discussions with the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the statutory rule was laid again, as a technical error had been identified in the procedure used to lay and make the rule, for which the Department apologised.

The revised statutory rule was laid in the Business Office on 10 March as SR 2025/0000 and considered at the Committee's meeting on 26 March. The Department confirmed that there had been no changes to the policy content in the revised statutory rule. At that meeting, as is the usual practice, the Committee noted the assurances provided by the Department on the position in Great Britain regarding the regulatory and financial impact. The Examiner of Statutory Rules reported on the revised rule and had no objection.

There was a consensus in the Committee to support the statutory rule, and the Committee agreed to recommend that the SR be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motion.

Mr Delargy: The mutual recognition of comparable qualifications is a welcome step that provides people with the opportunity to move to other countries and gain employment through the skills and experience that they have developed. These specific regulations will enable those who have received legal qualifications in Switzerland to have them recognised here and will enhance an already strong and talented legal profession in the North. It is also important to highlight that it is part of implementing an overall agreement that will ensure that citizens here can have their professional qualifications recognised in Switzerland should they seek employment there.

It is important to note that mutual agreements and memoranda of understanding have been critical in supporting Irish citizens: those at home who have been impacted by Brexit and those who are studying or working abroad and wish to have their qualifications recognised at home. The national awarding body for further education in the South, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, published detailed comparisons in 2019, noting the impact of ending the mutual recognition of qualifications directive in the North following Brexit. Thankfully, many of those negative consequences have been curbed by memoranda of understanding between North and South.

There is still a lot of work to do to achieve full recognition and accreditation for physiotherapists and other allied health professionals, as well as for teachers who have completed placements and studied abroad. My constituency office supports many professionals who have taken up posts in the South and many teachers who have studied abroad and want to return to Ireland but are having to navigate an unnecessarily bureaucratic process. I do not need to tell anyone here how valuable those professions are and how critical it is that the mutual recognition of qualifications is achieved to support and grow our workforce with a diversity of skills, talent and experience. It is pivotal, therefore, that we have a united voice today to support other professional bodies towards achieving that mutual recognition and understanding.

I therefore welcome the opportunity that the regulations provide for our citizens and for those who come here to join the workforce and make a valuable contribution to our local economy.

Mr O'Dowd: I detected no voices against the regulations. Everyone sees the value of passing the regulations and of the common recognition of qualifications, in this case in the legal profession, between Switzerland and here. I have nothing to add other than to commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate, Mr Durkan.

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

Housing is a fundamental right. It is the foundation on which people build their lives, communities and futures, yet thousands of families across Northern Ireland remain in desperate need of a home while publicly owned land lies idle. The motion provides a common-sense solution that will help to tackle our housing crisis head-on.

A public land agency would ensure that publicly owned land was strategically identified and used efficiently to deliver much-needed social and affordable homes, rather than gathering dust and growing weeds at a huge cost to the taxpayer and a huge opportunity cost to the Executive. The Department for Communities has set an ambitious target of delivering at least 33,000 social homes under the housing supply strategy, yet social housing build targets are missed constantly. With just 7,000 social homes built in the past five years, there is no realistic path to achieving 33,000 over the next 15 years without proper funding and fresh ideas.

The SDLP's recently published 'Building Firm Foundations' outlines some practical solutions, such as a public land agency to make better use of public land. It is baffling and disappointing that the parties in power fail to engage in that type of thinking. That said, we welcome the introduction of the intermediate rent model as a step in the right direction and exactly the kind of innovative thinking that we need to see more of. The funding that was recently allocated to co-ownership is another positive, but we need there to be more.

Our figures show that between 68,000 and 136,000 homes could be built if we used just 10% to 20% of public land, of which we have 11,000 hectares at our disposal. That figure does not include DAERA land, given that much of that is forestry and unusable or unsuitable for housing, nor does it include council-owned land. We need to ensure that land is suitable for development, but those numbers are not pie in the sky; they are based on a pragmatic assessment of the land at our disposal in consultation with the housing and construction sectors. Even in a more modest scenario in which we built 50% of new and social housing stock, 1,300 homes could be delivered each year using public land alone. That is a transformative opportunity to build more homes, faster and more cheaply. As I said, that does not even include land owned by councils: the estimate that we are giving for the total land is conservative.

Currently, land acquisition typically accounts for around 30% of the cost of building social housing. If we can cut out that cost, the money that we have for housing could go 30% further and the number of houses that we build on that land could be 30% more. That is hundreds of millions of pounds of public money that could be reinvested in construction rather than spent on competing in a broken market. Making strategic use of public land could be a game changer, delivering better value for public money and ensuring that more homes are built where they are needed. Currently, however, no single body is responsible for coordinating the use of public land to meet housing need. While Land and Property Services (LPS) tracks ownership, it does not play any sort of proactive role in ensuring that land is used to deliver homes, and that is where our proposal for a public land agency comes in.

A public land agency would act as a central coordinating body, identifying viable land, working across Departments and partnering with housing associations and developers to deliver homes at scale. It would take a delivery-focused approach, ensuring that our land is used in a way that maximises public benefit. Let us be clear: this is not about just creating another layer of bureaucracy. The Land Development Agency in the Republic of Ireland provides a useful benchmark for set-up costs. Excluding borrowing powers, we estimate those costs at around €3 million a year, which would be money well spent, considering what we currently spend on maintaining disused land and empty buildings.

That brings me to another point. Over the past three years alone, Departments have spent over £5 million on maintaining empty land and buildings. Through Assembly questions for written answer that I submitted to every Department, it has come to light that an abandoned nuclear bunker in Ballymena has cost the Executive over £300,000 in maintenance in that three-year period. That facility, which was constructed during the Cold War era, has remained unused for decades, yet it has become a black hole for public funds. That is just one example of many. That is a scandalous waste of resources, particularly at a time when the number of families facing homelessness has skyrocketed. I do not propose that we use the bunker for social housing, although it might be an area of high demand, given the current global climate. However, we need and will seek clarity from TEO on what its intentions are in keeping the bunker and why it has spent so much money on it.

I will provide some context. In 2023-24, when the Executive expressed concern over a dire Budget that left them unable to allocate one penny to homelessness prevention, there appeared to be enough in the coffers to spend nearly a quarter of a million pounds of public funds on maintaining an underground bunker. It appears that the Executive are more worried about preparing for an apocalypse that, we hope, may never arrive than helping people to face the crises that they have to live through every day.

Such expenditure highlights the urgent need for a public land agency to ensure that public assets are repurposed effectively or disposed of responsibly, rather than allowing them to become financial liabilities. It is a gross misallocation of resources at a time when housing lists are growing, families are struggling and homelessness remains on the rise. We cannot afford to keep throwing money into maintaining derelict buildings while people sleep in cars, on sofas or in overcrowded and completely unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Last year alone, as we covered — an Audit Office report was published last week — £39 million was spent on temporary emergency accommodation, yet the Executive have struggled to find funding for social housing. Maybe — just maybe — if we spent money more strategically and wisely, we could get out of that costly cycle. I welcome the Housing Executive's announcement last week that it intends to build 600 units specifically for temporary housing. What better way to deliver on that ambition than by utilising public land to do so, ensuring that we all get a bigger bang for our buck?

As a constructive Opposition, the SDLP is committed to tackling the housing emergency and delivering real change. We were elected to provide firm foundations for our constituents and communities, and I have faith that everyone here today shares that goal. Right now, we have a real opportunity to make a real difference. By maximising the use of public land, we can cut through the bureaucracy, speed up housebuilding and meet housing supply targets.

The motion is about solutions. We are often asked what our solutions are: here is just one. It is not about excuses; it is about using the assets that we already have to deliver for people, communities and our economy. A home is more than just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of security, stability and opportunity. Housing is the foundation on which my party, the SDLP, was built, and it is why we stand here today. Let us all work together to ensure that people have the opportunity to build from that same foundation. I commend the motion.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. Sinn Féin believes that housing is a human right. Everyone in our society, no matter their age or the background from which they come, should have access to a decent and affordable home of their own. A home is not just a roof over someone's head; it is fundamental to the well-being of every person in our society, yet so many people do not have access to a decent, affordable home of their own that meets their needs. The simple fact is that we are not building enough homes; in fact, the number of housing completions hit a 60-year low in 2023. As we all know, a lack of housing pushes up house prices and rents to a level that is unaffordable for many people. The latest house price index statistics show that the average house price in the North has reached a 17-year high and that average rent prices have increased by 56·4% over the past decade.

The lack of housing also impacts on our ability to provide social housing to those in need. There are over 48,000 households on the social housing waiting list — the most there has ever been — with over 36,000 of them living in housing stress. Those figures, a chairde

, are stark. They underpin the urgent need to increase the supply of housing. The housing supply strategy sets an ambitious target of 100,000 new homes over the next 15 years. That is the scale of what is needed if we are to end the housing crisis. However, unless we substantially increase the number of homes that are built over the coming years, we will certainly fail to meet that target.

We must overcome significant challenges if we are to deliver on that commitment. The first of those is funding. We have not seen adequate investment in social housing for many years. Many of the challenges that we face today stem directly from decades of underfunding by the British Government, and that is especially true when it comes to housing. I welcome the capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) allocation of £100 million for social housing in the 2025-26 Budget. That significant investment provides a crucial foundation for increased new social housing provision and will go some way towards addressing the urgent need for affordable homes. However, we need to see even greater investment in social housing.

We urgently need to see the revitalisation of the Housing Executive. That process, which was initiated by my party colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, would see the Housing Executive having the ability to borrow finance, which would unlock the potential for greater investment. As Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald continually pressed the British Government on the matter, and I am confident that the new Finance Minister will do the same.

The motion highlights another challenge that must be overcome: the utilisation of public land for social housing. I am sure that many of us can think of plots of land in our constituencies that are owned by the state and could be used for social housing but remain underutilised. The creation of a public land agency to ensure that public land can be utilised appropriately is something that Sinn Féin has called for in the past. In our document, 'A Home of Your Own', we called for the creation of an active land management agency in the Twenty-six Counties that would ensure an adequate supply of public land for the purposes of building homes while maximising the public good that can be gained from state assets. Carál Ní Chuilín, during her spell as Communities Minister, carried out an exercise to identify surplus public land in the North that could be used for social housing. I am also aware of great work by Belfast City Council, which has led the way in ensuring that public land in its district is used for social housing.

Mr Kingston: Most MLAs will say that housing is the number-one reason why constituents contact their offices. That is certainly the case for my North Belfast office, which is contacted particularly by people seeking social housing. We are all aware that housing supply is not keeping pace with demand, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom and Ireland, so we absolutely need to increase housing supply across all tenures and all parts of Northern Ireland. Over recent months, we have seen that that is a key commitment for the Northern Ireland Executive, with the publication of the 15-year housing supply strategy by the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, last December and the inclusion of housing as one of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government published at the start of this month, that priority being:

Whilst the Minister for Communities has the greatest day-to-day responsibility for housing matters, it is appropriate that these are commitments for the Executive as a whole. Many Departments and Ministers have important roles to play in increasing housing supply, including the need to speed up our planning system; to ensure that the necessary infrastructure — waste water infrastructure in particular — is in place; to allocate the necessary finance; to identify suitable land; and to provide support services for vulnerable people who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness due to various circumstances, including health and mental health issues, addiction, coming out of care and coming out of prison.

Transforming housing supply will require not only a collective response from the Executive but real collaboration with local government, community groups, the construction industry and financial bodies. Within the three years of our current Programme for Government, the Executive have committed to start work on at least 5,850 new-build social homes. Within the 15 years of the housing supply strategy, the Executive aim to deliver at least 100,000 homes across all tenures by 2039, with one third of them, around 33,000, being social homes. The housing supply strategy has provided a framework for the actions required to increase supply and address the main barriers to supply here. That includes increasing land availability and improving our knowledge of public land that may be suitable for housing.

The Democratic Unionist Party's 2024 manifesto outlined our desire to establish a UK-wide national database of public land. That would not only help with housing but ensure that smaller businesses and the construction industry can identify future projects earlier. The use of public land would play an important role in supporting the development of affordable housing across Northern Ireland, and the previous Finance Minister advised that LPS had been developing a centrally held database, the government land and property register (GLPR), to record all government-owned or government-occupied land and property assets in Northern Ireland. Within LPS, Ordnance Survey is providing information on publicly owned land and property for analysis to ascertain suitability for housing development. Therefore, we do not support the motion's proposal that the Minister for Communities should establish a separate public land agency. As I said, that work is already under way, and the GLPR, under LPS and the Department of Finance, will be an asset for the Executive as a whole.

On wider issues, the DUP can point to a strong record of delivery in the housing Ministry to increase supply, including by introducing intermediate rent, increasing the upper property value limit for co-ownership, investing in housing stock and removing intimidation points. First-time buyers are under extreme pressure when trying to secure a home. The Chartered Institute of Housing has advised that the number of new houses built here in 2023-24 was the lowest in a decade. That impacts on the affordability of mortgages and deposits.

There are clear challenges facing housing in Northern Ireland. However, the DUP and our Minister are tackling the issues head-on.

Ms K Armstrong: We have a housing crisis in Northern Ireland. That means that more children, families and individuals are living in temporary accommodation — in homelessness — than ever before. The issue of building on public land in Northern Ireland is one of both opportunity and challenge. We know that demand for public housing, infrastructure and public services continues to grow. Public land presents a potential solution, yet navigating the legal, environmental and planning framework remains a complex and, at times, frustrating process.

Our planning system, governed by the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, requires rigorous assessments, particularly for developments on public land. That ensures proper land use, but it also leads to delays and uncertainty. Balancing economic growth with environmental protections under laws such as the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 can slow projects considerably. Building on public land means balancing the needs of communities with the demands of developers. Public land is not just an asset; it belongs to the people. The Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 and other regulations ensure fair valuation and compensation, but they also create layers of bureaucracy that can complicate land transfers and approvals.

Even when land is available, there are infrastructure constraints, such as the limits placed on development by the capacity of waste water infrastructure. We all know that, if all public land were to be made available at this moment, most of it could not be developed because of the lack of waste water infrastructure under the ground. Other limits, including roads and access to sustainable energy, can make development difficult. Public-sector budgets are stretched, and funding models often rely on private-sector investment, which, in turn, requires clarity and confidence in land availability and planning timelines.

I look forward to the Finance Minister's review of the public estate, which will identify surplus land that may be available. The suitability of that land will need to be considered. For example, building homes in the middle of an industrial park that lacks access to services will not achieve our aims for building sustainable communities.

We must ask this: how do we streamline those processes while maintaining transparency and accountability? We need a conversation about planning reform, infrastructure investment and ensuring that public land serves the public good. We must work across government, councils and stakeholders to unlock land for housing, green energy and essential services.

This is not a challenge that we can ignore, but, for the thousands of people who are homeless today in Northern Ireland, it is one that we could address together. I welcome further discussion on how we could move forward. I thank the SDLP for raising the matter. The solution is not easy to come by, because of all the regulations that I have spoken of, but we need to do more to meet housing need in Northern Ireland.

Mr Allen: When we talk about there being tens of thousands of people on our housing waiting lists, it is important to remember, as other Members have highlighted and as the Minister will no doubt highlight, that they are individuals, families and people, young and old, who are languishing in a housing system that is broken. Many of them despair of the housing system delivering for them and their family. There are older people in accommodation that is much larger than they need it to be. Indeed, many of them — I have spoken to them — want to downsize, especially in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, when individuals are trying to heat homes that are larger than they require, but the system does not support or enable them to do so.

As has been highlighted, it is not a new crisis but one that we have spoken about time and time again. For those affected, however, every day without action feels like a lifetime. As we have heard so many times, it is about people who are in desperate need of a place to call home. While we welcome the Department's commitment to deliver at least 33,000 social homes under the housing supply strategy, we need to be honest and ask whether that is enough. At a recent Communities Committee meeting, the Housing Executive provided a briefing detailing the need for 25,000 new social homes between 2023 and 2028, which is obviously a five-year period — I raised this point with the Minister recently — whereas the housing supply strategy commitment to deliver 33,000 homes covers the period from 2024 to 2039. I am not dismissive of that, and I appreciate that other Members have highlighted the fact that it is ambitious. It represents many more homes than we are currently delivering, and it will deliver more much-needed homes for those for whom we are striving to deliver, but it appears to be out of sync with need. Again, however, I appreciate the context of the challenging Budget landscape that all our Departments face. The debate, rightly, focuses on the need for delivery for those whom I already highlighted and the many others who are in need of a home. An important component of that delivery is land. Land is not a technical detail; it is the foundation. Without land, nothing else happens.

That brings me to the crux of the motion, which is the call to "establish a public land agency". There appear to be differing views on that, but we are not opposed to that idea. Why do I say that? It is because the fundamental reality is that we are not opposed to it for the simple fact that we will not oppose any proposal that will help bring about and achieve that delivery for all our people across Northern Ireland. However, fundamental questions need to be asked. We heard from Mr Kingston about the public land registry. I have been a Member for almost 10 years, and we have been hearing about that registry for a long time, so where is it? Why does everything in this place work at such a slow pace? Where is that public land registry? As I said, I am happy to support the call for a public land registry, but it cannot be just another meaningless body. It needs to have teeth and the ability to deliver, because the thousands of people who are on our housing waiting lists do not care how we go about achieving the homes that they need. They want to see us deliver.

I acknowledge the steps that the Minister has taken over recent months on co-ownership, intermediate rent and other initiatives. Those steps have been taken in the context of the extremely difficult budget landscape that he faces. I am happy to support the motion, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister his thoughts on the issue. I encourage him, if his Department has not already done this, to look at international models. There are models in Singapore, the Netherlands and, closer to home, in London, for example, and I am sure a plethora of others. It is important that we analyse and assess the models that operate in other jurisdictions. I am not for one moment suggesting that we can lift those models and apply them directly, but there is important learning that we can perhaps take from them.

I am happy to support the motion.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the proposers of the motion. Back in November 2020, Sinn Féin outlined the direction of travel that needed to be taken for our housing, recognising that a good home is one that is affordable, secure and comfortable and the very foundation of the social, physical and mental well-being of our children, young people and families. Additionally, housing is fundamental to addressing some of our more pressing societal challenges, including tackling the root causes of poverty and inequality. We in Sinn Féin set the wheels of that process in motion. We delivered the first draft housing supply strategy. We lobbied hard for strong housing commitments in the draft Programme for Government, and we delivered the Private Tenancies Act 2022 under Minister Hargey as the first in a phase of reforms to improve the safety and sustainability of housing for our private renters.

We are pleased that the motion echoes much of what we have already said, which includes the fact that we need to see the urgent delivery of social and affordable housing at scale and that we must work collectively across all Departments, arm's-length bodies and housing associations to utilise any available public land for the public good for sustainable public housing. We also need to ensure that the housing arrangements that we move forward with knit into the wider regeneration plans to ensure that we undo the defensive and segregated planning of the past, thereby building thriving and connected communities.

On Tuesday 25 March, the Audit Office published its report on homelessness. That report noted that the number of households with homeless status here has increased by 80% in the past decade. Spending on temporary accommodation provision increased between 2018-19 and 2023-24 by 408%, which is equivalent to a spending increase of over 80% each year, to now stand at £38·6 million. Like others, I welcome the recent announcement by the current Minister for Communities of financial support to enable the Housing Executive to purchase up to 200 properties per year over the next three years to reduce reliance on non-standard accommodation, which includes hotels and B&Bs. Such forms of accommodation are totally unacceptable as long-term living solutions and come at an exorbitant cost. However, we need to see many more innovative proposals around the investment plans in order to deliver never-before-seen levels of social and affordable housing and improve existing stock that is of a low energy efficiency standard for hard-pressed homeowners and renters alike.

We need to create affordable housing options through co-ownership, intermediate rents and cooperative housing solutions.

What are the proposed plans to protect against the continued loss of our public housing stock? We are being left in a cycle in which one policy directly contradicts the other. What are the timescales for the proposed plans for delivering the Housing Executive revitalisation project? We need multi-annual Budgets in order to protect our largest social housing landlord and to support housing and homeless service organisations in charting the way forward for us collectively, instead of constant firefighting. What are the plans for tackling unjustifiable rents, particularly in the private rental sector? That is fundamental to ensuring, for example, that any increase in the local housing allowance is to the benefit of our struggling renters.

The truth of the matter was best outlined by Jon Franklin, the chief economist at Pro Bono Economics (PBE):

if we are ever to fix our broken housing system. He added that failing to do so will keep us all on an:

We know all too well whom that disproportionately affects: working-class communities, young people and those with additional complex needs, including those with mental health challenges, care leavers and all who find themselves pushed to the margins of society.

I thank those who have fought for better, from housing rights activists, campaigners and organisations to our vital homeless support services and front-line workers, including Homeless Connect, as the organiser of the front-line network, and the wide range of housing rights and rights-based organisations that work to combat homelessness, poverty and inequality and support the many people who are struggling right now to find a suitable home.

Ms Ní Chuilín: There are lots of figures. The Minister probably has them all in his lines to take, and they do not really change much, to be fair. The areas with the worst housing stress have typically been in North Belfast, West Belfast, Foyle, and Newry and Armagh. Undoubtedly, there are needs across the board, but, in North Belfast, which is my constituency and Brian's, housing stress has remained persistently stubborn. There are many reasons for that. The revitalisation of the Housing Executive needs to happen at pace and in conjunction with everything else. More focus needs to be put on that. I want to see the Housing Executive get more land-assembling powers so that it can act almost in a way in which it can look at public land for public housing and take responsibility for and ownership of it, as well as potentially getting other assets in order to build housing. Land is just sitting there in areas such as North Belfast, but it is in private ownership. Private developers are willing to go into partnership, but the obstacles that are put in front of them are horrendous.

Kellie Armstrong made a point about NI Water. It is very suspicious that the areas in which, NI Water says, it will hardly ever build are those with the highest need. For example, in Union Street in North Belfast, managed student accommodation of 780 units will go ahead with no opposition from NI Water, but, if we are looking to build houses on the Crumlin Road or elsewhere, there is opposition to that. Why is that? To be frank, I am suspicious. Over 4,500 people are on the housing waiting list for North Belfast. At least 3,800 of them live in housing stress. That is hopelessness that we are passing on from one generation to another. We all deal with families, but we now have three or, at times, four generations of one family living under one roof. Children have no access to privacy, nowhere to do their homework and nowhere to bring their friends. That is absolutely horrendous, and I do not believe that any Minister wants to see that happen on their watch, nor would I anticipate it. We need to be more ambitious in the way in which we deal with the situation.

Our local development plans in councils could be one way of doing that. Belfast City Council has certainly led the way in managing land that it has, and it will hopefully get the development status. However, the thing, for me, is the revitalisation of the Housing Executive. Indeed, Ciara talked about ending the right-to-buy scheme, which is currently the case in housing associations but not in the Housing Executive. We need to align that.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with much of what she has said, particularly about the right-to-buy scheme. Does the Member recall — she certainly will — that, when legislation was brought in to end the right to buy in housing associations, the SDLP tabled an amendment to extend that to the Housing Executive, which her party voted against?

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will take the Member's word for that. I cannot remember the full amendment, but I remember that your party removed the ring-fencing of houses in areas of highest housing stress and need. None of us can cover ourselves in glory.

The point that I am making is that, collectively, we are dealing with constituents who, across generations, are living with systemic housing stress, and it needs to end. It can end only when there is full participation, including from the collective —.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: No, I will not give way again, Mark, if you do not mind. Colin will make a winding-up speech later. I know that the Opposition want the same thing: more houses for families who need them most.

Other Members have spoken about rent and everything else, but, at the minute, more children are living in the private rented sector than in the social sector. Those children have no stability and no security of tenure. I know that it is a mammoth task, but we need a housing summit, on behalf of the Executive, to pull everybody together. We need to get our finest and brightest people and people with experience together to see what else we can do, because tinkering from one mandate to another is not cutting it for anyone. I support the motion.

Mr Gaston: It is right to highlight, as the motion does, the critical need for social and affordable housing across Northern Ireland. It is commendable that the Minister has a target to deliver at least 100,000 new homes by 2039, with 33,000 of those being social homes, as outlined in the housing supply strategy. However, I have to tell the House that, while there is, of course, a need for land to deliver the strategy, a basic requirement for that target to be met is a fit-for-purpose water network. As I have outlined in the House previously, that is where my concern rests. While the housing supply strategy highlights that as a problem and commits to working with Northern Ireland Water to resolve it, there is nothing in its 41 pages to say what the Executive are practically doing to address it.

I have a case with Northern Ireland Water currently that is located within a stone's throw of the main Ballymena waste water pumping station. The Northern Ireland Water engineering solution for connecting 10 new houses requires the developer to run a pipe to a location three quarters of a mile away rather than joining with the main sewerage pipe at the bottom of the site. That solution makes the site unviable for the developer to build on and risks the approved planning application sitting in limbo until the required upgrades are made to the Ballymena waste water station by Northern Ireland Water. The size of the development is too small for the developer to fund a capital works scheme to fix the issues in the catchment area, but there is a solution that will make the site viable again and help the Minister to meet his new-build targets. The solution is for the developer to build an on-site, dedicated waste water treatment works to an adoptable standard, but, no, Northern Ireland Water continues to drag its heels by sticking to its solution, the cost of which is double that of the on-site solution. If we are serious about meeting the Minister's target, there needs to be a change of approach by his Executive colleagues to delivery.

In addition to the Northern Ireland Water issues, we have large areas of land locked by zoning for new roads that will never be built. I think of the Ballymena south-west distributor and the Cullybackey bypass in my constituency, both of which sit as plans, as they require land to be zoned for road network delivery, but have no possibility of being delivered.

If there were some joined-up thinking, progressing the Cullybackey College new build would remove the traffic problems in the village, and the need for the bypass would disappear. That would release more lands that could be used for housing.

One of the fundamental problems with this place is that Departments operate in silos, with no regard for what others are doing. That is hardly surprising when you consider that, politically, there is little to unite the Communities Minister and the Infrastructure Minister. The matter that we are debating today is yet another example of the unworkability of Stormont; in fact, the public land agency that the motion calls for would be better sitting in the Department of Finance than the Department for Communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the mover of the motion and all those who have contributed to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to it.

Through the housing supply strategy and the inclusion of housing as a priority in the Programme for Government, I have provided a renewed focus on housing during the mandate. That must be matched by a commitment right across the Executive to do things differently.

As the House will be aware, the strategy takes a 15-year, whole-system approach to addressing the many interconnected issues that impact on housing supply. One such issue is, of course, the need to identify and release suitable land that could be used for building homes. Plenty of such land is owned by Departments and other public bodies, but much of it is not being put to any economic use or is being underutilised. I want to change that and to use that land to support the provision of social and affordable housing.

In the past, the release of land was challenging for landowning Departments and agencies, many of which had poor information about their land assets. We knew in general terms that there were land assets, but the accurate information needed to properly address the issue was not available. For that reason, some years ago, my Department initiated the public land for housing project to identify unused and underused land that could be used for housing. That project led directly to the development of the government land and property register by LPS in the Department of Finance, which can be viewed by the public. Taking that work a step further, I am pleased to support the work of Land and Property Services in establishing a new division called the "strategic asset management unit". That goes live on 1 April 2025.

I support the intent of the motion, but we now have something in place that will help us to achieve some of the things that were mentioned during the debate. I believe that the creation of a public land agency, which, as Mr Gaston pointed out, would be more appropriate for the Department of Finance than the Department for Communities, would take more time and energy and would duplicate what we already have. For those reasons, I am supportive of the broader motion and its intent, but I cannot support the idea that we should create another agency when we already have bodies in place that can do the work that needs to be done. The new division will provide support to Departments and their arm's-length bodies to enable them to use land and property more effectively, including for housing. That work will be a key action in my housing supply strategy.

I have also recently launched a five-year pilot with the Housing Executive and council planning officials. The aim of the pilot, which is called "Housing Executive land acquisition" (HELA), is to identify sufficient land to deliver 100 social housing units in areas of acute housing need. I have also worked closely with Belfast City Council to bring forward housing development on DFC- and council-owned sites in the city.

I have said many times before that budgets are tight. I have also said that we must act differently. Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that it is my intention to bring a paper to the Executive to set out new options for the disposal of public land. I want to maximise delivery with the budget that we have. Using land in a way that supports increasing housing supply is a big part of that.

As I said, although I am supportive of the broad intent set out in the motion — I have set out how I and other Departments have already taken steps to do what the motion asks — we cannot support the idea of establishing the public land agency. It would be a complex undertaking, and there are ways to release public land much more quickly and with far less costly administration. Furthermore, it would be a complex, cross-departmental undertaking, and thus any decision to establish a public land agency would not be mine to take.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am sorry that he will not support our motion. Genuinely, we are not too precious about which Department would take it forward, and we have come to him as the Minister responsible for social housing and the Minister who is bringing proposals to the Executive on the disposal of public land and how that could be done better. Is the Minister in a position to share some of those proposals with the Assembly today?

Mr Lyons: Essentially, my concern is that, in an era of limited budgets, when we are not able to allocate as much funding to social housing as we might like, we need to do something new and innovative and look at different ways to solve the issue. The whole point of the debate has been for the Member to highlight the issue that I am already working on, which is the need to look at how we can cut costs elsewhere. If the Executive are not able to provide financial resource to me, what can the Executive do on the land resource that might be made available? Therefore, I will bring a paper to the Executive on new proposals. The Member will understand that I will bring that to the Executive before telling him, much as I would like to do that. It is important that we look at all of the ways in which we can tackle the issue.

My point is simple: I do not want to support a motion that, although it will not bind anybody, will put down a marker that says what the view of the Assembly is when I do not believe that it is or should be the view of the Assembly that we duplicate what is already in place and put in an additional layer of administration. I can confirm to the Member that I am content with the intent of his motion but, because of the additional issue of the public land agency, am not content to support it.

I want to address some of the comments that have been made. Mention has been made again and again of the need for the waste water infrastructure to be in place: I absolutely support that, and I raised it with the previous Infrastructure Minister. I have asked for a meeting with the current Infrastructure Minister, following on from commitments that have been made in the housing supply strategy, to make sure that we get this right and that we can talk about it and make progress.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, thank you for allowing me in. Is the Minister surprised that, when the Committee for Communities met Northern Ireland Water, it confirmed that housing was not part of its priorities? The only priority is clean water and the provision of it, and NIW has no intention of dealing with housing issues.

Mr Lyons: That is a surprise, and it is also disappointing, given that the strategic direction has been set by the housing supply strategy. Commitments have been made, and there is also a Programme for Government commitment to deal with the housing issue. I was not aware that those comments had been made, but l look forward to raising them with the Minister in my discussion with her. That is useful information.

I want to respond to a couple of comments made by Carál Ní Chuilín. There had been the idea of getting our best and brightest together at a housing summit to address some of the issues. We had a successful round table towards the end of last year, and we are taking forward actions from that. I do not agree with the analysis that, in some way, we are just bumbling along on the issue. I believe that we have made incredible progress over the past year. We have a plan in place. We have the housing supply strategy that has been agreed by all Executive colleagues. That has never happened before. We have a Programme for Government commitment in place that puts an additional focus on that, and, as has been mentioned around the Chamber today, we are doing innovative things on affordable rent, including the 600 homes that were announced last week, whereby we can tackle some of the huge costs around temporary accommodation, including non-standard accommodation in hotels and bed and breakfasts. The loan-to-acquire move-on accommodation fund is another use of financial transactions capital in a way that we can make a difference and help people to get out of the homelessness system. I have bid for and received allocations to increase the number of social homes. We had intended, at the beginning of this year, to build 400 social homes: that has gone up to 1,400 completions. Therefore, progress is being made. We are moving forward, albeit not as quickly as I would like, but I genuinely believe that, through the housing supply strategy, we have a plan in place for the first time. That is to be welcomed.

Members have mentioned the revitalisation of the Housing Executive. I am glad that there is cross-party and cross-community support in the House for that; it could be a game changer. I have pressed and pressed on that at every level, because I genuinely believe that it is one of the most transformational things that we will be able to do during the mandate and that it could make a real difference and set us up well for the future. Those are —

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way to Mr Allen.

Mr Allen: The Minister has highlighted his pressing on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive, but we have not yet achieved it. Will he expand on the cause of the delay?

Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be for His Majesty's Treasury to confirm what, we all believe, should happen, which is that there should be a change in how the Housing Executive is treated with regard to its borrowing. We have made the case, provided information and made arguments at a political level. I believe that we are moving forward on this. The information that has been requested from us and the answers that we have been able to provide indicate to me that we are moving forward, but I want to make it clear to the UK Government that, if they want to do something that is genuinely transformational and can help make a difference, a very simple confirmation of change in the borrowing rules would achieve that. I look forward to them doing that very soon.

I thank everyone for their comments and their contributions to the debate. I thank the mover of the motion, in particular. He highlighted the issue of the bunker in Ballymena: perhaps he can bring proposals to the Executive Office on how that could be used. In response to his query, I do not think that we are actively preparing for a nuclear event. If we are, I have not been informed about it; I do not know whether I will have a seat in the bunker. If I do, he is more than welcome to have it. If I had to make a choice between being in the bunker with my Executive colleagues and taking my chances in the event of a nuclear apocalypse, I know which one I would choose [Laughter.]

However, it is an important point: a lot of money is being used in the maintenance of such buildings. Clearly, there are statutory duties on us, but there is an important point, which is that we need to make best use of public land. That is certainly something that I want to make sure that we can do. I am doing that work, and I will continue to do that work so that we can deliver the homes that we so desperately need.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Colin McGrath to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having had conversations with members of the press, I know that they might think that that bunker is used for Executive meetings, because they say that there is a lack of information and press conferences after Executive meetings and they are in the dark. Maybe the Executive would like to see the press put in the bunker. I am glad that we are coming up with possible uses for it, because it is not doing much for anybody if it lies empty.

There can be no more delay, inaction or excuses. Our people demand progress on social and affordable housing, and they rightly demand that that progress be made now. It is clear that the housing crisis that we face has long since reached a critical point. With waiting lists for social housing ballooning to over 47,000, the situation is nothing short of a crisis, and, if urgent action is not taken, it will be nothing short of a scandal. The number of individuals in temporary accommodation — Members referenced them during the debate — has risen by an alarming 132% over the past five years. As Members have said, our constituency offices are inundated with people who are in dire situations. We have distraught mothers, highly stressed and anxious people who are living in poverty and burnt-out families, all of whom are at their wits' end. They are desperate in their pursuit of a place to live, and, unfortunately, they get no assistance with that. In the private sector, rents are soaring. It now regularly costs more than £1,000 a month in many areas.

People across the North are losing hope and faith in the ability of the Executive to deliver.

Through their inaction, the Executive have fed a culture of cynicism that is now embedded in our society. I urge anybody to walk down any street in any town and say, "Is the housing crisis being dealt with by our Executive?". The majority of people will laugh, such is the cynicism.

For too many young people, homeownership has become an unrealistic aspiration, because, as wages fail to keep pace with rising house prices, the disparity between income and housing costs is creating an insurmountable barrier for the next generation. As it stands, we are at risk of seeing the social contract being broken, and we cannot stand by and let that become the new normal.

The motion recognises the critical role that social and affordable housing plays in reducing housing need, supporting communities and strengthening our economy and presents a pragmatic course of action to resolve our challenges. We must not forget that the Department for Communities has committed to delivering at least 33,000 social homes under the housing supply strategy. That commitment is commendable, but we are talking about this Executive, so it is just a commitment. When does the commitment become a reality? We must see land being made available if we are to realise those targets.

That is why the SDLP is proposing something transformative. That is why we recognise the untapped potential of public land — land in public ownership that is sitting unused or underutilised. Public land could be, as we have said, the key to unlocking the housing that we need. Our figures show that, by using just 10% to 20% of the public estate, we could build between 68,000 and 136,000 new homes. That is not a far-off dream; it is a very real possibility if we take action now. The need for a more strategic approach to land use cannot be overstated. The public land available for housing development presents an opportunity that should not be overlooked. By using public land, we can build homes faster. without the financial burden of expensive land acquisition, which typically accounts for around 30% of the cost of building a social home. Without the cost of purchasing land, money could be pumped back into building homes. By maximising the use of public land, we can free up hundreds of millions of pounds for reinvestment in further housing developments. To make things happen —.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Is he able to give even just one example of what a public land agency would be able to achieve that the strategic asset management unit that goes live tomorrow will not be able to?

Mr McGrath: It would be dedicated to the task — it would be completely dedicated to it and nothing else. If we continue to simply do things in the way that we have done them before, and if we shuffle around a few civil servants and say, "If you lift yourself from this desk and go over to that desk, everything will be solved", I have no faith that we will get anything done. Having a dedicated agency, with its own aims, objectives and goals, which uses the money that would otherwise be spent in other ways, will make sure that it achieves that. The problem is that tinkering around the edges will not fix the problems that we have. If we set up a dedicated unit whose specific job as an agency is to do that, it would be sorted out.

I remind the Minister that his party's manifesto said that it would like to see a UK-wide agency. Let us be trailblazers. Let us set our sights higher. If we begin it here, others might be able to join in. Your party's manifesto suggested that we should have such an agency, rather than simply having people do a different job somewhere else.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Mr Lyons: That was included in the manifesto on a UK-wide basis, and that is important. Going back to the point that I am making, I have supported the work of the strategic asset management unit because it is there for that exact purpose: making sure that we use land effectively. Why would a public land agency be any different from what is being created tomorrow? Surely they would both have the same objective.

Mr McGrath: I wonder which sectors will be brought in to work alongside that agency. I wonder which experts will be brought in to the Department to sit at desks alongside those people to be able to do the job. I would guess none, because if it is a Civil Service-led project, it will be filled with civil servants pushing papers around and trying to do Civil Service things.

It we were to have an agency that could reach out and bring in construction experts and experts from outside the field to work alongside its staff, we might get more done. I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree on this. You have a unit that you say is going to solve all the issues with social housing, and it is starting tomorrow. If we are not supported today, and that is what we get tomorrow, we will be watching, and we will see how successful it is.

I just fear that, because we are doing exactly what we have done with other issues through the Civil Service, we may get the same outcome, and that is where we are at the minute, with very little happening with housing. That is why we are calling for the creation of a public land agency, a body that would be responsible for identifying the land, working across Departments and partnering with housing associations. I do not know how many times I have spoken to housing associations that told me that the biggest thing that they cannot get is land. Those are housing associations that are there today. They can tap in and out of the Civil Service and the Department to try to get work done, and we go nowhere, yet we have huge amounts of land that could be used.

That is why we suggest a separate agency to deal with that. It is obvious that it is not going to get the support of the Department. I suppose there was a sense that, if it was going to happen, it should be part of another Department, and that, again, really just gets to the heart of what we do. One Minister says, "Nah, we don't want anything to do with it. Pass it over to another Minister". Then you get another Minister saying, "It's nothing to do with my Department. Could somebody else not deal with it?", and it is on that merry-go-round that we go round and round, but there is never any action.

We are proposing a land agency because a separate, dedicated agency in its own right with its own staff, to reach out and bring in the sector and work with it, would be better than another down-the-corridor door where the nameplate is changed. That is why we proposed the motion.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK, Members, given that Question Time is scheduled to start at 2.00 pm, we will complete the Division after that. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): We have not yet agreed on a timescale for the appointment of the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. Members may be aware that the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which will give us the power to appoint the Climate Commissioner, are scheduled for debate on Tuesday 8 April. Provided that the regulations are approved, we will move quickly to agree on a timescale for the appointment. We will ensure that the appointment is made in line with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments, which can take six to nine months to complete after the process has commenced. There will also be work to put in place the necessary infrastructure to support the commissioner, such as the securing of suitable office accommodation and the appointment of staff to their office.

Mr Blair: I thank the deputy First Minister for her reply. I look forward to seeing those timelines. Will the appointment be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I said, we will make the appointment in line with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments. The code has not been formally added to the appointment process for the role, but, as the Member will know, we can, of course, make such an appointment in line with the code, which is our intention.

Ms Finnegan: Will the deputy First Minister detail the timeline for establishing a Climate Commissioner after the regulations have been approved?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As the Member is likely to be aware, we need to take a number of key steps, particularly if the appointment process is carried out in line with the code of practice. The process has a formal nature, and we will follow all its steps. We will endeavour to get the advertisement out as quickly as possible and conduct the interviews. Those who are shortlisted may need to make a presentation. We will endeavour to get that done as quickly as possible, but the timeline is likely to be between six and nine months.

Mr Harvey: Does the Minister have any concerns about the cost of such a commissioner, particularly given how tight budgets are at the moment?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. In light of the Chancellor's spending statement last week, everyone around the Chamber will be aware of the difficulties and financial challenges that we face due to the huge amount of work that we need to do to invest in our public services and the limited funds that we have to do that. Indeed, the initial costings for the office are estimated to be about £1 million per year. When the legislation was passing through the House, concerns were raised, which I share, about the role that the commissioner will play. We can draw on the UK Climate Change Committee for advice. There is a risk of some duplication in the role. The role was included in the legislation that was passed by the House, but it would not be my preferred way forward. I do not think that there is a particular need for a Climate Commissioner at this time, but it is a legal duty that falls to the First Minister and myself, which is why we are moving forward with the appointments process.

Mr McGlone: Picking up on the theme of the previous question, the projected cost is £1 million per annum. Has it been confirmed that that is the budget that will be committed to the office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is estimated that £1 million will be the initial cost. That is the basic cost of a very basic structure compared with some other commissioner offices. As indicated, a number of UK-wide bodies already work in the area, including the Climate Change Committee, from which we can draw advice. Under the legislation, there are a number of new proposed bodies, including a just transition commission, each of which bring a significant cost. We need to be mindful of that. The projected cost of £1 million in the business case is based on a very basic structure. It is the minimum that will be required per annum for that type of post.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Communities in Transition is part of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. Since 2019, the programme has delivered over £26 million of support across eight areas. Over the past year, many thousands of people have engaged with CIT programmes, including counselling, social action projects, accredited qualifications and support in schools. Evidence indicates that such local initiatives continue to be at the forefront of tackling a range of problems caused by paramilitarism and organised crime.

CIT participants reported a 7% decrease in feeling that paramilitary groups had a controlling influence in their community. There was a 25% increase in individuals feeling that their communities are now more resilient to resist criminality and coercive control, and there was an 11% increase in building positive relationships with the PSNI. More generally, 60% of young people reported feeling that they can access health and well-being support, and a further 36% have a stronger voice in their community.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leas-Chéad-Aire as a freagra.

Will the deputy First Minister give an assessment of the impact that the programme has had on tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime, please?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that important question. We measure that in a number of ways. I highlighted some of the sentiment surveys that we do with those who partake in the programmes initially and those who have completed particular projects. It is positive to see that participants in those programmes, particularly young people, feel more resilient and that they have more ability to resist those types of activity in their communities. They are more positive when they look to the future.

It is not just that, however. The heart of the programme is about driving down criminality and ensuring that every community, no matter where in Northern Ireland it is, has the social capital that enables it to thrive. To that end, there are statistics that we measure to assess the success of such things. While a range of factors may come into play, I am pleased that, since the commencement of the programme, there has been, for example, a 60% reduction in paramilitary-style attacks and a 71% reduction in the number of households presenting as homeless due to paramilitary intimidation. Furthermore, the number of convictions for paramilitary or organised crime-related activity has increased sevenfold since the outset of the programme.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, given the urgency for communities that are in transition to be free from the corrosive and difficult circumstances that they find themselves in, under the jackboot of paramilitaries and drug-dealing gangs, can you set a timeline for communities to be truly transitioned and free from such behaviour?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I have said this before in this place, and I will say it again: there was never any justification for paramilitary organisations or for the criminal behaviour and the thuggery that we saw in the past and, sadly, see too much of in the present. That criminality should stop. That criminality demands a criminal justice response from the agencies. The agencies have my full support and, I believe, the support of all Executive members and parties in that.

Of course, we want to help and support communities to have resilience and robustness to resist those who attempt to assert control over them. That is very much what this type of programme does. It is supplementary to the criminal justice response. Let us make no mistake, however, about the fact that there is no role whatsoever for criminality in our society today and there never was in the past.

Mr McNulty: Given that the police are investigating the delivery of intimidating, paramilitary-branded letters to residents in Lisburn, how can the Executive's efforts to tackle paramilitarism be improved? Clearly, there is much still to do.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. First, it is about showing political leadership. It is also about standing, politically, shoulder to shoulder on these issues to make it very clear that, no matter what political party we are from and what position our party takes on the constitutional question or on the spectrum of political views, we stand together, united against criminality, thuggery, criminal gangs and any remaining paramilitarism. It would be really positive to send that clear message today, as we have done previously, saying, "This is absolutely wrong, and it ought to stop. Intimidation is never acceptable. We stand united on that".

Mr Gaston: Last Wednesday, civil servants giving evidence to the Executive Office Committee were unable to answer the basic question that asked at what point a community in transition becomes transitioned. We know that phase 3 of the fund will concentrate on the same eight areas as phases 1 and 2. At what point, Minister, will we look to move the fund to other places in Northern Ireland and not focus solely on the same eight areas as were first identified back in 2016?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. Of course, if government is making those types of interventions, we want to see progress in the areas that have been targeted. We do not want to have to keep returning to the same areas time and time again and putting even more investment in, if, indeed, there is no positive outcome from that. There have been really positive results from many of the projects that have been rolled out, particularly those that have engaged closely with the PSNI and with young people in local communities.

The Member is absolutely right, however, to raise the point. There is no presumption, as I understand it, that phase 3 will apply to the same areas. Those areas were selected at a particular time on the basis of research at that time that looked at historical issues, community tensions and levels of criminality or particular behaviours. So, of course we must be open to looking at other areas. Where there is a need, those areas should have an equal opportunity to partake in the projects so that all communities are supported, regardless of where they are.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: A draft paper was produced by the interdepartmental working group in early 2022. It set out an initial assessment of options for consideration and was a precursor to more detailed analysis and the development of a business case. The working group was then stood down. TEO officials are reviewing that assessment alongside other developments and will provide us with advice on the next steps. We are considering the report from the recent Strategic Investment Board (SIB) review. The recommendations from the review will also inform that work. Decisions on the way forward will be a matter for the Executive in due course, but, as the Member knows, Executive papers are not routinely published.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. The Department for Infrastructure was allocated the largest capital budget in the history of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Does she agree with my colleagues and me that the commission is needed and that the paper needs to be published urgently, given that the establishment of an infrastructure commission was first explored and proposed by a ministerial advisory panel five years ago, in 2020?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The most important thing in all of this is that the assessment is of whether a commission would make a positive difference. In that context, it is notable that the National Infrastructure Commission in England has been rolled into another organisation. The UK Government tried that idea and have moved on from it and made some changes. That indicates to me that they felt that the commission, perhaps, did not do what they wanted it to do as initially envisaged. From our point of view, we want to assess whether this is the right way forward. We have the Strategic Investment Board and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI), which is the Executive's strategic infrastructure document. We need to look at how we can improve on all of that. At this stage, however, I can advise the Member that I am open-minded on the way forward on this. I simply want a structure that works better than what we have had before and delivers against our ambitions for our infrastructure. I look forward to officials giving us those recommendations, and we will discuss the issue. As I said, the Executive will consider it as well.

Ms Ennis: Will the deputy First Minister outline a time frame for the publication of the final investment strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. That is under active consideration. Over the past number of months, we have been working with departmental officials and the SIB to finalise some elements of the strategy. Of course, much of the capital that we have available is already committed to existing projects. As I said in response to the previous question, however, it is really important to us that those projects start to come in on time and on budget. That is not the way in which capital projects have been done before. It is not just about getting the strategy out — we have committed to doing that over the next number of weeks — it is about the structures around it. How can we deliver our capital projects in a better way than we have done before? How can we make sure, as far as possible, that they hit their budget and time frame? Of course, that then enables us to do more with the capital budget that we have.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Cameron will answer this question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The groups that are delivering under the central good relations fund and the Community Relations Council core funding programme undertake vital work in our communities, bringing people together, promoting good relations and contributing to the Programme for Government’s cross-cutting commitment to peace. For 2025-26, the central good relations programme received 220 applications from groups requesting total funding of £7·1 million.

The assessment process will complete in early April 2025, and groups will be notified of the outcome of their applications before Easter.

A total of 42 applications were submitted to the Community Relations Council's core funding programme for 2025-26, requesting £2·75 million against an available budget of just £631,000. Applicants have now been informed of the outcomes, and successful applicants have been either awarded funding or placed on a waiting list, should further funding become available throughout the year.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will the Minister give her assessment of the cross-cutting commitment to peace in the Programme for Government?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that question. The cross-cutting commitment to peace will make sure that everyone feels the benefit of a growing economy, an improved environment and a fairer society. Equality of opportunity and good relations are, obviously, central to that goal, and they support the immediate priority of safer communities. Keeping communities safe enables people to have the confidence to live productively and engage fully in society, which we all want to see. Such a commitment to peace will require an ongoing commitment to tackle sectarianism and racism.

Mr K Buchanan: How successful and impactful has the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) scheme been?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that question on the success of T:BUC. I will give a little bit of an update on what is happening and what has been delivered. The Community Relations Council is a key partner in the delivery of good relations, as we all know, under the T:BUC strategy. The CRC works collaboratively with the Executive Office to deliver the strategic outcomes for the funding that it distributes to ensure that it is aligned with the Programme for Government and T:BUC policy.

The Community Relations Council is responsible for funding programmes across the region to tackle sectarianism and racism, build good community relationships and deal with antagonisms that are a legacy of the past. Resource allocations provide for CRC's activities, including grant funding, community development and support services such as HR, IT, finance, governance and facilities. CRC is a small organisation with an average complement of 17 staff. Grant distribution is core to CRC's work, and, as far as possible, the resources allocated to funded groups are protected by minimising cuts to grants and programme costs.

CRC has six funding schemes that are tailored to promote certain aspects of community relations, including core funding, community relations and cultural diversity and the north Belfast strategic good relations programme, alongside a media and publication scheme and its pathfinder programme. The second core delivery approach for CRC is community engagement and sharing best practice on effective approaches to peacebuilding, reconciliation and good community relationships.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 11 together.

The First Minister and I are fully committed to promoting Northern Ireland in the US. Earlier this month, we led a Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry delegation to North Carolina that deepened the economic and innovation partnership that we have with North Carolina's highly successful research triangle. As part of that mission, we invited the governor to make a return visit to Northern Ireland to see what we can offer to North Carolina, particularly on collaboration. I travelled on to Washington DC, where I continued to promote greater understanding of Northern Ireland in meetings with the president of the United States, Members of Congress and other powerful stakeholders such as the US Chamber of Commerce.

Promoting Northern Ireland in the US has a number of benefits in the short term and for Northern Ireland's economic future in the longer term. Promoting Northern Ireland through ministerial visits, inward visits and the work of the Northern Ireland Bureau focuses attention amongst investors and decision makers on our economic opportunity. It also ensures that issues, such as the impact of tariffs or the benefit of a special economic envoy, are better understood. It allows us to showcase and strengthen our cultural links, such as our role in the forthcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We brought the Claret Jug to Washington DC to highlight not only Northern Ireland's great sporting achievements but our location as a top venue for major events and tourism. We will continue to take every opportunity to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard on the world stage.

Mr Kingston: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. All the media coverage of that week was positive back at home and a credit to those who turned up and spoke up for Northern Ireland.

How important is it to have political engagement with the US Administration, particularly given the current uncertainty around tariffs and global trade?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that important question. Since we were in DC last year, there has been a change of Administration in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and, of course, the US, so it was an important time not just to engage with business on our economic potential but to engage politically. The visit was a good opportunity, and we got the chance to talk to key people. Over that week, we saw the issue of potential tariff implications for Northern Ireland, the EU and the UK emerge, so it was key for us to be there, to turn up, to speak up and to champion Northern Ireland and the particular issues that we have.

Mr Bradley: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. She was in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Washington, DC. What opportunities did she have to engage with business groups on building economic links between Northern Ireland and the US? Ulster University's world-renowned research centre is based in my constituency, as is the most secure data link between the UK and America.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I recognise the incredible work that not just our businesses do. It is not just about US investment in business in Northern Ireland but about collaboration and our investment in the US. We have many examples, particularly through our universities and in the space of creativity, innovation and research in relation to aerospace, composites and different areas of expertise and high skills. Of course, cybersecurity is a key one. That is why it was so good to see the work at first hand, particularly the collaborations between the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce. There is huge commonality in the areas that they have been focusing on, including life and health sciences. Engagement at state-to-Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland-to-state level can produce strong economic potential for Northern Ireland, particularly at a time when a federal economic policy led by President Trump may mean that, from an economic perspective, foreign direct investment is a bit more challenging.

There is plenty of good work to be done. I praise Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce in particular for recognising that opportunity but also the universities and so many other businesses that took time to be out there championing Northern Ireland and everything that we have to offer.

Mr Stewart: Deputy First Minister, you will agree, I am sure, that we have many excellent businesses here that punch well above their weight and export into the US market. Naturally, many of those business owners will be concerned about the changing world picture, particularly the tariffs that the USA is looking to implement. What lobbying did you do on their behalf, and what can the Executive do to promote and protect those businesses to ensure that our manufacturing sector still has a base in the United States of America?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. This issue creates and will create some concern, particularly in the business community. It is a complicated issue. Significant work has been done at UK-US level to try to secure exemptions for the UK. That would benefit Northern Ireland, because, given that we operate in the UK customs market, all our exports are UK exports and would not be impacted on by US tariffs if the UK were excluded from them. It is more complicated the other way. Just this week, we met the French ambassador and the German ambassador to the UK, and I took the opportunity to raise with both of them my concerns about potential retaliatory tariffs and how they might impact on our exports.

The US is our number-two export market and our number-three market for imports, so this is a very important issue. More than ever, this year, it was critical that our voice was heard. Can we always dictate the outcome of such negotiations? Absolutely not, but the least that we can do is to do our best to make sure that Northern Ireland is on the radar and that people are aware of the implications for Northern Ireland of those big global decisions.

Ms Bradshaw: Deputy First Minister, have you started conversations with the US Administration around a replacement for the special envoy? Joe Kennedy III did an amazing job of putting us on the map.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I assure the Member that, absolutely, I took the opportunity throughout the week to raise that issue with everyone who would listen, including the new UK ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson. I asked for his support in his representations to and engagement with the US Administration. I raised it directly with the president in my conversation with him, and I outlined clearly how positive the economic links had been and how much we appreciated that support and help in making sure that Northern Ireland was heard. I took the opportunity to raise the issue with a number of people, including the nominee for US ambassador to the UK. I had a good, lengthy and detailed conversation with him not just about tariffs but on that issue and about how he can use his role to champion Northern Ireland to the US Administration.

Ms Hunter: A key issue that is so often in my inbox and that I hear about in my office is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I know that you were in DC for a number of days. Did you raise that directly with the US president or in wider discussions on your trip?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Of course, we all want to see peace in that region, and I am sure that we want to extend our support to those who seek to cement that peace, because that is the best way of avoiding the terrible human toll of any conflict, no matter where that is. I did not have an opportunity to raise that issue directly with the president. However, I briefly touched on Ukraine and our desire to see peace in that region and to urge a peaceful resolution there.

My conversation with the president very much focused on Northern Ireland. You do not get many opportunities to do that at that level, so, in championing Northern Ireland, I wanted to make sure that our voice was clearly heard and that Northern Ireland was on his radar, particularly in the context of the ongoing discussions on tariffs.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Building on our successful visit to the US, the Northern Ireland Bureau in North America is developing a plan for engagement across the US and Canada. The plan will take into account the Programme for Government, the emerging priorities of the Trump Administration and our core strengths in relevant areas such as cyber and tech, creative industries, the Open and Ulster-Scots links to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The plan will maintain Northern Ireland's bipartisan support by engaging with the next generation of leaders from both main parties to promote Northern Ireland's exceptional cultural, political and economic offer.

The First Minister and I are fully committed to building on the relationships that we have not just in DC but in key locations across the US and Canada where economic opportunity, strategic partnerships and policy innovations can help us to deliver our ambition in the Programme for Government.

Ms Forsythe: The deputy First Minister mentioned that next year marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. How much of an opportunity is that to highlight the significant role of the Ulster Scots — the Scots Irish — in building modern America?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. With a name like Hanna, of course, we know that there are strong Ulster-Scots links, and I commend the Member on all the work that she does to promote the rich heritage and culture of the Ulster-Scots community. It is a fantastic opportunity. It was notable, when I was in the US, how many people around the current Administration and across so many of the engagements mentioned matters such as the golf in Northern Ireland. That shows that it is not about just the economic offering and not always about the hard sell; it is also about soft diplomacy and using the unique, incredible things that we have to really get noticed in what is often a crowded market vying for investment.

The 250th anniversary is a fantastic opportunity that gives us the chance to explain and explore the rich shared heritage that Northern Ireland, particularly the Ulster region, has with the US and how many Ulster Scots or Scots Irish, as they are called in America, have links to politics, business, commerce and culture; indeed, my briefing for the trip said that 11 presidents had links to the Ulster area. Gordon Lyons, our Communities Minister, who did a fantastic job at promoting this all week, said that it was 17. I am pretty sure that, by the time we get to the 250th anniversary next year, all 47 presidents will have an established link to Northern Ireland and the Ulster region. We will do everything in our power to promote that as much as possible.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, absolutely. I very much hope that I have demonstrated that in the 14 months that I have been in this role. I am deeply proud of the place that we call "home". I am deeply proud of Northern Ireland. I will champion Northern Ireland at every opportunity. Our biggest strength is our people, the richness of our diversity and all that brings us together, as well as our commonality and our ambition. I will champion every person, every community and every part of this place at every opportunity.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for reaffirming your commitment, but it is meaningless, given that your party blocked funding for Foras na Gaeilge and opposes Irish language signage at Grand Central station. Is your vision for this place limited to one part of the community? Surely it is in no one's interest to manufacture another crocodile moment. There is far too much work to be done.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I assure the Member that I will continue to work for everyone throughout this place, because this one thing is for sure: I am focused on growing the economy, providing good jobs, getting an affordable childcare strategy and tackling those health waiting lists in order to support people throughout the community in Northern Ireland. As I said 14 months ago, those things do not discriminate. They are our core public services, and I am absolutely focused on doing that work.

I do not agree with her categorisation of a number of the issues. A proposal was put forward to change the funding formula for all North/South bodies. That was set in place at the time of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and it was there for a reason. A particular situation with funding came about because of an Irish Government issue with pensions in that organisation. The Communities Minister is working with the Irish Government to find a resolution to that.

It is incredibly important that people have the ability to raise concerns about Grand Central station and ask why it is proposed that £120,000 be spent to rip out and replace nearly new signs at a difficult financial time. That is a perfectly legitimate question. I am here to protect and support our public services and to try to make sure that people live the best life that they can with the quality of services that they deserve.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that really important question. I have no doubt that she, like me and many across the Chamber, will have been contacted over the weekend by many people who are apprehensive about what is being proposed and about how they will get by.

The Chancellor needed economic growth. We do not have economic growth across the UK, but it is required in order to give the Treasury the money to spend on vital public services and to tackle the underinvestment in our public services. The Chancellor did not get that from her Budget statement, because, in my view, she stifled that economic growth through measures such as the increases to employers' National Insurance contributions. That was an opportunity for her to change course and reverse out of the bad decisions that she made that have stifled growth. Instead, this is a Chancellor who decided to balance the books on the backs of those who are least capable of sustaining it. Therefore, I support the efforts that we will make to ask the Chancellor to change tack and start to put in place the actions that are required to get that economic growth so that it can produce the much-needed funds that we want to invest in our public services and support people instead of making life more difficult for them.

Ms Ní Chuilín: People are beyond apprehensive: some are petrified. Will the deputy First Minister commit to working with the First Minister and the entire Executive to urge the British Government to reverse their punitive cuts, which many see as being Tory lite?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Many will say this: be careful what you wish for. People had a sense that the current Government would spend and would invest in public services. As I have said, though, that did not happen, because there simply is not that economic growth across the UK. That is because of decisions that the Chancellor made at the previous fiscal event. She should reverse those decisions, and I will support calls for her to do so.

In Northern Ireland, as across the UK, we want to support people back into work. People want to see any fraud being tackled, and that includes tax evasion, not just benefit fraud. For those who need help, however, it should be there for them. They are the people who should not be penalised. I therefore urge the Chancellor to reverse her decisions and to put in place the necessary steps to achieve economic growth. We will do everything in our power to support that happening.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The victims and survivors strategy has been published. Key actions and schemes arise from it. We have asked in particular that the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) take a look at introducing a capital scheme to support some capital works. We are conscious that, across our incredible victims and survivors' organisations, many have not had the ability to apply for capital. That could be for anything from the replacement of kitchens or other facilities to making their premises more disabled-friendly. That is such an important issue because of the cohort with which those groups do such great work, and many of the buildings require that capital work.

We take a needs-based approach. I was glad to see that, in the review of the previous strategy and in the new strategy, we had already identified many of the needs. We will, however, look at some new areas, such as a capital scheme, and we will ramp up our support for tackling the intergenerational trauma that is emerging.

Ms Flynn: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Has any consideration been given to or have any discussions been had on the Regional Trauma Network (RTN)? I am conscious that that falls under the Department of Health's remit, but has consideration been given to incorporating it into the victims and survivors strategy? I ask that because it cuts across the intergenerational trauma stuff.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We see that clearly. At the moment, the victims' pension scheme is open. There is no doubt from the feedback that we get that many people are not just suffering trauma now but have suffered it for many decades and need help and support. The mental health side of things is huge. I am pleased to say that, as well as the victims and survivors strategy, the interface between the Victims and Survivors Service and the Department of Health gave rise to the Regional Trauma Network. As part of the assessments done of people who came forward, it was recognised how great that need was.

There needs to be more investment in this area. As we know, bad mental health is such a barrier not just to life's enjoyment but to being able to get out there, get a job, stay in that job and provide for a family. We absolutely want people to have that enjoyment in spite of their loss and what happened to them.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is always fantastic to be up in the north-west. It was a successful visit. It was great to see a dynamic company such as Alchemy move into Ebrington Plaza and be its first tenant. That is good to see, because the Executive Office has invested so much. Over £30 million, I think, has been invested in the Ebrington site, because we wanted it to unlock the city's economic potential. We have the link to the site from the bridge and the buildings themselves. I am pleased to confirm that all the buildings now have tenants signed up to them or are being held for tenants, and we are working with them at the moment. Ebrington Plaza is heading towards full capacity in due course.

We truly hope that Ebrington will be an economic driver and that the north-west will see the benefit not just through investment or the creation of jobs but through the creation of good jobs with good remuneration, which will make a big difference to people.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leas-Chéad Aire as a freagra.

Will she commit to working with her Executive partners to promote regional balance and promote places such as the north-west and other parts of the North as vibrant places in which to work, live and study?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, of course. We have been clear that we want to see Northern Ireland thrive, and that does not mean just Belfast and the greater Belfast area. We represent different constituencies across this place, and I know that we will always fight for the best deal for all of our constituencies.

The Member is absolutely right. If we are to see the economic growth that we want across Northern Ireland, that must mean that every part of it — every town and every city — can thrive and do well. There are really exciting things happening in the north-west. We have been up several times in the last month or so, and, each time we have been up, we have seen such exciting businesses and organisations. We were at the AMP, I think it is called, where there was a lot of innovation and creativity happening. It is a really exciting time not just for Northern Ireland as a whole but for the north-west, and that was definitely the message that we got when we were up just last week.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. That is important work for the Department. It is a sensitive piece of work, given what we are trying to achieve, and I am really pleased that we have been able to make some progress. The work that we are doing, particularly on the mother-and-baby homes, has been very much shaped by the initial report. There are many elements to that, and some of that will interplay with what is happening elsewhere. However, we have our own unique set of structures here, including the panel. We recently met the victims and survivors on the inquiry, the legislation being moved forward and the redress scheme. Unlike with other schemes, this will probably the first time that a redress scheme has opened as the inquiry is taking place in recognition that there were clearly failings in and around all of this.

I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on the issue across these isles, not just in Northern Ireland. It has been a long and very traumatic journey for them, but I am hopeful that we are now reaching the point at which we will commence a number of key measures. We really appreciate those people sticking with us, and we hope to deliver for them.

Mr McMurray: I thank the deputy First Minister for the answer. The redress schemes were mentioned, and we need to ensure that any redress that is paid as a result of past abuse does not affect future benefit entitlements. If an update could be given on that, it would be much appreciated.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, absolutely. I am pleased to confirm that, certainly from a Northern Ireland and UK perspective, those benefits will not be impacted by any payment. We are having discussions with the Republic of Ireland to make sure of that, because we are conscious that there has been movement north and south. Some people who are eligible for payments will reside and be taxpayers in the Republic of Ireland. I asked for the issue to be on the agenda of the North/South meeting some six months ago, I think, and we had the opportunity to raise it directly with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. It is an important one, because we do not want people being penalised and, perhaps, knocked off the support that they get because they get rightful acknowledgement and recognition through a payment by the redress scheme.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important that we ask questions about all the issues. It is unclear why the decision has been made. Did the Minister make that decision and impose it on Translink? Did Translink make the decision under the direction of the Minister? Is there a justification? Many people will ask what the justification is for ripping out nearly new signs costing £120,000 and replacing them with different signs because a particular Minister has a particular political agenda. Those are legitimate questions, and we make no apology for asking them. We will continue to ask those questions. Of course, importantly, we want to get the answers, and, on the back of that, I commit to the House that I will raise the matter at the Executive on Thursday. There is already correspondence in the system asking for answers to those questions. They are legitimate questions, and we want the answers to them.

Mr Carroll: It is more of a linguistic demand than a political agenda. I remind the Minister that within a short distance of the site there are three Gaelscoileanna

and the Gaeltacht Quarter.

Does the Minister agree that it is insulting to say to Irish speakers, "It's OK to speak Irish at home or in an Irish language school, but don't dare demand to have the Irish language visible at the biggest transport site on this island"? Does she agree that that is an offensive approach for her party and others to take?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: No, I do not agree with the Member. There is a significant amount of investment across language and cultural issues in Northern Ireland, including the Irish language. There is significant investment in everything from the broadcast fund to Irish-medium education and cultural organisations. We heard reference to funding issues in Foras na Gaeilge. That organisation receives £14 million a year for activities, North and South. Significant funding goes in.

There are legitimate questions to be asked about that particular decision, not least the cost of it, and the local community consultations and arrangements that were in place. The decision appears to have ridden roughshod over them. Those are legitimate questions, and I will continue to ask them. As I said, I will be raising the issue at the Executive meeting on Thursday.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to questions to the Minister for Communities, Members should take their ease for a moment while the Ministers change desks.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 for answer.

I understand people's shock and concern about all the changes and the uncertainty that they have caused. I do not know what the full impact for Northern Ireland will be at this time. My officials continue to work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to understand the full implications for Northern Ireland. Calculations on the UK-wide impact of the Green Paper were published along with the Chancellor's spring statement on 26 March. It will take time to understand the Northern Ireland impacts thereafter.

I want to ensure that Northern Ireland has a welfare system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers and which protects the most vulnerable. I will continue to engage with the UK Government to ensure that that happens. I will also continue to engage with Executive colleagues, as Northern Ireland does not have the resources to mitigate the changes.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his response. He will understand that there is much anxiety and apprehension in the community because of the changes. Minister, will you outline what engagement you have had with your Executive colleagues about mitigating the welfare changes?

Mr Lyons: As I said, it will not be possible for us to mitigate them. However, we will take time to consider the impacts and see what, if any, actions we can take to make sure that we help those who are most in need.

Mr Martin: Does the Minister feel that there is a better way in which to reform the welfare state? If so, what steps is he going to take to do that?

Mr Lyons: Almost anything is better than the steps that the Government have outlined. I believe that there is a way for us to reduce the welfare bill. We should all want to see that and try to, where possible, help people to get back into work. There are ways in which we can do that. Look at the impact of some of the successful job programmes that we have had here, with less money going out from the Treasury through benefits to help people and additional money coming in through National Insurance contributions and income tax to help the Treasury. It costs money to help people, but it is well worth it. That is one thing that we should do.

Secondly, we should be trying to tackle fraud and departmental error to make sure that the right money goes to the right people at the right time.

Mr Carroll: Minister, hundreds of thousands of people will expect you not to do Labour's bidding by implementing the cuts. I hope that you will say today that you will not. Given the fact that there are no rent caps in the private rented sector, hundreds of millions of pounds from the welfare budget is going on private rented accommodation. Is that something that is being looked at to cover a mitigation fund to protect people from universal credit (UC) cuts?

Mr Lyons: As I have said before, our research indicates that a rent cap would actually make things worse for people in Northern Ireland. I am not willing to place that burden on them.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Does the Minister agree that those cuts are an attack on our most vulnerable and that, as an Assembly and an Executive, we should oppose them?

Mr Lyons: As an Executive, we have certainly have made our views clear to the UK Government. I have met the Secretary of State on the issue, and we will continue to make our views known, because there is a better way to reduce the welfare bill: by helping people rather than hurting them by taking money off them in the way that has been announced. I think that there is common cause across the Executive on this, and we will continue to make the points.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. Since the announcement by the Labour Government, the community that has been the most disproportionately affected, maligned and attacked is the disabled community, which will, potentially, be most affected by the changes. Systemic difficulties are faced by many disabled people in achieving work. Can the Minister outline any discussions that he has had with the Labour Government, particularly about the attacks on the disabled community?

Mr Lyons: Those are certainly points that I have raised with the UK Government. In addition, I have made clear the need for us to continue the work on the disability strategy and the disability-in-work plan. Many disabled people want to be in work, and that is what I mean when I say that we should break down barriers. It is about providing support to people to enable them to be in work, rather than pulling the rug out from underneath them, which is, I believe, what the UK Government are doing. Doing so will lead to increased costs for those who find themselves in the disabled category in particular.

Mr Speaker: Mr McGuigan is not in his place.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the proposed abolition of the work capability assessment, what assurance can you offer people with conditions not captured by PIP, such as those receiving ongoing cancer treatment? Will they still be able to access universal credit support?

Mr Lyons: I understand that such concerns have been expressed. We are still trying to figure out all of the outworkings of what that will mean, but I hope that we will be able to provide all the support that we can to people in Northern Ireland who may find themselves affected. What we can do, we certainly will do on that.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Minister, do you accept that there are many people, particularly those whose mental health frailties make them vulnerable, for whom this announcement has exacerbated their anxieties? You mentioned, Minister, that you made your views known to the UK Government. Can you specifically outline in detail to us what exactly those views were?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I made my views on this known to the Secretary of State and to UK Government Ministers on a UK-wide call. The call was not specifically about this issue, but I used the opportunity to get my view across. I also feel that this will have increased anxiety, and, perhaps, in many cases, unnecessary anxiety, because the Government have not been clear about exactly whom this will impact on and in what way it will impact on them. The fact that the Government were not able to give us a consistent total cost of the changes shows that they do not even know how they will affect people.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answers. Can the Minister indicate how much the changes are likely to cost Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, we do not know the costs. That is another of the problems that we have with the way in which the Government have announced the changes. When they were originally announced, we were told that they would save £5 billion across the UK, which, on a pro rata basis, would have been over £150 million for Northern Ireland. That has now changed, and the newest estimate to come back was £3·4 billion. The fact that the Government were so far out on how much this has cost is, I believe, an indication that they do not really know what impact it will have. That means that we do not know the impact that it will have on Northern Ireland, which makes me think that this has not been well thought through.

Mr Lyons: Tenancy agreements are legal contracts. Supported housing is provided for people with housing support needs who cannot live independently. That may include people whose support needs are such that they do not have the capacity to enter into a legal contract.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, a young lady with autism and a severe learning disability in my constituency is in temporary housing courtesy of the Housing Executive. She was recently offered a bungalow, which came as a great joy to her, only to have that taken away when it was determined that her mother, who has power of attorney and legal authority from the court, was deemed not to be able to sign for her housing. Can the Minister work with the Housing Executive and, indeed, the Department of Health to ensure that our housing policy does not discriminate against those with a disability?

Mr Lyons: Generally, tenancy agreements cannot be signed by an individual who is deemed to lack capacity. However, there is potential for consideration to be given, through the Office of Care and Protection, to someone being authorised to sign a tenancy agreement on behalf of the individual who lacks capacity. That needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the Member would like to write to me directly on that, I would be happy to chase it up.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister confirm what action he can take to ensure that people with limited capacity, and their carers, are informed about securing the lasting power of attorney, enduring power of attorney, deputyship or a Court of Protection order?

Mr Lyons: As I have outlined to the House, there is a mechanism in place that may have been able to help in the case mentioned by Mr Durkan. That may not have been well known in that instance — I do not know whether they went down that route — but there are a number of options available. Sometimes, those are on a discretionary or case-by-case basis. I am more than happy to ask the relevant authorities what action can be taken so that everyone is aware of those mechanisms.

Mr Lyons: A statutory report on the operation of welfare reform, as provided for in the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, was laid before the Assembly in December 2018. My Department also published an evaluation of welfare reforms, as detailed in the welfare reform composite evaluation framework.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. In 2015, the Minister's party — the DUP — along with Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party tripped through the Lobbies together to hand welfare powers over to London. To what extent has that vote impacted on our ability to help the most vulnerable people and mitigate the harshest of cuts that impact on them?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the Executive brought in welfare mitigations that helped to deal with some of the most egregious of those welfare reforms and the impact that they had on people in Northern Ireland. Mitigations were brought in for the bedroom tax, for example, because we simply did not have the capacity to do anything else. Those mitigations, and their extension, have helped many people in Northern Ireland who otherwise would have found themselves in difficult situations. I am pleased that we have been able to continue with those supports, and to have extended them just last week.

Mr Lyons: I met representatives from Belfast City Council and Comhaltas last week. The delivery of that large-scale event requires commitment from many partnership organisations. I am pleased that the Arts Council — an arm's-length body of my Department — is available and more than willing to assist with advice and input as the plans develop.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for the answer; it is very encouraging. Having spoken to local Comhaltas branches, I know that there is a desire to reach out to all aspects of traditional music in Northern Ireland. What can the Minister and his Department do to further encourage the sharing of musical traditions at such events as Fleadh Cheoil na hEireann?

Mr Lyons: That is exactly what we discussed during last week's meeting. We want to ensure that all traditions and types of music are represented. We want to ensure that, on that stage, we get an opportunity to showcase not just Belfast but Northern Ireland and our rich cultural and musical heritage.

Mr K Buchanan: The Minister has more or less covered my question. I take it that the Minister will agree that the fleadh should have representation from the wide range of culture and music that exists across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely; in fact, the marching band tradition in Northern Ireland was mentioned, and its richness and significance was highlighted. Belfast attained UNESCO City of Music status in November 2021. That was because of the wide range of music and cultural traditions that we have. The marching bands are an important part of that.

Mr McGlone: Le déanaí, labhair ceannaire an pháirtí, Claire Hanna, as Gaeilge in Westminster, í ag cur fáilte roimh Fhleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. Chuir sí cuireadh ar an Phríomh-Aire, atá ag dúil le freastal ar an fhleadh.

Will the Minister attend?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry. I was trying to find the translation of that, so I do not think that I heard all of it. If there was an invite, I would be more than happy to take up that invitation and use it as an opportunity to highlight Belfast and Northern Ireland on the world stage.

Mr Lyons: The Irish FA is developing capital funding to modernise grassroots facilities on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) through the IFA DCMS grassroots facilities investment fund 2023-25. I welcome the recent announcement of a UK-wide £100 million funding package to upgrade grassroots sports facilities and pitches, of which £3 million is being made available to support projects in Northern Ireland and will be distributed in partnership with the IFA for 2025-26. However, I am aware that that fund will not meet the demand at that level of the game. My Department is working with the IFA to fully understand the need at grassroots level.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. As somebody who is heavily involved in youth, junior, intermediate and senior football right across my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of North Antrim, I ask the Minister when the call for applications from grassroots football will be opened. Does he share my belief about the importance and value of grassroots football?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I am more than happy to put on record my thanks to the Member for his many decades of service to football in Northern Ireland. I am aware of the importance of grassroots football, especially for young people, and the extent of it right across Northern Ireland. I am very keen to make sure that we move forward with the Northern Ireland football fund. I am pleased to be able to progress the grassroots element, because that is where so much of the work goes on and where so much of our talent is nurtured. I hope to be in a position soon to release details of when that grassroots call will go out. The Member will be aware that performance was the priority, but I want to make progress on all elements and look forward to doing that.

Mr Lyons: The Department provides funding on an annual basis to all local councils for community festivals through the community festivals fund. Community groups that wish to mark the occasion may be eligible to apply for support through their local council. I am continuing to explore other opportunities through my Department to support organisations that are participating in the semiquincentennial commemorations, and I will make further announcements in the near future.

Mr Gaston: First, I congratulate the Minister on his recent trip to the US to promote Northern Ireland. Minister, I think of villages such as Dervock and Cullybackey in my constituency that have proud links to previous American presidents, as well as Coagh in Mid Ulster, which has proud links to Vice President Vance. What type of community events will you seek to support moving forward to ensure that those links can be celebrated now and, indeed, as part of the semiquincentennial celebrations of the Declaration of Independence?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely; those presidents were Chester Arthur and William McKinley. I am keen to support celebrations that help to promote those links that exist between what is now Northern Ireland and the United States. I am keen to see those celebrations take place, because we should be very proud of the connections that we have and the fact that the spirit of those who left to go to the United States remains here today, and that is worth celebrating. I want to make sure that we continue to put that on the agenda of decision makers in the US, because it will have benefits for tourism and our economy. Those are the types of celebrations that I want to see. They can really stand out and show the US how the connections that we have can be beneficial on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr Brooks: When I was a Belfast city councillor, we were very proud of our links to our sister city, Nashville, Tennessee, which also happens to be the home of Andrew Jackson, to whom the Minister's constituency has strong links. Will the Minister therefore encourage our councils to get involved in that special celebration?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I encourage all our councils to get involved. I think that a number of them are doing that. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council obviously has links to Chester Arthur and Andrew Jackson. Clearly, the links that we have in Fermanagh and Omagh are told at the Ulster American Folk Park, about which I was delighted to make an announcement. I think that we should do that. The Administration officials and the commission officials in the States whom I spoke to were intrigued and interested by the fact that we want to commemorate that and to tell the stories of those who left Ulster to go to the States. Councils should be encouraged to do that as well. It should be not only a sense of pride for us in those who left here and did so well but an opportunity to continue to highlight those connections with the US.

Mr Buckley: I echo the comments and the congratulations to the Minister on his engagement with the US Administration on the huge historical and cultural links between Northern Ireland and the United States. Will the Minister agree that, quite often, the Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots connection has been lost or distorted in that narrative and history? With that in mind, and already banking on the progress made with the celebrations for the Declaration of Independence, will the Minister outline what sustained and prolonged engagement will look like to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland will have their history marked in such a fitting way?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. Most people in the States and elsewhere will be aware of the Famine and post-Famine emigration to the US, and the impact that some of those emigrants had, especially in New England and the north-east. If you were to go back 100 years previously, however, it was people from Ulster who really made the biggest impact with the signing of the Declaration of Independence and getting elected to Congress and the White House, and that is worth celebrating.

There is a responsibility on us to keep this going. We will have a memorandum of understanding for the semiquincentennial celebrations with the America250 commission. However, this should be a longer piece of work, where we are starting, through that celebration, to tell people about Northern Ireland and what this place is like, but we need to keep that going so that we can maximise the benefits that come with tourism, genealogy and sport tourism as well as wider investment — and, hopefully, more people seeing this as a place not just to visit but to study.

Mr Lyons: I had a busy programme, planned to enhance existing relationships and to establish long-term collaborations with a key partner for Northern Ireland. I was able to promote Northern Ireland at the very highest levels through a series of important engagements.

The semiquincentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 2026 is an event of global significance, and I want to ensure that Northern Ireland is ready to mark the occasion, and that our contribution, past and future, is recognised. The semiquincentennial commemorations formed a key aspect of my discussions with the America250 commission. I secured special status for Northern Ireland, recognising the deep historical and cultural ties shared with the United States for the major international event and celebration being held in June 2026. That will be underpinned by a memorandum of understanding.

I announced a first-time partnership with the Library of Congress, National Archives and other institutions in Washington to host an archive research placement from the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) to develop a collection of archive documents to help to uncover and tell the stories of our shared past.

I spoke at an event at the Smithsonian Institution entitled "Divided Communities: Difficult Histories", where I was able to tell a little bit more of that story, showcase the work of National Museums NI and announce funding for the Ulster American Folk Park.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. Indeed, he had a busy few days in Washington DC. I thank him for his personal interest in promoting our international connections with North America. What benefits can the memorandum of understanding bring to Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The memorandum of understanding is going to be important because it will set the framework for how the story of this place is told. I am pleased that there was a genuinely open door from the America250 commission, which was excited about the stories that we had to tell, and the possibilities that that created for Northern Ireland and the United States.

I see a number of benefits coming from that. First and foremost, it puts Northern Ireland on the map and up the agenda with regard to the celebrations next year. We now have a direct link to the commission. We will have an understanding with it about what we can provide, and how the story of people from here can be told. That is all-important because it allows us to tell people about Northern Ireland, and in telling people about Northern Ireland, we get more interest, and in getting more interest, more people will visit here and, we hope, study here and invest here. That is a very worthwhile piece of work.

Mr Chambers: Minister, when you were in Washington, did you recognise how important it is to create face-to-face relationships and build trust in order to eventually exploit more business opportunities?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. You have to show up and be in the room. I took some criticism for going there in October, but the fact that I was able to go at that time, make those initial connections and build on them over the past six months led to what we now have in place. That is important. It will produce dividends for Northern Ireland. In practical terms, we already have solid achievements that have come out of the engagements that we have had. That does not mean that you agree with everything that the current Administration might do. I visited Washington in the past, when Joe Biden was in office. I have visited now, when Donald Trump is in office. Regardless of who the occupant of the White House is, we turn up, show up and speak up for Northern Ireland. In doing that over the past year, we have achieved tangible delivery for Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I have to commend you, because you got told off on an earlier occasion for your answers being too long, but you are the first Minister to answer all 15 questions within your allotted time. You are to be congratulated for that. I will note this for other Ministers: group plenty of questions and keep your answers to the point so that more Members will actually get to ask questions and hear about things.

Mr Lyons: I can confirm that I will send the draft anti-poverty strategy to Executive colleagues today. I hope to see its impact as soon as possible, but, ultimately, that will depend on its getting Executive approval.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the Minister. Given the latest looming cuts that are coming from Westminster, is he confident that the strategy will be able to react and be adequately resourced to protect people here?

Mr Lyons: It is important that the strategy be flexible. Although different action plans will come out of it and can be refreshed, first and foremost, the strategy provides a framework for the way forward. It is right that we have that, but we need to be agile and make sure that we actually put measures in place that will make a difference.

Mr Lyons: The anti-poverty strategy will certainly deal with that. As I said, we will also bring forward a disability strategy and disability work strategy. I believe that there is a joined-up approach from the Executive on that matter, and I hope that it continues.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, given the Labour Party's recent policy direction, have you had to make any changes to the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: We were already operating in a difficult environment. Although we were not aware of some of the specific changes that were coming, the strategy has been drafted in such a way that means that we are dealing with the root causes of poverty and are not just looking at the benefit and welfare system, as important as that is. The strategy will tackle the root causes of poverty. We will adapt and change it through those action plans. It is about setting a framework; it will not be set in stone.

Mr Lyons: I think that that is the third topical question that the Member has asked and the third time that he has raised the issue, so I should have been prepared for that one. I do not have an update at this time, but I will furnish him with one as soon as I have it.

Mr McAleer: The Minister will understand that, apart from the fact that we do not have regeneration schemes at the moment, the criterion to have a population of fewer than 5,000 people is having a detrimental impact on rural towns and villages.

Is the Minister minded to take a look at that threshold?

Mr Lyons: It is something that I am happy to look at. The Member is not the first to raise the issue with me, and there are places in my constituency that fall into that category as well. The Member has been consistent and persistent on the issue, and I will keep it in mind.

Mr Lyons: It is something that is of concern to me. On Saturday evening a week ago, I had the opportunity to attend the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster arts gala, which was a fantastic example of what local arts organisations that operate outside Belfast, outside the other big cities and outside areas where there is infrastructure support can achieve. I have met the Arts Council, and I am looking at ways in which we can help grassroots arts projects, so I hope to make an announcement soon.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the references that he made to the type of activity to which I referred in my question. I suggest to the Minister that any review of existing community arts programmes or forward planning that may be put in place also include looking at the better utilisation of public spaces and facilities, such as local theatres and community halls.

Mr Lyons: I undertook a recent visit that was to do with the need for such spaces in order for the arts to thrive, so, yes, it is certainly on my agenda.

Mr Lyons: I met the Secretary of State recently, and I asked him about the contribution that the UK Government might make. He said that any contribution, if there is to be any at all, is not known at this time and that it will be June before he will be in a position to confirm whether any additional funding is available.

Miss Brogan: What next steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that Casement Park is delivered?

Mr Lyons: I stick by my commitment, which was the funding envelope of £62·5 million. I have asked for a meeting with Jarlath Burns, the president of the GAA, to update him and to find out the GAA's latest position. I believe that that meeting will take place in the next couple of weeks.

Mr Lyons: My focus is on promoting Northern Ireland and doing everything that we can to tell the stories of those who came from here, but I am happy to make sure that we tell the story of slavery, in particular how slavery ended in the British Empire and how the UK Parliament was one of the first to take action to make sure that it was ended.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Minister that it was slave revolts that ended slavery in the primary sense. Former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who toured this island and whose statute is in Belfast, stated:

Does the Minister agree that it is important to centre the voices and experiences of the black community in Ireland and America when there is talk about the Declaration of Independence anniversary?

Mr Lyons: We want to hear all perspectives, and I have no doubt that the America250 Commission will ensure that all stories are told. My focus, however, is on making sure that the story of people from here is told. That is a good-news story. The spirit of those who left here and all that they took with them contributed to what the United States is today, and that is something to be celebrated.

Mr Lyons: I can speak only for myself. I certainly do not feel that those relationships are damaged. They were given a task; they have carried out that task; and they have done it well. As was communicated to those groups by the previous Minister, that portion of their work has been completed. We now need to take the anti-poverty strategy to the Executive, and I look forward to hearing their response. I will then engage with those additional groups before we head out for public consultation.

Mr Gildernew: Members of the anti-poverty co-design group have publicly stated that, in their view, their time has been wasted and their participation in the co-design process has counted for nothing. Will you confirm whether any of the policies proposed by the co-design group have made it into the final draft of the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: Yes, they have. The work carried out by the group has been essential to the framing of the strategy and some of its policies. I am asking for a little more patience so that I can get the strategy to the Executive and, hopefully, get their agreement. I will speak to the group before the strategy goes out for public consultation. I certainly do not agree that their time has been wasted. It is appreciated, but there is a process that we are going through.

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that I am taking forward the anti-poverty strategy first because that has been a requirement on us since 1998, and there has not been the required level of work or publication. That is being taken forward. Work on the disability strategy is progressing, and further work will be carried out in due course on the additional strategies.

Ms Ennis: The expert panel reported on the sexual orientation strategy in March 2021. Why has the Minister not taken that strategy forward for consideration by his Executive colleagues?

Mr Lyons: Because there is additional work to do on that strategy, including taking it through a cross-departmental working group that will be established. I have limited resources and a small team. I have prioritised the anti-poverty strategy — rightly, I believe — because it has taken so long, and I look forward to that work being taken forward soon.

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that there are still a few issues with that project that need to be ironed out. It has been delayed, which is a source of frustration to many of those involved. We have waited decades for the project to progress. I am determined to make sure that it will progress, and the Member will be aware of some of the discussions with stakeholders that are taking place. I am certainly doing everything that I can to make sure that the project progresses.

Mr Chambers: Is the Minister concerned that the reported changes in the make-up of the construction consortium that is delivering the project will impact on the commencement date, which was previously reported as being the end of April?

Mr Lyons: Nothing has been on my desk that makes me think that the changes to which the Member refers are a matter of concern. I want to make sure that the outstanding issues are dealt with as soon as possible so that we can start construction. As I said, the good people of Bangor have been waiting for too long.

Mr Lyons: They will primarily be identified on the basis of need, because we spend far too much money on non-standard temporary accommodation: £12 million in the last financial year compared with just £600,000 a few years before that. This will save money overall. It is a good use of resources; it is an investment; and it will save us up to £75 million over seven years. We want to maximise that saving, which is why the purchases will primarily be targeted in the areas of greatest need.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for your answer. Will the money that is saved be reinvested in housing? Does the Housing Executive have a threshold for the cost of the houses? Was any direction given on that?

Mr Lyons: No direction has been given, but it will have to meet value-for-money conditions as well. I have every confidence that the Housing Executive will ensure that that is the case.

I am sorry; the Member had another question at the start. No? Hopefully, I have answered the Member's question, but, if I have missed anything, I can get back to her.

Mr Speaker: That exhausts all the questions to the Minister. That concluded within time. To use an American term, since we have been talking about America a lot, that was a slam dunk.

Members should take their ease for a moment before the next item of business. The Deputy Speaker will assume the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We return to the motion. The Question was put before Question Time, but there was insufficient time for a Division. I will therefore commence the process again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item in the Order Paper is a motion on early access to state pension for terminally ill people. [Interruption.]

Members, quiet please. We have started the next item of business. If you are leaving the Chamber, please do so with a degree of decorum and silence. We will start again. I apologise.

Mrs Dillon: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for being here. The motion has a straightforward ask, which is that our Communities Minister supports the campaign that Marie Curie has led to ask the British Government to legislate to allow those with terminal diagnoses to have early access to their state pension. The motion speaks to the heart of compassion and dignity for people who have been given a terminal diagnosis. Earlier, upstairs in room 115, Marie Curie held an event with pharmacists to discuss "daffodil standards" for pharmacy, which relate to palliative care patients. If our community pharmacists, GPs and front-line workers can give those who are potentially in the last months of life some dignity and look after them, the least that we can expect from the British Government is to do likewise.

People with terminal illness and their families should not be forced to endure the added burden of financial hardship as they approach the end of their lives. The system needs to support them, not abandon them. Across these islands, we like to think of ourselves as a compassionate society that cares for people in their final days, but, right now, the reality is far from that. People who have worked all their lives, paid into the system, raised families and paid taxes are being told that, despite facing a terminal diagnosis, they must wait until pension age to access the very support that they have contributed to. That is indefensible and is why we are proposing the motion today.

Marie Curie's recent report 'Dying in Poverty' paints a harrowing picture. It reveals that, every year, about 2,500 people across the North die in poverty, with one in four terminally ill people of working age dying below the poverty line. Behind those numbers are human beings — mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children — who should spend their final months surrounded by family, not worrying about how to heat their homes or put food on the table.

Let me be clear: it is a political choice. If the British Government can find billions for bombs and weapons, they can find the relatively small amount needed to ensure that terminally ill people do not die in poverty but can access the pension that they have worked for all their life. Marie Curie has shown that allowing terminally ill people early access to the state pension would cost just 0·1% of the state pension budget; in other words, it is entirely affordable. Not only is it affordable, but it is happening elsewhere. Similar schemes exist in France, Germany and Italy, and, in the rest of Ireland, a disability pension can be accessed. Those Governments recognise that people at the end of life should not be punished by bureaucracy but protected by it. For that reason, the motion asks the Communities Minister to engage directly with the British Government to support the Marie Curie campaign. At a time when the British Government are attacking access to benefits for those who are sick and disabled, we need them to take the lead on the issue. We cannot excuse inaction, and it must not prevent us from raising our voices and advocating change.

I acknowledge the important work of my colleague, former Minister for Communities Deirdre Hargey, who took decisive action during her time in office to extend access to the personal independence payment (PIP) for people diagnosed with a terminal illness. That significant and compassionate intervention made a real difference in people's lives. We need to build on the foundations laid by Deirdre. Her work showed what is possible when a Government put people first. It is our responsibility to continue that work and to go further in ensuring that terminally ill people are treated with dignity and have the financial security that they deserve right to the end.

As the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, we talk about the right to live, but we must also talk about the "right to die with dignity". That dignity is found not in spreadsheets or statistics but in how we treat people when they are at their most vulnerable. It is in whether we choose to stand by them or turn away, and, right now, too many are being failed by a British Government who have little in the way of a moral and compassionate approach to people anywhere across these islands. The Health Committee inquiry into palliative care has already highlighted significant gaps between the policy approach to palliative care in the Twenty-six Counties and the lack of policy, strategy and funding for people with palliative care and end-of-life needs in the North.

The British Government have an opportunity to narrow the poverty gap for people at the end of life. Today, I call on the Minister for Communities to engage directly with the Department for Work and Pensions to press the British Government to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes to allow early access to the state pension for those with a terminal diagnosis. We must speak with one voice in support of those who are too often unheard. It is about doing what is right: ensuring that we look after those with a terminal diagnosis, their families and the people whom they love. It is about ensuring that people spend their final months not in stress, fear and poverty but in peace, dignity and security.

Let us call on the British Government to show real compassion and act on that compassion. I urge the Minister to take that message directly to the British Government. I acknowledge that it is not something that you are able to do within your budget, which is why Marie Curie is carrying out its campaign across these islands and has brought it to Westminster. I ask you, Minister, to do the same.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice, I remind you that you have five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to improving care and support for those with a terminal illness. Our parliamentarians have supported a change in the law to allow those with a life expectancy of up to 12 months to get faster and easier access to certain benefits and pensions.

Marie Curie commissioned Loughborough University to conduct research that found that giving working-age terminally ill people access to their state pension could almost halve the rate of poverty in that cohort, lifting more than 8,600 people a year out of poverty at the end of their life. We recognise that the previous Government outlined the logistical challenges that would be involved with the differences between working age and pensionable benefits along with contribution records. That said, if we can do anything to reduce the burden and stress that people face at the end of their life, we must explore the available options.

Research has shown that working-age people who live with a terminal illness are a third more likely than any other working-age people to live in poverty. Many people with a terminal illness have a higher energy bill, as they try to keep warm and, at the same time, use medical equipment. We have all seen the cost of energy rise, but for the terminally ill, those rises make their situation even bleaker. Following a diagnosis of some conditions, such as motor neurone disease, a person's energy bill can rise by as much as 75%, meaning that terminally ill people are vulnerable to fuel poverty. People who are facing the end of their life should not be struggling to heat their homes or run vital medical equipment.

The state pension is a safeguard in our welfare system against poverty. By extending that safeguard to terminally ill people of working age, we can prevent thousands of people dying in poverty. We believe that the Executive should work with the Westminster Government to ensure that the social security system adequately supports people with a terminal illness, ensuring dignity in their final months. That is the very least that we can do.

Ms Mulholland: The reality is that, for far too many people in Northern Ireland who are diagnosed with a terminal illness before they reach pension age, not just the emotional burden of dying but the financial burden of dying in poverty are difficult. It affects not just them. It affects their families, their unpaid carers, their partners, their siblings and their children. It affects the people who are left behind with not just grief but debt and no safety net. For the families of those who are at the end of life, it is not about making ends meet but about making it to the end without fear, shame and hardship.

A few weeks ago, a woman came into one of my constituency surgeries. Her husband had recently died. He was just 45 years old. He had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and wanted to spend his final few days at home surrounded by his family and friends. When she spoke to me, what she remembered most clearly was not the last hug, the final conversation or even the goodbye, it was the bills. She said to me, "We were prepared for the grief. We were not prepared for the cost". They were not deciding how to live well in those final, precious months; they were deciding whether to stay warm or to have dinner. She told me that there were nights when she genuinely wondered whether it would be better for him to be in the hospital, which would be clinical and unfamiliar but at least warm and lit, or at home, surrounded by love but sitting in the cold and dark. What a choice.

Many of us in the Chamber are uncomfortable with reducing people to statistics, especially and rightly so when we talk about our friends or members of our community who are terminally ill, but we have to face what the data is telling us. In 2023, we had 800 working-age people in Northern Ireland die in poverty, which is nearly one in four. It is getting worse. Since 2019, the proportion of people who are dying in poverty has increased by almost 7%.

Then there is fuel poverty. In 2022, again, the figure for people who were living in fuel poverty was nearly one in four. We know what that looks like. It means that there are people who are often housebound, in pain and using electricity-dependent medical equipment while being unable to stay warm. Their illness increases their need for heat but also wipes out their income. It is a vicious cycle and a cruel one at that. The ways that we pay for heat in Northern Ireland make it worse, with 47% of homes being on electricity prepayment meters and 69% using prepayable gas. That means that, if you cannot afford a top-up, you go without. It is as simple as that, and that is brutal. Self-disconnection is so real. People are living and dying in cold, dark homes not because they want to but because our system does not protect them. That has consequences. Cold homes make pain worse, increase the risk of infections, affect people's mental health and, in the worst cases, hasten death. If people had the dignity and support to die at home, warm and cared for, we would not be asking the NHS to pick up the costs of a crisis that we could have prevented.

That is what brings us to the motion. We support the motion, which is on something that is so simple and fair, and we thank the Member for proposing it.

We ask that working-age people who are terminally ill be allowed to access their state pension early, by which we mean not months down the line or after endless form-filling and delays but immediately, when they are told that they are dying.

If we could provide financial security when it is needed most, if we could allow families to focus on caring instead of on coping and if we could focus on ending the injustice of people dying in poverty simply because they become ill before they reach a certain age, would that not be something?

We are aware that social security is devolved and that Northern Ireland follows the principle of parity with Westminster, sometimes frustratingly. That is why we call on the Minister to engage directly with the Department for Work and Pensions to push for those changes, which are so greatly needed. Marie Curie's most recent report, to which Mrs Dillon referred, confirms what we already know about the reality: poverty at the end of life is more common now than it was in 2019, while fuel poverty is even more common. Those who are most likely to die in poverty are disabled, female, from a minoritised ethnic background or living in insecure housing.

Working-age benefits are already falling short. If the Labour Government proceed with the cuts that they have outlined, terminally ill people could be even more exposed. We know that we have strategies coming. We are waiting on the anti-poverty strategy and on the fuel poverty strategy, both of which are long overdue, but they cannot ignore the people who are dying. Their needs are urgent and their time is limited, and, too often, they are invisible in policy conversations.

Let us be clear: working people who are dying should not be penalised just because they get sick before they reach pension age. It is a matter of compassion. We say clearly that we will not look away. We believe in dignity in death. We support the motion.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion and the Minister for coming to listen to and respond to the debate.

When someone receives the devastating news that their life is going to be cut short because of illness, their focus should be on spending precious, quality time with their loved ones making memories, not on financial anxiety. As things stand, however, many terminally ill people in Northern Ireland face unnecessary hardship in their final months. They are forced to work through a complex benefits system while coping with the physical and emotional toll of their condition.

We in the Ulster Unionist Party believe that a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. By that measure, we must do better. That is why we support the motion, which seeks to provide terminally ill individuals with early access to their state pension. It is a simple, dignified solution to alleviate financial distress at the most difficult time imaginable. Those who have worked hard and paid into the state pension throughout their working life should not be denied the security of that support when they need it most. It is not a handout but an acceleration of an earned entitlement, allowing individuals to face their final days with one less burden. A terminal diagnosis brings with it immediate financial pressures, from medical costs to making memories with family, and early access to the state pension could provide a more stable and substantial form of financial support than discretionary payments alone.

Members, politics often divides, but there are moments when we must rise above partisan lines and act in the interests of the common good. Today is one of those moments. No one in the Chamber would wish to see their loved ones, or indeed themselves, spend their final months worrying about bills instead of cherishing time with their family. We must therefore urge the UK Government to listen, act and make that change. We encourage the Minister for Communities to play a proactive role in advocating it. It is not about party politics but about doing what is right.

Mr Durkan: We in the SDLP are entirely sympathetic to the motion's aims and will support it. Of course those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness should have financial security and dignity in their final months. In the Chamber, I have frequently called for more action from the Executive to help people who are living in poverty, so the least that we can do is unite to prevent people from dying in poverty.

There is lots of evidence that we have lots of people dying in poverty, particularly fuel poverty, here in the North. That is according to the research that Marie Curie has provided to us. I commend Marie Curie on its work, not just that piece of work but all the work that it does. Ms Dillon referred to the Marie Curie presentation up the stairs earlier. That is yet another string to that organisation's bow.

We have the highest rate of people dying in poverty while they have a terminal illness of any region across the UK. Across these islands, one in six people spends their last months, weeks and days on an income that is below the poverty line. Here, as we have heard, the proportion is over one in four. Ms Mulholland largely focused her comments on fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is particularly acute at the end of life, and terminal illness can lead to much higher energy usage to keep people's homes warm and comfortable. Our reliance on heating oil exacerbates that issue. Women who have a terminal illness are more likely than men to die in poverty, and so are ethnic minorities. Marie Curie has recommended that the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator ensures that its review of codes of practice on prepayment meters and payment of bills provides adequate protections for households that include people living and dying with a terminal illness.

The UK Government have brought in legislation that extends access to benefits for the terminally ill from six months to 12 months, and we, on a cross-party basis, have supported those changes. Linda Dillon, correctly referred to the good work that was done here in the previous mandate, which was led by her party colleague, as Minister.

Some of us argue that we should be making more, if not all, of these decisions here, but the policy of the majority in this place is to support parity with Westminster. I understand why, but parity should not mean "parrot-ry", and this is one area where we possibly could and should explore how much it would cost and how much is to be gained by our doing something for people here. All the motion does is ask us to lobby the UK Government to make these changes. That is a Government who have abolished the winter fuel payment for pensioners who are not on benefits and whose Chancellor talked recently, and scarily, about even more benefit cuts, not increases, in the spring statement. I am not sure how much these changes would cost or how the logistics of having a mitigation package in place would work, but I am very interested in seeing those details. There is quite a bit of detail in the Marie Curie paper, but I have not seen Northern Ireland specifics. I have some slight concerns about unintended consequences. How would the changes impact on people's eligibility for other benefits and support? Again, that is something that we must work through to ensure that they do not unintentionally disadvantage the terminally ill, whom we are trying to help out of poverty, or anyone in their households. Too often, we see that what is given with one hand is taken away with the other.

The SDLP supports the motion, but, given that the party that tabled the motion includes the First Minister and the Minister of Finance, we would have liked to have seen a clearer, costed policy. Maybe DFC can have a look at that rather just asking Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer to do the right thing, because it has become painfully evident that none of us can rely on them to do that.

Miss Brogan: The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, so I hope that today's motion will pass without objection. The measures in the motion would provide support and comfort to those who are dealing with the crippling physical and psychological effects of a devastating diagnosis; financially assist families that are grappling with the increased costs of preparing a home for the care of a loved one; and allow for some quality-of-life improvements for those who are at the end of their lives. Those reasons alone are enough to support the motion; its measures are, quite simply, the right thing to do. They can also be done at relatively little cost to the public purse.

It is important that we consider what exactly a pension is. It is not a reward that you get for reaching a certain age. It is a pot that you have been paying into your whole working life so that you have a social safety net as you near the end of your life and find yourself less capable of working. That is precisely the situation that terminally ill people find themselves in.

The shameful reality is that we have relatively few supports for those who find themselves with a terminal illness and that the supports that are available are either insufficient or subject to a 12-month diagnosis. According to Marie Curie, people with a terminal illness under the age of 66 are twice as likely to die in poverty. Two thirds of those with a terminal illness rely on benefits as their main source of income. That is another reason why we need an anti-poverty strategy. I urge the Communities Minister to bring a fit-for-purpose anti-poverty strategy to the Executive as a matter of urgency.

It is clear that we, as a society, are not doing enough to ensure that those who receive those devastating medical diagnoses can see out the final part of their life with some measure of comfort and dignity. Allowing them access to their pension — a pension that they have already earned — would go some way to correcting that shameful oversight. Setting aside the fact that it is, essentially, their own money, it could be done with relatively little additional strain on the public purse. We are talking about a small number of people. As the motion states, it should be provided by the British Government. Their legacy of chronic underfunding for generations here, coupled with two decades of ongoing austerity, has left the Budget here incapable of taking on even that modest additional burden.

With the political will and some basic compassion, the actions that the motion calls for could quickly become a reality. I support the motion and urge others to do the same.

Ms K Armstrong: I rise today, as all others have done, in support of the campaign led by Marie Curie to grant early access to state pension for those who are terminally ill. It is a matter not just of policy but of dignity, fairness and compassion. Right now, the law does not recognise the cruel reality that terminally ill people face. Many have worked their entire life, contributed to our economy and paid into the system, only to be denied the financial support that they need in their final months. As it stands, the state pension age remains rigid, forcing people with a terminal diagnosis to navigate complex welfare systems, rather than spending precious time with their loved ones. Some have to work right up to the very end in order to save for their family. Imagine the impact of being told that you have an illness that will end your life and that you will be leaving behind your partner, children and wider family and then carrying the burden and guilt of knowing that you will cost that family a fortune, and you have no way of helping with that. While the special rules for terminal illness have been reformed to allow faster access to some benefits, the reforms do not go far enough. Marie Curie's campaign is clear: those who have contributed to the system should not be denied their pension simply because they will not live long enough to reach retirement age.

When the issue was discussed in the House of Commons, mention was made of the research from Loughborough University, which highlights the fact that giving working-age terminally ill people access to their state pension could vastly reduce poverty. It is right that we in the Assembly add our voice to that call. We must urge the UK Government to amend pension legislation to allow terminally ill individuals to access their state pension early, just as they would if they were to live to retirement age. If we can make exceptions for early access to private pensions, we must extend the same compassion to our public system. As others have said, societies are judged by how they treat those in their most vulnerable moments. It is time for government to act: to remove unnecessary barriers and ensure that terminally ill people receive what is rightfully theirs. I hope that we will all stand with Marie Curie and those affected by that injustice. I urge the Minister for Communities to write to Westminster to confirm that the entire Assembly supports reform and asks for immediate action.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to today's motion. I have listened intently as colleagues have set out the key issues and challenges faced by those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. I am sure that we are all familiar with those challenges. I thank everyone who contributed for the tone of the debate. It is an issue that touches so many lives. Like my colleagues here today, I am committed to standing with those facing a terminal illness. A terminal illness diagnosis should not be compounded by financial hardship, and we must ensure that those facing their most difficult moments receive the dignity and support that they deserve.

I assure Members that I recognise the challenges faced by individuals who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and the increased need for financial security at that time. Therefore, I take the opportunity to highlight to Members some of the mechanisms that are in place in my Department so that we can do what we can to help provide financial support to those who need it most. My Department supports people nearing the end of life through special benefit rules. Those enable people to get faster, easier access to certain benefits without needing to attend a medical assessment or serve waiting periods, and, it most cases, it enables them to receive the highest rate of benefit.

The special rules for end of life apply to three key working-age benefits that support people with health conditions or disabilities: personal independence payment, universal credit (UC) and employment and support allowance (ESA) The special rules apply to people who have been diagnosed as having 12 months or less to live. That approach ensures that clinicians have discretion but are supported by a realistic and straightforward definition that is consistent with current NHS practice. The 12-month eligibility criteria broaden access to benefits, and, under the special rules, all eligible benefit claims are paid as fast as possible. Entitlements to those benefits can, in turn, lead to further support, some of which includes assistance with housing costs or mortgage interest, access to discretionary support, help with healthcare and travel costs, cold weather support and access to the blue badge parking and mobility schemes.

I am also aware that there can be a financial impact on family members and carers when there has been a terminal illness diagnosis. Therefore, I remind Members of the additional support available to assist those who provide the much-needed care for their loved ones. Carer's allowance, ESA care premium, UC care credit, carer's credit and, if the time comes when they are needed, bereavement support payments and funeral expense payments are there to assist with the financial burdens incurred by family members. It is important to highlight the role that the Make the Call service can play when supporting anyone who is in need of financial assistance. Through that service, which is available only in Northern Ireland, assessors from my Department will carry out a needs assessment that is based on individual personal circumstances, look at which benefits, supports and services may be available and signpost how to claim. Last year, Make the Call helped almost 11,000 people to get an additional £50 million in benefits and supports, with an average additional £88 a week.

Whilst I take pride in standing here today to champion the work that the Department undertakes to support those most in need, I recognise that it is important that we continue to explore what more can be done for the most vulnerable individuals. Therefore, I will give a commitment to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions on behalf of those diagnosed with a terminal illness in order to encourage the introduction of additional measures, such as those outlined today, to ensure that we have financial security and dignity for people in their final months. Finally, I assure Members that I will continue to advocate greater support and a system that truly meets the needs of those who are most vulnerable.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Colm Gildernew. Colm, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Gildernew: I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate today and has indicated support for our motion. I also thank Marie Curie, who have been in the Building today, for raising the issue with us and for the fantastic work that they do in supporting families through terminal illnesses. I worked closely with Marie Curie during its campaign on benefits, some of which the Minister outlined.

Receiving a terminal diagnosis is one of the most difficult things that any person can go through. It creates huge strain and worry not only for the individuals but for their families. People with terminal illnesses, in the knowledge that their time is limited, will often seek to make the most of the time that they have left by spending it doing things that they enjoy and with the people whom they love.

Inevitably, though, people with a terminal illness will also think about what their passing is going to mean for the friends, family and loved ones whom they are leaving behind.

As we know, the death of a loved one can place a huge financial strain on a family, particularly if the person who has passed on was the chief breadwinner. It is clear that people who are ill have significant additional costs that can cover any amount of issues. Some of that has been touched on already. As political activists, we should always seek to do the right thing for families who are struggling to come to terms with the trauma of a terminal illness. That includes ensuring that they have the comfort of financial security. It is humane and just that those facing such circumstances be given the right to access their pension early, thus ensuring that they have dignity, comfort and peace of mind in their final days. By allowing early pension access, we offer individuals the ability to cover essential medical costs, secure quality end-of-life care and support their family financially. It should also be remembered that, often, people who are at end of life have not reached pension age and still have a mortgage. That can be an additional worry and expense.

To allow people with a terminal illness to make the most of their remaining time, be that through fulfilling a lifelong dream, creating lasting memories with loved ones or simply ensuring that their affairs are in order, we should ensure that they have access to their own money. This is not about financial generosity; it is about respecting an individual's right to access their own money and make their own choices at the end of their life. Other countries, such as France and Germany, have already recognised that need and have implemented policies that allow terminally ill individuals to access their pensions without unnecessary obstacles. While pensions are technically a devolved matter, we appreciate that it is an area where the convention is that parity with other jurisdictions is maintained. Therefore, the motion is directed at the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and asks her to consider changing the law, and asks our Minister to facilitate the change locally.

People who are facing terminal illness deserve the right to access their own hard-earned pensions when they need them most. We have heard from Sian and Kellie about some of the real, practical impacts that people face at such a time, and Colin Crawford mentioned the fact that people are often forced to navigate difficult financial systems. I welcome the Minister's commitment to stand with people and to engage with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see what can be done in this respect. Let us stand for dignity, humanity and the right to live one's final days without unnecessary financial distress.