Official Report: Tuesday 01 April 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I take this opportunity to remind Members that interventions are not permitted and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Boylan: As chair of the all-party group (APG) on autism, I mark the beginning of World Autism Month today and the eighteenth annual World Autism Awareness Day tomorrow. The aim of the month and the day is to focus on sharing stories and providing opportunities to increase understanding and acceptance of people with autism by fostering worldwide support. As chair of the APG, I commend and put on record my thanks to the individuals with lived experience of autism, the groups that we meet that advocate for people with autism and, in particular, Autism NI for the work that it does in ensuring that there is increased understanding of the challenges and opportunities that autism presents.

There has been progress in recent years on autism services. The appointment of the independent autism reviewer ensures that monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the autism strategy and reviewing the adequacy of the services that are provided to autistic people, their families and carers across Departments, public bodies and the health and social care sector are front and centre. However, the real-life stories that we as MLAs hear and the engagement that we as an APG have had highlight the fact that there is much more to be done.

The recent 'Spotlight' programme 'I Am Not Okay' put a focus on the need to support young people with autism and their families. Parents should not have to broadcast their everyday lived experience in a bid to get help. Moreover, statistics show that only 21·7 % of autistic people are in employment, despite autistic people having the ability, skills and will to be employed. In that regard, I commend Caleb's Cause NI and others that continue to push for post-19 services.

The issues facing people with autism and their families are cross-cutting. As chair of the APG, I will continue to implore the Health, Education and Economy Ministers to work together to develop supports, create opportunities and increase awareness of autism. As a society, we all must do more in relation to autism services and the inclusion of people with autism in everyday life.

Mrs Dodds: I want to comment on the latest developments in the legislative process for the assisted suicide Bill at Westminster. Before I do so, I want to make it absolutely clear that the DUP is a pro-life party and finds the Bill abhorrent in all its proposals.

Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of the Bill, has been forced, against her wishes, to table an amendment to extend the implementation period for the Bill to four years, and that could extend the period until after the next general election. The BBC has reported that the Government have concerns about the timelines for the implementation of the Bill. I trust that people will grasp that that demonstrates not only the chaos around the Bill but the magnitude of the issues that are at stake and the changes proposed at Committee Stage.

The Labour MP Jess Asato said:

Bradford West Labour MP, Naz Shah, who was originally supportive of the Bill and served on the Committee scrutinising the Bill, stated this week that the legislation was "fundamentally flawed". The witness list at Committee was 4:1 in favour of the Bill's supporters. Nine lawyers were invited, none of whom opposed the Bill, and eight witnesses from other jurisdictions were all supportive.

The changes proposed at Committee to what MPs voted on are highly significant. They include the removal of the High Court judge safeguard; meeting a palliative care specialist in the decision-making process was simply dismissed from the Bill; and there is a potential for change to the National Health Service Act 1946, which would change the life-affirming duties to the commissioning of death services within the NHS. The protection for vulnerable groups, such as people with learning disabilities or Down's syndrome, has been rejected. Doctors, including doctors in hospices, would be expected to include voluntary assisted dying when outlining treatment options. Hospices would be tied to operating the legislation and could not opt out on conscience grounds. Those are all the changes that have been made to the Bill.

Concerns that feeling a burden on others could be a motivation for assisted suicide were ignored —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — and coercion remains a significant risk. That is a significant change to the way that we view life in the United Kingdom, —
,

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — and I continue to urge people to urge their MPs to vote against the Bill.

Mr McReynolds: I rise to highlight major ongoing and systemic issues in the planning system, which I have raised repeatedly as a member of the Committee for Infrastructure.

When the Assembly, thankfully, returned last year, one of the first motions was on the planning system. Sadly, more than a year later, we are no further on, and it is three years since a 2022 Northern Ireland Audit Office report concluded that the planning system was:

That is holding back investment by local businesses, and will hold us back from meeting our climate targets through encouraging more investment in low-carbon electricity supply and developing EV charging infrastructure.

At the same time, as with everything that happens in Northern Ireland, the world keeps turning without us. The UK Government have made planning reform central to their growth agenda, with forecasts suggesting that proposals will deliver 170,000 homes by 2029-2030, and grow the economy by £6·5 billion through job creation and economic growth.

Businesses have told me personally, as I have said at the Committee, that if it was a choice between here, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, we would not win the battle to attract investment because we are simply taking too long in comparison with other places.

At the same time, housebuilders cannot even get a connection to waste water infrastructure because we have allowed Northern Ireland Water to get into the state that it is in due to our outdated approach to funding water infrastructure. We then react in shock, in this place, that underfunding it for years has led to there being human faeces in Belfast lough and on our roads, as shown in last year's 'Spotlight' programme. When the planning statistics for the third quarter came out a few days ago, I did not have much hope, and I was not surprised when I saw that local applications take nearly five months to process and that major ones take closer to 10 months. My experience is that seeking basic road licence instructions has taken almost three years this month and is still ongoing. Report after report after report stack up saying the same things, but nothing seems to change.

I have said it before: the Infrastructure portfolio is not sexy and will not get headlines. However, it is fundamental to what we seek to achieve in the Programme for Government: build more homes, create more jobs and tackle the climate crisis. It needs to start being taken seriously in the Department, because talking shops, working groups and presentations are not correcting the basic issues with our planning system.

Alliance believes that we need to see a fully resourced system; planners triaging applications and then being accountable to meeting deadlines from the date that the application was accepted; prioritisation of economic and green energy applications so that they do not get logjammed in the system for simply far too long; and empowerment of planners to actually take decisions rather than endlessly and repeatedly consulting and re-consulting. The time for talking is over, and the time to act is now.

Dr Aiken: Before I start, I make a declaration of interest as an ex-chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce.

Members, 1 April is supposedly a day of humour, but it is no joke when Donald Trump says that he is going to call tomorrow "independence day" and impose swingeing tariffs — some between 20% and 25% — on international and global trade.

Many of us here support the existence of a good economy across this island. We do not wish to see the economy of the Irish Republic being severely damaged. However, there is no doubting the potential for the Irish Republic's trade with the United States to halve and for its tax revenue to decrease significantly. We in this Chamber know the impact of the Windsor framework and the divergence of trade that it has caused. It has probably cost hundreds of millions, but nobody has yet come up with the real cost of the challenges of the Windsor framework. Now, we are looking at another set of challenges on this island: significant problems with tariffs and the way in which the Irish Republic's economy will be able to deal with them.

As a unionist, I take no joy in seeing what is likely to happen. I would take no joy in there being a transatlantic trade war. I do not believe that it would be to the benefit of these islands, Europe or the United States to become involved in a trade war starting tomorrow. The uncertainty, on top of everything else including the war in Ukraine and the conflicts in the Middle East, means that we are now at an inflexion point, and anything that we do should support our economy and our output to be able to do what is best for all our people.

We will have real concerns in the days and weeks ahead. I encourage Ministers across the Executive, particularly the Finance and Economy Ministers, to focus in on the real challenges that are about to develop. We need to make sure that Northern Ireland is not left out. We cannot be in a situation where, in a tariff war, Northern Ireland comes out worse. We are already in the worst of both worlds, thanks to the Windsor framework. I do not want our situation to become even more difficult in what is likely to be a transatlantic trade war.

Mrs Mason: I rise to congratulate Castlewellan's very own Donagh Keary, who put south Down on the international platform by claiming victory on his boxing debut at Madison Square Garden on St Patrick's Day. Boxing legends like Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson and Sugar Ray Robinson displayed their greatest on the grandest stages. It is only right that local legend, Donagh, follows in the footsteps of those boxing giants. After four hard-fought rounds, the judges ruled that Keary had outboxed his opponent, securing a really impressive win.

Donagh began his boxing career at just six years of age, having fallen in love with the sport at his first training session. Donagh went on to win his first Irish title at the age of just 14. He has set goals for himself every step of the way — goals that he continues to smash. He has setbacks, but he comes back from them bigger and better.

Donagh serves as an inspiration to aspiring young sportspeople not just in South Down but across Ireland. His hard work, graft and determination to hone his craft and elevate his skills to an international level is a testament to his family, his friends and the local organisations that helped build the foundations for him to thrive. I congratulate Donagh and wish him every success on his professional journey. I look forward to congratulating him on many more successes in the future. Comhghairdeas.

Mr K Buchanan: While many important issues are discussed in this place, there is a pressing issue that affects our environment and our communities: littering and fly-tipping. The charity Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful is inspiring people to create a cleaner, greener and more sustainable community. Through behavioural change campaigns and education on local, national and global environmental issues, we are improving the quality of people's lives, the places in which they live and the places that they love.

Despite efforts to keep our streets clean, litter remains a significant problem. The most common types of litter include cigarette-related waste, confectionery wrappers, drinks containers and hot food containers. The total average spend on street cleansing in Northern Ireland in 2014-15 was £40 million. At a local level, I try to instil in a group of young people in my community the need to take their rubbish home. I bring them out to do litter picks along the country roads that surround my area.

Litter not only mars the beauty of our landscape but poses serious environmental hazards. It can block drains, pollute rivers and eventually end up in the sea, harming marine life. Broken glass and other hazardous waste can cause injuries to people and animals. Cleaning up litter is costly. Councils and volunteers spend significant resources on litter collection and disposal. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 has extended enforcement powers to councils that allow them to take action against businesses and individuals who contribute to littering. I have therefore written to councils to ask how many fines are issued each year and how much is spent on cleaning up litter and fly-tipped waste.

Some people, of all ages, seem to disregard totally the place in which they live. Throwing litter out of the car window or on to the street is a disgusting attitude to have. Littering and fly-tipping also affects the quality of life in our communities, making public spaces less enjoyable and safe. Littering and fly-tipping is a problem that requires a collective effort. By taking responsibility and making conscious choices, we can reduce litter and protect our environment. Let us work together to keep Northern Ireland beautiful and to ensure a cleaner, healthier future for all.

Ms K Armstrong: The Climate Change Committee's recent report states that electric technologies will benefit Northern Ireland, which underscores the necessity for Northern Ireland to transition its homes to low-carbon solutions and aim for a 77% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2042.

In order to replace inefficient fossil fuel systems, I call on the Executive to commit to implementing the Climate Change Committee's specific recommendations to support households in transition to low-carbon energy. Northern Ireland is falling behind the rest of the UK and Ireland because we do not have a clear approach to helping transition our homes. Achieving those goals will necessitate a collaborative approach that integrates policy reforms, financial investment and community engagement. I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has committed £14 million to the energy efficiency measures and renewable technologies that will be retrofitted in over 300 homes by spring of 2025. That type of initiative will not only reduce carbon emissions but address fuel poverty by lowering household energy bills.

We can catch up by taking a systematic approach to transitioning to low energy. To do that, our electric network needs to be ready to deliver the main source of energy across Northern Ireland, replacing our dependency on oil, particularly in rural areas. We need to take an area-based approach, focus the transition and ensure best value for money for the public purse in order to give the construction industry confidence that there is a work pipeline for them. That will bring many companies back to Northern Ireland and generate a growth in skills in the retrofitting and new technologies that we need. By embracing those solutions, we can transition Northern Ireland's housing sector to a sustainable, low-carbon future, ensuring environmental stewardship and economic resilience for generations to come.

Mr Kearney: Meastar go mbíonn 3·7 billiún duine ag amharc ar spóirt ar fud an domhain gach seachtain. Úsáideann lucht leanúna spóirt taispeántais ildaite le tacú lena bhfoirne, agus úsáideann cuid acu na taispeántais chéanna le dlúthpháirtíocht a léiriú le feachtais éagsúla. Is amhlaidh an scéal in Éirinn agus ár gcluichí á n-imirt. Ardaíonn lucht leanúna spóirt bratacha gach seachtain beag beann ar an fhoireann a bhfuil ag tacú leo. Tapóidh lucht leanúna Chumann Lúthchleas Gael an deis leis an chúis sin a chur chun tosaigh, cúis atá Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Spóirt ar son Forbartha agus Síochána a cheiliúradh. Le déanaí, bhí Gaeil ar son Gaza ar thús cadhnaíochta, agus iad ag reáchtáil agóidí, bigilí agus cluichí carthanachta ar son mhuintir na Palaistíne atá faoi leatrom. Ar na mallaibh bunaíodh Cumann Lúthchleas Gael na Palaistíne in Ramallah. Ar chuid geansaithe an chumainn tá suaitheantais a bhaineann le cearta an duine a chur chun cinn. Is dea-shampla é sin den dóigh ar féidir le spóirt an tsíocháin a chur chun cinn. Mar sin, go n-éirí libh, a Chumann Lúthchleas Gael na Palaistíne, agus gura fada buan an dlúthpháirtíocht idirnáisiúnta.

Mr Dunne: I rise to mark a special anniversary for the Ards and North Down Street Pastors on 10 years of dedicated service across the Ards and North Down Borough Council area. On Thursday night, the street pastors, PSNI, council officers, friends and supporters gathered together to mark the significant 10-year milestone with a special celebration. The street pastors are a dedicated group of volunteers who give up their weekends to go out on our streets, keep people safe, offer practical support and show real compassion for everyone whom they meet in every corner of the Ards and North Down borough: Holywood, Bangor, the Ards peninsula and across the entire Ards and North Down area. Their motto is "Caring, Listening, Helping". Those are words that we should all aspire to and keep in mind every day. I am sure that many people in the House and beyond will have seen those dedicated volunteers out on our streets at night or at many local community events and activities throughout the year. As well as the group in Ards and North Down, there are dedicated street pastor groups across Northern Ireland, including in Belfast, Coleraine, Newtownabbey and the Lisburn and Castlereagh area.

I pay particular tribute to Pam Williamson and Marilyn Toogood, who formed the Ards and North Down Street Pastors group back in 2015 and continue to lead it today. The group has grown and grown since its foundation and has a large number of dedicated volunteers who give up their time every weekend to help others. I give special thanks to those dedicated volunteers, who are out at the weekends — rain, hail or shine — to make a difference and give up their free time to help others. Keep up the great work.

Mrs Erskine: Saturday was "Super Saturday" in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, with major wins for two local teams. First, I congratulate Dungannon Swifts Football Club on getting through to the Irish Cup final. It is a huge achievement for Rodney McAree and his side and for the club. It has been a dream in the making for the Swifts for around 15 years. Only 90 minutes and Cliftonville Football Club, the team that Dungannon will face on 3 May at Windsor Park, are between us and the cup. It was no "Blue Monday" yesterday in Dungannon. It is safe to say that everybody is buzzing from Saturday's win. I wish Dungannon Swifts all the best as they prepare for the final, and we look forward to cheering them on next month.

Huge congratulations also go to Enniskillen Rugby Football Club, which won the Ulster Junior Cup final against Dromore Rugby Football Club at the Kingspan Stadium. I was delighted for the club. It is always wonderful to see our local clubs doing well. The celebrations went on until the small hours, and Mullaghmeen was bouncing when the victors returned home with silverware.

Such celebrations do not just happen. They are down to teamwork: people working together. The teams bring communities together, and I pay tribute to them all for their achievements. Long training evenings, weekends away from family and friends and their dedication to training in all kinds of weather are part and parcel of that. Congratulations to them all.

Ms Brownlee: I am also a member of the APG on autism and wish to mark World Autism Awareness Day, which will take place tomorrow. It is a day that is dedicated to understanding, acceptance and support for autistic individuals and their families and is an opportunity for us all to reflect on how we can create a more inclusive society. Small actions can make a big difference, whether it is taking the time to learn more about autism, offering understanding and patience in daily interactions or advocating for better services.

There can be a misrepresentation of Northern Ireland's autism figures, with the suggestion often being that we have significantly higher rates than those in other parts of the UK. However, research tells a different story. In 2019, a report by Professor McConkey provided a comparative analysis that showed that the prevalence of autism in Northern Ireland — one in 20 school-age children or 5% — is similar to that across the UK, yet the way that the statistics are portrayed can create unnecessary concern, misunderstanding and a stigma towards those with autism.

What sets Northern Ireland apart is that we have some of the best-trained psychologists and psychiatrists in the UK, the most comprehensive legislation and a system that identifies and diagnoses autistic individuals earlier and more accurately. We should be very proud of that. Every diagnosis matters and allows individuals and their families to access the support and strategies that they need to navigate daily life. Diagnosis is the first step. Autism is not something to be treated or fixed: there is no pill or cure. What makes a real difference is understanding, compassion and the right support structures. Many parents and carers feel overwhelmed, isolated and exhausted from fighting for resources. We need to ensure that they have the support services and that those services are kept at pace with diagnoses, providing effective pathways for education, employment and living.

Autistic individuals bring incredible talents, perspectives and strengths to our society, yet many adults in Northern Ireland are unemployed and suffer mental health challenges. It is clear that we must do more to create meaningful opportunities.

I congratulate Mid and East Antrim Borough Council on its autism-friendly initiative, delivered in partnership with the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. Its outstanding work was recognised recently at the Local Government Awards. It won the local government equality, diversity and inclusion award. I say a huge "Well done" to Fiona and the entire team for that fantastic achievement: an initiative that puts individuals at the heart of everything that the council does. That is a fine example of what can be done when government, health services and communities come together for a more inclusive society. Well done.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston. Timothy, you have two minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will use this opportunity to revisit the tragic circumstances in which the Darragh family have been left following the sudden passing of Willy Darragh on 21 December last year.

As I told the House last week, Willy Darragh passed away on the side of the road. His wife rang the Ambulance Service at 7.05 pm and was told that no ambulances were available. She was asked to take Willy to Antrim Area Hospital. During the journey to Antrim, Caroline had to pull over, because Willy's situation had moved from a category 2 heart attack to a category 1 heart attack — he was no longer breathing. Sadly, Willy passed away.

The family has every right to believe that the action short of strike being taken in the Ambulance Service through the unions was part of the reason for there being no ambulance available. On that evening, six ambulances were sitting at dispatch stations in the Northern Trust at the time of that first call, and, because of action short of strike, they could not be assigned to a call.

I welcome this morning's release by the Health Minister of a statement to 'The Nolan Show', but I was disappointed that, during last week's debate, he did not take up my point and respond to the Darragh family on some of the personal issues that have been raised regarding the case. Therefore, while Mr Nesbitt is in the Chamber this morning, there are three thoughts that I want to leave with him on action that he and the Ambulance Service could take today to limit the impact on those who desperately need the service when, during the last hour, crews are not assigned. First, I encourage them to assign crews to category 2 calls in the last hour of their shift. Secondly, in that last hour, crews are not even made aware that a category 2 call has come in. I encourage Mr Nesbitt and the Ambulance Service to answer this question: given that the Ambulance Service does not know whether the crews sitting in the station are in a union, why does it not ask them whether they will attend that call? The third thing that I wish to leave with the Minister is this: come on, this has been going on since November 2023. It takes three months to change contracts. Had the contracts been changed to allow an overlap that facilitated staggered shift patterns, Willy would have stood a better chance on 21 December 2024. Those three things could be changed today. Yes, we hear plenty about flow, but these are things that we could do today to ensure that the Darragh family's situation is not repeated for other families throughout Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston. I hope that you noted that I let you go over your time.

I invite Members to take their ease.

Mrs Dodds: 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 contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion, Mrs Dodds.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion highlights the importance of progressing the major rebuild at Craigavon Area Hospital. I remind the House that Craigavon Area Hospital serves the whole of the south of Northern Ireland. It has approximately 240,000 people in its catchment area, and it covers five constituencies represented in the House and three large council areas. It is a regionally significant acute hospital with an extensive range of departments and services, including acute and intensive care, chronic disease management and ambulatory care.

However, it has served its community for five years, and its layout is now problematic and outdated. I reinforce the point that it is a key hospital in all the Department's strategic documents on reconfiguration and modernisation. It is bracketed with Altnagelvin Area Hospital and major sites in Belfast as being an acute centre for Northern Ireland. I understand that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust has indicated that it has plans for the redevelopment of Craigavon Area Hospital. The situation is made slightly worse by the fact that the Southern Trust had been moving services to Craigavon Area Hospital, meaning that there is more pressure on the site.

Craigavon needs to be able to offer as much as possible. It is hindered by a lack of available space, and, with the reconfiguration of hospitals, Minister, we do not want it to miss out on services or on perhaps becoming a specialist regional centre on account of the unsatisfactory site layout. Having said that, I am not blind to the needs of the Daisy Hill Hospital, St Luke's Hospital and many other sites across the Southern Trust area.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No, I want to make progress.

It is clear that Craigavon Area Hospital is not appropriate for high-quality modern healthcare. While the master plan was proposed almost a decade ago, we have moved forward very little on it. The Southern Trust submitted a plan for £151 million of work on an initial phase to increase bed capacity, provide additional dementia beds in the Bluestone unit, install new MRI and CT scanners and repurpose a day surgery unit. However, it is clear that we now require a new hospital that matches modern expectations. That will be a challenge, because it will have to be constructed alongside the hospital's work, as it will remain on the site.

Recent reports have underscored the argument for redevelopment. Members will recall that an independent investigation was required after suspicious clusters of COVID cases were identified in Craigavon Area Hospital and Daisy Hill Hospital and that an independent panel conducted a level 3 serious adverse incident (SAI) review. Deficiencies in the hospital estate were identified as contributing to the likelihood of transmission. The report concluded:

The panel identified the fact that the:

The report said that there were:

It also said:

It was the panel's view that inadequate isolation facilities and poor ventilation made it difficult to prevent transmission. We hope that we will never experience another COVID-like episode, but we must make appropriate preparations and changes. All our hospitals need to be fit for purpose to meet the challenges of everyday illnesses and the unexpected.

We are also all aware of the issues in recent months regarding capital projects that have drawn significant public attention, in the main in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Overruns and additional costs obviously impact on the commencement and delivery of new facilities elsewhere. In the past decade, capital expenditure in the Southern Trust has represented roughly 11% of that across the six trusts, the bulk of which was for preventative maintenance.

There have been major injections into state-of-the-art hospitals, wards and facilities in other trusts over that period, not least in Antrim, Altnagelvin and the Royal. I have argued very strongly for that development. Northern Ireland needs a new children's hospital and a regional neonatal unit. Those are important additions to the health infrastructure. However, we must remember that other acute hospitals, serving major centres of population, also need investment.

The Department of Health's proposed capital allocation, as set out in the draft budget for 2025-26, is £391 million. The Minister has argued that that is less than is required to fund essential expenditure for Executive flagship projects, contractual commitments to progress projects in design and development and the continuation of existing services. On Thursday, officials appeared before the Health Committee and spoke to an update from the Minister. The draft budget allocation includes £71 million ring-fenced for flagship projects, city deals and Inclusive Future funding. Some £114 million is being allocated to contractually committed projects and £162 million to maintain the existing estate, including infrastructure, equipment and fleet replacement. Some £47·5 million will go towards progressing projects that are in design and development.

The Minister's correspondence confirmed that £500,000 was being earmarked for Craigavon Area Hospital redevelopment programme team, healthcare planning and site master plan. However, that is the last item of more than 50 capital projects listed across four tables. I hope, Minister, that that is not an indication of the priority or focus that will be placed on the redevelopment of Craigavon. The Minister's paper to the Committee last week stated:

I trust that the Minister is able to confirm to the Assembly today that Craigavon Area Hospital redevelopment, described in the correspondence to the Committee as "in design and development", will not form part of that review exercise, nor be at risk of not being progressed. I look forward to hearing that confirmation as we progress with the debate.

While tens and, indeed, hundreds of millions of pounds appear to be frittered away on project after project, the bulk of the main hospital at Craigavon stands just as it did in the early 1970s. I urge the Minister to recognise the great need and the potential at Craigavon Area Hospital. It serves almost 250,000 people in that part of Northern Ireland who deserve the facilities that will bring their healthcare experience into a new and modern era.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing it before the House.

To be honest, this is a conversation that we should not still be having, 10 years after the master plan was developed. Craigavon Area Hospital had been crying out for redevelopment for many years before that. As we know, the master plan was finished in 2016, and, since then, we have had report after report and warning after warning but no action. I have raised this with the Department over the past three years. Even when we did not have a sitting Assembly, I raised with the permanent secretary at that time the issue that Craigavon hospital was in dire need of development.

The state of the hospital estate affects the care and outcomes for patients. That is the most important part of this. A hospital is only a building, at the end of the day. What matters are the outcomes and the care that people get when they are in those buildings. We know that the care and outcomes for people have been affected in Craigavon Area Hospital by the state of the hospital.

That is no reflection on the staff — I make that clear — or on their efforts in working in the confined space that they have.

I have dealt with cases of patients with open wounds, at serious risk of infection and, if they were to contract infection, death, being cared for in open wards because of extremely limited access to single or isolated rooms. You cannot have someone come out of surgery, vulnerable and in recovery, only to put them in an outdated, overcrowded ward with high infection risk; that is not how a modern health service should work. We have heard from the trust that there is simply not enough suitable space for people to recover in a safe environment. Even basic facilities such as toilets and showers are stretched. That is not just inconvenient; it is dangerous. Infection risk is heightened, staff are under constant pressure and patients do not get the experience or the outcomes that they deserve.

We are well aware of the excess deaths that occurred in the Southern Trust during the COVID outbreak due to the lack of suitable facilities. As the Member who spoke previously outlined, those were due to the lack of isolation facilities and to poor ventilation. That is some reflection on us as a First World country.

Minister, this is not just about Craigavon Area Hospital. It speaks to a bigger issue with planning and investment across the entire health service. When services are added or transformed, the facilities must follow; in fact, if we were doing it right, the facilities would be there first. We cannot separate transformation from infrastructure. Reconfiguration plans must go hand in glove with development and capital planning.

We, in this Building, have said much about transformation. Before Christmas, the Minister brought back Professor Bengoa — he was right to do so — who reminded us all that, without major change within the next 15 years, the Department of Health will consume the entire Budget of the Executive; now, that means within the next 14 years. He is not wrong, but transformation has to be done properly: it has to be strategic, well thought through and properly consulted on in an open and transparent manner, and it then needs to be implemented.

It is time to look not just at how much is being spent but at where and how it is being spent. Minister, as our leader in Health, you are ultimately responsible. We need to see strong leadership and well-thought-through plans. Trusts must be supported to deliver good services in fit-for-purpose accommodation and be held accountable by your Department for how they spend that money.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes an important point, particularly as we see potential for further investment in the health service and what that means for the ratepayer. Does the Member agree that the continual vouchsafing of money on old, dilapidated buildings to, essentially, keep them alive in their current context, is throwing good money after bad in some circumstances?

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

Mrs Dillon: Thank you.

That is exactly my point in talking about having well-thought-through plans and ensuring that our development plans go hand in glove with our reconfiguration plans and about what our hospital estate should look like; you are absolutely right.

The Department needs to hold trusts accountable. That accountability matters because, when things go wrong, it is patients and staff who pay the price.

Let me be clear: I am not here just to criticise, and neither, as a collective, is the Health Committee. Minister, we want to work with you, we want to see progress, we want to see redevelopment delivered, and we want to see you succeed because, if you succeed, the people of the Southern Trust area and all our people across the North and the wider health service will be better off. In order to support and work with you and your officials, we need to see genuine transparency, openness and clarity about what you are doing and why.

I hope that, in your response today, you will finally give us a time frame for the delivery of modern, safe and fit-for-purpose facilities so that the people of the Southern Trust area and all those who are served by the Southern Trust — they come from across the North — who will rely on care provided in Craigavon Area Hospital in the coming years get the care that they deserve in buildings that are fit for that care to be given in.

Mr Tennyson: I welcome the opportunity to have this important debate, and I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing it to the Chamber. I add my voice to the calls for the redevelopment of Craigavon Area Hospital.

As other Members have said, it is almost 10 years since the master plan was originally published.

Linda Dillon rightly pointed out in her remarks that the Health Minister is ultimately responsible and our lead on these issues, but it is important to contextualise. The 10-year delay did not happen in a vacuum. In fact, the parties of both Members who spoke immediately before me contributed to at least five years of the 10-year delay. It is important to acknowledge our hand in and responsibility for issues when we call on others to take action.

We are all too aware of the pressures faced by staff who work in hospitals across Northern Ireland. Craigavon Area Hospital serves an estimated 241,000 people, spanning six constituencies. We are also aware of the sustained pressure facing emergency departments daily and the fact that, in the Southern Trust area, over 167,000 people are on a waiting list for a first consultant-led outpatient appointment. While some parts of the hospital have since been upgraded, including the paediatric ward and the Glenanne unit, other major parts are no longer fit for purpose. Anyone who engages with the trust or hospital staff will know that capacity constraints inhibit their ability to deliver for their patients in the way that they would wish to. This is not just a parochial matter and a case of Members from the constituency getting up to call for investment in our area; it is an evidence-based call. In September 2023, as Diane Dodds referenced, the independent panel, which had undertaken a serious adverse incident review, highlighted serious concerns. It identified:

had contributed to the transmission of COVID-19 infections among vulnerable patients during the pandemic. It stated:

and that there are insufficient ventilation, toilet and shower facilities.

The Health Department's capital budgets are stretched — there is no denying that — but this investment is becoming critical. Redevelopment is essential to enhance the staff's working environment and to improve not just the patient experience but patient safety and our ability to enhance capacity to assist with tackling hospital waiting lists.

There is no doubt, as other Members have said, that Craigavon Area Hospital has a pivotal role to play in the wider context of healthcare transformation. The development needs to be seen in the context of the Department's wider ambitions and the wider infrastructure of the area. We had an Adjournment debate last week, which was secured by Mr Beattie, to discuss some of the infrastructure challenges in the area surrounding the hospital. I would be interested to hear, in this debate, the Minister's views on those issues. In the debate last week, we heard from the Infrastructure Minister.

There is also no doubt that we must revamp and reform the Executive's approach to capital projects by acting on the Audit Office's recommendations about procurement; by ensuring that there is sufficient planning and funding in place for the lifetime of the projects once they commence; and, crucially, by ensuring that there is stable government and oversight of those projects and investments once they have been committed to.

We have seen delays play out in a number of areas: pseudomonas presented in the new maternity hospital; a new mental health inpatient centre required substantial investment for repairs, despite only opening its doors in 2019; and a new children's hospital, which was given the go-ahead this year, is now 17 years behind schedule. Those delays lead to rising costs and constrain our ability to deliver capital investment. The children's hospital, which was originally estimated to cost £250 million, is now estimated to cost £671 million, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the cost will inflate further over the lifetime of the project. Not only do the delays cause additional costs but they damage the patient experience and staff morale when promises are made but staff are subsequently required to work with crumbling infrastructure and out-of-date equipment.

Our constituents deserve the best facilities for inpatient care, and our health staff deserve the best possible working environment. Therefore, I support the call to advance plans for Craigavon Area Hospital as soon as possible, so that we can get on with the job of delivery. I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate.

Mr Chambers: Investment in the health and social care (HSC) estate is crucial to enhance service delivery and ensure that facilities are adequately equipped to meet the ever-increasing needs of the community. That applies to all the geographical areas of Northern Ireland, but living within the limitations of the resources available means that it is rarely possible to invest evenly. That includes the obvious investment that is required at the overall Craigavon Area Hospital site. There is no question that it is one of the oldest major acute hospital buildings, if not the oldest, in the region. The hospital is in need of a replacement. It is on that note that I am happy to support the broad thrust of the motion, but it would be entirely remiss of me if I did not, once again, highlight the inconsistency and double standards of the messaging on display here today.

The signatories to the motion demand that the Minister of Health:

They must be aware that the Minister's hands are somewhat tied in delivering that ask. The capital budget that they voted for, despite the warnings from not only the Minister but the broader HSC family, failed to contain the necessary allocation. Although I am happy to support the motion in the hope that further progress will be delivered at Craigavon, I once again ask that MLAs, instead of attempting to cast blame elsewhere, consider whether they, by their actions, may have contributed to the problem.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the debate and thank the Member who proposed the motion on the hospital in her constituency. It is important that we all look to the facilities in our areas to make sure that they can provide the best opportunities and best health outcomes for people and are able to serve the people. In this instance, the area stretches from the Member's constituency to my constituency, albeit the people whom I represent have a much greater distance to travel to get to that facility and pass a number of other facilities on the way.

There is little to disagree with in the motion. Yes, we absolutely need sustained, meaningful capital investment in our hospital network. We have to address the chronic inequalities in how that funding is allocated. It is deeply concerning that, almost a decade after Craigavon Area Hospital's master plan was published, we have still not seen much progress made on it. That is not just an issue for Craigavon but a systemic issue. The same story could be told about many other facilities across Northern Ireland. How many times have we seen flashy strategies be launched and glossy brochures be published, only for them to gather dust or not to be fulfilled? How many of the so-called Executive flagship projects have gone over budget and remain undelivered, with our constituents left waiting, wondering and losing faith? A number of Members have referred to that today.

Craigavon Area Hospital follows the same tired pattern. We are told of a £400 million redevelopment — a major investment — but, although we saw the paediatric ward be delivered in 2017, and credit where it is due for delivering that vital facility, what about the rest? What about the upgrade to the emergency department? What about intensive care, imaging theatres, recovery, cardiac services and critical care? They are still missing, still incomplete and still just promises that are on a bit of paper but have not happened.

I ask the Minister, albeit he has been in post for only the past period, what has happened since 2017? What progress has been made? In this economic climate, costs do not go down, so has the Department secured the additional funding required? Do we even know what the figure looks like? Crucially, is the money still there?

I also draw Members' attention to the serious adverse incident report from 2023 and to the Audit Office report that was published just yesterday, which makes for grim reading. It shows that our imaging services, which, from diagnostics to eventual care, are fundamental, are falling dangerously behind. Equipment is outdated, staff are stretched and 16% of the machinery is over 10 years old and thus considered obsolete. That is neither normal nor sustainable. If we do not face up to such problems and instead continue to ignore them, we will create only more problems.

Whilst we need progress at Craigavon, we also need transparency and clarity about the timelines for the funding and for the work that will take place. We also need proper support for the network, including Daisy Hill Hospital, because the system works best when all our sites are pulling together, not when one is prioritised to the detriment of the other. Let us put it another way: if you have two children, you do not invest all your energy and money in one child and hope that the other one will just muddle through. No, you make sure that both of them are supported, that their needs are being met and that they get the care and attention that they deserve. That is what we are asking of the Department: allocate the resources on the basis of need, not on the basis of convenience or quiet centralisation. We need to stop the drip of transformation through collapse. We need to see planned strategies that are actually delivered, and we have to stop pretending that decisions are not being made when the services are being allowed to deteriorate beyond the point of return.

I know the response that we will get. We have heard it all before. MLAs raise genuine concerns and shine a light on these issues, and suddenly we are accused of fearmongering, feeding conspiracies or scaremongering in our communities. I recall one director in the health service referring to a "self-fulfilling conspiracy theory". I do not think that that is what we need to see or do. We need to see decisions being taken fairly across an area, but, when it comes to what is being requested for Craigavon Area Hospital, it is very difficult to disagree with anything that has been said.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Members who tabled the motion today. It is very important.

Healthcare is the foundation of any strong community. It is what we rely on in our most vulnerable moments, and it ensures the well-being of our families, friends and neighbours. I want to use this opportunity to talk about two hospitals that are vital to the Southern Trust region: Craigavon Area Hospital and Daisy Hill Hospital. Both play a crucial role in delivering life-saving care, and both are in urgent need of investment. I appreciate and welcome that the mover of the motion referenced Daisy Hill in her opening remarks.

Craigavon Area Hospital serves as a major hub for acute services and deals with thousands of patients every year, but increasing demand has put immense pressure on its resources. Investment in Craigavon means better facilities, more beds and the ability to deliver faster, more effective treatment. It means ensuring that those who need critical care do not face delays due to overcrowding and outdated infrastructure.

At the same time, Daisy Hill Hospital is an essential part of our healthcare network, and I would not be representing the views of my constituents if I did not take this opportunity to also speak up for Daisy Hill. Daisy Hill Hospital provides vital services to people across Newry, south Armagh, south Down, north Louth and even into Monaghan and other border areas, and it must not be overlooked. Investment here means strengthening emergency services, improving access to specialist care and ensuring that people in the Southern Trust region do not have to travel miles for essential treatment. There is, and has been, a concern — it is not unfounded — across south Down and Newry and Armagh that Daisy Hill Hospital is the poor relation in this equation. However, there is undoubtedly a need for Daisy Hill and Craigavon Area Hospital to work more closely together.

While my efforts will always primarily be focused on promoting the interests of Daisy Hill Hospital, I also recognise that there is a need to promote and enhance the hospital estate across the Southern Trust. In recent months, we have seen concern among patients and staff about the provision of safe and secure maternity and obstetrics cover at Daisy Hill. What we cannot stand over and what cannot continue is the constant nervousness around services at Daisy Hill. Proactive investment and strategic planning are essential to preventing a managed collapse of hospital services and ensuring sustainable, high-quality patient care. This does not have to be some sort of Sophie's choice. It is not an either/or decision.

Investing in both Craigavon and Daisy Hill is about securing the future of healthcare in our eastern corridor region. It is about ensuring that, no matter where you live, you have access to high-quality medical care when you need it most. It is about supporting the incredible doctors, nurses and hospital staff who work tirelessly at Daisy Hill and Craigavon to keep us all healthy. If we fail to act now, we risk longer waiting times, staff burnout and patients being turned away, but, if we invest wisely, we can create a healthcare system that is fit for the future, meets the needs of our growing population and gives every person the best possible chance at life. Therefore, I support the call for investment in Craigavon, but we must also see proper investment in Daisy Hill. By investing in both hospitals, we are investing in the health and future of our entire community, right across the Southern Trust area and beyond.

Mr Buckley: It is great that, for the second time in just two weeks, we are discussing Craigavon Area Hospital. To that end, I thank my colleague Diane Dodds for bringing this important motion to the House. I sense that there is unanimous agreement about some of the issues facing Craigavon. I wondered whether I should declare an interest at the outset of the debate because, beginning on 19 July 1991, I spent a few days availing myself of free accommodation in Craigavon Area Hospital, albeit things have changed since.

Since 1972, Craigavon Area Hospital and its staff, including those who have since passed, have really been a beacon of service in the local area. We are thankful for the staff and the high quality of healthcare that has been provided during that time. However, we are 50 years on, and there is always a need for updating and change.

I point out the importance of Craigavon Area Hospital as a regionally significant acute hospital. As my colleague mentioned, it serves over 240,000 people. Sometimes, I feel that the earliest mistake with Craigavon Area Hospital was to call it "Craigavon Area Hospital" because it has led to parish-pump party political points often being made when it is discussed. Craigavon Area Hospital is not just for Craigavon; it serves Upper Bann, Newry and Armagh, South Down, Mid Ulster, Fermanagh and South Tyrone and some of the new Lagan Valley constituency. It vastly outstrips the wider Craigavon area. Therefore, it is of regional significance to the Assembly. Its progress and success is all of our success.

The bulk of the current capital spending is on maintaining old buildings. That was my point when I intervened during Mrs Dillon's speech. I accept that preserving and maintaining old buildings is necessary, but, sometimes, that is not the best use of capital spend. Those buildings can be patched up and maintained, but they will never meet some of the essential needs of modern healthcare. It is not all a negative picture. The Blossom children's centre at Craigavon is an excellent modern facility. It is certainly a model of what Craigavon could look like if its vision were to materialise. There was a vision and plan in 2016, but it has not been realised. Indeed, we have seen a piecemeal approach to that long-term problem. It is something that we need to get a grip of.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. He has made really important points about the vast area that Craigavon Area Hospital covers. It services a huge part of Northern Ireland. The motion today contains a relatively modest demand for the Health Minister; it is just to get the programme of development started. It is important that we acknowledge that that can be done in small steps. The motion is about that first small step.

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

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for the intervention. That is important; it is about setting out a strategic plan for what healthcare will look like in the future. The Member mentioned in her speech that we need modern, high-quality healthcare at Craigavon. At the moment, sadly, that is not being delivered, although that is no fault of the many dedicated staff.

The challenges that the current estate faces are well known. I think that, since I became an elected representative, there has not been a single day during which I have not dealt with a health-related case in relation to the Craigavon hospital estate. I imagine that Members across the House have similar issues relating to a hospital in their constituency. This is an issue that is continually on repeat at Craigavon, whether it is to do with sewage leaks or, as is mentioned in the motion, the serious adverse incident report on COVID. I recently visited some of the new blocks at the Ulster Hospital. I could not believe the space and environment in some of those blocks of the hospital, particularly when it comes to corridor space. I make no bones about saying this: when you go to Craigavon, you see that, at times, it looks like a war scene. It looks like a war scene because its corridors are crowded with beds, its accident and emergency with patients. Given that we have such a population base, if we are to advance healthcare so that it befits the population that we serve, those issues have to be addressed. We have talked about issues such as ventilation, overcrowding, ageing equipment, lack of clinical accommodation and insufficient bed space. All those issues are continually to the fore at Craigavon Area Hospital.

I note that the motion is constructive in saying that discussions are continuing and that there has been "engagement" between the Department of Health and the Southern Trust on Craigavon. My point is that those conversations have to show us a concrete way forward to ensure that we realise the true potential of Craigavon. It is strategically located and can provide the full benefit of servicing that region in a way that befits, I believe, the House and the country.

Miss McAllister: Thanks to my colleague from the Health Committee for proposing the motion. I echo a lot of what has been said by Members across the Chamber. There is not much that I can say that would be additional to or different from what everyone else has said. I agree with the Members who have spoken, but I have some questions that we could put to the Health Minister and that he could perhaps shine a bit of light on.

The Member who proposed the motion spoke about the £500,000 that was committed to the redevelopment programme, but I do not really know what that means or what or whom that money is for. I understand that it is for healthcare planning and the site master plan. Beyond that, we are not sure. When budgets are so strict — we understand the position that the Minister is in — we need to delve a bit deeper into what the figures actually mean and where the money is going.

One of the other key things to highlight from our perspective, not only as area-based MLAs but as Health Committee members, is that someone needs to get a grasp of how costs are really out of control. Yes, we recognise and respect the fact that construction costs have been spiralling, but, when we have delay after delay and also have to fix the many problems that are arising, we will simply continue to waste money time and again. We need to get control of the reason why so many things are going wrong.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss McAllister: In any construction project, whether in the private sector or the public sector, there are always bumps in the road and costs that are incurred.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss McAllister: Sorry. Yes.

Mrs Dillon: I was too quietly spoken — I never thought that I would be accused of that. Does the Member agree that, if it can be shown that those costs are being incurred to the benefit of patients — the service users — that is fine? If plans are years in the making, in that period, new ideas and innovation may come along that will improve the service or the outcomes for patients. If we can be shown that, that is fine, but the problem is where those costs get out of control for no apparent reason.

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

Miss McAllister: Absolutely. If they benefit the patient and lead to better health outcomes, of course, but we are not seeing that. We are seeing things going wrong too often. We understand that the issue of pseudomonas at the maternity hospital is complex, but at what point do we ask, "When are we going to learn and make sure that it does not happen again?".

The acute mental health inpatient centre is another issue that beggars belief. It occurred just five years, which is not long, after it opened. We had promises that finance would be created for four beds for learning disability patients. Those were patients who, specifically, were coming from Muckamore Abbey Hospital and who have been failed again. Again, all that adds to the costs. Some costs have been running up for decades, as we have seen with the children's hospital. Those issues are important. We are not disputing the fact that flagship projects should happen or that money should be spent, but we should get the costs under control before they spiral.

I want to have a bit more clarity on what is part of the plan for Craigavon. Perhaps the Minister will stand up and say that that is part of the business case. If so, that would be much welcomed. If, however, we have to spend money to fix all the problems that have occurred over the past decade, how many years after the business case is produced by the trust will the project happen?

As I said, I am happy to support the motion. Many points have been raised by MLAs who are local to Craigavon.

I know that those of us who are Belfast MLAs are sometimes in the privileged position of being able to access quite quickly so many hospitals in our area. We have to sense-check the situation in rural constituencies, because they also need hospitals that are fit for purpose and fit for the services that are run in them.

That brings me to the reconfiguration plan. My party welcomed the publication of that plan, but we do not have the detail of the services that are in it or what it actually means. What do we know about the master plan for Craigavon and how it fits in with and suits the needs of any reconfiguration of our health transformation? An holistic approach has to be taken for all of the health estate.

I thank the Members again for tabling the motion. I look forward to perhaps following up at the Health Committee at a later date some of the issues that have been raised.

Mr McGuigan: As everyone else has done, I thank the Members for tabling the motion. The timing of the debate is fortuitous, coming as it does a day after the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which highlighted the fact that 16% of the imaging equipment used in patient scans in the North is out of date, thus impacting negatively on times for diagnostic processes. That, in turn, adds to the time for appropriate treatment and ultimately affects patient outcomes. Of particular concern in the report is the fact that the number of patients waiting longer than two weeks for a red-flag suspected cancer scan has increased from 260 to almost 1,800. Yesterday's report underlines the importance of properly investing in equipment and infrastructure across our health services. If people are to have confidence in hospital reconfiguration and transformation, the infrastructure that supports those must be fit for purpose. That includes the buildings, the workforce and the equipment. It includes all those things at Craigavon hospital.

Sinn Féin understands the need to deliver the transformation of our health system in order to cut waiting times and provide high-quality services. Health transformation must be guided by evidence and partnership working. More detail regarding the categorisation of our hospital network, including Craigavon hospital, is required, and evidence behind those categorisations needs to be communicated in order to give the public confidence and better understanding. We also need to recognise the transformational potential of cross-border and all-Ireland health services.

Craigavon is an acute hospital, so it must be supported to deliver acute services safely and sustainably. It must have up-to-date and modern equipment, and its building needs to be appropriate for patients and staff alike. The first line of the motion talks about:

As others have noted, the draft budget contains £390 million that the Minister has ring-fenced for capital projects, including the new maternity hospital, a new children's hospital and a learning and development centre. We were told in a previous Committee budget briefing that there are a significant number of new projects that the Department would like to commence in 2025-26 but are, unfortunately, unaffordable within the Department's capital budget allocation. Nevertheless, we propose to commence a mother-and-baby unit in Belfast and a new emergency department (ED) at Altnagelvin Area Hospital. There are capital projects, and, as the mover of the motion said, any discussion about Craigavon is further down the list. It would be good to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

We know that British Government policies of austerity have severely impacted on our ability in the North to provide first-class public services. As I have said on many occasions in the Chamber, nowhere can the impact of those disastrous austerity policies be seen as clearly as in their negative impact on health. For their part, the Executive have prioritised health and have a Programme for Government commitment to reduce waiting lists. The Health Minister gets 52% — £8·4 billion — of the Executive's Budget. Ultimately, it is the Minister who is responsible for spending that budget and for deciding where it is spent and how it is spent. He is also responsible for the trusts and their delivery.

Our focus must be on improving patient outcomes through improving our healthcare services in Craigavon and across the North. That means having modern, fit-for-purpose buildings and equipment and taking a whole-system approach to the challenges that we face, such as the growing waiting times, ambulance waiting, handover times, workforce issues, early detection and preventative healthcare. We should do everything that we can to build a stronger, better health service across the North.

Ms Forsythe: I am grateful to my colleagues for tabling this important motion. The DUP is clear that, when it comes to investing in our hospital network, no part of Northern Ireland should be left behind or disadvantaged. Regional balance is often mentioned in the Chamber, but it is important that that phrase is not just used in some political campaigns. We need to recognise what it means for healthcare for people in every corner of Northern Ireland.

I am privileged to represent the people of South Down in this place. At every turn, I have taken the opportunity to make it clear that the people in my constituency should not be left behind. As it is a hugely rural constituency, people have to travel some distance to a hospital already. While some are in the South Eastern Trust area, the majority of people in South Down live in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area and are served by Craigavon Area Hospital and Daisy Hill Hospital. Both have amazing staff, and I record my thanks to them. However, it is a disgrace that those hospitals have been left behind in capital investment for many years. Where the buildings are in bad shape, they do not best serve the patients or the staff, and they reduce the capacity to deliver healthcare.

Where we see drives towards regionalised specialist services, with the backdrop of the financial pressures that we face and reduced capital budgets, I am incredibly concerned that the result of the continued underinvestment in Southern Trust hospitals will see services taken away from the area completely, with the predetermined excuse that the hospital buildings that are there do not have the capacity to house additional specialisms. Why should patients in the Southern Trust be faced with the potential of losing their local hospital or having their services and capacity reduced? Where is the regional balance in that?

We need to see equity in healthcare provision across Northern Ireland. The people in the south-east of the Province deserve better. We have some of the most rural areas of Northern Ireland, with some of the longest distances to travel for healthcare, and the people of South Down and surrounding areas deserve investment in their hospitals. As my colleagues mentioned, in the last decade, the Southern Trust represented roughly 11% of the capital expenditure by trusts and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, the bulk of which was for preventative maintenance. Meanwhile, major injections have been made elsewhere.

I remind the House that the Department of Health's failure to deliver major capital projects over a number of years has led to the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds, and the significant overspend on the maternity hospital, for example, has meant that hundreds of millions of pounds have had to be found. That money was not found out of thin air; it came from other areas in the Health budget, and it displaced much-needed capital investment in other areas. I would love to have seen that value of investment in the Southern Trust, in the development of Craigavon and Daisy Hill hospitals, but, no, it was applied to the overspend as part of the catalogue of £3 billion of overspend across the board on major capital projects reported by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The lack of investment in Craigavon sends a terrible message to patients across South Down, Newry and Armagh, Upper Bann, Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Mid Ulster. I am glad to be joined in the Chamber today by my colleagues who represent those constituencies.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I know full well that, in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, services have been reconfigured and some services have moved to Craigavon. The Member talked about need and the fact that people have to travel. However, people rightly question why services at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), which is a wonderful facility on my doorstep, are being reconfigured to a hospital such as Craigavon, which has poor facilities — not poor service — that do not help aid people's recovery from some of the conditions they are suffering from.

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

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. She makes a really important point. For those of us who represent very rural areas of Northern Ireland, it is important to remember that patients are at the heart of this and that their care needs to be at the forefront when we look at such things. The lack of investment in hospitals is felt most by those who need the care.

In closing, I repeat the call from my colleague Diane Dodds and others that Craigavon Area Hospital be prioritised as part of the Department of Health's future capital plan. It is simply not feasible for constraints and deficiencies in current provision on the site to be ignored any longer. I look forward to the Health Minister's response.

Mr McNulty: I speak as a proud parish-pump politician. My parents' generation was raised and survived on buckets of water drawn from the parish pump. The parish pump was at the heart of daily life for families and communities. The parish pump was a lifeline.

Craigavon Area Hospital is a lifeline hospital. Daisy Hill Hospital is a lifeline hospital. I support the motion, which addresses a critical issue that has significant repercussions for the lives of people in my constituency and beyond. The motion highlights the vital need for sustained capital investment in the hospital network. Specifically, it calls for urgent action:

and stresses the pressing need to advance the redevelopment of Craigavon Area Hospital, a project that has been far too long awaited.

Craigavon Area Hospital is a vital hub for healthcare in the Southern Trust, providing essential services to 250,000 people across Armagh, Dungannon, Lurgan and Portadown and huge swathes of Counties Armagh, Tyrone, Down and Antrim and beyond. That is a quarter of a million people whose health needs rely on Craigavon Area Hospital as a first port of call, and we are eternally grateful for the service provided by the often-overburdened staff at Craigavon.

I was disappointed that the DUP Member for Upper Bann did not give way. I wanted merely to support her call for Craigavon Area Hospital to become a centre of excellence. That I agree with wholeheartedly. Daisy Hill should also become a centre of excellence, with the supporting consultants and medical expertise.

Despite the completion of a master plan for the redevelopment of Craigavon Area Hospital in 2016, we have seen little progress in the years since. That delay is simply unacceptable. The report published by the Southern Health and Social Care Trust in 2023, following the COVID-19 pandemic, paints a dire picture. Ageing equipment, inadequate clinical accommodation and a shortage of essential facilities such as beds, theatres and endoscopy space create conditions in which patients are at greater risk of infection. The situation not only jeopardises the health and well-being of citizens but puts enormous pressure on dedicated healthcare staff, who work tirelessly, often in challenging and unsafe environments. It is clear that that is unsustainable. The hospital must be redeveloped now.

It is not just Craigavon Area Hospital that requires our attention. As many in the Chamber know, Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry also plays a pivotal role in the health and well-being of people in the Southern Trust area. Daisy Hill has been under increasing pressure for years, and it is time that we recognised the need for greater investment and support for Daisy Hill Hospital as well. Let us see ambition for Daisy Hill Hospital, and I hope that soon it can become a hub hospital, serving its natural hinterland on a cross-border basis.

Craigavon and Daisy Hill hospitals are critical components of our healthcare infrastructure, yet both face significant challenges that cannot be ignored any longer. If we are to provide a healthcare system that is fit for the future and meets the growing demands of our communities, we need to ensure that funding is allocated fairly across all trust areas and, indeed, within trust areas. Craigavon Area Hospital can become a better hospital if Daisy Hill Hospital is supported to become a better hospital.

I welcome the ongoing engagement between the Southern Trust and the Department of Health regarding the future of Craigavon Area Hospital. However, it is now time for action, time for the Minister of Health to approve and allocate the necessary funding for redevelopment. We cannot afford to delay any longer.

Healthcare is a fundamental right, and we owe it to the people of the North to provide them with the best possible care. That means investing in our hospitals, improving facilities and ensuring that healthcare professionals have the tools and resources that they need to deliver the high standard of care that our citizens deserve. I urge the Assembly to support the motion, and I call on the Minister of Health to prioritise redevelopment and provide proper resourcing to Craigavon Area Hospital and Daisy Hill Hospital. Our communities deserve nothing less.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call on the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you very much, and I thank Mrs Dodds for proposing the motion.

Buildings, of course, are important for healthcare delivery, but I gently suggest that the workforce is even more important, so I begin by putting on record my eternal admiration for and thanks to the workforce at Craigavon Area Hospital.

The motion principally deals with three topics, namely, first:

secondly, that the Assembly:

and thirdly:

It also calls on me to:

for the Craigavon Area Hospital redevelopment project to come forward. I will take each of those in turn, beginning with "sustained capital investment". I fully support sustained capital investment, of course. We all agree that a modern, well-equipped health service is essential for delivering high-quality care. However, it is crucial that infrastructure investments are strategic, and that is why I consulted the public on the idea of looking at our hospitals as a network. We clearly cannot afford to fund every hospital to provide every procedure. We must demonstrate clear value for money and be shaped by evidence-based policy, because we want to deliver the best possible outcomes for all.

Ultimately, our capital investment ambitions will be dictated by budget allocations, and we will need to make allowances for emerging considerations, such as net zero requirements, which have not been mentioned in this debate. My Department's future capital plans must align with our policy vision, such as in Delivering Together, the strategy to transform how care is provided, with a focus on efficiency, sustainability and patient outcomes and an emphasis on providing care in a community setting wherever possible.

The Bengoa report and resulting elective care framework make clear that hospital investment must support a system that reduces waiting times, makes better use of resources and prevents duplication. That means that capital funding may go towards not just traditional hospital expansion but innovative solutions such as regional elective hubs, improved digital infrastructure and community-based alternatives that reduce pressure on our acute services. I trust that Members are with me in wishing to see real movement in the drive to shift left, putting more emphasis on prevention and early intervention through primary and community care rather than our hospitals.

I opened a public consultation on hospitals, Creating a Network for Better Outcomes. It aims to describe our hospital system and provide a strategic context for future hospital reconfiguration decisions. I recognise the importance of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland, which stresses that capital projects must be planned with long-term sustainability in mind. The focus should be on creating modern, energy-efficient facilities that are adaptable to future healthcare demands.

Ensuring that we have a sustainable and resilient healthcare system in Northern Ireland will require balancing our commitment to high-quality medical infrastructure with the ambitious targets set by the Climate Change Act and our net zero strategy. As we move towards a legally binding net zero goal by 2050, new healthcare capital investments must align with stricter carbon reduction measures, energy efficiency standards and sustainable construction practices. Those requirements will present challenges, and the Assembly must ensure that funding frameworks, planning policies and procurement strategies support those environmental obligations while maximising delivery impacts.

Ultimately, while I support investment in our healthcare infrastructure, it has to be strategic, transparent and accountable. Every project must demonstrate that it enhances patient care, improves efficiency and delivers genuine public benefit. Our healthcare infrastructure must not just grow; it must evolve in a way that secures the best possible outcomes for the people of this place. That means that investment cannot simply be funnelled into traditional hospital buildings. It has to be diversified into other assets and technologies that can keep people fit and healthy and, thus, mean that they do not require to be in a hospital setting. We must also provide assets that are efficient and flexible enough to have the ability to meet the changing future healthcare needs of our population.

My Department has invested £2·88 billion of capital funding during the 10 financial years from 2014-15 to 2023-24. The draft capital budget allocation for 2025-26 is £391 million. That is less than what is required to fund all our envisaged Executive flagship projects, meet our current contractual commitments, progress projects in design and development and fund the continued maintenance of our existing assets. The draft budget allocation does not provide the funding that is needed in order to commence work on all the projects required to protect health services.

The increasing pressure on capital investment budgets means that my Department must carefully prioritise proposed schemes, progressing those that demonstrate the most urgent need and the best use of public money in order to deliver better outcomes within budgetary constraints. It would be remiss of me not to advise Members that my Department has established a strategic investment committee, which is made up of senior officials, spanning various directorates in the Department, who will review the current capital plan in light of capital and resource funding constraints.

I will now address the part of the motion that asks the Assembly to note:

When it comes to allocating investment across Northern Ireland's trusts, the Department must prioritise health outcomes over geographic equality. It is not simply a matter of dividing funding equally among the five geographic trusts. Instead, we must target investment at where it will have the greatest impact on patient care and system-wide efficiency. My focus is on maximising the efficacy of the entire health and social care system to deliver the best outcomes for the whole population within the constrained budget. That is why I talk of a hospital network in which not every hospital delivers every procedure.

Budget allocations are issued to health trusts based on need, as is evidenced by approved business cases rather than by being based on regional allocations. The Department has historically invited the trusts to submit bids for their capital priorities. The Department scores those capital project bids against criteria that are used to prioritise the projects in each category. Review groups have been established, with representatives from finance, the healthcare commissioners, policy leads, nursing, the Public Health Agency (PHA) and our health estates carrying out the exercise.

The strategic investment committee that I referenced, because there is not sufficient capital or resource available to deliver all requirements, is now having to carry out an overall prioritisation exercise across the spectrum of the previous categories. Capital bids are considered alongside other capital investment priorities and are dependent on budget availability, value for money and affordability. That means that some trusts, owing to their population size, demand pressure or outdated facilities, may require more funding than others.

It must also be recognised that, although specific trusts lead on them, many of our flagship capital projects are regional in nature, serving the entire population of Northern Ireland. A good example is the new children's hospital that is under construction at the Royal site in Belfast. That regional facility will be a state-of-the-art, 10-floor building to enable the delivery of comprehensive paediatric care. It will offer the full range of services, including a dedicated emergency department, multiple operating theatres and specialised diagnostic and treatment units that are tailored to meet children's unique needs. With 155 beds planned, the hospital is expected to provide high-quality care for a significant number of young patients — up to 45,000 annually — thus ensuring timely and effective treatment across the variety of paediatric specialities.

Of the £2·88 billion of capital investment made in the past 10 years, £2·23 billion was allocated across the six health trusts, including the Ambulance Service, representing over 77% of the capital investment. During that period, the Southern Health Trust received capital budget allocations totalling £257·1 million, so, on average, the Southern Trust has received 9% of the available capital budget over the past 10 years.

In acknowledging the fact that Craigavon Area Hospital has not benefited from a major redevelopment, my Department and the Southern Trust have been proactive in making investments to keep the hospital operational. A total of £8·9 million was invested in the new paediatric ward, which opened in 2018. A new aseptic pharmacy suite costing £3·6 million was opened in 2020. There was investment of £7·6 million in a new dual CT scanner suite, which opened in 2023. The Department has invested £5·8 million in upgrading the hospital's low voltage electrical infrastructure, which is an ongoing project that will be completed this year.

Finally, I turn to the part of the motion that expresses concern that the development of Craigavon Area Hospital has not commenced, and calls on me:

I appreciate that Craigavon Area Hospital is one of our long-standing healthcare facilities. With its construction commencing in the 1960s, the main acute block is now over 50 years old. An outline business case for the redevelopment of the Craigavon Area Hospital site was submitted to the Department of Health in 2016. As Members have made clear, that was not progressed to the point of approval, and that was because of capital budget constraints.

Recognising the developments in the policy landscape, construction price inflation and changes to service delivery models since the previous master plan was completed, my officials have been advising the Southern Trust on the development of a programme business case that should clearly establish the need for investment in Craigavon Area Hospital. The Department hosted a productive workshop with trust colleagues at the end of February, and the programme business case is being updated by the trust to reflect those discussions.

It is important to acknowledge that the programme business case is not designed to articulate definitive costs and timescales for the entire redevelopment. Rather, it should make the case for expending capital money up front on investigative activities, including the establishment of the trust's programme team, healthcare planning activities and the procurement of a design team to assess feasibility. That initial work will inform the strategic service needs at the Craigavon site and how those can be accommodated. The output of that initial stage will inform the redevelopment strategy, including estimated capital and revenue costs, and the timescales, which will then be further refined through appropriate business cases for each subsequent phase of work. That phased approach to implementation, beginning with that initial exploratory phase, will allow the Department and the trust to take stock at key checkpoints before committing further resources to the programme.

When the trust commits the programme business case to the Department, it will be reviewed by officials. The proposed expenditure on those exploratory activities will be subject to normal value-for-money and affordability considerations. I am unable to approve or provide funding for that programme business case until that process has concluded. Undoubtedly, the positive engagement that has taken place between officials in my Department and the Southern Trust will help to expedite approvals. However, no assumption should be made that Craigavon Area Hospital or any other hospital will retain its current role or clinical service provision, as my ambition is for the entire hospital structure across Northern Ireland to be clinically efficient to ensure the best outcomes for the entire population of Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Diane Dodds to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Correction: Alan Robinson, are you making the winding-up speech on the motion?

Mr Robinson: Yes, I am making the winding-up speech, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When Members saw in the Order Paper that Alan Robinson, an East Londonderry MLA, was seconding a motion on Craigavon Area Hospital, they may have thought that, given that today is 1 April, it was an April Fool. It is not: I am very pleased to support my colleague from Upper Bann Diane Dodds.

On many occasions in the Chamber, we have debated how the health service is under enormous strain, but the infrastructure that supports it must be fit for purpose. It is disappointing that, despite clear evidence of the need for funding for redevelopment projects, allocations remain uneven across health and social care trust areas.

My constituency crosses two trusts: the Western Trust and the Northern Trust. The Northern Trust has received only approximately 9% of capital investment over the past 10 years. Some may say that the Causeway Hospital, which was built at a cost of £55 million in 2002, and the Antrim Area Hospital, which was built in 1994 at a cost of a mere £40 million, are relatively new, but healthcare staff should not have to work in an environment in which space and resources are stretched beyond their limits. None of us wants hard-working staff and patients to continue to face the consequences of ageing facilities that no longer meet modern healthcare standards. It was disappointing to receive a recent departmental briefing that current funding will not allow the progress of new capital investment, that the estimated backlog of maintenance liability is more than £1·4 billion and that, without additional investment, the health estate will continue to deteriorate.

One investment that I would welcome is a new emergency department for Altnagelvin. Our health service was in a different place in 1985, which is when Altnagelvin ED was constructed. It was added to in 2001 to allow for a 50-seat waiting area. It is well documented that that A&E lacks space, with overcrowding not only affecting the patients who are waiting but adversely affecting the hard-working staff. Picture yourself trying to provide skilled healthcare in an environment that can resemble a chaotic army field hospital. I suppose that that is replicated across our Province. I ask the Minister whether any other options to fund the new facility are open to him, as we all want to see healthcare systems and infrastructure that are fit for the 21st century, and we want to see an updated business case for Craigavon Area Hospital, as my colleague Diane Dodds proposed.

I will turn to some of the comments. I thank my colleague Diane, who argued the case for Craigavon well, specifically about the master plan, which is 10 years old. She rightly focused on the cost overruns in capital projects that impact on the ability to progress other projects that are needed.

Linda Dillon pointed out that Craigavon has been crying out and is in dire need. She cited examples of its poor standards.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robinson: Yes, certainly.

Mrs Dillon: While I understand the Minister's point about geography — I absolutely agree with you on that issue — we can see clearly, as identified in the reconfiguration, that Craigavon will be needed as an acute hospital. Does the Member agree that it is not about where it is but about the need for the hospital to service the people who use it?

Mr Robinson: I thank the Member for her intervention.

I will continue. We welcome the fact that Linda Dillon broadened her comments to include the entire health estate.

Eóin Tennyson highlighted various cases that evidence need at Craigavon. He, too, made reference to overruns. That was a common theme today and was mentioned in a number of contributions.

Alan Chambers, my colleague on the Health Committee, pointed to what he called the "double standards" of voting for a Budget that, he feels, falls short and then going on to ask for capital investment. That, however, is our job.

Colin McGrath spoke of something that he and I agree on: we see promises that are not followed through and strategies that lie on the shelf gathering dust. He said that, if we continue to ignore those, we will only create further problems. He hit the bullseye there.

Sinéad Ennis talked about Craigavon being a major hub and about how it is essential for thousands of patients. She said, "Invest wisely": that could be said of all Departments.

Jonny Buckley joined the chorus. He talked about the reach and regional importance of Craigavon. He made the case well, and Upper Bann is lucky to have him as MLA. He talked about Craigavon looking like a war scene. I suppose that similar could be said of Altnagelvin's ED, which I mentioned.

On a theme that was taken up by others, Nuala McAllister talked about the costs of the health estate spiralling. Those issues are important, and we should never tire of highlighting them in the Chamber, at the Health Committee or in any forum where we get the opportunity to do so.

Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, focused on the workforce, equipment and buildings, all of which have been raised consistently in the Chamber over the past year. Diane Forsythe highlighted the amazing staff at Craigavon Area Hospital, which could also be said of our hospital staff throughout the region that we represent. She also focused on how overspends could have been used elsewhere.

Justin McNulty supported the motion and called Craigavon Area Hospital a "lifeline hospital". As I have said repeatedly, that could be said of all of our hospitals, including Causeway Hospital and Altnagelvin Hospital in my constituency.

The Minister said that buildings were important but so is the workforce. In a debate last week in the Chamber, I said that we should never tire of thanking our healthcare workforce, and I thank the Minister for doing just that today. He focused on the importance of climate change when developing and creating new buildings. He spoke about the importance of targeted investment across the health service and cited a number of investments in the 50-year-old Craigavon Area Hospital. We thank him for that. It was positive that, in his contribution, he pointed to the fact that the programme business case has been updated. I am sure that my Upper Bann colleague Diane Dodds, the proposer of the motion, will be pleased to hear that. I am sure that she will keep her focus on the matter in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Ms Mulholland: 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. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Ms Mulholland: It is a real honour to propose the motion. I begin the debate with a question that I have been battling with since the publication of the UK Government's Green Paper, 'Pathways to Work': what kind of society do we want to be? If we judge that by how we treat our most vulnerable or how we treat and support our constituents who are sick, disabled, caring for others or living in poverty, I fear that we are heading in the wrong direction.

Last week, the Chancellor stood up and promised to do nothing that would put household finances in danger. In the same breath, however, her Government released a plan that, by their own admission, will push a quarter of a million people — that is at the low end of the estimations — into poverty, and 50,000 of those will be children.

Let us remind ourselves of what is being proposed in the Government's 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper. If you are disabled and receive the personal independence payment (PIP), which is the benefit that is meant to help you with the additional costs of your disability, you may soon be told that you no longer qualify. Your condition and your needs may not have changed, but, under the new criteria, you no longer tick the right boxes. PIP is an equity payment, and removing that from some of our most vulnerable will breed inequity and injustice, and it does not stop there. Losing PIP means losing so much more than PIP. The person who looks after you at home could lose their carer's allowance. You could lose the health component of universal credit (UC). You could even lose the roof over your head. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) tells us that 800,000 people will lose money from PIP, nearly half of those through reassessments. That is not reform; it is a step backwards, plain and simple. It is being landed on the shoulders of the most vulnerable, the people who already struggle to get by.

I am particularly incredulous about the fact that those policies are not being delivered by the Tory Governments of years gone by, whose Administrations became a byword for austerity and cruelty. They are being delivered by a Labour Government who came to power promising a new progressive approach but ignored the options for taxing wealth and opted instead to raise money off the back of those who can least afford it.

I want to be specific about what that will look like in my constituency. Since the changes were announced, having been leaked through rumours and conjecture, people have been phoning my constituency office in tears through lack of sleep and the fear and worry that have been caused. There is a single mother in Ballymena who cares for her disabled son. She gave up her career to care for the most important person in her world — her words. The carer's allowance did not just cover costs but gave her the breathing room to be fully present for him in order to build their life around his needs. Now, a bureaucratic change to his PIP assessment means that that support could be taken away as soon as he turns 18. She has not stopped caring, and he has not stopped being disabled, but the state may no longer recognise either of them. She is not backed up; she is left behind.

There is a man in his 50s who lives on his own outside Ballymoney. He has chronic pain and arthritis, which he has had for years. He cannot work, not because he does not want to but because his body simply cannot let him. Right now, he gets PIP and the health element of universal credit, but, under the new rules, he will be reassessed, and, because he does not meet the criteria to get four points in one element, he will lose up to £9,000 a year. Nine and a half grand: that is his heating, his groceries and his lift to the GP, but it will be gone. He does not have family nearby, and he lives alone. That is the state telling him that he is no longer sick enough to be deserving of support. He has not changed, and his pain has not changed, but the system has and is leaving him behind.

Northern Ireland will be hit especially hard. We have already said that we have the highest economic inactivity rate in the UK: 26·6% of all people aged 16 to 64. Over 120,000 people here are long-term sick, which is nearly 40% of inactive working-age adults. It worries me that part of my constituency falls in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, which is one of the areas highlighted in Ulster University's January 2024 report as having some of the highest levels of economic inactivity among working-age men and women anywhere in Northern Ireland. The reasons for that are not that hard to find. There are higher rates of disability and mental ill health, and the legacy of the Troubles continues to shape trauma, poor outcomes, poverty and poor infrastructure, especially in rural areas such as mine. Frankly, the job market is not exactly productive.

When the Government say that this is about getting people into work, we in Northern Ireland especially have to ask these questions: where are the jobs that will accommodate fluctuating health conditions? Where is the transport system that gets you to a job if you have a disability, particularly in a rural area? Where is the help for employers to make reasonable adjustments or even to understand what a "reasonable adjustment" means? Áine from Carers NI said in the meeting that we had before the debate that, if you want to get people into work, you should get the entire infrastructure right before you start cutting their benefits.

The Green Paper makes it crystal clear that we in Northern Ireland are being asked to bear the burden but will not share in the benefits. We are expected to implement all the cuts to PIP, carer's allowances and the health element of universal credit, but we will see none of the direct investment in employment supports that is being promised for GB in the package of measures. In the Green Paper, there is talk about 1,000 new work coaches, massive investment in NHS occupational health and programmes to work directly with employers to create more inclusive work places: all of that is being designed, trialled and funded in England. In Northern Ireland, we are being offered all the pain and zero gain. We are expected to cut support while our health system is in crisis. We have just had a debate that outlined that in its entirety. It is a false promise; it is pressure without partnership and, frankly, it is a disgrace.

The financial reality does not stack up either. The Disability Policy Centre found that, from 2016 to 2021, disability benefit cuts were meant to save £18 billion, but they saved £800 million. For this current package, which Labour claims will save close to £5 billion, a third-best-case model puts savings at £100 million, just 2% of the billions that Labour says that it will save. Meanwhile, projected losses — to name a few — come from the appeals and admin costs, £400 million; the increased NHS and social care demand, £1·2 billion; and lost consumer spending, £500 million. Those figures come directly from the Disability Policy Centre's data.

The crisis is particularly stark in specialities such as orthopaedics, dermatology and mental health services, including child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Therefore, when we talk about the impact of cutting disability benefits and pushing people off welfare, in a place where they cannot even get the healthcare that they need, it is not simply unjust, it is unworkable. Let us be clear about who this hits the hardest. According to the Resolution Foundation, across the UK, 3·2 million families will lose an average of £1,720 a year. A household with a disabled person and a full-time carer could lose £10,300, and the poorest half of working-age households will become £500 poorer. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be pushed into poverty. According to Carers UK, 150,000 unpaid carers could lose PIP and carer's allowance.

I am using UK stats, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we simply do not know right now what impact this is going to have on Northern Ireland. We have absolutely no figures at our disposal at the moment that will say there are x number of people who will be disadvantaged in Northern Ireland and it will cost x amount of money to mitigate it. That is one of the reasons why I have a wee bit of concern about the SDLP amendment. We simply do not know how much mitigations will cost right now. Especially given the situation that we are in, it is hard to sign up to something so vague until we have the figures in place.

What I want from this motion today is for us —.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes. Quickly, Sinéad. I have points to make.

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. Mitigations are not always about pounds, shillings and pence. They are also about improving services.

Ms Mulholland: I wholeheartedly agree with that. That is the point I am making. When we look for investment in the health service, occupational health, mental health services or employment programmes, we find that we are not getting any of it. If the amendment that the SDLP proposes is not just about a mitigation package that takes money out of our Budget but is a holistic package, which is what we need and ask for, I am slightly less concerned about it. At the minute, our priority is to find out and get detailed figures on what this is going to cost and the impact that it will have.

We need a different path and a rejection of this Government's punitive approach. We need a UK-wide commission to shape real, compassionate solutions to economic inactivity amongst disabled people. We need a focus on progressive means of generating more revenue for public services, particularly increasing taxes on the superwealthy, which is one of the reasons why I cannot support the DUP amendment, which takes that out. We need to send a clear signal from the Assembly that Northern Ireland will not be punished for needing support. I return to my first question: what kind of society do we want to be?

Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

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

Since this latest wave of cuts to disability support was announced a couple of weeks ago, I have been inundated daily on the street, in the supermarket and through late-night messages from anxious constituents, all terrified about what is coming next. I am sure that everyone here has heard the same anguish from constituents, family and friends.

In recent years, we have witnessed gaslighting through welfare: telling people that things will not be that bad — actually telling people that things will be better — whilst systematically dismantling the very safety net that they rely on. I put on record not just my disappointment but my disgust at the UK Labour Party. 'Things Can Only Get Better'? Things have only got worse. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have carried on the work of the Tories, like Robin Hoods in reverse, taking money from the poor and protecting the interests, and the interest, of the rich.

The removal of the £20 universal credit uplift, the loss of discretionary housing payments for disabled private renters, the two-child limit, cuts to personal care packages and reductions in discretionary support grants are all sacrifices under the guise of balancing budgets. Rather than plugging financial gaps, those in power in Westminster have delivered "wealthfare" — death by a thousand cuts — and this place has not always just sat and watched; parties here have empowered Westminster.

I welcome the tabling of the motion and, in particular, the fact that it was tabled by those in Alliance, who now appear to fully recognise the harm that welfare reform has inflicted, is inflicting and will continue to inflict on people here. Ms Mulholland's speech excellently outlined its impact. I hope that, in acknowledging past mistakes, Executive parties will take steps to address the suffering caused by those callous policies. The parties that now vociferously express opposition to welfare cuts — we welcome that — were responsible for embedding them in our system.

It is worth remembering that we are still waiting for the delivery of promised welfare mitigations, from the removal of the five-week wait for universal credit to the end of the cruel two-child policy. Meanwhile, welfare cuts will have — already are having — a disproportionate impact on people in the North. Due in no small part to the legacy of our past, we have higher rates of disability than any other region, the widest employment gap for disabled people and the fastest-growing child poverty level. We also have the highest number of low-income households that rely on benefits for over half their income; that tells us everything that we need to know. Those families do not rely on the system by choice but because they have no other option. When support is cut, where do they turn? How can people, especially those without the capacity to work, bridge the growing gap between support and spiralling housing costs? More people will be plunged further into poverty, adding to our homelessness and our hopelessness.

We all have a duty to dispel the toxic trope of the benefit scrounger. Any system is open to abuse, but we have a system that abuses people. Distilling the situation to such a cynical and, frankly, misleading argument does a disservice to the harsh reality; it serves as a smokescreen, concealing the war on welfare or, more accurately, the war on the poor. It begs these questions: where are the radical reforms on tax evasion to ensure that the super-rich pay their fair share? How can the Labour Party justify spending billions on defence while bombarding the defenceless?

Instead of focusing outrage on a small minority who exploit the system, we should remember the real people behind the statistics: those already struggling to get by. I think of one constituent who dedicated years of her life to caring for the elderly only to find herself unable to work any longer due to crippling arthritis and neurological problems that leave her bed-bound; or a gentleman who suffers serious mental health struggles, after a lifetime of trauma that no one should be forced to endure, who is no longer able to manage day-to-day life; or the parents who provide full-time care for their disabled child and are no longer able to work.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. It would be wise of us to consider not only benefits such as PIP but the passported benefits that disabled people can get as a consequence of their eligibility for the likes of PIP and disability living allowance (DLA) that are under threat. I list in particular carer's allowance, the blue badge scheme, housing benefit, elements of income support, enhanced disability premiums, the half-fare SmartPass, health costs, the affordable warmth scheme and the other — I will not call them benefits — entitlements that people have on the back of their eligibility for benefits. That is what is causing real concern to many people in our community and elevating levels of anxiety.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. Ms Mulholland demonstrated very well that the savings that will be realised in practice will not match those that are proposed on paper. On the other hand, the costs to people that loss of the benefit will bring about will far outweigh the financial amount saved. For those people, the costs will not just be difficult — they will be devastating. They will not just be devastating for those directly impacted on; there will be a wider economic impact. Small businesses, which are already struggling to survive as they face an increased outlay in National Insurance contributions — they will rightly ask, "Where are those going?" — and through the minimum wage increase, will now be hit by the fact of people having less money to spend. It is a double whammy. The ends cannot meet. It will result in people losing their jobs and being forced on to welfare support.

The Executive's habit of pointing the finger of blame at the British Government is well justified in this particular issue. The bad Budgets that we have seen and heard from Westminster seem to keep coming. However, pointing the finger also belies the Executive's culpability. I remind Members that welfare is a devolved matter. The situation has been made worse by repeated political collapse, chronic underfunding of the block grant from Westminster and, also, a failure by us — by this place — to transform and improve public services. Time and time again, those who need help the most have been left in limbo, abandoned due to political inaction and dysfunction: that cannot continue.

Our amendment urges the Minister for Communities to work with the Minister of Finance to develop, at pace, a mitigation package that will protect current and future claimants. Yes, it is vague. We do not know how much that might cost. We do not know how much you might have — maybe you can tell us. However, let us see the options. Give us a decision to make. Stripping welfare from our most vulnerable will not help those with long-term illnesses and disabilities to return to work; it will make it even more difficult — impossible in many cases — for them to do so.

All Departments and all Ministers have a role to play. What are we doing to tackle economic inactivity? Many people are not fit to work because they have languished for years on healthcare waiting lists, often descending into dependence on painkillers or into depression. Will the long-awaited and long-overdue anti-poverty strategy — I know that it went to the Executive for approval yesterday — shield our most vulnerable from further onslaughts? We will not hold our breath.

People are afraid. People are anxious. They deserve a system that enables, not one that punishes. Let us not wait until more lives are pushed to the brink. We must act now to build a compassionate system for those who need it most.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Mr Kingston has 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Kingston: The past two weeks have caused great anxiety for people who receive disability- and health-related benefits. The 'Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper', which was published on 18 March, reduced the number of people who will qualify for personal independence payments from 2026-27 onwards and made other reductions to health-related benefits. Combined with further changes in the spring statement last week, the package of welfare measures is designed to decrease government spending by around £4·8 billion in 2029-30, which is different from the plans in the autumn statement.

The DUP has always stood for a welfare system that provides support to those who need it most. We will continue to do so, whilst recognising that the quantum of funding that would be required to mitigate the proposed cuts simply does not and will not exist in the Northern Ireland block grant. I point out to the SDLP Members for Foyle, in case they have not read it, that the SDLP amendment absolutely proposes mitigating any reduction in claimants' social security entitlement.

That would have to come from the block grant for public services in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, briefly.

Ms McLaughlin: Do you not believe that a mitigating circumstance is, for example, the anti-poverty strategy that the Minister has delivered to the Executive? Do you not believe that its content will go part of the way to mitigating poverty and advocating for the poor?

Mr Kingston: I am referring to the wording of the SDLP amendment and am making the point that your party claims every time that we should mitigate poverty out of the block grant, which would reduce much-needed funding for all our public services in Northern Ireland. Despite what you claimed earlier, if you read your party's amendment, you will see that that is clearly what it proposes.

We believe in protecting the most vulnerable in our society whilst ensuring fairness for taxpayers and tackling abuse of the system. It is disgraceful that, instead of taking responsibility for its previous attacks on pensioners, employers and farm businesses, Labour is targeting welfare recipients and pensioners to foot the bill for its ill-conceived policies, which have damaged economic growth. Nobody will disagree that welfare spending must be fair and sustainable, but the proposed narrowing of eligibility for the daily living element of the personal independence payment has caused great anxiety for the thousands of people in Northern Ireland who rely on that support, including many with mental health conditions. The nature of mental health means not only that an individual's needs fluctuate over time but that illness manifests itself in a variety of ways. The Government's changes to PIP assessments do not seem to reflect that reality and will require four points under a single heading, rather than a possible accumulation of points across the board. There is no fairness, justice or compassion at the heart of the Labour Party's proposals. Our MPs have urged the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness or be able to explain or grasp it following the proposed changes. How will those people be protected?

It is increasingly clear that the Government are intent on making life more difficult for those in need in order to balance the books. No credible plan for economic growth has been presented. Labour needs to rethink its proposals and provide real assurances to those affected. The punitive nature of some of the reforms is compounded by the fact that key mitigations that are being put forward, including an additional universal credit premium or security for those with the most severe and lifelong disabilities and a new unemployment insurance benefit, have not been fleshed out to any significant extent.

Equipping benefit fraud officers with adequate resources and powers to catch and deal with those committing fraud would be a better starting point than sweeping changes that are unlikely to outsmart the fraudster but will hit the most vulnerable. The spring statement details some investment in fraud and error measures, but that must translate into concrete actions and outcomes. Calls for a wealth tax are well rehearsed, and we support the principle of a fair and progressive tax system. Equally, we are mindful that such a policy, particularly if adopted annually, is not a silver bullet and could undermine investment and economic growth across the United Kingdom.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for giving way. I appreciate your comments about welfare fraud. It is a serious issue and has to be tackled, but do you not agree that it pales into insignificance compared with the problem of tax dodging in the United Kingdom?

Mr Kingston: Indeed, and I will come on to that point. We have said that the Government should do more to bring in taxes, but the scale of welfare fraud is in the hundreds of millions of pounds. If we are talking about mitigations, that is where we could cover them.

I will keep going. In 1990, 12 countries had wealth taxes; today, just three do. OECD reports suggest that wealth taxes create problems for people who are asset-rich but not income-rich and whose wealth is tied up in illiquid assets. Such a tax could also discourage a savings ethos. Alliance may claim that it is unlikely to impact on those in Northern Ireland, if the tax targets the "superwealthy", but how is that defined? Ultimately, taxing income and consumption is relatively simple. Analysing wealth is far more difficult.

That is not to say that there are no other measures that could tangibly increase the tax base while protecting the most vulnerable. Online marketplaces continue to undercut our high street shops, which often pay more in rates than global firms that operate online pay in taxes. There should also be renewed focus on cracking down on those who evade paying tax in the United Kingdom.

We support the proposal for a UK-wide commission to scope out interventions to tackle high economic inactivity rates. In 2024, Northern Ireland was overtaken by Wales in having the highest regional economic inactivity rate, but our rate remains well above the UK average, which requires sustained attention. In their Green Paper, the Government have earmarked £1 billion for a "Pathways to work" offer. We need to see more detail on that and on how such initiatives, as well as the transformation pot mentioned in the spring statement, can benefit Northern Ireland's labour market conditions.

To recap, I point out to the Alliance Party that our amendment removes none of its motion's wording but adds that increasing the public purse can be better achieved by:

It states that any policy to increase taxes on the superwealthy must be:

It also states that the welfare support system must be fair to those who require support and to the taxpayer. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Gildernew: I extend solidarity on behalf of Sinn Féin to all the people in our communities who live with disabilities.

The public backlash to the cuts speaks for itself. There is huge fear and concern about what the cuts will mean for some of the most vulnerable in our society. There is also an element of shock for some people, as many — wrongly, it transpires — thought that, with the removal of the Tories from power last year, we had seen the end of Tory austerity. If anything, this Labour Government seem desperate to prove that they can be just as cruel, if not even more so, than the Tories whom they replaced. Sinn Féin has made it clear that we regard the cuts as another cynical, shocking and disgraceful attack on the most vulnerable people in our society, who need and deserve our support.

The British Government have attempted to spin the cuts as being about supporting people with disabilities back into work. We need to be absolutely clear: they are about nothing of the sort. The cuts are about balancing the books. Politics is about choices, and the British Government know that there are other choices that they could make to avoid the cuts. The British Government could have chosen to increase taxes on the super-rich, but, instead, they shamefully chose to punish the sick and disabled while spending vast sums on weapons of war.

While there remains so much uncertainty about who will be affected by the cuts and in what way, one thing is certain: the North will be disproportionately affected by them. The share of the population who are entitled to disability benefits is much higher here than it is in Britain, which is due to a number of reasons. We are a post-conflict society in which many people still carry the wounds, physical and mental, from years of conflict, including trans-generational impacts that continue to occur. The British Government have yet to acknowledge that fact. They need to urgently clarify what the cuts will mean for the North specifically.

The British Government have also, shamefully, chosen to conflate the separate issues of supporting people to manage their disabilities and reducing economic inactivity. Our social welfare system is a safety net that is designed to support the least well-off in society to live with dignity and with a decent quality of life. People with disabilities already face so many challenges that the rest of us do not, including the many financial penalties that come with having a disability. Trussell, which is here today, has identified that 114,000 people are at risk of falling further into poverty as a result of the cuts and that three quarters of food bank users cite the fact that a person in their family has a disability. The Samaritans, who are also here today, have clearly identified the increased risk that people with disabilities and their informal unpaid carers face as a result of disability and the fact that carers will also be impacted by the cuts. It is clear that the cuts will have the effect of punishing an already vulnerable cohort of people simply because they have a disability.

It is important to say that many people with disabilities are already in work and contribute to our economy every day. That fact seems to have been lost in much of the discussion about the changes. However, it is also true that, although many people living with disabilities would very much like to gain employment, the support that would allow them to do so simply does not exist. Schemes such as Workable (NI) and Access to Work provide tailored one-to-one support for people with disabilities who are seeking to gain employment, but, because of the limited funding available to them, they can be limited in what they can achieve. There is also the employment support scheme, which supports 250 disabled people to remain in employment. However, it was announced a number of months ago that the Minister was proposing to close that scheme. I urge the Minister to reconsider closing the scheme, particularly given the announcement of the cuts. I would appreciate it if he would provide some clarity.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I appreciate the Member's giving way. He will be aware of the budgetary constraints that we are under and the decisions that need to be made. He made the point well that the Government can save money and help people at the same time by ensuring that there is investment. Investment in the job programmes that he mentioned is a way in which we could help people and save money at the same time. That is the route that any Government should go down, especially a Labour Government.

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

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Minister. I agree. I absolutely support the aim of supporting people who are often blocked from accessing the employment opportunities that we all enjoy. If that were the aim, that is where you would start. The fact that that is not where this has started tells us that that is not the aim at all.

A chairde

, we must do everything in our power to stop the cuts, and we must all stand united in opposition to them. No one should deflect from that task. The British Government must turn away from the failed ideology of austerity and, instead, invest in our people and our communities. Sinn Féin will continue to press for proper funding for public services and to protect the sick and vulnerable, while making the case for constitutional change on this island, so that decisions can be made by and in the best interests of the people here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Andy Allen. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Tourism has a key role to play in contributing to my objectives of regional balance and decarbonisation. I welcome the recent news that Roe Valley Resort will benefit from substantial investment by its new owners, the Galgorm Collection. Both Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland promote all regions of the North through seasonal marketing campaigns. Those are delivered domestically in Ireland and overseas to make consumers aware of accommodation offers, attractions and things to see and do. Roe Valley Resort has benefited from featuring in previous campaigns and will continue to do so.

Both agencies also deliver a year-round programme of social media, email and influencer marketing along with extensive PR, which Roe Valley Resort will benefit from. As part of the PR activity, Tourism NI will ensure that the resort is included in the itineraries of the 300 international journalists and influencers whom Tourism Ireland brings to the North each year. The Galgorm Collection is a regular participant in Tourism Ireland’s calendar of overseas events, where it meets and secures business from international operators in the travel trade, business events and the golf sector. Roe Valley Resort will now benefit from being part of that portfolio and through its ongoing presence at those events, including last week’s Meet the Buyer 2025 event, where local businesses were able to meet 160 international tour operators.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her response. What steps, Minister, is your Department, alongside Invest NI, taking to attract further new business and investment to Roe valley, particularly in high-value industries?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will be aware, we recently published the subregional economic plan, which is our approach to promoting regional balance. Just yesterday, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council had the first meeting of its local economic partnership. That enables the local council, along with partners, to develop plans for the local economy, and we are really keen to support that. We have put £45 million of funding towards doing that. We are working with Invest NI. As you know, it has aligned with the Department's strategy and the four priorities that we have, including regional balance. Invest NI now has a target to deliver 65% of investments outside of Belfast. It has specific targets for each council area, and we will work with it, alongside the local economic partnerships, to develop the offering for each of the local councils. Obviously, that includes Roe valley. I am very familiar, as you are, with that particular area and the strengths that lie within it. We are also working with Tourism Ireland and Tourism NI on promoting the tourism offering.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for her update on work on the Roe valley along the Causeway coastal route. Further to that, can the Minister advise on progress on including the Causeway coastal route in the Wild Atlantic Way?

Dr Archibald: The €7 million project, funded by the Shared Island Fund, is progressing well. Its aim is to connect the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route so as to present a seamless touring route for the tourist. The intention is to give greater visibility to tourism experiences beyond the traditional hotspots, and the Member, given that he is from North Antrim, will be very familiar with those. The aim is to encourage people to spend more time and money in the region. Design work is being undertaken on improved signage, and applications to the small capital grant scheme are being assessed by Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland.

Ms Hunter: I am sure that we can all welcome this incredible level of investment in the Roe Valley Resort. Minister, will you outline any further discussions that you have had with your counterparts in the South regarding tourism and looking at an all-island approach?

Dr Archibald: Since I have come into post, I have had the opportunity to meet the Minister in the South. There is a North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting scheduled for 16 April, so we will have further opportunities to discuss it. I have also had the opportunity to work alongside Tourism Ireland. I accompanied its representatives to ITB Berlin, which is a big international tourism conference, and, again with Tourism Ireland, I got the opportunity to meet tour operators and providers in New York. Furthermore, I met Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland at last week's Meet the Buyer 2025 event in the Eikon centre. Therefore, there have been a lot of conversations. The previous Minister published the tourism action plan. There is huge potential from tourism across the whole region. It is one of the sectors that really delivers on our regional balance objectives alongside our other economic objectives. I look forward to having more conversations with my counterpart in the South.

Dr Archibald: I recognise the importance of hydrogen and the contribution that it will make to decarbonisation. HyTech NI has a £15 million investment from the Executive's complementary fund and is jointly sponsored by Queen's University Belfast and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which are partnering with Ulster University and industry to develop the project. It consists of two complementary core strands of work covering the development of several hydrogen demonstrators that are located in Ballymena and the development of a hydrogen innovation accelerator to facilitate R&D via the procurement and deployment of specialist equipment.

My Department, through Invest NI, is supporting the project promoters in developing the business case and ensuring that it meets the needs of local industry. In addition, Invest NI is supporting the i4C cleantech hub as part of a wider regeneration plan for the former St Patrick's Barracks in the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area through £20·5 million of funding from the Belfast region city deal. That investment will include grade-A office space, SME laboratories and an innovation laboratory, as well as a hydrogen training academy that will have dedicated staff to assist SMEs to adopt the technology.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for her answer. All efforts to date in the mid and east Antrim area have been led by the local council. At what stage will central government start to unfurl its strategy and take over and roll out the hydrogen industry across Northern Ireland? I made this case in the Chamber last week when I said that I believe that Ballymena should become the hydrogen hub of Northern Ireland. I strongly recommend that to you, Minister. Hopefully, through time, we will see the investment that comes with it. We have industry, we have a local government authority leading on it and we now need the Executive to get in behind it.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We had a good discussion in last week's debate on the hydrogen motion. As I outlined in my answer to the original question, there is collaboration between the Department, Invest NI and the local universities, alongside Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. We are keen to support that in any way that we can. As I mentioned in my earlier answer to Mr Robinson, there are also the local economic partnerships that each of the council areas is initiating. As part of that, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council will have the opportunity to develop its own economic plans that fit its local area. I would not be surprised if hydrogen features in part of that plan. We are providing funding to support the local economic partnerships. The objective is that those partnerships will use that funding to leverage other funding and to work alongside Departments to develop proposals. I look forward to engaging with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council on that.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister outline when her Department will be consulting on a hydrogen policy?

Dr Archibald: My departmental officials continue to work on developing the hydrogen policy consultation paper. We have established a hydrogen industry working group that consists of representatives from industry, academia and representative groups to inform that work, with a view to publishing the consultation paper in quarter 2 of this year. Stakeholders will then be given 12 weeks in which to respond to the questions, which will cover a range of issues that are in the consultation process. Some of those were aired as part of the debate last week. It is quite an exciting policy area for us, and we look forward to consulting on it.

Mr Harvey: Does the Minister agree that hydrogen can provide benefits right across Northern Ireland and not just in North Antrim?

Dr Archibald: I agree that there are opportunities for hydrogen to benefit the whole of the North. Indeed, we are working across both islands in that respect, because there are policy developments in both the South and Britain. We are keen to learn from best practice and seek to develop our policy in a way that is complementary to other policies.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will group questions 3 and 8. My officials are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to co-design the North's £150 million enhanced investment zone programme. The focus of the programme must be consistent with the British Government's objectives and priority sectors, and it is likely to concentrate on the advanced manufacturing sector. That sector cuts across many areas, including green industries and life and health sciences, employs an estimated 80,000 people and accounts for half of our export sales.

The development of the programme must follow a five-stage approval process, and the target for final approval is autumn 2025. Key to securing approval at each stage is a clear demonstration that the investment zone funding will drive productivity and leverage significant private-sector funding. During March, my Department hosted regional workshops with the private sector and other stakeholders. To help develop that work, we have put out a call for evidence to the attendees.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. I agree with Mr Harvey: we need to move outside North Antrim and all of Antrim. I am going to focus on Mid Ulster, which, I am sure, will not come as any surprise to you. Minister, what engagement have you had, particularly with the engineering sector in Mid Ulster, on the work that is being undertaken to develop the investment zone proposition?

Dr Archibald: My officials have been concentrating on developing an evidence base that clearly supports the rationale for how the enhanced investment zone funding may be deployed. That includes identifying the key barriers to growth in our target sector of advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for growth in that sector and, critically, the likely interventions that will address those barriers. Officials have been working closely with colleagues in both our universities and the private sector. They have also undertaken a series of regional workshops that, again, involved the private sector, local representative bodies, colleges, universities and our ports.

Part of the workshops focused on the skills agenda, because, clearly, we need to develop our thinking about how we can use the investment zone funding to drive forward the work on the skills gap that will be required to support our companies in improving their productivity performance so that they can be in a position to create better jobs. The skills barometer has highlighted the fact that there are significant skills shortages in the advanced manufacturing sector. I know that the Member will be familiar with Manufacturing and Engineering Growth Advancement (MEGA) in mid-Ulster, which has worked to address some of those. There is potential for the investment zone funding to support skills interventions at all levels to address the gap. Qualifications in the fields of engineering and manufacturing lead to high-quality, well-paid jobs, increase our potential for productivity growth and contribute to our goals as the sector develops and embraces emerging green technologies. I will soon publish a green skills action plan that has been developed in collaboration with industry and education and that is aligned with our commitment to deliver a just transition to net zero.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Minister. Your previous answer feeds into what I was going to ask. That £150 million is not a small amount of money, but it is also not a very big amount of money. If we go through a full list of activities such as that, there is a risk that we may spread the money so thinly that it does not make any real difference in overall terms. Is there some cognisance of the need to try to find and support big projects that will deliver real change, bring jobs and investment and maximise the bang for our buck?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I set out in my opening answer, a key objective of developing the programme is that we will be able to leverage in private-sector funding alongside the investment that will come from the public sector. It is about absolutely maximising the money that we obtain through enhanced investment zone funding and utilising that to leverage further funding. You are right: it is not a small pot of funding, but it is not huge either, so we have to deliver as much bang for our buck as we can.

Mr Honeyford: Given that we are only 2·8% of the UK population — smaller than some regional cities that have been targeted by the Government — and have access to EU and GB markets, has the whole of Northern Ireland been included in the enhanced investment zone?

Dr Archibald: Yes. That is the approach that has been adopted, and it was agreed with the British Government. As you rightly say, we are a small region in population size as well, so we wanted to maximise the opportunities for people and the benefit. That is why we took the approach of directing it towards advanced manufacturing, which encompasses a broad range of sectors even within that broad headline. We are keen to work alongside the private sector to develop proposals that will have the maximum impact.

Dr Archibald: Artificial intelligence is one of the most important technological developments in recent times. It will bring about significant change in the economy and workforce, and it offers potential to contribute to my economic vision, most obviously in relation to productivity and good jobs.

Currently, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act applies in the North in respect of articles 103 to 107 and 109, as they amend legislation listed in annex 2 to the Windsor framework. The EU notified the British Government of those articles' application under article 13(3) of the Windsor framework, following the Act's publication on 12 July 2024. In its explanatory memorandum of 17 July, the British Government considered that the provisions would have limited, if any, impact in practice. The British Government and the EU continue to discuss the potential application of the remaining provisions of the EU AI Act under the Windsor framework.

The remaining provisions of the Act are set out as new provisions, so their application in the North would require notification via the process set out in article 13(4) of the Windsor framework, and that is a matter for the British Government. No notifications under article 13(4) have been made at this stage. It is important to note, however, that businesses and developers outside the EU will have to comply with the AI Act, if their AI system is sold in the EU or if, when deployed, its output is used in the EU. That applies to businesses in Britain in the same way as it does to businesses in Ireland, North and South.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What is the long-term strategy for AI development in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: We continue to develop that. As part of the Programme for Government, the Executive Office is establishing an AI task force and the forthcoming office of AI and digital. We will continue to work collaboratively within and across Departments in the North and across these islands to harness the positive potential of the safe and responsible use of technology.

We have a lot of skills strength in software engineering and cyber in particular, and we have huge potential to be a hub for AI as well. From the Executive's perspective and from the Department's perspective, that is something that we are keen to explore.

Mr Buckley: AI is revolutionary and is crucial to future growth opportunities. While other nations want to lead on developing the opportunities that AI presents, the EU wants to lead on its regulation. Is it not inevitable, Minister, that that will hold back innovative entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland whom your party helped to bind to the EU, sacrificing their talents and ambitions on the altar of EU bureaucracy and red tape and presenting further barriers?
Will the Minister commit to a deep departmental analysis, before the regulation is published in the EU journal, to ensure that our indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs are not placed at a disadvantage?

Dr Archibald: The analysis of the British Government, in advance of the explanatory memorandum being published, was that there is limited impact in practice. We will continue to analyse the legislative impact and the practical implications, as you would expect us to. As I outlined in my answer to Ms Armstrong, we will work to harness the potential of AI and maximise its benefits, obviously taking into account the need to do so safely and in a way that protects privacy.

Dr Archibald: The closure of Connswater Shopping Centre is regrettable for the businesses and, obviously, the employees that are impacted. My Department is committed to doing everything possible to support those affected. My Department's Careers Service is available to support anyone who faces redundancy or has been made unemployed as a result of the closure of Connswater Shopping Centre. The Department’s redundancy payments service aims to process claims as quickly as possible within two weeks of receipt of all the necessary information. Careers advisers have access to up-to-date labour market information provided by the Department’s economists, which they use with the client to inform careers guidance discussions about reskilling, training, apprenticeships and further and higher education. That support is professional, free and tailored to the needs of each individual, with the aim of supporting as many employees as possible back into employment.

Many of the issues facing our retailers, including the former business tenants of Connswater Shopping Centre, are outside the remit of the Executive. However, I am aware of the real and pressing issues facing our retailers. Those concerns are being examined as part of the cost of doing business research project, which I commissioned in my previous capacity as Finance Minister.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for the practical options that she outlined for those affected. She will be aware that the closure of Connswater is a significant body blow to the people of East Belfast and beyond. In addition to the good work that is done by East Belfast Enterprise and EastSide Partnership, what action can be taken and what work can be done by her Department to restore what used to be thriving areas in inner east Belfast, including the Newtownards Road, to help to create good jobs for people in the area?

Dr Archibald: We are all aware of the changing nature of our high streets and city centres. It is not just us who grapple with that. I am willing to work across Departments to look at how we can support the development of strong and thriving high streets. We had the high street task force, and many of its recommendations are being implemented. As I mentioned in a previous answer, local economic partnerships are being set up under each of the councils. There are opportunities there for each area to develop economic plans that meet the needs of their local community. As I also said in a previous answer, funding has been provided for those. It aims to support each of the local economic partnerships to develop proposals and work alongside Departments in taking some of those proposals forward.

Ms Sheerin: What progress has been made on implementation of the high street task force recommendations?

Dr Archibald: The report of the high street task force was an important stage in our approach to improving our high streets. My Department had particular responsibility for the report's recommendation 8, "Fair Work on Our High Streets". That recommendation very much aligns with my economic priority on good jobs. Work is being done in my Department on the development of a new employment rights Bill; promotion of greater adoption of the real living wage; and collaboration with the Labour Relations Agency to create a good employment charter, which will serve to support the implementation of that recommendation.

Ms McLaughlin: From east Belfast to the north-west, businesses are being forced to shut down as a result of the cost of doing business. Minister, you referred to research that you have commissioned: what conversations have you had with the Minister of Finance about the recommendations from that research?

Dr Archibald: The research was commissioned just before Christmas. We are expecting a report soon. We had hoped to receive it by the end of this month. There will be opportunities to analyse the outworkings of the report. The objective, I suppose, of the research was to give us an understanding of the issues and to have an evidential base on which to make arguments, particularly when making the case for special circumstances perhaps to be taken into consideration in decisions that the British Treasury makes. The research's outworkings will be important for informing future Executive considerations and any case that we make to Treasury.

Dr Archibald: Getting young people with a disability into a good job is a critical part of my economic vision. The loss of European social fund (ESF) funding has had a significant impact and has significantly reduced the skills and training support available to disabled people. Despite that, we continue to work closely with the Department for Communities, which is the lead Department on disability, including the disability and work strategy.

My Department makes an important contribution through a range of programmes and services, which include such programmes as SKILL UP, Step Up and Skills for Life and Work. The apprenticeships programme also provides additional support to assist disabled people with their off-the-job training. There is also the Breaking Barriers programme, which specifically targets those who are disabled or neurodivergent and are over the age of 18. Finally, I expect to receive a report from my officials soon on the work that they have been doing on provision for young people with special educational needs.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much, Minister. That was comprehensive and really useful. Is your Department doing any work with employers to encourage inclusive workplaces that will be more useful for disabled people to come into?

Dr Archibald: That is a really important aspect. We talk a lot about having programmes in place to support individuals who face barriers to work and training. It is really important to me that we have those programmes in place, but, equally, we are working with employers to address some of the barriers to employment that people face and to determine what they can do to support people into employment, which can include things such as having more accessible workplaces and removing unnecessary criteria from job applications. We have the potential to make a bit of a difference there, so I am keen to continue progressing that work.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, you answered on young people, but, more generally, what supports exist for people with a disability?

Dr Archibald: The Department and its predecessor Departments have a long history of seeking to widen access and increase participation for disabled people across the programmes and provisions that they have funded. The supports vary, depending on the type of provision that is being accessed. In addition to the widening participation funding that higher education providers invest from fee income, there is financial assistance for students via the disabled student allowance. There is a grant of up to £25,000 per annum to assist students with the additional higher education course-related expenses that they incur as a direct result of having a disability. That can cover paying for non-medical helpers, specialised equipment and travel to and from their place of study. Each year, around 2,500 students avail themselves of that support.

The Department allocates £4·5 million to further education colleges each year to assist them with supporting their students. That is put to support such as specialist technology and software and non-medical helpers such as scribes and readers. It can also fund tailored courses, with smaller, more supported classes for those who, because of a disability, cannot access mainstream provision.

We also allocated funding to the colleges for the Step Up programme, with over £4 million being allocated to the disability access route to education and employment in the past two years. Support on our training programmes such as Skills for Life and Work can include extended age eligibility and time on the programme, and additional disability support is available on that programme and on our apprenticeship programme.

Dr Archibald: In March, I travelled to the US with officials from Invest NI. I met senior executives from key US investor organisations and engaged with business leaders, potential new investors and industry networks. The visit was not a trade mission but rather an opportunity to reinforce the North’s position as an attractive, competitive and strategic location for US business investment whilst supporting our companies to succeed internationally.

During my visit, I addressed business leaders in New York and Boston to strengthen relationships with influential business, civic and political leaders and to affirm our commitment to mutually beneficial transatlantic partnerships. I highlighted the economic benefits of dual market access, our world-class talent and the opportunities for US companies to invest and expand. I attended a Tourism Ireland round-table business breakfast and met around 20 key travel trade partners, including tour operators and airline contacts who promote and sell the North as a must-see destination for American visitors to Ireland. I highlighted the potential for tourism here to grow and the positive impact that it can have on our local communities and the wider economy.

Commercial outcomes with businesses and inward investment projects take time to come to fruition, but I am confident that those discussions and the ongoing work of Invest NI will result in positive outcomes.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am deeply concerned about the impact of the introduction of the ETA scheme and what it will mean for our tourism sector, especially as it goes live for European citizens tomorrow, as the Member mentioned, and the cost will increase from next week.

Last week, I met representatives of the Tourism Alliance to hear their concerns and about the very real impact that the introduction of the scheme is having. They talked about tourism trips being cancelled and the North being removed from itineraries due to the requirement for visitors here to have an ETA. I have, of course, engaged with the British Government. As recently as last week, I wrote to the British Home Office to make the case for an exemption for the North, given the particular impact here and how visitors to the North mostly travel to the island through Dublin. I will continue to engage on that, and we will continue to monitor the impact.

Ms McLaughlin: The Home Office estimates that the ETA fee could cost the UK economy up to £735 million over five years. Will you publish your Department's research on the economic impact of that on Northern Ireland, Minister? Is that research being used to push for exemptions for the North?

Dr Archibald: As I said, we continue to monitor the impact. We are working with the Tourism Alliance and Tourism Ireland to understand the impact. We will continue to take an economic analysis of that over the coming weeks and months to make the case for an exemption. Many European citizens travel with ID cards and are therefore not able to even get an ETA, because you need a passport to get one. The impact will be significant: it is important that we understand that.

Dr Archibald: Last year, my departmental officials were tasked by my predecessor, Conor Murphy, with reviewing the existing skills and training provision and the relevant legislative protections for school-leavers with special educational needs. They were asked to bring forward recommendations. They took a twin-track approach to that work, which involved a desk-based review of the wide range of relevant reports, recommendations and research and the commissioning of a piece of comparative work from Stranmillis University College on the legislative arrangements across Britain and Ireland. In parallel, they have undertaken more than 80 visits, meetings and engagements with a wide array of stakeholders, which has included parents, schools, young people, colleges, training providers, the community and voluntary sector, representative organisations, other Departments, the health trusts and counterparts from other jurisdictions. That has been incredibly valuable in drawing out the different issues and perspectives. That work is being drawn to a close, and my officials will report to me shortly. Once I have had the opportunity to consider those findings and their advice, I will update the House. I expect to bring issues to the Executive for an informed discussion on the next steps.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

We have all been inspired by the Caleb's Cause campaign. In that light, can the Minister assure us that she will listen to the voices of young people and their parents when it comes to improving services?

Dr Archibald: I can absolutely assure the Member that we are listening to those voices. I very much commend Caleb's mummy, Alma, for her campaign and the work that she has done to shine a spotlight on the issue. Indeed, as part of the stakeholder engagement that I outlined, my officials have had many opportunities to speak directly with young people to hear about their interests and aspirations. They have also met young people's parents and heard their very real frustrations and concerns, as well as their hopes for their young people. Officials also had the opportunity to attend the inspiring event in Parliament Buildings that was organised by Alma and Caleb's Cause and took place last month. As we move forward, we will continue to actively listen to the voices of young people and their parents as we work to improve services and provision.

Dr Archibald: The Member is right. We are working on an offshore renewable energy installations Bill, which will establish frameworks for the decommissioning of safety zones and the rights of navigation in our waters. We are working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) in respect of that. I envisage that incentivisation will be necessary in relation to the investment in offshore projects, and that will continue to be a part of the developmental process for the support scheme that we will be consulting on later in the year. That also fits into the work on the critical path timeline for offshore renewable energy, which is being undertaken by the offshore renewable energy action plan (OREAP) steering group.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she have a time frame for bringing an offshore energy Bill to the House?

Dr Archibald: My Department is committed to bringing a Bill — the one that I referred to in my previous answer — to the Assembly in autumn 2025, and we are keen to make progress. I recently met RenewableNI, and, just yesterday, I met the NI Maritime and Offshore network. The sector is very keen to see progress and to work with us in order to ensure that the supply chain is ready for any offshore developments. I have committed to continuing to work alongside the sector.

Dr Archibald: The social enterprise co-design group held its most recent meeting on 13 March 2025, when it was updated on progress on the implementation of the social enterprise action plan and began discussions on how to further develop the work in future financial years. Subsequently, just last week, I met the group's chair and co-chair, Dave Linton and Maeve Monaghan, to discuss progress and to hear their views on what more can be done to strengthen the social enterprise sector here.

The broad focus of the current work is on improving the participation of social enterprises in public-sector commissioning and on strengthening leadership capacity in the sector. Progress has been made with Invest NI and InterTradeIreland on facilitating access by social enterprises to support. I thank both organisations for the willingness and creativity that they have shown in developing solutions at pace. The co-design group will meet again later this month specifically to discuss access to finance for the sector, and I look forward to attending its meeting in June.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

The Minister will be more than familiar with the fact that the credit unions are a vital part of that enterprise sector and with the role that they play in helping people who are, for the best part, financially excluded. Will your Department work with credit unions to strengthen their legislative base, which will, eventually, allow them to offer more services to the people who need them most?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question and for highlighting the work of credit unions. My Department is working closely with the Irish League of Credit Unions, the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions and other stakeholders to co-design and deliver credit union policy and legislative change that will modernise and strengthen the credit union movement. I will soon launch a consultation to enable credit unions to offer a wider range of products and services while preserving their unique community-focus ethos. The changes will securely anchor credit unions in local communities as focal points for tackling financial exclusion.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We share a constituency. As I mentioned in an earlier answer to Mr Robinson, who is another constituency colleague, the local economic partnership is a key plank in developing proposals for each local area. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the Causeway Coast and Glens first local economic partnership meeting. Those partnerships will be really important in bringing forward proposals. We also have the regional property scheme that we developed alongside Invest NI to look at the opportunities for developing land in each local area. We will continue to work with Invest NI on that in the coming weeks and months.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. There seems to be a lack of movement. Could the Minister detail in a written response what engagement has taken place by Invest NI in East Londonderry? The Mosecure data centre is supposed to have been operational for 10 years or more, but a brick has not been turned.

Dr Archibald: It is important that we work alongside the local council, the universities and regional colleges as well as Invest NI. We are doing that through the local economic partnerships. If the Member wants to write to me about specific issues related to Invest NI, I will be happy to correspond further with him.

Dr Archibald: Regional balance is one of the four priorities in my economic plan, the others being good jobs, productivity and decarbonisation. On regional balance specifically, in October last year, Conor Murphy published the subregional economic plan. A key part of it, as I mentioned, is the establishment of the local economic partnerships. Newry, Mourne and Down was the first local economic partnership to be established. I had the opportunity yesterday to attend its investment conference, which was a positive event, and some really good work is being done there. In that particular area, you have a lot of home-grown businesses and, clearly, a very strong spirit of entrepreneurship. We are keen to build on that and to work in partnership with local councils to deliver it.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given the lack of previous investment and the fact that many businesses, such as those in Downpatrick, are recovering from the floods, can the Minister provide an assurance that any rebalancing will be targeted efficiently?

Dr Archibald: I take the Member's point. It is important that we work in partnership with local councils to develop those plans, and that is why we have taken that particular road.

The Member will be aware that, alongside the Department's economic vision and economic plans, Invest NI has published its business plan for the next three years, which it has very much aligned with the Department's economic vision, including on regional balance. It has a target of having 65% of investments outside the greater Belfast metropolitan area and targets that are specifically for each council area. Efforts are being made to ensure that that rebalancing is done efficiently and very much in partnership with local areas.

Dr Archibald: That has not come to me, because it will go to the Finance Minister. The research is important for providing an evidence base to support potential Executive interventions and on which to make the case to the British Treasury that we have special circumstances here that need to be taken into account. I am looking forward to the publication of the research.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission assessed the feasibility of the free provision of sanitary products on a pilot basis in February 2020. From March 2020, a range of free sanitary products were made available in facilities that are accessible to the public and all Building users. To date, sanitary products remain available for free in Parliament Buildings in the four facilities that are accessible to the public and all Building users.

Mr Honeyford: Are there any plans to extend that provision, or is the Commission happy with the areas that it covers?

Ms Ennis: There are no plans to extend the provision of free sanitary products in Parliament Buildings. While the current provision is focused on locations that can be accessed by the public, the facilities are accessible to all Building users.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission recognises the importance of having a strong framework to support a healthy and resilient workforce. To support the delivery of quality services to staff, we have a corporate health and well-being framework. That framework seeks to achieve positive physical, psychological and social health and well-being outcomes for staff via a focus on prevention, intervention and the promotion of support.

A health and well-being group comprises staff from across the Assembly Commission, and we also have a network of mental health first-aiders and harassment contact officers who are trained to offer confidential guidance and support to staff who are dealing with mental health issues and general work-related concerns.

We have a proactive organisational development and learning team who regularly promote activities, including courses on mental health awareness for staff and their line managers, to assist staff in managing their health and well-being. In addition, we have held several virtual learning events relating to health and well-being as part of our interparliamentary networks with Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

The Assembly Commission has external support through an employee assistance programme that is provided by Inspire Workplace Services. Staff can avail themselves of a number of services, including 24/7 counselling, online training and a range of electronic resources that can be accessed through the Inspire support hub. Assembly Commission staff can also avail themselves of confidential support and advice that are provided by the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) welfare support service.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for his answer. Does the Member agree that, at times, not only politicians but their staff are under pressure and stress? How can those staff access mental health support?

Mr Clarke: The Member raises an important question that is also topical, given what we have seen in the media recently, particularly about the abuse of Members. Indeed, our constituency workers also suffer that. Inspire Workplace Services is an independent organisation that specialises in providing a range of welfare services across the public sector. The services include an independent, confidential counselling service, which includes a 24-hour, 354-day-a-year advice helpline and up to six face-to-face counselling sessions per person. It also involves a telephone counselling service, mediation and conflict coaching, therapeutic support, well-being absence management support and coaching. Hopefully, the Member will agree that the Commission has provided a wide range of options for Members.

Ms Hunter: I am aware that MPs at Westminster are given a budget to avail themselves of mental health treatment. Will the Assembly Commission explore that option in the future?

Mr Clarke: I welcome the Member's question. As I said, it is very topical because of what we have seen recently. It is not something that has been specifically considered by the Assembly Commission. Hopefully, the Member will agree that the provision is more robust than what many Members may have believed was available. Members may need a better indication of where to get the service. When I read the briefing folder today, some of this was new to me, because I had never gone looking for it. The Commission could look at a piece of work to promote the service and make it more visible to Members and their staff.

Miss McAllister: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 3 and 8.

I thank the Members for their questions. The Commission requires its support services contractor to provide comprehensive cleaning services in Parliament Buildings that ensure that the accommodation is maintained to an excellent standard. The use of a single Co-bot vacuum and scrubber-dryer was introduced in 2023 to support Aramark’s team on-site, in the context of the budgetary constraints set out by the Assembly Commission and the reduction in footfall in office buildings due to the introduction of working-from-home policies. The Co-bot works alongside a member of Aramark’s team.

Aramark manages the implementation of its contract in Parliament Buildings and retains all responsibilities for employing its staff. As such, Aramark's staff sit outside of the joint Assembly Commission management/trade union side negotiating body. Despite that, Aramark carried out a consultation exercise with staff in 2023 in advance of the changes due to the automation. The consultation exercise highlighted the fact that the changes required were a minimal, voluntary reduction of hours or the redeployment of staff within the contract’s other services provided at Parliament Buildings.

The cleaning contract has performed well and provided a quality service for the users of Parliament Buildings, with high levels of hygiene and health and safety. That was recognised by the cleaning industry at the Kimberly-Clark Professional Golden Service Awards 2024 when Parliament Buildings won the best-cleaned premises award for office areas between 10,000 and 30,000 square metres.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for the answer. The Member will know that concerns have been raised about general job losses with this form of cleaning. What guarantees have been sought by the Commission to ensure that Aramark does not cut jobs? Cleaners in the Building have lost hours. If further hours are cut in the future, will the cleaners be financially compensated for those lost and cut hours?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his questions. He will appreciate that I cannot answer the final hypothetical question. However, the assurances given to the Assembly Commission, some of which happened before my time, were that the change in contracted hours was voluntary or that there could be redeployment within the service. However, we are keeping the issue on our table so that we can see what takes place, notwithstanding our relationship with the negotiating body. As members of the Assembly Commission, we want to keep on top of the issue. Where we have got to now is that it has been done on a voluntary basis or by redeployment within the service, but we keep a close eye on it.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the answer. I commend our cleaning staff for the fantastic job that they do, usually with a smile despite the threat that this poses to them. Is the Member aware of any other areas in Parliament Buildings where automation is being explored?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. However, is he talking about automated services outside the cleaning contract? Yes? We have no plans to introduce any further automation. Therefore, we have no services outside the current cleaning services and no further plans to do the same.

Mr Allen: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 4, 10 and 11.

I thank the Members for their questions. The Assembly Commission is pleased to have reached a full and final confidential settlement in relation to the legal proceedings initiated following the previous work project. Following that agreement, all legal proceedings have now concluded, and the focus is on carrying out the remedial repairs.

Work to repair the roof will be carried out in two distinct phases. Phase 1 will address the issues at the rear of the Building. Officials are considering whether three internal courtyards should be included in that phase or whether all the courtyard works should be completed as part of phase 2, which will encompass the remainder of the repairs.

Phase 1 is planned to be carried out during the summer recess by properties division. The remainder of the works will be carried out by construction division and will address all areas of water ingress. Construction division formally agreed in December 2024 to carry out the repairs. Due to the scale of the project, it is anticipated that the work will commence in early 2026.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Member for his answer. Is he confident that the ongoing issues will be resolved once and for all, particularly with regard to the leaking roof, which has been an issue for a number of years? Hopefully, the buckets will not be needed on the third floor, as they have been for many years, to deal with the leaks — the physical leaks.

Mr Allen: As I mentioned, phase 1 of the works will be carried out during the summer recess. The remainder of the repairs will commence, following the award of a contract by construction division, in early 2026. The timescales for the remainder of the repairs are in keeping with a project of this scale.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Member for his response. Are any further works required to the Building?

Mr Allen: As I highlighted in the original answer and the follow-up, there are two distinct phases. They will encompass all the works that are required to be taken forward.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for his comprehensive response. I accept that the fault is certainly not his, but does he agree that the issue has gone on for so long that it has become an embarrassment?

Mr Allen: The Assembly Commission had initially hoped to reach a settlement with the original contractors to repair the roof while avoiding legal proceedings. Unfortunately, the commencement of legal proceedings was unavoidable, and the Assembly Commission is pleased to have reached a full and final settlement in that regard. While it is disappointing that more progress has not been made, Assembly officials have been working closely with staff from Construction and Procurement Delivery to ensure that the roof repairs are completed with the utmost care and attention. That will ensure that the work is carried out in full compliance with the Building's grade A listed status, with all necessary approvals being secured before work commences.

Mr Gaston: I note that the Member used the term "confidential settlement". Will we never understand or get to the truth of the detail of how much of the bill is being paid from the public purse and how much is being paid by the contractor who caused the damage to the roof of the Building?

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. As I emphasised, the settlement agreement is full and final, and it is confidential. It is subject to legal privilege.

Mr McGrath: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 5, 12 and 15 together.

I thank the Members for their questions. The Assembly Commission has engaged with the Department of Finance to carry out a multifaceted listed building survey for Parliament Buildings that will include a conservation management plan and a disability access audit. The audit commenced on Wednesday 26 March, with three days being spent surveying the Building. It is anticipated that an initial report will be received by May. Any recommendations arising from the report will then be considered.

Mr Tennyson: Can the Member elaborate on any initial findings from the audit?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. The initial findings will be presented following the audit, so we will hopefully have them soon. The audit will identify any areas in which improvements can be made in order to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities.

Ms D Armstrong: Is the same consideration given to visitors with limited vision?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for her question. I do not have the specific information on that. We can come back to the Member, but I suspect that that is, likewise, included in the audit. I expect that it is, but I am sure that we can write to give you clarity on that.

Mr McMurray: Is there a timeline for completion of the works?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member. The disability access audit should be completed and a report with the initial findings presented in May 2025. We will not know until we get the report what works are required. We will hopefully have an update for Members at that stage.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. As was the case for the 80th anniversary of D-Day last year, it will be part of the Speaker's representational responsibilities to determine the arrangements for the Assembly to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War at Parliament Buildings. I understand that the Speaker's Office is developing plans for an event to mark that occasion.

A statement released by the British Government on 4 March 2025 indicated the intention for landmark buildings to be lit on the evening of 6 May as part of the wider coordinated plans to mark the anniversary of VE Day. While the Assembly Commission has not received an application to light Parliament Buildings under the special lighting policy to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it would be usual for the Assembly Commission to join wider initiatives. Officials are seeking more detail on the British Government's plans on lighting buildings for the anniversary. The Assembly Commission will receive an update at its next meeting in April and have the opportunity to consider lighting the building to coincide with the anniversary, alongside the arrangements made by the Speaker.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for answering on behalf of the Commission. It is good to know that we are making plans to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Before I came in, I went into the Senate Chamber and read the inscription of gratitude: the Senate Chamber was used as an operations room by the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. Does the Member have any sense of when there will be a public announcement about the commemorations? They are very dear.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's special lighting policy seeks to ensure that the lighting of Parliament Buildings is done in a balanced way. Clearly, VE Day is an important anniversary that will be recognised across Europe. As I have indicated, the Speaker is making arrangements for the anniversary to be marked at Parliament Buildings regardless of the position on the lighting of the Building. At its next meeting, the Assembly Commission will consider the lighting of the Building in the context of wider plans.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. A project is under way with the aim of creating a new Assembly website that will be a trusted authority on all Assembly business and a modern online tool where people can come to learn and engage. The redesign will support the Assembly Commission's corporate objectives to make the work of the Assembly more accessible and to communicate the impact of the Assembly's work.

A discovery phase aimed at gaining user views of the present site was completed in 2024 to inform future requirements and functionality. A digital agency is being procured to design and deliver a new public-facing Assembly website, supply a replacement content management system and implement effective modern search facilities. It is anticipated that the formal tender publication will be in place within weeks, with the work anticipated to start in July 2025. It is expected that the project will last at least 18 to 24 months.

A parallel enabling project commenced in October 2024 to modernise the Assembly information management system (AIMS) platform, which will make a step change in the way in which IT applications and services are delivered. That will be closely linked to enabling many Assembly business-related functions of the new website.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Member for his response. Does he agree that it is important that the Assembly website be as accessible as possible, especially to elderly people?

Mr Clarke: I agree with the Member. That is why a consultation was held on the usability of the current system. There was a recognition that work needed to be done. The project was brought forward for that very reason.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission recognises that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence is a development that cannot be ignored by any modern organisation, because of the potential that it may provide for innovation. The Assembly Commission has established a working group to consider potential opportunities that AI may offer the Assembly and the Assembly Commission. The AI working group first met on Friday 22 November 2024. The group is being led by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) and includes staff from a wide range of business areas in the Assembly Commission. The AI working group is establishing terms of reference and intends to develop guidance on the use of AI.

To assist the working group, RaISe compiled a research paper entitled 'Artificial Intelligence Guidance in Parliaments: good practice and current examples', which provided an overview of good practice, recommendations for and examples of artificial intelligence guidance for Parliaments. The AI working group intends to establish a baseline of AI use in the Assembly, which will help inform the development of the guidance and raise awareness. The AI working group will agree terms of reference at its next meeting, which is this month, at which it will consider AI projects that align with organisational goals and values. In addition, the group will meet quarterly to monitor emerging trends, technologies and regulations in the AI landscape.

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for her comprehensive answer. At this stage, does the working group or the Commission envisage any potential savings that could be made as a result of AI, including around translation services?

Miss McAllister: Not with particular regard to financial savings that can be made; I assume that that is what you are referring to. I do not doubt, however, that that could be an element of the terms of reference that the new working group will establish. It is not, however, something that we have concrete plans to do on the Assembly Commission, but I can get back to the Member after the terms of reference are finalised at April's working group meeting. The Assembly Commission will get those terms of reference at its meeting thereafter in May or June.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 10, 11 and 12 have already been asked and answered.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. The most recent review of security at Parliament Buildings was carried out in 2022 by the PSNI. That followed earlier reviews carried out in 2011 and 2015. The PSNI has agreed to carry out another security review, which it hopes to commence this month.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for his answer about a further review this month. Were there any incidents over the past year that were deemed to be a serious breach of security?

Mr Allen: Obviously, the Assembly Commission takes security very seriously. There are measures in place to mitigate such incidents. I do not have any detail about any serious incidents that have taken place, so I will have to come back to the Member.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. As Members will be aware, the Assembly Commission published the Assembly Members (Office and Staffing Costs and Allowances) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2025, which is referred to as the "2025 determination", on 7 February this year. The 2025 determination sought to extend the provisions that already existed. Members may continue to recover costs that are wholly and necessarily attributable to a disability that a Member has. Members may also continue to recover the costs incurred in making reasonable adjustments to the constituency office for persons with a disability, where those costs are not covered under the terms of the lease. That may be for a disabled member of staff or to facilitate access for disabled members of the public. The nature of the disability is not defined. In the first instance, a Member should engage with their landlord to ensure that the terms of the lease are adhered to in that regard.

Members are considered to be service providers for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995. That legislation makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons in connection with the provision of goods, facilities and services. The provisions of the 2025 determination allow a Member to recover the costs that are incurred but are not covered by the lease to meet the statutory responsibilities arising from the DDA regarding reasonable adjustments. That ensures that persons with a disability are not placed at a particular disadvantage when they are either employed by a Member or visit the office.

Guidance on all areas of financial support is available in the administrative guide that accompanies the 2025 determination or on the Finance Office’s page on the Members’ portal.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his answer. Will he provide the details of any consultation that was undertaken with disability groups during the drafting of the new determination?

Mr McGrath: The Assembly Commission takes these matters seriously and engages with disability groups as part of its wider work, but issues relating to the provision of constituency services by Members are the responsibility of each individual Member, not the Assembly Commission. Properties leased as constituency offices should be fit for purpose. When considering leases, Members should consider the needs of disabled individuals proactively, where requirements should be contemplated in advance. Therefore, Members should ensure the suitability of a property in meeting the statutory obligations of disability access etc. That requirement has been built into the new 2025 determination for all new leases, going forward. Recognising that the nature of reasonable adjustments will vary from Member to Member and from office to office, the provisions of the 2025 determination for the recovery of reasonable adjustments and disability costs are not restrictively prescriptive.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 15 was answered when it was grouped with questions 5 and 12, so that ends Question Time to the Assembly Commission.

Members, please take your ease.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during Question Time to the Minister for Communities, I was not in my seat when I was called to ask my question. I record my apologies to the Assembly and the Speaker's Office for that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that I heard tuts from around the House

particularly, might I add, from those who have been guilty of doing that before. Your apologies are noted.

Members, please take your ease.

No 1:

No 2:

Mr Allen: As the rumours began to swirl about the looming cuts to social security and as the plans became clearer, I could not help but recall the moment outside Downing Street — I have mentioned this before, and I make no apologies for highlighting it again — when the rain was pouring down and the then PM came out to call the election with the sound of 'Things Can Only Get Better' blaring in the background. So many expected that to be the case; indeed, some promoted it as being so. How wrong so many were.

To paraphrase my party colleague the Member of Parliament for South Antrim, Robin Swann MP, they keep talking about their £22 billion black hole, but they have just filled it with pensioners, farmers, National Insurance increases and now the disabled. What Labour has done since coming into government seems to be the complete opposite to its manifesto commitments and to the old Labour tradition of supporting working-class people and those in need. Every decision that it has made so far flies in the face of that. I know that Robin will continue to speak up for Northern Ireland and challenge the Labour Government on their reckless approach.

In a speech delivered on 27 August 2024, the Prime Minister stated many things about fixing the foundations of our country. He said:

However, when lobbied to raise the pension credit minimum income threshold to ensure that more low-income pensioner households could access the winter fuel payment, Labour chose not to do so. He went on to say that there was a Budget coming in October and that it was going to be "painful", so those with the:

Many are now asking how broad the shoulders are of those who are being targeted by this Government. Let me be crystal clear: the Ulster Unionist Party opposes the UK Government's approach. The proposals, if implemented, will serve only to fail those who need help the most, and they will actively deepen the hardship that is already being endured by thousands across our communities. Stripping back support for disabled people under the guise of reform is not only unjust but economically reckless. It may offer the Treasury short-term savings on a spreadsheet, but the long-term cost to society, our health services and public trust will be immeasurable.

We know from the Northern Ireland Audit Office that child poverty alone costs Northern Ireland up to £1 billion every year. If the Government move forward with these cuts, we will see even more families pushed to the brink, more children growing up cold and hungry and more people turning to food banks just to get by. The Trussell Trust's latest data makes for grim reading. Food bank usage in Northern Ireland has reached record levels, and nearly half of all people who were referred to a food bank in 2023 were disabled. What kind of reform is it that makes life harder for those who are already struggling the most?

The Assembly must send a clear message: social security should be a lifeline, not a trapdoor. We need an approach that is rooted in fairness and dignity. It is also important to state that there is often a misunderstanding that PIP is an out-of-work support payment, but it is not. Many disabled people rely on that support to sustain employment. We must focus on solutions that support people back into work, where appropriate and possible, and not force them into destitution. That is why we fully support the call for a UK-wide commission to develop cross-departmental, holistic approaches to tackling economic inactivity among people with long-term illnesses and disabilities. That cannot be done in silos. Health, employment, education and social security must be part of the conversation. There are many who wish to work and could work with the right support, but the current system does not enable that to happen. These proposals will do nothing to change that reality.

An individual with lived experience, who has said that they are "stuck in the system", said:

I ask the Minister for his thoughts on that and on whether any of it will form part of the forthcoming disability strategy or the disability and work strategy.

In conclusion, it is imperative that the Minister and the Department engage fully with the UK Government, not just to oppose these cruel proposals but to help shape a new compassionate vision for support and inclusion, because things can get better, but only if we choose to make them so.

Ms Sheerin: I wish that we did not have to have this motion. The reality is that we are having this debate because, once again, the British Government are choosing to prioritise pumping billions into weapons of war rather than supporting the most vulnerable in society. They are choosing to cruelly punish the long-term sick, disabled people, families, the elderly and children — the people who rely on the public services that we all, at one stage, took for granted. Some are shocked; I am not. Nobody should be surprised by the actions of this British Government, because they are, after all, just another British Government. This is a slap in the face for people living with a disability or long-term sickness who rely on PIP payments to survive, many of whom rely on PIP payments to be able to do the work that they so want to do. It is a slap in the face for workers and families who are already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. It is a slap in the face for those who keep our public services going even in the most difficult circumstances.

The message from Westminster is crystal clear: they do not care about the people of this island. No politicians in London ever did or ever will. Once again, they have proved that the British Government care more about bombs and proving military might than the welfare of our citizens or the future of our children. Let us send a clear and united message here today: we stand with our sick and disabled people, families, young people and our elderly population. We stand for good public services and proper standards of living for all the people whom we represent. We stand for compassion, supporting people, decency, dignity and fairness. There is a better, brighter future available to us all: a new and united Ireland where everyone, free from punitive British decision-making, can prosper.

Mr Honeyford: It is morally wrong to raid our most vulnerable to plug a government spending gap while the super-rich continue to get richer. Something is seriously wrong in our society when the disposable income — the amount that is left to spend at the end of the week — of working people, be they nurses, health workers, teachers or tradesmen, has dramatically shrunk while the super-rich continue to be enabled to make even larger amounts of money on the back of the vast majority of society.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, sure.

Mr Allen: Will the Member define his interpretation of "super-rich"?

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

Mr Honeyford: The super-rich are those on a lot of money. Look at farmers. Farmers are being persecuted by the Government because the likes of Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson are buying up land. Those guys are taking advantage of the ordinary person on the ground. That is what I am talking about: the ordinary person on the ground is paying the price while those who earn obscene amounts continue to earn obscene amounts. Alliance continues to call for progressive taxation and equality of opportunity, with those with the broadest shoulders carrying the most weight.

As my party's economy spokesperson, I want to speak about and look at a few issues affecting our economy and the serious lack of cross-departmental work to address the economic inactivity that is linked to the health of our people. I want to look at a few solutions and things that we can do here. When someone is seriously ill or has a disability and is unable to work, as a society, we should fully support them. However, they are not the people whom I want to talk about. Sian passionately laid out our position on that subject, and I would not do any justice to it by repeating some of the things that she said. I want to look at the section of people who are economically inactive but who would go back to work if they could and were enabled to do so.

In Northern Ireland, economic inactivity among working-age people has, for years, sat stubbornly at around 25%. Approximately one in four working-age people is economically inactive. When you look at those figures, you see that sickness is the reason why 50% of those people are economically inactive in Northern Ireland. Shockingly, however, that is approximately 50% greater than the figures for the neighbouring counties of Donegal and Monaghan. We in the Assembly should not give false hope, but we have to bring forward a package of solutions to help people and deliver positive change for them. We have to find solutions that remove the barriers in order to help people get back to living healthy lives and to lift families out of poverty.

We cannot accept being the sick region of these islands. That is not fair on people, and it restricts their ambition and aspiration. Waiting lists and access to medical support are obviously issues that affect all our constituents. We hear about them all the time in our offices. They are restricting people and holding them in poverty. When we spend more money per capita on health yet have the worst waiting lists, we see that we cannot accept the lack of delivery to transformation.

The Assembly has to raise people's aspirations. It should aim for something that is better than the current situation by creating meaningful and fully accessible opportunities for people, not by punishing them, placing them in poverty, causing them further anxiety or leaving them in pain sitting on waiting lists for years on end. For those who did not have a positive start in life, we need a holistic package of investment and support to help them gain confidence and remove the educational barriers that have prevented them moving forward.

There are great examples of initiatives that work. Hospitality Ulster has a training initiative to bring more people into the industry. Our largest sporting bodies have another Fresh Start programme. Both offer help for people who are close to the justice system, and they receive funding to improve training and qualifications, give nurture and support in access to work, and they then support people when they are in work. Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, through its labour market partnership, identified a need in the area for HGV drivers and created a scheme to give people opportunities to move forward. We need to look at investing in and scaling up what works on a cross-departmental basis.

To close, the motion calls on —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry, you have an extra minute. I am sorry.

Mr Honeyford: You are grand. I am going to close anyway.

The motion:

That is the bare minimum. It is great to hear a united voice right across the House, with everybody opposing the coming cuts. The minimum that we can do is speak with one voice and support local people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry about that David. Thank you.

Mr Honeyford: No problem.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. David did not use his extra minute, so I will maybe take it if that is all right.

It is an honour to speak in the debate, which highlights the devastating impact that the Labour Government's approach to what I am going to term "disability benefits reform" could have on some of the most vulnerable people. As has been said, and given the fact that we know about the clear link between poverty and ill health, the proposed cuts and tightened criteria for support will not only deepen poverty but place additional strain on our already overstretched public services.

We must acknowledge, however, that if we want to make a real difference, the issue requires action where the power actually resides, which, ladies and gentlemen, is in Westminster. The Assembly can and should express its opposition to the reforms, and that is what we are doing today, but unless we leverage appropriate influence in Westminster, where those decisions are made, the debate risks becoming just another social media sound bite rather than being a meaningful intervention. Political abstentionism, which can mean choosing not to take up our seats or failing to speak or vote on critical subjects right across the gamut of issues, whether it be the spring statement, any budgetary matter or anything that pertains to the lives of people in the United Kingdom, leaves our constituents feeling helpless, voiceless and powerless. While we debate this motion here, the real decisions will be made in Westminster. Those who are elected to represent Northern Ireland at Westminster must be in the room, in the Chamber, using their votes and fighting for fairer policies, otherwise we are merely protesting from the sidelines whilst others dictate the future of our most vulnerable citizens.

My colleague Andy Allen said that we will support the motion, but it is also right when we are debating that we ask questions.

Perhaps the motion could define more accurately what is meant by "superwealthy" when discussing taxation. Perhaps it could define what is meant by "those most in need" when discussing social security. This is a very worthwhile motion, but when —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: One second, please. When we debate these motions, it is really important — there are people watching who have different views on these issues — that we ensure that we are over the detail of what we are talking about.

Ms K Armstrong: Just to give the Member an update, a high-income earner is somebody who earns over £130,000 a year. The superwealthy or super-rich are people who have a net income in excess of £30 million to £50 million.

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

Mr Butler: That is very useful information. I am not sure that everybody shares those same figures, but, thank you, Kellie, for reading those in.

These are not just rhetorical questions. They genuinely are not. They are essential when we are looking at what we can do here. We support a UK-wide commission, but we need to ensure that it is costed and that the terms of reference are clearly set out. What we do not need — we have talked about this numerous times — is further strategies that are going to sit on a bench. We need to ensure that we take away the barriers that disabled people face, along with higher living costs and worsening financial hardship. The Assembly must reject any reforms that push disabled people further into hardship. The Labour Government, sadly and regrettably, claim that tightening PIP criteria will deliver £5 billion in savings, yet experts have already indicated that it will save a maximum of £100 million. That does not capture and quantify the difficulty and distress that it will put people under. Previous attempts at similar cuts have been ruled unlawful or have been abandoned because they were unworkable. There is no economic case for the changes. I contend that it is purely political.

Instead of targeting those in need, the Labour Government should explore fairer ways to raise revenue. Such progressive taxation, as has been alluded to on extreme wealth, needs to be explored. If we are serious about addressing economic inactivity, we must take a cross-departmental approach that focuses on early intervention, education and genuine employment support for disabled people. To give the Minister some credit — I know; it pains me to do it, Minister — in response to a question recently, he said that he is very aware of the obstacles and hindrances to regular work that disabled people face and that he is taking steps to change that.

I urge the Assembly to go beyond condemnation and demand real representation where it counts. That means taking your seat in Westminster and speaking up and voting for the people on whom this impacts.

Mr Carroll: I welcome the motion and what appears to be a new policy direction for the Alliance Party towards the redistribution of wealth. It is something that I genuinely support. Wealth taxes are often brushed off and even laughed at by some in this Building, so it is a welcome change in policy.

Tens of thousands of people in the North will be impacted on by Labour's cruel and callous benefit cuts that were announced recently. As we heard, at least 35,000 people will be impacted on by changes to PIP alone. That is a devastating loss of income for the most vulnerable in our society; that is, people with disabilities. According to DWP's figures, a quarter of a million sick and disabled people across the UK will be forced into poverty and destitution. Those are the Government's own figures. That includes 50,000 children. We are now staring down the barrel of another mental health crisis. The mental health champion has warned that slashing social security and removing the safety net of social security may drive more and more people to suicide. In the Long Gallery today, some of us heard from the Samaritans about the shocking and compelling evidence on the links between poverty, inequality and suicide, and I thank it for its research and its work.

Experts are warning Westminster and Stormont that this welfare reform is punitive and cruel. The last round of austerity led to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. My concern, and that of many others, is that austerity 2.0 will be the same. The cuts will only cost more money in the long term, with even more pressure on the NHS and the labour market. Many people who rely on social security are already in work. The majority of people on benefits are already in work. Labour's benefit cuts will result in actual job losses, making a total mockery of their supposed concern for economic inactivity, which is usually a code word for kicking the poor. It is no coincidence that the savings made as a result of the cuts match the shortfalls in Labour's self-imposed fiscal targets, which is more proof, if it were needed, that it was never about supporting people into work. It looks like these benefit cuts are the first steps down a well-worn path to austerity with a red rosette.

Austerity is an ideological and political weapon used to hammer the poor in order to protect the rich. The Chancellor's talk about a black hole in the Budget and the national credit card's being maxed out is calculated and misleading language that suggests that there is simply no alternative to the current economic orthodoxy. Austerity is a false economy. It was unnecessary 15 years ago and is unnecessary today.

The Labour Government have another agenda at play. We are witnessing, as we have heard, the dismantling of the welfare state in service of a warfare state. Taking money from the pockets of sick and disabled people here and in England, Scotland and Wales to invest in defence spending and the local manufacturing of weapons is morally repugnant.

The national credit card is not being maxed out for war; it is just being passed around the wallets of the wealthy. Our money is in the wrong hands. The motion refers to a wealth tax, which is welcome. It is worth saying that a 2% tax on assets worth £10 million or more would raise £24 billion per year. Equalising capital gains tax and income tax would raise over £16 billion per year. However, Labour and the Tories are complete fiscal conservatives. They have shown no interest in the redistributive power of taxes. Thankfully, public pressure for a wealth tax is growing, as evidenced by the motion.

A poll by YouGov and Oxfam that was published just before the spring statement shows that 77% — a clear majority — of people across the UK would rather that the Government taxed the wealthy instead of making spending cuts. People understand that it is fundamentally unfair that workers are taxed on their earned income while the rich who own capital and generate unearned income get off, essentially, scot-free.

Rachel Reeves also doubled down on those inhumane cuts last week. It is safe to assume that thousands of people in the North will be impacted on sooner rather than later. That is why it is important to support the amendment that has been tabled by the SDLP. We have the powers and precedent already to mitigate those cuts, but Executive parties have wasted no time projecting the narrative that there is no money for more mitigations. It is time for a conversation about revenue raising, this time from the rich and wealthy. Multimillion-pound companies like Coca-Cola, Moy Park, Caterpillar and Kingspan get rate relief to the tune of £73 million a year. Scrapping industrial derating would raise millions of pounds, but nobody, apart from me, is talking about it.

We could also complete the devolution of corporation tax in order to raise revenue. By doing so, the wealthiest corporations, those who are most able to pay, would foot the bill for mitigations. Not only can we afford those mitigations; we cannot afford not to implement them. It is a shame that the amendment has omitted references to a wealth tax. It is important to do both. Executive parties need to apply massive, maximum pressure to challenge wealth at Westminster and commit, in the here and now, to find the money to mitigate those cuts in the North today. I hope that the Minister will make that commitment in his remarks.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. The next Member to speak will be the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and all those who have contributed to the debate. I do not intend to go into the detail of everything that has already been said. I do not intend to go into all the consequences that those decisions will have. They are well known, and I have already placed my views on record in the Chamber, in the media and directly with the Government.
I believe that the changes are wrong, are ill-thought-out and will have longer-term consequences beyond the pounds and pence that we are talking about today. Another example of that is found in the Labour Government's decision to reduce the winter fuel payment and the number of people who are eligible for it. The Government put that in place thinking that it would save them money when, in fact, it may end up actually costing them more money because it will push more people towards applying for pension credit — I welcome that — which becomes a passport to other benefits. Perversely, there may be a greater cost to the Government when they are actually trying to save money. In other ways, it will cost because additional people will suffer and, perhaps, even require hospital admission because of the decisions that the Government have made on the winter fuel payment. I believe that there will be the same impact from the changes that are being made here.

We have heard a number of comments about the impacts that the changes will have, but what has been missed in the wider public commentary around that, although it was mentioned once or twice in the debate, is the fact that PIP and universal credit often go to people who are in work. They often go to people who otherwise might not be able to stay in work. Again, we have more perverse consequences of that decision.

The other thing that frustrates me is that the Government do not really have any idea how much this will cost or how much it will save. Can you imagine if I were to come to the Chamber one week and say that I was going to bring forward proposals that would save £5 billion, and then to come back the following week and say, "No, that was wrong. It will actually be only £3·4 billion"? I would be laughed out of the Chamber, but that is exactly what has happened at Westminster. We have a Government that do not know the impacts that this will have. We do not know what impacts it will have in Northern Ireland. We have not done the calculations and sums to understand, for example, what impact the new PIP criteria will have, how many people will be affected or how many people might score differently. It is ill-thought-out and wrong. I have made my opposition clear. It is clear that there is consensus across the Chamber that it is the wrong decision, although people will have different views on the matter.

I place on record, as I have done before, that I have no objection whatsoever to reform of our welfare system. In fact, I would welcome reforms to our welfare system that could reduce the welfare bill. I have greater ambition for our people than to see an ever-growing welfare bill and ever more people being dependent on welfare. I believe that that is the ambition of many people in Northern Ireland — I see it all the time. People have come to me and told me about how they want support to enable them to get into work. I have had disabled people in my office who have told me just that, saying, "Give me help. Make sure that we have a welfare system that helps and incentivises me to get into work". There are opportunities for reform and ways in which we can reduce the welfare bill. Those include looking at fraud and error and, importantly, making sure that we put in place measures that help people who want to be in work to get into work.

I have had numerous engagements over the past 14 months. I have met people from all walks of life. An experience that has stayed with me, which I think will stay with me the longest, is meeting people who are involved in the Job Start programme. They are people who never had the opportunity to work or were never given help to get into work. Some of them have disabilities or neurodivergent issues that had previously prevented them getting into work. I remember speaking to one young individual who told me that he thought that, because of his autism, he would never have a job. His parents thought that he would never be able to get employment. With the help that we were able to give him through that programme, however, he is now thriving in his employment. That is the type of help that we should give to people and the type of ambition that we should have for them. We should have the ambition to take people off welfare benefits if they do not need them and to get them into work, because we know that there will be numerous benefits as a result of doing that, including a reduction in the welfare bill, more money going into the Treasury and a better quality of life for everyone involved.

That young individual was so pleased at what he was able to achieve, but it took some help. That is what we should be doing to reduce the welfare bill. That is what we should be doing to help people. The Government have taken completely the wrong approach. There are those in the Chamber who celebrated the election of a Labour Government. I think that we are all surprised at the action that the Government have taken, and I hope that they will see sense.

It is worthwhile for us to have these debates, to take such action as we have taken and to continue to make our views on the issue known. I think that there is consensus in the Chamber, although two amendments to the motion have been proposed. I will not be in a position to agree with the SDLP amendment. I understand that there is a bit of politics in there, yes, but I have been upfront and honest about the Assembly's financial capability. Despite Sinéad McLaughlin's earlier comments, the SDLP amendment very clearly calls on me:

I am sorry, but I cannot pledge that. I cannot promise that I will be able to work out the cost and give a blanket guarantee that we will be able to mitigate the reductions. I will be upfront and honest with people. If Mr Durkan or any of his colleagues were in my position, they would have to do the same. That is the most honest thing that we can say.

The other reason that I oppose the SDLP amendment is because it leaves out some of the things that the DUP amendment and the Alliance motion call for.

There has been some talk about tax increases for the superwealthy, which is something that the SDLP has removed from the motion in its amendment. The DUP amendment states that such tax increases should be explored, but:

That is fair, but what need to be highlighted today are the additional measures that have been included in the DUP amendment, which, I believe, take nothing away from the Alliance motion. These are things that all of us in the House should be calling for:

There are additional measures that the UK Government can take. I do not believe that we are removing anything from the spirit of the Alliance motion. I hope that the Alliance Party and other Members can look at what is being proposed and say, "There are some realistic measures that can be looked at". I do not think that the DUP amendment takes anything away from the motion at all.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, what would you say to those disability campaigners who say that they feel really aggrieved at the conflation of tackling fraud and disability benefit cuts? They would say to you that they are absolutely aware that there is a fraud problem in the welfare system, but when one looks at disability benefits, the figure is less than 0·2% of the entire budget, so it is less likely that someone is defrauding the system through claiming disability benefits. To conflate the two is therefore pretty offensive.

Mr Lyons: I do not think that it is offensive at all, because I am not linking the two in any way. I am not saying that those who are entitled to disability benefits are in any way responsible for defrauding the system. Rather, I am saying that this is a package of overall measures that we should be taking in order to increase the amount of money that we have to spend. I have said regularly that we need to get the right money to the right people at the right time.

It is a disgrace that there are people who are deliberately defrauding the system. I am talking not about people who wrongly fill out a box but about those who are deliberately defrauding our system and taking money that should be going to the very people about whom the Member is talking. I do not believe that the line in the DUP amendment about tackling fraud and abuse should be attributed to disabled people any more than it should be to the global corporations that are mentioned or the potential sales tax for online marketplaces. I have made it very clear in everything that I have said about welfare fraud and error that it is not about targeting people who need benefits or individuals who make honest mistakes. Rather, it is about making sure that we target those who are deliberately defrauding the system. Those who are not doing anything wrong should not have anything to worry about.

All in all, the DUP amendment very much strengthens what is in the Alliance motion. I do not see how anybody in the House with any honesty can wholeheartedly support the SDLP amendment, which takes out the opportunities that we have to increase revenue and make sure that we have a more balanced system but states that we should be taking action that, people know, we are simply not in a position to take at this time. I hope that that clarifies my position on the matter.

I assure Members that I will continue to beat the drum for Northern Ireland. I will continue to make the case, along with Executive colleagues, for the better way that we suggest. I believe that we have a better way of doing what the Government are trying to do. Unfortunately, what they are trying to do in the short term is simply to balance the books and make their numbers add up, by which I mean that they are trying to make sure that their sums are as they should be, regardless of the longer-term costs and other consequences. We all want to see more people who can work get into work and to see a reduction in the welfare bill. The way in which the Government are going about it, however, is completely wrong, and I will continue to make my case to them.

Yesterday, I was able to send the draft anti-poverty strategy document to my Executive colleagues. I look forward to their considering that document and hope that it can go out to public consultation soon and be adopted. We will continue to put in place all the measures that we can to support those who are most in need, help people prevent themselves from falling into poverty, help people who find themselves in poverty and make sure that we have routes available for people to exit poverty.

The Government are making our task more difficult. They are also making their own job more difficult in the long term. That is why we will continue to speak with one voice from this Chamber to make sure that our views are heard and put forward a better path for us.

We are better off supporting the amendment in the name of Mr Kingston. I look forward to support from the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Maurice, you have five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank those who brought the motion to the House. It has encouraged a lively discussion on a very serious topic, namely the Government's welfare reform proposals and the implications that they will have for all our communities.

The Democratic Unionist Party believes that welfare must support those who need it most and do so fairly and in a way that is sustainable for taxpayers and society. The Government's latest reforms present a mixed picture that lacks clarity or definition on how it is supposed to work. The reforms are ill-thought-out and, to be honest, devastating.

Like other MLA offices across the country, my office has been contacted by a steady stream of worried constituents who feel that they have been left in the dark on how the Government's proposals are expected to work. The proposals narrow the eligibility for the personal independence payment by adding a requirement that individuals must accumulate their necessary points under a single daily living activity. That is deeply troubling for the constituents who are contacting my office. They are concerned as to how the changes will affect them. That is particularly the case for those with disabilities or complex or fluctuating mental health conditions, who often receive points under multiple daily living activities. They are, most likely, the ones who will suffer from the cuts. Those individuals face losing vital support purely because their conditions do not neatly fit the new restrictive structure.

In my constituency, there are several lower layer super output areas. Those areas lack investment from the Executive, which reduces the employment opportunities in them. There is also real concern about the proposal to scrap the work capability assessment and make PIP eligibility the new measure for those who need extra financial support under universal credit. The DUP has long advocated strong anti-fraud measures to ensure that public funds go to those who genuinely require help. Equally, we acknowledge that the Government's attempts to tackle fraud and error are necessary. Yet, we question whether the additional measures that have been announced will truly tackle dishonest practices without penalising honest claimants.

We do not lose sight of the bigger picture. Northern Ireland, like other regions, struggles with high levels of economic inactivity. While the 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper outlines a support package, we need clarity on how that £1 billion investment will filter into Northern Ireland and how much finance will be delegated to Northern Ireland to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and help move people into sustainable employment.

Let me reiterate the DUP's stance. We stand for fairness, safeguarding our most vulnerable and working with all parties and communities to ensure that these reforms strengthen rather than undermine our society. We must have clarity, backed up by tangible finance to offset welfare reform mitigations.

I commend our amendment to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Patsy McGlone to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Patsy, you have five minutes.

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

One thing in the DUP amendment is slightly unclear to me. There is a slight anomaly where it:

As any of us who has been there knows, income support, housing benefit and universal credit are all means-tested. I am not really sure how you avoid a detrimental impact on savings or investment without taking savings or investment into account. The clue is in the title: it is a means-tested benefit. I am not sure where that one is going.

One key element that needs to be emphasised and re-emphasised time and time again is this: the proposals, as we have read them, will be detrimental not only to PIP, DLA and, indeed, universal credit recipients but to those who, on foot of a disability, whether they receive employment and support allowance, PIP or DLA, get passported benefits. Those passported benefits are the clue to it all. People will be deprived not only of PIP and income from that side of things but of those passported benefits.

Another element that has been mentioned is our conflict and the legacy issues that have been passed to people in many families, principally but not exclusively in mental health problems; some people are severely disabled. That has to be taken into account. However, there is another thing that we need to look at. Any of us who deal with people in our constituency offices will notice, as I have, a transformation in the amount and type of work that comes in our direction. In my constituency office, my people and I are personally dealing with people's medical problems to a degree that would normally be for a GP practice; there has been a huge increase in that. People on waiting lists, people in severe pain and people awaiting serious operations are devouring painkilling tablets. Maybe as a consequence of taking painkilling tablets, they are taking other tablets for their stomach. As a consequence of that, they face hardship at home, surely, and a lot of anxiety, for which they take tablets too.

Those people cannot go back to work. They simply cannot get back into the workforce unless they have had the necessary operations. The key to that is health. That does not apply to everyone, but it is the key in many cases. People with those conditions want to get back to work. They want to get back into their daily routine. They physically and, in many cases, as a consequence of their physical health, mentally cannot get back into the workforce. That is a key point. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that and has talked about it. We talk a lot about inclusive workplaces and getting people off welfare — that is true — but we have to face the acute realities of people's health.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As I indicated, I am minded to support his party's amendment because, importantly, it talks about a mitigation package, which is crucial. Will he explain why his party's amendment removed the call for tax increases for the superwealthy? That is a bugbear for me and others.

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

Mr McGlone: The taxation issue is separate from benefits, but the point that I emphasised was that the DUP amendment focuses on savings. As you know as well as the rest of us — probably better in some instances — that is about a means-tested benefit. You cannot just say to someone, "You have a hundred grand in the bank, but, at the same time, you can have your housing benefit"; that is unfair.

Many issues have been raised, including housing rights, welfare cuts and the problems that we have with them, their human impact, radical reform and tax evasion. My colleague Mark referred to the billions being spent on defence while, through the proposed benefit cuts, bombarding those who are vulnerable and weak with financial cuts. Welfare is a devolved matter; that point was also made by my colleague.

Brian referred to the funding required to mitigate the problems and about protection of the most vulnerable in society. He referred to fraud. Again, I make the point that there is fraud — we accept that there is — but the reduction in fraud will not deal with the major problems out there of poverty and of people facing major health problems and disabilities. Presenting it almost exclusively as a fraud issue will not weather it.

Colm Gildernew referred to the Tories being replaced by red Tories. I absolutely accept Colm's point that what they are doing — to farmers, to pensioners, to people who are on benefits — is cruel. He referred to the trans-generational impact of the Troubles in the North and to 114,000 people falling further into poverty.

Andy Allen referred to the pension credit issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Tá do sheal cainte istigh.

Mr McGlone: I fully support, of course, my amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Patsy.

I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the debate. I advise you, Kellie, that you have 10 minutes.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I may not take all of those minutes. There appears to be clear consensus on all sides of the House that the UK Government are imposing a reform of benefits that will have a negative impact on people with disabilities in Northern Ireland and that it is wrong.

Their cuts will force our people into poverty and, as Andy Allen said, make life harder. The cuts are more about saving money than saving people. Social security is now social insecurity for many citizens who have a disability. Today, in advance of the debate, my colleague Sian Mulholland MLA facilitated a meeting with people with disabilities and organisations to hear at first hand their lived experience. That was more consultation than the Labour Government had with people who have disabilities who live in Northern Ireland.

I remind Members that social security is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but we retain parity because, to be frank, we cannot afford not to. Alliance voted against welfare reform in Westminster. It is not a system of our design, but it is one that we have sought to improve through mitigations and by ensuring that people with lived experience are given a voice. In the debate, we all agreed that the UK Government should not take the reform forward and should fix the problem. We should not raise the false hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly can do the fix by itself.

Significant changes to the welfare system are being brought forward by Labour without appropriate consultation or any consideration of an impact assessment, which has been confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). No impact assessment has been done to consider the impact on people across the UK, particularly in Northern Ireland. While Westminster does not have to consider the impact on section 75 groups, we do. Any impact assessment should consider the negative impacts and what positive actions will need to be taken to reduce the harm that will be caused.

If only the Chancellor respected the devolved regions and had consulted us in advance, perhaps we could have had solutions in place. During the debate, I noted that the Department for Communities has put the DWP consultation on the reforms on its website. Should we not do our own consultation? We do not know, as the Minister has confirmed, how many people in Northern Ireland this will impact, how much it will cost them and what harm will be caused. We can all guess. We can all speak to people with disabilities and understand their fears. Indeed, one of the people whom we spoke to today said that they were not able to sleep, that they were living in fear and that they did not know what their future would hold.

I would like to explain to everyone in the House that 638 people have died under the current system, one because of a work capability assessment. The person received a letter asking them to go for an assessment, and they could not cope with it. People are taking their lives because of the stress and the lack of dignity in how they are treated by the system.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I know that the issue is close to her heart. It impacts on those with illnesses and disabilities, but it also impacts on their carers, who are the very people whom they rely on. Where can they turn? There is a serious, wider impact across our system and our people.

Ms K Armstrong: I absolutely agree with Mrs Dillon. As part of assessing the impacts, we need to understand what happens when the support is removed. Do people fall back more on our health system? Do people fall back more on other benefits? What will happen to our people in Northern Ireland?

One of our concerns is that the Green Paper says that GB will continue to receive investment in employment programmes but we may not. It clearly states that Westminster sees this as a devolved issue and that we therefore need to find resources to address the harm that they will cause to our fellow citizens. We could invest in a financial mitigation package, but where will the money come from? Health takes up over 50% of our Budget. Where will we get the money? Will we close wards? We could increase investment in supported employment, but, given how much the community and voluntary sector has had its core and operational costs cut by most Departments and with no clear replacement for European social fund funding, who will deliver those programmes?
It is time that we got real. Instead of using negative language such as "abusing the system" or "fraud" when speaking about people on benefits, how about we now all commit to focusing on the potential for people who can work to join our workforce? How about recognising that it is not a binary choice to be in work or on benefits but about giving our friends, family and neighbours support to have a decent standard of living that will, in turn, give them the capacity and confidence to be employed?

As has been said, if we want more people to be in work, we need to set up the structures to enable them to go to work. Westminster has discussed the programmes that it intends to deliver; it is now over to Communities and the Department for the Economy to present their actions. Those actions must be decided in partnership with the people on whom they impact the most.

Our system is broken, and Labour is making it worse. It is more of a lack-of-care system than a welfare system. Irrespective of the amendments that were tabled today, the House is sending a clear signal to Westminster that its welfare reform proposals will harm people who live in Northern Ireland. Because of that, we in Alliance ask all parties to support our motion and send a united, clear message to the Government that they cannot take a unilateral decision that will harm our people, friends and families.

As my colleague Sian Mulholland stated earlier in the debate, we need a different path. We need to stop asking, "Who deserves support?" and start asking, "What support helps people to thrive?". That is why the motion calls for a rejection of the Government's punitive approach; a UK-wide commission to shape real, compassionate solutions to economic inactivity among disabled people; a focus on progressive means of generating more revenue for public services, particularly by increasing tax on the superwealthy; and a clear signal from the Assembly that Northern Ireland will not be punished for needing more support. As Sian said, when we build policy out of fear, we sow division, but, when we build out of care, we strengthen society, our economy and our future.

To reiterate, I want a society in which we see disabled people not as burdens but as people with potential and in which carers are supported, not sacrificed. Welfare is one of the few levers that we have to lift people out of poverty. Let us not break it just when people need it the most. I ask that we all send this clear message to the Chancellor: you are not going to save your Budget by breaking the backs of people with disabilities.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if amendment No 1 is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Peter Martin to raise the matter of the lack of investment in the road network in North Down.

Peter, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The way to empty a Chamber in less than a minute is to have a debate on North Down's roads. I am thankful to our SDLP colleagues for joining us for the debate, albeit one of them is going now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to bring my Adjournment topic to the Chamber. Upon becoming an MLA and setting up my constituency office in Bangor last year, I knew that road maintenance or lack thereof would be a big issue of community concern. What has taken me aback in particular, however, is the level of complaints and the state of our roads.

Every MLA throughout Northern Ireland, most of whom have just left the Chamber, will complain about the lack of road maintenance in their area, but the people in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area have a more justified reason to complain. That is because they are being treated unfairly by the Department for Infrastructure. The area has been underfunded in comparison with other council areas — I will highlight some figures during my speech — and, while we can all have opinions about a great many matters, facts are harder to dispute. I appreciate that the Minister has not been in post particularly long and that her predecessor, Mr O'Dowd, was in post for only about a year, but it is her Department. I am hoping that she will take on board some of the things that I will share.

My DUP colleague Michelle McIlveen, in a question for written answer, asked the previous Minister, John O'Dowd, to provide a breakdown of the budget allocated for road maintenance in each of the past three years. The response from DFI detailed the total structural maintenance costs, including resource and capital. In the 2023-24 financial year, the total budget for structural maintenance in Northern Ireland was £127·4 million. There are 11 council areas in Northern Ireland, so a quick back-of-the-matchbox calculation means that, on average, council areas should get around £11·5 million. You would expect some areas to get more or less, depending on the size of their road network, but the scale of the disparity is what is most telling.

I will work off that base figure of £11·5 million. Ards and North Down Borough Council got just £3 million, which is a quarter of the average. The next lowest — Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council — was allocated £7·5 million, which is two and a half times what Ards and North Down Borough Council received. We often hear about how the west of the Bann is the forgotten country, but Mid Ulster District Council received £21 million, while Derry and Strabane District Council got £11·4 million, which, despite being a smaller geographical area, is nearly four times what Ards and North Down Borough Council received.

You could perhaps make the argument that that variation in capital funding is then offset by resource. However, it is not. Ards and North Down Borough Council is also bottom of the table for resource funding in two of the past three years. Only one council got less, so, excitingly, for one year, Ards and North Down Borough Council was one from the bottom.

What reason does the Department give for why we are so far behind other council areas in roads funding? That question, to a degree, remains unanswered, and I hope that the Minister will address it in her comments. However, in response to a question from Ards and North Down Borough Council, DFI said:

On the roads network, I compared Ards and North Down Borough Council with a council of a similar size. It is quite similar to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, which has received an allocation of £22·3 million in the past three years. You would expect Ards and North Down Borough Council to get about 85% of that, which would be £18·9 million. We received £13·9 million, so that cannot be the formula that DFI is using. In fact, Ards and North Down Borough Council has the fourth largest council area by population, so that is not a factor either.

The figures in the response to an Assembly question show that, in the past year, Ards and North Down Borough Council recorded 1,816 actionable defects compared with 516 in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area, which received nearly four times the funding. So, that not a factor either.

We then pressed the Department further, and it said:

That last line is concerning, and I believe that the Department is, to a degree, closing ranks. It seems not to want that looked into any further, which is unfair.

The lack of roads maintenance is not just frustrating; it can weaken inward investment. Balloo Avenue in Bangor, which is home to a significant number of businesses and an industrial complex, is in a really poor state. What message does that send to investors who may want to locate in the area?

My constituency office has received numerous reports of constituents falling over paving stones that are a trip hazard and injuring themselves. Ultimately, the Department has had to pay out insurance claims in some of those cases. The Department's response, as far as I am aware — I am happy to be corrected — is that it has resurfaced one footpath in the past year.

I have been pushing for the installation of a much-needed pedestrian crossing on the four-lane Bangor ring road. That would allow pupils from St Columbanus' College, a post-primary maintained school, and local residents to cross that busy carriageway safely. The scheme continues to be delayed, and it has been pushed into a future financial year. I have engaged with a number of constituents who are blind, and we highlighted the issue in the press recently. They have been campaigning to get that crossing. However, they now have another year of crossing that road, which is extremely dangerous for people who are sighted and even more dangerous for people who are visually impaired. I want to see all roads in North Down being safe to cross, and I do not want to see people losing their life in road accidents because of road safety mistakes.

Roads engineers and the people whom we, as MLAs, deal with day-to-day are really good. I am sure that my colleagues in the Chamber for the debate would agree that we have a really good working relationship with all of them. They are doing their level best with the resources that are provided to them.

I am going to highlight five specific areas, and I ask the Minister to get back to me on each of them at some point, if she can. I do not expect her to know every road in North Down or necessarily to have answers on these today, but, if she can get back to me at some point, I would very much appreciate it.

The High Bangor Road, which connects Bangor and Donaghadee, colloquially has the sobriquet "Pothole Central", and it needs urgent attention. Onslow Gardens' pavements are a trip hazard, and there are many elderly residents in that area. Albany Road is literally disintegrating as we speak, and a track runs all the way down the middle of it. The pavements on the lower half of Clandeboye Road and on Church Street are in an appalling state of disrepair. Finally, the footpaths in Killeen Drive and Belmont Crescent have broken slabs, trip hazards and, again, are in a dreadful state. Maybe we notice and step over those broken pavements and the trip hazards that they present, but, for elderly folk in particular, they are really dangerous; a fall, if you are elderly, can be debilitating. That is why I would love to see action on them.

I could go on. Apparently, I have an entire four minutes to go, but you will all be glad to know that I am not going to fill them. I ask the Minister at least to review personally the areas that I mentioned and, at an appropriate time, to come back to me with answers as to whether something can be done and when it can be done.

The current capital provision that I outlined does not meet an equality standard, and it certainly does not go as far as the demands of equity. That is to say that North Down, I believe, is being short-changed in comparison with other council areas in Northern Ireland, and that must be addressed. I want to see action from the Minister — I am sure that she wants to see action herself — and a plan of what she can do to ensure that my constituency receives a fair and reasonable allocation of roads funding, so that the standards of our roads and footpaths do not fall even further behind those in other council areas.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Connie Egan, I advise all Members who wish to speak that they will have approximately seven minutes. Connie, over to you.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my constituency colleague Peter Martin for securing this debate on the lack of investment in the road network in North Down. He highlighted well the statistics that show that North Down gets less investment in its road network when compared with other council areas. I really hope that the Minister will speak to that in her contribution.

We all get this issue coming through our constituency offices every week, and it is something that I recognise as a driver on roads in North Down. Before I go on, I offer my condolences to anyone who has been caused harm or lost a loved one as a result of an accident on our roads. Real people and lives have been lost and impacted on due to a lack of investment and action, and we must keep that in mind as we progress through the debate.

The Alliance Party believes that we need radical improvement to the transport infrastructure to prepare Northern Ireland and our constituency of North Down for the future — a future that ensures the safety of pedestrians and drivers on our roads, a future of interconnection for the benefit of our citizens, culture and economy, and a future that allows us to meet our domestic targets to tackle the climate crisis.

The cost of investing in North Down's road network is not just financial; as I said, it is about people's lives. We cannot brush the challenge under the rug and ignore it.

The state of our roads provides clear, physical evidence for why the Department for Infrastructure and every other Department should have multi-year budgets that allow for long-term planning. As pointed out in the debate, North Down is suffering as a consequence of that not being the case. We need transformation for the safety of our communities and those who drive and use our roads.

One of the best-known examples and, potentially, the road most frequently used by the public is, of course, the A2 from Bangor to Belfast. That stretch of road can be incredibly dangerous. There has been a pattern of accidents across many years, and, devastatingly, some have been fatal. In the spring of last year, the Department confirmed that a review of the road's safety would be undertaken. I understand that that is still to happen. It is imperative that safety measures be put in place and the review be taken forward.

Increased traffic calming measures across our road network would be extremely beneficial to safety in our communities. I am often contacted by constituents who raise with me the need for road safety measures, such as 20 mph zones outside local schools, because they fear for the lives of their children, who cross those roads every single day.

Minister, I put to you only last week the need to expand the 20 mph zones, particularly intervening in cases where children have been involved in traffic collisions. Whether it is Millisle, Donaghadee, Bangor or Holywood, concerns run right through our community. I welcome your willingness to consider it, but I will use this opportunity to urge you again to do it quickly, before any more young people, school staff or their families are hurt.

By investing in our road network, we can build confidence in our communities and keep them safe. I also think that it might have an added benefit of encouraging more on-foot and active travel as a result of the lessened fear of contending with traffic.

Of course, I cannot go through the debate without mentioning potholes. The statistics are stark. In 2024-25, Ards and North Down experienced a massive uptick in the number of potholes reported — 7,003. That is a 22% increase on the year before. A survey by CompareNI.com found that 85% of people in Northern Ireland think that the pothole situation is getting worse, not better.

That brings me to my last point, which is the cost of inaction. Last year, during a long campaign for many of us here for the resurfacing of Castle Park Road, I was contacted by a constituent whose car had experienced damage as a result of the condition of our road network. I directed them to DFI Roads claims unit. The cost of that compensation to the public purse is substantial. Between the financial years 2019-2020 and 2023-24, DFI paid £29·6 million in compensation to those who had vehicles damaged or injury caused by our roads. In one year alone — 2023-24 — the cost was a staggering £8·2 million. That money could have been invested in making our roads better and safer instead of dealing with the consequences when they are not fit for purpose.

I close with this: investment in North Down's road network is essential. We need clean, accessible transport that works for our communities, environment and economy. There are many competing demands on the Department, and I appreciate the challenge that you have, Minister, in taking them on, especially as you are new to the role. However, there are steps that we can take in the short term: better signage, better visibility and 20 mph zones would make a massive difference to the lives of those whom we serve.

Mr Dunne: I, too, thank my colleague Mr Peter Martin for securing an Adjournment debate on this topic, and I thank the Infrastructure Minister for her attendance this afternoon.

The Department for Infrastructure has been operating a limited roads maintenance programme for 10 years. Its impact is really starting to show to a dangerous level right across Northern Ireland, but it has had a particular impact on our constituency of North Down.

During that time, we have seen our roads and footpaths in urban and rural areas deteriorate and the costs of claims for personal injury and damage to vehicles skyrocket. Simple routine maintenance tasks, such as cleaning road signs, regularly spraying weeds and cutting grass, have deteriorated across our area due to 10 years of significant underfunding and the prioritisation programme of limited service. While many of those issues are not unique to our area, as the Adjournment topic suggests, North Down does not get its fair share of investment for addressing such problems. I know that the Minister has been in the area relatively recently, so, hopefully, she saw then and will see in the future the condition of some of our roads.

Figures that I acquired recently when I asked a question for written answer brought that to bear and highlighted the starkness of the issue. It was confirmed that, in four of the past five financial years, our council area was ranked the lowest of all council areas in total resource and capital structural maintenance expenditure on road maintenance. That is simply not good enough. In 2022-23, the Ards and North Down Borough Council area had a road maintenance budget of £3 million. By comparison, the highest allocation was to the Mid Ulster District Council area, which received a staggering £21·5 million. The scale of the difference between those areas is certainly alarming. Meanwhile, in 2023 and for a number of years, our council area has topped the league table for the number of potholes reported. In that year alone, over 3,800 were reported. As has been mentioned, pothole repairs cause great frustration for us all and the people whom we represent. It is important that action be taken to ensure that, when repairs are carried out, they will last.

I know that the issue extends across Northern Ireland, but the Minister will maybe take it on board. In North Down, utility companies have often come into areas just after resurfacing work has been done. That is an issue of huge frustration. The Department can do more to work with utility companies to ensure that they take responsibility and leave those areas in the same condition, if not in better condition, after they have dug them up. Hopefully, that can be prioritised.

Hopefully, the new Minister has recognised that the "penny wise and pound foolish" approach that her Department sometimes takes to road maintenance benefits no one. As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I look forward to seeing further details of the Minister's proposed new road maintenance strategy. I have spoken to her about that at the Committee. I hope that she will take the opportunity to address some of the issues and will commit to making interventions and higher-quality repairs where they are needed most. In recent years, we have seen the change to intervention levels. Where it was previously 20 millimetres on many of our roads, under the limited approach, they are left to reach 50 millimetres, which, I think that everybody will agree, is too high a threshold. That has been a factor in the ever-increasing number of claims for vehicle damage and personal injury, with more than a staggering £25 million paid out by the Department in the past five years.

The A2 Bangor to Belfast dual carriageway is one of our country's busiest roads. However, it does not get the investment that it should. With around 45,000 vehicle movements daily, it has a number of issues. A lack of maintenance, signage and other dangerous issues have impacted road safety there and on the busy Bangor Ring Road. Look at grass verges, for example. Previously, they were cut more than five times per year: that has been reduced to twice per year. That has had an impact on sight lines at many of the junctions along those roads. The Minister's predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, introduced a policy of having 2-metre cuts. Again, that has had an adverse impact on road safety at sight lines.

There are many issues. We hope that the Minister will get a grip on them and ensure that North Down gets its fair share of investment. There are other issues, including the routine maintenance of drainage systems and gullies, where we have seen flooding at some of those hotspots. We also look forward to more work being done on the wider road safety review of the A2, which has been committed to recently in responses to a number of questions.

I pay tribute to the local section office staff, whom I know well and meet regularly. I appreciate their attention and that they work with limited resources and, sometimes, staff shortages. That is a wider issue in the Department that, I hope, the Minister is working on.

In conclusion, it is worth highlighting the fact that, as representatives for North Down, we ask not for special treatment but for fairness and investment that is proportionate to the population and to the scale of the issues that we have seen. Hopefully, the current Minister will take the opportunity that the previous Minister did not to get a fair deal for the people of North Down.

Mr Chambers: I refer to Hansard for Tuesday 22 November 2016. In it is recorded an Adjournment debate titled:

There were four Members in the House for that Adjournment debate. I was going to say that interest in North Down roads has increased by 25%, but I see that Patsy has left. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That is no reflection on you, Alan.

Mr Chambers: Funnily, all the comments made in 2016 are probably as applicable today as they were then. I spoke for 10 minutes in that debate, and I was tempted just to use the speech that I made all those years ago. However, I have a sore throat today, so, Members will be pleased to know, I will not speak for 10 minutes or even seven minutes.

I understand the demands on the Minister to deliver more with an ever-shrinking budget. Real world budget realities kick in; I see that in the health service. People ask for more and more, but the budget is not there. That is the reality that we are dealing with. I am sure that the Minister will expand on that. None of the problems that we are talking about are unique to North Down. I drive around the Province a lot, and I see potholes everywhere and grass not getting cut around the countryside. That is not unique to North Down.

In the 2023-34 financial year, the Department spent £410,000 on the Groomsport roundabout project. That project was definitely not needed, but it was coming to the end of the financial year, and the Department obviously did not want to hand back budget, so the money was spent. That money could have been spent better on some more pressing issues.

We are obsessed with potholes — rightly so, because they are everywhere you go. If you report a cluster of them, officials from the Department come out and put markings around it for repair. There may be four or five potholes in that cluster, but there will be one for which they will not put down a marking and that they will not repair because it is maybe a millimetre outside the criteria that it needs to meet in order to be fixed. It seems like a waste of resources to come out to fix three, four or five potholes but leave one. They will have to come back to fix it a fortnight later, because that one millimetre will have gone. That needs to be looked at.

I have also noticed that there is a band-aid approach to fixing potholes. Back in the day, a mechanical roller was used, and you could see the steam coming off the tar. Now, a guy with a wheelbarrow and a shovel throws a lot of stuff into the pothole and beats it down with a shovel. A fortnight or three weeks later, it is back to square one. The Department may need to have a look at that.

The other thing that I have asked questions about and about which I have a bee in my bonnet is road signage that gets damaged in vehicle collisions. A number of years ago, I asked the Department whether it tried to recover the costs of repairing those signs from the car owners' insurance but the answer was no, because it was too much bother and was not cost-effective. The same thing happened after the recent storms. A lot of trees on private property fell down on to public roads, and the Department had to clear them away. I asked the Department whether it tried to recover its costs from householders' insurance or public liability insurance, but, again, the answer was no, because it was too much hassle and was not cost-effective. There is a lot of money there that could fill a lot of potholes, if the Department had the motivation to go after it.

Another suggestion that I have made over recent years is that there should be more consultation with elected representatives when the Department or the section office is drawing up the programme for the year ahead. It should consult us, because we know which footpaths and roads need to be fixed. Somebody in an office 30 or 40 miles away from Bangor or North Down does not know the area. They are making choices that are maybe not the best choices. A little more pre-consultation would be better than coming to the council to tell it what they are going to do. They should come along and ask what it is that we want them to do. Peter listed a lot of streets in Bangor that are really bad. In his speech that night in 2016, Alex Easton named just about every street in North Down as needing attention. I dare say that some of the streets that Peter highlighted were mentioned back in 2016, so nothing much has changed in the meantime.

North Down, however, is also being let down by the Department when it comes to central road markings, which have really fallen into disrepair. We had a conversation recently about the glare from LED headlights. When you are the victim of that, when a car is coming at you with those strong LED headlights, you can lose your sense of position on the road. The only thing that salvages the situation is the central road markings, if they are working and if they are reflective. That, at least, gives you something with which to position yourself on the road. The road markings are very poor, and I have reported some in Groomsport. The Minister has replied that they will be fixed in the summer, but that means that the road will be without road markings for another three months. We need to up our game there.

The other thing is that gully cleaning is resulting in a lot of surface water, which needs to be addressed as well. We need to take a more robust approach to that matter.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I managed seven minutes. [Laughter.]

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

I call the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Mr Martin for securing this important debate on his concerns about a lack of investment in the road network in North Down. I also thank Stephen Dunne, Alan Chambers and Connie Egan. I have listened intently to all the comments and issues that have been raised by Members tonight, and I have heard them loud and clear. As a constituency MLA, I can relate to everything that has been said. That brings us back to the point that, while it is an issue for constituency MLAs for North Down, it is familiar to all elected reps throughout the North.

Maintaining roads and investing in new roads is critical in ensuring the safe movement of people and goods in order to allow economic growth, and that has been highlighted in the debate alongside the broader issue of road safety. I stress that we could have all the roads that we wanted in the North if we had the money to deliver that. Without funding, our roads will continue to deteriorate, as we have seen, particularly over the past 10 years. Unfortunately, that poses a safety risk and impedes economic movement.

Members will be all too familiar with the fact that, like other Departments, my Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to the underfunding and austerity that has been imposed on us by the British Government. That has created significant challenges to our ability to maintain our road network in a safe condition. I share the frustrations about the inconveniences that that causes at times for everyone whom we represent. People in our communities rely on the road network to do business, to go to work, to go to school and to connect to one another.

Whilst my officials have worked extremely hard to maintain the road network, they have been forced to concentrate on only the highest-priority road repairs. As a result, we have all seen a continued deterioration over the past 10 years. We have operated a limited service due to the funding constraints, with large numbers of potholes and other defects developing across the road network, particularly after periods of very wet or cold weather, which, as you are aware, have become more frequent in recent years.

The estimated value of the funding shortfall — the difference between what was needed to maintain the network and what was actually available to be spent — from 2014 to 2024 was approximately £1 billion. On average, it would have taken an additional £100 million in the budget each year to try to bring it up to where we would like it to be. That figure can be compared with the £25 million cost of compensation claims for damaged cars that some Members mentioned. We are still well off what is needed to bring our roads up to the standard that we all expect. It is important to outline that because this is not going to be an easy fix, not just in North Down but across the North.

The Executive agreed the 2024-25 Budget, and the funding has been best used to target road resurfacing. In the 2024-25 financial year, £104 million was allocated, as Members outlined, to capital structure and maintenance, which includes resurfacing. That figure included £12·5 million of the £19 million that was secured at October 2024 monitoring by my colleague and predecessor, John O'Dowd, for essential road maintenance and street lighting work.

As in previous years, during the 2024-25 financial year, total capital funding in the southern division, which includes North Down, was significant, delivering over £25 million of infrastructure investment. Many Members outlined their concerns around allocations. Funding allocations for road maintenance are made on the basis of need, which aims to ensure, as far as practicable, an equitable distribution of funds across the North. I can assure Members that the Ards and North Down Borough Council area receives a fair and proportionate share of the funding that is made available to my Department for road maintenance.

Whilst the budget for 2024-25 remains challenging, my Department continues to prioritise key essential services, ensuring delivery of the highest priority resurfacing, roadside stability and drainage projects. Regrettably, the resource funding position is equally challenging and will mean continuing with a limited service for road maintenance and targeting the highest-priority defects to protect public safety.

The main strategic road network in the Ards and North Down area is in relatively good condition. That network consists of the A2 Bangor to Belfast road; the A21 Bangor to Newtownards road; the A20 Newtownards to Strangford road; and the A20 Newtownards to Belfast road. The B511 Groomsport Road and the B109 Clandeboye Road are being monitored for potential resurfacing, but that will be subject to funding being available. My officials are monitoring the condition of roads on the Ards peninsula and will take opportunities for those also based on funding being available.

We all know the challenges of keeping the network in good condition. As I said, I know, from my constituency role, how important that is to the people whom we represent. All of us are road users too, so we see the challenges day and daily. It is time that we tried something different. Stephen Dunne referred to a new approach to road maintenance, and that is one of my foundational priorities for the Department. I have asked my officials to consider new approaches to road maintenance, focusing on improving the road network's overall condition, while making the best use of the limited funding and resources in a way that balances safety and value for money. It should be data driven; supported by sound engineering judgement; and address the problem in a meaningful and sustainable manner.

I take Alan Chambers's point that the approach of filling potholes may miss some. Hopefully, we can deliver on those things as part of this. As I have said, officials are working on a new road maintenance strategy that will be considered in detail in the coming weeks. We aim to focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly, so as to ensure a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene. That is being piloted in two areas across the North, including the Ards and North Down Borough Council area. We will use modern technology to direct our investments to where they are needed most, ensuring smarter maintenance decisions. We will future-proof our roads to meet the changing needs of society, including for active travel, reducing the carbon footprint of our operations and ensuring that the network is resilient after adverse weather events. The value of our infrastructure cannot be overstated. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that appropriate investment is made to improve the quality of our road network and to contribute to the delivery of the priorities set out in the agreed Programme for Government.

I am aware that traffic can build up in parts of the Ards and North Down Borough Council area for short periods at peak times, which is consistent with traffic patterns and conditions in many of our towns and cities across the North. My Department's transport strategy and suite of transport plans will set priorities for the future development of the road and rail networks up to 2035. The strategy will also outline how my Department is working to address challenges such as congestion, the climate emergency and transport safety.

I am keen to promote and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling and public transport as an alternative to the private car. My officials are reviewing the submissions received as part of the public consultation on the Department's draft active travel delivery plan, which concluded on 28 February this year. I thank everyone who took the time to respond, as their responses will lead to my finalisation of the delivery plan.

The main settlements in North Down are Bangor city, Holywood and Donaghadee. As Mr Dunne mentioned, I recently attended the commencement of works on the Newtownards to Green Road, Bangor greenway that are due to be completed by late autumn of this year. The project's total value is £5·6 million, with my Department covering half of the cost by committing £2·8 million to that important project. I look forward to seeing it delivered and to further expansion, as there is a proposal to extend existing active travel measures on Green Road, north of the junction of Green Road and the greenway, to the A21 Newtownards Road, and there is potential to provide active travel measures along the Newtownards Road from Green Road to Abbey Street. The next stage is to develop an options and feasibility report. It is my intention that further projects will be delivered in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area to encourage and enable safe, active and sustainable travel choices.

I will refer to some more points that Members raised. Mr Martin, who secured the Adjournment debate, referenced a pedestrian crossing. I know that that project has not happened owing to funding constraints, but I hope that it can be taken forward in the 2025-26 financial year. We will keep him updated on that. A number of Members highlighted other specific roads and areas, and I will also ask officials to provide updates on them. Although it happens all the time anyway, I urge Members to continue to report specific issues with things such as road markings and gully cleaning to the section office so that they can be actioned. That local intelligence is important, as Mr Chambers said. It is crucial to ensuring that, where possible, we can deal with issues at the earliest stage.

I thank Peter Martin for securing the debate and all the Members for their contributions. I reiterate that the value of our infrastructure cannot be overstated. Long-term underinvestment in our roads is impacting on our infrastructure's integrity, leading to the slow deterioration with which we are all too familiar, particularly on rural roads. That is not what the public or my Department and I want to see, so I will continue to work vigorously alongside my Executive colleagues to secure the investment that is needed to maintain and improve the quality of our road network for the people of the North.

I take the opportunity to remind everyone that, when using our roads, we all have a personal responsibility to behave in a way that keeps us and others safe. One of the best ways in which we will be able to fulfil our long-term goal of eliminating death and serious injury on our roads by 2050 is by changing road user behaviour. The sad reality is that, if we do not change our attitudes when we use the roads, our death toll will continue to increase. I thank Members for their contributions this evening.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Thank you, Members, for the Adjournment debate.