Official Report: Tuesday 29 April 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we commence today's business, I advise Members that I have been notified that Órlaithí Flynn will not speak to her Adjournment debate on improving mobile phone coverage in West Belfast.

Mrs Mason: I am delighted to celebrate the phenomenal success of a truly outstanding young man: Corin Murray from Ballynahinch, the new minor world champion in Irish dancing. At just nine years of age, Corin has achieved what many spend a lifetime chasing. From his first competition win in Larne in May 2024 to now lifting the world title, his journey has been nothing short of inspirational. His story is a testament to what passion and hard work can achieve.

Corin's dedication to his dancing has been remarkable. His commitment has not only led him to victory but made him a role model for young dancers everywhere who dare to dream big. However, no journey is taken alone. Behind Corin is a very proud family who have supported him every step of the way. Anyone who has children who take part in Irish dancing knows the dedication that is involved. The local communities of Drumaness and Ballynahinch have given Corin so much encouragement. That has surely helped to fuel his ambition and supported him to reach the highest level of success. A special word of appreciation must also go to Murray School of Irish Dance. Corin is lucky to have the most devoted teachers there who have helped him to craft his talent. Murray School of Irish Dance has helped not only Corin but hundreds of young people in the local area, from all walks to life, to enjoy the world of Irish dancing. It has provided, and continues to provide, opportunities for so many young people to travel the world and follow their dreams.

Winning a world championship is no small feat. It demands physical strength, courage, resilience and an extraordinary level of excellence. Corin has demonstrated all those qualities, and he has done so with humility and grace and, importantly, an infectious smile always on his face. It is clear that Corin's story is only just beginning. His achievement is not just a personal triumph; it gives so much hope and inspiration to others. It shows us all what you can do with belief, perseverance and passion: the impossible can become a reality. Corin, we are immensely proud of you. You have made history and inspired an entire community. We cannot wait to see what you are going to achieve next.

Mr Brett: During the Easter recess, news emerged that the unrepentant sectarian mass murderer Sean Kelly had been convicted of yet another terrorist-related offence. Following an IRA parade in December 2022, Mr Kelly was convicted at Belfast High Court of a breach of section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As Members will be aware, in 1993, Mr Kelly was convicted of the indiscriminate, sectarian Shankill bombing, in which he murdered nine innocent people. Mr Kelly served just seven years in prison for one of the greatest atrocities of the Troubles. Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, which continues to be a stain on the moral fabric of this society, he was released, having served less than one year for each person whom he murdered.

Following his conviction, I contacted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, asking that he revoke the licence granted to Mr Kelly under the Belfast Agreement. It is clear that, despite his conviction for terrorism-related offences, he continues to be unrepentant about the murder of my constituents that he carried out on the Shankill Road and continues to glorify that barbaric act. We as a party will continue to stand with the families of the Shankill bombing and of innocent victims across Northern Ireland and call out those who celebrate terrorism and try to rewrite the past.

Mr Honeyford: I have mentioned sport many times in here. I am passionate about it and about how it brings our community together. There were some outstanding moments over recess in Lagan Valley that I want to highlight.

Lisburn Rangers Football Club recently won its league, which is a fantastic achievement. I have really enjoyed working with its committee and will continue to do so to help the club realise its dream of a new pitch and community facility at the heart of Lisburn. Well done to the team, the coaching staff and the small nucleus of volunteers who drive the club forward. I make special mention of Nigel Farr, who leads the club magnificently. The club is going places under him. Well done to everybody.

Another club in my constituency is St Mary's Aghagallon GAC. I give a quick shout-out to its Scór team, which recently won the Ulster final and represented Ulster in the all-Ireland final in Castlebar over the weekend. It was not to be for the team on Saturday, but it was a fantastic effort for it to be there representing the province. That deserves to be recognised and celebrated. Scór is such an important part of the GAA. It is great to see Aghagallon keeping the tradition going.

Finally, I mention Lisnagarvey Hockey Club. Over the past number of weeks, "Garvey" has won the Kirk Cup and the all-island EY Hockey League. Over Easter, it hosted a major European tournament in Hillsborough. It was a fantastic weekend that was run so well by a small group of volunteers. I walked around Bow Street in Lisburn and saw teams from France, Spain and Ukraine chilling out. It was brilliant to see that community and the atmosphere that they were building in Lagan Valley. It was disappointing for "Garvey" to lose in the final on run-ins after drawing 3-3, but what a weekend of hockey the club put on. As I said, the atmosphere in Lagan Valley was fantastic. The Lisnagarvey ladies team has also been promoted to the EY Hockey League for the first time and will compete at the top level of Irish hockey.

All three of those clubs show that sport needs proper funding. Sport gives our community so much, but it cannot survive on a shoestring. Given the massive investment that we see in the South, how will teams from here continue to compete, especially on an all-island basis, with very little investment coming in? I will continue to raise that issue.

Mr Kearney: This Thursday marks International Workers' Day. May Day is the iconic date on which we celebrate the historical and more recent struggles and achievements of workers and organised labour in Ireland and internationally. It is an occasion for us all to recommit ourselves to the achievement of strong workers' rights and industrial democracy.

The creation of any productive economy and the achievement of shared prosperity in society depends on strong trade union organisation and a political commitment to defending workers' rights.

Yesterday, the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, announced her plans to introduce the most progressive workers' rights legislation in the history of this state, including proposals for good jobs, fair pay, secure employment, trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights. As we look towards this May Day in solidarity with Irish workers North and South, let us unite across the Chamber to endorse and support the 'good jobs' Bill. Let us speak with one voice in support of strong workers' rights legislation. I urge everyone to join, on Saturday in Belfast and other locations, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in marking May Day, to march in solidarity with local trade unionists and, if you have not already done so, to join a union.

Ms Forsythe: This weekend marks the 40th anniversary of the brutal, devastating and evil murder of William Heenan by the Provisional IRA in my constituency of South Down. On 3 May 1985 at 7.10 am, William Heenan went out to feed his small number of hens at his home near Castlewellan before work. As he approached the top yard, a gunman was waiting, hiding in an outside toilet. The gunman approached him from behind, forced him to his knees and shot him twice in the back of the head at point-blank range. The gunman dragged William by his feet to conceal the body at the side of a barn. The lone gunman made his escape in William's car.

The shots wakened William's 12-year-old son, Sammy, who was in bed when he heard his daddy's haunting and dying screams outside his bedroom window, and Sammy witnessed the gunman drive off. As 12-year-old Sammy approached the yard, he saw blood and followed the trail, where he found his father's body. My heart breaks at the image of that little boy seeing that, leaving him an orphan, as his mum had previously died. Sammy ran to the nearest neighbours, half a mile away, distressed.

The South Down command of the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility. It was horrific and pure evil, which, we all know, defines the IRA. Further to that, it is a disgrace that Sinn Féin glorifies it and throws salt into the wounds of every innocent victim of the IRA with the South Down MP operating a constituency office just five miles from William Heenan's murder scene called the McNulty-Magorrian Advice Centre, which is formally named after two IRA men: McNulty, killed by his own bomb as he tried to blow up Castlewellan RUC station, and Magorrian, shot by security forces while on active service for the IRA. That is disgraceful from Sinn Féin and is the cause of much hurt and pain to innocent victims locally.

William Heenan was born on 17 December 1933 and was brought up in the townland of Legananny at the foot of Slieve Croob. An only child, he worked in a number of manual jobs and then for the DOE Roads Service. In the late 1950s, he enlisted in the ranks of the Ulster Special Constabulary and served until it disbanded in 1970. He married Eva Perry in 1971, and they had one son, Sammy, in 1972. William was an enthusiastic member of all loyal orders, a staunch unionist and a founding member of Legananny Accordion Band. He seldom missed a parade.

William's son, Sammy, grew up to be an amazing man of firm Christian faith. He is a man whom I am proud to call a friend. He has been a tireless advocate in the innocent victims' fraternity in ensuring that the truth of the past is properly conveyed to future generations. My thoughts and prayers are with Sammy and his family today, this weekend and every day as we remember William Heenan and the truth of his story.

Mr Gaston: Before the House rose for Easter, I placed a petition in the Business Office. It was a simple petition to refer the Infrastructure Minister's decision to impose Irish-language signage at Grand Central station to the Executive for a cross-community vote. I regret to say that not a single Member of the Assembly added their name beside mine: not one. That was despite the leader of the DUP promising that his party was "putting down a marker" on the issue. It was despite the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee describing the decision as "undoubtedly controversial". It was despite the deputy First Minister saying that it was a controversial decision that had not been brought to the Executive. To avoid anyone in front of me feeling left out, I say that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party reminded us over recess of:

Some in the House like to speak grandly about unionist unity. Often, they point to my party and claim that we are the obstacle to it. However, here was the test; indeed, here was the opportunity. All unionists — DUP, Ulster Unionists, TUV — agreed that the Sinn Féin Minister's actions were controversial and provocative and amounted to poking the loyalist community of Sandy Row in the eye. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it. The Sandy Row community — already ignored when it came to the demolition of the Boyne Bridge and already punished by the effective sealing off of businesses around Grand Central — will now have Irish language signs imposed on it by Sinn Féin. Where was the unionist unity when it truly mattered? Unionism will rightly ask, "What did you do?".

Yes, there was plenty of tough talking and plenty of grand declarations, but, when it came to it, this was the result: a largely blank page with the sole signature of the TUV MLA for North Antrim. That is shameful. It is a blank page that gives Sinn Féin a blank cheque to act as it pleases. I tried to do something about it; others will have to answer why they did not.

Mr Kingston: This month marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany by British troops on 15 April 1945. Originally established as a prisoner of war camp, it became a concentration camp for Jewish people and others who did not conform to Nazi ideology. It is estimated that over 50,000 people died there due to inhumane conditions, including a lack of food and water, overcrowding and poor sanitation that caused disease.

The anniversary was a main theme of the March of Life, which I had the honour of attending and speaking at in Belfast city centre on Sunday afternoon past. The march paraded from the Jaffe fountain on Ann Street to the grounds of City Hall, where a commemoration was held. The first March of Life was held in 2007, organised by German people as a memorial and reconciliation march at a site connected to the Holocaust. Since then, marches have been held in 25 nations and hundreds of cities in cooperation with Christians from different denominations as well as Jewish communities. Events highlight the fact that the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis was made possible by the indifferent silence of many and the cooperation of others.

The clear message at the events is that antisemitism is wrong but is a growing danger, as are all forms of racism and religious hatred. It should greatly concern us all that we have witnessed an increase in antisemitism following the attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023. I have heard many speeches by elected representatives on the ongoing situation since that date, and I despair at the lack of balance in many of those speeches. Words have consequences, and many have chosen to speak irresponsibly and in a manner that has acted only to increase antisemitism and damage community relations in Northern Ireland.

We long to see peace restored and an end to hostilities. Again, I call for the immediate release of the remaining Israeli hostages who were captured that day and are held captive by Hamas in Gaza. No country and no people are above criticism and scrutiny of their actions, but no democracy has been singled out for more politically motivated criticism than the state of Israel. We must never forget, as a warning from history, that unconstrained intolerance, scapegoating and the cultivation of hatred against a people can lead to genocide. It led to the Holocaust —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kingston: — the greatest act of evil in the history of humankind. We will not be silent.

Mr Carroll: As was discussed in the House yesterday, the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: That decision has been a lightning rod for people who want to kick the trans community, and, unfortunately, we heard a lot of that in the House yesterday. Huge fear and anxiety exist in the trans community not only because of years of onslaughts, misrepresentation and bigotry but because of that shocking decision by the UK Supreme Court.

Whilst in theory the Equality Act 2010 does not apply in the North, which is a point that was emphasised in the House, one council in this jurisdiction has already jumped the gun and wants to implement provisions of the Supreme Court ruling. My message to that council is that its decision will put people at risk, especially the trans community, so it should retreat and retract. Despite attempts to talk up the Supreme Court decision by saying how it may help women, it will do nothing of the sort. Discriminating against trans people will not end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, which is usually caused by a family member or an ex-partner, who is most often a male. Taking rights from the trans community will not offer affordable or free childcare to anybody. It will not offer reproductive healthcare or any other material benefit for women who are facing oppression. The war on trans rights is being waged by far right and reactionary forces in Britain and Ireland that do not give a damn about women or any oppressed people on these islands. Unfortunately, the Executive are following suit by cruelly banning puberty blockers for the under-18s. That ban is a form of state violence.

Among all the spoofing, and when you clear the smoke, you find that the reality is that trans people are more likely to experience violence than most of the population. Some people should listen to this point when I say that, for decades, the women's movement has challenged the idea that biology is destiny. Now, we are being dragged back to an oppressive gender binary, which should be resisted. Most ordinary people do not want any part in that reactionary fantasy. My message to the trans and non-binary communities is solidarity. My message to those kicking down is this: stop your obsession with other people's genitalia. It is bizarre, unhealthy and is damaging people's lives. Fair play to the activists who have already come out to protest against that shocking court decision. Do not stop the fight. People Before Profit is with you every single step of the way.

Mr Buckley: An issue that is affecting many of our towns and communities across Northern Ireland is the ever-increasing number of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and the urgent need for tougher, smarter regulations from councils, which are tasked with dealing with applications for such houses.

On Friday afternoon, I shared the figures on the licensed HMOs that are in my constituency. In my home town of Portadown, there are 38 licensed HMOs, with 14 on one street. Let us just think for a moment what that means for those who have lived there for years. We must ask, "What sort of impact will that have on those people?". We see the erosion of community identity, the character of the area changed forever, increased noise and disturbance, pressure on public infrastructure, falling property values — and that is just scratching the surface. The reality, which is something that very few will say out loud, is that we are witnessing the unravelling of local communities as family homes are turned overnight into overcrowded bedsits. We cannot continue to ignore the problem or bury our head in the sand.

On Saturday, just the day after I revealed those statistics, the front page headline in 'The Daily Telegraph' read:

The story stated:

Yes: a private contractor working with the Home Office is offering landlords in England five years' guaranteed rent, paid for by the taxpayer, to house asylum seekers in some of those very same HMOs. Is it not rather shameful that a practice that we already know has been happening in Northern Ireland continues to go unchecked? We are witnessing record numbers of illegal immigrants entering the United Kingdom. The Government's failure to control our borders is leading directly to the displacement of local people. We must not stay silent. To anyone who says that it cannot be sorted, I say this: in the first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, border crossings in the United States have gone down by 95%. The policy is simple: come illegally, leave immediately.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to open another Opposition day of business here in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We made a deliberate choice when we drafted today's motions to be pointed, concise and specific. You will have noticed that, Mr Speaker, when the motions came to you and your Clerks advised you on the contents of those motions and the suggested amendments. All too often, since we have come back here, we have had long, saggy, waffly motions, particularly from Executive parties, with unclear actions, get-out clauses, convoluted promises and vague commitments being offered by those parties. They have been amended. Sometimes, Ministers have said that they will deliver. Sometimes, they have tried to wriggle out of being clear. On other occasions, Executive parties have even voted for those motions where their own Minister is responsible and nothing has happened.

Today, we decided to do something a little bit different. We thought that we would be concise. That is not always a quality that is associated with me, I have to say, but we thought that we would be concise, be focused, ask for clear actions and see how parties in the Assembly voted. The first motion is on fiscal devolution: the principle that more fiscal powers — the power to levy taxes and greater autonomy over how money is both raised and spent — happen here in Northern Ireland, authorised by the Northern Ireland Assembly and overseen by the Minister of Finance. We did not name the Minister of Finance in the motion because we thought that it would be obvious that the Minister of Finance would respond to the debate. However, as I turn to my left, I see no Minister of Finance. Why is that interesting? It is interesting because, if you go back and read the Sinn Féin manifesto from the Assembly election in 2022, you see that it is quite clear that Sinn Féin supports greater fiscal devolution to the North. In fact, it was Conor Murphy, the former Sinn Féin Finance Minister — perhaps we should not set huge store by the former Finance Minister's fiscal authority, given his stays in five-star hotels, paid for from the public purse — who ordered the creation of the Fiscal Commission, something that I supported in the Chamber several years ago, which reported on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland. That organisation reported four years ago. Here is the document.

In 2022, the Sinn Féin manifesto promised greater fiscal devolution. Sinn Féin Finance Minister Conor Murphy commissioned the Fiscal Commission to report on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland. Led by Paul Johnson, the current head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, it produced a very detailed report. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly promised greater fiscal devolution. The current Sinn Féin Finance Minister has, in this very Chamber, committed himself to pursuing a policy of greater fiscal devolution.

We thought, therefore, that we would put down a concise, clear motion asking the Executive to commit to bringing forward plans for greater fiscal devolution. We thought and assumed, naively perhaps, that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who believes in taking more power away from London, from the UK Government, who, as we all agree, do not always have the best interests of this place at heart, would come here to make his case, to respond to our motion and to explain his view on fiscal devolution. He is not here. He is not in the Chamber, so we can draw our own conclusions from that.

I come now to the substance of today's motion. Since we returned to the Assembly and the Executive were created in February last year, there have been consistent statements from various Executive parties, particularly from the party of the Finance Minister, relating to the constraints on public finance in Northern Ireland. That is true: we are in a constrained fiscal position in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is worth saying, however, that the 2024-25 financial year, which we have just come out of, saw the greatest ever spending package that a Northern Ireland Executive have ever received. I do not think that that will be the case going forward, and I add my voice to those who say that the new Government have not set a path that is enough of a decisive break from the Tory party in terms of austerity politics and constrained public spending. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is — or there should be, given all the statements made by Executive parties — a broad consensus on the need to devolve more fiscal power, to take more responsibility here for how we raise money and how we spend it. That is obvious.

The Fiscal Commission report that was published in 2022 — its interim report came out in 2021 — set out a range of options. It went through every form of taxation that is levied in the UK and gave its explanation for how it could, and whether it should, in its view, be devolved to Northern Ireland. It set out details for the partial devolution of income tax, as happens in Scotland, and the devolution of the apprenticeship levy, which, as we all know and have said repeatedly in the Chamber, is not best optimised for use in Northern Ireland and has not been properly deployed to increase apprenticeships. I am sure that the Chair of the Economy Committee and members of the Finance Committee may have something to say about that at some stage. The report also set out the devolution of corporation tax, which, by the way, has happened in law, but that law has never been commenced; stamp duty land tax, which is a tax on property transactions; air passenger duty, which is already devolved, although I have talked at some length about how I do not think that the management of that tax has been particularly effective; and landfill tax, which is the tax on waste.

What has happened? Nothing has happened, as far as I can see, from the Fiscal Commission's findings. Last year, when we had an Executive restoration package, various new processes and structures were set in place. There was a transformation strand, which we have heard something about: £129 million was awarded for what we were told was transformation work. However, there was also something called the Budget sustainability plan. We were told that the Budget sustainability plan would mark a step change, that we were going to have to raise all the revenue locally and that it would be tough and penal.

Well, if you go through the Budget sustainability plan, you will not necessarily find ambitious areas of new revenue-raising to pay for public services, which we all agree are in a shocking state in this place. What you will find are some remarkably modest and small areas of revenue-raising, including hospital car parking charges. The Executive and the Finance Minister scored against their target for revenue-raising the proposal not to commence an Act, which was brought in by the Finance Minister's party, that would make it free to park in hospital car parks. Now, whatever the merits or otherwise of that particular Act, let us pause for a second and reflect on the absurdity of that position. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly talked — I agree with them passionately — about the need to devolve more fiscal power to the North, so that Ministers here can decide how money is raised and spent. What substance have we seen from Sinn Féin Finance Ministers? Well, one of the main areas is in simply not proceeding with an Act that was introduced by a Sinn Féin MLA. That is, I am afraid, an absurd proposition.

We have been consistent as a constructive Opposition in —.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he give his view on increasing public transport fares, which is one of the other areas for revenue raising that has been identified?

Mr O'Toole: Increasing of public transport fares was scored as a tough decision that had to be made to increase revenue. That is a decision that is made by Translink every year. It is not the best decision to be making when you are trying to encourage people onto public transport and to make a step change through active travel and decarbonisation.

Since we have been back, we have heard consistently about the constraints that have been placed on our spending power and the limitations that there are in how we fund ourselves in Northern Ireland. At the Finance Committee and in here, I have talked consistently about that. I have not gone through loads of the technical detail that is in Fiscal Council and Fiscal Commission reports, because that has all been published. As with so many of the reports that are published here, nothing has happened. If we want to know why we breed cynicism about politics in this place, we should look at what happens when people constantly make promises. Not only are those promises not delivered on but there is no sign of them being delivered upon. People are treated like mugs. We need to devolve more fiscal powers here and we need to raise more money. We do not need to put more pressure on ordinary people in Northern Ireland. I want to be clear that we should not be levying extra taxes simply to punish people, but more of the powers to raise those taxes should lie here, as they do in Scotland. That would give us more autonomy and power over how we do public services. Despite the fact that we have no representative from the Executive here to respond to the debate, I look forward to the Executive parties explaining to us why they do not want to take that added responsibility for improving people's lives here.

Ms Forsythe: The DUP does not support the devolution of additional fiscal powers to Northern Ireland at this time. We do not believe that the capacity exists in Departments or in the Northern Ireland Civil Service to manage further complex and fundamental elements of the tax system, such as income tax or VAT. We fully support the first sentence of today's motion:

That is absolutely the case, and the fact that the new needs-based factor has not been baselined or backdated, as if it had applied from the start of the previous spending review period in 2022, has left the Executive without the guts of half a billion pounds annually. Without agreement from the Treasury to rectify that situation as part of a new, fair, responsible and long-term fiscal framework, it will continue in perpetuity. That action could be taken relatively quickly and would have real benefits for our public services. In contrast, protracted negotiations would be required for the aims of fiscal devolution to simply get a fair hearing from the Treasury. I wonder why the Opposition are overlooking that. We look forward to seeing the report of the assessment that Professor Holtham has been commissioned to undertake on that.

The financial reality is that we have just received a challenging Budget for 2025-26. We are waiting on the announcements from the June monitoring round and the comprehensive spending review. The Executive have made it clear that there is a strong desire to move to delivering multi-year Budgets here in the coming years. We are governed by a Labour Government who have proven to be completely unpredictable and have targeted pensioners, family farms and small businesses in their first months in office, and we have no idea about what else could hit us. The Opposition need to get real about recognising the financial and economic environment in which we are living. In the next few months, they should focus on that rather than pushing for fiscal devolution options by September 2025.

Of course, we should be ambitious in how we approach the funding of public services. However, those efforts have to be credible and responsible. We have to be realistic about what is achievable in a context in which the fiscal deficit between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom has been widening. The Budget process is already incredibly fraught with contention between political parties. The devolution of tax-varying powers would inevitably add a new dimension of volatility to the Executive's Budget. As unionists, we are clear that any change or upheaval of that nature could be exploited by those whose overriding intentions are focused not on transforming public services but on unsettling the political and economic foundations of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland's place within it. Ironically, in a separate motion that will be debated today, the Opposition call for an infrastructure commission to be established, given the weaknesses in and concerns over how major capital projects have progressed in Northern Ireland. Do they really expect that the situation with fiscal devolution would be any different? Are the right skills and structures really in place to countenance taking concrete steps on that front? Given that the latest figure for Northern Ireland Civil Service major capital projects overspend sits at £3 billion, we need to get our house in order; this is not the time to add to our problems.

The DUP is committed to delivering a fair funding model for Northern Ireland. Our party leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has long led on that issue in Westminster, and we are pleased to see progress. Whilst others celebrated, however, we were clear that last year's financial package fell well short of what is required to put our finances on a stable footing. We agree that the funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose, but we do not support additional fiscal powers being devolved to Northern Ireland at this time.

Mr Tennyson: As other Members have said, this motion comes at a time when our finances are in a precarious position, following 14 years of Tory austerity that has now turned into Labour austerity, which carries grave consequences for the Executive and for households and businesses in Northern Ireland.

I am a supporter of increased fiscal devolution for a number of reasons. First, it is more democratic to bring decisions about tax and spend closer to the people whom we represent and those we elect so that they can have more say over those policies through the democratic process. It also offers more incentive for the Executive and the Assembly to prioritise things such as productivity and growing our economy, because there will be rewards through the taxation system. Importantly — this is, perhaps, the most important argument for fiscal devolution — it gives the Executive and the Assembly an opportunity to levy taxation in a way that is more progressive and fair, that supports economic growth and that aligns with our social and economic priorities. Particularly at a time such as this, when all the parties in the Chamber are so critical of the UK Government's response, we should all want more control over those levers.

I am not glib about the complexity or the dangers associated with fiscal devolution, some of which Diane Forsythe set out. It is important that we approach this in a balanced and measured way. The first challenge is that the most important factor affecting our public finances is our needs-based formula, which affects the block grant. If we conflate fiscal devolution with a fair funding formula for Northern Ireland, there is a risk that we could find ourselves landed with trade-offs that do not serve our public finances well. That risk is evident if you look to the experience of Wales. It is important, therefore, that we decouple those two arguments. Secondly, a fact that has been skirted around is that, frankly, the Executive do not have a good track record when it comes to dealing with the revenue-raising powers that they have currently. As we do not have sustainability of the institutions, I fear that they could be absent in the face of an economic downturn or crash and, therefore, that we could not respond adeptly and quickly enough to those challenges on behalf of those whom we represent, or, indeed, that we simply would not find agreement amongst the Executive and vetoes would be deployed on key issues. Fundamental reform of our public finances cannot, meaningfully, be decoupled from reform of our governance structures or political institutions to ensure that they are sustainable and stable.

I am disappointed that the Minister, irrespective of his views on the debate, is not here to respond. The very least that the Minister could do is to come to the Chamber and set out his priorities for fiscal devolution, given his party's apparent commitment to it. Whilst we are involved in ongoing engagement with the UK Government on our fiscal framework, I agree that our immediate priority needs to be our needs-based formula. There may, however, come a time when we can move beyond that debate and start looking at wider fiscal devolution powers. The very least that the Minister could do is to set out his priorities in that space. On that basis, we are content to support the principle of the motion, notwithstanding some practical considerations and our concerns about the risks that come with fiscal devolution, which need to be seriously thought through.

Ms Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of increasing fiscal devolution, which would give us more opportunities to make spending decisions that prioritise the interests of workers, families and communities in the North. Around 90% of the funding that is currently available for our public services comes from the block grant. Negative decisions taken by successive British Chancellors, be they Labour or Tory, have reduced the amount of money that is available for our health service, education sector and infrastructure projects and severely impacted on the Executive's ability to deliver.

In recent months, the British Government have once again taken decisions that heap more pressure on those who already struggle to make ends meet, such as the sick and the disabled, who will be impacted on by further welfare cuts. In her spring statement, the British Chancellor reinforced her Government's priorities, choosing to spend money on militarisation — weapons of war — rather than investing in public services, protecting those in need and improving the daily lives of workers, families and communities. Given the limited fiscal powers available to the Executive and our public services' dependence on the block grant, which is based on the spending decisions of representatives who are not elected by people here, I recognise that it is extremely challenging for the Executive to mitigate the detrimental impact of such decisions.

The mitigation measures introduced to support the sick and disabled following the welfare cuts that were imposed on us a decade ago are expected to cost £47·3 million this year alone. The Fiscal Commission's 2022 report on more fiscal devolution stated that other actions taken to protect people here from austerity policies imposed by Westminster cost the Executive £600 million to £700 million a year. Greater control of revenue raising would therefore provide the Executive with more flexibility to shape policies that suit our local needs. Taxation systems should be based on fairness, reducing inequality and improving the efficiency, quality and capacity of public services. I also recognise the efforts of the Finance Minister and his predecessor to ensure that we are funded at the correct level of need. Indeed, the interim fiscal framework secured by the previous Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, ensured an additional £248 million for our public services for this year.

Ultimately, ending partition and achieving independence for all of our island, with control of our political and economic affairs, is the best way in which to build the first-class public services that workers, families and communities here deserve. An Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report this month on the economies of both jurisdictions highlighted the growing deficit in the North compared with the South in all commonly used measures of living standards. One of the most concerning examples of the detrimental impact that austerity policies from London have had on us is that, if you live in the North, you are seven times more likely to be on a healthcare waiting list for more than 18 months than you are if you live in the South.

Partition has prevented the development of all-island public services and detrimentally impacted on their delivery. The success of the all-island Children's Heart Centre in Dublin and the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital provides two compelling examples in healthcare alone of the potential for delivering better public services on an all-island basis.

We want to see greater fiscal devolution to this island. Ultimately, the full devolution of fiscal powers through Irish unity provides the greatest opportunity to build and deliver better public services that meet the needs of everyone.

Mr Frew: The Opposition are definitely right to say that the motion is concise, but there is no detail in it. It states:

I do not think that anyone here would disagree with that; in fact, our party, the DUP, has campaigned for a long time for the relative need formula. We were the first party to voice concerns about relative need, and we have been the consistent party all along in pushing for that formula. Even when it came to the restoration of the Assembly, we pushed for it, and we warned that we had not got the right financial package. Setting the baseline at the level of the spending review of 2022 would have injected £0·5 billion a year extra into our coffers to spend on our people.

If we get more fiscal powers, is that £0·5 billion a year in the range of what the Opposition want to raise? There is a danger with that. If we get more fiscal powers, can the British Government — our Government — not say, "You have fiscal powers now, so stop complaining about the package that we give you and raise your own revenue"? There absolutely is a danger in that. The focus of the Executive and the Assembly should be on making sure that we are funded properly and appropriately, according to relative need. We are not there yet, so our focus should be on making sure that the funding package for this devolved region is sufficient to cater for the needs of our people.

We talk about fiscal powers as though they are something that we will use progressively, which was one of the words used, while "fairly" was another. Really? Corporation tax has been devolved: why have we not used it? We have not used it because there is pressure to put it down.

The Opposition have tabled the motion. I am also interested to hear from Sinn Féin, because it holds the Ministry. What fiscal powers do you want? Do you want to raise income tax? Do you want to raise VAT? Rises to both of those fiscal levers would cause massive damage to our economy, our people and our growth. So what is it? What do the Opposition want? Why have they not put that down? Do the Opposition want to raise £0·5 billion from income tax or from VAT? We do not even have the Finance Minister here to tell us what his plan would be. I agree with the Opposition that that is shameful: the fact that the Finance Minister is not here to address the debate is contemptible. It is not only contemptible to the Opposition; it is contemptible to the House. It is absolutely contemptible. We need detail.

Our party is clear: we do not support any more fiscal powers for the reasons that my colleague Diane Forsythe outlined. We do not have the capacity or the capability, and that is not only in the political class but in the Civil Service class. Why do I say that? Some people might say that that is unfair. Look at our track record. Sinn Féin laments the fact that the Republic of Ireland can do this and that so much better than Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Féin has been in government for the duration of the Assembly. How much blame does Sinn Féin put on itself?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Buckley: Does the Member also agree that Sinn Féin is happy to be partitionist when it suits its agenda? It is happy to see corporation tax lowered in the Republic of Ireland but drags its feet in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Frew: The Member has made a valid point. Why has Sinn Féin not moved on corporation tax when it holds the role of Finance Minister, even though it could synchronise our corporation tax with that down South? Why not? It will take a cut in our block grant: is that the issue, or is it that they are champagne socialists? Is Sinn Féin enjoying the money that it gets from the United Kingdom? We have been given more money by our Government this year than ever before; yet, I agree that it is a challenging Budget. Sinn Féin enjoys that amount of money. It is a cry — a mantra — to say that it wants more fiscal powers. Of course, it is — that is all that you hear from the party. It is all that you hear from the Opposition, too. What would they do with those fiscal powers? Nobody has told us. Nobody can tell us, because they do not have a clue. They do not have the foggiest.

We will not support the devolution of fiscal powers until we get a proper settlement and are assured that we have the capability and capacity to deal with those powers and that the parties opposite will not hurt our people and drain them of all their resources and hard-earned cash.

Mr Beattie: I am standing in for our finance spokesperson, Steve Aiken, who is happily going through a bit of post-surgery recovery at the moment. I am sure that he would be slightly more colourful on the subject than I am likely to be.

The Fiscal Commission and the Fiscal Council have made suggestions about closing the funding black hole between Northern Ireland and the rest of our nation. We welcome the changes in the required level-of-need funding and the fiscal settlement to close the gap in funding here created by the suspension of Stormont. It is clear that we are still looking at a significant shortfall in the years to come. We analysed the shortfalls over the past decades, and, historically, we have consistently missed out on pressures by about £0·5 billion per annum. It is easy to blame that wholly on the austerity measures from Whitehall, which have been significant, but it also has to be recognised that, on average, Northern Ireland citizens pay approximately £400 less in all forms of revenue raising than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. For comparison, the figure for the Republic of Ireland is substantially more, with a comparative shortfall of nearly €1,000. The details of that are laid out in the excellent work by the Fiscal Commission.

We cannot keep going back to London to demand more money when we have not put our house in order. We certainly have not done that, which, in many cases, is due to the fact that we have not had continuity of government.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He quotes figures that relate to people in Northern Ireland paying proportionately less in terms of the revenue raised. Does the Member concede that there is an issue around taxable capacity? Disposable incomes and property prices are comparatively lower in Northern Ireland. In some sense, the comparison with other jurisdictions is unfair.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is certainly a swayed comparison — the Member is absolutely right — but we still have to look at the issue and at the measures that we can implement but are not implementing. I will touch on those in a moment.

We have to ask whether our public services are efficient. How is it that we are incapable of public procurement? How is it that we have spent multiple millions on the A5 with not one square metre of tarmac laid? How is it that building construction has basically come to a halt because of inadequate water infrastructure. How is it that our Economy Department has had its accounts disclaimed? Equally, because it is an Opposition motion, I ask this: what costs of rigorous implementation are being accrued? Think of how much of the close to £1 billion spent on IT systems, consultancy fees and the creation of border posts could have been better allocated to health transformation or even to paying for much-needed police recruitment.

To be honest, I do not think that anyone here really believes that we have a public service that is fit for purpose. Chasing an overspend of £1·3 million with forensic accountants while ignoring and deflecting the £3·5 billion overspend on capital projects is more than indicative of a lack of any critical thinking. A fundamental, independent review of how we spend our existing money, coupled with the transformation of those who deliver it — the Civil Service — is now a prerequisite. Anyone who believes that we have a fit-for-purpose delivery mechanism is kidding themselves and the people of Northern Ireland.

What is the Finance Minister proposing? We know that he proposes not the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water but the creation of a developer tax on new homes and properties that will ultimately see the extra costs passed on to buyers. There is no review of student funding, even though universities are haemorrhaging staff and students. There is no innovative funding model for the York Street interchange and no creation of an infrastructure bond, selling the long-term prosperity of Northern Ireland to overseas wealth funds. There is no substantial revision of the rating system. If he is proposing any of that, he is not keeping us informed.

Were the Minister here, he would, of course, bite back, but he is not here. I join the chorus of others saying that it is absolutely disgraceful that he is not here.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: If you do not mind, I will not.

The Minister would, of course, bite back by referring to the Opposition's non-existent Budget proposals. However, he is the Finance Minister, and, as the Finance Minister, it is up to him to tell us how he will close the annual gap of £0·5 billion, because, in the absence of any proposal from him, that is glaring.

Mr Honeyford: Eóin laid out our position on finance, but I will speak on the economy. The DUP has told us about capability and capacity. That was repeated, and I appreciate that, but it is a bit rich for the people who lobbied for and brought us Brexit, which caused the UK economy to drop, to talk about the risk of punishing people. It is a little rich for the people who brought us the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme and that waste to talk in the Chamber about draining people of their hard-earned cash. I wanted to start with that.

The current funding arrangements stifle our growth. The Assembly is less accountable to our people because of that.

It causes a complete lack of ambition in this place and this region. What we are currently working with is not fit for purpose as we look to the long term and to the funding of our public services, which, as has been said, are being squeezed.

Our economic growth remains really low. It is better than that in the rest of the UK, but it is still close to zero. Years of UK Government austerity have brought all public spending into focus. That does not give a Minister an excuse not to bring in changes or reforms. We desperately need reforms to Departments in order to bring in the changes that we have been talking about for years. It also does not give us an excuse not to deal with the urgent need to address the cost of division and the money that we waste every year in our budgets by having two of everything, rather than just getting on with uniting our community and working as one.

As for the security of the Assembly, the two largest parties' disregard for the Chamber over the years has meant that this place has been down as often as it has been up and has not worked. The threat remains that, at any point, either the DUP or Sinn Féin can pull this place down, and that is also a barrier to growth. It does not build confidence. If anything, we need the rules on that changed. The response that we hear from both parties is that they have no plans to collapse the institutions, but we need actions, not words. A start would be to relinquish that veto. Maybe then we would be able to plan for the longer term, to assist and change the region in order for it to prosper and deliver for everybody.

We agree with the principle of the devolution of more fiscal powers. I will pick up on what Paul Frew said about corporation tax. I use this as an example only because Paul used it. He asked why we had not got on with it. If we were to drop the rate of corporation tax, we would take money out of the budget for our public services, which, he said, are being squeezed. In that, he defined the issue: if we dropped corporation tax, public services would be squeezed, so which public service do we take that money from? That is the problem. None of the benefit that would potentially come from growing our economy through that would stay here. We do not see the benefit of lowering that tax, because it would cost our public services. That is why this is just not fit for purpose. We need to be able to retain finances here so that we can be accountable to our people for how we spend that money. Eóin has already gone through progressive taxation. I make no apology for saying that we want to see progressive taxation so that the poorest and those on the lowest incomes are looked after and those with higher incomes and the super-rich pay more in our country.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Frew: When the Member talks about the poor and the super-rich, where are his defining lines? How does he class and define "super-rich"? What does he define as "poor"?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am talking about multimillionaires. I think that that has already been defined. We are talking about the mega-rich — billionaires — and the people on the very lowest incomes and the most vulnerable. Fifteen or 10 years ago, was there a food bank in your area?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: Was there one 20 years ago?

Mr Frew: No.

Mr Honeyford: No, there was not. We are seeing that across the board. It brings shame on our society that people are leaving —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way again?

Mr Honeyford: No, I will not give way again. I have limited time.

Although the South, our closest neighbour, has major issues of its own, which is grand, the massive advantage that it has over us is its ability to raise tax and have a budget in order to pay to fix those issues. We do not have that. As a result, our economy suffers, and we cannot help. We cannot provide or have not provided incentives for small businesses.

Look at the situation in hospitality with the rises in National Insurance and rates. The costs are so high here, but nobody is making a fortune in that industry. Demand will drop, we will become uncompetitive, and our economy will slow. Local hospitality is not able to compete with the lower VAT and lower rates in other areas. Herein lies the problem: we get our pot of money to spend, but we do not have the ambition and the mechanisms to generate and create more and better for everyone.

Mr Brett: I welcome the leader of the Opposition back to his place after the birth of his daughter and congratulate him on that.

I have a confession to make. The night before Opposition days, I usually struggle to sleep with worry and anticipation

of what is coming before me, particularly when, with the Chair of the Finance Committee, the subject is fiscal devolution. I expected a 10-page Order Paper on my desk this morning, setting out a concrete plan where those who want to destroy the United Kingdom outline their great plans for an economic revolution in Northern Ireland. However, when I picked up the Order Paper, I realised that I need not have worried. The leader of the Opposition and his party have managed the grand total of one sentence on the Order Paper on what we were going to discuss. In fact, it has caused so much attention and interest in the nationalist parties that we have a grand total of six Members on the Benches opposite. That shows the level of their interest in the issue before us.

We have listened to the debate but have received absolutely no detail. In the speeches so far by the leader of the Opposition, we got no detail on the proposals that he wants to enact and which taxes he wants to see devolved or, more important, what he would do with those taxes. Does he want to increase income tax? Does he want to raise National Insurance contributions on our businesses, just as his sister party is doing in our sovereign Parliament? No details, yet we go to platitudes. "We will make a more progressive tax system": what on earth does that mean? Mr Honeyford tried to articulate that. He moved from taxing millionaires to taxing billionaires. How many billionaires are there in Northern Ireland? Those parties have no idea of what they want to introduce.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is interesting that Mr Honeyford has perhaps clarified what "tax the rich" means? He went to ultra-rich. His party did not define that when it initially talked about it. Does that mean further taxation on a higher tax bracket of 40%?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: In the 10-minute contributions made by the Alliance Party, its members were unable to set out what their proposals are or what they mean, because they are more for 30-second TikTok and Twitter clips than economic realities. Often in the Finance Committee, I hear the leader of the Opposition set out how terrible it was for long-haul air passenger duty (APD) to be devolved to the Assembly and the decision that was taken by the Executive, which included his party, to abolish it. Then, with the same breath, he says today, "Let us devolve even more powers." The consistency of the Opposition is clear and true. They want the Executive not only to carry out their job of delivering good public services for Northern Ireland but to set out plans for the Opposition as well, because, clearly, they cannot articulate them in the Assembly.

We will not support the motion and hand more fiscal powers to Departments and Ministers who are frankly inept. Yesterday the leader of the Opposition rightly raised the issue of the pedestrianisation of Hill Street. Sinn Féin has held the Infrastructure ministry for four years and cannot even pedestrianise a street in Belfast, yet the leader of the Opposition thinks that we should vote to hand powers to vary income tax to those very people. That is the Department that has spent £30 million on the York Street interchange in my constituency without a spade being put on the ground. When we talk about progressive taxation, we need to hear what the Members opposite who support the motion actually mean. Meaningless platitudes do not cut the mustard. We will oppose the motion.

Mr Gaston: It did not take long for the first Member in the debate to turn the blame to Westminster. We heard about Tory austerity and Labour austerity. However, Members always stop there. They do not go on to say that, when the Stormont Executive set the Budget, it is made-in-Stormont austerity owned by Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. Yes, it may sit outside the camp, but the SDLP yearns for the day when it returns to the Executive table.

I appreciate that the SDLP, which tabled the motion, is a nationalist party. I also appreciate that Sinn Fein and Alliance, which are cheerleaders for the motion, are also nationalist parties. In that regard, I understand that the motion fits their long-standing desire to dilute the bonds that bind the United Kingdom together. There is, however, a fundamental contradiction here. If the SDLP were serious about being the Opposition — we hear about it being a constructive Opposition that always keeps the gloves on — it would recognise that Stormont is fundamentally dysfunctional. Devolving more sensitive fiscal powers to an Assembly that is up and down more times than a yo-yo is not in Northern Ireland's interests.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The idea of devolving corporation tax was frequently discussed years ago, and it has been mentioned here today. In 2014, the Treasury made it plain that cutting corporation tax would slash our block grant by £400 million to £750 million. That would devastate our public services, which are already under significant pressure. More recently in the House, we debated an Ulster Unionist motion that called for an Irish Sea VAT border. I was amazed to be the only unionist to voice opposition in that debate. Beyond that, however, under the protocol, control over VAT and goods has already shifted to Brussels. Goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are now treated as exports and imports, complete with extra documentation because we are subject to EU VAT rules, not British ones. Far from wanting control of those powers, the SDLP was happy to give them away to Brussels.

The supporters of the motion need to answer this: if Stormont takes control of more fiscal powers, who will pay for the inevitable shortfall in the funding of our health system, our roads and our schools? It would not be a Gaston speech without a quote from Professor Holtham. The Holtham commission, in considering the devolution of corporation tax for Wales, rejected it because it would

My goodness, Stormont would do well to reflect on that advice before dragging Northern Ireland further into greater instability. I fully support Northern Ireland being funded to the level of need, but, when it comes to fiscal powers, my goodness, it is a no from me now and a no for ever.

The Member talked about food banks and said that they did not exist 20 years ago. Since Stormont has been here — this wonderful place that would sort out all the issues — what has it done about that? What has Stormont delivered so that people do not need to go to food banks? You are going to say that, if we had greater fiscal powers, we could do this, that and the other. That is fantasy stuff. Stormont has been here, but it has not delivered.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I share in the lamentations of many Members about the need for food banks in our communities. Does the Member accept, however, that the mitigation package that was worked on by all parties in the Assembly at the time has sheltered many households from the worst excesses of welfare reform?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his contribution. However, in creating that package, you are taking money from one Department to put it into another. Yes, there are some good mitigations there, but you also have to look at where the money has come from to fund that. When we talk about how great Stormont is, how we need to protect it and how we need more powers in this place because that will solve everything, we must recognise that this place has been up and running but has not delivered. The mess needs to be owned by the Executive parties that sit round that table.

Mr Carroll: Earlier this month, the Assembly passed a motion supporting tax increases for the super-wealthy, which I spoke on and supported. It is to be welcomed that some parties are finally in step with ordinary people, who have long demanded that the rich pay their way for our public services. The Executive, however, always seem to direct their focus solely at Westminster and never towards the wealthy and powerful at our front door, who do exist.

Since 2015, the North has had the power to set corporation tax rates, but the conversation is dominated by calls, mainly from the business lobby and its enablers, to lower corporation tax rather than being about the social good, proper taxation and the rich paying their way. People Before Profit has always been clear that corporation tax should be raised in the North. It should not be controversial to say that corporations should pay at least the same amount of tax as people pay on their wages. I will give way to anybody who wants to disagree on that point.

OK.

Six companies in the North have a turnover of £1 billion. The top 100 companies in the North have a turnover of £35 billion. We are not talking about taxing corner shops. There is an abundance of corporate wealth here, including wealth that has been accumulated by private companies that deliver what are supposed to be public services.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise the difference between turnover and profit and that businesses pay tax on profit and not on turnover?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I do recognise that, yes. I also recognise assets and that companies and corporations have combined wealth through their assets and profit from them. Those are all bound together, and it depends what column you are looking at. Money is money, and there is billions there. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: Great economics from the sidelines from the party that does not want to tax corporations.

Over the past decade, the Executive have handed £125 million to just one private hospital to tackle our health waiting lists. The DUP supported that handout as well. It seems like there is an endless pit of money to line the pockets of the rich but never enough money for a decent social security system, fair pay, social housing, mental health services and our collapsing education system. It is the same old story, whether it is the Tories, Labour or this Executive. This island is a hostile environment for working-class communities, but it is a safe haven for multimillion-pound corporations such as Apple, Google and many others.

The North, disgracefully, is the only part of these islands that gives multinational corporations rate relief. Parties in this Building lament —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will give way in a second.

Those parties lament rates rises for ordinary people and households, but they are happy for corporations to be given millions of pounds of handouts every single year while their profit margins, assets, numbers — call them what you want — rise. I will give way.

Mr Buckley: Thank you. Will the Member point to at least one successful economy in the world that adopts his socialist/communist outlook on economics?

Mr Carroll: Yes. I am happy to engage with that argument despite —.

Mr Buckley: Come on.

Mr Carroll: Let me speak. The Member has a disgraceful track record of sticking the boot into asylum seekers whilst talking about the housing crisis, so I am loath to give way to his pretty disgraceful agenda. The Member should not kick down. The Member is happy to kick migrants and asylum seekers but he does not have a word to say about billionaires and corporations that are ripping people off. Less of that. Less of that. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let the Member be heard.

Mr Carroll: Mr Speaker, I will continue. Each year, £73 million of public money is being spent on the likes of Moy Park, Caterpillar and Coca-Cola. There is no opposition to that from Mr Buckley, who claims to stand up for the common people.

The question is this: what sort of society do we want? Do we want one that welcomes big businesses with open arms, bends over backwards for them and gives them endless rates and tax breaks while they exploit workers and the local environment and one that, frankly, plays into the hands of the Trump economic agenda? Or do we want one that forces huge corporations and the millionaires and billionaires — they do exist on this island — to pay their fair share? A radical redistribution of wealth is the only way to materially improve the lives of the majority of people here. It is time that we use our fiscal powers to break with the regressive economic orthodoxy of Westminster and the Dáil. Our public services and the ordinary people who use them depend upon our doing that.

Mr Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do I have 10 minutes?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much.

I welcome the fact that Members have participated in a colourful debate, and I will reflect on some of what was said. It is important to say, first of all, that many Members commented on the motion's brevity, which is a quality not often associated with me or, it has to be said, Mr Frew, who participated in the debate. Mr Frew noted that there was not much detail in what is a short motion. As I said, he and I are not often noted for concision, but that was a deliberate choice on the part of the Opposition. There have been lots of motions with lots of words and lots of subclauses, and that have been amended until the cows come home, and nothing has happened. As the Opposition, we wanted to put down a clear, declarative motion on an important principle: fiscal devolution. It comes back to a lot of what we have talked about as an Opposition: the connection between holding power and taking responsibility.

Mr Honeyford said an important thing. He is in a different party, but I often acknowledge when people from different parties say things that I agree with. Mr Honeyford, his colleague Mr Tennyson and others acknowledged that, in this place, there is a breakdown between people holding power and their taking responsibility and the connected issue of accountability. That has been demonstrated vividly today by the failure of the Finance Minister to even do us the courtesy of showing up to the Chamber to address the issue, despite, as I and others mentioned, his party's repeated commitment to fiscal devolution and its repeated statements reflecting on the shortcomings in our current funding model, which is acknowledged in our motion. He did not turn up today. Part of the deeper problem in our politics is about the connection between holding power and taking responsibility and then being accountable to the public for how you use that power. That is right at the heart of devolution and right at the heart of power, whether you are a unionist or a nationalist. We believe in fiscal devolution not just because we believe in more power here and, ultimately, Irish unity. The argument for fiscal devolution does not have to be one that is unionist or nationalist. I agree with Jemma Dolan that we need to move towards taking more decisions on this island and, ultimately, constitutional change, but you do not need to be a nationalist at all to believe that. You can be opposed to Irish unity and still believe that, inside the UK, we would be better governed if more decisions were taken locally.

I hear the TUV in the corner signalling its discontent, but I want to come back to some of what was said by unionist Members. Lots of unionist Members, particularly Mr Gaston from the TUV, talked about how bad — how terrible — Stormont is at delivery, and a considerable part of my day job is to point out when Stormont Ministers are not delivering for people. Mr Gaston and virtually every unionist Member who stood up said a version of, "Look at how poorly Ministers perform here. How can we trust them and, indeed, the Civil Service with more responsibility?". Many of those same people also said today and have certainly said on other occasions, "Isn't the Labour Government awful? Isn't what they are doing awful?", whether that relates to inheritance tax, rises in National Insurance contributions or a range of other fiscal decisions over which we have limited power. Those parties also want to talk about the limitations in our funding model. They do not see a contradiction there, it seems. They are willing to point out the contradiction between those of us who aspire to constitutional change but not to acknowledge the contradiction in their own position, which is that there is a UK Government who do awful things to us, and it is really frustrating that they are imposing increased National Insurance contributions, increasing inheritance tax for farmers and doing all those things, but we should never talk about taking more power for ourselves. There is a contradiction there, and I am sure that some unionist Members, in their heart of hearts, will acknowledge that contradiction. It does not mean —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point. A lot of what the Member is saying goes to the heart of governance, and I have sympathy for that argument, but does he realise that our Government's governance is temporary, whereas, in this place, parties tend to be in government permanently? That is a massive difference.

Mr O'Toole: The idea of being permanently in government is a novel one for the SDLP at the minute

, but I acknowledge that there are flaws in our political system, particularly with the incentivisation for his party and the other big party to collapse this place repeatedly. That comes back to the core point that we are making: power means responsibility and accountability; when you seek power, you take responsibility for staying in power, making decisions, making people's lives better and being accountable. As others, including Eóin Tennyson, have said, there is an inextricable link — to use a phrase from the 90s — between taking fiscal powers and taking more responsibility. Regardless of whether you are a unionist or a nationalist or do not subscribe to any constitutional position, if we end up in a constant doom loop in which we say, "Well, we can't take more powers, because, effectively, we're useless here, our politics is dysfunctional and we don't trust one another. We don't even trust the Civil Service to deliver. By the way, we don't trust the UK Government either, whether they're Labour or Tory. They're either delivering austerity or we can't trust them on various other things", we will not be able to offer our people anything. I therefore say this, particularly to unionist Members: think through the logic of a lot of what you have said here today.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that the main issue with the current Labour Government for many Members on these Benches and others is the deceitful way in which they came to power? They did not tell us that they were going to tax business, tax the farmer and rob the pensioner in the way in which they have. They lied. They were deceitful. That is the issue.

Mr O'Toole: The Member makes a political point about the UK Government. I disagree with the policies that he has outlined, but I am talking about structural issues in our system. His point is on the record.

I will come on to some of the detail of fiscal power and what it means here. One of the points that was made to me was that we did not provide a list, presumably in exhaustive detail, with costings. I would have been interested to see whether the Speaker would have accepted a 10-page motion — he is indicating from the Chair that he would not have — listing every single fiscal change that we would like to see made.

Let me give some examples. I will start with some of the fiscal matters that we have already said that we would like to look at but on which we have not seen progress from the Executive. We have dereliction in the Cathedral Quarter in Mr Brett's constituency. There is the shameful falling into dereliction of what is called the Tribeca Quarter. Vacant property there is being allowed to fall into dereliction, some of which is given a permanent rates break through the vacant property relief that exists in our rates system at the minute. We have been open about saying that we would curtail that relief. At the minute, in Northern Ireland, unlike across the water or down South, if your property is vacant, you essentially get a permanent tax break. We have said that we would like to reform that.

There are new fiscal powers that I would like to look at. One is a vacant land tax to incentivise development. The purpose of our motion is not to say that every form of fiscal devolution is always good in every context but to say, "Let's produce concrete options. Let's look at what those concrete options are". The Fiscal Commission's multiple reports are extraordinarily detailed. It does not think that VAT is an appropriate tax to be devolved, but it does think that partially devolving income tax might be appropriate. It also talked about other taxes.

I have talked about APD in the past. All the unionist parties in the Assembly are clearly not inherently opposed to devolution, because they supported the devolution of APD. One of the reasons that I talked about it was because of the blunt use that was made of it. I wish that the Finance Minister were here. I would like to hear him elaborate on his plans and his party's support for fiscal devolution, because I support fiscal devolution too.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way to Mr Carroll in a second. I am depressed to see two Members from his party here but no Minister. If the Minister supports fiscal devolution and says that our current arrangements are not fit for purpose, he should have the basic courtesy to come to the Chamber and explain what his position is and what he is doing about it in the context of the fiscal framework negotiations that are apparently going on at the minute. The fact that he has not done so is ridiculous and shameful.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his point about the Minister. Will the Member clarify his party's position on the devolution of corporation tax? I presume that it is in favour of devolving it and increasing the rate.

Mr O'Toole: Corporation tax has already been devolved, but the power has not been commenced. At the minute, it would be difficult to advocate lowering the rate of corporation tax, because of the impact that doing so would have on the block grant, which would need to be adjusted, but I have limited time left, so I am going to have to close my remarks on corporation tax there. I have answered the Member's question.

We fundamentally need to revisit the idea of power, responsibility and accountability in the Chamber. Having fiscal powers can be a critical part of that. Our motion is completely reasonable and concise. We have asked the Finance Minister to bring forward proposals. He and his party have said for years that they want more fiscal devolution. I agree. Frankly, I am shocked that he is not in the Chamber to give us an account. We need to tell the people, whether they are unionist or nationalist or do not give two hoots about the constitution, that the people whom they elect to here can take meaningful powers to improve their lives and take responsibility for improving their lives, rather than simply come to the Chamber huffing and puffing about things that are done elsewhere and say, "Well, we can't do anything to change it", or promise something without following through on it.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: That is what the motion is about. We commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr O'Toole. At least your motion was concise. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a motion is carried and puts a specific burden on the Minister with responsibility, even if they are not named in the motion, and that Minister voted for the motion, would it be in order for Members to expect that Minister to follow up on the outcome of that vote?

Mr Speaker: Statutory motions are not binding, so it is for the Minister to deal with the motion as the Minister sees fit.

Members, take your ease while we change the Table and move to the next motion.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

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

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

For too long, our delivery of capital projects has been broken, plagued by delay, duplication and dysfunction — arguably, a microcosm of the Executive themselves. We are left with a legacy of delays and overruns, compounded by the malaise of those who are in power and have responsibility.

It is unforgivable and unjustifiable that, at this time of deep financial uncertainty, when many of our schools are crumbling like our roads and thousands of families are without a roof over their heads, we are told that the coffers are empty. Meanwhile, a £3 billion overspend has been squandered across major capital projects in a five-year period. Of course, we recognise the impact of recent cost increases — anyone who has had any work done anywhere knows about that — but it is not just a recent phenomenon. We have seen a decade of lack of delivery and broken promises — Casement Park, the children's hospital, an all-island rail network and the remediation of Mobuoy — and the silence from the leadership is deafening. Report after report from the PAC and the Audit Office have been clear: we have had systemic failure here in how major projects are procured, funded and delivered. It would appear, however, that that clarity has been lost on leadership parties. Recommendations to crack down on duplication, tackle excessive bureaucracy and improve oversight mechanisms and the overall efficiency of capital project management have gone ignored.

An infrastructure commission is not just a nice little extra; it is a necessity. Other jurisdictions have seen the merit and benefits of such a provision. Why have the Executive not done so? Do not just take my word for it. The most recent Audit Office follow-up report revealed that only one of the Executive's seven flagship projects that were announced a decade ago has been fully completed. Other statistics in the report are astonishing, but this is about so much more than number crunching; it represents a systemic failure to change the status quo. The absence of any oversight of projects is leading to fragmented accountability and allows those in power to pass the buck. We feel that that is exactly what the amendment attempts to do. The establishment of an infrastructure commission is the vehicle by which to deliver on promises on access to housing and healthcare, decent buildings in which our children can be educated and greater alignment with climate goals.

It was SDLP Minister Nichola Mallon who first moved the conversation from aspiration to action in 2020 with the ministerial advisory panel, beginning the steps towards a commission that could anchor infrastructure delivery in evidence, expertise and long-term vision, rather than one that worked to election cycles. The Executive agreed to move that forward. Members may recall some fanfare around that. Of course, we had the collapse of the Assembly in 2022. It is frustrating that, since we have come back, despite my numerous questions in the Assembly and questions for written answer — I am not the only one — the response from the Executive Office has remained largely the same for the past 15 months: the report of the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) review is being considered and the way forward will be a matter for the Executive in due course. The irony of the delay in deciding even to set up an oversight body that is meant to address delays will be lost on no one.

Decade-long delays and eye-watering overspend have become accepted as the norm. We heard huge furore around a £150,000 spend on Irish language signage for Grand Central station — a debate that dragged on for weeks — but there was not so much as a whisper or whimper about the fact that the station project itself ran £45 million over the projected £295 million cost. The truth is that the two big parties are complicit in those failures, preferring tit for tat to the tête-à-tête that is required to move projects and this place forward.

The commission is not a magic bullet, but it is a start, one that will provide independent expert advice and long-term planning and ensure that every penny spent delivers for people. It must be established alongside planning reform in order to create a more efficient, coordinated approach to building the infrastructure that supports sustainable growth, regional balance and future prosperity. We need leadership that plans not just for the next election but for the next generation. I propose the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Cathal Boylan to move the amendment.

Mr Boylan: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. you will have five minutes to propose the amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers in the debate will have three minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. However, at the outset, I will say that it is disappointing that, as part of the proposal of the motion, an opposition party that is fully funded did not consider bringing forward some proposals as to cost options in relation to —

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boylan: Yes.

Mr Durkan: The proposal is in the motion that we tabled. We proposed that the Executive create an infrastructure commission. This was brought to the Executive four or five years ago, but the parties have failed to move it forward. There is the proposal —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Cathal Boylan. Interventions should be brief.

Mr Durkan: — there is the alternative.

Mr Boylan: Thank you for the intervention. I wish that the Member had let me finish what I was going to say without jumping at me. I said that you, as a party and as a fully funded Opposition, have brought no proposals to the table. You keep complaining. Numerous Ministers have said to you over the last period —

Mr Durkan: Here is one.

Mr Boylan: No, I have not heard any explanations. I will not go back over it. Moving forward — [Inaudible.]

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

We can all agree that the delivery of major capital projects is an area of concern for many of us across the Chamber and, more importantly, for the people we represent. That, clearly, was highlighted by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member.

A commitment to improving our infrastructure is contained in the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG). Delivering major projects will be vital to delivering on other commitments in the PFG also. Investing in water and waste water, roads and transport and other major projects will encourage business to invest, enable housebuilding and improve connectivity across the island.

While Sinn Féin is broadly supportive of the motion, it is important that we, too, reflect on the reasons why many major capital projects have been faced with delay. The amendment that we propose recognises that delays to major capital projects are multifaceted. We know that major road infrastructure projects such as the A5 are key to improving road safety and driving the economy. However, that project has been mired in legal challenges, causing delay after delay, while the majority of people wish to see delivery that will benefit us all. In addition to that, inflationary pressures, coupled with the impact of successive British Governments' austerity agendas in the North and the continued approach of single-year Budgets, have stifled the speed at which progress can be made on the delivery of major capital projects. It is therefore important that we continue to explore the benefits of an infrastructure commission, alongside prioritising the delivery of signature projects in the here and now. I ask the Members to support our amendment.

Mrs Erskine: Infrastructure investment is vital, and it is appropriate that we ensure that money is spent wisely, with projects delivered on time. While I recognise that major capital projects have failed to be delivered on time and within budget, we must be live to some of the challenges that have resulted in that outcome. Mainly, infrastructure projects face legal challenge, and, in the intervening periods, inflation increases costs. Not only that, but, in some cases, planning matters can have an impact.

Northern Ireland already has the Strategic Investment Board, which should hold such projects to account. We have to be honest and ask ourselves what an infrastructure commission will achieve. Will it be another talking shop or quango? More important, how much will it cost? The SDLP did not provide an indication of how much it will cost an already cash-strapped Executive. It is important that we understand the costs of this.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I have a lot to get through. You did not mention it in your speech. I have a lot to get through [Interruption.]

Without the teeth to deal with the issues, I wonder whether an infrastructure commission would be able to deal with the issues that I have raised. Could it truly stop people taking the legal challenges that cause delays to our infrastructure projects? Will an infrastructure commission be able to do that or stave off the inflation that has crippled projects in recent years? Those are the things that we need to look at, if we are going to create an infrastructure commission.

We need to truly get to the nub of the challenges. The recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the funding of Northern Ireland Water (NIW) made general remarks about planning. It did not reference an infrastructure commission, but it recommended that relevant stakeholders work purposely towards establishing appropriate arrangements to effectively coordinate and manage such investment. That is where our focus remains.

We are not beholden to the idea of a commission. We recognise that improvements could be accelerated through other means, including taking forward the changes that stem from the review of the Strategic Investment Board and the outworkings of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI). Progress will also be realised by ensuring that the right skills and expertise exist in our Departments and robust measures are in place to increase accountability and the oversight of public money across the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). There should be an onus on all Executive Ministers to put their shoulders to the wheel for that. Therefore, we will not support the substantive motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members — some Members in particular — that, when a Member is clearly not giving way, they should not persist and disturb them.

Mr McReynolds: I rise as the Alliance Party's infrastructure spokesperson. I am delighted that we have a day of infrastructure debates in front of us.

As Members will know, I have highlighted several times in the Chamber and in Committee that Infrastructure is a Department that does not get the respect that it deserves. When we get it wrong or miss opportunities to improve it, our environment and our ability to get around and create necessary homes and jobs are affected. Major capital projects are what Northern Ireland is built on. The problem is that they are now increasingly complex, as we have heard from the proposer of the amendment, and we can no longer just think it and build it. Delays and cost hikes are the norm rather than the exception, and there are other factors that delay the completion of projects and mean that they are not completed on time and on budget.

Key for me in the debate is the fact that, in 2021, the Assembly and the Executive agreed with the conclusions of the ministerial advisory panel that our infrastructure was not delivering for our people due to the delivery and governance structures being too fragmented and lacking a strategic long-term view. For that reason, an infrastructure commission would empower us to deliver cleaner, greener, sustainable and inclusive growth for all. It is there in black and white on page 27 of the consolidated COVID recovery plan, which states that there should be a

That is what infrastructure projects deserve and require. However, four years on, we are in the exact same place, and, true to form, nothing has changed.

Alliance believes that the creation of an independent and expert-led — those are key words — infrastructure commission is essential for guiding our approach to major infrastructure projects. We need to have engineering experts at the table during the planning and formulation of projects, delivering what is needed free from political interference, while helping us meet our climate targets. What we have at the moment is an internal working group that is not accountable and does not publish reports. Groundhog Day.

I welcome the motion and thank the Opposition for tabling it. Can we please just get on with what we agreed in the past and start making this place function on evidence and expert input?

Mr Stewart: Apologies for not being on the speaking list; I do not know what happened.

I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to join many organisations, including the Construction Employers Federation, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, the Institution of Civil Engineers and many others in supporting the establishment of an independent infrastructure commission for Northern Ireland. I thank the Opposition for bringing the issue forward for debate.

An infrastructure commission is vital if we are serious about improving how we deliver public-sector capital projects and restoring public trust in how taxpayers' money is spent. As others have done, I commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Office, which have compiled numerous reports on the back of evidence that they sought. Reports from the PAC and the Audit Office have consistently highlighted serious concerns about delays, spiralling costs, poor long-term planning and a lack of rigorous project management, where major capital projects are late and over budget and fail to deliver the full benefits that they promised.

We simply cannot continue to make those mistakes.

In its 2023 report, the Public Accounts Committee was blunt, concluding that Northern Ireland lacks the necessary oversight and strategic direction to ensure that public infrastructure is delivered efficiently and effectively. The Audit Office added that, without major reform, public services will continue to be undermined by poor capital delivery. The Comptroller and Auditor General went further than that in 2024, saying:

That is a damning reflection by the Audit Office. We owe it to our people to do better. An infrastructure commission would give us the tools to do just that by operating independently to provide expert, long-term advice on Northern Ireland's infrastructure needs. It would assess major project proposals, track delivery and intervene early whenever problems arise, helping to ensure that projects are built on time, within budget and to the highest standard.

We have heard from the proposer and other Members about the litany of capital projects to date that have invariably gone over budget and over time and not been delivered as required. That includes the money that has been spent so far on the A5 western transport corridor, on which still no work has been progressed; the millions of pounds that have been spent on the York Street interchange, which has been a capital project priority for years, although we are still nowhere near to seeing the project being delivered — the list goes on. We could all point to dozens of examples, in our constituencies, of schools —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Stewart: — hospitals or other capital projects that invariably go over time and over budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. I welcome the motion and agree with both parts of it independently, although I am not convinced that one will fully address the other. Alliance has long called for an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to improve long-term strategic planning. We want the commission to have a 30-year vision to prioritise, report on and drive the delivery of infrastructure projects. It should assume the responsibilities of the existing Strategic Investment Board to assist Departments to deliver projects. Unlike the Strategic Investment Board, it must be independent. Independence is the norm for similar bodies across the globe and is widely supported by experts. We should not lag behind on that. The commission would support stability and could bring much-needed long-term perspective to strategic infrastructure planning, free from the pressures of electoral cycles. That is key to addressing some of the major challenges and long-term needs that we face as a society.

I also agree with the first half of the motion. Indeed, I am alarmed at the continued failings in the delivery of capital projects that have been highlighted so clearly in the recent reports of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The majority of our major capital projects experience unacceptably long delays and huge overspends. Despite earlier reports highlighting the same failings, those issues have not been improved on. The NIAO estimated that the cost to complete the 77 projects that were in the pipeline at the end of August 2023 would be £2·45 billion higher than planned. That is a 44% increase in spending — money that could have been invested elsewhere to improve our public services.

Importantly, I do not think that an infrastructure commission is the solution to all those issues. That is not because I do not believe in the merits of such a commission — I do — but because it would not address the root causes of the delays and overspends. The Strategic Investment Board looked into those root causes and found them to be excessively complex planning policy and regulations, insufficient attention to stakeholder engagement, lack of expertise in Departments and the unpredictability resulting from complex systems. The NIAO came to a similar conclusion in its report on the capacity and capability of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Those issues are at system and delivery level; they are not about strategy and are only marginally about advice. An infrastructure commission, as proposed by the independent ministerial advisory panel in 2020, would not be involved at the level of planning and stakeholder engagement in the delivery of infrastructure projects. It could advise on, but would not run, those projects. That is precisely where many of the problems causing delays and overspends originate.

Yes, we need an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission for the sake of evidence-based advice and improved long-term strategic planning. Equally, however, we must urgently address the substantial failings in infrastructure delivery in Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we must continue to reform our dysfunctional planning system and address skills and culture issues in Departments in which projects are delivered.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Members who have spoken. I call the deputy First Minister to respond. Deputy First Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions on this important topic and the proposer of the motion for giving us the opportunity to highlight what we are already doing to improve how we plan and deliver infrastructure and, importantly, the opportunity to reflect on what more needs to be done.

I begin by acknowledging the issues that the Public Accounts Committee identified and the updated NIAO reports, which highlight a significant overspend on major capital projects. I have no doubt that there has been a high degree of commonality across political parties over the years in our deep frustration at the lack of delivery, the slow delivery or the overspends on infrastructure projects. Over many years, I have had the privilege of working with many Ministers from different parties. Without a doubt, I know that no Minister goes into their role expecting or desiring not to deliver the capital projects in their portfolio.

On the point about accountability that the proposer of the motion referenced in his speech, I will say that Ministers are accountable for the capital projects in their portfolio. There is no doubt about that. Some of those projects can be cross-cutting, which presents a different set of unique challenges to be overcome, but neither is there any doubt that the way in which we are doing things is not working. It is not working for Ministers, not working for the Executive, not working for this place and, most importantly, not working for the people who require services, such as the much-desired York Street interchange. Think of all those people sitting in traffic, wasting precious minutes and hours of their life every week, who could really benefit from that scheme. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to recommend using public transport as a sustainable option. It is, however, not just about people wasting their time but about what they could be doing with that time to be productive, to contribute to the economy and to make their life happier and more content with friends and family instead of sitting there.

Delays with capital projects have a real-life impact that is felt not just on roads but on hospitals, schools and so many other things that have been set out by ministerial teams in the Executive year after year and that, unfortunately, because of delays and overruns, the Executive have not been able to stand over and say at the end of the mandate, "We have delivered this". I know that the Executive want to address and fix the issues, no matter how difficult and challenging doing so might be.

Mr Stewart: I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. She makes a valid point, specifically about the York Street interchange and the time that many people spend sitting in traffic, but she also highlights the economic impact. A recent fiscal study established that not developing the York Street interchange costs the local economy £1 billion a year. How do we factor in the cost and impact of not doing something versus the cost and impact of doing it?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I agree with the Member that it is about the cost of the lost opportunity and the wasted hours and about the additional bureaucracy, staffing or whatever else that may be required in order to operate within infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. When we look at NI Water's infrastructure, for example, we see that the challenge is the stopping of housebuilding and of the economic development that we require in order to grow our economy.

At the heart of everything that we want to do — it is right there in the Programme for Government — is an objective to grow our economy. We can do that only if we fix and improve how we do infrastructure, because infrastructure is at the heart of it all. In the Programme for Government is a desire to genuinely improve people's lives, and that must mean addressing the vital public services of education and health in order to deliver for people. The infrastructure that is required to deliver those services for people is again at the heart.

We therefore acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. Indeed, we share them. We also share a commitment to tackling the issues that we face, but, as Members have said, although the motion suggests one potential solution, we need to look much more widely. We do not believe that simply creating another commission will be the panacea for the issues and challenges that we face. Whatever we do must address them. Although we talk about oversight, the establishment of new bodies and independence, democratic accountability is important in all of this. It is about joined-up working, not necessarily about the creation of a new body. We are not ruling that out as a possibility at this juncture, nor are we saying that it is the only option on the table. We are absolutely open to looking at a range of options that may be available to us as long as they work. We want something that works, and I am giving a genuine commitment on behalf of the First Minister and myself, because, as I have said many times, we are focused on delivery.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We know that delivery has not been achieved in the way that other Ministers have wanted it over the years, but we have a determination to fix and change what needs to be done in order to deliver in this term and beyond. I will give way.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. That is what I was pointing to in my contribution. It is important that we have the right skills in place and that we get to the nub of the issues. For example, when legal challenges take place, community engagement pieces must be done correctly to avoid the misinformation that can lead to delays in our infrastructure projects.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. There is a huge incentive across government to do better when it comes to big infrastructure projects, but to do that we must identify the problems and barriers to delivery. We have the slowest planning processes anywhere on these isles. We know that: so how do we fix it? If the costs are projected 10 years before the final costs come in, of course, there are going to be factors, such as overruns, that influence the costs and related increases. However, those issues are by no means unique to us. Research carried out by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) identified similar issues across the UK, but it also found that UK costs were, in many cases, not dissimilar from international benchmarks.

It is something that every Government across the globe struggles with, but, by working collectively — not just the parties in the Executive but with the official Opposition — we will, hopefully, find a number of interventions to significantly improve the roll-out of capital development and delivery in Northern Ireland.

I assure the House that a number of different initiatives and projects are under way. We hope to bring our investment strategy to the Executive very shortly. Unlike previous iterations, the new investment strategy will take a longer view and look out to 2050. We hope that it will mean that longer-term planning will support the delivery. Indeed, we raised our concerns about the single-year Budgets directly with the Chancellor, because we need multi-year Budgets to enable us to plan for our longer-term investment strategy. It will set out a pathway for investment in infrastructure for the next 30 years to stabilise, deliver and transform.

Of course, the investment strategy will also have an enabling action plan. The work will be developed, assessed and monitored, because that is essential to ensure delivery. We are looking at all those structures, including the use of the internal delivery unit that we have established in the Executive Office to work with all Departments in seeking to improve on a number of the barriers. The assessment that was carried out identified over 100 actions, and those have been rationalised to 12 key actions, including addressing capacity and capability barriers in infrastructure delivery. My colleague highlighted the skills that the Civil Service requires to oversee project delivery. Skills are also needed to tackle things when they do not go right, which often happens in capital projects, and to find swift solutions.

We are looking at the business case process. It takes a huge amount of time for business cases to work their way through the system. I often think about the A5 project: Ministers in a five-party Executive were fully, politically behind that, some 17 years ago, in 2007-08, along with the Irish Government; yet, despite that political will, the road has not yet been built. Again, it is about identifying the barriers.

The important question in the debate is whether an infrastructure commission would have addressed that or whether there are serious issues throughout the process, including in our planning system and its appeals process, that need to be addressed. Otherwise, no matter how many independent bodies we set up, the same challenges will be encountered as those that Departments and Ministers have faced when rolling out projects.

Procurement expertise is another key area, and integrating the key concepts of the social licence is an important part of that.

I am conscious that I am rapidly running out of time. At this juncture, we do not agree to support simply the option set out in the motion, but we are content to look at the amendment's specific proposal in line with other actions that would be required. We will bring that back to this place and to the Executive as we look at a road map for a way forward, because we are determined to deliver capital projects better, on time and on budget, if at all possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for that response, deputy First Minister. I call Nicola Brogan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Nicola, you have up to three minutes.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

There is no denying that the failure to deliver a number of major capital projects across the North is alarming. It is important that we get to the root cause of why those projects are yet to materialise. Certainly, all of us here must shoulder our share of the responsibility for that. However, we must not be blind to other sources of delay. The British Government themselves admitted that even basic infrastructure projects in the North have been chronically underfunded for generations. It should be no surprise that, when underfunding is coupled with inflation, major capital projects are slow to progress. We need only look at the development of Casement Park and the lost 2028 Euros for evidence of that.

Another major hurdle that the projects face is one that is directly addressed in our amendment. Legal challenges coupled with inflation lead to delay after delay, which, in turn, leads to ever-increasing costs until, eventually, the project feels the impact of Stormont's ever-tightening Budget. Of course, there must be room for people to raise their concerns about and opposition to certain projects, but it cannot become an endless cycle of delays and reviews that effectively blocks much-needed projects from being developed.

As you will all know, the people of West Tyrone have been waiting for the upgrade of the extremely dangerous A5 road for over 16 years. That is over 16 years of missing out on major investment in the north-west and being denied the economic boom that would come with being part of increased all-Ireland connectivity. Most important, however, it is over 16 years during which people have been driving on such a treacherous road. Over 50 people have been killed on the A5 in that time. Families and communities have been left devastated and torn apart in the years that we have been waiting. There is no doubt that the ongoing legal challenges have caused lengthy delays to the project. There can be no more delays to the A5 road upgrade.

A chairde,

the benefits of an infrastructure commission should be assessed, and the role that it would have should be considered, but that should be done alongside the prioritisation of important Executive projects.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Justin McNulty to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Justin, you have five minutes.

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

Who said that? The First Minister said that. Casement Park has not been built. Casement Park was not built in time for the Euros. There is no sign of Casement Park being built. There is no direction on Casement Park. It stands still. A generation of Antrim footballers, hurlers and ladies footballers is missing out on the opportunity to play on Casement's hallowed turf because of false promises by this failing Executive.

Sinn Féin's spokesperson for excuses and passing the buck has questioned the SDLP Opposition's proposals and the lack of proposals being brought forward. This is a proposal: get with the programme, Sinn Féin, get with the programme. The SDLP has produced multiple policy papers. We will pass them on to Sinn Féin so that it can maybe plagiarise more of our policy — slow learners. Sinn Féin tried to assert the rights of opposition parties in Dublin, but it does not like any scrutiny at all in Stormont. It is all about making excuses and passing the buck. Expert pass the buck-ers: that is what Sinn Féin Members are.

We hear Executive parties waxing lyrical about getting projects across the line or, in many cases, to the starting blocks, but there has been little or no scrutiny of and even less talk about the chronic overspends and colossal delays caused by inefficient government and the, frankly, chaotic delivery structures that have been allowed to persist. Departments work in silos, defending their own turf rather than delivering shared outcomes.

The parties are good at blackguarding. They are experts in that when it comes to small issues that can rile the public. Meanwhile, they overspend by millions and billions, failing through their lack of organisation, lack of vision, lack of joined-up thinking and lack of determination to make progress on our shared future by moving this place forward so that we can unite the island. They are interested only in pointing the finger and blaming others. The Executive parties are parties of blame, of making excuses and of passing the buck. I am sick of it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. That was a wind-up

but perhaps not the wind-up to the debate that I had anticipated, Mr McNulty.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the next item of business will be Question Time. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I intend to answer questions 1, 2, 7, 9, 14 and 15 together.

Mr Speaker: Minister, will you require additional time to answer all those questions?

Mrs Long: I may require a little extra, even if it is just to read out the number of questions.

Mr Speaker: We will grant you that additional time.

Mrs Long: At the outset, I thank His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for its thorough inspection, as well as the PSNI officers and staff, whose professionalism and dedication were rightly acknowledged in the report. The inspection report highlights operational challenges for both the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Policing Board to address. Crucially, it underscores the impact of reduced police officer numbers on our communities. It also emphasises the urgent need to address this decline and warns of future risks if left unaddressed. The prioritisation of resources within the PSNI is a matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. As such, it is for the Chief Constable to manage his resources and live within the budget allocated.

I am conscious of the significant pressures across all Departments and the difficult decisions that need to be taken by the Executive. That said, safer communities are a priority within the Executive’s new Programme for Government. I remain firmly committed to ensuring our communities are safe so that citizens feel confident and secure to fully engage in society. Despite the ongoing financial challenges, I welcome the Finance Minister’s allocation of an additional £5 million towards making communities safer. The PSNI will receive £4·75 million of the £5 million available, which is equivalent to 95%. Furthermore, the PSNI has received a pro rata share of the constrained resources allocated to my Department, in addition to its baseline allocation. This applies to both the 2025-26 opening budget and the indicative June monitoring allocation for employers’ National Insurance contributions.

We are all operating within constrained budgets across the justice system, so I will continue to make the case for enhanced departmental funding for policing and the justice system.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. I recognise that operational responsibilities are a matter for the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. However, this is an issue that raises its head time and time again. Is there something more, even in an advocacy role, that we, as the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive, could do to appeal to the British Government to get the police the much-needed resources they need? It does impact on a key priority of safer communities. Indeed, we are starting to see it on the ground and constituents are telling us that it is impacting on how they feel safe on our streets. Is there more that we can do, and can you suggest anything, as the Minister of Justice?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for what I think is a very helpful intervention. There are real challenges that the PSNI faces, and those will also be faced by other constabularies right across the UK, particularly now that the British Government's spending trajectory on public services is heading for decline. That is a really challenging environment in which we are trying to rebuild.

There are two things to say. First, as you know, we have a business case with the Department of Finance to look at the stabilisation of numbers and increased numbers for PSNI staff and officers. I know that that is under active consideration at the moment, and I am optimistic about that. However, even if the business case is approved, it will require us to be able to demonstrate affordability, and that is a further challenge. The second thing that is unique to the PSNI as opposed to other constabularies, and which therefore does not have a repercussive effect, is the extent to which the PSNI has to absorb the costs of legacy. That is the case right across the justice system in Northern Ireland, whether that be the Ombudsman's Office, the PSNI, the judiciary or the Courts and Tribunals Service. There are real issues around how the legacy funding for justice in Northern Ireland has been calculated. The UK Government could assist us with additional funding for those areas that are unique to Northern Ireland and that would not have read repercussive implications for the rest of the UK Budget.

Mr Buckley: Minister, this was a worrying report. A particular worry for me was that it revealed significant gaps in the PSNI child internet protection team, contributing to ineffectiveness in investigating child sexual abuse offences and managing dangerous offenders and predators. It is an alarming statistic given the 98% increase in child online protection threats in the past five years. What urgent action can we take to address that? I agree with the previous contributor that it will not be good enough just to place it under the banner of "Police: budget issues". We really have to protect the vulnerable.

Mrs Long: The Member is, of course, right to say that, of all police duties, that of keeping our children, in particular, safe from predatory adults is key. One of the challenges that the PSNI and other parts of the justice system face is that, whilst crime rates remain relatively low in Northern Ireland, the complexity of those crimes, particularly those committed in an online space, makes them much more expensive to investigate and prosecute. That is a challenge that the PSNI has to wrestle with. The PSNI is a key agency in public protection arrangements, and I value the work that it does under those arrangements to manage sexual and violent offenders.

I refer to previous reports from Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) and others. The Member is right that some of this is budget-related, but some of it is about prioritisation. Changes have already been made to the PSNI's arrangements for how officers manage the caseload in that sector. The concerns that the inspectorate raised shine a light on the fact that, with limited resources, there is an increased risk. We can never reduce the risk of offending to zero, but we can certainly mitigate and reduce it significantly. It is important that the PSNI is properly resourced to do that and that, within its resources, it perhaps prioritises doing that above other things that it has to do.

Mr Bradley: Given the urgency of the issue, why would the public have confidence that the Justice Department will act swiftly, having allowed that dangerous shortfall to develop? Will the Minister provide a specific timeline for achieving the necessary staffing levels and outline how progress can be monitored?

Mrs Long: To be clear, the Department of Justice did not allow a gap to open up in funding or in numbers. The PSNI took decisions, for example, not to recruit police officers to replace those who had left. That decision was taken by the PSNI, not imposed upon it by the finances. That has had a knock-on effect, with a deterioration in numbers over time. In 2021, the Executive secured the resources to allow the PSNI to raise its numbers to 7,100. When I came back into office at the start of last year, the number, having reached that point, had dropped to 6,300. We have arrested the decline; that is the first stage.

The second stage is about getting the business case through. I cannot give a timeline for it, but it is under active consideration by the Department of Finance. Getting that through, with the resource that we need to seek on the back of it, will allow us to start to recruit new officers. Some of the money is already available to the PSNI to start the recruitment process, and some additional money will need to be found.

However, there is an upper limit to the number of officers that we can train and recruit in Northern Ireland. The upper limit for new officers coming through the police training college is around 500 a year. We lose around 350 by attrition, which means that, even at the college's peak throughput, we are talking about being able to add 150 newly trained officers a year. I have been discussing that with the Chief Constable. If there are other means of increasing the PSNI's complement, or other ways in which we can train people in order to ensure that we have PSNI officers available, we will look at them. Affordability will remain the biggest challenge, however, even if the business case is approved and successful.

Mr Frew: Given that the report states that there is an increased risk in managing sexual offenders, will the Minister give credence to undertaking a review of the wider Public Protection Arrangements for Northern Ireland (PPANI) and the police's position within them?

Mrs Long: As the Member will be aware, there are a number of arrangements to manage offenders. The multi-agency risk assessment conferencing (MARAC) process, which is for protection, is under review. An intensive piece of work is happening on that. We then have PPANI, in which the PSNI is one of the key agencies, but not the only agency, involved. We would need to look at whether the PPANI need a root-and-branch change. The indication in the report was more to do with the allocation of officers to cases than with a flaw in the structures that have been in place, so we would need to think carefully before investing our resource in a review rather than in officers who would be able to complete those tasks.

As the Member will know, the Department chairs the strategic management board for PPANI. It commissioned a review of PPANI-related demand and signed off on the report, so we have already looked at the demand piece and are working to implement the findings. The timing of the HMIC report has been useful, as it will inform how we implement the recommendations of the demand review that we have undertaken.

Mr Irwin: With respect, Minister, will you commit today to increasing staffing levels. If so, by when?

Mrs Long: On staffing, there is the business case that I have referred to. I am absolutely committed to seeing the PSNI increase its numbers of officers and staff so that it can conduct the work on behalf of the public that needs to be done. However, it is not just for me to make that commitment: it requires every party in the Chamber to agree to it and to funding it. That is a challenge for all of us, not just for me.

When I am given the money, I prioritise policing. Look, for example, at the allocations that we have had already this year. A significant amount of money has been given to the PSNI from those allocations. It is important that we recognise that it is not that we deprioritise policing when we get money in Justice; Justice needs to be a higher priority when it comes to the Executive as a whole.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given that the Chief Constable has recently voiced concerns that officer numbers are at an all-time low, will the Minister be mindful of that and commit to a review of the PSNI's funding, if the report indicates that there are clear difficulties with service delivery as a direct result of minimal funding and reduced recruitment?

Mrs Long: As we have an annual Budget, we review the funding allocations every year. That happens on an ongoing basis. If you look at the allocations that have already been made to PSNI, you will see that, of the £132·3 million of additional allocations to my Department, PSNI has received just over £86 million. That is 65% of the additional funding that the Department has received and 86% of the £100 million of pressures reported by PSNI to my Department, so I do not think that anyone can argue that we are not giving the PSNI priority.

We also have the business case for restoring workforce levels to 7,000 officers and 2,572 staff over the next three years. That proposal is, as I said, under active consideration by the Department of Finance. I am optimistic that the business case is robust. There are costs to our society from not increasing police numbers and not investing in those services. However, we will still have a challenge with affordability, because, without additional resource, there will be limited ability to implement that plan as quickly as we would wish. As you would expect, I will not be shy when it comes to asking for additional resources for the PSNI.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I commend you for talking in detail about PSNI operational matters. It is the 30th anniversary of 'Father Ted', and I am glad that you are not saying, as you often do, "That would be an operational matter".

There is a real sense among some people that confidence and optimism around the PSNI have declined since the time of the Patten report. Do you agree that we need to renew that broad, cross-community optimism about policing and that a more fundamental review — Patten II — is required?

Mrs Long: There are a couple of things in that. First, they are not operational matters for the PSNI; they are funding issues, which are within my bailiwick. If Members ask the right questions, they will get fulsome answers on any occasion. I am more than happy to give fulsome answers where it is within my vires to do so.

The second issue that you raised is about declining confidence in the PSNI. At times, we all need to reflect on the fact that the PSNI comes under considerable pressure not just from the public but from politicians. It comes in for considerable criticism and negativity, all of which contributes to the overall public perception of the PSNI's effectiveness, efficiency and capability.

There is a fine line between arguing that the PSNI needs more resource and arguing that it is incapable of delivering on its objectives. We need to be cautious about not crossing that line. Northern Ireland remains one of the safest places to live in these islands; we should not lose sight of that. I also recognise, however, that there is much more that the PSNI could do with additional resources.

Would I put resources into root-and-branch reform? I offered to do so in the previous mandate. I offered to carry out a wider review of the roles of and relationships between the Assembly, the Justice Committee, the Policing Board, the Police Service and the Justice Department. At that time, the Policing Board told me in no uncertain terms that it did not wish to see such a review. One of the most vocal critics of my proposal was one of your colleagues.

Miss McAllister: Future-proofing the PSNI is important. That can also come about as a result of efficiency in its spend. It is not just about resources; it is also about capital. I am a member of the Policing Board, which looks into these matters closely. What is the Minister's assessment of the NI Audit Office's (NIAO) recent report on the PSNI's fleet management?

Mrs Long: When the Northern Ireland Audit Office looks at any organisation, it is important that we take time to learn the lessons from its report. I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and her staff for the report.

The Northern Ireland Policing Board is, as you say, responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service, including, for example, how it acquires and maintains its fleet and where that expenditure is made. My officials will study the report closely and discuss, as appropriate, its findings with the board and the PSNI at the tripartite meetings that we hold. It is, however, possible that that Northern Ireland Audit Office report will be the subject of a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing. For that reason, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time on its findings.

Mrs Long: Following publication of the new seven-year domestic and sexual abuse strategy in September 2025, the Health Minister and I launched a small grants scheme that offered voluntary and community sector organisations the opportunity to apply for funding to support new ideas and initiatives that aligned with the key strategic pillars outlined in the strategy. Over £300,000 was provided to 14 projects that were to be completed by 31 March 2025. Those projects were to deliver local solutions, promoting prevention; improving outcomes for victims and survivors; and providing a coordinated and impactful response to domestic and sexual abuse. Each project was required to report with post-project evaluations. That work is ongoing, and, to date, five post-project evaluations have been received.

I am encouraged that the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive and that early insights demonstrate tangible benefits. Those include the provision of support to 24 women and 31 children by North Down and Ards Women’s Aid through its Moving On project; the provision of information to over 200 attendees at an event to mark International Women’s Day that was organised by the Women’s Centre in Derry; White Ribbon’s pilot training programme for Northern Ireland Prison Service staff to enable them to deliver training to residents at Hydebank Wood Secure College aimed at challenging the attitudes and beliefs that lead to violence against women and girls; the provision of brief solution-focused therapy by Nexus to support 102 individuals, which is aimed at crisis de-escalation to support survivors of sexual violence; and the delivery by Derry Well Women of three programmes to young women and girls impacted by domestic and sexual abuse, which is aimed at empowering women and girls to deal with past trauma associated with domestic abuse and to live their best lives. Further work, which will be informed by receipt of the outstanding post-project evaluations, is needed in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the small grant scheme to date.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you stated that you were able to fund 14 initiatives. I am aware that one of those — the Family First programme — supports people in my constituency. Are you able to say a bit more about the services that can be provided by that scheme?

Mrs Long: Organisations across all regions of Northern Ireland have benefited from the support provided through the scheme. The initiatives have wide-ranging impacts, as I have set out, and offer vital assistance to men, women and children who are affected by domestic and sexual abuse. The scheme has enabled some front-line services to deliver practical, emotional, preventative and therapeutic support that has made a difference to the lives of individuals and families.

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of visiting a Women's Aid refuge in Ballymena to see first-hand the valuable work that is being delivered through its Family First programme, which is supported by the scheme. That programme plays a vital role in offering early interventions for women and children affected by domestic abuse across the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. It supports mothers in identifying and building on their strengths, developing tailored family support plans and gaining a deeper understanding of how abuse has impacted on their children. Children, in turn, receive therapeutic support in a safe, nurturing environment in which they can begin to process their experiences and build emotional resilience.

It was really uplifting to see the positive impact that the programme is having on families and to hear the improved outcomes for the young people who have had that additional contact and support. I look forward to visiting other initiatives that are funded through the scheme to see the broader reach of what I believe to be important work.

Ms Forsythe: When strategies come into place, the allocation of budget is absolutely critical, and the domestic abuse strategy is a clear example of that. Will the Minister provide a bit more detail on the £300,000 for 14 projects, which are most welcome? What is her estimate of the value of rolling forward the scheme? How long will it continue?

Mrs Long: The plan is that, when we get the post-project evaluation reports, we will see where, we feel, further roll-out, for example, might be appropriate. Such things, as the Member will appreciate, depend entirely on having the resources available to do them, but, when we looked at how the projects work, we were robust in scrutinising them. We wanted to bring additionality so that we were not just looking at things that are already being done, and we wanted to look at innovation so that we were looking at new ways of tackling the issues. Through those projects, we have been able to find new ways in which we can better support families who are experiencing domestic violence and abuse and better ways in which we can, in particular, provide the support needed by young people, who are often casualties of domestic violence, although they may not be the intended victim.

Such abuse can have long-term consequences. I spoke to one of the women who have worked with some of the families, and she told me how some of the children, as a result of domestic abuse and upheaval in the home, had been absent from school for long periods and had started to refuse to go to school. She talked about how she worked with a mother who was afraid to take her child to school, because even the routine of doing that left her feeling exposed to her abusive partner. She then worked with the school and the mother to arrange different pickup and drop-off times, breakfast club membership and things like that so that the mother had the confidence to take her child to school, to make that part of his day and to allow him to reintegrate with children in the school. The learning from that will allow us to inform other strategic decisions that we can take in the Department of Health and the Department of Justice on how we better support people.

Mrs Long: The allocation of policing resources in Lagan Valley is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board.?I hope that Mr O'Toole is listening, because he missed this earlier. I am committed to respecting the operational responsibility of the Chief Constable and the role of the Policing Board. The Member may therefore wish to direct his question to the PSNI.

I am, however, pleased to advise that a business case has been submitted to the Department of Finance to recover workforce levels to 7,000 officers and 2,572 staff over the next three years, which will potentially benefit all constituencies. That case is under active consideration by the Department of Finance.

Notwithstanding that, a partnership approach is central to addressing all crime, and my Department is committed to working with partners to make Northern Ireland, including rural communities, safer by reducing opportunities to commit crime. My Department chairs the rural crime partnership (RCP), which focuses on developing a collaborative, problem-solving approach to addressing concerns specific to rural areas. The partnership shares information on emerging and/or recurring crimes to support a coordinated response and preventative approach to addressing agricultural crime.

At a local level, policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) jointly funded by my Department and the Policing Board play a key role in addressing crime, including rural crime, and building confidence locally through engagement and consultation with communities. PCSPs deliver a range of initiatives, such as trailer marking, to raise awareness and support rural communities and businesses to protect their property and goods. I also welcome the downward trend in recorded rural and agricultural crime in recent years, although I note that that tells only one part of a bigger story.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer. I will not take the ball that wants to be hit there and go full Father Ted, because it is an important topic. Since I tabled the question, there have been a number of break-ins and burglaries in Lagan Valley in and around Hillsborough. I also know that it is a seasonal occurrence. Can the Minister outline any increased involvement that she or the police have had on the rural impact assessment, and will she comment on the fact that, as the days get longer and people take to their caravans in the spring and summer, thieves and burglars see that as an opportunity to exploit empty houses?

Mrs Long: The Member is correct that, when people know that a house is empty, there is an increased tendency for burglary. We see similar patterns before Christmas, when people know that people are storing Christmas presents. It is an opportunistic way of breaking into homes at that time. Through PCSPs and the police, there are lots of opportunities for householders to get advice and guidance on how to secure their properties and how to avoid them looking empty for long periods and, hopefully, to dissuade those who are involved in crime.

Burglary and robbery represented about 24% of agricultural crime, not just rural crime, while theft was about 76%. That gives you some idea. Burglary has been between 23% and 36% of rural crime, while theft has tended to make up the rest in that context. It is clearly something that we are concerned about and want to raise public awareness of. I encourage Members to use some of the tools that are available on the Department's website, in local PCSPs and on the PSNI's website about how to secure your property over the summer period, particularly when you are on holiday, so that it does not look as though it is available for criminals who might wish to target it in your absence.

Miss Hargey: Last week, Yvette Cooper announced police vetting reforms to boost officer standards and improve confidence in policing around issues of misconduct and sexual offences, for example. Is the Minister minded to look at the vetting procedures here?

Mrs Long: It is not directly linked to rural crime, but I welcome the opportunity to be clear about it. A number of areas need to be looked at. The ombudsman's office is looking at abuse of power as a theme. You will be aware from the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report of the work that has already been done in that space.

There is vetting of those who join the PSNI, and that is one element. There is also internal vetting as people move between different roles and into particular roles where they may come into contact with more vulnerable people. Whilst it does not necessarily fall to the Department to take a lead on that, we are engaging on it with the police, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI) and the board.

It is important that people have confidence that, when they call a police officer, the person who responds is there in good faith and is a person of integrity and that they are not exposing themselves further to somebody who may have malign intent.

Mrs Guy: Can the Minister provide more detail on the work of local PCSPs in addressing rural crime?

Mrs Long: The Department, together with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, provides operational funding of about £4·25 million to PCSPs. They play a key role in our operational response to identify and help to address local community safety concerns, including rural crime.

In the action plan this year, Lisburn and Castlereagh PCSP outlined key initiatives to help to tackle rural crime, including the promotion of farm watch schemes, trailer marking events and a tracker device scheme. Mid Ulster PCSP has committed to raising awareness of rural crime in its annual action plan, while running a text alert programme. Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon PCSP also promotes farm watch schemes and organises trailer marking events, as well as providing SelectaDNA kits and signage.

There is genuinely an opportunity, where Members have concerns, such as those that were raised by Mr Butler, and where they see particular patterns from their contact in constituencies, to raise those with the PCSP and to discuss them with the local police. If those patterns can be identified, it can be helpful for them in targeting their resources effectively.

Mrs Long: I am delighted to say that the CAMHS partnership between the Youth Justice Agency and Health and Social Care has now been rolled out across Northern Ireland. I have been able to prioritise £155,000 from within the Department's budget to support it this year, with the rest coming from the Youth Justice Agency's budget and from Health and Social Care.

Many children involved in offending behaviour struggle with their mental health. Due to their vulnerabilities and sometimes chaotic lives and family contexts, they also struggle to engage in a consistent way with mainstream child and adolescent mental health services. The new partnership with the Youth Justice Agency takes a different approach. Through assertive outreach, children are supported to receive the help that they require in a way that meets their needs, and that assists in reducing their offending behaviour. The results so far have been really encouraging, and we will be initiating an evaluation of the service later in the year.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: On the day on which the Kingsmills report has been published, my immediate thoughts are with Alan Black and his family. What he suffered is unimaginable. Everyone should take time to reflect not only on the totality of the ombudsman's report but on the dire injuries that he sustained in that attack and the trauma that will have been attached to it. He has been an incredible champion, albeit quietly, for those who lost their lives and those who suffered loss. I pay tribute to him for what he has done in that regard.

I do not want to comment on the content of the ombudsman's report: as you will appreciate, I want to reflect on the contents before I do so. However, I will say this in response to the Member's concern: legacy casts a shadow over the modern-day justice system in a way that is neither helpful nor justified. What happened in the past and the accountability to which people are being held for what happened in the past involved a different service in a different time. It was a time when technology, procedures and operational matters were different. None of that justifies the egregious breaches that took place at that time, but it puts in context the reform that has happened over the past 30-plus years in the justice system. There is a danger that the ombudsman's office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the justice system more widely will become infected with the criticism of days gone by, when none of us was in the Chamber, none of us was in control of policy and none of us was able to contribute to change. We can do that now, and it is important that we take the opportunity to reinforce the fact that people have a right to truth and justice and to a fair hearing. All those things that we try to maintain in the modern-day justice system are important to all of us, and we should not seek to undermine the modern-day justice system on the basis of negative commentary on the past.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I encourage you to contact Alan Black to share with him those warm words about him. Will you commit to petitioning the Secretary of State to launch a public inquiry into the Kingsmills massacre to reassure victims that there is no hierarchy of victims?

Mrs Long: It is not for me to call for public inquiries at this time. There has been an extensive investigation by the Police Ombudsman. It is important that we take the time to read that report, reflect on it and then look carefully at what might be gained by further investigation and work in that space. If there are gaps in the understanding as a result of any of those investigations, we will, of course, want to pursue those, but we also need to be clear that simply calling for public inquiry after public inquiry will not necessarily get us a clearer picture if all the avenues of investigation have already been exhausted. I am wary of putting families, victims and survivors through a series of hoops that, in the end, may not bring them the satisfaction that they so desperately want or the truth that they so desperately need, but I am certainly not ruling anything in or out at this early stage.

Mrs Long: First, I come to the Chamber to answer questions as Minister of Justice, not as leader of the Alliance Party. If the Member wishes to speak to me as leader of the Alliance Party after Question Time, he is, of course, at liberty to do so. However, in my role as Minister of Justice and as leader of the Alliance Party, on this occasion, let me be absolutely clear: no one in Alliance suggested, as he said that Danny "appeared" to do, that there was simply artistic licence. What Danny called out in his tweet was the hypocrisy of those who will meet local terrorist organisations and then denounce those who support international terrorist organisations. That is what Danny called out. However, what we said as a party, which I lead, is that there should be no place for any support for any terrorist group. That has been our consistent position since the foundation of the party, and, whatever and whoever the leader of Alliance may be, I assure you that that one certainty will not change.

Mr Buckley: I am glad that the Minister is in the form to clear the air. The Minister, her Department and her party seem to also have conflicting views on common sense where the Supreme Court judgement that ruled on women and biological sex is concerned. Therefore, on policing practice, does the Minister agree that biological men should not be allowed to strip-search females? Yes or no, or should we wait for one of your would-be leaders to tell us what you really think?

Mrs Long: It is very clear under Standing Order 19 that Members are not permitted ask a Minister for an opinion. They can ask for an assessment but not an opinion. Let me be clear: the Member asks the question, but the Minister decides what the answer will be, and I will not be confined by Members to saying yes or no.

Where the ruling of the Supreme Court on biological sex is concerned, I encourage the Member to read it and to read it in the context in which it applies, which is the interconnection between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 does not apply in Northern Ireland. Like Ministers in every other Department, I await advice and guidance from the Human Rights Commission on how the judgement of the Supreme Court may impact on processes, guidance and procedures in my Department and in every other Department. However, to be clear, that operational guidance that he speaks about will be a matter for the PSNI Chief Constable, as it is operational, and for the Policing Board, on which his party has members. The Member cannot ask me for my opinion under Standing Orders.

Mrs Long: I have already set out what the judgement does and does not do. It also says that you cannot deny trans people rights of access to basic facilities on the basis that they cannot use the male or the female facilities that are available. The judgement and the Supreme Court were quite clear that this should not, as, unfortunately, some are treating it, be a moment for triumphalism. People are who trans still have protection under the law, as they should. How we house trans prisoners has never been based on self-ID. It has been based on risk assessment. If someone comes to us and identifies as trans, we do a risk assessment to ensure that how and where that prisoner is housed is safe for them and safe for other prisoners and prison officers. When we receive advice and guidance about the intersection of the judgement with our local equality laws and duties under section 75, we will review that situation in light of that. However, given the fact that there have been no serious incidents or challenges, I am convinced that we have struck the correct balance to maintain the privacy, dignity and, of utmost importance, safety of all our prisoners in our custody.

Mr Kingston: It is important for the public, and relevant for them, to seek clarity on the matter. This is not to dismiss the needs of trans people and seeing what is appropriate for them, but does the Minister also recognise her responsibility to respect and protect single-sex spaces, particularly for women? In light of the Supreme Court ruling, will she commit to agreeing that biological males should not be accommodated in designated female-only prison accommodation? That is what the public want to hear.

Mrs Long: It may what the public want to hear, but my duty is not to be a people pleaser. My duty is to uphold the best policies and guidance to ensure the safety and dignity of everyone who is committed to our care in the prisons. I will be informed by the Equality Commission, when it has had an opportunity to reflect on the judgement. To be clear, this is an issue that has caused moral panic. I have a moral duty to ensure that women are safe. I ask the Member to take a moment and explain to those of us who are women and who use the women's toilets how we will be protected from somebody — somebody like himself, if he so wished — who claims to be a trans man and walks into the ladies' toilet. That is what he has been claiming trans women are doing. How are we going to prove that that person — that male-bodied, male-presenting individual — is not a biological woman? When he can answer that question, he can come back and have another go.

Mr Tennyson: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: Disgraceful comments.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for the question. It is good to move on to issues that are real challenges in society.

Mr Buckley: Dismissive again.

Mrs Long: They are real dangers.

Mr Buckley: Where is your care and compassion? It does not exist.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard.

Mr Buckley: You cannot help yourself.

Mr Tennyson: You are shouting down a woman.

Mr Buckley: It is disgraceful.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are issues that are causing serious harm and distress to women across society. Members of the Assembly have been victims of those who perpetrate this despicable behaviour. As Members know, it had been my intention to extend to Northern Ireland, by means of a legislative consent motion, the provisions in the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill for an offence of creation of a deepfake image. However, recent unexpected developments in England and Wales have meant that I have had to reconsider that approach. The UK Government are proceeding with a deepfake offence in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Neither its revised structure, which would not sit appropriately within our legislative framework, nor the time available before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament allow for its extension to Northern Ireland. It is now my intention to table an amendment, at Consideration Stage, to the Justice Bill, which I introduced to the Assembly last September, to provide for a Northern Ireland-specific deepfake offence that can be structured to ensure that all aspects of the offending behaviour can be captured. That will give the Assembly the opportunity to provide for a robust offence that will criminalise not only the creation of deepfake images but the sharing of them.

Such is Mr Buckley's concern for women that he walks out in the middle of an answer on this issue.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: I will be back.

Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. That is certainly very welcome news. How will there be a consultation on the proposals?

Mr Speaker: The time has gone, Minister, but you can answer briefly.

Mrs Long: It will give the Assembly the opportunity to look at the offence as it comes forward as part of the Committee Stage amendments. To be clear, the Justice Committee has agreed to the revised approach in principle. There will be public consultation on the legislative proposals, so we hope that that will structure the offence to best match Northern Ireland's needs.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity for Hansard, I believe that the Minister indicated that I was leaving the Chamber. I would like it to be noted that I left for a glass of water and returned.

Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the way in which you do allow Members to participate in Question Time, particularly how you have allowed Members to make, perhaps off-standing, comments, but perhaps, Mr Speaker, I could invite you to reflect on the behaviour of at least one Member today who certainly rose above that type of behaviour, and it became nothing short of disrupting to those of us who were attempting to listen to sensible answers from the Minister of Justice.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Mr Dickson. We will review all that happened during Question Time, including the Minister's comments on Standing Order 19 and, indeed, we will consider Standing Order 20, which actually deals with questions for oral answer.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order, Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

I love a bit of craic in the Chamber, but is there one rule for the DUP and another for everybody else, whereby its members can ask a supplementary question that does not relate at all to the original question? A bit of clarity on that point would be appreciated.

Mr Speaker: It is unusual for a Department to ask to group so many questions. However, questions are grouped with the Speaker's permission, and, on this occasion, I am satisfied that all the questions were related. It is preferable to group such questions to make best use of the Assembly's time and allow others a greater chance to ask questions rather than to hear the Minister duplicating the same answer over and over. If it is clear that there is a matter that many Members want to ask a question about, that is reflected in the number of questions for oral answer that are tabled on a subject.

I encourage Ministers to bring questions together because we then have a better opportunity to get more questions in for Members, and that is what I am about. I want as many Members as possible to ask questions and scrutinise Ministers. I try to do that with as much latitude as possible. I have been a Member of the House for a very long time, and we want to encourage vigorous debate and also respectful debate. Sometimes, the line on that is crossed, but we do our best to encourage vigorous debate. There was a very good debate earlier on the fiscal report. There was a lot of toing and froing, and that is a good thing. For the public watching on, we do not want a dry, dead Chamber. We want a Chamber that is lively and active —

Mr McNulty: Boom.

Mr Speaker: — and where we have lots of people who are prepared to challenge others and to receive the challenges of others. I am drifting from your initial question. [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty: Boom.

Mr Speaker: I want to see more Members taking interventions and so forth and responding to them and having a good, lively Chamber, so that when people tune in, they will think that that place has people who are fighting my cause, not people who are dead on their feet and just reading. All right?

Mr McNulty: Boom boom!

Mr Speaker: Boom boom, Mr McNulty. If Members would like to take their ease, we will resume Opposition Business.

Mr McGlone: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There will be 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. Patsy, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht an t-am a thabhairt dúinn inniu.

Of course, this is a crucial issue. It is very important. Northern Ireland Water has warned that up to 100 waste water treatment facilities are at or near capacity, with around 100 areas, including 25 towns, facing development restrictions. NI Water's own research shows that failing to invest properly could cost the economy 17,300 potential jobs by 2027. New housing projects cannot go ahead because the infrastructure is not in place to support them, which is a direct result of the current governance and funding model. The development of 19,000 homes has been stalled as a result. It is not just homes that are being stalled but factories, schools and any form of development that requires sewage disposal.

To take that a stage further, there are also implications for the housing market. Today, I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations upstairs. Social housing schemes are being delayed and cannot go ahead. Private housing schemes cannot go ahead: they are being stalled and cannot progress. The lack of available private housing affects the market, so the whole question of affordable housing comes into play. As there are fewer houses available at a certain price, demand is increasing and prices are going up. All those areas are impacted on by the issue.

We can take it even further. Many councils are at varying stages of their local development plans. In some of those areas, the local development plans are being rendered hypothetical because councils can do no more than say, "There is the plan. We cannot implement it". That is for housing, local development, factories etc — the list goes on.

Northern Ireland Water's status as a non-departmental public body means that it is subject to rigid Treasury rules that prevent long-term planning and private capital access. Despite mounting evidence and pressure, including calls from the Northern Ireland Audit Office and NI Water itself, successive Sinn Féin Infrastructure Ministers have refused to initiate an independent review. Instead, they have opted for a forensic accounting exercise to address the projected overspend, which is £3 million this year. I do not dispute the need for that exercise, but it would be useful to have its terms of reference so that we could see what it would cover. I will return to that later because other issues there need to be addressed.

The SDLP has been consistent in calling for an independent review of Northern Ireland Water's funding and governance model to inform decisions on how that crucial utility provider can operate sustainably for everyone's benefit and in an accountable manner. I will come back to that. Without functioning waste water infrastructure, developing homes, growing our economy and protecting our environment — a crucial issue — will be impacted on. I represent a good part of the western shore of Lough Neagh, where the so-called toxic blossom of blue-green algae is starting to manifest itself again. The overflow from sewage disposal works is a contributory factor to that. There is no doubt about it.

You cannot fix a leaking pipe with a spreadsheet. Further delay is not just costing us money; it is costing homes, jobs and our environment. The Audit Office says, "Review it"; NI Water says, "Review it"; everyone says, "Review it". It is over to the Minister and the Department now. The solution itself is not forensic. We need real action, not more excuses — and, for God's sake, no more reviews. It is not just DFI that we hear that from around this place. From DAERA, we hear, "We are conducting a review of that", "We are having a review", and, "We are having another review". That is kicking the tin down the alley. We want practical, concrete measures that are driven by what are called "a Government". A Government are there to bring forward proposals to drive the economy and support the building of housing, including social housing.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Erskine: I am a little bit confused. The Opposition's motion:

yet the Member has just said that he does not want another review. Can you clarify that?

Mr McGlone: That will become very apparent in my next comments — very apparent. That moves us on to the governance issues at NI Water. I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to mention those. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee back in 2010-11. It was something else to sit through our being misled and lied to by senior officials. That eventually resulted in the demotion of a very senior official. That Public Accounts Committee came up with a series of recommendations to be delivered, through the Department, to NI Water. I would seriously like to hear how many, if any, of those recommendations have been implemented at NI Water.

I have been contacted by a whistle-blower about practices in NI Water. I initially spent literally three hours going through stuff with him, and my eyes started to stand in my head. It was incredible. Poor workmanship, potential fraud, the use of unregistered subcontractors and the use of non-approved subcontractors was drawn to the attention of NI Water in November 2023. A meeting was held between the whistle-blower and senior managers from NI Water, and they were shown the information again. One of them said, "It could be fraud". A contractor user was consistently awarded tender works that were later discovered to be more expensive than other suppliers' work would have been. Much of the work ought to have been resolved as warranty claimed but instead was paid twice or thrice and, in some cases, paid and never resolved.

Potential fraud was officially reported to senior-category managers at NI Water and its mechanical and electrical (M&E) statutory maintenance and cyber compliance manager. A number of site reports were noted, with photographic evidence provided. On 12 April 2024, the M&E statutory manager and cyber complaints manager provided an update to the whistle-blower. There were suspicions that complicit fraud and wrongdoing was going on. The whistle-blower then received word that his contract had been ended. Right?

On 29 April 2024, the whistle-blower and one of the senior managers were interviewed by NI Water governance for four hours.

In May 2024, specific patterns in NI Water were noticed by the whistle-blower, and a further 40 cases of potential fraud and wrongdoing were reported to governance via a SharePoint folder that had been created to hold data. Furthermore, there were material changes on 24 May. The whistle-blower noticed that there were material changes to the C1100 contract. The perception was that it was turning into a witch-hunt of the whistle-blower, instead of his being held as a person of repute who was trying to resolve the issues that he perceived in NI Water.

On 30 July 2024, the whistle-blower wrote to NI Water's chief executive and its board to ensure that they were aware of the situation, again providing all the data on SharePoint. There was then a follow-up article in the 'Belfast Telegraph'.

Deloitte was appointed on 15 August 2024 to conduct an investigation. Incidentally, Deloitte had received £1·62 million from NI Water over the previous five years. The whistle-blower met representatives from Deloitte, and Deloitte undertook to come back to the whistle-blower concerning the investigation. Four separate emails were sent to Deloitte, but it never showed up to meet the whistle-blower to investigate the cases. Deloitte then declared that it was not necessary to discuss any of the cases, as they were consistent with what had already been examined. Purchase orders had been issued in the name of a contract user who was on sick leave. Then, on 28 March this year, I attended, along with the whistle-blower, a meeting with NI Water and Deloitte's head of audit and governance. It quickly became apparent to everyone present that the £144,000 that had been spent on Deloitte to conduct a forensic investigation had not dealt with the key issues. We were present at that meeting and showed Deloitte's representatives the evidence that they were supposed to have looked at, but they had not looked at it. It had all already been provided to NI Water. That is incredible stuff.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Patsy, your time is well up.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh míle maith agat.

It is important that Members hear this and that we are heard.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Tá a fhios. Ta a fhios agam. Go raibh maith agat, Patsy.

I call Andrew McMurray to move amendment No 1.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. Our amendment seeks merely to augment —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Andrew, will you just move the amendment?

Mr McMurray: Sorry, I am still a newbie.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is grand. Patsy has you rattled. Just move the amendment, and then I will —.

Mr McMurray: Yes. I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Andrew. You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I was a bit trigger-happy there.

I thank the Opposition for tabling what is an important motion. Our amendment seeks merely to augment the motion, not to change it, because the Alliance Party is in agreement with the points that are made in it. Our waste water system is in crisis. Lough Neagh is broken, and Belfast lough is going the same way. Construction has ground to a halt in many parts of the country, and NI Water has breached its resource budget. We do not yet know the reasons for the overspend, but NI Water has been clear that it cannot meet its legal obligations in the context of the huge resource and capital funding gaps that we are currently witnessing. I look forward to reading the findings of the forensic audit once it is complete.

There is broad agreement across the political spectrum that the crisis is real and is getting worse, yet the Minister continues to cling to the deeply flawed three-pronged approach. The first prong, which is to work with Executive colleagues to increase waste water investment, resulted in an extra £19·5 million in capital funding last year, which reduced NI Water's capital funding gap to £246·5 million. That investment falls far short of what is needed. Developer contributions — the second prong — are widely considered to be viable only for high-end properties, and they carry with them a very real risk of driving up house prices and making homeownership even harder for lower-income families. Indeed, those developer contributions are a hidden water fee. What is more, they are a particularly unfair version of a water fee, because they disproportionately hit those who are at the bottom of the housing ladder. That is the opposite of progressive policy.

That leaves the third prong: the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. I have no issue with sustainable drainage. In fact, I am in favour of it. Natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems can and will improve things, but only somewhat. The capacity issues in our waste water system are so severe, however, that we need significant and hard investment in infrastructure in order to address them. Chronic underfunding is the cause —.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with the construction industry's premise of, "No drains, no cranes"? All development is being halted because of lack of capacity in the system. Housing, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and factories have all stopped being built because we do not have capacity.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, schools, hospitals, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, large businesses and homes are all affected. We know the socio-economic impact of that, so I cannot disagree.

Chronic underfunding is the cause of those capacity issues. If we are to address them, the underfunding must stop. The Minister is on record as saying that she believes not that the model is not working but that the problem is that we do not have enough funding. We put it to the Minister that that funding will never come. It is wrong to continue to cling to a model when its basic conditions cannot be met and the consequences for our environment, our economy and our basic needs are so dire. We have to accept the reality that we live in, and we have to address it.

NI Water will still need significant investment. To be precise, compared with what it got last year, it will need an extra £269·5 million of resource and capital funding every year — that is the scale of the problem — and the three-pronged approach cannot and will not fix that. NI Water will never be in a sustainable financial position as long as the Minister clings to that funding model, which leaves our water system without the investment that it needs, and refuses to look at alternatives.

The Minister wrote to the Committee recently, stating that several reviews had already been carried out, but those reviews were led by civil servants and were internal policy development submissions that provided advice within the policy framework for funding NI Water, as endorsed by the Executive and the Assembly. It does not sound as though they looked at alternative frameworks at all, because doing so would mean looking outside the existing policy framework.

Yesterday, during Question Time, we heard that the Department has reviewed other funding models but only to evaluate whether they are compatible with the current funding model, which, of course, they are not. We were also told that officials are reviewing alternative models against three key tests, which, again, the current model cannot meet.

There were two Research and Information Service (RaISe) research papers and an NI Audit Office report. The latter focused on Northern Ireland and gave only a cursory look at alternative funding models. With the greatest respect for the authors of those reports, I say that none was an expert on funding models for water and waste water provision, and only some of them were independent. That is why the NI Audit Office encouraged the Department and NI Water:

That is what Alliance calls for.

Miss Brogan: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nicola, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am sure that no one who is here would dispute that our waste water network is in serious and urgent need of upgrade and repair. The current state of that network and, indeed, of much of our vital infrastructure is a result of decades of chronic underfunding of public services by consecutive British Governments. That underfunding continues today, as Labour has eagerly run with the Tory policy of austerity. However, despite the extreme pressures on the Executive's Budget and on the Department for Infrastructure in particular, Minister Kimmins and her predecessor have ensured that NI Water has been fully funded. Yes, NI Water is dealing with crumbling infrastructure as a result of decades of British austerity and underfunding, but it has received almost £0·5 billion in public funding for 2024-25, so it is only right that how that money is used and managed is scrutinised. It is a fact that we cannot rely on the British Government to properly fund public services here, so the funding that we have must be used with extreme care.

The Minister has already demonstrated her commitment to ensuring that we have the required level of accountability through her decision to appoint a forensic auditor to investigate how NI Water is managing its budget in light of its projected overspend. There is also something important that the Assembly can do today, which is to support our amendment.

In the past 24 hours, the Chamber has heard a lot of talk about proposed solutions such as privatisation and mutualisation. Let there be no doubt that privatisation and mutualisation mean only one thing: water charges. As we have seen in England and Wales, such charges are no guarantee that infrastructure will even be fixed. In truth, the only thing that water charges guarantee is that even more pressure will be heaped on already struggling families and homes.

We already have a shameful situation here in that, during the colder months especially, many people, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, have to choose between heating and eating. We cannot allow a basic and fundamental resource such as water to become a part of the horrendous calculations that people are forced to make. In supporting our amendment, the Assembly can send out the message loud and clear that we will not support water charges.

Mr K Buchanan: In previous debates, we have highlighted the need to ensure that NI Water fix the problems in different areas so that everyone can get the service that they require. However, not much has been achieved yet, with people, developers and businesses still restricted in what they can develop or grow. Many places in Northern Ireland have old pipes and sewerage systems that need to be fixed or replaced. Some towns are struggling because they have inadequate sewerage systems. Northern Ireland's water and sewerage infrastructure crisis is holding back economic growth and housing development. Around 19,000 new homes are stalled due to the waste water capacity issues, and experts have said that, even with immediate investment, fixing the problem could take a decade.

Northern Ireland Water has warned that chronic underfunding is restricting new housing, schools and businesses in over 100 towns and cities. Without proper drainage systems, construction projects cannot move forward. It is clear that frustration is mounting over the lack of decisive action. While funding constraints are a reality, leadership is required to set priorities and find innovative solutions even in difficult circumstances. Ultimately, the responsibility to prioritise and address infrastructure issues lies with the Minister and her Department. The Minister must take ownership and provide a transparent road map for tackling underinvestment to ensure better alignment with the broader economic and housing goals. Without a clear strategy, Northern Ireland's economic growth and housing development will continue to suffer.

Recent efforts, such as securing funding of £19·5 million for 2,300 new property connections, show some progress. However, the scale of underinvestment, which is estimated at £3 billion, requires bold leadership and collaboration. The Minister must outline a comprehensive plan to modernise water infrastructure and ensure its alignment with housing and economic goals. NI Water's Sara Venning told the Infrastructure Committee:

other parts of

That is not good enough.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) told the Infrastructure Committee that roughly a quarter of the pollution incidents that specifically relate to water quality are a result of waste water treatment by NI Water. That is damming and, no doubt, has had a major impact on water quality and contributed to the recent issues in our loughs.

Storm overflows were introduced as a workaround for Northern Ireland's ageing sewerage system, but they have become a major issue. Recent drainage modelling shows that many overflows spill far more often than the standards deem to be acceptable. That is due to underinvestment and the lack of new infrastructure to manage waste water properly. As of February 2025, NI Water had 2,440 storm overflows. Around half of those have been modelled using NIEA criteria, and 39% have been assessed as unsatisfactory. The spills not only harm the environment but highlight the urgent need for strategic investment in the sewerage network. Without investment, the problem will only worsen as population and development demands grow.

I will turn to developer contributions. As I mentioned previously, the £19·5 million for 2,300 properties announced back in December equates to approximately £8,500 per property. An explanatory note on the current consultation on developer contributions indicates that £84 million:

That works out at £11,500 per connection. We have two figures for the cost per connection: £8,500 and £11,500. The note further states that there is:

Can the Minister tell us, when responding to the debate, what the Department's thoughts are on that and on what the figure could be? The Sinn Féin amendment states:

Will the developer contribution, if it happens and depending on its size, be passed on to "already hard-pressed families" when they purchase a new home? We await the outcome of the consultation. I would appreciate it if the Minister could cover those points in her closing remarks.

Mr Dunne: As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I am aware of the very serious issues and challenges that face our water infrastructure network right across every corner of Northern Ireland. Indeed, economic growth and prosperity depend on having a water and sewerage network that is fit for purpose for the future and today. However, our network is definitely not fit for purpose.

This is not a new issue, and my party colleagues brought a motion to the Assembly towards the end of the previous mandate that called for a new strategy to enhance and expand our water and sewerage infrastructure. We note with regret the lack of progress to date, despite many reports, consultations, surveys and engagement from right across the sector, which starkly highlight the need for action. Successive Ministers have spoken about how high a priority the issue is for them. There is no doubt that the running failure to address underinvestment in our water infrastructure is severely hampering economic development and housebuilding across our country.

Every month that passes without action leads to further missed opportunities to support business expansion, grow our economy, boost employment in the construction and many other sectors and to meet our ever-increasing housing targets.

We have also recently seen the suspension of the living with water programme, and I know that the Minister is aware of that. There are real concerns about that across the country, particularly in my North Down constituency, with the pressures on the already overstretched Kinnegar treatment works and the subsequent knock-on impact in Belfast lough.

The Minister recently pointed, as she often does, to developer contributions as a potential way of dealing with the crisis. My colleague Mr Buchanan touched on that. It is important to remember that developer contributions in themselves will not be a silver bullet; indeed, during a recent Committee briefing, senior NI Water officials confirmed that they are not a long-term solution. While developer contributions initially put the cost on to the developer, it will ultimately be the public that will have to pick up the tab when purchasing new homes.

The Minister recently announced her decision to engage forensic accounting services to investigate why NIW has been unable to live within its budget allocation. I look forward to, hopefully, hearing an update from the Minister today on when Members can expect to see any outcomes from that investigation. When we spoke around one month ago, a period of six weeks was mentioned, and the clock is ticking on that. We look forward to hearing more on that where costs and actions going forward are concerned. We do not want to see another report or review that sits on a shelf, as others, including Mr McGlone, said. We need to see action, and now is the time for that.

I trust that the Minister will take meaningful and decisive action, should the opportunity arise following the conclusion of the forensic accountants' work. We need to explore the merits of developing and looking at, for example, NI Water's borrowing powers and at innovative solutions. We also need to look closely at and consider global best practice. As I touched on, our housing supply strategy warns about the limitations, and all of us in the House know that, in every corner of our country, there is an ever-growing waiting list with thousands of people desperately waiting on that new home.

All in all, the debate has been useful. The Minister needs to urgently complete a comprehensive review and action plan for reform in order to secure the appropriate finance to invest in our water infrastructure, rather than simply repeating the mistakes and excuses of her predecessors by kicking the can down the road in the hope of avoiding difficult decisions.

Mr Stewart: This is the latest in a series of debates on Northern Ireland Water and the funding crisis that it faces. It is a crisis; you do not need to be a member of the Infrastructure Committee, like my colleagues and me, to know the seriousness and gravity of the situation. Every one of us from across all constituencies is well up to date on the problems and capacity issues that face Northern Ireland Water.

As we know, Northern Ireland Water is critical to the health, economy and environment of Northern Ireland, yet, for too long, it has been expected to deliver vital services with one hand tied behind its back. That approach has left Northern Ireland Water underfunded, unable to plan properly for the future and increasingly unable to meet rising demands. We now see the consequences of that.

As we have heard, new housing developments are stalled across Northern Ireland because the water and waste water infrastructure simply cannot cope. Tens of thousands of houses are stalled in key growth areas, such as Belfast, Newry, parts of mid-Ulster and in my constituency of East Antrim, where, for example, a whole section of Larne is banned from seeing any development. That is simply unsustainable, mainly because, as we know, we lack the investment in waste water treatment capacity.

As we know, it is not just a problem for private developers; it is a problem for everyone. It blocks economic growth, worsens housing shortages and weakens our ability to attract investment. The Minister for Communities has recently and rightly announced an investment in social housing, but we will not see that come to fruition without resolving the waste water capacity issues. The Minister for Infrastructure has a three-pronged approach, and, as part of that, developer levies are being considered. I, for one, join other Members in wanting to see the details of that, because I fear that, while those levies may be developer-led, they will ultimately be homeowner- or renter-paid. That is not what we want to see.

The previous Utility Regulator, the Consumer Council and independent experts have all pointed to the same root cause: the funding model is broken. Northern Ireland Water needs stable, multi-year investment, not the uncertainty of hand-to-mouth annual budgets that cannot keep pace with infrastructure needs. When members of the Audit Office were at the Committee recently, I made the point that not only are we not spending enough right now but, by underspending year-on-year, the infrastructure that is there will cost more and more to maintain, so we are running to stand still. It is simply unsustainable. We need an honest, evidenced-based, rational assessment of what is required to secure reliable, resilient water services for the future that support growth, protect public health and meet our environmental obligations. When we see raw sewage pumping onto our streets and into Belfast lough and the impacts on Lough Neagh, it is clear to all of us that something urgently needs to happen.

The Ulster Unionist Party is happy to support the Alliance Party's amendment and the original motion. We look forward to seeing action from the Minister.

Mr O'Toole: I was not planning on speaking on the motion, but I thought that Members of the Assembly had not heard enough from me today and were perhaps hoping fondly to hear more from the leader of the Opposition. Part of the purpose of my speaking today is to reinforce some of what my colleague Patsy McGlone said. Patsy outlined some serious allegations and information and put those on the record in the Assembly today. I will add to that and to what he said about the seriousness of our overall motion.

Today's motions are about accountability and about forcing the Executive not just to be clear about what they say that they want to do or their vague aspirations but to provide detailed plans for improving people's lives and public services. There is widespread consensus, if not unanimity — I will come on to that; there may not be perfect unanimity — that Northern Ireland Water is not funded adequately and has had historical underinvestment and that our water infrastructure is failing us. That failure has been well rehearsed today. Lough Neagh is, sadly and tragically, becoming an almost sci-fi-like vision of failure. What has happened at Lough Neagh is probably one of the most horrific ecological breakdowns in Europe. Although the issues at Northern Ireland Water are certainly not the only or the majority reason for that, they have contributed seriously to what has happened there, and they are contributing to what is happening at Belfast lough and other watercourses.

There has been a long-run failure to invest and a failure by us to properly make progress on economic development. Members have all talked about the barriers to investment. I can talk about that in my consistency. I am sure that every MLA can talk not just about water issues in the building of new social homes but about small, additional issues for businesses. I will give an example, but I will not go into specific details. A cafe operating in my constituency employs people and is a well-liked community business and, if you like, asset, but it is having issues with NI Water permissions. It is a small cafe that serves sandwiches and drinks. That example will be replicated across the North. We cannot allow a situation to endure where we cannot meaningfully build social homes and where small businesses, let alone factories and warehouses, cannot expand.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much to the Member for giving way. Does he accept that developer contributions, while they may make some modicum of a contribution to the solution, are not the be-all and end-all and should not be presented as such?

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. What we have had so far is a way of, frankly, parking the question for now. I am afraid that that is what we have had lots of from successive Infrastructure Ministers, who have deflected attention away from the question about the failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure. We have had partial answers, and we have been told, "We'll do something on developer contributions", despite the fact that there are challenges around developer contributions and that they could cause an issue by slowing down the pipeline of homes. Even if you did developer contributions, as my colleague Patsy McGlone has just said, there is no real evidence that they would deliver anywhere near the quantum of funding change that is needed. There is a consultation happening, we are told; perhaps the Minister will say more about that now. There is no sign, however, that we will get this implemented or delivered within anything like a meaningful timescale. It seems very much like the phrase "developer contributions" has been picked from the air in order to have something to say.

The other thing that is often said — there is a real problem with the repetition of this argument — is that we do not want water charges. My party does not want water charges. That is not an answer to the question. You cannot simply say — I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or perhaps she will reflect on that in her remarks. I am happy to give way.

I do not want water charges, but there are multiple other options for funding NI Water. The mutualisation model is one option. One mutualisation model might mean water charges, but I am not advocating that. There are other ways of doing mutualisation. Another model might be that the Executive say, "Over the long run, we will give NI Water the first call on the conventional capital budget. We do not want to go anywhere near mutualisation. We do not want to change classification. We do not want to worry about the Office for National Statistics. We just want" — perhaps officials have looked at this —"to give NI Water the first call on the capital departmental expenditure limit allocations". They have not said that they will do that. The former Infrastructure Minister is now the Finance Minister, and I have not heard that suggestion from him, but that is the upshot: if Sinn Féin Ministers want to do that, they should tell us.

Another option would be to look for a new borrowing power that would not involve any kind of mutualisation and certainly not privatisation. The Executive would, perhaps, simply do some kind of new borrowing, such as a new bond, to fund water infrastructure. That would still have to be paid for, probably, again, out of Executive repayments. I am not necessarily advocating any of those options — I see the officials shaking their heads — but we need something. We have a crisis.

Five years ago, 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) promised that there would be urgent investment in waste water infrastructure. We are five years on, and we have not seen the urgent investment in NI Water. It is therefore legitimate for us, as an Opposition, to ask what is happening. What is happening with our waste water infrastructure? Lough Neagh is an ecological catastrophe. Nowhere near the number of new homes that we expected to see are being built. A couple of years ago, a Sinn Féin Communities Minister said that hundreds of thousands of new homes would be built in the next decade and a half. They will not — not with our current waste water infrastructure. All those problems are mounting up. All that we ask for is clarity, a review to produce options —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and the Executive finally to deliver on them.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the opportunity to share my concerns about how a limping Northern Ireland Water hurts economic growth and stifles investment across Northern Ireland. I will use my time to highlight two examples in my constituency that typify the problem that our economy faces due to an at-capacity Northern Ireland Water network across our country.

The first example is the case of a small housing site on the Grange Road in Ballymena. Planning permission was granted in December 2020 for 10 much-needed dwellings in a highly sought-after area. The development cannot proceed, however, because of Northern Ireland Water's stubbornness and the utter failure of successive Executives to properly fund and reform our waste water infrastructure. The site sits directly opposite Spencestown treatment plant — indeed, a stone's throw across the river. The main combined sewer runs along the site boundary, yet Northern Ireland Water refuses connection, citing capacity issues. The infrastructure is there, but, it is claimed, it is overwhelmed.

The site owner has commissioned an expensive Northern Ireland Water solutions engineer's report, which I have with me. The two options that are presented are wildly expensive, coming at a cost of £160,000 and £175,000. That is utterly unviable for a small site of 10 houses; indeed, it is a death sentence for the development. My constituent has spent over a year employing his own consultants and chasing every option possible. Nine of the 10 possible solutions outlined in the report were ruled out as not appropriate or simply not viable for the site. Only solution 10 remains:

That would be built to an adoptable standard at no cost to the public purse. It is perfectly viable and ready to proceed at a fraction of the cost outlined in the report that, NI Water says, a connection will incur, but NI Water says no. Bureaucratic stubbornness reigns supreme in that organisation. Logic, reason and common sense are all set aside. Sites lie dormant as a result.

The second case that I want to highlight relates to a site in Connor, which was passed in February 2023. That development is for 24 houses in another highly sought-after area. The contractor has paid Northern Ireland Water the requested £10,000, plus £2,000 for VAT, non-refundable fee to redesign his drainage scheme. That was back in April 2024. Twelve months later, the contractor is still waiting. To put that in context, the work could have been carried out in a morning by one person in the private sector, but it has taken Northern Ireland Water 12 months and still there is no final product. The latest from Northern Ireland Water is that it is struggling to get a contractor to dig a hole in the road to survey the levels and that it will be July before it can provide the contractor — my constituent — with a price for the works to bring the tails to the site. Then, once that payment has been received by Northern Ireland Water, it will be a further three months before Northern Ireland Water will commit to bringing the tails to that site. To recap, it will take 16 months from the time that the £12,000 was paid to Northern Ireland Water to provide a design and a costing and 19 months to provide a design, a costing and bring the necessary infrastructure to the site.

Planning permissions expire. Housing need grows. To Northern Ireland Water, I say this: get out of the way of progress when it comes to these sites, get out of the way of builders who are willing to invest in our country and get out of the way of ordinary people who want nothing more than a roof over their heads. Minister, it is your arm's-length body: it is time that you got a handle on what it does.

Mr Carroll: We have to be clear that the major obstacle to economic, environmental and social progress in the North is mostly inaction and ineptitude by the Executive. The current state of our water network does not help. Poor water infrastructure is, as we have already heard, preventing homes from being built, poisoning our drinking water and leaking sewage into vital natural resources such as Lough Neagh. Each year, NI Water dumps millions of tons of untreated sewage into Lough Neagh and other waterways across the North. Seemingly, it cannot — or, rather, will not — be held to account for those actions. The fault does not lie with the workers in NI Water; it lies with the inaction of the Executive, who have starved our public services, including NI Water, of funds to the point of collapse.

Last year, the Assembly passed a motion calling on the Infrastructure Minister to consider the mutualisation of NI Water. However, mutualisation is just privatisation by another name. As I said at the time, that is nothing more than a red herring that is designed to distract us all from the fact that for years the Executive have failed to give NI Water the investment that it so badly needs. Any review of NI Water's funding and governance that tells us that the only way that we can build social homes is by seeking private finance or introducing water charges is selling a lie. Ordinary people are fed up with rates hikes, out-of-control rents, rising bills and an endless cost-of-living crisis that never seems to touch the wealthy. Making wealthy developers pay for investment in the network could be a fairer alternative but only if the costs are not passed down to people who are buying homes to live in. That means that the Executive must make sure that there is protection for renters and people with mortgages. So far, they have failed to act for both.

Privatisation and mutualisation are not the solutions to NI Water's dysfunction. We have seen how that has played out in England. Directors and shareholders have paid themselves billions in dividends while refusing to invest in infrastructure. Only 14% of English rivers meet the standards required for "good" ecological status. That should be food for thought. Welsh Water has been mutualised, and Welsh people pay over £500 per year for their water. I doubt anybody is advocating for that example to be followed, though maybe some people are. Welsh Water continues to illegally dump waste due to the state of its failing infrastructure. We have only to look to Britain for ample evidence that water charges and privatisation do not guarantee investment or clean good water.

People Before Profit will never support the quiet privatisation of our water infrastructure or the imposition of water charges on working-class people. We need to bring NI Water back in-house and allow it to be run as a properly funded public body. For that reason, I am happy to support the motion and Sinn Féin's amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. Our next contributor is the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, you will have up to 15 minutes.

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

I thank the proposers of the motion on NI Water's funding and governance and those who tabled the amendments. The issue is well rehearsed. I have lost count of the number of times that we have had these discussions in the three months that I have been in post. That is not to underplay the issue's importance, because it deserves a focused debate.

Members will be aware, and many have mentioned in the debate, that I and my predecessor have been proactive in working to find solutions by means of a three-pronged approach, whether or not they agree with that, and some have indicated that they do not. I thank Mr Carroll for his comments about keeping NI Water in-house: that is our focus, and it is critical to ensuring that the people whom we represent get the service that they are entitled to and deserve. We have seen examples where other approaches have not worked elsewhere. For me, that is fundamental to how we move forward on the issue.

Before I address the motion specifically, I remind Members that NI Water was established in 2007 as a government-owned company to provide water and sewage services across the North. Since its establishment, it has been the Executive's policy to provide subsidies to NI Water in lieu of domestic water charging. Since 2007, some £4 billion of public money has been invested in the water and waste water infrastructure in the North, and NI Water has reduced its efficiency gap compared with similar companies in England and Wales from 49% in 2007 to 5% today.

As an arm's-length body sponsored by my Department, NI Water is required to deliver on three key areas: to provide a high-quality service that is independently regulated by the Utility Regulator, protecting the interests of consumers by challenging NI Water to deliver high-quality, value for money water and sewage services; to adhere to the requirements of a public-sector organisation, delivering services for all people across the North within the allocated budget and with due regard for statutory obligations; and to be accountable to my Department and the Assembly for its operational and financial performance and compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI'.

My Department has fully funded NI Water for the first three years of the current price control period. Indeed, my Department has provided almost £90 million of additional funding over and above the funding level that was recommended by the Utility Regulator for that period. The key issue is the level of public expenditure that is available to the Executive, not just my Department, to allocate to NI Water. That is a consequence of the underfunding of public services in the North over many years. I am glad to say that, previously, all parties were united in engaging with the British Government to try to resolve the issue. That, however, seems to have been forgotten about in today's debate. I hope that parties will continue to push for that, because it benefits all our Departments and every service that we deliver on a daily basis.

The motion and the amendments raise important issues around the impact of austerity funding on a vital public service. I am committed to working to find solutions — whether or not others agree with those approaches — within my Department's overall policy framework and the Executive's policy for funding NI Water from the public purse. It must be recognised that, because NI Water is majority funded from the public purse, it is classified as an organisation within central government and subject to government accounting rules, as I said, as defined in 'Managing Public Money NI'. All NI Water's expenditure must come from within the public expenditure envelope that is provided to my Department.

In 2024-25, NI Water was provided with nearly £500 million of public money, representing almost 40% of the non-ring-fenced funding budget that was provided to my Department. It is necessary to remember that NI Water's spending also includes borrowing from my Department. As a public-sector organisation, regardless of the source of borrowed funds, whether private or public, all expenditure must be within the allocated budget. The Assembly previously debated a review of NI Water and discussed alternative company structures such as mutualisation, which we have heard about today. The simple fact remains, however, that changing NI Water's status will require a change to how it receives its revenue. I do not need to remind Members that I will not oversee the imposition of water charges on people and families who are already struggling in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. The ideas that have been proposed in this debate, in previous debates, in questions for written answer and in questions for oral answer all lead to one thing: water charges.

I will focus on some of the issues that Members have raised during the debate. It is important to go back to Patsy McGlone's opening comments about successive Sinn Féin Infrastructure Ministers. I remind Members that Sinn Féin has held the Infrastructure portfolio for less than two of the past three years. Previous to that, there was an SDLP Infrastructure Minister. That seems to have been forgotten. The challenges have not just arisen in the past two years. Successive British Governments have continually underfunded us. The cost of delivering on the issues has almost doubled in the time since the latest price control period started.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much for giving way. Minister, as I mentioned, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee a number of years ago with your colleague and one of your predecessors Conor Murphy. I just do not want you to make all the mistakes again that were made at that time. We had

at that time. That is why I highlighted a lot of the problems today.

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the Member's comments, but the point that I am making is that this is not an issue that has just arisen. Rather, it is an issue that has come about as a result of chronic underinvestment, and I think that we are all in agreement on that point. If the solution were as easy as Members have today made it out to be, we would be using that solution, but it is not. The SDLP said yesterday and today that it is on the same page as me in not wanting to introduce water charges, but I am yet to hear what the other options are.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I need to get through this. My time is limited, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: I said what the options are.

Ms Kimmins: You did not mention any new options, however. What we have heard to date is mutualisation, privatisation and nothing else. I have put my approach on the record, and I will continue my work.

I will return to your comment, Matthew, about borrowing and getting first call. We had first call on reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing this year. Unfortunately, it is capped by Treasury. This year, we got £105 million, which has gone to NI Water from the Executive, so that is an indication of how important that is, not just to me as the Minister and my predecessor but to the Executive as a whole.

I will turn to the comments from Alliance and DUP Members. We have talked about mutualisation. One has just to look at Welsh Water. I met the Utility Regulator earlier this afternoon, and I look forward to continuing that engagement with the Utility Regulator and with NI Water, because, collaboratively, we can achieve progress on the issues. Welsh Water is an example of how mutualisation is not working. People in Wales are seeing, I think, a 27% rise in their bills in this financial year. Is that what we are proposing today?

On the comments about developer contributions, I have said, at every stage at which I have discussed them, that I do not believe that they are a silver bullet. Rather, they are part of a broader solution, and we have to consider all the options. This is about looking at what is available to us. What have we got in our armoury that can make a change? It is then about working together to make that change. The only other option that I am hearing today is to introduce more charges, meaning more bills for hard-pressed families, and that is something that I am not prepared to do. Perhaps others are, but, if they subsequently take the Ministry, so be it, and they can consider introducing them in the time ahead.

In that vein, I will focus on the positive outcomes that can be achieved from the funding envelope that is available. I mentioned the three-pronged approach, and we have seen some of its successes. I think that it was you, Keith, who outlined the unlocking of capacity through the £19 million funding received from monitoring rounds. That has to be recognised. As well as that, Andrew McMurray talked about the natural drainage legislation, and I have been speaking to some stakeholders about that. There have been quite positive sounds made about what that legislation will potentially bring about. Let us therefore try those things and test them out rather than automatically default to adding more charges to households.

I recently asked my officials to reassess a range of governance models, with reference to three specific tests, to which Members have alluded, to determine whether those models can secure large-scale investment, access and service debt and provide assurance about controlling the cost burden on the public. Ultimately, the funding and governance model for NI Water, as a non-departmental public body, must operate within the Executive's policy framework for the funding and delivery of water and sewerage services.

As I have said previously, it must comply with the requirements of 'Managing Public Money NI' (MPMNI) and, specifically, regularity, propriety and value for money.

I fully recognise the risks and issues affecting the environment, the economy and housing as a consequence of the funding challenges. I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that my Department contributes to achieving the Programme for Government outcomes, which infrastructure — particularly, our waste water infrastructure — underpins across the board. We have talked about how we have seen some of the work that has progressed to date with the £19·5 million. As well as that, it is important to say that my Department is working collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Communities, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Housing Executive and NI Water to identify further key projects that can unlock waste water capacity to enable more housing connection in the future. We are also working collaboratively with other Departments in relation to Lough Neagh.

We had a lot of talk today about reviews: "We do not want a review, but we do want a review". The Committee has asked for the six reviews that have already taken place. The Department has extensively reviewed the funding model and has analysed the opportunities for NI Water to raise additional revenue, to operate more efficiently, for additional borrowing, using additional public expenditure funding and governance change. My recent announcement about the appointment of a forensic accountant ties in with all that work. It is important that I, as Minister, the Department and the Assembly as a whole understand how that budget is currently being spent. Is there room for improvement, or, essentially, is there no more room for flexibility?

I remain open to alternative solutions; however, they must be compliant with Executive policy on how water and waste water services are funded and comply with the requirement to increase investment, to control borrowing debt and to remain affordable, most importantly, for people and for families.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I do not have time at this point; sorry.

As we have seen in the first three years of the price control, the current funding model works when it is funded. I doubt that there is a single Member in the Assembly who would suggest that we ask households and families to pay more in respect of water charges.

The approach that I have taken is a sensible one that can achieve solutions. I welcome additional suggestions other than the implementation of water charges. If Members feel that there is scope out there that I have not looked at, feel free to share that. I have a meeting today with representatives from the NI Chamber and other sectors, and planning and waste water infrastructure will be part of those discussions. I am working with all key stakeholders across the North to ensure that we can find solutions that will not have a negative impact on the people whom we all serve.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Cathal Boylan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. I advise you that you have five minutes.

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

I also welcome the motion's being brought to the Assembly, as it is a very important issue that deserves our focus. Debates such as these are also an opportunity for Members and parties to set out their stall on their plans and vision for NIW. The position of Sinn Féin should by now be clear for all to see, and our amendment reinforces that position. We are not supportive of changes to the funding model for NIW that would lead to mutualisation or privatisation. Those approaches, as taken by Thames Water and Welsh Water, have been a disaster. Those approaches would also lead to domestic water charges being placed on already hard-pressed families across the North. That is unacceptable.

I ask Members to support our amendment and recognise the ongoing work by the Minister in carrying out the forensic audit of NIW's 2024-25 accounts. That is evidence that the Minister is serious about supporting NIW to deliver on improving and maintaining our waste water network as best she can. Therefore, it will be a better use of the Minister's finite resources in the Department to continue with the three-pronged approach that she has continually set out: to seek additional funding for NIW from the Executive; to consult on developer contributions; and to legislate to promote the use of sustainable drainage systems. I ask Members to support Sinn Féin's amendment.

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

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions today. As I have said in the Chamber before, when I studied human rights law back in 2011, I met MLAs for the first time to discuss water management and the creation of Northern Ireland Water in 2007. Back then, the Assembly had to grapple with how to manage and provide water infrastructure to residents and businesses across Northern Ireland. Today, we can all agree or disagree on policy and have different opinions. However, my party colleagues and I consider it vital that we have the bravery to discuss how we manage water — it is a resource that is financially intensive and that does not just fall from the sky in a safe-to-drink state — and that we do so in a way that is transparent, clear and factual.

Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have raised the issue on several occasions. We hear regularly from the Minister that we have looked at the matter time and time again. I am aware of six internal reports that have never been made public to allow an informed discussion and debate to take place, looking at the key facts and collectively deciding from there. Upon asking the Minister and the permanent secretary at a recent Committee meeting to publish those reports, I was told that they were already public and accessible. Further written clarification established that that was not the case. We were then given six unnamed reports alongside two Research and Information Service (RaISe) documents that spanned roughly a decade.

As a Committee, we recently had the Audit Office before us. It carried out excellent work to establish an objective and clear way forward in its March 2024 report to address major issues and cracks that are starting to appear in Northern Ireland Water. We have tens of thousands of homeless people in Northern Ireland, but we cannot build homes. We cannot build businesses or create the jobs needed to facilitate them because network connections cannot be made, as we have heard today.

The conclusion in the Audit Office report was as follows:

However, as with the earlier debate on the establishment of an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission and as with the 2023 Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman's report titled 'Strengthening Our Roots' , a theme emerges: we are no further on with implementing any of those recommendations in 2025. They are crucial to addressing major and fundamental issues with Northern Ireland Water and engaging the work of experts to understand what needs to happen.

What we currently have is not working. It is not replicated anywhere across the world that I am aware of. Our funding model and annual budgets to fund the treatment of water to make it safe to drink is not the best way in which to achieve that goal. That is precisely why we have human waste in Belfast lough, which is fast on its way to becoming the next Lough Neagh; human waste 200 metres from my parents' house in north Belfast, which was revealed in a 'Spotlight' programme just last year; an artificially created beach of sewage because the system cannot cope with the sheer volume of rubbish; and a burst storm overflow drain that flowed with toilet water for around three days in north Belfast last summer. That is the system that is being allowed to barely function because it is out of sight and out of mind.

What are our options? We could sit back, do nothing and hope for the best, and then, next summer, the outrage will begin, and we will be shocked at how that could happen in 2025 on our front doorsteps. We could push back against water charges, ignoring the fact that we already pay for water in the most inefficient and wasteful way possible. We could shout, "Privatisation" but, in the same breath, praise the work of housing associations, which can operate in a more flexible way — a way that we are asking to explore.

The make-up of and issues in Northern Ireland Water come up consistently, as the Minister said today, but things are getting worse, and the problems are not going away. I encourage the Minister to take this matter of public health seriously, implement the recommendations of the Audit Office, conduct a publicly accessible review as a matter of urgency and put the matter to bed. Internal reviews that none of us is able to see are not achieving the goal of supporting Northern Ireland Water.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mark Durkan to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate on the motion. Mark, you have 10 minutes.

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

I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on this important motion. I thank everyone who contributed, particularly the proposers of the amendments, both of which we are happy to accept.

It is clear from what we have heard today that everyone is aware of the issues. Some, maybe through the privilege of having a place on the Infrastructure Committee, are more aware of the exact extent of those issues. That is what prompted the SDLP, as the official Opposition, to call for an independent review of Northern Ireland Water's funding and governance. Why? Because the current situation, as we have heard, is clearly untenable.

Our waste water network is in crisis, over capacity, underfunded and dragging down economic progress and environmental protection across the North. In my constituency of Foyle, we have seen real-world consequences, with planning applications halted, the building of homes delayed and rivers polluted. That is far from unique to Derry. It is happening in every constituency and council area across the North. Chronic underinvestment in waste water infrastructure is not just an environmental issue, a housing issue or an economic issue; it is all those things. It is becoming a crisis that will shape the lives not only of this generation but of many to come.

Let me also be clear that, while we need a review, we also need honesty. There has been a lot of talk about mutualisation, with some presenting it as the magic bullet that will solve all of Northern Ireland Water's problems. Let us not kid ourselves. A review, to which the Minister is resistant, may well vindicate her position. While mutualisation might offer some advantages in borrowing powers or long-term investment planning, it is not necessarily a panacea and should not be used as a smokescreen to avoid the deeper and more difficult conversation about how we fund water infrastructure fairly and sustainably. To use the example that has been given today, we need only look at England and Wales to see the disaster that can result when public utilities are driven by profit and not by people's needs.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I share his view on England and Wales. Does he agree that it needs to be included in the debate that, just down the road, when the Irish Government considered introducing separate water charges, there was a huge uprising of people power there? People decided that they would not pay and came out in huge numbers. People should be cognisant of that if they are advocating a separate charge for water.

Mr Durkan: That will not be too far away from people's or parties' consciousness. People also need to know that they already pay for water, and I will come on to that.

Amendment No 2 might deviate a wee bit from our motion, but we will support it, because, when we talk about fairness, we are talking about domestic water charges. We in the SDLP have consistently opposed the introduction of separate water charges, and we stand by that. However, let us not pretend, as I said, that people are not already paying for water. Let us not allow the Minister or anyone else to maintain that fiction. People are paying, and, in many cases, they are paying more.

Domestic rates have gone up and continue to go up. Water infrastructure investment is being squeezed out of general public funding, and the burden is quietly being shifted on to households. Meanwhile, businesses, which pay direct water rates, see their bills rise by about 5% year after year. For many small and medium-sized businesses, that is unsustainable. It is really death by a thousand cuts. While the Minister will point and has pointed to developer contributions, as others have said, the revenue that is raised will just scratch the surface of what is needed to do the work. It will have to come from somewhere. It will be passed on to homebuyers, pushing up the price of homes, which, in turn, will push up the cost of rent. People will pay more. Fewer social homes will be delivered as a result. Therefore, we need an expert-led independent review, but it must be open, transparent and rooted in fairness. It must ask the hard questions. How do we deliver the infrastructure that we need without placing a burden on working families or businesses, which are already stretched to the limit?

I will turn to Members' contributions. It is clear that everyone knows the issues and knows that there needs to be some action; we just might not all agree on what action that should be. I will start with what my colleague Patsy McGlone said. While much of the debate subsequently focused on the funding model, my colleague's remarks demonstrated that, while there is a clear problem with funding, there are also clear issues with governance. The fact that the Minister had to bring in a forensic accountant is further evidence that all is far from well. We still do not know how far the forensic accountant will dig beyond the overspend of a few million pounds on this year's dramatically reduced requirement.

Andrew McMurray made the point that the Minister's desire to work with Executive colleagues to get more funding is likely to be as successful as that approach has been so far, which is not particularly successful, other than in the example that we heard of — the monitoring round in which we got an extra £19 million. That was welcome, but much more is needed. My fear is that it will continue to be less successful as the costs of, and demand for, other infrastructure projects continue to grow and grow.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I am not going to get extra time, so I am afraid not. [Laughter.]

The Member also politely questioned the value of the internal reviews carried out by the Department.

Nicola Brogan pointed out that outdated infrastructure is a consequence of British austerity. Of course, underfunding has had a hugely negative impact on development and public services, and it is important that we come together and continue to demand more, but no one can honestly say that the Executive have played well with the hand that they have been dealt over the years.

Keith Buchanan brought up a few highlights from the avalanche of evidence that the Infrastructure Committee has received on the issue. We have been looking at it for a long time, and the longer that we look at it, the worse it looks. He sought more detail from the Minister on developer contributions, and we did not get that from the Minister today.

Stephen Dunne raised the pausing of the living with water programme in Belfast. At the same time as it is being paused, there is an ongoing public consultation on living with water in Derry, when the reality is that, without some sort of miracle, it is already dead in the water.

John Stewart focused on the blockages to development that impact on our ability to attract investment. Northern Ireland Water needs stable, multi-year investment. We are not even treading water; we are sinking.

The leader of the Opposition, my esteemed colleague, made the point that developer contributions are almost a smokescreen — an attempt to muddy the waters, if you like — to distract from the real action that is required. He spoke about the potential for new borrowing points and pointed to the promises that were made on water infrastructure in NDNA. I am starting to think that that is an acronym for "Neither Delivered Nor Achieved".

Gerry Carroll said that the fault does not lie with the workers in Northern Ireland Water but with the Executive, who have starved the agency of funds. Of course, the same applies to NIW as applies to the Executive: NIW needs more but it could do better with what it has got.

I move now to the Minister. She said that we have had these discussions numerous times. Unfortunately, we have had to, because they have not made any difference. She said that she was proactive, like her predecessor; I would say that she is as proactive as her predecessor. She referred to the fact that a previous Infrastructure Minister was from the SDLP. That is never forgotten — we are never allowed to forget it. In her two years in office, through a global pandemic, Nichola Mallon brought PC 21 to the Executive, where it was agreed by the Executive parties. That agreement is another agreement that has been reneged on. The Minister said that she had not heard the Opposition's proposals. We are asking for the Minister to seek the expert-led review that was recommended by the Audit Office to hear the experts' proposals. She referred, again, to her three-pronged approach. I have already mentioned two of those prongs, The sustainable urban drainage system stuff is dead on, but, again, it is tinkering and legislating for something that already happens in practice. Anyway, where is that legislation? By the time that we see it, development may well have already ground to a halt. That really would be "SuDS" law. I appeal to Members to back the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Mark.

Mr Durkan: We will be supporting the amendments. We need to ensure that, this time next year, we are not still standing here debating the issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As you were advised earlier, we were notified that the proposer of the Adjournment debate will not be speaking on that topic, and it has been removed from the Order Paper today.