Official Report: Monday 12 May 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we start proceedings, I advise Members that the Speaker is unwell and will not be in the Chamber today. I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat Sheehan has been given leave to make a statement under Standing Order 24.

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

I will make a statement on the worsening situation in Gaza. Despite Israel's publicly declared strategy of starving the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and the plans to increase the attacks on Gaza even further and displace the population, the US, British, French and German Governments continue to pander to the murderous Israeli regime. We know that 20,000 children have been killed and tens of thousands of other Palestinians are dead, with many of the bodies still buried underneath the rubble, and that schools, hospitals, universities, mosques, churches and United Nations food depots have all been destroyed. Now, the Israelis have decided to use starvation as a weapon of war against an already malnourished population.

More than two months have elapsed without a single aid truck entering Gaza. Children are dying of hunger. Hospitals have no medicines, anaesthetics or painkillers. The blockade is not just a violation of international law; it is an instrument of genocide as defined by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Dr Mike Ryan, the Irish executive director of the World Health Organization's health emergencies programme, called it what it is:

Professor Avi Shlaim, the renowned Jewish Israeli academic said this to those who justify Israel's action by saying that Israel has a right to self-defence:

It is time to end the occupation, the genocide and the starvation of poor, innocent, defenceless children. It is time for all that to end now.

Mr Frew: I am horrified at the scenes in what is a war-torn land in Israel and the Gaza Strip, and I worry about the activities there. There are clear rules of engagement in war. There are clear rules in the Geneva convention, and there are clear rules in international law. The laws of a state should also be adhered to. I hope that all lapses from the Geneva convention and international law are investigated thoroughly to ascertain whether there have been any breaches.

When it comes to the war, the people who suffer are the Israelis and the Palestinians. We would all like to see the end of the war. The Palestinian people have suffered not only because of the war in their area and their land; the Palestinian people have suffered for so long at the hands and under the burden of terrorism in the form and guise of Hamas. We would all like to see the day, I am sure, when the Palestinian people are free from terrorism and war. My heart goes out to all who have suffered in the war. I hope that the war ends soon and that people can go back to what remains of their lives after the losses that have occurred. I pray that we will see peace in that ancient land sooner rather than later.

Mr Dickson: The situation in Gaza is getting worse every day. Tens of thousands of people have been killed; neighbourhoods have been destroyed; and over a million people have been displaced without access to food, water or medical care. That is an obscenity.

My party has consistently supported the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state, including in our most recent general election manifesto, in which we stated that a two-state solution was the only way to deliver lasting peace in the region. Since the outbreak of violence in October 2023, we have repeatedly condemned the war crimes that are being committed by Israel and Hamas. The targeting of civilians and the collective punishment of entire populations are wrong, and the taking of hostages is equally unacceptable. Our party has taken action. We have written to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to call for an immediate suspension of all arms export licences to Israel and a renewed commitment by the UK Government to a two-state solution. We have called for accountability through the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for all breaches of international law, no matter who committed them. In the Assembly, we have supported a motion calling for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, the release of hostages and an immediate ceasefire.

The international community, including the United Kingdom Government, must do more to end the illegal occupation of Gaza, halt the persecution of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories and demand a negotiated peace. The conflict will not be resolved by bombs or barricades; it will be resolved only through political courage, diplomacy and an unwavering commitment to human rights and international law. Ending arms sales, securing a permanent ceasefire and renewing momentum towards a two-state solution are the only moral imperatives and the only route to peace.

International aid agencies such as Christian Aid have said that, as a priority, we must protect, promote and defend the human rights of Palestinians in the Middle East. We must strengthen the resilience of individuals, communities and institutions so that they can respond when faced with threats to lives, land and livelihoods. Finally, we must deliver humanitarian responses that are accountable and impartial and strengthen local communities. Humanitarian aid must be allowed into the Gaza Strip.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for tabling the Matter of the Day, because it is of deep consequence, and it should be of deep consequence to every one of us.

When we think back to the actions of the past couple of years in the Middle East, particularly in Israel and Palestine, if you are not moved, angered, disappointed and, at times, horrified, you have a heart of stone. It is a deeply complex region, but what is not complex is humanity. What is not complicated is sanctity of life. What is not up for debate is the fact that too many have suffered.

Often, in our media and sometimes politically in the Chamber, we are accused of taking sides and of trying to pit one side against the other: I do not think that that has been the case, when we look at the conflict that is there. What is going on at the moment, however, which is the failure of aid to reach those innocent hundreds and thousands, is simply unacceptable. I think particularly of the children whom we read about and whose faces we have seen, who have been so deeply affected. They have either lost their life or their home and perhaps their future. That does not bode well for the future.

All those in that region who have acted irresponsibly have set themselves up for an eternal conflict, but that does not need to be the case. I do not mean this in a facetious sense, but, when we think about our conflict here, we find that it was never going to be resolved by anything but talking — sitting down in a room and working out differences with a commitment to strictly peaceful means going forward. We should send a message from the Chamber that the only route to lasting peace is to talk, end all hostilities and respond with the return of all hostages and those on both sides of the conflict who have been held away from their home for far too long.

In the meantime, however, we need to see the restoration of power, clean water, food and medicines to those who are suffering and the innocent people who are paying the price for acts of terror. Let us hope that those who are listening and who have the ear of those in power in the Middle East can act so that we can see real change as quickly as possible.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak again on the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, which I and my party find truly unforgivable. Just yesterday, I watched a video online of children starving in Gaza, wishing for food. Children have been blown up or murdered by Israeli bombs, and I ask myself and the Chamber this: what kind of world are we living in? Speaking up against those atrocities goes beyond faith or different backgrounds and beliefs. As politicians, advocates and people, we have a collective duty to call out that collective punishment, particularly through starvation, as absolutely unacceptable and unforgivable.

This is an issue of humanity and the sanctity of human life. We have seen total cowardice from the previous and current US and UK Governments. Having had the power to bring an end to the horror, they have been cowards and have been quiet, and I find that utterly shameful. Government representatives can use their voice for change, but they have been more concerned about their own career progression than the end of the slaughter of innocent children in Gaza.

The Palestinian people have suffered massive civilian casualties and displacement since October 2023. Over 52,000 Palestinians have been killed, with women and innocent children comprising the majority of those casualties. The Israeli military campaign has led to the displacement of approximately 90% of Gaza's 2·3 million residents, forcing them into overcrowded shelters or makeshift camps. In particular, we see that, at the moment, severe hunger and imminent famine are ongoing due to the Israeli blockade, which has been in place for over 10 weeks. That has halted the entry of essential supplies, pushing Gaza towards near famine. Nearly 477,000 Palestinians are experiencing catastrophic hunger levels, and many communal kitchens have shut down due to a lack of available aid. There have been attacks on healthcare workers and aid workers that are absolutely unforgivable.

There have been many global calls for a ceasefire, and the House has supported that. International leaders and organisations are urging an immediate ceasefire and an end to the ongoing violence. In particular, our new Pope has asked for compassion and aid delivery. Each of us, in the House and outside it, should reflect on what we can do and say at this point in history to speak up against genocide, as referred to by the UN convention. I urge every one of us in the House with a voice to speak up to condemn those horrific actions and to put an end to what is the biggest atrocity of our time.

Mr Gaston: We all share the deep sympathy for the innocent people of Gaza — men, women and children caught in the midst of a terrible conflict not of their choosing. However, it is hard to take seriously the hand-wringing of the Member for West Belfast when, in 1978, he took part in the bombing of a cash and carry, an act that showed no regard for innocent life. There were few concerns for civilians that day.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, this is about Palestine.

Mr Gaston: Yes, indeed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Can you please return to the topic of the Matter of the Day?

Mr Gaston: Yes. It is worth remembering that, while the Member now speaks about protecting life, he once risked taking it.

I also want to comment on the recent calls from RTÉ to have Israel banned from this year's Eurovision Song Contest. Those calls are not only misguided; they are morally confused. The Israeli contestant whom they seek to silence is a survivor of the Hamas massacre at the music festival on 7 October — a brutal act of terror and the largest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust. Were it not for that atrocity, there would be no war in Gaza today, yet, in typical Sinn Féin fashion, it cries foul over Israel while backing the use of council land for a Kneecap concert, a group that publicly declared support for Hamas —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — just as Sinn Féin long supported the IRA —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and its campaign of violence.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat, OK?

I will move on to the next Matter of the Day.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Ciara Ferguson has made a request to make this statement, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I remind Members who wish to be called that they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business is finished.

Ms Ferguson: I express our deepest sympathy across the Assembly with the community of Buncrana and the families and school friends from Scoil Mhuire and Crana College of 16-year-old Emmanuel Familola and 18-year-old Matt Sibanda, who tragically lost their lives on Saturday afternoon after getting into difficulty in the water. Matt and Emmanuel were understood to be playing football on Saturday when they went into the sea after the ball. The area is also a popular swimming spot, but, sadly, we know that the waters can change dramatically and quickly, as the Swilly has a big tidal range and the water behaves differently in different parts.

The devastating loss of those two young men, who had their whole lives ahead of them, cannot quite be placed into words. I know that, across the Assembly, we will want to express our gratitude to the individuals and organisations who contributed to a large-scale search-and-rescue operation throughout Saturday. We also acknowledge the medical professionals who intervened and the hundreds who gathered to pray, both at the pier and again at yesterday's vigil at St Mary's Oratory in Buncrana. Emmanuel and Matt have been described as deeply respected and valued members of their school communities and as two men with warm and kind personalities and gentle natures. Emmanuel had just completed his work experience, as part of his transition year, in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, and Matt was due to begin his Leaving Certificate next month.

As the next May bank holiday approaches and as we enter another period of good weather across Ireland, we need to make water safety part of our conversations with family and friends alike. A focus needs to be put on Water Safety Week, which is approaching, so that everyone, young and old, is aware of the hidden dangers posed by the water. Across Ireland and particularly in Donegal, which alone boasts over 100 beautiful beaches, we are blessed with natural beauty, but we need to take advice from the RNLI and others about respecting the water and remaining vigilant at all times.

I send our thoughts and prayers to the Familola and Sibanda families. We know that the people of Buncrana, Inishowen and Donegal will continue to rally around the two families, school friends, response teams and all those affected by the devastating tragedy.

Mr Middleton: On behalf of the DUP, I send our condolences to the Familola and Sibanda families. What happened over the weekend was a very sad tragedy, with two young lives taken far too soon. Many of us will have heard the tributes being paid from right across the community, not least from the RNLI representative who clearly articulated what happened over the weekend, the way in which the emergency services responded and how the families and the local community joined together to pray for Emmanuel and Matt and, indeed, for the other young person, who managed to get out of the water.

Sadly, such tragedies are not unique. We have seen them, unfortunately, within our constituencies as well. It is a stark reminder of the dangers that open water can pose. Whilst we take great pride in our open waters and the beauty that they provide, sadly, they can also take lives. We need to ensure that people are aware of the dangers that open waters can pose to individuals, such as the cold shock of the water, hidden currents or unexpected depths. This is a very sad reminder. Again, the thoughts and prayers of our party are with those individuals' families who, sadly, will have to deal with the grief in the time ahead.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member for bringing this tragic subject to the House. On behalf of Alliance, I associate with the comments previously made and extend my deepest sympathy to the families of Matt Sibanda and Emmanuel Familola. It was an absolute tragedy and is difficult to process. I was listening to the news in the car on my way here this morning, and it was incredibly difficult. Listening to the tributes from the schools of the two boys — Scoil Mhuire and Crana College — about the positivity that they had in their time in the Buncrana community was quite uplifting. Similarly, the services that were held showed incredible community support. I am not from Buncrana, but I know it from holidaying there, and that community spirit was quite something to behold.

I want to give thanks to the rescue and recovery efforts of the RNLI, the coastguard and the entire Buncrana community. Listening to the efforts that were put in by the RNLI and the community, as described by Mr Joyce, was incredibly moving. Anybody who takes part knows the physical, emotional and positive attributes that come with outdoor swimming, but the danger of entering the water must not be underestimated. It is incumbent on us to educate our families, our loved ones and the wider community, where we can, on the dangers of entering the water.

Mr Butler: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I echo all the words of sympathy and support that have been offered in the Chamber, and I thank the Member for tabling this very important matter for discussion this morning. When we look at the faces of those two young boys, we cannot help but associate them with our own family members. If you are blessed enough to have a son or daughter of a similar age, as a parent, quite often, you transpose that tragedy or incident and ask, "How would I cope?". I do not know how I would cope. It is incredibly sad to see two young lives so needlessly lost in something that we, sadly, speak about far too often in this country.

What has perhaps been of some heart and hope to the families is the response on both sides of the border to the community in Buncrana. People have rallied around that community and shown all manner of unequivocal support, including through prayer and in person. They have rallied around the community to help in whatever way they can. Help has come from Ms Ferguson's constituency, including from the emergency services.

As some Members may know, the ripple effect of the deaths will extend further than to the families who have been affected. Those who were at the beach or in its vicinity at the time will have seen things that they will never forget. The ripple effect will extend to those who responded in the hope of saving life, because, when people go out to respond, they hope to make an intervention. Unfortunately, the response sometimes becomes a recovery operation, and it is so tragic to see two young lives lost in such a way.

As other Members have done, I issue a warning about our coastal waters and particularly our inland waters. We have lots of quarries, where, unfortunately, young people congregate and decide to go for a cold dip. Those waters are often much colder and pose more hidden dangers than even the sea does. We need to get to grips with the advice that we issue each year, especially when temperatures rise and the temptation for people is to get into the water. The water is indeed dangerous. I finish by offering my sincere thoughts and condolences to, and prayers on behalf of, the families of the two young boys who lost their life.

Mr McCrossan: On Saturday, as the sun shone brightly and temperatures soared, many of us — young and old, families and friends — gathered at beaches and various resorts across the island of Ireland to enjoy weather that we have not been able to enjoy for some years. With that, at various times over the years, has unfortunately come tragedy, not just in open water but in quarries and other places. It was simple day out for three friends — three young lads — who were playing football near the shoreline when their ball went into the water. In an attempt to retrieve it, they entered the sea. Unfortunately, they encountered difficulties owing to the strong currents. Sadly, as a result of a simple get-together with friends while enjoying the sun, two lives were lost: Emmanuel Familola, 16 years of age and originally from Nigeria; and Matt Sibanda, 18 years of age and originally from Zimbabwe. Luckily, if that is even a word that we can use in the context, there was not a third victim. Today, our thoughts are with the young lad who is recovering in hospital. From the details that I have heard, he is lucky to be alive.

It is so important that we send a very clear message that open water is not safe. Please act with great care. We ask parents of children and young people, who will be out enjoying the weather in the week ahead, to alert them to the very real dangers. Unfortunately, I have known numerous people from my constituency — my age, younger and older — who have died in the past number of years as a result of entering various waterways in West Tyrone. The tragedy is incomprehensible. When the news came through on Saturday after 4.00 pm, our hearts were in Donegal, and our thoughts and prayers were with the three young lads, their families and the entire community. What happened affects us all, because, at any time in life, such a tragedy could come to our own door. We therefore need to be conscious at all times of how easily something can go wrong.

It is important to thank those involved in the multi-agency response, including the Irish Coast Guard, RNLI lifeboats, the Rescue 118 helicopter from Sligo and local gardaí and ambulance services, and to thank the community and everybody else who rallied around the families to support them at what is a devastating time.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Matters of the Day. Members, please take your ease for a moment before we begin Members' statements.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before calling Members to make statements, I remind them that Standing Order 24A(6) states that a statement must not:

Also:

Members should not use their three minutes to speak about as many topics as they can fit into that time. The statement should relate to one topic only. Any Member who is not compliant with those provisions may be asked to resume their seat. If that is clear, we will continue.

If a Member wishes to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have three minutes in which to make their statements. Interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business is finished.

Mr McGuigan: I want to promote a single topic but two events that are coming soon in my constituency of North Antrim. First, I congratulate Ballycastle Comhaltas for organising and bringing the Antrim fleadh to Ballycastle. That will run for a week, from next Monday, 19 May, until the following Sunday, 25 May. I have no doubt that the fleadh will attract huge numbers of people from across North Antrim, County Antrim and beyond. I am very much looking forward to being in Ballycastle during the week, seeing and hearing an amazing line-up of talent and celebrating North Antrim's rich heritage of culture, Irish music, language and dance at free events at numerous venues throughout Ballycastle. Ádh mór oraibh uilig.

To complement the fleadh, there is the annual Rathlin Sound Festival, which runs from 23 May to 1 June. The festival, which takes place around the famous Rathlin Sound body of water, connects Rathlin Island to the shores of Ballycastle and brings to life the people, culture and heritage of the area. As anyone who has been to the festival will know, many vessels visit Ballycastle and Rathlin harbours throughout the festival period. Many people from across Ireland will travel to Ballycastle and Rathlin to enjoy the various arts, music, storytelling, artisan markets, food and drink that will be on offer.

There are an exciting few weeks ahead for Ballycastle and Rathlin. The fleadh and the festival will be welcomed and supported by locals, and they will create a welcome boost for local businesses and economy. I hope that the current good weather continues well into June. Regardless, I have no doubt that Ballycastle and Rathlin will be buzzing and bustling with excitement, colour and much joy over the next couple of weeks. I wish both events and their organisers the very best of luck and success.

Ms Bunting: I rise in solidarity with the McCartney family, following yet another glorification event by Sinn Féin and attempt by the party to rewrite history. As a member of the Policing Board, I have met the McCartney family. I have read the transcript of the trial in the aftermath of Mr McCartney's murder, and I have read their book. Their brother's murder was brutal and merciless. The omertà that followed was shocking. Instead of being shown support and sympathy at a time of bereavement, that family could no longer reside in the area in which they lived. The whole situation was repugnant and eerily similar to that in the murder of Ian Ogle in my constituency, which was also all because of an accusation of looking at somebody the wrong way.

The details of Mr McCartney's murder in the court transcripts are brutal and harrowing. His sisters' and partner's pain and anguish are understandable and deeply moving. No family should have to endure the added trauma of seeing the individual whom they believe ordered their loved one's murder being publicly honoured.

Sinn Féin seems to be wilfully deaf and blind to the impact on victims of the Provisional IRA of its weekly glorification roadshows. It is disgraceful and insensitive, though no surprise. Once more, it has reverted to its old, faithful routine of "Do as we say and not as we do". It is one glorification after another in circumstances where, on the one hand, literally millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being spent by the Executive to tackle paramilitarism and move our society on, and, on the other hand, the biggest party in the Executive is hailing as heroes those who did the damage. The hypocrisy and double standards are shocking. Sinn Féin has the audacity to chide DUP Ministers for meeting those who are trying to steer people and groups away from paramilitarism, the past and criminality, while lauding those who murdered and maimed. We will take no lectures for encouraging people to change, start over and obey the law.

The continued failure to hold anyone accountable for Robert McCartney's murder is a stain on our society. I have previously urged those with information to come forward directly to the police. I have also encouraged the police to speak to those who gave statements to third parties at the time, and I do so again. We in the DUP support the McCartney sisters and all innocent victims in their pursuit of truth and justice. We will continue to oppose all glorification of individuals associated with paramilitary violence, and we will press for a justice system that treats innocent victims with the dignity and fairness that they deserve.

Mr Donnelly: International Nurses' Day is celebrated each year on 12 May, which was Florence Nightingale's birthday. Today, she would have been 205. The International Day of the Midwife was last week, and I have no doubt that Members from across the Chamber will join me in thanking our nurses and midwives for all that they do across the health service for all of us when their care is needed. I am very proud to be part of that wonderful profession, and I encourage any young person who wants a challenging and rewarding career to consider nursing.

The theme for this year is "Caring for nurses strengthens economies". It seeks to highlight how a healthy and secure nursing workforce is crucial to the overall functioning of healthcare. Without healthcare staff, there is no health service. We frequently hear about the pressures on the health system, and it is true to say that the service runs on the goodwill of healthcare workers. That is neither fair nor sustainable. Nursing is a safety-critical profession, and nurses working on the front line in overcrowded A&E departments or busy wards frequently work under high pressure for long periods. There are high rates of sickness absence due to stress and mental health impacts, and there is a significant moral injury.

This year, I hope to see the Health Minister progress the safe staffing Bill, which is urgently needed to improve the health, well-being and safety of patients and staff. We need to prioritise the well-being of nurses so that they can continue to provide the high-quality care that is critical to the health of our communities. We need them to be there for us all.

Ms Hunter: Today, I address the ongoing issue in our national sport of camogie and highlight the importance of equality on the pitch. First, I thank all those who volunteer and devote hours of their life to coaching and engaging with our young women and girls and encouraging them to get out on the field, particularly those in the Camogie Association.

Full disclosure: I have not played a game of camogie in well over 10 years, but I still miss the cut and thrust of combat on the pitch. I feel strongly about the issue, and it is important to highlight the concerns of our young ladies who play camogie and who have been very vocal about their desire to have the choice to wear shorts on the pitch. A recent survey by the Gaelic Players Association (GPA) revealed that over 83% of players prefer wearing shorts, citing their being more comfortable and more practical.

Yesterday, I did my own experiment and wore a skort to the gym, and I can tell you that it was far from comfortable. Recently, the conversations escalated when players from Dublin and Kilkenny took to the field for a Leinster semi-final only to be told that the match would not proceed unless they changed into skorts. It is not right. The Dublin captain described the incident as a "career low", and questioned why female athletes must still fight for the right to wear the attire that suits their needs. Derry SDLP councillor Catherine McDaid has done a fantastic job of highlighting the issue.

Further protests led to the postponement of the Munster final between Cork and Waterford, as both teams intended to wear shorts in defiance of the ongoing rule. The players expressed that they felt "completely let down" and stated:

The players must be supported.

In response to the ongoing issue, the Camogie Association has scheduled a special congress on 22 May to vote on allowing players a choice between skorts and shorts. I hope that the correct decision is made and choice is upheld. Shorts are practical and comfortable, and women's being able to choose what they want to wear in sport is so important — it is that simple.

Some will say that this is a small issue; I disagree. Others will say that there are bigger issues that we could debate or raise in this House; I disagree. It is a matter of equality, and people would not say those things about issues in male sport. We must listen to and respect the voices of our athletes across this island and ensure that tradition does not hinder progress. We must show solidarity with the ladies who are fighting for equality. I urge all the stakeholders who are listening today to make the right decision on 22 May and empower our young camogie players with the freedom to choose attire that reflects their comfort and choice. We, in the SDLP, wholeheartedly support them.

Ms Reilly: An tSeachtain um Fheasacht Meabhairshláinte atá ann an tseachtain seo, rud a thugann deis dúinn aird a dhíriú ar an ghníomh phráinneach atá de dhíth lena chinntiú go gcuirtear a ndotháin acmhainní ar fáil dár seirbhísí meabhairshláinte, agus do na seirbhísí tacaíochta a chuidíonn leo, le freastal ar an éileamh. Tá obair iontach á déanamh ag grúpaí agus ag carthanais ar leith: Tús Úr i mo thoghcheantar, bothán na bhfear agus bothán na mban, agus neart grúpaí eile atá i mbun obair fhíorthábhachtach sa réimse seo, a thugann tearmann agus spás sábháilte do gach duine. Tacaíonn sin lena meabhairshláinte, téann sé chun a leasa, agus neartaíonn sé an áit s’acu inár bpobail agus inár sochaí.

Tá obair na ngrúpaí sin, agus níl luaite agam ach dornán beag acu, tá sin le moladh. Ach tá an soláthar don mheabhairshláinte ina fhadhb mhór go fóill. Níor chóir do dhaoine agus dá gcairde gaoil a bheith ag brath go hiomlán ar thacaíocht ón earnáil pobail agus dheonach. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go ndéana an Roinn Sláinte an obair phráinneach atá sa phlean gníomhaíochta nua Protect Life 2 le féinmharú a chosc. Tá an idirghabháil agus an cosc luath ríthábhachtach, agus caithfidh teacht furasta bheith ag gach duine ar sheirbhísí. Cuirimid fáilte roimh an athbhreithniú a rinneadh le déanaí ar sheirbhísí andúile agus athshlánúcháin. Ach ní mór dúinn seirbhísí athshlánúcháin cuimsitheacha a chur ar fáil anois ag an phointe riachtanais. Cuirimid fáilte fosta roimh leathnú na samhla MDT le déanaí i gclinicí dochtúra, ina bhfuil gairmithe meabhairshláinte le fáil le cuidiú agus le tacú le daoine ag leibhéal an chúraim phríomhúil. Caithfidh sé sin bheith le fáil ar fud na Sé Chontae, beag beann ar an chód poist.

Mr Robinson: One hundred years ago today, on 12 May 1925, the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, rose in this House to pay tribute to the late Prime Minister of New Zealand, William Ferguson Massey. Craig described Massey as:

which is a reflection of the deep pride that Ulster took in one of its most distinguished sons.

William F Massey was born in Limavady in 1856. An Ulsterman by birth, at the age of 14, he emigrated to New Zealand, where he became a farmer, earning the affectionate moniker "Farmer Bill". However, Massey's impact extended far beyond the fields; through sheer determination, skill and an unwavering sense of duty, he rose to become one of New Zealand's most significant political leaders. New Zealand parliamentary debates recall Massey as an organised, articulate and well-read statesman. He was sometimes verbose, and he was deeply influenced by biblical references. He took an Opposition that had all but ceased to exist and, through force of personality and astute leadership, transformed it into a well-organised political force. Massey went on to serve as Prime Minister from 1912 until his death in 1925, making him New Zealand's longest-serving leader. Massey's obituary in 'The Times' declared that, all through his career, though a New Zealander of New Zealanders, he would never allow it to be forgotten that he was an Ulsterman. His legacy therefore is one not just of political transformation but of deep connection to his roots in Ulster.

Today, Limavady proudly honours Massey with an impressive 2-metre-tall bronze statue outside the council building in Connell Street. The statue is surrounded by plants of New Zealand origin, symbolising the enduring bond between his birthplace and his adopted homeland. Moreover, here at Stormont, the avenue that leads up to these very Parliament Buildings bears his name; a lasting tribute to his legacy. In May 1925, New Zealand's 'The Free Lance' newspaper published a moving tribute to Massey, which includes the following lines:

As we mark the centenary of his death, let us remember William Ferguson Massey not only as a great leader of New Zealand but as a son of Ulster who carried the values of this land across the sea. His legacy continues to inspire, reminding us of the profound contributions that individuals from this small —

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

Mr Robinson: — but proud part of the world can make on the global stage.

Mr Stewart: I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that East Antrim clings to the sea and has some amazing views for people who like to walk or cycle along the promenade. Sadly, in recent weeks, the Department for Infrastructure has installed something akin to a prison wall — a 6-foot-tall fence with mesh on the front of it — along a large part of the promenade at Whiteabbey and Jordanstown.

I have been contacted by hundreds of people who live and work in the area and use that walkway and cycleway. I want to speak on behalf of the many thousands of people who have signed petitions against it. That fence was installed without consultation — without enough consultation, at least — with the council and certainly without consultation with local residents. In recent weeks, council colleagues and I have engaged with DFI officials and called on the Minister to look into and review that decision. We continue to hear about the financial pressures on the Department for Infrastructure, yet, somehow, it has found an excess amount of money to install that fence that, quite simply, is not required. One local described it as using a sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut. That is fair.

We are all conscious of safety, but when it comes to our promenade views and respecting the local area and the aesthetics of that area, it is very important that something is looked at. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to look at that, engage with her officials and work with the council to do all that she can to try to find a solution. I know that a solution can be found.

Ms McLaughlin: The recent funding cuts to Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company, one of our city's most vital, inclusive and creative institutions, is more than just a funding decision: it is a profound blow to the cultural soul of Derry. Echo Echo is not just a stage company but a community; a space where people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities come together to create, move, heal and imagine something better. It supports artists, reaches into communities and contributes to our local economy. Removing its funding does real damage to the legacy that we built as the first UK City of Culture. Equity is actually holding its annual conference in Derry today. It is dreadful that the first item of business was a rally this morning against the harsh cuts to that wonderful dance theatre company.

We must value our artists and protect our cultural institutions. We must not allow Derry's creative future to be dismantled piece by piece. I urge Minister Lyons to review that decision, restore funding to Echo Echo and work with the Arts Council to develop a fair, transparent and sustainable approach to arts investment, one that supports every part of our region, not just a few. The arts sector in Northern Ireland is underfunded when compared with that in the rest of these islands. Now, we see decisions being made that compound regional imbalance. Derry and the north-west deserve better.

I am also concerned about the Communities Minister's letter of expectations to the Arts Council, which included language suggesting that funding could be withdrawn from any group whose work is deemed to be disrespectful of any tradition.

That is vague, it is subjective and it risks silencing creative voices. We must safeguard artistic freedom, not stifle it.

The decision comes at a time when communities face deep social and economic challenges. In moments such as this, the arts are not a luxury; they are a necessity. They offer connection, resilience and opportunity. Following last year's cut to the Waterside Theatre, the recent decision to withdraw funding from Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company is not just a budget line: it is a cultural loss, a blow to community well-being and a threat to the creative economy of our city. I am deeply concerned about the growing pattern of disinvestment in the arts in Derry and the north-west. Enough is enough.

Ms Sugden: May is Women's Health Month. For many women and couples in Northern Ireland, the journey to parenthood is not straightforward; it is shaped by uncertainty, emotional strain and, too often, disappointment. Fertility treatment offers a real chance, but here that chance is more limited than it should be. We are falling behind the rest of the United Kingdom. While others offer three publicly funded IVF cycles, we still offer just one. The commitment to expand access was made years ago, but it has not been delivered, and every month of delay matters.

IVF is physically and emotionally demanding. Critically, it is time-sensitive. Women spend so long on waiting lists that, by the time they reach treatment, they no longer meet the age criteria. The regional fertility centre in Belfast, which is our only NHS IVF provider, is only now contacting women who were added to the list in October 2022. That is a delay of over a year. During that time, some have lost eligibility, not because of medical reasons but because the system is too slow. The window for success is narrow. A delay of days or even hours can make a real difference. Some couples now choose to travel abroad, taking on financial pressures that they simply cannot afford, just to have the family that they long for. Every IVF cycle carries enormous emotional weight. When it does not work, as is often the case, the grief is profound.

This week is also Mental Health Awareness Week. We must acknowledge the toll that fertility struggles take — the stress, isolation and anxiety that touch every part of life — yet support is limited, and counselling is inconsistent. To make matters worse, many women are excluded by rigid criteria, including strict age and BMI limits or just because their partner has children from a previous relationship. Those rules do not affect real lives, and they disproportionately affect women who are already navigating a difficult journey.

I acknowledge those going through this quietly, under pressure and, often, with little support. They should not be left behind. Northern Ireland must implement the three-cycle commitment. We must modernise the criteria and treat fertility as a central part of women's health and well-being, because that is exactly what it is.

Ms Forsythe: There have been debates and motions in this place on the safety of women in Northern Ireland. There is an event today in Parliament Buildings — 'Nothing About Us Without Us - Trans Voices in the Halls of Power' by the Rainbow Project — that raises huge concerns for me in this space. The event has an extremely rigid code of conduct that its organisers have imposed on anyone wishing to attend. It includes the removal from the event of anyone who dares to express dissent or any gender-critical views. The irony that such a code of conduct should be imposed on an event billed by organisers as "just a conversation" should be lost on no one.

In addition, attendees are encouraged to use women-only facilities in the Building today, including whichever toilets, they feel, best align with their gender. The facilities in Parliament Buildings are used by Members, staff and members of the public, including during school visits by children. Many of those people have expressed concerns over this and about how it makes them feel uncomfortable. Women and young girls who use the Building should feel safe in female-only spaces.

This morning, I emailed the event sponsors on behalf of all of our female DUP MLAs asking them to reconsider their support for and facilitation of the event, because, as advised by the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly, sponsors and organisers of an event are ultimately responsible for the conduct of their employees and guests during events.

This party will continue to stand up for women's rights and safe spaces, as always. How long will it take for the three parties opposite in the Chamber to understand and respect what a woman is and to be meaningful in their contributions to debates on the safety of women and young girls?

Mr Butler: I rise to mark the beginning of ME Awareness Week and highlight the ongoing, often invisible, suffering of those living with myalgic encephalomyelitis. That complex and debilitating neurological condition affects thousands across Northern Ireland but remains chronically under-recognised and, in some cases, underserved in our health system. ME can leave individuals housebound or bedroom-bound for years. It causes profound fatigue, pain, cognitive dysfunction and hypersensitivity to light and sound. Sadly, many patients still face disbelief, stigma and a lack of appropriate care. Despite its severity, there are no specialist services for ME patients in Northern Ireland.

There will be an event tomorrow in room 115 that Members are more than welcome to drop into. For over 14 years, Hope 4 ME & Fibro NI has worked to fill the gap. Through its advocacy, education and efforts, it has kept ME on the public health agenda. I have been proud to support and work alongside the group over the years, recognising the essential advocacy that it provides for a community that is too often overlooked. It has hosted 17 international medical conferences, contributed to biomedical research and collaborated with Queen's University and Ulster University to educate the next generation of healthcare professionals. That work is driven by dedicated volunteers but is ably led by the group's founder, Mrs Joan McParland MBE. Joan's personal resilience and leadership have made a lasting impact, ensuring that ME patients are not forgotten.

As we begin this important week of awareness, I pay tribute to all who continue to shine a light on this devastating illness. I also encourage Members to spend some time in room 115 tomorrow with us.

Mr Gaston: Like the Member who spoke earlier, I am deeply troubled that Parliament Buildings is hosting an event this afternoon entitled 'Nothing About Us Without Us — Trans Voices In The Halls Of Power'. Let me be clear: I do not object to debate or fear disagreement, but I do object to the forced endorsement of radical ideology under the guise of inclusion. To attend the event, individuals must accept the Rainbow Project's so-called code of conduct, a code that reflects the Assembly's own deeply flawed transgender policy, which explicitly states that biological males:

In plain language, that means that a man can use the ladies' toilets.

It gets worse. The policy demands that official records reflect a person's chosen name and gender identity, regardless of biological reality. That guts our system of accountability and undermines basic scrutiny and security. What good are records if anyone can change their identity on a whim? Even more disturbingly, the policy allows complaints to be filed against anyone who fails to affirm a person's gender identity. This should be a place of free speech, but that is a policy of compelled speech.

The Stormont guidance came into effect in 2023, seemingly without meaningful consultation, except, it seems, with the LGBT lobby groups. The equality screening form that I have unearthed claims that the policy does not affect people of faith or those with differing political views. What about Christians who believe that God made male and female? Well, our concerns are simply disregarded and brushed to the side. Those of us who are not on the transgender bandwagon are referred to the commissioner for investigation. Most gallingly of all, the screening form claims that the policy positively impacts women. Where are the voices of women? Who asked them whether they agreed to the scrapping of female-only spaces in this Building? Was legal advice sought? If so, it must have been pretty poor advice. The Supreme Court ruling has not changed the law; it has only reaffirmed it.

Single-sex protections remain in place, and Stormont must reflect that. The policy is not inclusive: it is intolerant and illegal and must be withdrawn immediately.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Paul Frew, but I remind you, Paul, that you have only one minute.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will talk about the amazing spectacle that is the North West 200, which was held last week. I record my sincere thanks to and appreciation for the clerk of the course, Stanleigh Murray, as well as Mervyn Whyte and the rest of the team. They put on a tremendous spectacle for all sports fans and tourists alike.

Thousands travelled to the north coast of Northern Ireland to view the bikes and their riders, and they witnessed some amazing races. My heart goes out to Michael Dunlop and Paul Jordan — two of our own, who won on Saturday and Thursday — as well as to the spectacular Davey Todd and Richard Cooper, who put on a tremendous show. We should value the North West 200 more. We in government should support it more and get in line with the sponsors, who know a good event when they see one. Well done to the North West 200.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Frew, for getting all that information and positivity into one minute.

Ms Sugden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the facilities in Parliament Buildings are the responsibility of the Assembly Commission, with all five political parties represented on it? Has the current policy, which was outlined by Mr Gaston, been challenged by any of the five political parties on the Assembly Commission?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly Commission and its policies are not matters of procedure of the House and are therefore not appropriate for points of order. The Member can table questions for written answer to the Assembly Commission on such matters.

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes 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 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mrs Dodds, please open the debate.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to debate what, I think, is a hugely important issue for everyone in the Chamber and in Northern Ireland. I submitted the motion last month. It was agreed by the Business Committee and was included in the provisional Order Paper that was circulated on 30 April. I was a little surprised, albeit delighted, that the Minister came to the House last week with his statement on waiting lists and the unacceptable times that people wait. I am sure that the timing of his statement could only have been coincidental.

How long we wait for healthcare services is an indicator of people's view of the overall state of our health service. I specifically wanted to debate the topic of cancer waiting lists because I am extremely concerned that, although the Department continues to issue appalling statistics for Northern Ireland, those statistics get only a cursory mention in the press or in the House.

Cancer Focus Northern Ireland indicates that none of the departmental targets for cancer has been met since 2012. Are we now so immune to such shocking statistics that they pass us by without our noticing them, or have we decided that that is just the way it is? I want those who are dealing with a cancer diagnosis or who have lost loved ones to cancer to know that the Assembly is determined to do better and that we will continue to hold the Minister of Health to account on that very important issue. For us to do anything less would be a failure of our duty as the scrutiny body of the Executive.

Cancer touches everyone in Northern Ireland, with half of us expected to receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime. The most recent cancer waiting times, published last month, reveal that 87·5% of patients started treatment within 31 days of diagnosis, against a target of 98%. The percentage decreased from that in the previous quarter and that in the same quarter of last year, with the poorest-performing areas being urology, gynaecology and skin cancer treatment. Minister, in your response to the debate, perhaps you will explain the issues that specifically relate to skin cancer treatment in the first quarter of this year.

Percentages for the 62-day treatment target for GP referral were worse. The target time was achieved in only 37·9% of cases, which falls far short of the 95% required. For the 14-day breast cancer target, 31·7% of women were seen within the target time, against a specified target of 100%. That means that less than a third of women are seen within the target time, and that figure is down further on that of a year ago. Just imagine the fear and distress of a woman who finds a lump in her breast and then has to wait a significant time before being seen by a consultant. The situation is letting down women in Northern Ireland, and it must be rectified.

Minister, in the response to my question for written answer that you provided on 7 October 2024, you explained previously announced plans to regionalise breast cancer waits into a single list. I hope that you have good news for us today, and I ask whether you can provide an update on that regional list and how effective it is proving to be. We hope that that is proving to be much more effective than the previous system, as indicated by the percentage of 31·7% for the 14-day referral target. If the regional list is not fully in place, the House deserves an explanation for its slow progress.

I will digress ever so slightly to give a voice to children in Northern Ireland who languish on waiting lists. Minister, you recently provided me with the startling statistic that almost 25,000 children are on waiting lists to see a paediatrician in the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust. Some 2,000 children are on a waiting list for surgery in the same trusts. I suggest that, by any departmental standards, that represents abject failure.

I welcome the ring-fencing of funding for health waiting lists. The issue will require prioritisation in the Health budget and additional funding from the Executive. I hope that, as we progress to having multi-year Budgets, the focus on waiting lists that was promised in the Programme for Government (PFG) will continue. I note the SDLP amendment, but I fear that it would diminish the responsibility to be placed on the Minister of Health to act in conjunction with his Executive colleagues, unless the Member who speaks to it can persuade me otherwise.

The Minister does not appear, either last Tuesday or at any other stage, to have picked up or embraced the potential for the delivery unit, which is referenced in the motion, to provide assistance. There can often be value in another set of eyes examining problems and offering a different perspective. That is why I have also referenced that in the motion.

As I have said before, I fear that the elective care framework is not nearly ambitious enough. I am not alone in that. It promotes more of the same through more small-scale offerings to our relatively modest independent sector, the majority of staff in which are already busy working for local trusts. Rather than really tackle root-and-branch reform of the elective care system, the Minister seems to prefer to resurrect a drip-feed reimbursement scheme in the form of the waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme. The Department will pay full price for every procedure as part of that scheme, and it turns the principle of the NHS on its head by allowing the wealthy to jump the queue. What possible benefit does the Minister's Republic of Ireland-first scheme really offer? A finite sum is available for all waiting list activity, so if every person who has the financial means to travel south to Dublin or elsewhere for treatment does so, that money will be gone and will not be available for treatments locally in Northern Ireland. Those who are next in line, who have waited the longest, will miss out. It does not broaden capacity, and I struggle to see the benefits. It does not result in more people being treated: it just means that companies in Dublin will benefit financially. I suggest that the Minister looks again at the proposed scheme.

Health and social care (HSC) workforce statistics demonstrate that, in the six and a half years since the end of March 2018, the number of doctors in Northern Ireland has increased by 24%, which is more than 1,000. Over the same period, our number of nurses and midwives has increased by more than 2,500, which is a 17·5% rise. With all those additional staff, why do waiting times, emergency department (ED) performances and other metrics continue to head in the wrong direction?

At paragraph 50, the updated elective care framework states:

The Royal College of Surgeons advises that surgeons want to have more theatre time and be able to operate more. What progress has been made on improving that position? The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, said that, without better productivity and health prevention measures, health costs could "dwarf" other areas of government spending. Indeed, Professor Bengoa pointed out in the autumn that, without reform, our system, which now takes up more than half of the block grant, would soon require all the block grant.

While Northern Ireland's performance deteriorates, NHS England confirmed last month that it has hit a key waiting target for the first time. NHS statistics confirm that 80·2% of patients who were urgently referred for suspected cancer were diagnosed or had it ruled out within 28 days. The Health Secretary and the Prime Minister have announced innovative plans to slash the waiting lists in England, although they are nowhere near as bad as ours. Patients are to be offered community diagnostic centres that are open 12 hours a day, seven days a week, where you can book scans after work or at weekends.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you. Minister, I hope that you have some good news for patients who are on those waiting lists.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opening of the debate and the fact that we are debating this incredibly important motion. It is the sort of thing that we should discuss in this place, because it goes to the core of what impacts on, frightens and scares people in the community. One can think of nothing that does that more than getting a diagnosis of cancer.

The amendment is offered in the spirit of trying to support and help the debate. We want to see a plan for dealing with waiting times, especially those for cancer services. The Health Minister regularly says that there are difficulties with finance. From a cross-Executive perspective, if we were able to ring-fence the funding as it makes its way towards you, Minister, that is exactly what it would be spent on, and it would mean that everybody in the Executive was taking the issue of cancer waiting times seriously. If the Department has and uses that funding, if we know what the outcome of that will be — that x amount of funds will reduce waiting lists by x amount — and if we all know what the funding is up front, there will be no competing for budgets when money goes down into Departments.

I mentioned "fear". I use that word deliberately, because it is all too often associated with cancer and cancer waiting times. For generations, the word "cancer" has carried a weight unlike that carried by any other. In the past, it was whispered; it was not spoken. It was the "Big C". It was the diagnosis that people feared more than any other. We know, sadly, that that fear remains. No matter how far medical science has come, the words "It's cancer" can land like a hammer blow. For the patient who receives them, alone or with a family member, it changes their life completely. As an elected representative, I have spoken to people who can recall with perfect clarity the moment when they heard that they had cancer. We all have party colleagues and family members who have received that news. We know that the world goes quiet and that the breath leaves your lungs. Life is then split into before the cancer diagnosis and after the cancer diagnosis. When waiting — waiting to be seen, waiting to know and waiting to begin treatment — is added on top of that fear, it becomes unbearable. It is no longer just the illness that hurts; it is the delay, the uncertainty and the feeling of being forgotten in that system. That is why we cannot speak about waiting times as though they are just dry statistics or an Executive target; they are people's stories and lives. It is our duty to respond with urgency and compassion. I have no doubt that Members across this place are committed to that cause, because none of us is immune to cancer and its impact.

We know that more must be done to combat cancer. It is important to look to best practice that we could consider adopting here. Some of that has been referenced. One example is that several NHS trusts in England and in the South now utilise AI and high-resolution digital imaging to analyse tissue biopsies. Little things such as that are being done in different ways to help to speed up diagnosis and, therefore, people's access to treatment. It has enabled faster, more accurate diagnosis, particularly in breast, lung and prostate cancers. In some instances, it has cut diagnostic waiting times by as much as 30%. We can clearly see how that reduces hospital pressures and helps to address health inequalities among those who are more prone to receiving such a diagnosis. We know that the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research has commenced work on that, but we should support it further.

While new and emerging technologies and new ways of running services are delivering better outcomes, we know that they carry a financial cost. Therefore, it is essential that funding for such services be ring-fenced across multi-year budgets. The reason for proposing the amendment is that we know that, in any sphere, if you know what your budget will be going forward, you can start to plan the work that you will do. You cannot do that if you have one-year budgets all the time or money coming in from monitoring rounds. If the Executive, supported by the Opposition in the House, decide that we want to tackle waiting lists, because it is one of the biggest issues, let us really throw all our might behind it. Let us give the Department the tools that it needs to tackle and reduce waiting lists, especially for cancer. As I have said several times, there is nothing more frightening than getting a cancer diagnosis, but, after getting that diagnosis, there is nothing more insulting than weeks and weeks of radio silence while you wait to access treatment. I really believe that ring-fenced budgets would help. They would give the Health Minister another tool to continue his work of challenging waiting lists and giving the people in our community who get a cancer diagnosis the best possible fighting chance of overcoming it.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing the issue to the Chamber today. The most recent statistics for waiting times for cancer patients do not make good reading: they highlight a situation for cancer patients that simply is not good enough. As we have heard, only 87·5% of cancer patients started treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat, instead of the target of 98%. Only 37·9% of patients started treatment within 62 days following an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer, when that target is set at 95%. Just 31·7% of people were seen by a breast cancer specialist within 14 days of an urgent referral, despite the fact that all urgent breast cancer referrals should be seen within two weeks.

As I said when I made a Member's statement on the issue in the House a month ago, after the figures were published, we have to acknowledge that several caveats are at play with any statistics, so some caution should be exercised. What is clear, however, is that the reality falls far short of the expectations that people have when they begin their journey of cancer tests and, if appropriate, diagnosis and treatment. It is important to remember that those figures are not just statistics but equate to real people. In many cases, they equate to our own lived experience or that of family members, friends, work colleagues, neighbours or people in our wider communities. Any delay in diagnosis or treatment has the potential to impact on physical and mental health. Anyone who has waited for an appointment following a red-flag or urgent referral will attest to the worry and anxiety that fill the time between that referral and getting the results. For those who receive a cancer diagnosis, the need for urgency in getting any necessary surgery and beginning treatment can become all-consuming.

We are now acutely aware of the importance of catching and treating cancer early in order to improve outcomes. Awareness-raising campaigns that encourage us all to be alert to early indications of certain types of cancers have been very effective. They allow the continued growth of opportunities to screen people who do not have symptoms, which has, no doubt, helped to save lives. It is important that that is followed up by timely intervention. That is good not just for patients but for the health service as a whole. We are into the third year of a 10-year cancer strategy, and we must do better. The Minister must build on the cancer strategy's recommendations, including a focus on cancer research, which has a key role in improving diagnostics, treatment options and, ultimately, patient outcomes. The concerns raised in the Auditor General's recent report on the condition of imaging equipment such as MRI and CT scanners need to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will provide an update on that in his response.

Where improvements and progress towards reducing waiting times are being made, that should be acknowledged. The rapid diagnosis centres and mega-clinics referred to in the motion are good example of that. I welcome the additional £10 million that has been allocated to those clinics and the commitment to invest in red-flag and time-critical services, capacity-building and clearing the backlog. The Minister's statement last week was welcome, but the implementation plans, which are to be published later this month, must include clear targets, timelines and performance indicators. Transparency will be key to building public confidence that the investment is being used to its maximum effect.

Today is International Nurses Day. I record my support for and appreciation of all our nurses and all those training to be nurses for their compassion and hard work and the invaluable role that they play in supporting patients across all settings in our health service, helping our communities and keeping our people healthy. In the context of the debate, we are all aware of the pressures on our health service and the people who work in it, so, again, I take the opportunity to recognise that and the work of all our healthcare professionals.

Miss McAllister: I thank my colleague on the Health Committee for moving the motion.

Like others who have already spoken, I express deep concern and dismay at the current state of cancer waiting lists in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that we are debating the matter. We have discussed it over many months since the return of the Assembly, but the hope is that, in the end, the situation and outcome will get better. As a member of the Health Committee, I am frustrated by the lack of progress. However, I recognise the attempts at making progress. I can only imagine how difficult it is for members of the public and how they must feel when they do not have the capacity to get the answers that they require to the question of when they will receive their diagnosis or treatment.

As has already been highlighted by many Members, only 31·7% — the target is 100% — of breast cancer referrals were seen within the 14-day target from September to December 2024. As colleagues have said, we heard from the Minister last week regarding the breast cancer regional referral system, and I asked a question after that ministerial statement about whether we could receive an update on that. If the Minister does not have an update today, we could perhaps ask for that update at our next Health Committee meeting. Regional planning is important. Breast cancer is just one of the cancers that can be targeted regionally. In my questions after the ministerial statement last week, I also asked about the planning of other regional waiting lists, because many medics have highlighted the fact that there are multiple people on multiple waiting lists across the trusts.

We have also seen that 1,445 cancer patients started treatment following urgent GP referral for suspected cancer and that 37·9% of them started their treatment within the 62-day target. However, the target is 95%, as has been highlighted previously. When we speak to the medics on the ground, whether it is emergency medicine workers, staff, consultants or resident doctors, many say that some of those diagnoses are being made in our A&E departments. That is not a situation that we should find ourselves in.

Those are just two examples of a slight increase from the previous quarter, but 31·7% and 37·9% are not good enough results, and I do not doubt that the Minister agrees.

The 2020 study published in the British Medical Journal, which states that, for many cancers, a four-week delay to surgery increases the risk of dying by 6% to 8%, adds even more weight to the idea that we should do something now to change that outcome permanently. Statistics from Cancer Research UK show that almost all those who are diagnosed with breast cancer at stage 1 will survive compared with only three in 10 who are diagnosed at stage 4. Likewise, with bowel cancer, nine in 10 people diagnosed at stage 1 will survive, yet it is only one in 10 for those who are diagnosed at stage 4. We are talking about people whose lives are so drastically impacted on — it impacts not only on them but on their families.

Another issue that many Members have touched on today is the fact that the statistics are not entirely complete. With the roll-out of Encompass, I ask the Minister this: when will we start to get complete statistics so that we can compare and see where progress has been made? We stood in the Chamber last week and welcomed the progress that was highlighted by the Minister on tackling waiting lists and the initiatives created, but we now need to see and evaluate the effectiveness not only of those actions but of the actions that have been taking place since the Assembly was restored.

I am delighted to support the motion, but it is difficult to get up time and again to talk about the unacceptable delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Thank you very much for tabling the motion.

Mr Chambers: Few issues are as important as cancer care. As we all know, cancer is a disease that does not wait but, instead, often thrives in any period of delay. That is what makes the current challenges, which have existed for a considerable number of years, so intolerable. The delays are being compounded by increasing levels of cancer prevalence. Cancer is increasingly becoming one of those diseases that will impact on all our lives at some point, either directly or indirectly. The motion, understandably, is shining a light on the challenges that undoubtedly face the broader service. Of course, behind every statistic, every percentage or every missed target is a patient and family going through the very real fears and anxieties that come with cancer. For MLAs and, no doubt, the Minister, few issues are considered as seriously as delays in time-critical treatments. Thankfully, tangible actions have been taken and progress has been made in recent times. For instance, the pathways and treatments for blood cancer were far too disjointed, but reviews of the three main pathways have now been completed, and new ways of working have been adopted, with the primary objective of having faster treatment and better outcomes for patients.

Equally, waiting times for breast cancer assessments have been genuinely awful. Again, major progress has been made, even in recent days, which I hope will see a much greater equalisation of waiting times in the coming months. We should all hope that the postcode lottery for waiting times, which has seen women in some trusts having to wait much longer than others, will now be at an end once and for all.

Last week, we also had an overview from the Minister on how he is going to allocate the elective funding that has been ring-fenced in this year's budget. He has understandably, and rightly, prioritised a proportion from that for tackling the urgent and time-critical waits. As the Minister will likely highlight once again, the vast majority of the £215 million is not new or additional money. I welcome the amendment that has been selected. It emphasises again the importance of multi-year funding. However, for the avoidance of doubt and perhaps to help inform the remainder of the debate, I will give way to any of the signatories to the amendment if they want to clarify that it is asking the Minister of Finance to commit to additional funding, rather than to ring-fencing existing Health funding.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for giving way. Yes, absolutely. There is not enough money to deal with the issues that we have, so I entirely expect that it will take additional and ring-fenced funds to be given to Health. If we are truly serious about dealing with the issue, we absolutely need more funds, but they should be ring-fenced so that they specifically go to Health and the public can see what they are doing.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Member for that clarity.

In conclusion, I am really disappointed with the continuing negativity from Mrs Dodds about the reimbursement scheme, which is a genuine attempt to reduce our waiting lists. To say that it will not have an impact on the waiting lists is a nonsense, because if it takes 1,000 people off the waiting list, that means that 1,000 fewer people are ahead of you as you wait for your procedure. When summing up the proposals, I would be interested in the DUP's clarifying whether Mrs Dodds's point of view is, in fact, DUP policy now for that scheme.

Ms Ferguson: This subject touches every one of us in the Chamber and, indeed, throughout our communities, whether it be through personal experience or the experience of a family member, friend or neighbour. We have all been affected by cancer. If, by some small chance, you have not been yet, you will be. Obviously, that is the brutal truth of it. Let us be absolutely clear: lengthy waits for a diagnosis can devastate a person's prognosis, limit the treatment options available and place an unbearable burden on the mental health of the patient and their family. That is not acceptable, not in 2025 and not ever.

I welcome the £215 million that has been ring-fenced in the Executive's Budget to address waiting lists, but what matters now is how that money is spent. It must be spent efficiently and strategically and not be lost in any bureaucratic layers or swallowed by systems that are no longer fit for purpose. We need a dual focus on short-term capacity and long-term reform. Elective care centres, rapid diagnostic hubs and mega-clinics can make a real difference. So too can better data, better planning and better cross-community trust and cooperation. We cannot just pour money into old models; we must invest in smarter, more sustainable outcomes. This is not just the Minister of Health's responsibility; it is a shared responsibility. The Health Committee, other parties across the Chamber and the wider health and voluntary sectors all stand ready to help the Minister. The people whom we represent want to see action, and we urge the Minister to take the lead and engage proactively with Executive colleagues to drive change across the board. It is also imperative that the voices of teenagers and young people are heard on this issue. Around 115 teenagers and young adults here are diagnosed with cancer every year, and they must be fully represented in healthcare planning and support services.

We also need to confront a serious issue: women are more likely to experience late diagnosis and worse outcomes in many non-sex-specific cancers. In bladder, kidney, colorectal, gastric and head-and-neck cancers, women face significantly longer delays than men, sometimes by weeks. Those delays cost lives. Too often, women's symptoms are dismissed or misattributed to stress or menstrual pain. At the same time, women are underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to gaps in understanding of how treatments affect them. Between 2019 and 2023, male-only clinical trials outnumbered female-focused ones by 67%. That is unacceptable. We must raise awareness, equip healthcare professionals with gender-sensitive training and ensure that clinical research includes and reflects the needs of women. I urge all women to attend breast and cervical screening and also to take up bowel screenings, skin checks and other cancer diagnostics. As we know, vigilance saves lives.

I take this opportunity to commend the work of Cancer Focus, Cancer Research and a local organisation in my constituency, Hive Cancer Support, which does fantastic work in raising awareness in the local population of the key symptoms and signs to look out for. I urge everyone here, when they see information around that, to continuously share it on social media.

Finally, we must think beyond the borders. There are real opportunities in the cross-border healthcare directive and in an all-Ireland approach. We already have outstanding all-Ireland cancer research bodies. We should be building on that, sharing knowledge, expertise and capacity across the island to ensure that no one waits longer than they have to for a diagnosis, a treatment or a fighting chance. Let us match our words with urgency and compassion. Let us ring-fence the funding and make it count. Let us reform, not just react. The people of Ireland deserve nothing less.

Mr Frew: I support the motion from my party colleagues Ms Diane Dodds and Mr Alan Robinson. I place on record our satisfaction and our gratitude to Diane and Alan for the sterling work that they do on the Health Committee in representing the people and, secondly, this party and its views and policies. It is service that is second to none, and that has been reflected in the debate. The near-unanimous support for Diane and Alan's motion is a measure of the strength that they have in that Committee. If we, as a devolved Assembly, cannot assist in our nation's health, we may as well shut up and go home. There is nothing more important than the health of our people, because from health springs everything else. Therefore, it is vital that people have a health service when they require it.

People need to have trust and confidence not only in our health service but in our Health Department. I make a distinction between the two because very rarely do you get a complaint about a staff member — the caring nurses and doctors who meet and greet patients under traumatic circumstances with diagnoses of the most serious nature. We do not usually get walk-ins to congratulate the health service. We usually have to prise it out of people, but when you do get to speak to people, they usually tell you that they had really good service and that a really good, caring bunch of professionals looked after them. However, there are so many horrific stories from people who come into our offices who are still waiting and waiting and waiting. A diagnosis can be devastating, traumatising, horrific. Imagine the fear and distress, though, when they have to wait and wait and wait. The statistics — they are people — are absolutely shocking and shameful. If the devolved Assembly cannot get to grips with waiting times, not least cancer waiting times, we will have failed.

What do we do? Trust in the Health Department is probably at its lowest ebb in decades, so it is important that we have a strong Minister. To be honest, it is probably more important for all of us that we have a strong Minister in Health compared with any other Department. As I listened to Members speaking, I could not help but think of the Members who have been affected by cancer. I have been here since 2010, and I can rack up a few Members who have been directly affected or have family members who have been affected. My prayers and thoughts have always been with those people. However, that just shows what cancer does and how it rips through communities, families and people. It is probably the biggest enemy that our people have when it comes to health, so why can we not get to grips with it?

I remember being in someone's house the week after they were diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, it was the week in which our previous Health Minister said, during COVID, that cancer patients would be turned away. Words can be clumsy, and I am as much a culprit of that as anyone, but the devastating effect that those words had on that lady was as if she was melting away in pain, sorrow and anxiety. When people sit on waiting lists, it is as if the clock goes faster, and they become more and more anxious and stressed. Of course, stress, being what it is, will impact on and affect people on waiting lists, not least those with cancer.

Cancer is a devastating illness that needs to be tackled, and we should resolve to do all that we can. However, if we think that we can simply throw money at the issue without the Health Department and the health service being transformed, we are mistaken —

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

Mr Frew: — because one must come with the other.

Mr Donnelly: I thank Mrs Dodds and Mr Robinson for tabling the motion. We have heard plenty of statistics already, and they are harrowing. We miss every target. Unacceptable delays are now normalised, and, yes, the numbers are awful.

I fear that, in among all the noise, we are beginning to lose sight of what the numbers represent. We are here today because every missed cancer target is a person: a woman waiting weeks to hear whether a lump is cancerous; a father whose treatment is delayed; or a family who are trapped in uncertainty. The debate is not about systems but about lives. As has been said, we all know somebody who has been affected by cancer.

The statistics represent not a marginal failure but a systemic breakdown, and, critically, the statistics are not a one-off but part of a pattern that has become dangerously routine. We regularly get updates on missed targets. Not delivering has become normal. As Mrs Dodds said, news reports barely mention the missed targets. The evidence is clear that early diagnosis and treatment saves lives. A delay of just four weeks in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by up to 8%. Those are not abstract figures. Rather, they are measured in lives that have been shortened, in more aggressive treatment plans and by the emotional toll on patients and their families, who are navigating a longer and more uncertain journey.

The Executive have recently allocated £215 million in the Budget to address waiting lists. That is a significant investment, but, let us be honest, money without vision and accountability will not be enough. We cannot ignore the fact that we already have a comprehensive cancer strategy, which was launched in 2022 with broad political and sectoral support, yet, three years on, it remains largely underfunded. A strategy without resources is just a press release. If we are serious about change, we must back our ambitions with actual investment and not just intentions.

Let us not forget that sustainable health reform cannot be delivered through one-year Budgets. Hospitals, trusts and front-line services cannot plan staffing, invest in diagnostic capacity or roll out innovations when they have only 12 months of certainty. Multi-year Budgets are not optional but essential if we are to stop firefighting and instead start planning. Every pound that we spend must be tied to outcomes. We absolutely need short-term wins, such as more appointments, faster access and backlogs cleared, but they alone will not solve the problem. Rather, we need lasting, structural reform.

There has been progress made, such as investment in long-term capacity, rapid diagnostic centres, mega-clinics and elective care hubs and better use of digital systems and technology in order to streamline care. I welcome the Minister's recent announcement and his plans to address waiting times, but I stress that those plans cannot become another forum for discussion. They must deliver. They must challenge Departments and empower them to cut through the layers of bureaucracy and to prioritise front-line services where they are needed most. That means institutional reform.

For too long, our health system has been burdened by fragmented structures, sluggish processes and the recurring pattern of stop-start governance. That instability has paralysed long-term planning, undermined investment in critical services and left Departments scrambling to manage crisis after crisis. In the nine years since the release of the Bengoa report in 2016, we have had a functioning Assembly for only four years, owing to the shutdowns of this place by the two biggest parties. We know that the Assembly is only as stable today as it was the day before the most recent shutdown.

Cancer care, like so much else, cannot thrive in a system in which governance is intermittent. We need a stable Government that function consistently, cohesively and with accountability. The current model is failing patients, and that situation cannot go on. It is also vital that we protect and support our health workforce, because the truth is that no reform, no matter how ambitious, will work unless we have the people to deliver it. Nurses, radiologists, oncologists and so many others are exhausted, and too many are leaving the system.

I urge the Minister to look at increasing the availability of screening by lowering the age for bowel cancer screening and by introducing a plan to screen for lung cancer. Perhaps he can speak to that in his remarks. The Minister is keen to act on screening, and he has previously said that it is something that he cares about. Sadly, we know that one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. Cancer does not wait, so neither should we.

Mr Dickson: Cancer is not just a disease but a thief that steals time, futures and lives. Although cancer does not discriminate, our systems, sadly, do. They discriminate between those who get seen on time and those who do not and between those who survive and those who become a statistic. I know that, because I stood in those shoes. In 2019, I sat across a table from a consultant and heard the words that no one wants to hear, "You have cancer". I learned something else that day, however, which was the difference that speed, expertise and decisive action can make.

I am thankful for the extraordinary staff in the NHS and their skills, including my GP, the staff at Antrim Area Hospital and the Cancer Centre and the surgeons at Belfast City Hospital.

Before I move on, I have a question for the Minister. The theatres at Belfast City Hospital are always over capacity: when will plans be provided for the new elective care theatres at Belfast City Hospital? When will they be built to take pressure off the existing facilities?

I stand here, having survived one of the least survivable cancers. My story should not be the exception; it should be the norm. Instead, the system is failing far too many people across Northern Ireland when they need it most. The latest figures are not just disappointing: they are a disgrace. Between October and December 2024, only 34% of patients began treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral, and the gap is widening. Ten years ago, the figure was more than double that. As for breast cancer, only one third were seen within the critical 14-day window, down five percentage points on the previous year. Let me be clear: that is not just inefficiency; it is injustice. Every day, that is a gamble with lives. Research in the British Medical Journal shows that a four-week delay in cancer surgery increases the risk of death by 7%, rising to 13% for radiotherapy and chemotherapy. For breast cancer, delays of eight and 12 weeks can increase the risk of death by 17% and 26%. Those are not numbers: they are our parents, partners, children and friends. They are people who can be saved but only if we act quickly and with the urgency that the system demands.

Funding alone is not enough. Yes, the allocation of £215 million for waiting lists is welcome, but questions remain over implementation that, I hope, will be addressed in the elective care framework action plan that will be published later this month. We need to see detailed plans and programmes to improve outcomes and a workforce that retains the specialists whom we are losing. Above all, we need to treat the situation with the urgency that it demands. Behind every statistic is someone's mother, father or child who is running out of days while we stand here and debate. We must never forget the human cost of those failures.

To those watching today who are waiting for a diagnosis, waiting for treatment and waiting for hope, I say this: I see you because I have been there. I have sat where you sit. I know the frustration, the anger and the sadness. I saw it in patients around me who did not make the journey that I made. However, I know that change is possible, so long as we and the Minister have the political will to act. Minister, why has it has taken so long to get to this position? Why was this not part of your day-1 brief? The time for warm words is over. Now is the time to show a real plan that is measurable and timetabled and contains actions for delivery.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion and the amendment. I commend the motion's sponsors, because these are the issues that the House needs to talk about. Our role as public representatives is to improve public services, and we could certainly do better in this area.

The state of cancer waiting times in Northern Ireland is not only unacceptable but deeply unjust. In Women's Health Month, I want to talk about breast cancer waiting times. We have heard that fewer than one in three patients referred urgently for suspected breast cancer were seen within the 14-day target. Just over one third of patients referred with suspected cancer began treatment within 62 days. Those are not just missed targets; they are missed chances to intervene, reassure and save lives. I know what it feels like. I recently found a lump and, like many women, was red-flagged. That should have meant getting an appointment within two weeks, but I waited 12 weeks. Had I lived just a few miles away in another trust area, I would likely have been seen much sooner. That postcode lottery is as real as it is unfair.

Thankfully, my result showed that it was just benign breast tissue. However, for 12 weeks, I, like so many others, sat with uncertainty. I was as sick as a dog. Every time I showered, I felt the lump. Right now, too many people across Northern Ireland recognise that fear and that awful question hanging in the air.

When I was finally seen — on a Sunday, thanks to additional clinic capacity — the service was outstanding: a one-stop shop where, if I had needed a biopsy, I would have got it that day. The staff were compassionate. The system was efficient. All of that should be the norm, not the exception. What really struck me most was the waiting room. It was packed with women of all ages, backgrounds and ethnicities. Some were sitting on their own. Some were holding hands. All were waiting in silence. The weight of anxiety was palpable. That is why the debate matters: it is not just about capacity but fairness. It is about the emotional toll of delay. It is about ensuring that no woman — no patient — is left sitting for weeks or months without answers, especially when we can do better. As public servants, we can do better.

I welcome the regional breast assessment list. It is a vital step towards ending that postcode-based inequality. It makes sense. Why it has not been in place before now is baffling. I welcome the £215 million that has been allocated for the waiting list work. I support the call for it to be ring-fenced and applied in a way that genuinely increases short-term capacity and long-term reform. The issue will repeat itself in 10 years if we do not do as the amendment says and have multi-year budgets. Mega-clinics, elective care centres and the new delivery unit all show promise, but they must be expanded and embedded as part of systemic change, not a pilot project that comes and goes as funding comes and goes.

Let us also be honest about the need for sustained multi-year investment, not just headline announcements, because reform will succeed only if it is resourced, strategic and focused on patient outcomes. The motion asks us to step up not just as politicians but as people who are entrusted with the care of our communities. We must fix this, and we can fix it this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, Question Time begins at 2.00 pm so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister of Health. Please take your ease.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 13 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 10 together.

The delivery of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls requires a whole-of-society approach. We have engaged with Ofcom on online safety and mobilised work across all councils through our change fund. The Online Safety Act 2023 introduced new, UK-wide laws to protect children and adults from online harm, and placed specific obligations on online service providers. We support Ofcom's call to tech companies to play their part in addressing the risks of online harm, and recently met Ofcom to discuss that important issue. The ending violence against women and girls small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund has identified a number of innovative solutions for women and girls' safety, including challenging problematic behaviours online. A current Ofcom consultation is looking specifically at the protection of women and girls online.

I am pleased to have got confirmation in the past couple of weeks that a person has been successfully prosecuted, under a section 181 charge, for making threats against me. The charge was of sending messages by way of online communication conveying a threat of death or serious harm, and at the time of sending, intending that the individual — me — would be in fear that the threat would be carried out. That is one of the more serious charges in that legislation. I am pleased that there has been a successful prosecution of that individual and that he will be sentenced very shortly.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, deputy First Minister for that answer. I express my solidarity with you on the threat and abuse that you received. Hopefully, the individual in question will be held to account for that.

There has been speculation that tech regulation and online safety regulation may be on the table as part of trade negotiations that the UK Government have undertaken with a number of countries. Do you agree that we should not sacrifice online safety regulation and the safety of women and girls online as part of those negotiations? Have you made representations to the UK Government to that effect?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware of the UK-US trade agreement that was announced last week. We are working through the details of that. Many people will be pleased to see that that rumoured aspect did not feature. The Member will also be aware that, for many years, my colleagues and I have advocated stronger protections for women, in particular. In recent months, we have seen threats towards and abuse of public representatives — men and women — across the House. We have raised the fact that there is a particular issue, as recognised by a number of reports, for women. With the incident that I mentioned — I know that many of us get a significant amount of abuse — where a specific threat of death was communicated via online communications, I am glad that the legislation was there. That is a good demonstration that the Online Safety Act can and will be used to successfully prosecute, and we await sentencing. It is incredibly important that the courts take these matters seriously. It is an issue that unites all of us: we stand shoulder to shoulder to say that it is absolutely wrong that there is abuse of, and threats and violence towards, any public person, never mind an elected representative, who is simply trying to do their job.

Mr Harvey: Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable that any woman in public life should have a fear of violence simply because they are doing their job?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. Women have a right to participate in public life without suffering abuse or threats of violence. Indeed, we want to actively encourage women to get into public life. However, sadly, we know from personal experience — we have heard the stories from many people, not just in this place but in other public roles — that women in public life are subjected to serious, sustained and severe abuse on social media. Often, one cannot identify who the person is or that the threat may include a specific act or threat of violence. Nevertheless, we know that the abuse builds up and has a negative impact on not just those individuals but the participation of women generally, with women not wanting to be part of public life or to become a public representative due to that. It is an important issue that is right at the heart of our strategy to end violence against women and girls. It is one of many behaviours that takes place because of prejudice and misogyny. It needs to be stamped out.

Ms Hunter: I put on record my solidarity with and support for you, deputy First Minister, in everything that you are going through. No one should have to face any kind of threat when doing their job.

Recently, during a discussion in the European Parliament, there was a suggestion of having a direct helpline — a 911, if you will — for digital abuse. Do you think that we should have something similar here in Northern Ireland specifically to tackle misogynistic digital abuse?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her sentiments and her important question. There is always a balance when it comes to free speech in all of this. In any democracy, people should be able to freely express a view, but, where that crosses over into abuse or threats, that is clearly wrong. I welcome the fact that it has been recognised that a number of tools are needed to deal with the issue, including not just the new offences under the Online Safety Act that we have seen in action already but the aspects of that legislation that compel social media and online companies to take action. That is why the current Ofcom consultation is really important. I believe that it is open until 23 May. I encourage Members to respond to that by telling of their own experiences and the types of issues that the guidance needs to cover. That will be vital. I do not want any woman or girl to suffer abuse online. I certainly do not want it to get to a level at which a young person feels that they do not want to go into politics or at which a woman feels that they want to step back from front-line politics. It is really important that we tackle the issue. It is important for inclusion to be there and for our public representative space to be a safe one in which people are able to do what they need to do.

Ms Ennis: I, too, send solidarity to the deputy First Minister and everybody across the House who has experienced abuse in the course of their role. It is completely unacceptable and needs to be called out.

Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on the Power to Change public awareness campaign?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Indeed. We know that that type of abuse causes significant distress and can make people very scared. I felt afraid, and I continue to feel afraid when I think about the future, because of the actions of that individual. That is utterly wrong. I think that, despite our differences in political opinions and aspirations, we all get into public life to try to make a positive difference and to do what we can to push forward an agenda that we feel passionately about or to help and support individuals with their cases. It is fundamentally wrong that, in trying to do that, we can suffer abuse and threats and can be put in a position of feeling fearful about that.

Our strategy recognises that that behaviour starts at a much earlier stage; as I said, it starts at the point at which those values, prejudices and opinions are formed. That is why that campaign is so important. It is about encouraging people to be active bystanders and call out that behaviour at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not just a bit of a laugh; it represents a certain type of view that makes people very uncomfortable. It starts at a very early stage. Unfortunately, we often see that come to a particular point at which there is threat, violence and worse. I am glad that the strategy deals with that in the broadest possible way. The campaign is important as part of that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The recent Supreme Court judgement on the For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the definitions of "sex", "man" and "woman" refer to biological sex. The issue is under consideration in the Department and right across government. It is important to remember that the judgement is likely to have tangential and other impacts. It is likely to have an impact here in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that, over the next number of weeks, there will be much discourse and debate and that guidance and other things will be issued. It is also important that our public bodies, Departments and others pay attention to the judgement and make sure that they comply with the law.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is fundamentally wrong and unfair that trans people who are biologically male have been able to compete in women's sports, use women's bathrooms and be placed on female prison wings?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. That is a topical question, for understandable reasons. I commend those who have campaigned on the issue — who have been subjected to a significant amount of abuse for trying to stand up and protect female-only spaces for women. We must always be conscious that the debate should be carried out in a way that is not about offending anybody; of course it is not. It is not about not recognising people's existence or demeaning them. It is about recognising biological reality and the right that women have to be protected in women-only spaces. It is about recognising what is, in my strong view, the fundamental and unfair advantage that somebody who is born male has in a sports team or sports arena. Fundamentally, it is common sense. I think that the vast majority of people recognise that and do not want the debate to be carried out in a way that hurts or demeans people but instead want the rights of women to be stood up for and implemented in a way that protects women, particularly in spaces where they are vulnerable or where there could be significant unfairness.

Mr O'Toole: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court case, which is a court case and needs to be understood and acknowledged, will you, as deputy First Minister, make any attempt to reach out specifically to people in the trans community — ordinary trans people, including those who are having an event upstairs in the Building today — who feel anxious and, at times, frankly threatened by some of the language that is used in politics, in order to assure them that they are esteemed and should be treated with proper respect?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question and assure him that I have engaged with the trans community on a number of occasions to date. I will say this very clearly: in everything that I say, I make it clear that no person should be subject to harassment or discrimination, and, indeed, that people should be attributed dignity — of course they should. I feel very strongly about this issue, which has been very toxic. Women who have taken a different view from the trans lobby, for example, have been subjected to vile abuse and threats, including death threats and threats of violence. That is wrong.

There are different views on the issue. Fundamentally, it is a common-sense approach that "male" and "female" relate to biological sex and that, in implementing that, we protect women in women-only spaces and should ensure that there is fairness in things such as sport.

Mr Carroll: I condemn the threats towards you, deputy First Minister. Violence or threats of violence towards anybody are disgraceful and wrong, whoever the person is.

Given that the BMA stated that the Supreme Court ruling is "biologically nonsensical" and "scientifically illiterate", do you think that we should listen to the medical experts rather than foolishly follow the Supreme Court ruling here?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Let us be very clear that the Supreme Court is the court. It is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is made up of people who sit and make a judgement on such legal matters. It is a matter of biology as well. A woman is a woman. I am a woman. I know what I am. With the greatest respect to the Member, as I said, we can engage in debate on this in a respectful way, but there are, nevertheless, strong views, and they should be respected. I have a strong view, as do many women and others, that the Supreme Court was correct, and they look forward to seeing its judgement being implemented in a way that does not harass or demean people but protects women.

Mr Blair: I ask that we move away from opinions and views to fact, so, in light of that, I ask this: what impact will the clarity of the assessment on the need for non-discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment have on the Executive Office's work on equality for all, including members of our trans community?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my initial response, the matters are under consideration, but there is no doubt that, legally speaking, it is not just a matter of opinion. It is clear that the Supreme Court judgement will have tangential impacts and that there will be significant impact across many areas of operation of Departments, agencies and arm's-length bodies. Clear guidance needs to be given on the law, and that is a duty on each Department and body. I know that there has been reference to the Equality Commission and other bodies. Those bodies can issue their own guidance, which we will look at carefully, but the legal position is the legal position, and bodies and Departments must make sure that they comply factually and legally with what the Supreme Court has said. We will look at these issues carefully.

Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister outline the protections that exist for trans people here?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Significant protections remain in place for individuals from the trans community here. For individuals who are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment, there is the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, as amended by the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 and the Sex Discrimination Order 1976 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. There are also protections in the Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005. There is quite a bit of protection here, as, indeed, there is across the UK. The judgement referred to other legislation and guidance that may refer to "men" and "women" without the specific interpretations set out in those other pieces of legislation.

I assure people that there are protections, but it is about also protecting places for women where they are particularly vulnerable, for example, or where there would be any unfairness in relation to inclusion.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are considering options for filling vacancies on the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) Development Corporation board. We recognise that the vacancies place an additional burden on the remaining board members, and we are grateful to them for their continued efforts and commitment.

It would be remiss of us to discuss the Maze/Long Kesh site without mentioning the Balmoral show, which will take place later this week from 14 May to 17 May. It is a fantastic showcase for the region and, indeed, our agriculture and agrisector. We encourage everyone to visit if at all possible. We would also like to highlight the fantastic work of the Ulster Aviation Society (UAS), which, as Members may well be aware, brought the Spitfire replica to Parliament Buildings last week as part of the commemoration and celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. The UAS attends a variety of shows and events, but members of the public can arrange to visit the collection in the hangars, and I genuinely encourage people to do so. The UAS has a remarkable collection at the site, so it is a really good day out.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire as ucht a freagra.

Minister, will you detail what is happening with the retained and listed buildings on the site?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member is likely to be aware, there is an obligation relating to maintenance of the listed and retained buildings, and that continues.

Mr Honeyford: The role of the Maze/Long Kesh board is to deliver the development of the whole site. You have mentioned the Ulster Aviation Society and the Balmoral show, which are great examples of what can happen. We have also heard the deputy First Minister talk about sensitivity, but that should not mean doing nothing. When will the deputy First Minister enable progress that will see the board able to fulfil its job?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that I have a constituency interest in the site as well. The site has huge potential. I would particularly love to see the economic potential of that site unlocked. The Member will be aware that, alas, there is no agreement on the listed and retained buildings. The then deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, set down that there would be no development above and beyond what had already been agreed until there was such agreement. There was a subsequent agreement to allow the Air Ambulance to be located on the site, and I welcomed that agreement.

At this stage the issue has stopped the economic and other potential of the site. I appeal not only to my colleague in the Executive Office but others to use a pragmatic approach to allow some of the potential to be realised in the meantime, while we continue to look at some of those other tricky issues.

Mr Dunne: Will the deputy First Minister join me in noting the positive contribution of large-scale events such as the Balmoral show, the North West 200 and the Open Championship, which is coming up in Royal Portrush, in showcasing the very best of Northern Ireland and their impact?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. I thank the Member for his timely question. I was at the North West 200 on Saturday, and the First Minister was there on Thursday evening, which, I believe, was her first time at it. It was a spectacular occasion. Over 100,000 spectators enjoyed the sunshine. There was sunshine for the second Saturday in a row in the north-west, and it really brought the spectators out. My goodness, what a showcase of our wonderful north coast through that event.

Events like that are not just about the spectators, riders and participants in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the Open and other events, such as the Balmoral show and the VE Day celebrations of last week, showcase our fantastic offering in Northern Ireland. Millions of people all over the globe will have watched the North West 200, and millions will watch the Open this summer. They will see our beautiful coastline and get to know about Northern Ireland, and we hope that they will say, "I am interested in finding out more". It is a real opportunity for us to attract those tourists or that investment and business through the unique aspects of what we can offer. We should use every opportunity to promote Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Paul Frew, I remind Members and, indeed, the deputy First Minister that all supplementary questions and answers need to relate to the question. Minister, you will have to repeat yourself when answering question 5.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Victims' Payments Board, which makes decisions on entitlement to payment through the victims' payments scheme, has advised that the inclusion of postcode information when applying is not mandatory. That means that a large number of applicants do not provide that data, which means that it is not possible to use the board's IT system to get a breakdown of successful applications by constituency. A manual review of applications would be required to retrieve that information.

I have communicated, though, that I believe that the information would be useful, particularly in the planning of services, were it communicated to the Department of Health. We know that many people have come forward to the board, and they have not been diagnosed with conditions, particularly on the mental health side. Having the data would be really useful for the planning of support services. As I outlined, at the moment, it is challenging to extract it from the system.

As of the week commencing 28 April 2025, more than 11,000 applications have been submitted to the scheme and a total of 3,204 determinations have been made, resulting in more than £89 million being paid to eligible applicants since the scheme opened for applications.

Mr Frew: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Maybe the reason that we cannot get that data is the real fear and concern that some victims have about the terrorist threat. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the crass and hurtful glorification of terrorism by the First Minister goes against the ministerial code of conduct and the spirit of peace and reconciliation and makes a nonsense of the claim to be a First Minister for all?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The First Minister is answerable for her own activities, of course, but I can say clearly to this place that I believe that any glorification of terrorism is wrong. Of course, families may want to remember their loved one, and they can do so privately. That is understandable, but the public glorification of those who have been convicted of terrorist activities is absolutely wrong in my view. It has no part to play in Northern Ireland, and it never did. It certainly has no part to play in our future. I want us all to stand united against paramilitarism, intimidation, threats and any glorification of same.

Mr McNulty: First Minister, your colleague, the other First Minister, believes that the horrendous and futile violence of the past was justified, and her party believes the same thing. Do you believe that it is justifiable that many victims of that violence are languishing, unable to access justice or the permanent disablement payment scheme, and are suffering physically and mentally with pain and impairments?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. I have met many who applied to the scheme: those who were severely injured and those who have permanent mental scars as a result of what they experienced during the Troubles. The scheme is designed to try to support them. I am pleased to say that I have been very much involved in supporting the scheme throughout and in pushing the UK Government, at a time when this place was not sitting, to introduce legislation. I am on the record as really pushing the issue at Westminster.

As I outlined in my initial answer, the situation is very complex. At least one in three cases that comes before the payments board includes multiple incidents. Much of the data is historical and is across records that have been kept over many decades. Unfortunately, it is taking time to issue payments. I am pleased to say, however, that the amount paid out in 2023-24 was around the £24 million mark. In 2024-25, the amount has increased to in and around £46 million. That is almost double the amount that was paid out in the previous year. That is a very good indication that the processing of applications is speeding up and that money is being got out to people, with almost £90 million having now been paid out to give essential support to those who suffered the most during the Troubles.

Ms Bradshaw: On the issue of processing, I am sure that the deputy First Minister will agree with me that the voluntary-sector organisations that have provided support with applications have been doing an amazing job. Once an application is submitted to the board, how often is the process being reviewed? Are any changes planned for the future to make the process easier for applicants?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We recently met the chairperson of the board to talk through those issues and to be assured that the board is continually reviewing its system. A number of significant changes have been made that you will be aware of from your role on the Committee. The key strands of the business improvement programme have been implemented. That came about following the recent innovation and consultancy services' review, which looked at all kinds of things, including improving IT systems, attempting to avoid duplication and trying to provide additional support. We are working with the health trusts, GP practices and the PSNI on many of the legacy files. Manual application is very often required in order to try to find and gather information, and that inevitably leads to delay. A significant number of applications — over 11,000 — have come through, so, understandably, the process has been logistically challenging. Nevertheless, we want people to get support as quickly as possible, so we and our officials will continue to work closely with the board to try to do everything in our power to speed up payments so that they are issued as quickly as possible.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We promoted the Open during a visit to North Carolina as an example of Northern Ireland's attractiveness as a location for golf, major events, investment and tourism. I further highlighted the Open during my visit to Washington DC. Hosting the Open featured in speeches at the Northern Ireland Bureau breakfast in Washington DC, at which the Claret Jug was on display for the 250 guests and media outlets in attendance.

While I was in DC for St Patrick's Day, a number of people mentioned Rory McIlroy to me. What an incredible export we have in him. His name is internationally recognisable, and he is recognisably from Northern Ireland. There are promotional opportunities out of that, as there are with many of our sportspeople. I put on record once again our congratulations to Rory on his magnificent victory and on completing his career Grand Slam. People across the entirety of Northern Ireland are incredibly proud of Rory and what he has achieved.

We could not have imagined a better set-up for the 153rd Open Championship at Royal Portrush. It will be the largest-ever sporting event held in Northern Ireland, showcasing its stunning beauty and hospitality to the world. The Open is one of the most prestigious events in the global sporting calendar, attracting international business leaders, investors, tourists, stakeholders and global media. It is predicted to generate more than £213 million in total economic benefits for Northern Ireland.

Mr Bradley: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. The Open has previously given Northern Ireland a significant economic boost. How can we ensure that we build on that and maximise the economic benefits from the Open this year?

I thank Members for their praise of events on the north coast — the Open, the North West 200, SuperCupNI etc — but I ask them to recognise the fact that, on the days on which those events are held, there are 100,000 to 200,000 people in the area, with the nearest hospital being Altnagelvin Hospital in Londonderry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sorry: we have run out of time.

Mr Bradley: Apologies. [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you — actually, I am not sure whether to thank the Member for that question but I will answer it nonetheless. We are hugely busy with trying to drive forward an ambitious programme for change across the Executive. In the 14 or 15 months that we have been in post, we have secured unanimous agreement in the Executive on a Programme for Government — the first to be agreed in well over a decade. We have also secured Executive agreement on the transformation programme and the spending of that money. We secured agreement on the Budget and key reforms. We have achieved agreement on the establishment of a new AI unit and a delivery unit. We have been working on all those things because we are committed to doing things differently and driving forward that change. Yes, a significant part of our role is about being out there, representing and championing Northern Ireland and showing our support for great organisations and events. I assure the Member, however, that we are continuing to work hard to drive progress against the nine key priorities in our agreed Programme for Government.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I appreciate that you have secured agreement to a Programme for Government and a Budget. Those are the bare minimum that any Government should do. Most people who watch politics here have seen your party, probably with the acquiescence of your main partner in government, Sinn Féin, delivering nothing but inaction. You have turned politics here into one long Old Firm game.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Matthew?

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, people here, particularly young people, want more than endless rows over signs and statues. Do you think that you and the First Minister, given all the money that you have spent on travel, are providing value for money for the Northern Ireland public?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is an absolute nonsense to say that there has not been delivery and commitment to driving things through. Quite frankly, the young people of Northern Ireland are sick of negativity and of people trying to put a spin on things because they want something to oppose.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive have delivered a Programme for Government and they have ambitions.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: They have nine key priorities. We have already seen the announcements on our actions for tackling waiting lists. That could only be done because the Executive have prioritised and ring-fenced funding for that purpose. The Executive Office has a priority to end violence against women and girls. We have produced not only a strategy on that but a framework, and money is already out the door with organisations for that purpose and campaigns are already running. A series of actions is taking place. I am sorry that the Member has not focused on those; perhaps he is unaware of them. I can assure you very strongly that we have not been focusing on some of the other wedge issues that your party has been focused on trying to find.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have been focusing on driving forward progress in this place and making Northern Ireland work.

Mr Frew: That told you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Deputy First Minister, I could not hear half of your response because your party colleagues were saying "hear, hear" in the background. Will you knock it on the head? It is not cute. The same goes for the Opposition. Andrew, you will be heard.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I, for one, am glad of the support behind me.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The film industry in Northern Ireland is genuinely fantastic. The First Minister and I have had the opportunity to promote the industry on many occasions and it is a key part of our offering.

We have invested heavily in that, including through the city region deals, and, of course, Studio Ulster will open in mid-June 2025. Therefore, we were concerned to hear that there was the potential for tariffs on the film industry. We have a number of US investments in our creative industries, and we want that investment to continue. Of course, that is not the only aspect. We are engaging with many other countries to try to get production in Northern Ireland, and we will continue to do so.

Yes, we have been raising that issue, and we raised it just last week with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, and flagged that we are concerned about that. There are no details yet on how that will operate. Most people agree that it will be difficult to implement that type of tariff on this type of thing, but, of course, we will be vigilant and do everything in our power to make sure that people are aware of the importance of that sector to Northern Ireland and to make sure that we are mitigating the impact at every opportunity.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, deputy First Minister. When will an international relations strategy be published that takes into account the specific needs of the film industry as a source not just of economic growth but of cultural output?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are at an advanced stage with the international relations strategy. The Member will appreciate that a number of global events have taken place, not least the change of president in the United States. That brought a very different direction in the global environment, particularly in relation to foreign direct investment and what we would be targeting. We have to be acutely aware of those changes and make sure that our international relations strategy is fit for purpose in that context. We are taking all those things into account. The picture of where we will land internationally with global trade and tariffs is still very unclear, but we will take all that into account and will shortly bring forward our international relations strategy.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased to say that efforts have been made to promote that, including by using online social media messaging or by targeting newspapers in other places where people from here or those who may have been impacted on by the Troubles are likely to be. In Northern Ireland, in February 2024, a leaflet was put through every door to raise awareness, so we are confident that there is very wide awareness of that scheme in Northern Ireland. There have been a significant number of applications from GB. Indeed, the last time I looked, there were, I think, just over 500 applications from GB. It is clear that the message is getting through, but, of course, we encourage those who were physically or mentally injured during the Troubles to come forward and make sure that they are getting the benefit of that scheme.

Mr Stewart: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. You highlighted a number there, Minister. In response to a recent question, we heard that, between 1 February 2024 and 1 February this year, the scheme received 178 applications from people from England, Scotland and Wales, with 3,900 applications from those in Northern Ireland. Do those figures bear out the fact that more could be done to highlight the scheme in GB to try to make sure that everyone who was affected is aware of it and knows that they are eligible to apply?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. We are keen on that. It is important to remember that this is a scheme that comes from the Northern Ireland block grant, and our block grant exists primarily to benefit the people of Northern Ireland. However, we recognise that many, many hundreds, if not thousands, on the mainland were impacted on, physically and psychologically, by the Troubles. That includes many of those who served, for example, in the armed forces, and that support was not there for them at the time.

We have been in ongoing engagement with the UK Government about a financial contribution to the scheme. I believe very strongly that it makes sense that those based in GB are able to come forward to the scheme instead of GB having to set up a separate scheme, with all the administration costs that that would bring. If we are to do that and increase the applications from GB, the UK Government should step up and make a contribution to the cost, which is likely to be significant. Fundamentally, we want everybody to get the support that they need, but funding fairness is an important aspect of this.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. I am fully supportive of the project. It is a fantastic project that brings together statutory services — in the health centre — the school and, importantly, the community sector. It really will breathe new life into that site in a genuinely shared way. It is a fantastic project that perhaps, in the past, has suffered from the fact that there is no dedicated fund to support it. There ought to be. That type of shared initiative opens up those spaces and gives them a new use that is genuinely about every part of our society and community being able to come and use them. That is a great thing.

Certainly, the then first Minister and deputy First Minister were more heavily involved in the project than I was; I was a special adviser at the time. We have been looking at trying to have a capital scheme as part of our Victims and Survivors Service, in recognition of the fact that many of our fantastic victims and survivors groups have capital buildings that were funded through PEACE or other funds. However, that was a considerable time ago. There is a need to make sure that those premises are accessible for disabled people and fit for purpose. That is under active consideration within the Executive Office.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. She will know that it is not just about capital for innocent victim groups like SEFF. SEFF does a vast amount of work in supporting innocent victims and helping them through the justice process, which can be arduous and difficult, particularly for innocent victims. However, does the deputy First Minister agree with me that access to justice is important for innocent victims, that the door must not be closed to them, that we must ensure that justice is not denied, and that the system does not become a two-tier system?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. Far too many people — thousands of people — in this place have never had justice for the injury or death of a loved one: that is an absolute tragedy. Those are the people who have suffered most from the Troubles, and it is those people who we need to help and support. My party and I have always been clear that we oppose amnesty and that everyone has a right to, and should have an opportunity to get, justice. I feel apprehensive that the message that is being sent to many innocent victims is that there is a two-tier approach in which one body is good enough for them but not good enough for others. It is incredibly important that there is no hierarchy of victims, that the two-tier approach does not continue and that everyone has the same right of access to justice. The death of a loved one matters just as much to one family as to any other, no matter who killed that person. One person's life matters just as much as the next person's life. Therefore, the opportunity for justice and the structures to get justice should be the same for all victims and survivors. The people who know the truth should come forward and give victims and survivors closure.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Topical question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that the Prime Minister made a statement this morning on a number of actions on immigration, refugee and asylum issues. It is not a devolved issue, but the Member will be aware that the Executive Office liaises with the Home Office on its distribution of funds and its activities in Northern Ireland, including those in relation to hostels, hotels and other accommodation. There are concerns about the way that the Mears Group and other companies have operated in Northern Ireland. We have articulated those concerns. I have articulated them directly to the Minister of State who is responsible for those matters. I understand that concerns about the operation of some of those companies are shared across the UK. It is a challenge; there is no doubt about that. We will continue to work on those issues, including in the number of meetings to look into these matters that we will have in the next number of weeks.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Given that the costs are four times higher than originally envisaged and that the accommodation is broadly unfit for purpose, what update do you have for us today on when the refugee integration strategy will be published?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. The Executive have agreed the refugee integration strategy. Very shortly, it will be published. I assure the Member that concerns have been shared. I have particular concerns about the lack of transparency on the data and information coming from the Home Office and the organisations. That needs to change. People need to know what is happening and exactly where it is happening. We will continue to push on that issue. I have raised it directly with the Minister of State.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Time is up.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA) submitted a business case to my Department on 4 April 2025 to facilitate the establishment of Causeway Academy. My Department has never had such a significant capital requirement presented to it arising from an approved development proposal (DP), and it has never committed to such significant works to facilitate a DP as those proposed for Causeway Academy without the full rigours of a major works call for projects. I met EA officials on 8 April to discuss the options in the business case, and I asked for the options to be reviewed and the business case resubmitted to my Department. That work is currently under way.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that: that is new information. The Minister will be conscious that the delay in announcing the new school site will have an impact on people applying for the new Causeway Academy and we need that reassurance as soon as possible. Does he have a timeline for when we can expect that answer?

Mr Givan: I appreciate the comments and share the views that the Member has raised with me. I have met the principals behind the school, and, recently, I have engaged with the newly appointed principal who will take forward the school, and those concerns have been expressed to me. As I said in my original response, I have met my senior officials and the EA, and they are reviewing the issues for me.

Options are being considered. They include the operation of the school on a split-site basis. It would be premature, though, to speculate on the preferred site option until all options under consideration had been progressed through the business case process. That is what will identify the preferred way forward. I appreciate the question about the timeline, and I have asked EA and my officials to bring forward information on that as soon as possible so that we can give clarity to the school.

Mr Mathison: Can the Minister provide an update on the identification of an agreed site for mid Down integrated college and on the ongoing progress to deliver that project?

Mr Givan: The question is exclusively about the Causeway proposal. Members can ask what they wish, but I do not have a response prepared for that question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members have been reminded already today that questions should relate directly to the original question.

Mr Bradley: Having had meetings for several years with the educational establishments that will form the new school, I am extremely disappointed that it is now back to the drawing board and that no clarity has been given. Can the Minister provide clarity, at least to the new board of governors, on where the project is going to go and the way forward?

Mr Givan: Mr Bradley has been a consistent and passionate campaigner for progress to be made on the site. He has made representation to me on a number of occasions. The challenge that has presented is with the significant, major capital expenditure in order to facilitate location on the site that had been identified and with which the Member will be familiar. I have met officials and suggested that they need to look at an approach that makes it much more manageable financially. My preference is that we commence the work at the preferred site. That is what I want the day-1 solution to be, and that is what I am still asking my officials to work towards. They are reviewing the process that was brought forward. I have asked them to give me a solution that would meet what, I know, the Member and other Members who have made representations to me on this want. It is frustrating for me that I am not in that position today. I understand that it is much more frustrating for those involved that we still do not have the clarity that is needed to make the progress that, I know, the Member wants, and I will continue to persevere on his behalf.

Mr Givan: There has been very positive engagement with stakeholders in North Belfast through locality engagement events, focus groups, individual meetings and strategic area plan workshops. There has also been engagement with parents and with children and young people led by Parenting Focus and Stranmillis University College respectively, and their findings will support the development of the north Belfast strategic area plan.

The north Belfast locality reference group met on 9 May. The group comprises members from a range of educational settings and voluntary and community organisations and others with a valuable role to play in supporting children's learning in the north Belfast locality. The group is representative of the locality and is open to those with a role in developing the strategic plan for the area. One strategic area plan will be produced for the north Belfast locality that will set out the range of needs of children and young people in RAISE areas in North Belfast and prioritise objectives that will support their educational achievement and aspirations. The north Belfast locality, alongside the other RAISE localities, will submit its draft strategic area plan for assessment and approval by an assessment panel led by my Department. Organisations will then be invited to submit applications for individual projects to deliver against the priorities in the plan.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for that update and for the work that his officials are doing to roll the programme out quickly. Will the Minister agree that the work that his Department is undertaking shows his personal commitment and, indeed, that of our party to ensure that every young person in North Belfast has the best start in life?

Mr Givan: Very much so. The Member has had me visit a number of areas in his constituency, and there is a clear desire for the project to be successful. I am pleased that we have made significant progress in allocating the funding that has been provided through the Shared Island Fund. We have now been able to allocate that funding, and each group has been given the figures that they have to work with. That work is being taken forward so that we can deliver, particularly on closing the educational attainment gap that very much exists in our communities.

Miss McAllister: The Minister will be aware that North Belfast has some of the most impoverished areas in Northern Ireland. In developing the programme for tackling educational underachievement, will any pilot projects work hand in hand and, in particular, work in partnership with parents to tackle the issues of poverty that lead to educational underachievement?

Mr Givan: The Member makes a really valuable point. That is very much what RAISE is about. It is a whole-community response. It is not a school-led initiative; it is a community-led initiative. Therefore, it is important that, as programmes are developed, there is collaboration with interested stakeholders, whether they be parents, community-based organisations or, indeed, schools. Those can be community or statutory organisations, including those involved in the health service. RAISE is about bringing forward the community-led initiatives that will have most impact on raising educational achievement and helping young people to realise their aspirations.

Mr Sheehan: Minister, the Assembly and a number of councils have raised concerns about the design of the RAISE programme and how it might divert much-needed funding from areas that need it most. Has the Minister reflected on any of those criticisms?

Mr Givan: Yes. Concerns were raised, and we provided transparency on the data that was used. I assure the Member that a wide range of indicators, including free school meal entitlement, were used to shortlist the super output areas for potential inclusion in the programme. The methodology for the selection of RAISE localities reflects the findings and recommendations from the 'A Fair Start' report that was published in June 2021. There was a sound rationale for the methodology.

I am delighted that we have a regional geographical spread. Interestingly, some councils that made representation might well not have got any funding had we not taken the approach and methodology that were taken to provide a regional spread. Now, after reflection, some settings or areas that wish to include some areas that do not strictly fall within the clearly defined red lines, if you want to call them that, will have the flexibility to do so, albeit within the funding allocated to those areas. If they decide to include some other provision from outside the area and if it is a close neighbour, there will be flexibility, and that reflects the concerns that were raised with me.

Now, having allocating the funding, we need to see the programmes come forward so we can get the money into our communities to be effectively spent. Having secured the funding, I want to go back unashamedly to the Irish Government and say, "We need continued funding for this", so let us get on with the work.

Mr McNulty: Can the Minister give details of how the place-based partnerships are being established? What measures is his Department taking to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in this critical programme?

Mr Givan: In each locality, a strategic area plan will be delivered. The local reference group will draw together the key organisations that will be part of the process, building the relevant people to be part of it and developing those plans. When they produce that, ultimately, it will still come to the Department for approval. That will gain the widest possible collaboration and ensure that cross-cutting initiatives are supported.

I am excited about this. It is a good opportunity to get into the communities with the highest levels of educational underachievement and make a real difference and to do it in a localised context in order to tailor the educational programmes for maximum possible impact.

Mr Givan: As a result of the funding being made available by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC), a programme is in place to provide wrap-around education services to children and young people facing significant challenges in the greater Shantallow area. The programme of flexible interventions was designed and implemented in partnership with experienced delivery agents and delivers against both my Department's and the EPPOC programme's objectives. It is managed by the Greater Shantallow Area Partnership. While the Education Authority's Youth Service is not delivering any youth interventions physically in schools in the Foyle constituency, it is delivering several interventions outside the school environment to counter increasing tensions between communities.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am not sure that it answers my question, which was focused on issues that have emanated recently and publicly in and around the Waterside area in particular. However, we welcome any initiative to educate our young people on the evil of sectarianism and the dangerous and deadly destination that it can lead to and has led to in the past. Will the Minister agree that, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility and that what we say and do here matters? We should all focus on the common good. Of course, we can disagree, but we should do so respectfully and without whipping up fear and driving division.

Mr Givan: Absolutely. I agree with the Member. Political leaders, in their constituencies and at a Northern Ireland level, should give leadership in a way that does not inflame tensions, so that those tensions can be mitigated. That is important. We have moved on so far in our society.

When we look back at where we were many years ago, undoubtedly progress has been made. However, much more progress has still to be made. We need to make sure that we do not create opportunities for the more sinister elements in our communities to exploit in order to whip up tension. Therefore, I agree with the Member. It is important that we give leadership on those issues.

Mr Bradley: Will the Minister give more details on the interventions being delivered by the EA Youth Service to give us a better idea of what he has in place?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. A number of interventions take place in the Foyle constituency. There is a local project funding opportunity, and funding has been awarded to voluntary youth work providers working specifically with young people from Irish Street and Top of the Hill, which is an interface area. That project funding will focus on early intervention support to engage children and young people from those areas with a view to building more positive relationships between the two communities.

The Education Authority has also administered the Executive Office planned intervention programme and the T:BUC — Together: Building a United Community — programme for the 2025-26 year. I confirm that a number of applications have been submitted from groups in the Foyle constituency. Groups will be notified in the coming days regarding the outcome of their application.

The EA Youth Service is also funding local youth provision to be delivered in the Waterside area over six evenings per week. This is funded by DE and the Department for Communities. Those programmes are primarily focused on providing a safe space for children and young people to access universal services and provide alternatives for them.

We also have the Connect project, which is for young men who have been victims of sectarian violence or paramilitary-style attacks. They are being supported in a one-to-one process. There is the Engage project, which is working with young people in the Waterside who are vulnerable to exploitation from criminal gangs. That is in operation. Two early-intervention programmes that are co-facilitated with the Police Service are at the planning stage for delivery in the city area. That demonstrates that we are taking forward schemes to try to help in that community.

Mr Givan: It has been an eventful two months since I published the TransformED Northern Ireland strategy on 11 March. In April, I unveiled the delivery plan for the strategy, which translates the strategy’s vision into actionable steps. It outlines key delivery partners, indicative timescales and costs.

Last week, I held the first TransformED conference to explore what TransformED means for our schools. The conference was attended by over 500 school leaders, policymakers and education partners. The key speakers were members of the international ministerial advisory panel, which I established in January. The conference was the first of its kind for many years and a fantastic event. The buzz, excitement and optimism from our school principals, as they heard world-class insights about education, was very clear.

There has also been progress across a range of areas, including curriculum, assessment and teacher professional learning. For example, working with the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), my Department has introduced a new system-level sample assessment in literacy and numeracy for pupils at the end of each Key Stage. I have also launched a new programme called Making Best Practice Common Practice, which aims to help bridge the gap between academic research and classroom practice. The programme includes funding for schools to support research-informed conferences, a monthly newsletter for teachers on the science of learning and a quarterly Northern Ireland publication for teachers on wider education research.

Over the coming months, we will be accelerating our plans for literacy and numeracy strategies, assessment and qualifications reform, and school improvement, as well as tackling teacher shortages in maths, science, technology and IT. Each of those steps is part of a coherent, evidence-based approach to build a system that does not just compete with the best in the world but sets a new standard for excellence. I commend it to you.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate him on his initiative that engages with schools directly, which is, as he said in his speech, the first of its kind in a long time. Will the Minister outline why he chose those particular priorities for this engagement, or why some of those things were chosen as the way forward for the Department of Education?

Mr Givan: They were chosen because the research tells us that they are the right things to do. It is clear that high-quality teaching and learning are at the heart of driving educational improvement. Successful school systems ground changes in the classroom by focusing, first and foremost, on teachers and the content that they deliver. Moreover, over the past decade, those areas have received limited focus and investment, and all need reflection, evaluation and improvement. For too long, we have focused on structural issues in Northern Ireland, whether those be academic selection or types of schools, and I believe that we have focused on those issues to little avail. The heart of education lies in the classroom. We need to focus on what and how children learn and for what purpose.

I am therefore embarking on taking a comprehensive approach that focuses on supporting teaching and on reforming the curriculum, assessment, qualifications and school improvement. All are fundamental to educational excellence. The next steps for education in Northern Ireland must be underpinned by a commitment to investment and reform in each of those areas.

Mr O'Toole: I am keen to understand, Minister. Clearly, it is a comprehensive and ambitious plan that you have set out, and one that you have been working on for some time. Has it been discussed in detail at the Executive? If so, did all parties' Ministers agree to it?

Mr Givan: The plan that I am taking forward is a Department of Education-led plan. All of it has consensus, because we are all in agreement that we want the very best for every single school. The Department of Education is leading on the plan, and we are making significant progress. I took heart not just from the number of principals who told me at the conference how they felt very enthused and optimistic but from those who had low expectations for it and did not think that it would be worth attending. They now very much get the vision, however. It is not my vision. Rather, it has to be our collective vision that we make Northern Ireland's education system the very best in the world. That is what our children deserve.

Mr Givan: In light of the recent UK Supreme Court judgement, I have asked my officials to consider the Department's policy in that area. I intend to set out the Department's policy on the issue in the coming weeks. Let me make it clear, however, that, regardless of the recent court decision, I do not believe that a boy who identifies as a girl should participate in girls' sports or use girls' changing and toilet facilities.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. What is his assessment of the potential implications of the Supreme Court judgement for Northern Ireland's education settings, particularly schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. I have asked my officials to consider the implications of the ruling across the education system in order to ensure that the Department, all its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and schools are in compliance with the legal definition of "sex" and balance the rights of all pupils. It is an important issue, on which the UK Supreme Court has made a ruling. It is important that I follow the law, that all Departments follow the law and that all those in the education system follow the law.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, you know that our schools should be safe havens and safe spaces for all young people. I know that you have said that on a few occasions. Given that 48% of LGBTQIA young people admit that they have been bullied in schools, and given that we know that they are more at risk of suicidal tendencies and self-harm, what will be, and is being, put in place in schools to support our trans, non-binary and queer young people?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to say that every child in our education establishments should not be bullied and not be harassed. Where that takes place in schools, effective measures need to be put in place to address such issues. Those measures should be applied irrespective of sexual orientation. We want every child to feel safe in our school settings.

Mr Gaston: Can the Minister confirm that the Supreme Court judgement did not change the law but merely clarified it? Has he ever sought legal advice on the issues that I have raised with him over the past eight months about the use of school toilets and of pronouns?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. It is important that there is absolute clarity on the matter: the Education Authority, not my Department, provides the operational guidance to schools. Therefore, it, first and foremost, needs to ensure that its guidance complies with the Supreme Court ruling. I am clear on the approach that needs to be taken in light of the UK Supreme Court ruling. In my response to the original question, I outlined where we need to be on those issues. As my officials continue to review the implications of the UK Supreme Court ruling, we will take further steps in that regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 6 been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: Admissions criteria are set by preschool providers, taking into account guidance provided by the Department, and thus the Department cannot amend them. However, legislation requires that providers must prioritise children from socially disadvantaged circumstances in their admissions criteria. I am of the view that that legislative priority needs to be revised. It was established at a time when preschool education was not universal to prioritise the children who would benefit most from access to preschool education. Today, every child whose parents want it has access to a year of funded preschool education, so the original purpose for the priority criterion no longer applies.

My Department carried out a public consultation exercise in 2021, seeking views on proposals to amend or remove the priority criterion. It was clear from the consultation and stakeholder engagement that, overall, there is no longer support for the indefinite retention of a statutory priority criterion in the context of the universal provision of preschool education for every child whose parents want it. However, there was a lack of consensus on when that change should take place, with indications that the removal of the criterion would only be widely supported when all children had access to 22·5 hours of preschool education per week. It is my intention to move to a position where 22·5 hours is the standard offer for all children and the legislative criterion can then be removed completely.

Work on the standardisation programme is well under way, and I have already approved the first 106 preschool settings to transition to the standardised session length from September 2025. I want to transition a further 100 settings for September 2026. The full roll-out of the 22·5-hour offer will, however, take some time to achieve and will require significant ongoing investment by the Executive.

Ms Bunting: I am really grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive answer, because, as he well knows, the current criteria are proving really detrimental to working families, who either struggle to get their child placed and end up paying for childcare or get their child placed far from home. I give credit to the Minister for providing financial assistance with childcare to thousands of homes across Northern Ireland. He has given some indication of the timeline, but can he tell us how long it will take before everybody has access to 22·5 hours? What can be done to assist working parents in the interim?

Mr Givan: The child subsidy scheme, which this party developed, executed and took forward, is already helping to meet some of the costs for those families. We can develop the 22·5-hour standardisation. We have already brought 106 settings online for the next academic year. I want to bring another 100 online for 2026. The more resource that my Department gets, the more I can accelerate the process, but I want every child to be able to get that full-time provision.

In 1998, when the criterion was added, there were 11,000 funded preschool education places. That meant that only 45% of children in their immediate preschool year could access a funded place. That was the basis on which the criterion came in. Now, 100% of children can get a funded preschool place, but it is the inequality of some getting full-time places and others getting part-time places that causes a lot of consternation among hard-working families who do not get the benefit of a full-time place. I want that to be addressed as soon as possible, and we are working towards achieving that over the next number of years. However, in the interim, the criterion exists. It is there by way of legislation, so it would require a change at Executive and Assembly level.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: I commend the young people who have come through their primary-school education. The period of moving to post-primary school can be a challenging one. There will, undoubtedly, have been disappointment for some over the weekend, but they should not allow that disappointment to define who they are. Every school that we have will give a child an opportunity to succeed. We are ensuring through our approach in TransformED that there is an education system in which every child gets the best possible opportunity. I appreciate that there will have been disappointment, but they should not allow that to define them. There will be the opportunity to continue their education and career in Northern Ireland.

Ms Hunter: Minister, will you commit to ending all forms of academic selection as part of your agenda for educational reform, given the well-documented stress and anxiety that our young people experience when sitting the test, for example?

Mr Givan: I have addressed that issue before in the Assembly, including earlier in Question Time. We can have a circular conversation about academic selection. For over 20 years, that conversation has been taking place with no consensus being achieved. Academic selection has its supporters, and there are those who do not support it. I can engage in that debate and give my view, but the situation will not change. However, we can change every school, irrespective of the sector from which it comes, through the support that we will provide to every school leader and every teacher. The core of TransformED is about providing support for teacher professional learning. Every child will get the best possible opportunity in the classroom. I am determined to make sure that we have a world-class education system.

Mr Givan: The roll-out of the RAISE programme in its localities across Northern Ireland is about investing in, monitoring and evaluating whole-community and place-based approaches to raising achievement and reducing educational disadvantage. That is key to my commitment in TransformED. More widely, narrowing the gap for educationally disadvantaged groups underpins every aspect of the TransformED strategy. As is the case in many international systems, there remains an extremely strong correlation between socio-economic disadvantage and educational outcomes in Northern Ireland. There are significant disparities in outcomes between schools with pupils experiencing similar levels of disadvantage. Excellence in education is simply not possible without greater equity, and, without addressing those inequities, education cannot reach its full potential for all pupils.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his commitment and efforts to tackle the major issue of educational underachievement. Will the Minister provide a further update on the work of the RAISE programme in my constituency, including Donaghadee and Millisle?

Mr Givan: Since the first engagement event that was held in Millisle and Donaghadee, which was in November last year, my officials have been working with key stakeholders to understand the context of the area and identify the key issues around educational underachievement. Children and young people from Millisle Primary School, Killard House School and Millisle Youth Forum have, along with their parents, been involved in engagement sessions. A workshop was held on 6 May to support the development of a strategic plan for the area. Key issues were discussed, including improving transitions and attendance. A locality reference group, consisting of a cross-section of all key stakeholders, will meet on 4 June to finalise the strategic area plan for Millisle and Donaghadee. It is expected that the plan will then be submitted to my Department for consideration later that month. RAISE will potentially provide investment of over £183,000, which would be a fantastic opportunity for the Millisle and Donaghadee locality. I know that the Member has lobbied extensively for that and that he will support the programme being developed in his constituency.

Mr Givan: When it comes to capital investments that we seek to take forward, such as for the school that the Member has mentioned, we pursue the various stages. I welcome the stage that that school is at, which the Member has articulated. Before entering into a contractual obligation, we need to make sure that capital funding is available. We continue to keep that under review. There are significant capital pressures in the Department of Education to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. I am acutely aware of the needs of the school that the Member has mentioned. As we review our capital position and take any decisions on further progress, we will take those needs into account.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed to hear that, given that it is a multi-site arrangement. On interim arrangements for pupils during any building process at Enniskillen Royal, will you provide greater clarity on the decant to the old Devenish College site and say how the school can be assisted to fund any financial costs and burdens associated with those arrangements?

Mr Givan: My team and the EA will continue to keep in close contact with the school. As we seek to make progress, matters around decanting and the support that would be needed will be well looked after. We have not reached the point of being able to allocate capital funding, however. I wish that greater levels of investment were provided to my Department for capital projects. When you bid in excess of £500 million but receive less than half of that, that is a demonstration of the financial pressures that exist. The Member is right to articulate the case for her constituency and for that school, but funding pressures exist across Northern Ireland. I will seek to do what I can with the limited funding that is available to me.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. I am committed to bringing forward the early learning and childcare strategy in the autumn of this year. That will support child development, making childcare more affordable and enabling parents to work. Recognising that people needed immediate help, however, I secured £25 million in the previous financial year and implemented a package of interim measures. That investment has made a real difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland.

It is vital that we maintain the momentum established in the last financial year to expand the existing services, further roll out the Northern Ireland subsidy scheme and continue the standardisation of the preschool education programme. I have secured £50 million, with a further £5 million committed as part of June monitoring. That is in the agreed Executive Budget for the current financial year. The £50 million has yet to be allocated to my Department, as it is contingent on the Executive approving my early learning and childcare strategy proposals for this financial year. I sought Executive approval for them in a paper that I circulated to ministerial colleagues on 8 April along with a request that it be discussed and agreed at our meeting on 30 April. As it was not discussed, I have sought approval for the measures by urgent procedure. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on that shortly.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he indicate whether the Department has sufficient data to inform its decision-making process?

Mr Givan: Making sure that we had robust data was one of the issues, and I wanted to ensure that we had that. We made that commitment because we need reliable and comprehensive data and we have to have an evidence-based policy. The Department commissioned the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) to undertake a major household survey of parents' childcare requirements. That data and the administrative data being collected from the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme will inform the next steps.

The results of the NISRA survey were published on 8 May, and, for the first time, we have data on the area that have the authority of NISRA. I plan to engage directly with stakeholders on the findings later in the month in a continuation of the close engagement that my Department has had with key stakeholders. We also await the outcomes of the scoping exercise. The findings of that exercise are due between the end of May and early June. That will inform the longer-term strategy.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. On 1 May, I was pleased to announce the appointment of the independent panel that will undertake the review of teacher workload. The panel will examine all aspects of teacher workload and will monitor the implementation of the series of workload commitments issued alongside the pay offer. The panel has been asked to report to me by the end of November of this year. The appointments to the panel were Paul Sweeney as chairperson; Larry Flanagan, the Northern Ireland Teaching Council nomination; and Liam Perry, the management side nomination.

Mr Irwin: Does the Minister believe that his TransformED strategy also has the potential to reduce workload?

Mr Givan: Yes. Principals at the conference asked me, "Given the challenges and the pressures that we face, where will we find the capacity to take forward this transformation of our education system?". The answer to that is that, if we continue to do what we are doing, of course, the workload will be a result of our current inadequate systems.

Curriculum reform is vital because that will lighten the load in the classroom. Too often, teachers spend countless hours designing their class curriculum and preparing resources from scratch. Our reforms will support teachers in the classroom and reduce workload by providing high-quality resources and improved guidelines on the key concepts to be taught while allowing room for local context and innovation.

My Department has announced the introduction of a new system-level sample assessment in literacy and numeracy for pupils at the end of Key Stage. Those assessments will be administered and marked by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. The new arrangements are explicitly designed to minimise workload for teachers and remove the previous, workload-intensive Key Stage assessment arrangements that were based on teacher judgement.

The demands on teachers and school leaders have grown, with administrative burdens too often taking time away from what matters most: teaching and supporting pupils. TransformED places unprecedented emphasis on investing in high-quality professional learning and is about giving teachers the time and space to focus on what they do best.

Mr Givan: The pathway fund is subject to and contained in the package of proposals that I put to the Executive on 8 April. There are 91 pathway-funded projects, all of which I wish to continue and all of which I recommended in that Executive paper. Approval will secure the projects that receive funding from pathway. Not having the paper approved is the reason for the uncertainty; I know that, in the Member's constituency, there is uncertainty about one project in Killyleagh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Kellie Armstrong for a very quick supplementary.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for recognising Little Stars in Killyleagh. I am sure that you understand the urgency of the matter for the settings that receive the funding. Once the paper is approved, how quickly might you be able to get the offers out?

Mr Givan: The Executive paper that I tabled not having been included in the agenda for 30 April, as the Member will appreciate, I sought urgent procedure approval.

We have an Executive meeting this Thursday, but I am concerned, because a lot of those organisations will need to put staff on protective notice. That would be detrimental and, given the fact that I want the funding to continue, unnecessary. I can allocate the funding only once it is drawn down, because it is held centrally in the Executive, not in my Department. I will confirm as soon as possible whether funding is being provided. I can give that assurance.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): An encore, Minister. Thank you. Time is up for questions to the Education Minister. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The debate on cancer waiting times will continue. Our next contributor is the Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you. I have a lot to get through in 15 minutes. Mr McGuigan kindly referenced the fact that today is International Nurses' Day. I join him in thanking nurses for everything that they do. He was too modest to say that he was at the Stormont estate on Saturday to take part in the Stormont parkrun. The parkrun was dedicated to International Day of the Midwife, which was last Monday, and International Nurses' Day, which is today. Mr Donnelly also took part in the parkrun, as did Minister Muir. I commend all three.

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that cancer waiting times are completely — completely — unacceptable. Mrs Dodds made the point that they have been that way since 2012. I could list all the Ministers who have been in post over the past 13 years. I could say, "Let us have a witch-hunt to see the lost opportunities", but I will not. The reason why I will not do that is because it would not improve the potential outcome for a single patient who is on a cancer waiting list today. Let us be future-focused about it. That is where my mind is.

I have been clear that, in order to clear the backlog of patients, we need recurrent, sustained and significant effort, as well as sustained intervention and funding that will be required over a period of five years. As I announced in the House last week, we have made a start. I fully support the Executive's decision to prioritise waiting lists, and I welcome the ring-fencing of up to £215 million in this year's Budget for activities in waiting list reductions. That includes £50 million of additional allocation to the Health budget. However, that, of course, means that £165 million has to be found from within the existing allocation. As I highlighted to Executive colleagues, that will inevitably have consequences for wider provision, and, if I am being honest, that means my ability to fund reform and to balance the budget by the end of March. As that was an Executive-wide decision with which I fully agreed, I hope to get the support of Executive colleagues in managing all the challenges.

The £215 million breaks down into £85 million for red-flag and time-critical care; £80 million for building capacity to address long-standing mismatches; and up to £50 million to start tackling the backlog. As I promised last week, my Department will provide later this month an implementation plan for the elective care framework. It will set out the details of how up to £215 million will be invested.

The motion highlights the:

and, in particular, the fact that in quarter 3 of last year:

Those same figures also illustrated the wholly unsustainable levels of variations across the trusts. The waiting times for breast cancer services have been a particular concern. To address that, I announced a review in September last year. That review is considering how regional breast cancer services can be reconfigured and developed to deliver timely and appropriate care for patients. The first phase of the work was the creation of a regional waiting list for red-flag breast cancer assessments to address disparities in times across the geographic trusts. I am pleased to announce that the new regional booking system went live across all five geographically defined trusts last Thursday, 8 May, for patients referred with suspected breast cancer. The new system will ensure that everybody referred for breast assessment across the region experiences a similar wait. Most people will still be seen at their nearest hospital, but some may be offered an earlier appointment at another acute venue. That will equalise the waits. I acknowledge that there is still more work to be done to address the demand/capacity gap and increase the number of breast assessment clinics across Northern Ireland, but I consider this to be a positive advancement.

Trusts will continue to work with the Department to address the backlog of waits through the provision of additional waiting-list clinics, and further capacity will be sought from the independent sector. I expect to publish the next phase of the breast review later this year. It will consider whether changes are required to how breast services are structured in order to ensure that those who are referred with suspected breast cancer are seen quickly and that those who are diagnosed are treated in a timely manner. That will ensure that we can deliver the best possible outcomes for those with breast cancer.

I acknowledge the profound impact of poor cancer waiting times on patients and their families, but I can do that no more eloquently than Mr Dickson already has. Regrettably, he knows what he is talking about. It is important to be clear about the full extent of the problem. The most recently published statistics on cancer performance waiting times, which were for the quarter ending December 2024, reported that, against a target of 95%, 34·2% of patients began their first definitive treatment within 62 days following an urgent GP referral. I join Members in asking the question that Mr Dickson asked: why?

The poor performance in general is due to several interrelated factors. First, regional red-flag referral trends show a significant increase of approximately 39% in the five years from 2017-18 to 2022-23, without the required resource to meet that growing demand. The ring-fencing of approximately £85 million will allow health and social care (HSC) investment, and that will be in core services that previously relied on non-recurrent waiting list initiative funding to help bridge the gap. There is a significant demand/capacity gap across elective care, imaging and endoscopy services that delays the initial diagnosis. The increase in unscheduled care has further strained the system. Additionally, the phased introduction of Encompass since November 2023, as expected, has had an impact, but it is now expected to deliver greater benefit as the system embeds and provides opportunity to work more effectively on a regional basis. I welcome the fact that Encompass is now live in all five geographically defined trusts.

Together, those challenges have compounded the difficulties that we face in providing timely access to diagnosing patients. To tackle the challenges, we must focus on improving the entire pathway from referral to diagnosis, including endoscopy, imaging and pathology as well as treatment. If patients wait beyond two weeks for an imaging test, the chance of meeting the 62-day standard is reduced. Plans are in place within the Department's 15-year capital plan for a significant investment over the next 10 years to expand the equipment base, which includes additional MRI scanners. Again, that will be subject to funding approval.

My Department is aware that the imaging workforce in Northern Ireland is constrained. A costed workforce plan for imaging services, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, has been developed. A multi-professional imaging training academy for Northern Ireland will address the radiology and advanced practitioner radiographer workforce deficit. The imaging academy will deliver an overall increase in imaging capacity in HSC for the benefit of all clinical specialists and support the reduction of excess waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment, as well as meeting the demands for unscheduled care.

In the difficult financial environment, we continue to tackle our lengthy waiting lists with the resources that are available to us, and we strive to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the service. In May 2024, we launched the updated elective care framework, which outlines the strategic direction for the development and implementation of effective and sustainable elective care services in HSC over the next five years.

Today, we have two dedicated day procedure centres at Lagan Valley Hospital and Omagh Hospital. Those centres have increased access to endoscopy for all trusts, supporting the diagnostic part of the cancer pathway. We have three elective overnight stay centres at Daisy Hill Hospital, Mater Hospital and South West Acute Hospital, which have increased access to diagnostic tests and to procedures. We have two rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) at Whiteabbey Hospital and South Tyrone Hospital, which will enhance regional CT and MRI diagnostic capacity. Service reviews of general surgery, urology and gynaecology aim to set the direction for improvement in key tumour sites under significant demand and capacity pressures.

Furthermore, we have the introduction of mega-clinics, which are designed to maximise patient throughput and efficiency. We have the development of in-house HSC capacity and continued investment in staffing, building our internal capacity and investing in our workforce. That is essential for sustainable improvements. The rapid diagnostic centres aim to provide faster diagnosis for patients with suspected cancer. Those centres currently offer the vague-symptom pathway with several clinical pathways under consideration.

Funding was secured for a CT and MRI scanner at each RDC location in order to support a portfolio of diagnostic pathways. The MRIs are anticipated to be operational from the summer of this year and will provide an estimated 6,920 MRI scans during the 2025-26 financial year. CT capacity is estimated to provide an additional 9,000 scans.

Those collaborative efforts aim to alleviate pressures on the cancer diagnostic pathways overall, ensuring that patients receive the care that they need as efficiently as possible. I hope that Miss McAllister will greet that as good news, given the questions that she put during her remarks.

While I recognise the fully unacceptable performance and do not want to understate that in any way, I note that, once diagnosed, 88% of patients received their first definitive treatment within 31 days and that the overwhelming majority of patients received an excellent standard of care. I must pay tribute to our medical and nursing staff and all those who provide the service, who have been working tirelessly to meet the increased demand.

Workforce vacancies limit the system's ability to respond promptly. The reliance on non-recurrent funding and the need for substantial and sustained investment in core service provision and equipment also contributes to the challenges.

A recent report that was published by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, 'Routes to diagnosis of cancer', reported that only one third of those who were diagnosed between 2018 and 2021 presented via a GP red flag referral. Other routes included urgent and routine referrals, emergency presentation and screening programmes. Therefore, a whole-system approach will be required. Miss McAllister mentioned that too many people were presenting at emergency departments. The latest stats, for the financial years 2018 to 2022, reveal that of the most common routes to diagnosis amongst cancers, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, the highest was 33·5%. The next highest was via the emergency presentation route, at 23·3%, which is far too high.

Cancer treatment is frequently and rapidly changing, not least by way of new medicines, with approximately 50 drugs per annum, alongside merging technological advancement and innovations in gene therapies, as well as earlier diagnosis and interventions. That makes it a very dynamic clinical space, which requires a robust workforce strategy and training programmes that keep pace with advancements and service demands. Investment in cancer services is required in order to enable transformation to more-sustainable models of care that will be resilient to more-effectively meet current and projected demand.

I have always been clear that the implementation of the strategy is a priority for me. In a few weeks' time, I expect to publish the next three-year cancer strategy implementation plan for 2025 to 2028. That will further the reforms that are needed in order to modernise and enhance cancer services.

The level of funding will, of course, determine the speed at and the extent to which the reforms are taken forward.

Finally, the motion calls on me to engage proactively with the Executive's delivery unit on how best to apply ring-fenced funding. We submitted three bids to the public-sector transformation fund, and the one for multidisciplinary teams was successful. I welcome all opportunities to work with Executive colleagues and, indeed, the delivery unit, but, as Professor Bengoa reminded us, it is systems, not structures, that matter.

A couple of other questions were asked of me, one of which was about elective theatres in Belfast City Hospital (BCH). I believe that there are a total of seven theatres in BCH. Theatres 1 and 2 were refurbished 18 months ago, and the plan is to continue to roll out refurbishment over the next two to three years.

Mrs Dodds asked about skin cancer. The ongoing challenges are with consultant recruitment for dermatology, which, sadly, has resulted in a long wait for red-flag outpatient appointments across most trusts. The Western Trust in particular is reliant on a single-handed consultant. The Belfast Trust has seen a significant reduction due to leavers. Recruitment exercises have been undertaken but have generally been unsuccessful, I am afraid to say.

Finally, I know that Mrs Dodds is no fan of the waiting list reimbursement scheme. She is absolutely wrong to say that it is not about providing additional procedures, because it will. I imagine that there will be over 1,000 procedures, if all the money is spent. She may want to get her DUP team in order, because, since I made the announcement and since she made it clear that she is not a supporter of the scheme, one of her MLA colleagues has written to me asking for more details about it, as has her Member of Parliament, Mrs Lockhart. Indeed, if I had time, I could quote Mrs Dodds's support for bringing in external help.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have run out of time, Minister.

I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. I advise you, Colin, that you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The tone of the debate was respectful, compassionate and constructive throughout: I will withdraw those terms when we come to the Minister's final remarks. Beyond those remarks, however, we were generally respectful and compassionate and took the opportunity to discuss a very important issue.

I understand, appreciate and welcome what the Minister has detailed, insofar as a range of interventions are taking place in cancer treatment that will hopefully help people. My only concern is that those interventions did not start in the past week or two. We have had them for a while, and the figures do not seem to be being driven down. I have faith that they will come down and that, once they align, all the interventions will enable us to chip away at the lengthy waiting times and allow us to see critical waiting times start to reduce.

If the Minister knew what his budget was, if he had a pot of money from which nothing could be taken away and if he knew that funding would be there for a number of years, that would be helpful and would allow all the initiatives to be underpinned with financial security in order to ensure that they are delivered. Given that cutting waiting times is one of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government, it should be an easy sell for the Health Minister to make to the Executive, and it should be easy for the Executive to say to him, "Here is the ring-fenced money for you to deliver speedier waiting times for those who are dealing with cancer". It has been referenced throughout the debate how that is a frightening time and how people feel as though they are alone as they face the challenge of combating cancer. Knowing that there will be a speedy response from hospital services would be of use to people.

I do not need to detain the House. We have talked about all the issues. Our amendment was tabled to support the motion and to try to give the Health Minister all the help and support that he can get to deal with the issues that, we have all said, are critical. I hope that the amendment can be supported in the way in which it is presented, which is to assist with cancer waiting times. I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. I ran out of time, but I should have it made clear that I very much welcome your clarification that any ring-fenced money for cancer treatment should be additional and not come out of the existing budget. Thank you.

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

Mr McGrath: Thank you. Absolutely, because, as I have said, there needs to be full Executive support for it. It is in the Programme for Government. There is no point in us putting things into the Programme for Government and then saying, "We are not going to give you the money to deal with it". We say that the money should come ring-fenced so that people out there know that, if they are facing cancer, they will do so knowing that there is a service that is funded and is available for them. With all of the interventions that have been mentioned and the support from everybody across the House, hopefully we will see an improved service for people. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Colin. I call Alan Robinson to conclude the debate and make his winding-up speech. Alan, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will say a few words of my own before I address those of others.

The headline that fewer than one third of patients who were referred urgently for suspected breast cancer during October to December last year were seen within the 14-day target is half the story. You could say that the real story is that two thirds of those referred urgently with suspected breast cancer were not seen within the 14-day target. They are all local people, some of whom we know, waiting anxiously for answers and clarity and living in hope of a positive outcome. Just imagine the terror and fear of a woman who discovers that she has breast cancer and then realises that, in Northern Ireland, only 37·7% of patients are seen by a breast cancer specialist within the 14-day target. We need to say it as it is: it is shocking and shameful.

Speak to any cancer specialist, and they will say that the disease is a race against time. The earlier cancer is diagnosed, the more effective and less invasive the treatment can be. That was repeated by Cancer Focus in 2024, which said that the earlier it is detected, the better the outcome. Clearly, the long waits for patients in the Province, whilst frustrating, are dangerous. They can lead to a later-stage diagnosis, reduced treatment options, poor outcomes and irreparable psychological damage. I welcome the £215 million that has been allocated to tackling waiting lists in the Executive's 2025-26 Budget. All of us in the House ask that that funding is not diluted, redirected or delayed; it must be ring-fenced specifically for initiatives that relieve the immediate pressure and allow the building of long-term resilience in cancer waiting times. That means investing in proven and practical solutions, rapid diagnosis centres, mega-clinics and service reviews that strip out inefficiencies. We welcome the £10 million announced by the Minister for mega-clinics and look forward to seeing the detail. We have to think not just about firefighting the crisis but about preventing it from reoccurring. To that end, we welcome the Minister's recent holding statement to the House on the investment plan to cut waiting lists.

I will sum up a few of the comments from Members. Diane Dodds was in her usual feisty form and detailed the appalling stats on cancer waiting times. She said that the stats for breast cancer are letting women down. It needs to be repeated that 25,000 youngsters are on a waiting list to see a paediatrician in the Belfast Trust and the Southern Trust. None of us could not be shocked by those figures, which add to the figures in our motion. Colin McGrath spoke about the theme of fear. He said that it is cancer and that it can land like a hammer blow. He is correct, but, when you add the huge waiting list times, you only add to the cruelty that is happening in this Province. Philip McGuigan, the Health Committee Chair, talked about the importance of catching cancer early, which reinforces the reason for tabling the motion. He, too, welcomed the waiting list investment plan but called for clear targets. Nuala McAllister referenced how the issues had been debated before. I share her frustration and am on record in the Chamber in that regard. A new mandate is fast approaching, and I suspect that those elected in the next mandate will have quite the challenge waiting for them. I hope that I am proved wrong.

Alan Chambers acknowledged that breast cancer waiting times are "awful". He expressed his disappointment at Mrs Dodds's "negativity" about the forthcoming cross-border scheme and wanted to know whether it was DUP policy. I say this to Alan: Mrs Dodds's comments in the previous debate — she expressed her concerns about health inequalities — have been backed up and reinforced in recent days by the deputy chair of the BMA.

Ciara Ferguson talked about the importance of listening to young people with cancer and spoke of the importance of clinical trials for women. She acknowledged and praised the local organisations that are at the forefront of the disease. Paul Frew talked about former colleagues in the Chamber — we can all think of some of them — who are no longer with us as a result of cancer. He used a phrase in referring to those diagnosed with cancer: "the clock goes faster". I am sure that those listening to the debate will agree entirely. Danny Donnelly, speaking about the cancer strategy, said that it was underfunded, which, indeed, is true of a number of strategies. He called on an investment plan to deliver, and we certainly agree on that. He called on the Minister to lower the age for bowel screening, and, again, we very much agree with that.

Stewart Dickson talked about his own diagnosis, and, as I have said in here before and will say again and again, personal experiences breathe life into debates in the Chamber. Forgive me if I have picked this up incorrectly, but I think that he called the current waiting list figures "a disgrace". Not one of us in the Chamber and not one member of the public will disagree.

Claire Sugden talked about having to wait 12 weeks for a cancer investigation, and I am sure that all of us in the House will wish her well. She is not here at the moment, but I hope that she is listening. She also referenced regional waiting lists, and the fact that the Minister has announced, just today, a regional approach to red-flag cancer assessments going live is welcome.

That leads me nicely on to the Minister's comments. His announcement through the press statement that we have had sight of today begs the question of whether it takes debates such as this to force that change.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robinson: Absolutely, I will. I really hope that it is not the case.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Let me be absolutely clear: the reason for the timing was the fact that Encompass went live in the final two of the geographically defined trusts on Thursday 8 May. That was the reason.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for clarifying that. It is good that Encompass is live in all trusts now, and I hope that benefits will flow from that.

The Minister also touched on workforce, and we have said in here in the past that, without a workforce, we do not have a health service. We also welcome the increase in CT capacity that he referred to. That will allow for 9,000 additional scans. I stand to be corrected on that. I have to say, however, that I expected the Minister to come out fighting today, but he certainly kept it within the tramlines, other than a few spicy moments near the end of his contribution. We can only hope that, on the back of today's debate, we see some further implementation on this critical topic.

I thank everyone for their contributions today. We are united in wanting to see waiting lists improved.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take you ease while we change the top Table.

Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which 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. Kellie, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I propose the motion to reaffirm our commitment, as a democratic Assembly, to the values of equality, dignity and inclusion for all.

This week, as we mark International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, we are reminded that our words must be matched by meaningful action. It is not enough simply to acknowledge injustice — we must eradicate it. The motion points, rightly, to a failure in leadership — a failure that stretches back more than a decade. In 2006, the Assembly first committed to developing a sexual orientation strategy. Nearly 20 years on, and more than 10 years since that promise was reiterated in the Assembly in 2013, we still have no strategy. We cannot keep telling LGBTQI+ people that their rights are a priority while continually failing to deliver the policies that would ensure that those rights are realised. The delay is not just a political oversight; it is a betrayal of trust for the LGBTQI+ community in Northern Ireland — a community that continues to experience higher levels of discrimination, poorer mental health outcomes, and increased vulnerability to violence and exclusion.

The Alliance Party has long been a champion of LGBTQI+ rights. We believe that every person, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, should be able to live freely without fear of discrimination or harm. Alliance has long advocated for comprehensive equality legislation; inclusive and affirming education; building a united community in which diversity is celebrated; and mainstreaming LGBTQI+, disability and all other rights across all areas of government. We support the creation of a robust, cross-departmental LGBTQI+ strategy not as a token gesture but as a fundamental mechanism for social justice.

In 2021, the Department for Communities convened an LGBTQI+ expert advisory panel composed of individuals with lived and professional experience. The expert panel's work culminated in a comprehensive set of recommendations that offers a clear roadmap for government action. The expert panel's recommendations include the immediate development and publication of an LGBTQI+ strategy; a cross-departmental stakeholder forum to embed lived experience in decision-making; inclusive relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in all schools; comprehensive protections against hate crime and discrimination; and a monitoring framework to ensure transparency and accountability. That is not a wish list: it is a plan — a plan created by the expert panel, which was engaged to deliver by the Department for Communities, that is grounded in evidence, lived experience and a shared desire to build a better society.

Why does that matter? It matters because LGBTQI+ people in Northern Ireland continue to face unacceptable disparities. The facts are that LGBTQI+ youth are far more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and self-harm; trans people face long delays and poor treatment in our healthcare system; older LGBTQI+ individuals face isolation and invisibility; and in schools, workplaces and even public services, too many LGBTQI+ people still experience discrimination and exclusion. Without a strategy, there is no coherent, coordinated approach to addressing those issues. Departments are left working in silos, and, too often, those in need fall through the cracks.

The benefits of such a strategy go far beyond the LGBTQI+ community. When we embed inclusion in our institutions, everyone benefits. In schools, inclusive education leads to less bullying, better mental health and improved learning for all pupils. In the workplace, inclusion drives productivity, innovation and well-being. In society, diversity strengthens resilience, community cohesion and civic trust.

It is also important to reflect on the responsibility that we hold as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The code of conduct for MLAs and the Nolan principles of public life — integrity, honesty, accountability, openness, leadership, objectivity and selflessness — must guide our actions, not just our intentions. We are elected to serve not just some but all our constituents, and that includes LGBTQI+ people in Northern Ireland. The principle of objectivity calls us to make decisions based on fairness and evidence. Leadership and integrity compel us to stand up for marginalised voices even when it is not easy. By supporting the motion and urging the Minister for Communities to publish the strategy without delay, we fulfil our duty not only to the LGBTQI+ community but to the wider public and the principles that underpin the Assembly.

Today's motion is not controversial; it is long overdue. It reflects the voices of those who have waited too long to be seen, heard and protected. Let this year's International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia be more than symbolic: let it be a turning point when the Assembly finally delivers on its promises and takes real, concrete steps towards inclusion. Let us honour the values that we claim to uphold and act. Please support the motion.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Democratic Unionist Party believes that unlawful discrimination, violence or harm perpetrated against anyone in society on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation is wrong. Every individual should be treated to respect and dignity, and, fundamentally, there can be no room for harmful or coercive practices. We have no difficulty with the first half of the motion, although I add that it is difficult not to view today's motion as a desperate effort by the Alliance Party to mitigate the fallout from its corporate exclusion from pride marches.

Our amendment recognises that progress is being made across a range of social inclusion strategies that are being developed through a process that the Minister for Communities and his Department are leading before bringing them to the Executive Committee as a whole. Those include the gender equality strategy and the sexual orientation strategy, which are both progressing. We acknowledge the important input of the expert panels and co-design groups that have contributed to the development of those draft strategies.

Our amendment also references the significant recent Supreme Court ruling, which has brought clarity to the debate on sex-based protections, affirming that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological reality. It has been reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission in England has since stated:

should not be permitted to use that space or service. That is a fundamental and common-sense clarification that emphasises the need to respect and protect single-sex spaces, services and categories, especially for women and girls, including in changing rooms and toilets, sports categories and where segregated accommodation exists, such as in prisons. It should also inform what is appropriate in intimate work duties, including for body searching and intimate care. It is sad but true to say that common sense on gender realities had been hijacked by a small yet extreme ideological minority, aided and abetted by parties such as Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, which pressurised businesses, civil administrations and the wider public into accepting a version of reality — their version — that denied all common sense. Women who dared to speak out about their concerns were branded bigots, hounded out of their jobs and silenced in the public discourse. For years, women have been insulted by those who are in complete denial of reality. Fears about the safety of women and girls have been trampled on.

Although the Supreme Court judgement deals with how sex-based rights apply across England, Wales and Scotland under the Equality Act 2010, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has provided its initial view that the judgement is likely to be deemed by industrial tribunals and courts in Northern Ireland to be:

There should be no attempt to prevaricate or stall on full compliance with the ruling across Departments, and any gender equality strategy must reflect the common-sense ruling of the Supreme Court. I commend the Education Minister for providing clarity to schools today.

Regarding the alternative amendment from People Before Profit on the topic of puberty blockers, we in the DUP are clear that there should be no backsliding on the part of the Executive parties in showing leadership and clarity to protect children from undergoing those irreversible and life-changing treatments, including in the absence of parental consent. The independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, which was chaired by Dr Hilary Cass and commissioned by the previous UK Government, raised significant concerns about the use of puberty blockers on children. We are used to Mr Carroll regularly espousing positions that fly in the face of economic and fiscal reality, but, today, he wishes to foist puberty blockers on more children against professional and scientific evidence. Should we be surprised?

In closing, we recognise that the Communities Minister recently brought the draft anti-poverty strategy to the Executive table. We look forward to its being formally published and to the other social inclusion strategies following the same path to publication.

They are the gender equality strategy; the sexual orientation strategy; the disability strategy; the disability in work strategy; and the active ageing strategy. We call for continued and timely work to complete the development of those draft strategies, and we commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. Members should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Gerry, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is important that the motion has been brought here to be heard today. Obviously, there are omissions in the motion, hence my amendment, but it is important that the House takes a stand against rising transphobia and other forms of hate and division. Despite a crisis in our health service, an education system that sees pupils stuck in unfit and unsafe accommodation and an onslaught on personal independence payment (PIP) and other welfare support systems, we see an attack on the rights of trans people by most of the political establishment, particularly the unionist quarter of the House. Despite talk about standing up for concerned parents or whomever else, we see those parties tailing and following the agenda of Trump, Elon Musk, McGregor, Farage, Starmer and whoever else has decided that it is worth sticking the boot into a small, marginalised community in our society. It is disgraceful, and it needs to be called out.

The only time that the DUP ever mentions women or pretends to give a damn about women's rights is when it uses them to stick the boot into another oppressed minority. The DUP is fundamentally opposed to the bodily autonomy of women and was happy for the state to prosecute women who sought abortion. Do not fall for the fake concern about women or women-only spaces. The women's movement, certainly on this island, has been clear about where it stands on the rights of trans, non-binary and bi people. It is welcoming and does not fall into the traps set for it. The real threat to women and women's groups is underfunding by the state and the lack of support for women who want to break out of violent and dangerous situations. The real danger to women, as is often reported, is usually from partners, ex-partners or family members, not from the trans community.

My amendment focuses on puberty blockers and reversing the Executive's decision to ban them for the trans community. Other blows have been inflicted on the community that need to be addressed. Most recent, of course —.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Carroll: Maybe later on.

Most recent, of course, has been the Cass review. Much has been said about it already, but what has not yet been homed in on is how the report was biased. The review refused to hear from or have input from trans voices, leading many to conclude that it was a stitch-up. It also excluded hundreds of reviews and research into how puberty blockers are an essential part of gender-affirming healthcare for some young people. Evidence also shows that, in many cases, puberty blockers are life-saving. 'The Journal of Pediatrics' found that trans people on puberty blockers, hormone therapy or both were 73% less likely to report suicidality. There is the evidence for people who want to listen to it. Poland's guidance on trans youth healthcare describes the Cass review as having "low scientific value and credibility". A limited and incomplete review should not be used to justify an attack on the trans community.

The Supreme Court decision was a continuation of that attack. Often, in this place, we hear calls to "listen to the experts". Well, in the case of gender-affirming healthcare, the people who provide it — the experts, if you will — have spoken. The British Medical Association (BMA) has come out and slammed the ruling, saying that it was "biologically nonsensical" and "scientifically illiterate". Parties to my right laughed at that earlier. If they want to laugh at our medical workers and their views, that is on them.

The Women's Policy Group said that the judgement violates the right to privacy, ignores the existence of intersex people and, in some cases, will effectively force trans people to withdraw from public life and the workplace. I suspect that that is the intention of some in the House. Some local councils and others and now, seemingly, the Education Minister are using the British Supreme Court judgement as carte blanche to implement politically motivated attacks on the trans community under the guise of protecting women and young people.

We need to listen to the voices of women who tell us that they do not want to be defined by their biology or by any court or legislative body. We need to listen to the voices of young trans people, who tell us that denying access to gender-affirming care and refusing to invest in timely, holistic healthcare is destroying the non-binary community. Brackenburn Gender Identity Clinic, the only gender identity clinic in the North, has a waiting list of up to seven years to be seen by the clinic's only doctor.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking the intervention.

Those are not my words but those of Dr Hilary Cass, whom the Member just cited. Does the Member accept that puberty blockers can have serious, long-term and irrevocable effects on young, gender-dysphoric teenagers?

Mr Carroll: I refer the Member to some of my points about the Cass review. I was not endorsing it; perhaps he was not listening. I also say to the Member that all forms of medication can have side effects. We saw a report in the news last week about some prescribed medication being the main reason that people are in A&E. The Member is not a medical expert, and I refer the Member to the views of the BMA, which he and his party laughed at and are laughing at again. That is my answer to the Member.

As I said, the Brackenburn clinic, the only gender identity clinic in the North, has a waiting list of up to seven years before someone can be seen by the clinic's only doctor. Those services have been consciously underfunded and run into the ground. Young people under 18 are being directed to the Knowing Our Identity service, where waits are so long that they will be referred to Brackenburn once they turn 18 without ever having been seen by children's services.

Trans and non-binary people exist. They deserve to live in dignity, with the healthcare and economic security that we all deserve. Reversing the ban on puberty blockers will not end the oppression and discrimination experienced by trans and non-binary youths, but it would be an important first step in pushing back against the disgraceful campaign of hate.

I urge Members to back the amendment in my name and to support the motion.

Ms Sheerin: I rise to support the motion. It is an important motion to support as we mark International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia later this week. We should celebrate the annual progress towards a more progressive, accepting and compassionate society. Sadly, we do not find ourselves in that position.

It is important to reflect on the fact that the wider LGBTQIA+ community represents an entire cross-section of our community, people whom we all know and love. They are our family and friends, our co-workers, our constituents, health workers, teachers, civil servants and so much more. They are young people, who hear these debates and have to carry that language with them. They come from all faiths and all backgrounds, all countries and all political persuasions, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Assembly would rally in opposition to any sort of discrimination, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia or any other type of marginalising behaviour in our society.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member accept that, just as members from the trans community come from a cross-section of our community, to put the lie to what the Member for People Before Profit said, women who are worried about protection for women's-only spaces also come from a cross-section of the community, from different faith backgrounds and political backgrounds?

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

Ms Sheerin: As a woman, I accept that women are worried about lots of things. I am a woman.

It is a sad reality that, for too many people, experiences of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, in particular, appear to be growing. Some voices have been heightened following the Supreme Court decision last month. That should not be seen as an opportunity, because it has caused great concern amongst the trans community in Britain. That concern is growing here in the North and is felt by our trans community, so we should wait for Equality Commission guidance on the impact of the ruling locally. There is an onus on all of us in the interim, particularly on the people on these Benches, who are leaders in our communities, to remember that we are talking about human beings and that compassion and empathy should underscore any and all comments. As elected representatives, we all must lead on showing compassion and embracing all sections of our communities as we look to build a new and united society. We should not dehumanise anyone.

We should listen carefully to the voices of those who are impacted on by these decisions. As the Rainbow Project reminds us today, at the start of LGBTQIA+ Awareness Week, it is a case of "Nothing About Us Without Us". Over the past few months, Sinn Féin has met a range of stakeholder groups, such as the Rainbow Project, Pride, Cara-Friend and HERe NI, to name but a few, as well as our party members who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. I ask all political parties here this: do you meet people? Do you speak with them? Do you listen to their concerns? Do you hear people's real fears on seeing hard-won gains and progress challenged by regressive and increasingly aggressive sectors?

We should all agree that all forms of hate should be extinguished and stamped out. We have to call it out in order to do so, and that requires leadership. There can be no going back on acceptance and no going back on issues of equality and respect.

Ms McLaughlin: I support the motion, which:

and reaffirms the Assembly's duty to uphold equality, dignity and human rights for all. I am, however, deeply frustrated at how little progress has been made and at how often the failure stems from political choices made in the Chamber. The LGBTQI+ strategy expert advisory panel laid bare the scale of the challenge. The community in Northern Ireland still faces systemic inequalities in healthcare, education, housing and safety. More than a decade after the Executive first committed to a sexual orientation strategy, we are still waiting for it. The LGBTQI+ strategy has been delayed, deferred and deprioritised.

Instead of working to resolve that failure, Members opposite have tabled an amendment that seeks not to move us forward but to stoke division. Let us be honest: the DUP's amendment is not about thoughtful policymaking or safeguarding anybody's rights but is a deliberate attempt to weaponise identity and pit communities against one another for political gain. What is most regrettable is that, once again, trans people are being dragged into a toxic culture war. Trans people are not a debate. They are human beings with hopes, feelings and families. They deserve respect and should not be used as a political punchbag. That kind of distraction politics is not just cruel but downright dangerous.

While the DUP obsesses over wedge issues, the real crisis, which is growing deeper, concerns our commitment to our communities. Children are going hungry. Families struggle to heat their homes. Poverty is rampant. We, however, are debating an amendment that does nothing to address those urgent needs and everything to stir up division.

Yes, we acknowledge the Supreme Court's recent judgement, but let us not pretend that the DUP amendment is a reasoned response to it. The Equality Commission has not yet published its guidance, which will be essential to understanding how the ruling should be applied in a way that protects everyone's rights. Instead of waiting for that clarity, however, the Education Minister has chosen to press ahead with new policy on single-sex spaces in schools. That is not leadership but pre-emption.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: No.

It is an attempt to shape the political narrative before the facts are even on the table and, rather than focus on the well-being of all our children, to insert a culture war into the classroom.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I can say that we have taken extensive evidence on the gaping holes in our equality framework. Let me be clear: Northern Ireland is falling behind. We are the only part of these islands without comprehensive protections against age discrimination and we lag behind when it comes to protections based on race, sex and disability. While other jurisdictions move forward, we are left standing still, debating whether equality should even be a priority. [Interruption.]

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: She has already indicated that she will not give way.

Ms McLaughlin: The Assembly should be delivering serious, inclusive and evidence-based legislation that raises standards and ensures that no one is left behind because of who they are or who they love. That requires mature politics, not distraction or division, and certainly not stunts dressed up as amendments. Progress on rights has never come easy; it requires thoughtfulness and respect. When we exploit complex issues for political point-scoring, sow fear instead of understanding and fail the very people who depend on the Assembly to act in their interests, we undermine trust in politics, shrink the space for honest dialogue and show the public that, for some in the Chamber, division still trumps delivery.

I am a bit concerned about the wording of Gerry Carroll's amendment, as it seems to advocate the unregulated selling of drugs. The words "sale or supply" are a bit ambiguous and, as he will appreciate, could cause concern. Healthcare for trans people is woefully underfunded, and waiting lists are over eight years long. It is important that members of our trans community are given appropriate —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — and evidence-led healthcare.

I urge Members to reject the DUP's amendment and its attempts to start a culture war.

Mr Beattie: I am mindful that what we say today will have an effect on many sections of our society. Therefore, I hope that we remain respectful. As somebody who has supported the LGBTQI+ community in the past by, for example, tabling the first motion on ending conversion therapy, supporting same-sex marriage and attending various events to promote the community, I have always tried to ensure that my language is respectful, even when there have been differences of opinion. A difference of opinion is not homophobia, transphobia or biphobia; it is a difference of opinion. When I spoke at a pride talk in 2023, as I have done on multiple occasions, those differences came to the fore. My belief, based on expert safety advice, that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to ban transgender woman from women's rugby was not popular, but I accepted the dissenting voices with respect. I did so even when they asked for the mic to be taken away from me.

It is worth remembering that it was an Ulster Unionist, Jeffrey Dudgeon, who, in 1981, successfully brought the UK Government to court in order to end the criminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. That was only the start of a long road to equality that now sees the LGBTQI+ community being a protected group under equality legislation. The LGBTQI+ community exists and cannot be washed or wished away. Without a doubt, members of that community have suffered bullying, particularly at school and in the workplace. The inability of some people to accept them for who they are has an adverse effect, and widespread discrimination has, at times, led to violence. None of that is acceptable.

Nowhere in the Assembly do I see anybody advocating that the rights of the LGBTQI+ community be undermined. There is a reality, however, that individuals' rights will, at times, conflict with other rights. That is something that can be dealt with comprehensively with a sexual orientation strategy. That leads me to the DUP amendment, which is a statement of fact. I say again that it should not be controversial for women to want their own spaces or sports or to have language associated with them. Women want privacy, safety and dignity. That is the absolute minimum that we should be providing, be that through service delivery, sporting bodies or the advice and language that is used by public bodies.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He talked about the importance of having a sexual orientation and gender equality strategy but also seemed, effectively, to endorse the DUP amendment, which removes the compulsion to produce that strategy, as it just says that the Minister will continue to work on the strategy.

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

Mr Beattie: That is not so. We do not have every word to exactly meet what we want to say, but, from working on that strategy, I take it that there is an endgame to it and that a strategy will be produced. I do not speak for all women — I do not pretend to — but a large number of women have contacted me on the issue, and I am representing what they said.

The DUP amendment goes to the heart of women's rights, and, while the motion is not about women's rights, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, it has a direct effect on them. This is the challenge: how do we support the LGBTQI+ community without causing the diminution of women's rights? It can be done. Legally, indeed, it should be done. Anyone who ignores the rights of women and of the LGBTQI+ community simply fails both. I will support the motion and the DUP amendment. The amendment from People Before Profit ignores medical advice and the potentially serious risks associated with puberty blockers, including reduced bone density, reduced fertility and changes in adult height. Therefore, I cannot support it.

I do not want to see the LGBTQI+ community treated as any less than anyone else. I want a no-tolerance view of homophobia, transphobia and biphobia. At the same time, I do not want to see women's rights trampled over just for a vote or to get yourself invited to pride. Let us look at both. Let us come up with a practical solution instead of sucking our teeth and giving not an inch, even if that inch is where we will end up anyway. There are solutions. People in the House know that: solutions have been put on the table, and people have ignored them. Let us find the solutions. Let us not just trade angry words across the Chamber when we know that we could have done things in this Building that accommodated both the LGBTQI+ community and women's rights.

Miss Brogan: Beidh mé ag caint as Gaeilge agus i mBéarla.

If Members want to use the headphones, they can.

I hope that the debate on today's motion is fairly uncontroversial. Surely, there can be nobody in the House who is opposed to equality, diversity and human rights. Ba cheart do gach saoránach a bheith ábalta dul i gceann a saoil saor ó leithcheal, foréigean agus dochar.

That seems an obvious and unremarkable position to take in 2025, but the truth is that, to our great shame, for generations, the LGBTQ+ community was treated shamefully in Ireland. Bhí an homaighnéasacht ina coir go dtí 1993 sa deisceart. Tá mé cinnte go gcuimhnímid an lúcháir a bhí ann i ndiaidh an reifrinn ar Chomhionannas Pósta in 2015.

Of course, marriage equality was recognised in this part of Ireland only in 2020, a mere five years ago. Cá mhéad duine dár laochra náisiúnta agus de dhaoine mór le rá sa tír seo a chuaigh ar shlí na fírinne agus é creidte acu go raibh orthu na daoine a raibh grá acu dóibh a cheilt mar gheall ar an chaolaigeantacht?

While things have undoubtedly improved over the years, we need not pat ourselves on the back. In 2024, tuairiscíodh gur tharla thart ar 330 coir fuatha homafóbach agus trasfóbach ar fud na hÉireann. Ní hé amháin gur méadú sin ar an bhliain roimhe sin ach, méadú don dara bliain as a chéile, i ndiaidh tréimhse fhada ina raibh ionsaithe den sórt sin ag laghdú.

Staitistic eile ar cúis imní í don teach seo ná nár tharla ach 88 de na hionsaithe sin sa deisceart, agus gur taifeadadh níos mó ná 240 sa tuaisceart, in ainneoin an daonra anseo a bheith níos lú faoi thrí, beagnach.

The 'National Study on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of the LGBTQI+ Communities in Ireland', which was published last year, found that 45% of people here feel unsafe holding hands with a same-sex partner in public and that over half of trans and non-binary people feel unsafe expressing their gender identity in public. The research further found that one in four members of the LGBTQI+ community have been physically attacked due to their sexuality, while 72% have experienced verbal abuse. That is simply unacceptable, and it illustrates why motions such as the one before us continue to be important.

A chairde,

it is our duty to lead from the front on these issues to ,set examples and to be clear and unambiguous when it comes to supporting human rights — not to evade or delay. With that in mind, I again call on the Communities Minister to publish the long-promised sexual orientation strategy, which has been talked about in one guise or another for some time. I remind the Minister, as he develops such a strategy, of the slogan that was popularised by disability and Irish-language groups: "Faic fúinn gan chead uainn."

Ní féidir straitéis den sórt sin a fhorbairt gan tuairimí na ndaoine lena mbaineann: ár bpobal LADT. Ní mór cumarsáid a dhéanamh idir an Roinn agus na grúpaí leasa éagsúla a oibríonn ar son na bpobal LADT. Tá súil agam nach gcaithfidh an tAire le grúpaí comhoibrithe LADT mar a chaith sé le grúpaí na Gaeilge, nuair a bhí gráin agus naimhdeas á léiriú aige.

Working closely with the community will ensure that nobody in it is overlooked. For example, specific challenges are faced by LGBTQ+ people who live in rural areas, where support systems and organisations tend not to be centred. Additionally, the needs of LGBTQ+ people who live with disabilities and require cross-departmental support should be taken into account when creating the strategy.

We can and must do better. As we approach pride month, it would be wonderful if we could do something to make our LGBTQI+ community feel seen, heard and proud of us.

Mr Tennyson: As we debate such issues, each of us in the Chamber has a duty to be mindful of the impact of our words, because, whilst this debate is just one of many that we will have, for young LGBTQ+ people out there who are listening, what we say is everything. For them, it is not a debate about political hypotheticals or a culture war; it is about the real challenges that they face as they seek to go about their day-to-day lives. It is about the two thirds of LGBT people in our society who do not hold their partner's hand in public for fear of negative reaction. It is about those who have suffered verbal abuse or physical assault because of who they are. It is about those who have experienced discrimination in the workplace or faced barriers in accessing public services. It is about the fact that more than 40% of LGBT young people have experienced bullying in schools. It is about the fact that LGBTQIA+ people are more than one and a half times more likely to experience depression and anxiety than the rest of the population. It is about the fact that gay and bisexual men are four times more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetime and that 46% — almost half — of our trans community have thought about ending their life.

I plead with Members: while it is, of course, right that we debate these issues, which are sensitive and complex, we must approach such debates with the compassion and empathy that they require, as has been referenced by other Members. In debates about section 28 and other issues, we failed a generation. I have no doubt that people in our community died because of the way that they were treated and because of toxic public discourse. Of course, we must come to the Chamber and debate these issues, and, of course, people are entitled to different views. However, I ask Members to be mindful of how they approach these issues. That is exactly what an LGBTQ+ strategy is about: addressing the issues and making life better for a small and marginalised group in our society.

It is a sad indictment of the Assembly that this debate is even necessary. Consultation on a sexual orientation strategy was first launched in 2006. Indeed, this is the second time that my party has tabled a motion that calls for progress. The first was tabled 11 years ago. As we stand here, almost two decades on from that first commitment being made, we are the only part of these islands never to have published a strategy to advance the well-being and equality of our LGBTQ+ community. As is so often the case with equality and inclusion in Northern Ireland, we are falling desperately behind. Some have been more interested in frustrating progress, be it by wielding vetoes in the Chamber to block marriage equality or frustrating and delaying efforts to lift the ban on gay men donating blood.

Some will seek to weaponise these issues and to pit marginalised communities against one another, but rights and equality are not finite. By expanding protections to one section of our community, it does not necessarily follow that we must take them from another. None of us in this society will be equal until all of us are equal. Those of us in the Chamber have a responsibility to represent all our constituents: those who vote for us and those who do not; those who email us or contact us on social media and those who do not.

The expert panel report was published four years ago. It includes a range of practical recommendations across health, education, safety and employment that would improve the lives of LGBT people. Instead of making progress on those issues, the Communities Minister has refused to meet LGBT organisations since taking up office over a year ago. That speaks, from where I am standing, to a wider disregard or disrespect for sections of our community. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.

For my part, however, I am proud of the fact that Alliance is taking forward measures where it has the power to do so. In the absence of action from the Communities Minister, I have recently completed a consultation on proposals to end so-called conversion practices, which are cruel and archaic, send a message to LGBT people that they are ill and in need of a cure or that their identity can and should be changed, and, we know, are deeply damaging to those subjected to them. I am also proud of the fact that my colleague Naomi Long is committing to —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Eóin.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: I had not initially planned to speak, but, having heard my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin and others, I will give my reflections on this important subject, given the level of public interest. I have spoken before on the issue, but it is important that we all speak up when we get the opportunity.

I welcome the fact that we are speaking to this motion on International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. It is important to acknowledge the historical context that has been talked about by others. The historical context is that Northern Ireland was a laggard internationally and in the UK when it came to, first, abolishing outdated sodomy laws and, secondly, questions of equal marriage and esteeming LGBTQIA+ people in a way that looked at them as human beings and not simply as categories to be othered. We tolerated, indulged and, indeed, celebrated homophobia and other forms of prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender orientation for far too long in this society, and that is, frankly, impossible to deny. Some of those who debating today and talking about the question of trans rights are in parties that, bluntly, spent decades trying to "save Ulster from sodomy" — I believe that that was the phrase. That is part of the historical context that we should reflect upon and have in our mind.

The motion calls for the speedy publication of an LGBTQIA strategy by the Department. That is sensible. Indeed, it has been awaited for some time. The previous Minister began that work; it was not published. I wish that it had been published in the previous mandate. This is a consequence of not doing those things quickly, because we now have a Minister from a different party who appears to be — perhaps he can update us on this — less enthusiastic about getting on with it, as it were.

It is impossible to have this debate, which is about the broader question of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, without acknowledging the particular context here today and, indeed, over the past number of weeks around the question of trans rights and the related issues that have been thrown up by the Supreme Court judgement. As we speak, we have upstairs in the Long Gallery people from the Rainbow Project, other trans rights activists and people who are not necessarily activists but are just trans people going about their ordinary lives. They are living as productive members of society who try to get on with their day. They live their life, use the loo when they have to, get dressed, go out in the morning, have a job and have relationships — all those boring things that the rest of us have to do.

I fear that our debate has fallen into a trap where we do not just other those people but treat them as something to be talked about as though their lives are a kind of science project or a weird species that needs to be put off to one side and talked about as if they are not ordinary human beings. About 10 years ago, when I was still a civil servant in London, I had my first proper encounter with a trans person, who I got to know as a colleague of mine in a Civil Service department. That person was middle-aged before they began the formal process of transitioning, and they were someone with whom I had a lot in common professionally. Our lives and our professional lives intersected purely because we were talking about a lot of the same things on a day-to-day basis. In getting to know someone who was trans and going through the transitioning process, I did something that, I fear, we do not do enough of, which was to acknowledge and treat those people as ordinary people.

Let me also say that, for many people, questions about gender identity are relatively new. Sometimes some of us have perhaps been a little too quick not to take the time to explain to people for whom questions of gender identity are new what some of those things mean and to reassure people that the questions on safety and sport can be dealt with in a way that is sensible and humane and neither jeopardises safety nor stigmatises people. That is not impossible, particularly because trans people are a tiny proportion of the population. We do not need to trade off one set of rights or one set of opportunities in order to treat trans people properly and with esteem. That is my position and that of others in my party.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I stand with them today. I do my best, but I am afraid that my time has run out. Mr Buckley has lots to say on the subject in the Chamber, and he is entitled to do so. I am saying that, if you are trans, you will be treated with respect, dignity and courtesy as we proceed through this policy debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the motion.

Mr Gaston: I oppose the motion and the amendments. Behind the soft-sounding words of inclusion and affirmation lies a hard reality, which is the erosion of women's rights, the undermining of parental authority and the silencing of common sense. No man, regardless of how he identifies, has the right to enter female-only spaces. Whether that be a changing room, a prison or a domestic violence shelter, women and girls have a human right to privacy, safety and dignity. To deny that right is not progressive. It is regressive, dangerous and wrong.

In Scotland, a rapist was housed in a women's prison. That is where this ideology leads. No man has a right to take part in women's sport — not now, not ever. It is not banning anyone to ask them to compete in their own category. It is fairness, science and basic equality for women. Shame on the BBC for suggesting otherwise and for claiming that transgender people are banned from football and cricket while, in fact, they are simply being asked to play in the correct category.

I will not stop at opposing just the motion. I also oppose the DUP amendment. I believe that the Alliance motion is unamendable, in that someone with my political and religious convictions cannot support it in any shape or form. The motion states:

I looked at the official website for that movement, which is may17.org. It contains a trans rights map that tells me that the UK has not yet lived up to the goals of the campaign, because it has not banned conversion therapy. Is the DUP happy to support a campaign that calls for preaching on Corinthians 6 to be banned? Furthermore, on the basis of evidence that is available today, the Department for Communities cannot be trusted to produce gender and sexual orientation strategies.

Today, the information on the Minister's departmental website says:

Who are the members? TransgenderNI, the Rainbow Project and HERe NI. Just last week, HERe NI put its name to a document attacking the Supreme Court ruling. We know what TransgenderNI's position is, and, indeed, as we speak, the Rainbow Project is having an event in this very Building calling for the ruling of our Supreme Court to be ignored.

Page 48 of the report on the Department for Communities website attacks the Supreme Court ruling in terms of its recommendations on single-sex spaces like toilets. On page 16, it champions gender-affirming care. On page 37, it affirms the Education Authority's transgender guidance — guidance that belatedly, eight months after I raised the issue with him, the Education Minister now seems prepared to act on.

I am not saying for one moment that Minister Lyons is going to swallow all the ideology in the report, but in a situation where that is all that I can go on to determine what a sexual orientation strategy is likely to contain, I am unable to support the amendment. I wonder whether the signatories to the amendment have read the expert advisory panel report. The Assembly should be protecting women's rights, not rewriting them. It should be supporting parents, not sidelining them. It should be standing with the Supreme Court, not attacking it. Because I believe —

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — I will vote against the motion and the amendment. Go on ahead, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: Thanks for taking the intervention. Does the Member support the idea that people should be allowed to enter the toilets in this Building without being photographed, both the men's and women's toilets?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Gaston, you are out of time.

Mr Gaston: What you are referring to is somebody taking a photograph showing —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — that a ladies' toilet is indeed a ladies' toilet, and what we have in this Building —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Order.

Mr Gaston: — and the policy that we have in this Building —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: — is that anybody can go into the toilets that they want.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Gaston, take your seat. Thank you. The next Member to speak is Mr Gordon Lyons.

Mr Gaston: I have not finished.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, you are finished, OK?

Mr Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities, is the next Member to speak. Minister, you have 15 minutes to respond.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion.

When I took up office in this Department, I said that I would support and champion a safe and welcoming society, and that requires a commitment to true equality and freedom for all. Therefore, let me be unequivocal: there is no place for discrimination in our society. Every individual, regardless of their background, identity or beliefs, deserves to be respected and to have the opportunity to live free from hatred or exclusion. That principle is non-negotiable and lies at the heart of a just society.

Let me turn to the sexual orientation strategy. Members will be aware that work was commenced in 2020 by the Department for Communities, on behalf of the Executive, on four social inclusion strategies — anti-poverty, disability, gender equality and sexual orientation — in order to progress the options proposed in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The motion notes the work of the expert advisory panel. The panel was established in October 2020, with the objective of making recommendations on the themes and key actions that the sexual orientation strategy should address. The panel's report was published in 2021.

Following consideration of the work previously carried out to develop each of the social inclusion strategies, alongside unprecedented pressures on resources across Departments, I decided to move forward on the development of the strategies on a phased basis, and work is now well progressed on the anti-poverty and disability strategies. It is true to say that much work has been carried out to date on the sexual orientation strategy. However, as that was undertaken in the previous mandate, it will be necessary to review and update that work before seeking approval from other Departments and Ministers. We are all aware of how the budgetary and legislative landscape has changed since the previous mandate, and that includes the recent Supreme Court judgement, which I will come to later.

Of course, final decisions on the content of the strategy will be subject to Executive agreement. I intend to make an announcement shortly on when work will commence on the further development of a sexual orientation strategy, including a timetable for bringing it to the Executive.

I understand the calls to bring forward the strategy. However, we need to ensure that any potential strategy is properly thought through. The motion calls for:

What is a delay?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way.

Mr Tennyson: Does the Minister acknowledge that almost two decades is sufficient time for consideration and proper scrutiny and that, perhaps, a little quicker than that would be good?

Mr Lyons: I will be moving on to that point and will deal with it in more detail, but is the Member saying that it should be published today? Is it today, next week or is it a few weeks? What does it mean? It reminds me that Mr Honeyford is in his place. When it comes to Casement Park, he always says, "Just get it built. Just get it done", but, of course, we cannot just say that we are getting on with it and getting it done, because there are questions —

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Just give me a second to explain. Give me the opportunity to explain what I am saying because they are not inconsequential proposals. Some of them, which came from the expert advisory panel report, are exceptionally controversial and divisive, and it would be very difficult to get political agreement on some of them.

Let me give an example of some of the issues that were mentioned in the expert advisory panel report. There should be:

For each one of those, you will have difficulty defining exactly what some of those terms are and what the implications are. You are talking about changes that will be felt across health, education and other aspects of our society. So, no, I am not prepared to take what the expert advisory panel report has produced and put it into a strategy, because it will not be realistic. It will not get Executive approval. In fact, one reason why Mr Carroll tabled his amendment is that there is no agreement in the Executive for the approach here, which talks about so-called gender-affirming healthcare services for all ages. All of those recommendations demonstrate why it is simply impossible to immediately produce a strategy that will get support from all Executive colleagues.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the upshot of what the Minister is saying that he cannot produce any strategy until there is complete agreement on all aspects? If the Minister is willing to clarify, that would be helpful. He seemed to indicate that there is not consensus on certain aspects of the panel's recommendations, so it would be helpful if he could clarify whether he is willing to bring forward a strategy of sorts, or must it have complete agreement?

Mr Lyons: That is exactly what I am coming on to. I want to see what is possible, what is sensible and what will actually make a difference. I hope that the more sensible Members of the House can understand how significant and contentious some of the issues are.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for giving way. Men were given way to before a woman.

Minister, the recommendations of the expert panel have been live for four years. You have been in the position of Minister for over a year. Why has it taken so long to bring the concerns about the recommendations forward? That is just delaying the strategy.

Mr Lyons: I find that a despicable comment. I gave way to Mr O'Toole because of the specific point that we were on. I anticipated the question that, I believed, the Member was going to ask previously, and I asked her to give me time. It is absolutely disgraceful what she is insinuating about me, and I think we should lower the temperature —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister, there is a point of order. I hope that it is a real point of order, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: Yes, it is under Standing Order 65 in regard to the language that is being used in the House, I feel that being chastised by a Minister across the Floor, rather than the Speaker, is something that should be investigated. I ask the Chair to look at that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Really? OK. I will take that away and look at it.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that they need to watch their tone, because everybody is watching. Please, everyone, be respectful. I say that not to try to throttle the cut and thrust of the debate, but we need to be civil.

Kellie, I will take your point of order away.

Mr Lyons: I am happy that we lower the temperature, but I will not have my integrity impugned. I treat everybody in the House with the respect to which they are entitled, regardless of gender. I hope that the Member would know me well enough at this stage to know that that is the case.

Let me turn to the amendments. Amendment No 1 highlights the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. First and foremost, that is a judgment that I welcome and that, I believe, brings clarity. I have therefore tasked officials with analysing the areas in my Department's responsibility that will be affected by the judgement. In due course, I will announce how that will manifest itself. Amendment No 2 concerns the supply of puberty blockers to those under the age of 18. The Member who proposed that amendment knows that, following unanimous support at the Executive on the matter, it will not succeed.

Let me now turn to some of the comments that, I believe, are worthy of addressing. I agree with the Member who proposed the motion that decisions should be based on fairness and evidence. That is absolutely right and is the way in which we want to approach such issues. Mr Kingston made an important point that I will return to later, which is that many people were mocked and denigrated for holding the view that has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling.

That takes me to another issue that a number of Members raised. Mr Carroll said that we were simply following the lead of other political leaders, be it Keir Starmer, Donald Trump or Nigel Farage: that is an attempt to demonise people who disagree with him. Unfortunately, we heard the same from Sinéad McLaughlin. Hers were very disappointing comments. The amendment standing in the name of Mr Kingston and Mr Bradley:

That is what the amendment states, but what do we hear from Members in the Chamber today, including Sinéad McLaughlin? We hear that the amendment aims to "stir up division" and that this is a "culture war". That is inappropriate language. There should be the ability in this place to disagree on some of the issues without some of the accusations that were flying towards this side of the Chamber. I think that there has largely been compassion and empathy as we have conducted the debate. I do not think that, to use Mr Tennyson's word, there has been an attempt to "weaponise" the issues. The words in front of us today in amendment No 1 simply state that we should recognise the ruling of the Supreme Court, which, of course, has implications, because it recognises the need to distinguish between gender recognition and biological sex when it comes to anti-discrimination legislation. That is fair and straightforward. As Mr Kingston said, there has been an attempt to mock, denigrate and demonise those who hold a different view. We should move forward in a different way.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. He talks about the denigration and mocking of positions. Some Members have said that the DUP's record is anti-women. That is obviously a reference to the proud pro-life position that we take, alongside many in our community. Will the Minister accept that many of those unborn children have been unborn girls?

Mr Lyons: Of course. That is often missed by those who take a different view. I am proudly pro-life and see that as being supportive of women and children. That is why I hold to those views.

I will pick up on another comment that Mr Tennyson made. He said that I had refused to meet any LGBT groups: that is not the case. I have taken a similar approach to meeting all the expert panel advisory groups. I have had criticism from across the House when it comes to anti-poverty, disability and other issues. I am more than happy to meet to discuss those issues. I hope that he will recognise that, on some of the issues that we are talking about directly, I have offered to meet him. I am genuinely interested and concerned about what were previously called "conversion therapies" but have been extended and are now called "conversion practices". I have offered him meetings in the past, and we are going to meet again soon to discuss those issues, so it is disingenuous to suggest that I am not willing to engage or meet people on them. I can assure —.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is right: we have met on one occasion, and there is another meeting in the diary to discuss my private Member's Bill. However, surely he will accept that engagement with me is not tantamount to engagement with the LGBT sector organisations and that that should be prioritised over a year into his tenure as Minister.

Mr Lyons: Just to be clear, I was not saying that. I am just stating that that specific issue is of significant concern and needs to be handled properly. I have engaged, but I have taken a consistent approach to all those strategies and engaged with those who were involved in the expert panel reports.

Mr O'Toole told us that we all needed to treat people like people: that is absolutely what I do. I have worked in many Departments and met many people, and you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who felt that I did not act or engage with them appropriately. He said that we needed to talk to people and try to understand where they are coming from: I hope that that extends to people of all backgrounds, including those who would disagree with him on some of the issues that we are talking about.

I am disappointed that Mr Gaston does not feel able to support the amendment in the names of Mr Kingston and Mr Bradley. His concern comes from the fact that we are recognising that it is International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. I do not know the details of everything that is involved in those campaigns — there are probably some things on which I would also disagree with them — but recognition should in no way be taken as full-throated support or endorsement of them. We can recognise certain things without being fully supportive of them. I hope that, in light of that, he will reconsider his vote and support the recognition of the Supreme Court ruling and the view that we should follow the outworkings of that to their logical conclusion.

As I said, I support the commitment in the motion to equality, diversity and human rights and, of course, the statement that:

I am aware, however, that the aims, objectives and content of any potential strategy must be carefully reviewed and considered across Departments in light of the PFG and human rights considerations and the funding that is available. I intend to ensure that that work is carried out effectively and properly before any potential strategy is presented to my Executive colleagues.

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Despite what the Minister has tried to say, the inhumane ban on puberty blockers is motivated mainly by right-wing transphobia. Some of the Executive parties, such as the DUP, that extended the ban on gender-affirming care indefinitely are openly hostile towards trans and non-binary people. Other parties talked a good game but then caved to political pressure from an increasingly reactionary Labour Government. Yesterday it was trans people; today it is migrants. Who knows where else Keir Starmer will go?

It is a shame that the Opposition are siding with the Executive on the matter. The party of so-called civil rights, which tries to hold the mantle of civil rights, basically says that trans rights do not matter. It should reflect on that.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No, thanks.

Restricting access to puberty blockers for under-18s is a flagrant violation of the human rights of trans and non-binary people. As I outlined, the decision also flies in the face of evidence on puberty blockers from medical professionals — not the DUP but medical professionals — and the trans and non-binary communities.

Access to the medication is being blocked only for trans youth. If puberty blockers were inherently dangerous, they would be banned for everyone under the age of 18. In answer to a question for written answer that I tabled earlier this year, the Health Minister said that young trans people will be supported by the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), the Knowing our Identity service and existing gender identification services.

As anyone who knows anything will know, our health service is collapsing, and our mental health services simply do not have the capacity to give trans and non-binary people the support that they need now. They are being cruelly denied access to basic healthcare. Make no mistake about it: the decision has caused huge distress and anxiety to a community that is already at a higher risk of mental ill health and suicidality.

The Health Minister also promised access to clinical trials for patients from the North, but there is no sign of those beginning any time soon.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No. Thanks.

Putting aside the fundamental unfairness that the only way to access puberty blockers will be through a restrictive clinical trial, has a single young person from the North been prescribed medication as part of a clinical trial since last year? I doubt it.

The Executive have also refused to publish the clinical evidence that informed the decision to ban puberty blockers, despite freedom of information requests and pressure from the wider sector. If this was a good-faith decision, motivated only by clinical evidence and expert opinion, maybe the Executive would be more open and honest, but it looks like a cover up.

The Executive parties are keen to table and support non-binding motions that express vague, warm sentiments towards the LGBTQI+ communities. However, when it comes to action — investing in health and social care for trans and non-binary people; challenging the application of the British Supreme Court's decision-making in the North; and granting access to gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers — the Executive are silent and found wanting. It is not too late to do the right thing, and that includes the Opposition. It is not too late for the Executive parties to admit that they capitulated to Westminster and bowed to political pressure from the right and the far right. It is time to do the right thing by the trans community and immediately reverse the decision to deny trans youth the healthcare that they need.

The Member for North Antrim talked about "common sense" and people's "safety". I hope that he agrees with me that people should not be photographed going into toilets, be they trans women or cis women. I hope that he will condemn that if it happens in this Building or anywhere else. If someone in his party was guilty of doing that, I hope that he would take swift action against them.

Unfortunately, we heard prevarication from the Minister. My reading of what he said was that he gave a litany of excuses for why there will not be an LGBTQI+ strategy. If this place and this Minister were left to their own devices, we could wait another 20 years for an important strategy.

For the people watching the debate, the most important thing coming out of this Building is the activism in communities and on the streets. It is an important aspect of standing up for trans rights. I encourage everybody to attend the upcoming pro-trans rights events. The pace of change from this Building is slow. The only rights that were ever won were achieved when people got active, and that was through the marriage equality and abortion rights campaigns. I encourage people to get involved in such activism in the weeks, months and years ahead.

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

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not reopen the debate in my winding-up speech. I urge the Executive parties to show leadership and give clarity to protect our children from irreversible treatments and ensure the safety of women and girls through strategies or policies that reflect common sense and scientific evidence.

I am a man. I am proud of that, but I will be defined by my actions. My respect for others, irrespective of their background, class, religion, gender or skin colour, is earned, not demanded. I look around the House today and ask everyone to earn the respect of their colleagues, not demand it. I will not wear a label — any label — that is assigned to me or to my party by any other person or party in the Chamber. I will not do that.

We are committed to treating every individual with respect and dignity, and we condemn any form of unlawful discrimination, violence or harm that is based on gender or sexual orientation. However, we stress the importance of protecting the right to express general views on sexuality and gender, as protected under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), even if those views are deemed offensive by others.

It has already been stated that we support the recent Supreme Court ruling, which affirms the legal definition of a woman based on biological reality and the protection of sex-based rights. I criticise the pressure from certain ideological groups and political parties that have pushed for a version of reality that denies common sense and has led to the silencing and marginalisation of women who express concerns.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with me that it is regrettable that not once during the contributions from Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin did we hear recognition of the huge hurt, anxiety and concern that many women in today's society face because biological men can enter their personal spaces?

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

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is quite right, and it flies in the face of reality.

In addressing the use of puberty blockers on children, we reference the independent review that was chaired by Dr Hilary Cass. We criticise efforts to promote those treatments without sufficient professional and scientific evidence, as my colleague Mr Martin mentioned.

I ask for support for our amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sian Mulholland to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Sian, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am really glad that we had the opportunity to speak today, as we mark International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. Today is a day to affirm our commitment to equality and state clearly, in the Chamber, that everyone deserves to live in safety and dignity, and to be free, seen and respected for who they are. Those are ideals that my party has had at its heart for decades, regardless of votes or invitations.

I say this to every trans, non-binary or queer young person who may watch this debate or parts of it, and I want them to hear it clearly: you are loved, you are valid and you are enough. I know that some of what was said in the Chamber today and recently elsewhere in the media may have felt hurtful or even dehumanising of who you are as a person: I am so sorry for that. I hope that you know that many of us, across the Chamber and across our communities, see you, stand with you and will keep fighting for a society in which you are safe, supported and celebrated, just as you are. It is important for those words to be said in this place and on this day.

I will focus some of my comments on one group in particular: trans and non-binary people, who face some of the most extreme, sustained and institutional forms of discrimination across every aspect of life. Even within an already marginalised LGBTQI+ community, they are disproportionately discriminated against. The strategy expert advisory panel's report highlights that trans people experience more profound barriers in safety, healthcare, mental well-being and education than their LGB+ peers do.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way. As my colleague and friend, she knows that I seldom refer to my personal circumstances in the Chamber. However, she also knows that I, as an openly gay representative in the 1990s and noughties, suffered snide remarks, gossip and blatant harassment, which ended up in court and is a matter of public record. Does the Member agree that those who did that then would simply not get away with doing it against the gay community, and that they know that? I expect that, if they thought that they would get away with that, they would try, but they would not get away with it today. Does she agree that, for them, trans people are simply the new target and that they cannot be shamed in that regard?

Ms Mulholland: I wholeheartedly agree. I also pay tribute to my colleague and friend for the bravery that he showed just to be himself in a world where he was admonished for such. Thank you, John, for your contribution.

On safety, I want to make a quick comment on Mr Gaston's comments. In the past decade, not one trans person has been convicted of a femicide — not one. When we look at the violence against women and girls strategy, what are we looking at? What are we trying to work against? A trans person is more likely to be a victim than a perp. The crime statistics show that, if a man wants to make a woman feel unsafe — I go back to your comment, Mr Buckley — or enter their safe spaces, there is not an awful lot that is going to stand in their way. They do not have to be trans, or pretend to be trans, to do so, even though that is the media story of the day. According to the expert advisory panel, 67% of transgender people in Northern Ireland say that they avoid being open with their gender identity for fear of abuse. That is two thirds of that community being silenced and shrinking themselves to stay safe. More than half — 53% — have experienced at least one hate-related incident. The abuse starts early. It starts in school corridors, at home and, sometimes, even in care. For some, that leads to homelessness. According to research, a shocking 25% of trans people experience homelessness in their lifetime; something that is within the wheelhouse of the Minister who responded to the debate.

We also cannot ignore the alarming scale of online abuse that is directed at transgender people. It is not just harassment or bullying but a form of targeted sustained violence. A Brandwatch report analysed 10 million social media posts from the UK and US over a three-and-a-half-year period. It identified 1·5 million transphobic posts. The same report found that transphobia was politically driven and that there were clear spikes in abuse when political leaders proposed restrictions on trans rights or made comments about the rights of —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I have a lot to get through. I am really sorry.

That data leaves us in no doubt that online spaces have become battlegrounds for trans people. What we say in the Chamber and the actions that we take as political representatives matter. We have to acknowledge the toxic public discourse that surrounds trans communities today, as my colleague pointed out. As highlighted by the advisory panel, growing media hostility that is targeted particularly at trans individuals is not just harmful in the abstract or the intangible but actively discourages LGBTQI+ people from entering or remaining in public life. When the headlines are filled with dehumanising language, television debates treat people's identities as opinion fodder and political discourse regularly undermines or seeks to push out trans existence, it sends a clear message: "You are not safe here".

The consequences of such abuse are that eight in 10 trans people have reported anxiety and more than half have reported shame, fear and isolation. Higher rates of mental health issues are experienced by trans people: 40% have self-harmed and nearly 43·5% have attempted suicide. Those are not just numbers: they are a crisis in motion, driven not by trans identity but by rejection, marginalisation, neglect and the narrative that continues around them.

When it comes to education, schools should be a refuge and a safe haven, but fewer than half of our LGBT+ pupils feel safe at school. Some 61% of trans pupils report difficulty in accessing appropriate toilets. Over 60% are negatively impacted on by sports policies. Forty-eight per cent of trans pupils have been bullied due to their identity. Of those who report, 54% feel unsupported in their school environment.

In my previous role as the manager of youth projects in the arts sector, I worked with a wide community of facilitators and young people, including, but not limited to, those who were trans, non-binary and queer. I want to put forward a bit of a human aspect. On one occasion, a parent contacted me about a project that I was delivering. They wanted to thank me for providing a truly diverse and inclusive experience for their child. They said that it was the first time that really interesting conversations had opened up at home, and that the process of actually meeting someone with that identity had demystified some of the tough questions that they had. On another occasion, a young person came to me on work experience. On completion of their week, they came back to volunteer because they had loved it. Before their first day of volunteering, they took me aside and very anxiously asked me whether it would be OK if I called them by another name because, when they came for work experience, their school had banned them from telling me the name that they had chosen and the fact that they were transitioning. They apologised and said that they had felt dishonest with everyone whom they had met that week. What kind of world do we want to create for young people who are not encouraged or supported to be their genuine selves?

With regard to the strategy, which is what the motion is about, not the Supreme Court ruling that is referenced by the DUP amendment, on 13 March, the Rainbow Project's Alexa Moore gave evidence to the Communities Committee and described the failure to progress both the gender equality strategy and the LGBTQI+ strategy as a missed opportunity to ensure equality across government and society in Northern Ireland. It was emphasised that those equality strategies were designed originally to be brought forward together: they were interlinked. The current piecemeal approach is not sufficient. Serious gaps in data collection were referenced. Concerns about the lack of inclusion in the Programme for Government of LGBTQI+ voices and the absence of progress on issues such as IVF access for LGBT+ people must not be ignored.

Under New Decade, New Approach, the Executive made a promise. It is time that we delivered on that promise. Being trans, non-binary or queer is not the problem: discrimination is; injustice is; delay is; silence is.

Going back to the words of our motion, why would anyone in the Chamber not want to affirm their:

Surely we all believe that every citizen whom we govern deserves to live a life free from discrimination, violence and harm, so why hesitate to bring forward a strategy that reflects those values?

Again, this is not some intangible policy area that we are debating. It is the lived reality for individuals living in our communities, and it is our duty, as my colleague Kellie Armstrong pointed out, to represent all in our society — not some, but all. We need to do all that we can to commit to having justice in law, equality in care and dignity in every corner of life, because every person deserves to walk this world as who they are freely, safely and proudly. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.