Official Report: Tuesday 20 May 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Any Member who wishes to be called to make a statement should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind you all that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Martin: Last week, at the Balmoral show, I saw the very best of our agri-food sector on display. As well as tasting some great food and drink, I saw plenty of animals and even ended up stroking an alpaca. [Interruption.]

Yes, that is true, Phillip and Paul.

In the past couple of years, however, our hospitality and food sectors have taken a battering: most recently with the Labour Government's decisions to reform National Insurance and increase inheritance tax on farm properties. Yet, in spite of those challenges, the local food and drink sector in my constituency has continued to go from strength to strength, with some notable successes across the British Isles.

It is worth drawing attention to some of those stories and celebrating the achievements of local producers and hospitality businesses. Clandeboye Estate yogurt, which was started by the late Lady Dufferin, did fantastically well at the Irish Food Awards, with its raspberry and white chocolate pot recognised as the best product in Ireland. Ballyboley Dexters, a family-owned cattle farm, was acknowledged at the Great Taste Awards for its quality meat, which is produced using sustainable cattle farming techniques. It has also done great work to restore the historic Orlock Farm, which overlooks Belfast lough. Family-owned Primacy Meats was named retailer of the year at the Bangor Business Awards.

Our hospitality businesses have also found great success at a local level. The Bangla in Bangor, owned by Abdul Rob, won the award for best Northern Ireland restaurant at the acclaimed "Curry Oscars" in London, cementing its status as the best Asian restaurant in Northern Ireland for the third year running. The Crawfordsburn Inn won the atmospheric destination of the year award at the Irish food and hospitality awards. The Jamaica Inn won the award for best gastropub in the Ulster region at the Irish Restaurant Awards.

Honourable mentions go to Copeland Distillery, the Cleaver steakhouse and the Walled Garden in Helen's Bay amongst many other winners across my constituency. I should also mention the Star of Bengal, because it is my local Indian takeaway, and I highly recommend the lamb madras.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Peter.

Mr Martin: That is probably a pretty good point on which to end.

Mrs Dillon: Today, I mark Dementia Action Week. I thank the Alzheimer's Society for the pin that it gave me as I came in here today and for all the work that it does with families and those who, unfortunately, suffer from the effects of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The issue is a serious challenge for our health and social care system. In the North, treating dementia currently costs us £1 billion a year, and it is estimated that, in the next 15 years, that figure will rise to £2 billion. That is a serious cost to our economy, our society and our health system, but the greatest cost is to families: to those who suffer from dementia and to the people who love, support and look after them. We therefore need to make sure that we do all that we can.

There is much work happening in the field of research. Many drugs are coming online that can either delay or prevent dementia. We need to work hard, and our Minister needs to look at what can be done to ensure that those drugs are available to all who need them. We also need early diagnosis. We talked yesterday about the availability of and access to GPs. If people cannot access GPs and other services in the health sector, they will not get diagnosed, and it will then be too late for the medication to be of any use to them. I call on the Minister of Health to address and action that issue and to make sure that all people can get early access not only to GP services but to the services that are needed to diagnose them fully.

People have been crying out for help for many years. I am sure that there are Members in the Chamber today who have been affected. In my family, my cousins looked after their mummy, and my uncle looked after his wife, for many years as though she were an egg. She was a beautiful person inside and out. They did everything for her that they possibly could, and they did it with the support of the Alzheimer's Society. I acknowledge that it did a lot of work, but they were the ones who were there day in, day out. Her husband, daughter and sons cared for her, loved her, fed her and made sure that they talked to her just as they had talked to her every other day of her life. They did not treat her any differently, and that was so important.

To be able to do that, people require support from all of us in government to support them in the community, through the benefits that are available and through the health service. Every element of what we do here needs to be about supporting those families and the people affected. We must remember the many families who are impacted on, and there will be so many more. None of us knows whether we will be that person. I hope every day that it will not be me or anybody whom I love, but none of us knows. I therefore ask everybody to support Dementia Action Week, and I ask the Health Minister to make sure that people have early access to GPs and other health services.

Mr Blair: Today, I join the League Against Cruel Sports in recognising the importance of Fox Day, which will be celebrated this Thursday. That annual event gives us the opportunity to honour those extraordinary animals, to highlight their vital role in preserving our ecosystems and to advocate for their protection against cruelty. For centuries, foxes have been an integral part of Northern Ireland's wildlife. As a native species, they are revered for their adaptability and their intelligence. Foxes' presence in our environment not only is a testament to a healthy habitat but underscores their essential contribution to the biodiversity of our region. By supporting initiatives that protect those remarkable creatures, we ensure that future generations can enjoy and appreciate the unique wildlife that defines Northern Ireland.

Celebrating Fox Day therefore offers us a platform to educate ourselves about the critical importance of wildlife conservation and to stand firmly against any unnecessary harm that is inflicted on those creatures. That is why legislation is required to protect our foxes. Members will know that it is my intention to bring legislation to the Chamber imminently, through a private Member's Bill, to ban hunting wild mammals with dogs.

In closing, I encourage everyone to wear orange this Thursday as a show of support for these remarkable animals. That will highlight our dedication to safeguarding our ecosystems and denouncing all forms of animal cruelty. Of course, I also urge all Members to join me in supporting my private Member's Bill when the opportunity arises. Nature has no room for cruelty, and it is high time that the Assembly consigned the barbaric practice of hunting foxes for sport to history.

Mr Butler: I associate myself with the remarks made by Mrs Dillon about Dementia Action Week. My sister-in-law, who is only in her late 50s, has been impacted by the disease, as has her family. I thank the Member for mentioning the issue.

I congratulate Park School in Belfast on its production of 'Superhero School', which has been shortlisted in the "Best Film -12-15" category at the Into Film Awards 2025. The film's creation is a testament to the vision, creativity and determination of the young people who brought the project to life. Their success reflects not only their talent but a nurturing school environment in which each student is encouraged to dream big and reach as high as they can. What makes the achievement so special is that it comes from a school that understands the unique potential in every pupil. Park School is a place of ambition but not solely academic ambition. It has a broader vision of what success looks like for young people with additional needs. The nomination tells the story of a school community that believes in its students, invests in them and supports them to discover and share their voices in the world that we share.

Creating a film of that magnitude is no small task. It takes teamwork, storytelling, imagination and courage. Those are qualities that have clearly been fostered through the ethos of Park School. The pride that the students and their families, teachers and classroom assistants must feel is richly deserved. They are setting an example not just for other schools across Northern Ireland but for our entire society and are showing what is possible when inclusion, creativity and ambition go hand in hand.

The moment also highlights the ongoing need for meaningful post-19 education and opportunities for those young people. Alma White has wonderfully championed that need, and her ambition has led to Caleb's Cause, which campaigns to ensure that no young person is left behind when they leave school and, instead, is supported to live a full and flourishing life.

To all those involved in 'Superhero School', I say, "Well done. You have made Belfast and Northern Ireland proud, and, more important, you have shown what you are capable of when you are given the opportunity to shine". I wish them all the very best of luck at the Into Film Awards in London. However, I am sure that we all agree that they are already winners in every sense.

Mr Durkan: As the chair of the all-party group on dementia, I would also like to speak about Dementia Action Week.

The Alzheimer's Society has indicated that around 25,000 people live with dementia across the North. However, more than a third of people with dementia do not have a diagnosis, so they cannot access the vital care, support and treatment that they need. I understand that getting a diagnosis can be daunting, but research shows that 97% of people affected by dementia have seen the benefit of a diagnosis. An early and accurate diagnosis helps people to live independently for longer, access existing treatments and avoid ending up in crisis. It also allows people to better understand their condition and plan for their future. Every year, those who are living with dementia but do not have a diagnosis account for around 15,000 visits to A&Es. That puts huge pressure on the wrong part of the health service: it is not good for the patients, the staff or the system.

This Dementia Action Week, the Alzheimer's Society is shining a light on the six most common early signs and symptoms of dementia and encouraging people to seek help, if they spot those signs in themselves or a loved one. Anyone with concerns can use its free symptom checklist and seek help.

The six most common symptoms of dementia are memory loss — problems recalling things that have happened recently; difficulty in organising thoughts; struggling to make decisions, solve problems or follow steps; problems with communication — difficulty in following conversations or finding the right words; problems with vision — difficulty in judging distances or perceiving object edges; confusion about time or place, losing track of the time or date or becoming confused about location; and changes in mood or personality, such as becoming unusually anxious, irritable or withdrawn.

Over the next 15 years, we will face a 51% jump in dementia cases, which will be the largest rise in the number of people living with dementia across these islands. By 2040, we will have over 37,000 people living with dementia. Each diagnosis has a whole-family impact. Dementia devastates lives, but, as we have heard, it also brings devastation to our economy: it costs over £1 billion currently, and that figure is set to rise to £2 billion by 2040, unless action is taken now.

Ms Brownlee: I rise to highlight the growing and concerning issue of antisocial behaviour in the Carrickfergus area. Sadly, it is not a new problem in any part of Northern Ireland, but, in recent months, the scale and severity of incidents in Carrickfergus have increased significantly.

This past weekend, the Barn United Football and Social Club was once again targeted and damaged. On three separate occasions last week, club members arrived to find broken glass scattered across the 3G pitch, a stand destroyed, dugouts vandalised and surrounding infrastructure damaged. Even the CCTV system has been smashed. Barn United is a community club that is run by volunteers to serve the people of Carrickfergus. Those mindless acts of vandalism have not only put considerable financial strain on the club, which must now foot the bill for repairs, but taken a toll on the dedicated volunteers who give up their time so freely. Two young boys, Logan and Carter, kindly gave up their time to help clean the area. Their actions are a reminder that the vast majority of our young people are compassionate and responsible and care deeply about their community.

Barn United has engaged proactively with the Communities in Transition initiative and the PSNI in developing youth intervention projects, such as the Game Bus, to encourage positive youth engagement and respectful behaviour. Given those efforts, the repeated incidents of antisocial behaviour are understandably disheartening. It does not happen only at that club. The Marine Gardens area continues to see large gatherings, particularly at weekends, which leaves many residents feeling intimidated and unsafe.

I want to be clear: the antisocial behaviour does not represent the majority of our young people. Across Carrickfergus, we are so lucky to have so many inspiring young people and incredible organisations working day in, day out to make such a difference. Chill, Carrickfergus Community Forum, Carrick YMCA, Communities in Transition and many more groups and initiatives do an outstanding job, as Carrick Connect did previously, to build relationships, prevent harm and offer real support. Their work makes a huge difference on the ground in engaging with our young people and defusing issues before they escalate. I have engaged directly with the Chief Constable on the issue, and police communication and visibility have improved. However, it is clear that this is not a problem that can be solved by any individual, agency or organisation alone. It is a challenge for us all: elected representatives, police, community leaders, family and, most important, the young people themselves.

Ms Bradshaw: On Saturday night, I had the privilege of attending the 25th anniversary gala ball of Belfast Harlequins Hockey Club for both the men's and women's sections. Many of you who are familiar with south Belfast will know that the club was originally based at the North of Ireland Cricket Club ground on the Ormeau Road, which was subsequently developed into a successful housing scheme. The club then moved to its current site in Deramore. It is a multi-sports club that provides not just hockey for men and women but rugby and GAA. A quarter of a century on, the hockey side is embarking on a push for an upgrade of its pitch, a tender for which is out at the minute.

In just 25 years, the club has enjoyed considerable success, including providing two Women's Hockey World Cup finalists, an accomplishment that would have been unthinkable on the club's foundation. This season, the women's 1st team won the President's Cup, and the women's 2nd team won the junior league. The club was represented on the Irish masters team in New Zealand last year, as I referenced in a previous statement. In fact, first team player Katie Larmour is the latest Quins player to be called up to Ireland's senior international squad, which is perhaps apt, given the fact that her mum, Roisin Walsh, has led the club's thriving junior section for two decades.

What was striking about the event was the focus not on silverware and caps but rather on the lifelong friendships that flow throughout the club. It was pointed out that, across the club's mix of teams of different levels and maturity, you find that the youth team interacts with the veterans and the ones who are there just for fun are great friends with the elite players. Saturday night very much reflected that there is no hierarchy in the club. That, in the end, is what sport is all about. I wish Belfast Harlequins well in the future and look forward to their continued success.

Mr Frew: I rise to raise awareness of a meeting that took place last week, on Tuesday 13 May, when Vaccine Injured and Bereaved Support (VIBS) NI took a delegation of bereaved and injured people to meet the Health Minister to talk about their conditions, their symptoms and their loss. I must say that they got hope from that meeting. I thank the Minister for meeting them and for providing that hope.

Those people have been gaslit, ignored and dismissed for far too long. A Member of the House even told them that they should not meet in Stormont and would be better meeting in a community centre. That is how those injured people have been treated to date. I press the Minister to do everything in his power to make sure that those people are, first, recognised — that the medical fraternity recognises them as vaccine-injured, because there is a fear in the medical profession that it dare not talk about vaccine injury — and that those people be given the support that they need to live the rest of their lives in fulfilment despite their injuries and loss.

It will be the biggest medical scandal in our lifetime, not because they were injured because they took a medicine — that is the most natural thing in the world — but because they were coerced into taking that medicine by parties in the House and Governments in Westminster and throughout the Western World. Since that and because of that, those people have been ignored. They have been an inconvenience. Those people need to know that they are not isolated and alone. Support group branches have now been set up in every county of Northern Ireland and practically every major town. Those people require that support from the charitable organisation VIBS NI, but they need so much more help from government, the Health Department and trusts. I am determined to make sure that they are recognised and acknowledged and that they receive the support that they so badly need.

Mr Donnelly: At the weekend, I had the privilege of attending the launch of the 2025 All-Ireland Coastal Rowing Championships in Glenarm in my constituency of East Antrim. It was a fantastic event that brought together rowers, volunteers, community leaders and even a special guest, double Olympian Rebecca Edwards, to kick off what promises to be a landmark summer of sport on the Antrim coast. Standing on the slipway in Glenarm and even getting out on the water in boats alongside local clubs, MLAs, our local MP, the mayor, the Communities Minister and Olympian Rebecca Edwards, I saw first-hand the energy, pride and momentum that is already building ahead of the main event in August.

The launch marked the start of a summer of rowing. I was delighted to speak to rowers and volunteers, some of whom shared how we can better support their clubs and this year's event. With clubs from the glens, Glenarm, Ballygally Castle, Cushendun, Whitehead and Carnlough, our coastal clubs will be racing most weekends from now until the championships in August, creating local buzz and drawing crowds right along the Antrim coast.

This August, the championships return north for the first time in over a decade and are set to be the biggest yet. Last year's event in Dingle, County Kerry, saw 550 crews, 71 races and 57 national titles. Glenarm is now preparing to welcome thousands of visitors across the weekend of 15, 16 and 17 August. The economic impact will be substantial. Accommodation along the coast is already heavily booked, with the event set to generate millions for local tourism and small businesses. From what I saw and heard over the weekend, our local clubs are more than ready.

Last year, Castle Rowing Club in Ballygally brought home two all-Ireland titles and two silver and three bronze medals. They have a history of great success across multiple years. Whitehead Coastal Rowing Club secured three silvers and a bronze, a result of hard work and dedication, and a Glenarm rower claimed two national titles as part of a composite crew. Those are not just medals; they are the result of years of dedication, grit and passion for the sport.

Now in its thirty-third year, the All-Ireland Coastal Rowing Championships are more than a sporting event: they unite people, building friendships, breaking down barriers and creating a sense of pride and community across the island. It is also a great sport, with huge benefits to physical and mental health.

I pay tribute to the Irish Coastal Rowing Federation, the Antrim Coast Rowing Association and the army of volunteers who make it possible. I will be backing our clubs all the way, and I encourage all Members to come along and experience this truly special sport and event for themselves. It will not disappoint.

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. There is no greater duty for public representatives than the proper stewardship of taxpayers' money, yet, last month, the House was advised that the Assembly Commission had reached a confidential settlement with contractors over the cost of repairing Stormont's roof — a multimillion-pound bill, no doubt. That is an outrageous situation: the public, whose money it is, are not permitted to know how much is involved in the settlement. The Commission, made up of Members of Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, reached a secret deal with the contractor behind closed doors. That is not providing transparency. That is not delivering accountability. That is an evasion of holding people to account.

I hear growing frustration from people of all political backgrounds that Stormont has become a self-serving institution, quick to complain about a lack of funds from Westminster, while refusing to be accountable for the money in its control. That is not just bad governance; it is a betrayal of public trust to withhold details of what public money is spent on. In this case, water ingress arose from drilling into the concrete slab of the roof. The public want to know who signed off on such a scheme. Was the scheme approved by the Commission, who will not tell us how much it will cost to fix?

The same should apply to councils. Recently, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council settled a tribunal case using a non-disclosure agreement to hide the cost to the public. Whether it is in Stormont or local councils, the public deserve to know what their money is being spent on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy. I call Gerry Carroll. Gerry, you have two minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Over the weekend, in Belfast and across Ireland and the world, people gathered to commemorate the "Nakba" or, in English, "Catastrophe". The event marks the founding of the Israeli state 77 years ago this month. The Israeli state was founded in ethnic cleansing, displacement, slaughter and the belief not in coexistence but that it is OK to steal and occupy another people's land.

Zionism never did and does not today speak for all Jewish people, and a large number of Jewish people are defying what Israel represents. It is worth emphasising and challenging one of the many lies that Israel is based on: Palestine was not a land without people. It had people, culture and history for thousands of years. In response to the brutality of the Holocaust and the industrial attempts by European fascist powers to wipe out Jewish people, Zionism grew. Palestinians should not have been forced to pay then or now for the vicious crimes of antisemitic parties and forces in Europe — something that people in the House should do well to remember.

Since day one and before its inception, Israel has been backed by Western imperial powers.

It continued the sorry trend of settler colonialism — a project that has caused devastation worldwide and that would collapse without the military and financial support that it has.

As people in Ireland and elsewhere gathered to commemorate the Nakba, Israel continued to do what it has done since 1948. It relentlessly targeted Palestinian towns, villages and hospitals once again. Just yesterday morning, 23 Palestinians were killed. I ask these questions: do the lives of the millions of Palestinian hostages not matter? Do the lives of the 100,000 Palestinian hostages who were killed not matter? It is important that truth continues to be spoken to power. I commend people for continuing to protest. I also commend Louis Theroux for his excellent documentary, which showcased the truth behind the Israeli state.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Gerry; thank you. Phillip Brett, you have two minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. First, I associate myself with the remarks that were made about Dementia Action Week, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my constituent Emily Wilson for her tireless work and campaigning on that important issue.

As we mark the end of the VE Day anniversary and celebrations, I pay tribute to the communities the length and breadth of my North Belfast constituency that gave of their time to ensure that we commemorated and celebrated that important event. From Sandyknowes roundabout to the Shankill Road and everywhere in between, communities put on a great show. I will certainly and happily take this opportunity to name a few. I was delighted to attend events that were organised by the RATH Community Group; the Sons of Kai Flute Band; North Belfast Orange hall, from where my dodgy dancing skills have gone viral; Crusaders Football Club, which used the opportunity to raise funds for local charities; the White City over-50s; Seniors by the Shore; the Ballysillan Cultural Initiative; Alexandra Presbyterian Church; the Rathfern Social Activity Centre; Mountainview Battlefields Association; the Shore Crescent women's group; Rathcoole CREW; the Queens Park women's group; the Community Relations Council; and Lower Shankill residents' group.

The most poignant event was the opening of the military arch on the Shankill Road. It was attended by thousands of people from across Northern Ireland and was a fitting tribute to the men, women and children who gave their life for the freedom that we enjoy today. The arch was opened by World War II hero Victor Clarke and modern-day hero Andy Allen MLA. People from all communities and none came together to mark VE Day. As a representative of North Belfast, I say how proud I am of each and every one of those groups and I thank them for their continued service in ensuring that we remember our fallen heroes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Phillip.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. Yesterday, during Members' statements, I said that the media monitoring unit existed in the Executive Office. However, I have been advised that that is not the case. I would like to correct the record. It transpires that the unit in question is located in the Department of Finance and provides its services across the entire Executive, not solely to the Executive Office —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a point of order?

Mr Gaston: — as I had indicated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, could you get to your point of order, please?

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. I apologise for suggesting that the Executive Office alone has such transcripts. It appears that all Departments get them through that pooled service, which, when you think about it, makes it even worse than I suggested yesterday. I trust that the record will be corrected.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order, as you knew, but you have got your sorry-not-sorry apology on the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Health that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-sixth North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting in the health and food safety sectoral format, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday last, 14 May 2025. I was joined at the meeting by junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, who attended as the accompanying Minister. Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD, Minister for Health, and Norma Foley TD, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, represented the Government of Ireland. Minister Carroll MacNeill chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed with junior Minister Reilly, and I make it on behalf of both of us.

On health, the Council welcomed the progress that has been made to date in implementing the Council's current work programme in the health sector. Ministers noted that both Health Departments have engaged on additional areas that have potential for further development and collaboration between the health authorities in both jurisdictions. That work is to ensure that the work programme reflects the priorities of each Administration and that a refreshed work programme will be presented at the next health and food safety sectoral meeting. I also took the opportunity to reiterate the benefit of enhancing practical North/South health cooperation and the value that it would have in sustaining and enhancing services in the border region.

In receiving an update on cooperation between the two Departments, the Council noted the ongoing collaboration on issues connected with alcohol and drug use, such as the sharing of learnings through the North/South alcohol policy advisory group; that work on suicide prevention initiatives in both jurisdictions is ongoing, including the exploration of potential opportunities for further joint working to prevent suicide; an update on the all-island congenital heart disease network; an update on cross-border emergency planning and response, where both Health Departments will work collaboratively to seek ways in which to further cooperate in emergency planning and response; the ongoing work between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service; that the all-island medication safety conference took place in November 2024, with a further one planned in 2026; the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre and the Health Innovation Hub Ireland; and that funding of just over €85 million has been awarded to 10 projects under PEACE PLUS to target health inequalities among communities in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland.

In relation to cancer, the Council noted the valuable services provided to children and their families by the Cancer Fund for Children and welcomed the progression of the Daisy Lodge therapeutic centre at Cong in County Mayo. Ministers welcomed the awarding of five research grants under the Ireland-Northern Ireland-US National Cancer Institute Cancer Consortium, which will enhance collaboration and innovation amongst cancer researchers and experts across the three jurisdictions. The Council noted the continuing efforts and engagement to improve cancer research and clinical trials on an island-of-Ireland scale and the benefits for patients from the ongoing cooperation and expansion of radiotherapy services at Altnagelvin Area Hospital. Ministers welcomed further cooperation on services provided through the North West Cancer Centre, the collaboration by both jurisdictions in working together to develop projects to improve cancer services for patients across both jurisdictions, and efforts to work together to develop a concept as a collaborative project.

The Council noted the existing work of the health sector in supporting biodiversity throughout its estates; the opportunity for the health sector to promote the physical and mental health co-benefits of actions to support biodiversity and address climate change; and the intention of both Departments to develop guidance and awareness-raising materials to support the promotion of biodiversity by both Departments and to report this at the next NSMC sectoral meeting.

Ministers received a presentation from the Institute of Public Health (IPH) on the policy interface between Ireland and Northern Ireland, with case studies from tobacco control, breastfeeding and data infrastructure. The Council noted that the IPH is working through evidence, policy and partnership to improve health equity and reduce health inequalities in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and noted opportunities for future cooperation between the two jurisdictions.

The Council approved the child protection work programme for 2025-28. It is focused on knowledge exchange on child welfare and protection developments; the identification and sharing of information on emerging complex child welfare protection issues and the consideration of their impact on cross-border working; and ongoing cross-border cooperation in relation to child welfare and protection. Ministers noted that the knowledge exchange forum, which brings together child protection practitioners from both jurisdictions, continues to meet to share information in the critical area of social work practice within child protection services. Ministers also noted that there has been significant awareness-raising work in both jurisdictions on the need for the dual registration of social workers in relation to children's cases with a cross-border dimension.

Let me now turn to food safety. The Council noted the progress report containing Safefood’s high-level achievements since the previous health and food safety sectoral meeting. They include its new food environment campaign 2024-28 to protect children’s health. That campaign was launched in June 2024 in partnership with the Departments of Health in both jurisdictions, the Public Health Agency (PHA), the Health Service Executive (HSE), the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Noted high-level achievements also include the ongoing Safefood for Business training resources that Safefood provides for businesses across the island of Ireland that produce or sell food, about 80% of which are small food businesses; and the new extended 2025-28 community food initiatives programme that was developed in order to positively influence healthy eating habits, in low-income families especially, through the promotion of greater access to and availability of healthy and safe food, using a community development approach. The next noted high-level achievements are the food safety, nutrition and healthy eating promotion work that is done by Safefood through its various food safety and nutrition programmes and networks; and the research carried out by Safefood on a range of topics, including consumers’ use of smart devices, food poverty and food safety advice for vulnerable patients and residents in healthcare settings.

The Council approved Safefood’s business plans for 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2023 along with the associated budget and grant provision for each. It approved Safefood’s revised business plan for 2024 and noted the revised budget and grant provision. It also approved Safefood’s business plan for 2025 and recommended the associated budget and grant provision. Ministers noted Safefood’s corporate plans for 2020-22 and 2023-25 and the fact that, having been certified by the Comptrollers and Auditors General (C&AGs) in both jurisdictions, its annual report and accounts for 2023 have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Council also approved the appointment of 11 members to the Safefood advisory committee. The Council noted the Safefood presentation on the new community food initiative programme, which will run from 2025 to 2028. The aim of the programme is to positively influence the eating habits of people in low-income communities.

Finally, the Council agreed that the next NSMC health and food safety meeting will be held in autumn 2025.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a question, they need to rise in their place. I call Colin McGrath as a member of the Opposition.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and that detail. I note that there were 221 suicides here in 2023 and that, in 2022, there were 436 suicides in the South. The statement referenced ongoing work on suicide prevention between the two Administrations. Will the Minister give some detail on what that joint working will entail? Minister, have you ever heard of the preventable deaths tracker, which is used in other jurisdictions to help to track circumstances of deaths, identifying patterns and targeting resources accordingly?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question and for that focus on suicide. He is well aware, as are other Members, that we are long past the point at which the number of lives lost to suicide in this jurisdiction since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in 1998 well exceeded the number of those who lost their life in conflict-related incidents during what we so euphemistically call the Troubles. At the moment, we are at the stage of sharing information to try to get a better understanding of what is going on. For example, we understand that there is a link between areas of deprivation and rates of attempted and completed suicide. That sharing of information is very important.

I have heard of the tracker to which the Member referred, but I think that there is an issue with it here and do not want to try to recall from memory exactly why that is the case. Let me take that away and come back to you, please.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the Minister's statement and the all-island approach to health matters and particularly to cancer, including continued engagement and improvement in the areas of clinical trials and cancer research. Will the Minister indicate whether that work will help to unlock the current challenges with the secondary use of data and whether it has the potential to bring about an island-wide hub for cancer research, which would ultimately lead to better outcomes for patients across Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Before I went to Armagh that day, I was at Croke Park in Dublin for an all-island cancer summit, at which a lot of emphasis was placed on collaboration on the island, not just on research but on clinical trials. We are potentially missing a trick when it comes to clinical trials. We do clinical trials, but there is the potential to do a lot more of them. Given the population and the size of the island, we are pretty ideally placed to do clinical trials on an all-island basis, and I am keen that we do them. The Member will be aware of the work of people such as Professor Mark Lawler and Professor Deirdre Heenan in this jurisdiction. I was encouraged by what I heard at that summit at Croke Park — it was an inaugural summit and very well attended — and I look forward to building on it through the work of not just the North/South Ministerial Council but the two Departments, North and South.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. I will speak specifically about the Cancer Fund for Children. Last year, it was great to welcome the Minister to Newcastle in my constituency as we marked the 10th anniversary of the Daisy Lodge therapeutic centre there. In his statement, the Minister welcomed the progression of the Daisy Lodge centre in County Mayo. What plans does he have to support the Cancer Fund for Children with the two Daisy Lodge projects as they work together to provide and enhance their valuable services for children who are affected by cancer?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her focus. Sorry, no pun intended. Daisy Lodge in Newcastle is a fantastic facility, and I really enjoyed my visit there. Apart from anything else, the location and the views are absolutely magnificent, and it is a calming environment for young children and their families. To see that replicated in Cong in County Mayo will be fantastic.

When it comes to the support that I can give, I will broaden that to include the community and voluntary sector. We could not deliver health and social care, imperfect as it is, in the manner in which we do without the support of that sector, including organisations such as Cancer Focus. Sadly, we will never have enough funds to give such organisations the maximum amount of money that they could use to maximise their ability to deliver. I can say only that I absolutely recognise the invaluable work that they do for health and social care delivery and promise that, in my days, I will do my utmost to support them, by which I mean support not with warm words but with finance.

Mr Donnelly: I also welcome the Minister's statement. There are clearly lots of opportunities for cross-border cooperation on health. I am particularly encouraged by the announcement of the €85 million that has been awarded to 10 projects under the PEACE PLUS programme to target health inequalities in communities in Northern Ireland and in the border counties. Can the Minister tell us more about the projects and how people in those areas will benefit from them?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, but I cannot get into detail, because I do not have the full detail in front of me, and I am cautious because I may get as far as seven out of the 10 projects and leave some out. I can tell him, however, that all the projects are worthwhile. The Member is aware that I have a focus on health inequalities. The measure that I want to use to judge whether we are making a positive impact is healthy life expectancy. The Member will also know about the most shocking divergence that has been found by that measure, which is between two females who are born in Belfast and grow up a mile apart, one in the area of most deprivation and the other in the area of least deprivation. Their healthy life expectancy will vary by 14·1 years. That is utterly shocking. I will certainly write to the Member about the 10 projects that will get the €85 million of PEACE PLUS funding.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome his ongoing engagement with his Southern counterpart. Does the Minister sense that the Republic's Minister for Health shares his desire to do things differently, including perhaps through taking a new approach to tackling common health inequality areas in order to improve outcomes for patients on both sides of the border?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I believe that that is the case. I have now met Jennifer Carroll MacNeill on two occasions. We had a bilateral in Dublin before we visited the new children's hospital, which is an amazing facility. The scale of it is remarkable. Unfortunately, it has faced the same sorts of financial challenges that the maternity hospital at the Royal Victoria Hospital has faced. In talking to the Minister, I could see her determination to make sure that that hospital is up and running as soon as possible. We found a lot of common ground. The issue on which we found the most common ground regarding where we want to go was health inequalities. We are only in the foothills of that, so I do not want to raise expectations, but the Minister mentioned something to me, and we went into quite a detailed discussion about health inequalities. They are the same, whether you are talking about Coleraine, Limerick, Dublin, Belfast, Derry — you name it. I hope that, within the mandate, we will make a pitch to the Shared Island Fund for an initiative that could make a real difference in people's lives.

Mrs Dillon: I welcome the Minister's statement and his previous answer in particular. Can the information that will be shared with Mr Donnelly about those projects be shared with Health Committee members? That will be really important. It is really welcome that the Council approved the child protection work programme for 2025-28. Again, I would appreciate it if the detail of that could be shared with Committees. What in that, or in your conversations, will ensure that what happened to Kyran Durnin from Drogheda, a young boy who had supposedly moved to the North but was not followed up on and was murdered, never happens again? We know that the most dangerous place for a child in this country is in their own home.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I found it hard to hear her — I think that she was a little bit off-mic — but I got the gist of what she said. I will certainly share the two pieces of information that she listed.

We were keen to discuss the fact that, when there is a tragic incident, we have to learn the lessons from it, not just through a paper exercise but by figuring out how we strategise and implement protections. I was very encouraged; Minister Foley is well across her brief, and we had a detailed discussion. Officials will continue to work, mindful that every incident is one that should never happen and has devastating consequences.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his update. Were there any discussions about best practice in hospice care? In particular, the Minister will be aware of the difference in the funding model in the Republic of Ireland, where hospices are funded 100% by government. That is not the case here in Northern Ireland. Was there any discussion on how we can better support our hospices here?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. There was no detailed discussion on hospice care during the sectoral meeting. Previously, as I said, I met Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland, down in Dublin. After that, I visited a hospice in Dublin. I got a briefing on the different funding arrangements, which are obviously much more advantageous to hospices in Dublin. I understand that former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was instrumental in establishing that funding stream. I am a bit remiss, because Leo Varadkar has encouraged me to reach out to him to discuss the issues, and I have not done that yet. It is on my to-do list, and, if I am really honest, I have been a bit slow on it.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his statement. The statement referenced work on mental health, drug and alcohol services and mentioned the alcohol policy advisory group. Are any joint initiatives being planned in those areas? Was any cross-border cooperation discussed on the mother-and-baby unit, if we get to the point — hopefully, in a short time — of having one here?

Mr Nesbitt: The detail was more on the food safety side of the fence. It is a matter of public note that we had hoped to make a successful pitch to the Shared Island Fund for the mother-and-baby unit. However, it was unsuccessful. That was when Stephen Donnelly was the Minister. With hindsight, perhaps we waited too long and gave them too much detail, because the answer that I got was a definitive no. Therefore, if we are pitching to the Shared Island Fund, we should not send in a 20-page, fully detailed proposal. It should be a one-pager to see whether it is interested, because, if it is just going to say no, there is no point in wasting that resource. If they say yes, you then go away and get down into the fine detail. The mother-and-baby unit will be based at Belfast City Hospital. We are at a pretty advanced stage with the business plan. I hope that, certainly during this calendar year, we will green-light it.

Mr Robinson: Like others, Minister, I welcome and acknowledge the progress and the work that is being done together on cancer research. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is very important that that work is embedded in the huge research hubs in Oxford, Cambridge and London? Will he also update the House on the cancer research strategy for Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I acknowledge the east-west link. That was also discussed on the fringes, at least, of the conference at Croke Park in Dublin that I mentioned.

I previously promised, because it was my expectation, that the cancer research strategy would be published by the end of the previous financial year. I was given the proposed strategy in time for it to be published before the end of the previous financial year, but I thought that more could be done to improve it. I wanted slightly more engagement with stakeholders so that I could be assured that they are satisfied with the strategy. Therefore, additional work is being carried out. We missed a deadline — hands up to that — but it will be worth it, because, when we get the strategy over the line and when I am satisfied with it and stakeholders are happier with it, it will be a more effective document.

Mr Durkan: Minister, in your statement, you referred to:

Will you expand on that? Will you commit to exploring further opportunities for joint funding for addiction services in border areas? I think of Northlands Addiction Treatment Centre in my constituency, which has recently been stripped of its core funding?

Mr Nesbitt: I take a little exception to that last use of language, where the Member said that Northlands was "stripped of its core funding". We redesigned the core funding scheme, because it had not been reviewed in 20 years, which meant that any charity that had been established in that two-decade period could not even apply for core funding. The point was also made that core funding was an annual thing and that, just because you got it one year, you should not expect to get it the following year. It was redesigned at my request, and that was facilitated by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA). Stakeholders were the co-designers of the scheme, and Northlands was unsuccessful. We used six criteria, I think, and they were not the Department's criteria but the stakeholders'. I very much regret the fact that Northlands is not in receipt of core grant funding, but it is wrong to say that we "stripped" it of that funding.

I am more than happy to work with the North/South Ministerial Council and with Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and consider whether that is an area in which a pitch to the Shared Island Fund would be appropriate. The fact that Northlands is up by the border makes it attractive.

Ms Brownlee: My question follows on with the issue of alcohol and drug use. That was mentioned in the statement, but what was discussed? What update was provided in the meeting on how we can improve those services throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: In the broad area of alcohol, I wanted to discuss the benefits, as I see them, of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Scotland and Wales have minimum unit pricing. The research that I have seen suggests that it works. The very esteemed health inequalities expert Professor Sir Michael Marmot agrees that minimum unit pricing works. I want to introduce legislation in this mandate to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Northern Ireland. To do that, I need Executive agreement, and I am afraid that I do not have that. I encourage the Member to reflect on why that may be.

Mr Gaston: Page 7 of the Minister's statement notes the:

Did the Minister raise with the Irish Government the failure of Dublin-headquartered institutions to contribute to the child abuse redress in Northern Ireland in relation to abuse in Roman Catholic Church institutions? It is an issue that has greatly exercised victims who have engaged with the Executive Office Committee.

Mr Nesbitt: I think that the Member has answered his own question. I did not raise the issue at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in sectoral format for health and food safety because it is an issue for the Executive Office.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you mentioned the success of the North West Cancer Centre and the ongoing cooperation and expansion of radiotherapy services at Altnagelvin Area Hospital on a North/South basis. With regard to the Taoiseach's Shared Island Fund and the cross-border dimension, was Daisy Hill Hospital and its prime location to serve as a cross-border hub with a specialism discussed?

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that the Member is sitting down, because the answer is no.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members should take their ease, please, before the next item of business.

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. May I make a point of clarification?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It depends on what you say.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to clarify a point of detail from last week's Assembly debate on cancer waiting times. During the debate, I made reference to the Western Trust in particular being reliant on a single-handed dermatology consultant. That is the case, but it does not mean that the Western Trust has the worst waiting lists, and there was no intention to make such an implication. My point was to give some examples of some of the recruitment and service resilience challenges that are faced. To be clear, the Western Trust has some of the best waiting times in Northern Ireland for dermatology red-flag outpatient appointments. I am happy to put that on the record and to thank staff for their work.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: So it was not a point of order or clarification; it was brass-necking it, Minister [Laughter.]

You now have it on the record.

Mr McHugh: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. 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. Please open the debate on the motion, Mr McHugh.

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

The motion advocates the decolonisation of museum collections and the repatriation of artefacts. That initiative is not merely about returning objects; it is about restoring dignity, acknowledging historical injustices and fostering genuine reconciliation with communities whose heritage has been displaced. National Museums NI has, commendably, taken steps in that direction. In 2022, the Ulster Museum launched the Inclusive Global Histories exhibition, marking a significant move towards decolonising its collections. That exhibition critically examines the provenance of artefacts, many of which were acquired during colonial times, and seeks to present them in their rightful cultural context. By doing so, NMNI is not only educating the public but challenging long-standing narratives that have marginalised indigenous voices.

A poignant example of NMNI's commitment is the repatriation of ancestral Hawaiian human remains and sacred objects. Those items, removed in the 19th century, were returned to native Hawaiian representatives in a ceremony that underscored the importance of cultural respect and healing. As Carmen Hulu Lindsey of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs aptly stated, that act was "much needed and long overdue".

Beidh cluasáin de dhíth anois.

Is amhlaidh a bhí sampla againn ar thaisí á gcur ar ais chun a ndúiche féin anseo in Éirinn ar na mallaibh. Tógadh trí cloigne déag ó Inis Bó Finne sa bhliain 1890 gur coinníodh i gColáiste na Tríonóide i mBaile Átha Cliath iad. Tógadh na cloigne gan cead a fháil ó mhuintir na háite san am sin. Rinneadh dianstocaireacht agus chuir muintir Inis Bó Finne a n-ainm le hachainí sa chruth gur cuireadh na taisí ar ais chun an oileáin, áit ar cuireadh i gcré na cille iad. Ghabh Coláiste na Tríonóide a leithscéal as an bhuairt mhór a cuireadh ar mhuintir an oileáin toisc na taisí sin a thógáil, tá 133 bliana ó shin. Anuas air sin, tá Meitheal Athbhreithnithe ar Oidreachtaí Choláiste na Tríonóide, tá sin ag déanamh athbhreithiú ar an bhaint a bhí ag an Choláiste leis an sclábhaíocht agus le hImpireacht na Breataine.

Decolonising museum collections is not just an ethical imperative; it enriches our understanding of history by incorporating diverse perspectives and challenges all to confront uncomfortable truths and engage in meaningful dialogue with communities worldwide. By supporting the motion, we affirm our commitment to justice, inclusivity and the transformative power of acknowledging and rectifying past wrongs. Let us therefore endorse the motion wholeheartedly and set a precedent for museums everywhere to follow in the pursuit of equity and historical integrity.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have to start by saying, although I will not dwell on the issue, that there is a certain irony in a Sinn Féin motion that includes returning human remains to Hawaii while we still wait for the return of the human remains of those who were disappeared. I ask the party opposite to use the influence that it still exerts on those responsible to have the remains of Columba McVeigh, Joe Lynskey, Seamus Maguire and Robert Nairac repatriated to their families.

I have to admit that, when I first read the motion, I had two thoughts. First, the motion sounded like a bit of Brit-bashing. Secondly, the motion lacks any kind of nuance and is grounded purely on decolonisation without looking at what else museums offer, particularly education and learning. Our amendment aims to address that. For example, National Museums NI clearly states that it is:

For us, the museum is a place of learning and understanding our past, the shared history, the global cultures and the painful parts of our past. Clearly, returning ancient remains and artefacts to Hawaii was the right thing to do, but was that part of decolonisation? The artefacts in question were donated to the museum by Mr Gordon Augustus Thomson, an ethnologist who studied people and culture. He was not part of any colonisation of the Hawaiian Islands or Sandwich Islands, when he visited them in 1835. Indeed, the UK is held in such high regard in Hawaii that the Union flag still forms part of the Hawaiian national flag and Great Seal.

Many items in museums in Northern Ireland are protected and preserved and tell a story. Some were acquired through conflict; some through expeditions; and some via trade. Some would be lost, if they were not protected. Do we need to protect artefacts? Are they in danger? Let us take ourselves to Dublin in 1966, when Nelson's pillar, which dated back to 1808 and marked an important moment of our history, was deliberately reduced to rubble by an IRA bomb. It was not dismantled and returned to the UK, possibly to the national museum; it was just destroyed due to hatred of others' history and culture. We saw the similar destruction of artefacts in Afghanistan when the 6th-century Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001 and when ISIS destroyed the great Baalshamin temple at Palmyra in Syria.

Museums have a role to protect, preserve and make artefacts available. That assists learning and understanding of cultures past and present. National Museums NI states:

Sanitising such collections does not help us learn. Museums need to help us learn, and, for generations to come, an understanding of our shared history is a story worth telling. Part of that has an expeditionary nature to it, given the British and Irish impact globally. Even the negative impact tells a story.

The Sinn Féin motion mentions "colonialism ... on this island". That includes the 15,000 ecological items in Irish museums from Africa, Asia and the Far East that the Irish collections provenance working group identified before it was disbanded 2023, with no action being taken to return any of them. They are not on display; they are just being held. It also includes two highly sacred whale teeth from the Solomon Islands, which were donated in 1900. There is even a Cromwellian armoured breastplate with a musket ball through the chest. Should that be returned as stolen loot? I do not think so. It needs to be held, retained and used as an aid to learning.

Of course, there are items in Northern Ireland museums that you could put down to colonialism, because, hundreds of years ago, that is how the world was. It was a world of exploration and understanding but with primitive knowledge of the impact on various cultures. No matter how hard we try, we cannot fix what happened two, three or four centuries ago, but we can learn. Museums help us learn, and the stuff that is retained in them helps us understand better.

How about a spear from Benin, a colonial artefact from the French protectorate — it was not colonised by the British — donated following an expedition in the area? What can we learn from that about the culture of the time? A bronze manilla or bracelet from West Africa — without a doubt, from when the area was colonised. It was used as currency in the slave trade. Can we learn from that? Can we expose the collective shame of the slave trade or just return the manilla in order to sanitise our museum collection? I say that the former is more important. A Solomon Islands tomako — war canoe — from the World Cultures collection is an important artefact in understanding the cultures and civilisations of the time.

To me, learning about and understanding other cultures and people is important, while protecting and caring for our own history. I am a great believer in protecting our indigenous heritage. Some will know that I have raised many issues in regard to Knock Iveagh, a neolithic site just outside Rathfriland that is older than the Pyramids. We stuck a wind turbine on top of it. The Ballintaggart giant gravestones, a 6,000-year-old court tomb that we excavated in 1966, sat idle in the Ulster Museum before being replaced not to the original site where they were ripped up from but to somewhere else. It is a failure of our historical environment division that sits alongside the destruction of an early Christian rath in Waringstown. I add that the present Minister was not in the chair at any stage of that.

I have no issue with certain items, such as ancient Hawaiian remains and artefacts, being returned, but to completely sanitise our museum collections would remove a key asset in learning. My party's amendment makes it clear that we must protect and preserve items of cultural and historical importance whilst supporting National Museums Northern Ireland's ethical policies. We can do so by understanding who we are, where we came from, what influenced us and who we influenced, and what our impact on the world was, positive and negative. We cannot just wish any of this away; we need to preserve it. In preserving it, we learn. I learn, you learn and our children learn by seeing these items. I ask Members to look at our amendment and see that we have not taken away the key components of the Sinn Féin motion, but we have brought nuance that allows us to look at items that we held, some with shame, and remember that we can learn from that. In learning, we can make sure that we do not repeat what we did in the past.

Mr Kingston: The well-known opening sentence of L P Hartley's 'The Go-Between' is:

The relevance of that quote is that we cannot fairly judge the actions of history by our 21st-century standards. Empires have been normal throughout the history of the world. It has been a continual cycle of rise and fall that continues to this day, albeit in different forms. If nations or communities request items back that were acquired unlawfully, it is right that museums work with those communities and cooperate with their requests. We have seen the Ulster Museum's continued work with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. National Museums Northern Ireland acknowledges in its collections development policy that there is a complex and sensitive legacy to address today. We know that those issues are complex, but we should not be placing an undue burden on our museums to address the political activism of the 21st century. What exactly is meant by "decolonising"? Without proper dialogue, it may be nothing short of virtue signalling. Speaking about empire, we need more nuance than to say that it was simply good or bad. Where does decolonisation end? With the bulldozing of the Colosseum?

The SDLP Member for East Londonderry took to social media recently claiming that "the coloniser mindset runs deep". If we were to decolonise museums, perhaps the SDLP could let us know whether unionists would be allowed to enter the building. We have fantastic museums in Northern Ireland; places where people can visit and see how machinery worked, how people lived and thought and what they created.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, I will not have time. Sorry.

Visitors are presented with the information and make their own judgement. It might be a surprise to some Members, but people are capable of using their critical judgement skills and reaching their own conclusions. They do not need to be lectured or told how or what to think. Museums should not hide from difficult areas of history or sanitise our history or their collections. Tristram Hunt, director of the Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum, said:

The British Empire has been called:

so any generalisation comes with risk. Alongside a history of violence, there is a history of cosmopolitanism and trade. We saw the Benin Bronzes returned to the current oba — king — of Benin, and the Nigerian Government issued a decree to give the oba exclusive rights to all repatriated bronzes. Will the same fate befall all other repatriated artefacts such that, rather than being the common property of all the citizens of a nation, they become the personal property of its ruler?

The Communities Minister is committed to ensuring that our museums are accessible to as many people as possible so that people from around the globe can admire their collections. Recently, he announced £750,000 for the Ulster American Folk Park in County Tyrone. To simply return items to one country or another would be to segregate cultures. Exchange programmes between museums is one possible solution to that problem, as it would ensure that more people could admire more artefacts from different parts of the world.

The motion refers to the impact of colonialism "on this island". Professor of modern history at Trinity College Dublin Jane Ohlmeyer said:

and that the Irish people:

The British Empire was synonymous with economic development, building infrastructure, promoting education and providing medical treatment. Those facts are not convenient to detractors, as they expose as myths their claims of perpetual victimhood and nationalist struggles for freedom.

We will not support the Sinn Féin motion. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment replaces wording at the end of the motion, improving it by introducing more balanced wording, so we will support that amendment.

Mr Dickson: I will represent my party colleague Sian Mulholland, who has another engagement. She is a member of the Communities Committee.

We welcome the motion. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I offer support not just for the motion but for the principles that underpin it: justice, openness and cultural respect. National Museums Northern Ireland's commitment to ethical collections development and active decolonisation of their collections is commendable. Through research, partnership and engagement with communities, National Museums Northern Ireland has shown that decolonisation is not simply about the past but about shaping a more inclusive, accountable and truthful future.

Reference has been made to the Inclusive Global Histories exhibition that was launched at the Ulster Museum in 2022. That is a powerful example of ambition in action. It invites and challenges us to confront the way in which artefacts were acquired, the stories that we have chosen to tell and the voices that have been excluded from those narratives. It does so not through shame or erasure but through inclusion, dialogue and learning. That is precisely the approach that we in the Alliance Party support: not rewriting history but deepening it; not erasing the past but confronting it honestly and building trust for a shared future.

National Museums Northern Ireland has already taken practical action. The return of ancestral remains to Hawaii is a deeply respectful step that reflects not only international best practice but basic human dignity. It recognises that culture is not a trophy and that heritage is not a possession but a living part of identity. In our context, Britishness and Irishness are deeply felt and not easily mapped on to the cultural binaries that are seen elsewhere. National Museums Northern Ireland has rightly recognised that any decolonisation work must reflect our shared and interwoven histories and must be careful not to undermine the core principle of decolonisation, which is to address racism and exclusionary practices while respecting identities. Its curatorial commitment to dialogue, especially with those for whom collections are of special significance, reflects a model from which, as a hospitable, inclusive and respectful approach that encourages reflection without imposition, we can all learn, especially here in the Assembly at times.

Those efforts stand in contrast to the more rigid approaches that treat artefacts largely as objects of legal preservation rather than as living cultural expressions with emotional and ethical significance. Recognising harm, returning what was taken without consent and restoring dignity is not some sort of moral absolutism but common decency. The past is complex, but complexity cannot be a shield for inaction or delay. We must resist simplistic binaries, because it is not the case that we should return everything or return nothing. Rather, it is about evidence-led, case-by-case decisions that are grounded in provenance, research, legal clarity, meaningful community engagement and public transparency. That is why the Alliance Party fully supports that approach, which is rooted in principle and driven by evidence and accountability. Critically, Northern Ireland is well placed to lead on that.

Unlike institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom that are governed by the British Museum Act 1963, National Museums Northern Ireland is not barred by statute from making ethical returns. We have greater flexibility, and we should use it wisely and courageously. National Museums Northern Ireland's internal guidance, 'Supporting Decolonisation in Northern Ireland', encourages museums to:

and we wholeheartedly support that.

That ambition, however, must be met with support. That is why the motion calls for ministerial leadership. We need the Department for Communities to fund provenance research and digitisation, to support partnerships with local communities and international source communities and to provide clear and consistent guidance to help museums navigate claims with confidence and care.

Let me be clear: it is not just a matter of good practice but one of international responsibility. Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is explicit:

That gives clear moral and international backing for the type of work that is being undertaken here. We also need to broaden that work beyond museums. We need to embed it in our schools and public institutions and in our cultural policy so that all communities in Northern Ireland can see themselves reflected in the stories that we tell. It is not just about artefacts —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Mr Dickson. Apologies.

Mr Dickson: — but about apologies and inclusion.

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

Mr McCrossan: I support the motion. The SDLP will not be supporting the amendment, however. At its core, the motion asks us to reflect deeply on the role of museums in shaping how we understand the past and how we move forward into a more just and inclusive future. National Museums Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Ulster Museum have shown leadership by actively embracing decolonisation through exhibitions such as Inclusive Global Histories and through the ethical repatriation of human remains and sacred objects to the people of Hawaii.

That is not just commendable but morally necessary and shows leadership from our local museums. Decolonisation is not about erasing history, nor is it about hiding artefacts or whitewashing our shared past. Quite the opposite: it is about telling the full story, which is one that includes the voices and experiences of peoples who for centuries were silenced, exploited and stripped of their cultural identities. When we return human remains or sacred objects to indigenous communities, we are not surrendering history but honouring it. We are saying, "We hear you, we acknowledge your pain and we can and will do better in future".

The amendment seeks to dilute that message, as it suggests that returning artefacts could be confused with ideological revisionism.

I tend to disagree. This is not about blame; it is about responsibility. The amendment also implies that the ethical return of artefacts risks undermining collective heritage, but whose heritage are we speaking of, because many communities around the world have had their cultural identity stolen, displayed and sometimes even distorted without their consent? On this island, with our own history of colonisation, appropriation and displacement, we, above all people, should understand why decolonisation matters. We know what it is like to be silenced and to have our history told by others. I understand that museums face financial pressures, but ethical repatriation is not a financial burden; it is an act of moral leadership and courage. In many cases, repatriation opens the door to new global partnerships, collaborative research and mutual learning. It builds trust and it builds bridges. We must not let short-term funding challenges be used as a reason for holding on to the legacies of colonialism.

Education is key, and museums play a vital role in that, but education cannot come at the expense of justice. The real lesson for us all — for our children, our schools and our communities — is that we are willing to admit when wrongs have been done and to take meaningful action and steps to repair them.

The original motion reflects a more forward-looking vision for museums as places not just of preservation but of reconciliation, where the past is not hidden but confronted ethically, honestly and inclusively. I urge colleagues to reject the amendment and to stand in support of the original motion in order to support our museums, our communities and our shared responsibility to decolonise our understanding of the past.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion, and I welcome the support for it from across the House. I note that the party opposite has stated that it supports the returning of artefacts to their home nations, which is exactly what the motion calls for. The conversation thus far has been respectful, which is welcome. That is largely what this is about: respecting different narratives and reflections on the past and having an honest conversation.

We know that our museums offer so much. They are a tourism and education opportunity. Telling the story accurately while acknowledging past hurt and different perspectives on how events unfolded will always lead to a better education piece and a better tourism experience. That is key to what we are asking for here. If we are to get to a place where the pain of those who have suffered in the past can in any way be rectified, we have to be honest about what caused it. There is space there for different people's accounts and narratives to be reflected. Our museums are doing good work in that regard, and they should be supported in that.

We want to offer people an authentic experience. We want to encourage more visitors to our island, and we want to bring people in and tell them the whole story, because we know that the hurt of past communities is exacerbated when their pain is not acknowledged or reflected. Others have referred to the fact that, when countries receive artefacts back and do so in a respectful way, that allows the story to be told in both places honestly. We need education, but we do not need to educate anyone at the expense of any other community, particularly one that has already had wrongs perpetrated against it.

That is what the motion is about. It is about recognising the fact that our museums have already given a clear commitment to the decolonisation of artefacts, where possible, and that they want to engage with countries around the world and, again, where possible, return artefacts. We want to support them in doing so. Through that, everyone involved will have a better experience. That is what the motion is about; it is not about bashing anyone. The past happened. If we are ever to deal with it, we have to talk about it openly and honestly and move on from there. That is what the motion calls for, and I would welcome support for it from across the House.

Mr Gaston: The so-called decolonisation of museum collections is, in truth, something that my staff are more exercised about than I am. That having been said, I want to address one specific aspect of the motion that is before us, namely the call for:

Let me be clear: any conversation about dignity, respect and historical justice must begin with moral consistency. As long as the signatories to the motion continue to defend, justify or celebrate their wicked IRA, which abducted, murdered and secretly buried more than a dozen innocent people, they are in no position to lecture anyone about how we should honour the dead. The irony of Maolíosa McHugh proposing a motion of this nature shows that Sinn Féin is a party with no remorse for the abduction —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and murder that was carried out —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — by their friends in the IRA.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you can hear me. If you resume your seat, that will be the easiest way to make you listen. I will stand. Mr Gaston, there will be no direct attack on another Member. You have been afforded quite a bit of latitude. I ask you to return to the terms of the motion.

Mr Gaston: I have concluded my comments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Are you finished?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. We have reached the end of the list of Members who wish to speak. I ask the Minister for Communities to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on the decolonisation of museum collections and the repatriation of artefacts.

Museums are in the unique position of holding collections through which they can tell the stories of the past in order to engage, educate and inspire. Those stories can cross traditional, cultural and societal divides to bring people together over shared histories, but, equally importantly, they can facilitate difficult discussions and debates. I am aware of the live issues that face our museums regarding the ethics of some of the collections that they hold and the challenges that they face in taking responsibility for the future of those objects. I have seen, at first hand, the work that museums can do to bring people from different cultural backgrounds together, both at home, where National Museums NI engages marginalised communities through the Global Voices Local Choices project, and, in the United States, with the work of Lonnie Bunch, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In recognition of the important role that museums play in our society, a new museums policy is a central plank in the heritage, culture and creativity programme that I established last summer. I expect that policy to be ready by the end of the year. My intention is to support the work of our culture and heritage institutions and communities and to help protect and promote our tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

This debate centres on collections. Our museums hold some extraordinary items. Those collections and markers of our past are not just the preserve of the great collections at National Museum Northern Ireland sites; they are held elsewhere in Northern Ireland as well. The collections are not just about holding objects from the past; they are about collecting, preserving and telling stories about how we came to be here and about the influences that, for good or ill, have helped to shape where we are, how we live today and how we regard and understand each other.

I have concerns about the motion, not because I dismiss the value of cultural sensitivity or the ethical stewardship of museum collections, but because of what I have seen of the so-called decolonisation agenda that other Members have presented today. That leads me to believe that, perhaps, this is less about justice and more about a politically motivated, anti-British campaign. Let us consider the practical implications of the motion. It encourages museums to cooperate:

On the surface, that seems reasonable. The motion cites the return of human remains to Hawaii as a success, and I do not dispute the moral case for doing that — few would. However, let us be clear: that is a narrow example that is being used to justify a much broader agenda. Moreover, who decides what gets repatriated? The vague call to cooperate with requests opens the door to endless demands, often from groups with tenuous claims to ownership. Many artefacts were legally acquired through trade, gifts or salvage. Others come from regions where modern nation states did not exist at the time of acquisition. The logic of decolonisation, as presented today, unravels when applied consistently, and it becomes a Pandora's box of competing claims driven not by ethics but by political pressure.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way to the Member.

Mr McNulty: Minister, do you agree that the pillaging of global treasures and artefacts by the British Empire is not really defensible and that all artefacts of cultural and symbolic significance should be returned to their place of origin? For example, the Elgin Marbles should be returned to the Greeks by the British Museum: does the Minister agree?

Mr Lyons: I do not agree with the Member's comment, because he is treating every artefact that did not originate in this place in the same way. That is simply not the case. Had the Member been listening to what I have just said, he would have realised that the artefacts and items in our collections come from many different places and were acquired by different means. Am I opposed to having the conversations and making sure that we do this in a sensible and appropriate way? No. Absolutely, that should be the case. In opposing the motion, I do not advocate a whitewashing of history. Museums should engage with communities, acknowledge contested provenance and present balanced narratives, but they must do so without succumbing to a politicised agenda that distorts the past to serve present-day ideologies.

The Inclusive Global Histories exhibition, for example, could be a platform for dialogue in the same way that National Museums Northern Ireland, through its Troubles and Beyond exhibition, has commanded respect from all sides of the community. That respect has been won not by rewriting history or sanitising our past but by telling the truth and being honest about our past.

Many listening will think that Sinn Féin has an absolute brass neck with the comments that its members have made. They talk about the need to tell the truth of the past; the need to be honest about the past and the hurt that has been inflicted on communities. It is beyond parody to hear words such as those from the Members opposite. I hope that they take time to reflect on some of the hurt that has been caused across Northern Ireland by those whom they have associated themselves with in the past.

Let us protect our museums in Northern Ireland as places of learning, not propaganda. Let us celebrate our shared heritage, not dismantle it. Let us preserve the mutual respect for National Museums NI. Let us ensure that decolonisation does not simply become code for an anti-British movement, dressed up as a virtue that seeks to divide rather than to unite. We in Northern Ireland deserve better.

That is why the amendment in the name of Mr Beattie goes some way to preventing some of the harm that might otherwise be caused by the motion and those who are behind it. I will happily accept the motion, but I will not support it unamended.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I urge all Members who have listened to the debate to support the amendment. I do so whilst firmly acknowledging one area where there should be no ambiguity, and that is the repatriation or return of human remains. Let us be clear: holding human remains, especially those taken without consent, in a museum or in a damp bog, is indefensible. Where communities and families request their return and the provenance and justice is clear, that return must be a matter of principle. It is a matter of dignity, respect and basic human decency, and, in such cases, there is no grey area.

When we examined the motion, we found a need to amend it. There are some merits, but it goes much too far. It encourages a sweeping approach to decolonisation without drawing lines between sacred and personal artefacts and those of broader cultural significance.

It treats all such items as if they should be removed or returned without considering evidence, context or legality. That is not justice; it is reductionism.

Museums are not monuments to empire. Anyone who thinks so needs to visit a museum. They are dynamic institutions that are committed to education, inclusion and public access. Many already engage in difficult discussions. That has been the case in the Chamber. I commend all Members for that today. Museums have difficult conversations about history and empire, and they do so while operating under enormous financial constraints. Their duty is to preserve and interpret history for all, not to rewrite it on the basis of ideological pressure but to present it warts and all — hurt and success.

The amendment draws the necessary line. It rightly supports the return of human remains and sacred items in evidence-based cases, but it also warns against the danger of campaigns rooted in blame and revisionism, rather than reconciliation and understanding. Let us empower our museums to act ethically and responsibly, not reactively. Let us support the professionals who work to educate, conserve and connect us with the past, warts and all.

I urge all Members to support our amendment. We believe that it is balanced and right and champions dignity where it is due and wisdom where it is needed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad Ennis to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Ennis: I welcome the debate on the motion. Despite some attempts to detract and distract from the actual intent of the motion, the debate has been interesting.

I want to pick up on one thing. It was interesting to hear the Minister say that some of the organisations have tenuous claims to ownership of their own artefacts. I find that, frankly, bizarre, when most of those artefacts were looted, taken under duress and taken without consent. That shows a breathtaking lack of awareness on the Minister's part.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: No, I will make some progress on my speech, if you do not mind.

There can be no question of the devastating impact of colonialism around the world. In many ways, the cultural, social and political impact is still being felt by communities today. Exploitation, theft and the infliction of human suffering were the stock-in-trade of European and Western colonial powers down through the centuries. Acknowledging the many wrongs that have been committed by empire and promoting the understanding of the exploitative nature of colonialism is something that we should all support.

Addressing the issue of stolen artefacts that have found their way into museums on this island is part of that. In that regard, I commend the work of National Museums NI for its efforts to decolonise its collection through its ethics policy. I look forward to seeing that work continue and grow.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will make some progress, thank you.

The recent return of human remains and other objects to Hawaii is a perfect example of how collections can be decolonised and why it is so important. Those artefacts, in many cases, hold profound historical, cultural and spiritual significance to people in their country of origin. They are often sacred objects with immense value. They are not curiosities to momentarily amuse visitors. The efforts of some museums to decolonise collections should be noted by others who should also be doing their bit to support that work. In particular, the British Government should reflect on their attitude to looted artefacts. They could start by reversing their decision to exclude National Museums and Galleries from certain sections of the Charities Act 2022 and allowing for the facilitation of the repatriation of looted artefacts, on request, to their countries of origin. I urge the Communities Minister to engage with the Advisory Committee on the Restitution and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage in the South with a view to establishing best practice for the repatriation of artefacts.

Some comments today have, unfortunately, been indicative of the prevailing Western attitude that Western museums are the best place for the artefacts to be kept. My party argues that the best place for the Benin Bronzes, for example, is Benin and that the best place for Egyptian mummies is, in fact, Egypt. My colleague Emma Sheerin made a good point: repatriation does not mean erasure. We have the internet, international loans and cultural exchanges. That means that artefacts do not need to be locked in Paris or London for people to appreciate them. Excuses that are often given for not returning artefacts, such as claims that they will not be looked after properly in their own country, are echoes of a lingering colonial mindset.

The issue of artefacts taken from Ireland by the British Empire should also be addressed. Right now, museums and libraries in Britain hold thousands of objects of Irish origin, including everything from priceless artefacts such as ogham stones and the Mount Keefe chalice to ancient documents and manuscripts that tell the story of our island. Only a handful of requests for their return has been acknowledged. It was only two years ago that the Hunterian Museum removed the remains of Charles O'Brien from display, a fate that, the so-called Irish giant specifically stated on his deathbed, he did not want. Having removed the display, the museum still intends to keep his remains in storage.

It may not always be possible or appropriate to return certain artefacts, but every effort should be made to engage meaningfully with countries, communities and organisations that make a request. If nothing else, it shows a generosity of spirit to, at least, listen to people and communities that have been impacted by the theft of what are significant cultural — even, at times, spiritual — artefacts. That is why we will oppose the Ulster Unionist Party amendment, which would remove the important reference to:

from the indigenous communities or societies impacted by the theft of their cultural heritage.

The legacy of colonialism can still be felt today. Returning the artefacts are not just symbolic acts; they are restorative ones. They challenge the idea that colonial institutions are the rightful keepers of other people's heritage. They remind us that reconciliation is not only about the past but about present justice and future relationships. If anything, the debate has shown that the ultimate goal is to decolonise minds, but we can, at least, start by decolonising museums.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by 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 the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Buckley: I beg to move

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

Mr Buckley: Today, we debate an issue of our time: uncontrolled and illegal immigration. I moved the motion not just as a DUP representative but as a voice for the many people across our country who feel forgotten, overwhelmed and unheard. The statistics are stark, with close on one million people a year entering the UK. That does not even take into account the number who arrive illegally and un-vetted. I speak for the mother in Newtownards who rang her GP surgery over 100 times, hoping that her sick child could be seen, only to be told that the surgery is at capacity. I speak for the pensioner in Portadown who has been waiting on the housing list for three years and has watched as emergency accommodation has sprung up overnight just down the road. I speak for the teacher in north Belfast who tells me that she is teaching children in classes of 30 or more, trying to offer every child the attention that they deserve but feeling deflated by a system that is stretched well beyond its limits. I speak for the foreign national who came to these shores many years ago, worked hard, paid taxes and respected our culture and way of life, only to watch on in horror as hordes of young men descend on Britain's shores in rubber boats and into the open arms of a state benefit system that is paid for on the back of those people's hard work.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will towards the end.

That is what is at stake. Those are the people whom we represent, and the motion is about standing up for them. The motion is not borne out of ideology or sensationalism; it is firmly rooted in practical realities that our communities face every day. It is about protecting our public services, preserving community cohesion and ensuring that our infrastructure is not stretched far beyond its limits. Whilst many of us doubt his sincerity, the Prime Minister said:

He may not believe his words, but I can assure the House that Members on these Benches certainly do. The motion is about a growing and deeply concerning failure to address illegal and uncontrolled immigration and its direct impact on the people of Northern Ireland.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, if I have time.

First, we must note the context. The Prime Minister laid out plans to reduce legal immigration, yet, day by day, we still see and grapple with the realities that illegal immigration, enabled by consecutive weak Governments, continues to wreak on our communities. Conservative and, indeed, Labour Governments have failed to introduce a UK-wide enforcement strategy that is robust and fair. Day in, day out, our constituents — your constituents — see the consequences of those policy failures in our housing, our health service and our schools.

A nation without borders is not a nation at all. Borders should never be chalk lines that fade with political lunacy; rather, they should be a source of security and certainty for a nation's citizens. To the unionist who feels let down by consecutive UK Governments: I hear you. To the nationalist or republican who feels that they are not being listened to by the parties for which they voted: I hear you. You have been failed by nationalist and republican politicians, of whom we must ask the question of where their loyalty lies if it is not with the working-class communities across this country, which feel the disproportionate burden of failed immigration policy. We can see just how out of touch parties such as Sinn Féin are. It is telling that we see such a small number of its members come to the Chamber to debate immigration, yet they filled it to talk about returning artefacts to museums. How embarrassing. Sinn Féin's policy of "Brits out, and everyone else in" is fooling absolutely nobody.

Let us talk about the costs. According to the National Audit Office, the estimated cost of accommodating illegal immigrants in Northern Ireland has soared to £400 million, which is four times the original estimate. That is fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions. Every pound that is overspent is a pound that does not go to our overstretched health trusts, GPs, services, crumbling infrastructure and underfunded schools. Members, that is not sustainable. The figure is no different across the UK in its entirety. The current figures estimate that the total spend by the Home Office over the past 10 years in the UK has been £15·3 billion of public money.

Let us speak plainly about the pressures on public services. Across Northern Ireland, GP practices are overwhelmed; access to dental services is non-existent; parents struggle to find school places for their children; and small businesses are taxed to death to pay for a hopeless, regrettable, failed open border policy. We must ask ourselves this: why must we be expected to bear a burden that we were neither prepared for nor consulted on? Are parties such as Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin really going to continue to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it is not a problem? It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that those pressures have no link to a broken immigration system. When accommodation is oversubscribed and new arrivals are settled in communities without proper consultation, planning or resources, it creates strain. Those who are most affected are often the working-class communities, which have been forgotten by certain decision makers.

As we all know, housing is at breaking point. There is now a dangerous and growing link between illegal immigration and the increased demand for temporary and overcrowded housing. We see a proliferation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) across towns and cities in Northern Ireland. Those properties, which are often poorly regulated and insufficiently inspected, are rapidly altering the character of our communities, and the situation will only get worse. Beneath Keir Starmer's plan to stop the migrant hotels is a plan to incentivise certain landlords with five-year guaranteed rental deals at an increased rate from that of our own civilian population. That is what is happening, and if Members were to take a moment to consult with their communities, they would see that. You could not make it up.

In just one street in my home town of Portadown, there are 24 HMOs. Just think about their impact on local residents and local communities. Councils —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: — with limited powers — not at this stage — and outdated strategic planning policies simply do not reflect the scale of the problem that they represent. That is why the motion calls for the Infrastructure Minister to urgently review and amend that policy. Local authorities need to be equipped with planning policies that enable them to best meet the demands of their community. When illegal immigration is allowed to flourish and go unchallenged, it becomes harder, not easier, to make the case for those who truly need help.

To those who oppose the motion, I ask this: what is your alternative? Are you going to continue to ignore the warning signs? Are you going to continue to let communities become unrecognisable? Should we continue to let public services collapse under the demand and expect taxpayers to foot the bill of spiralling costs beyond all expectations? This is not about scapegoating. It is about sensible, sustainable government, and it is time that we restored balance and gave our communities the representation that they truly need and are calling for.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Mr Buckley. Ladies and gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for the question. I am happy to advise that my Department has engaged with Middletown Centre for Autism in order to develop autism and neurodiversity awareness training. It will be available on the Health and Social Care (HSC) learning platform in the coming weeks. Not only has that training been co-produced with service users, parents and carers with lived experience but over 30% of the content is delivered by them, so users should expect a really authentic feel.

The training covers the following three topics. The first is autistic differences, which provides an insight into how autistic people experience the world, giving staff an opportunity to reflect on how an autistic person might experience the service and environment of Health and Social Care. The second is providing supportive environments, which gives an insight into how the environment can impact on a neurodivergent service user. An analysis of the difficulties experienced by the neurodivergent individual across a series of likely environments and interfaces is reported. Supports and materials to provide and create more supportive spaces are included. The third topic is promoting a neuro-affirmative culture, helping staff to understand how to integrate neuro-affirming practices into their work environment from the language used to the culture in the workplace, both for the service users and the team members.

That training is key to ensuring that appropriate adjustments are made for each autistic person and that our mental health service, which includes cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies, is person-centred, adapting treatment and care at every point throughout a person's journey. It is important that the health service is equally accessible to all; therefore, the autism and neurodiversity awareness training will be available for all Health and Social Care staff, not just mental health staff.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is a certainly a huge step forward in improving the service for autistic individuals. I welcome the training, but will it be extended through to adult mental health services as well? Will it be mandatory?

Mr Nesbitt: My understanding is that it will be available to all those working in Health and Social Care and not just to mental health practitioners. Sorry, what was the second part of the question?

Ms Brownlee: Will it be mandatory?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure whether it will be mandatory. I will have to check that and get back to the Member.

Mr McGuigan: I will follow on from the Minister's answer and the supplementary question. Over and above the specific training, does the Minister believe that a different and bespoke approach to mental health interventions for autistic children and young people, as well as adults, is required?

Mr Nesbitt: If the Member is enquiring whether there should be a separate, bespoke training regime and system in place for dealing with autism, my officials say that that is not necessary and that interventions can be done within the mental health services but in a bespoke way that is directed towards a person-centred pathway of care.

Mr McGrath: The Minister will be aware that, generically, there is difficulty in accessing CAMHS for young people and that there is a bit of a regional imbalance. Is the Department undertaking any work to address that?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, it is. The Member will be aware of the fact that, since I was first elected in around 2011, I have campaigned on the broad theme of mental health. I came to that from being a victims' commissioner, because it was obvious that our excessive rates of poor mental health — let me put it that way — are a direct result of the legacy of the conflict. It is one thing to say, "Here is a service such as CAMHS", but, if you cannot access it in a timely manner, it is almost cruel, because you know that it is there. It is the same with how some strategies are gold-plated and the best that we can think of, but we then do not have the money to fund the action points year-on-year. Again, it is Tantalus-like, saying, "Here is what you should have had". Yes, I am particularly keen to address those waiting lists and the capacity in mental health, including CAMHS.

Mr Nesbitt: The new regional cervical screening laboratory in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust has been operational since November 2024. The Belfast Trust was awarded the regional contract following an expression-of-interest process that considered submissions from trusts against a range of key criteria. The Belfast Trust scored highest in the process and was awarded the contract. While some of the human papillomavirus (HPV) testing equipment is physically located in the virology department in the Belfast Trust and not in the cytology laboratory, it is on the same site, and all testing is being undertaken by the cervical screening laboratory team. The arrangement of a piece of equipment being located in a different location within one site is not uncommon and is recognised as acceptable practice in national guidance. The equipment located in the virology laboratory is in a room used only for cervical screening.

With the implementation of primary HPV testing in December 2023, it was necessary to consolidate the laboratories to a single site to ensure that performance standards and minimum requirements of screeners and reporting staff are met and that public confidence in the screening programme is maintained. That is due to the marked decrease in demand for cytology testing and is in line with other UK regions. Even operating as a single-site model, the anticipated volume of screening samples will see the Belfast Trust laboratory as the smallest in the United Kingdom. I assure Members that the regional laboratory is fully operational and, between 3 November 2024 and 4 May 2025, the regional laboratory processed and reported approximately 43,000 HPV tests for the Northern Ireland cervical screening programme.

Mr Harvey: Thank you for your answer, Minister. How does the Department intend to ensure that patients are informed in a timely manner of the results of the testing?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that follow-up question. There have been some issues around the timeliness of reporting; I accept that that is indeed the case. Last week, though, I was pleased to hear that work is being done to address that. We look at a range of weeks in blocks in terms of how long it takes to report to people who have been tested with their results. The Public Health Agency (PHA) has informed the Department that waiting times are improving week on week. At 4 May, 90·2% were authorised within four weeks; 0·7% took four to six weeks; 2·3% took six to eight weeks; and 6·8% took over eight weeks.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that it is vital that women should have confidence in the cervical screening programme in Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question and understand that it is rooted in previous serious issues. Yes, I encourage women to take up the offer of cervical screening when invited to do so. Over 99% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Primary HPV testing is an automated test that identifies the presence of HPV. It is recommended by the UK National Screening Committee because it is a more accurate test and will save more lives than cervical cytology. The Public Health Agency continues to monitor awareness, confidence and barriers to participation in cervical screening and will continue to use that information to inform future activities. Coverage data, used as a measure of participation in the programme, is now available for the financial year 2023-24. It shows an increase in age-appropriate coverage across all trusts compared with 2022-23.

Mr Carroll: Minister, given the concerns raised about the lack of full services being provided and staff concerns about conditions, I urge you to move at speed to address both of those issues. How confident are you that there will not be a cervical scandal similar to that in the South, with those issues being raised?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his commentary. The question was how confident I am: I would like to think that I am very confident, because I think that, when you have had issues on the scale of those experienced by patients and service users in the Southern Trust, everybody involved in the screening, whether in cytology or for HPV, which is now the primary testing route, will be absolutely on their best game at all times. It would be a complete shock to me, if we were to return to the sort of situation that we had with the Southern Trust.

Mr Donnelly: Does the Minister recognise the risk that the delay in HPV testing capacity poses to the timely detection of cervical cancer, particularly for women in more deprived areas, where screening uptake is already low?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, which is in two parts. Yes, being timely is of the essence. It is all very well having the buildings, the equipment, the staff and the protocols, but, if testing is not actioned in a timely manner, the risk, obviously and self-evidently, is that we miss problems or allow problems to deteriorate to the point at which they could even be life-threatening.

On the Member's point about people who live in areas of deprivation, he will be aware that tackling health inequalities is one of my primary focuses. Over the next two years, I hope to do enough to encourage the next Minister of Health to continue on that journey of tackling health inequalities. That would mean that we will have had seven years of focus, and, after that, you should really see improvements. The big measure for me, as I always say, is healthy life expectancy.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, I am sure that everybody thought that everybody was on their game and doing their very best when we had the cervical smear scandal in the Southern Trust. What we really need is some reassurance on the accountability mechanisms.

I think that you will agree that the most important element of tackling health inequalities is education. Women need to understand the importance of the cervical smear, and they need to understand that that does not detect ovarian cancer or womb cancer. We need to understand as women exactly what cervical smear testing will detect and what it will not so that we are not afraid to go forward when there are other symptoms.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that. She will be aware that I have officials working on a women's health action plan, and education will be a core part of that. Looking ahead, I would prefer to have a women's health strategy, but, in the meantime, the important thing to do is to get an action plan that enables us to take definite actions on certain conditions that are particular, perhaps, to women. I could not agree with the Member more on the idea that education is absolutely core.

Mr McNulty: The Minister will know how long and how hard people campaigned for cervical cancer screening. After the smear scandal in the Southern Trust, will he outline what measures are being adopted to ensure accurate, consistent and timely screening? Is outsourcing a part of that?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I am not aware that outsourcing is something that we want to do. I think that we had to do it as a short-term measure when we consolidated on the Belfast Trust site.

I want to reassure people that every effort is being made to review what happened in the Southern Trust. We have had a number of reports, and there are two more to come. At that point, I will make a final decision, but the following questions need to be answered. What happened? Why did it happen, including who was responsible for it happening? What steps have been taken to ensure that it will never happen again, or, if it is not possible to give that absolute guarantee, what steps have been taken to try to ensure that it is very, very unlikely to happen again? That process is ongoing, but I expect the final two reports to be published in the coming weeks. We will then approach the end point of our review of what went wrong.

Mr Nesbitt: Last week, I was very pleased to announce a significant package of investment in Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care workforce. The measures that I have announced will bring annual investment in the commissioning of workforce training places to £160 million. This year, my Department will commission 1,065 nursing and midwifery places, a record 505 allied health professionals (AHPs) and 330 social work preregistration training places.

I have also approved 24 new medical specialty training posts, which are made up of 13 posts in internal medicine, five in core psychiatry and six in other specialties.

The investment will also provide for the delivery of 378 places on the Northern Ireland medical foundation programme. A place will be provided for every graduate from Queen's University Belfast's school of medicine and for the first cohort of graduates from Ulster University's graduate entry medicine (GEM) programme. Collectively, the total number of medical training posts across all the programmes that my Department has commissioned from the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency (NIMDTA) now stands at 2,219. Our health and social care workforce is our greatest asset, and, without its skill and dedication, there is no service. The investment that I have announced forms a key part of my Department's ambitious three-year plan to stabilise, reform and deliver more sustainable and effective healthcare for everybody. It means that we remain on the path towards securing the workforce across Health and Social Care to help us meet rising demand for care and also support the transformation of services, particularly in primary and community care.

Mr Butler: I commend the Minister for what many people rightly consider to be some of the most significant increases in training places in many years. Is he able to give us an indication of just how significant those increases will be, in particular across the AHP programmes?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that. The AHP cohort forms the second-largest block in healthcare after nursing, and it is really important. As I said, a record 505 allied health professional preregistration training places are to be commissioned by my Department in this financial year. The breakdown, in which the Member may be interested, is as follows. There will be 110 training places in physiotherapy, which represents a 37% increase over the past two years. There will be 25 places in radiotherapy — sometimes referred to as "therapeutic radiography" — and oncology, which is a 56% increase compared with last year. Ninety-four places will be available in diagnostic radiography, which is a 38% increase over the past two years. Ninety-three places will be available in occupational therapy, which is a 69% increase on last year's commissioned places. There will be 65 places for paramedics, which is a 30% increase on last year. Fifty-six places will be available for speech and language therapy, which is a 100% increase on last year's training numbers. There will be 35 places in dietetics, which is up 66% on last year. There will be 27 places in podiatry, which is a 35% increase on last year.

The numbers represent an overall increase of 100 places on training courses commissioned in 2024-25. Those roles are critical to delivering care and enabling service transformation in hospital, community and home settings and will help free up more experienced staff to take on advance practice and leadership roles.

Mr Dickson: Minister, are you able to confirm whether your Department has conducted a regional skills-gap analysis across the trusts to ensure that those commissioned training places align with actual demand?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I am not going to be definitive in my answer. He was very specific about the review that he has in mind, so I will take that away. Broadly, however, we look at the gaps on a trust-by-trust basis and even on a hospital-by-hospital basis. I hope that the Member is aware that, although we have five geographically defined trusts, it is my intention and my drive that everything that we do in those trusts be delivered on a standardised, regional basis. We have to look at the workforce and at how it is distributed in order to make sure that it is best placed to deliver on that basis. I will get back to the Member on his specific request.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, given that there are questions about whether the numbers of training places meet the level of demand for services, can you provide an update on when the safe staffing legislative process will commence?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. We have been looking at the legislative programme that we can introduce in the remaining two years of the mandate. I can assure the Member that it is my desire that the safe staffing legislation come forward before the end of the mandate. I cannot commit to an exact month yet, but it is one of the top three pieces of legislation that I desire to bring to the House.

Ms Ferguson: You have generally answered the point that I was going to make. I welcome the extra posts, but will you ensure that they are fairly allocated across our hospital sites, particularly the medical posts? I have found that a lot of the training posts are Belfast-centric, and when young ones go to train in Belfast, they set up home there and do not necessarily come back to the north-west. If there is a fair allocation of those posts across the hospital sites from the start, we can ensure that we retain and build upon the skills and the teams that we have in the north-west, particularly at Altnagelvin hospital.

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I am acutely aware of the need for regional balance and that not a week goes by that I do not look at waiting lists and issues and say, "Why is best practice in one trust not being replicated and put into common practice in all five trusts?". I put in the proviso that the Belfast Trust offers a lot of regional services, so there will be a weighted bias towards people who work in the Belfast Trust, because they are delivering for the whole of Northern Ireland. The issue that she mentioned is really important. It is not just about making sure that we have the right distribution. If people come to Belfast to train, there is a possibility that they will say, "I kinda like it here, so I'm going to stay". I assure the Member that that is on my radar.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department is facing an extremely challenging financial position in this financial year. Members will recall that, compared with the level of need that is being driven by increased demand, health inflation, pay and trust deficits, among many other factors, my Department was facing a £400 million shortfall this year. That position has changed but, regrettably, not for the better. The additional pressures that the final Budget has added by ring-fencing £165 million of the Department's existing budget for waiting lists and the difference in the allocation for the rise in National Insurance contributions compared with the original planning assumptions mean that the latest assessment of the funding gap is that it is now over £500 million. In that context, we are looking at having to make deeply unpalatable decisions about fundamental inescapable cost increases, such as pay and price inflation, as well as the additional costs that are associated with changes to National Insurance contributions and the national living wage.

We await the pay recommendations from London for doctors, dentists and allied health professionals. That announcement is imminent. As I have said before, all things being equal, I wish to enact those recommendations at speed. However, I need to make you aware that, while I will continue to do all that I can to build on the unprecedented £200 million of savings that were delivered by HSC last year, the Budget leaves me in a position where I am genuinely struggling to see a way forward. While I very much welcome the rather belated Executive focus on waiting lists and the clear direction that that is where Executive colleagues want me to focus, it is clear that, unless the Executive take some shared responsibility, that could, counter-intuitively, be at the expense of that funding by using it to prevent funding cuts across other services.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for that rather sobering update. Perhaps, it will be a bit of a reality check for some in the House. Given the speculation that the pay review recommendations for this year are likely to be published any moment now, I welcome the Minister's commitment to moving swiftly, within reason, to ensure that our health workers are not left waiting for clarity on their pay while colleagues in equivalent roles across the rest of the UK see increases appearing in their pay packets.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Was there a question in there, Mr Chambers?

Mr Nesbitt: I welcome the Member's statement. [Laughter.]

On the pay pressures, when working out our budget, we had to make an assumption that there would be a 2·8% pay rise. As I said, the two sets of recommendations — for allied health professionals on the one hand and doctors and dentists on the other — have been received by the Department of Health and Social Care, so we await the publication of those figures and the response of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting. I am no longer confident that we have budgeted a large enough percentage to meet the figures that we expect to be published.

Mr Martin: Minister, you will, no doubt, agree that treating illnesses early is better for patient outcomes and the cost implications for the health service. In light of that, will you commit to assessing the cost to the health service of undiagnosed coeliac disease and the resulting health complications, with a view to speeding up diagnosis of the illness?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I will take it to officials. I am aware of coeliac disease but only at a superficial or headline level. I commit to checking what service the Department and the health trusts provide in that regard, and whether there is a consistent service across the five trusts, and get back to the Member.

Miss McAllister: Minister, almost a year ago, you stood and said an almost identical thing, with perhaps a little difference in the figures, about having to make cuts that would have a detrimental impact. None of the cuts that were outlined by you and your staff at the Health Committee happened. Why did those cuts not happen? Will it be the same again this year? Is it just fear-mongering, or are you trying to find efficiencies and waste in the five trusts across Northern Ireland, perhaps on administration costs?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member alludes to a slight variation; £400 million to £500 million is not, in my estimation, a slight variation. It is not a slight variation in the view of the trusts, the Department of Health or, I imagine, the Department of Finance. Those are not slight variations; they are major variations. The trusts made an unprecedented £200 million of savings last year. The Member seems to dispute that. If she cares to write to me with the details, I will certainly look into it.

Mr Nesbitt: The South Eastern Trust reports that, as of 12 May 2025, 929 social workers were employed across adult and children’s social work services, which equates to 861 whole-time equivalents. On 31 March 2023, there were 784 whole-time equivalent social workers in the South Eastern Trust. On 31 March 2024, there were 807. I am pleased to report, therefore, that, between 2023 and 2025, the number of social workers has increased by 77. The trust has 53 social work vacancies at band 6 and 11 at band 7. An additional 95 staff are absent from work due to sickness. The trust informed us that it is actively managing sickness levels and providing staff with support to enable them to return to work. Vacancy and absence rates can impact on the availability of social workers, leading to the use of waiting lists or unallocated cases to manage referrals.

The trust has implemented a review and monitoring process to ensure the safe management of cases that await allocation in children’s services. The South Eastern Trust participates in a number of Department-led initiatives that are aimed at stabilising the HSC social work workforce, including the fast recruitment of newly qualified workers. It is envisaged that the majority of the 53 vacant band 6 posts in the trust will be offered to newly qualified social workers between June and September 2025. In fact, in the coming months, approximately 240 vacant posts will be offered to newly qualified social workers across all five trusts. The South Eastern Trust has advised that it is prioritising attraction and retention initiatives for social workers and developing the use of a bank of social work staff to fill temporary vacancies.

Despite those efforts, there continues to be an inadequate supply of social workers to meet service demands regionally. My Department reviews regularly and seeks to increase the number of commissioned training places to meet the demand.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Egan, you have 30 seconds.

Ms Egan: Thank you. I thank the Minister for his answer. I understand that the social care workforce review in 2022 indicated that 60 more university training places for social workers will be required every year, but, last year, there were 20 more. How many places will there be in the upcoming year? Will there be enough to meet the demand?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 15 seconds.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have the exact number to hand. We have made great strides in recruitment and getting away from using agency staff, so we are much more efficient. However, I am afraid that I will have to write to the Member with the exact number that she seeks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, for keeping to time. That ends the period for listed questions. We move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I have been to the Downe Hospital, I think, two or three times, and what I really like about it — if I may use the expression — is the vibe. There is really good feel on walking into that hospital, and that is created by the wonderful staff who work there.

I have visited many of the services. A great range of services is already offered in the Downe, including urgent care and minor injuries, which are both Phone First, and that, I think, is working well for them. I visited the facilities for older people: I declare an interest in that. Hospital at Home is a vision of the future, where you get all the services that you can access in a hospital such as the Downe delivered through your front door. Endoscopy is going well, and there are four dozen inpatient beds.

There is definitely immediate scope to do more in cataract operations. The Downe specialises in cataracts. On my most recent visit, we discussed that, and the staff made it clear that they had spare capacity and could increase their delivery. On the £215 million that we have announced and ring-fenced for waiting lists, I have encouraged the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust to get in touch with the Department and say, "We are ready and able to go with more cataract operations".

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his reply. Minister, you referenced it: do you agree that the current urgent care service could be upgraded and enhanced too? That would enable some treatments to be made a little closer to home and would ease the pressure of the overcrowding that takes place at the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member, but I do not agree with him on that. There is a reason for that. I visited the urgent care centre and spoke to the staff, including consultants. The questions were asked, "What more we could do?", "What more could you do?" and "What would you change if you had a magic wand?". There was a contentment about the service that is offered at the moment and a realisation that it works well. Rather than people going to the emergency department (ED) at the Ulster Hospital and being referred back to the Downe, which is the locality where they live, it is better that they go to the Downe, where they may be treated and sent home or become an inpatient, and are referred just once. Only the patients who need to go to the Ulster are going there. Therefore, it is working pretty well, but everything is always under review. The most important thing for me, when I visit, is for people to say to me, "Here is the obstacle to my delivering on a daily basis, and here is the fix".

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of the claims, and I find them disturbing. First of all, no decision has been made about a permanent move. That decision rests with the Western Trust, not with me. The trust will make a decision, and I do not know what decision it will make. It will come to me, and it will be up to me whether to endorse it.

I want to be clear: as Minister, I categorically state that it is not the case that any additional funding is dependent on the temporary change becoming permanent. Perhaps the rather unfortunate and mistaken reflection in trust minutes relates to the fact that any such request for funding would be non-recurrent, but that simply reflects the fact that the arrangements are temporary. That is completely different from no funding being made available.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his clear commitment, and I hope that it will provide some reassurance for the people who have been greatly distressed by the recent reports on the matter. Will the Minister give a commitment, in line with the recent Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) review of the pathways, that the trust now has better engagement with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I give that assurance. I am very aware of the sensitivities involved, particularly for people living in the catchment area of the South West Acute Hospital. I am more than happy to provide that reassurance.

On the point about ambulance capacity, it is my understanding that the Western Trust has daily engagement with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service with a view to minimising the impact on capacity and including, where necessary, the best use of outside ambulance provision. I still firmly support the RQIA report's original recommendation for:

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. That was put out to public consultation. We have had a vigorous and very welcome set of public responses, which is still being analysed by my Department. We are therefore not in a position yet to give a more detailed vision of the network with regard to which hospitals will provide which services.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Is your Department effectively evaluating any transformation that has already successfully taken place in order to garner more public and political support?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware that we are, no.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. We put a number of proposals on access to the General Practitioners Committee. For example, one was to make some appointments pre-bookable, so that, if you are caught in that speed dial-redial situation, you do not necessarily get to the point where, when you finally get through, you are told, "I am sorry, but all today's appointments are gone", and that is it: you go down that big snake and start again the next day. We believe that all those recommendations were very practical and achievable at no cost to GP services. We have asked GPs to implement our proposals anyway. Obviously, the committee has rejected them and the £9·5 million of additional funding. It will go back to its members, and we wait to see what the response will be.

Mr Clarke: I welcome that proposal from the Minister and the idea that has been put forward. I presume that, despite having rejected the proposal, GPs will receive the money. Does receipt of the money come with the precondition that they must follow the proposal? If not, what sanctions can you impose, as Minister, if GPs do not follow the ideas that you have laid out in relation to that funding?

Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, it is a tense situation, and I do not want to make it any worse. What I will say about the £9·5 million that I have decided to implement and pay anyway is that some GP services genuinely struggle. We have seen contracts handed back over the past couple of years. I had a grave concern that, for example, indemnity was still a toxic issue. We provided a temporary solution for the last financial year but have now identified a permanent solution. That requires £5 million of additional money to be put in. Had we not done that, more surgeries might have handed back their contracts. They have had a hike in National Insurance contributions imposed on them by the UK Government. They were not expecting that — none of us were. I did not think that it was fair to ask them to take that hit, so the Department has taken it. Our estimate for that is £3·5 million. As I said yesterday, if it is higher, we will go higher. Again, had we not done that, we would be potentially looking at GP surgeries handing back their contracts. We are trying to do what we can to stabilise primary care.

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot, but I can go and get it. [Laughter.]

Ms Brownlee: Thank you. I will go on to another question.

In the previous debate on diabetes and the utilisation of data, you detailed the Encompass system and how that could be used, albeit that it would be for primary care. How could that data be collected for use in secondary care? I ask because that is how those with type 2 diabetes will engage. How is all that data being collected through the Encompass system?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Brownlee, if you are asking a supplementary question, it should be related to the first question that you asked. It is up the Minister whether he wishes to answer. Knowing the Minister to be the good sport that he is, I imagine that he will.

Mr Nesbitt: Are you allowed to say that a Deputy Speaker has just stitched you up? [Laughter.]

I think that the Member, if I heard her correctly, was talking about Encompass being in primary care: Encompass is in secondary care.

Ms Brownlee: I am sorry. Apologies.

Mr Nesbitt: It is in the hospitals, so, as long as it is in the hospitals, Encompass will trap the data.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the invite, which I was more than happy to accept. Like many of the other visits that I am so blessed to take part in, I really enjoyed meeting Turning Point NI, which is one of the many fantastic voluntary and community sector organisations doing inspiring, fantastic and wonderful work on the ground for people with mental health issues, some of whom are in crisis. It is an invaluable service and is felt as such by the local trust.

Turning Point receives no formal HSC funding, but it still takes referrals from GPs, community mental health teams, the community and voluntary sector and self-referrals. I am aware that the community mental health team in Ballymena also sees Turning Point NI as a useful and important partner in the Ballymena area, and I wish that we could do more financially to support it.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his response and his kind words. Minister, do you accept that there is still a lot of potential to better utilise the community and voluntary sector in the delivery of some really important mental health services across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Of course, I fully agree, and I point him to action 17 of the mental health strategy. Action 17 commits the Department to:

The more visits I undertake, the more impressed I am with the innovation and the clear motivation to help. There is an independent review under way of the scope, scale and capacity of the voluntary and community sector. I expect that one of its clear outcomes will be the creation of a protocol that will help ensure the most effective use of the sector's expertise and resources.

I will go back to the role that I had before elected politics as a commissioner for the victims and survivors of our conflict. I had the realisation that, on a day-to-day basis, so many people were suffering poor mental health and would receive their direct help from those in voluntary and community organisations, who were people whom they trusted. That was important to victims of the conflict — the Troubles — so, from that day forward, I have had a deep respect for and understanding of the work of those organisations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr McMurray, you have a minute.

Mr Nesbitt: Once again, a number are in the situation of considering contract hand-backs. Regrettably, there have been 16 hand-backs since the financial year 2023-24, with 11 in 2024-25. In 2024-25, one contract was removed. I hope that that answers the Member's question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): There is time for a short supplementary question, Mr McMurray.

Mr McMurray: Thank you very much. Minister, has the Department undertaken any financial or workforce modelling to assess or mitigate the impact of such potential changes?

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): We have a crisis team that goes in to help any GP service that feels that it is under pressure. So, yes, we look at the underlying reasons and try to come up with workable solutions. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, silence. Minister, thank you. Following that interruption, the time is up. We will just take our ease while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, we will continue the debate on the motion on the decolonisation of museum collections —.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, sorry, we will not. We are not going back to that; we are moving forward. [Laughter.]

It is the debate on addressing the impact of illegal immigration in Northern Ireland. The next Member to speak is Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment:

May I double-check that I have 10 minutes to move the amendment?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, you have.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much.

There is not, and should not be, any prohibition on talking about issues that affect our constituents. Immigration is, of course, one of those issues. The operation of a humane and competent immigration regime that supports sustainable economic development and the delivery of public services, and which upholds human rights, is one of the major policy challenges of this century. That is the case whether migration is regular — through conventional processes — or irregular and involving a claim of asylum. The challenges only get more acute as other challenges compound one another: conflict and war in other parts of the world — most recently in Ukraine, Syria and, of course, Gaza — forcing human beings to flee conflict; an aging population placing greater dependence on healthcare services; labour demand that struggles to be met locally; and, increasingly, climate change making parts of the world less liveable or, as we will probably see in the future, entirely uninhabitable, creating new waves of forced migration. Those are only some of the challenges that are forcing all kinds of movements of people now, and will do in the decades to come. There is simply no way to close ourselves off and wish away those issues, and trying to close ourselves off is not only impractical but immoral.

In approaching these questions, our approach should be focused on two core principles: common humanity and practicality. The DUP motion does not deal with either of those things. It is part of a political strategy to play the same populist right-wing tunes of Farage and Reform in the hope of stymieing the even more right-wing TUV in the polls. Let me counter in advance the accusation that I am not aware of public sentiment on these issues or, as is a common right-wing populist accusation — indeed, one levelled already by Mr Buckley in the debate— that I am somehow out of touch by opposing or amending the DUP motion. My office is in the most diverse part of Northern Ireland — probably the most diverse part of this island. It has the highest density of asylum seeker accommodation in this region, including very high numbers of HMOs literally on the street that my constituency office is on. My team knows and deals with the challenges that are created, including for asylum seekers who are fleeing conflict as they try to access services and ultimately make a life for themselves here. If the DUP motion were serious about that issue, it would not simply focus on one symptom: the density of HMO accommodation — I note that Mr Buckley barely talked about HMO accommodation when proposing the motion — it would suggest practical leadership via the Executive through the publication of a refugee integration strategy. Its Assembly leader — the deputy First Minister — has joint responsibility for that, and the Executive Office has been sitting on it for four years. However, in one sense, all that is irrelevant, because the DUP is not interested in practical strategies to integrate refugees and ensure that migrants are given the best possible chance to contribute to this society; it wants to play the same populist games as right-wingers all over Europe. It wants to tell working-class communities that feel disempowered by declining public services and a lack of economic opportunity that they should be angry not at the DUP but at migrants — others — many of whom have arrived here fleeing persecution.

Of course, parts of unionism have been playing that game, or versions of that game, since time immemorial. Rather than empower working-class communities with strong public services and economic opportunity, it is easier to tell them that they are struggling because some other community, whether it is local or is made up of people who arrived here from elsewhere, is winning at their expense. It was the same last summer when we saw shameful displays of race hate in this city. The reaction to brazen displays of racism and violence on the streets of Belfast, especially in my constituency, including the area around my constituency office, was to say, "There are legitimate concerns to be addressed". To be clear, no legitimate concern can ever be addressed through wanton violence.

I will look at the concerns that are expressed in the motion so that I am not accused of dismissing them. First of all, on the cost of asylum seekers, let us be clear: those costs are neither borne by the Executive nor directly related to policy choices here. My party and I are not enthused about the level of profits that Mears earns from its management of asylum seeker contracts. If there are legitimate questions about HMOs, they should be dealt with. Mr Buckley could have dealt with them during his speech, but he barely touched on them. It has been a consistent decision of the Home Office to prevent asylum seekers from working, thereby preventing their moving on to contribute economically to society here.

It is also the case that, as I said, the refugee integration strategy, which was published for consultation in 2021, has been sitting on a shelf, unpublished by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Executive Office, for four years. The motion does not mention the refugee integration strategy. Nor does it mention any of the other policies that would help working-class communities, including the ones that I represent and the ones that he and others in the DUP represent but have failed for so long. The DUP is very keen on blaming others for problems that it does not want to solve. If it were really serious about giving opportunity to working-class kids, it would not be so keen on forcing them through the transfer test. If it were really so keen on improving public services for them, it would not have collapsed political institutions here multiple times, forcing public services into an even worse state than they were already in. If it were serious about the neglect of working-class areas and high streets, it would not have allowed the high street task force to be abandoned or been so blasé about economic improvement in those areas.

These are important issues. It is important that working-class people and all communities feel that they can talk about issues, including migration. There should not be any prohibition on that, and I do not think that there is. However, let me be clear: what we see today from the DUP is part of a populist right-wing game to stymie the TUV and promote the careers of young right-wingers in the Democratic Unionist Party. When I was a child, my MP was a man named Enoch Powell. I did not know it at the time, but he was my MP. He was a man who was so right-wing that even the Tories got him out of the Commons. The Ulster Unionist Party imported him — he was a migrant, in a sense — to Northern Ireland to represent South Down. One of the proudest achievements of my party was, via an honest, tolerant public representative named Eddie McGrady, getting Enoch Powell out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In the Chamber, we have our own pocket Powell from Portadown in Mr Buckley.

Mr Durkan: He is a pound-shop Powell.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way. Your colleague did not give way to me.

Mr Buckley is a pocket Powell who is determined to drag us back to divisive identity politics. I am afraid that it says a lot about the state of unionist politics when the best that the DUP can offer to working-class communities, and, indeed, all people in Northern Ireland, who, we are told, are supposed to be sold on the benefits of the UK, is that kind of miserable, divisive, populist, right-wing nonsense.

It has to be said, however, that it is not just the DUP. Language has become darker and more concerning in other parts of these islands. Mr Buckley quoted the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who talked about "an island of strangers". Keir Starmer said "island of strangers", but I do not live on his island, and I do not want to live on an island of strangers. I want to live on an island that is cognisant of its past, which is a past in which human beings, through economic necessity and conflict, were forced to flee. They were forced to leave and find opportunities and safety elsewhere. I want to live on an island where people are not just tolerant of but deeply connected to the fate of people who come to our shores.

We do not live on an island of strangers. We saw that in the past week or two. In Buncrana, Emmanuel Familola, who was 16 and originally from Nigeria, and Matt Sibanda, who was 18 and originally from Zimbabwe, died in tragic circumstances in Lough Swilly. At one of their funerals, Father Bradley said that their passing had a:

their lives. Those two young men, who were born in Africa but made their lives in Ireland, were given a guard of honour by Scoil Mhuire and the community in Buncrana. That is the island on which I want to live. That is the future that I want to build for the rich, diverse communities that live on this island, rather than have the pocket Powell nonsense that we have heard today or the Farage-driven future that the UK Government, other parties across the water and, I am afraid, the DUP and TUV wish to subject us to. That is a different future. By all means, we can discuss issues of public service provision, but that is not what today is about.

In opposing the motion, I submit our amendment, which I hope that the Assembly can pass.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Matthew, you will have five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech on your amendment. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have five minutes.

Miss Hargey: Sinn Féin's position on migration is informed by our republican values and principles of equality, economic and social justice, anti-racism and anti-colonialism. It is informed by our history.

Across the world, people are being forced from their country by war, famine, the escalating climate crisis and persistent inequality. Almost uniquely for a developed Western country, we in Ireland understand, from our experience, the human, economic and societal impact of immigration on the countries from which people are fleeing. Developed countries, including Ireland and Britain, can and must do more to address the causes forcing people to flee and migrate. Of course, there need to be systems in place to manage immigration, and, of course, there are immediate and obvious pressures on our public services, such as access to health and social care. Let me be very clear, however, that that is caused by a sustained lack of investment, which is a reality that we discuss at every sitting of the Assembly. Over a decade and a half of austerity and cuts by consecutive British Governments have been hugely damaging to public services: our health service, housing, education, youth services, skills and employment support. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and dangerously misleading.

There is no acknowledgement in the DUP motion of the important role that people from outside these islands play in our health and social care service, agri-food sector and the wider economy. I find that particularly disturbing. Our health and social care service is highly dependent on the commitment and expertise of so many people who have travelled here to contribute positively to our community, yet we have not heard anything from the DUP about that. Be they a nurse, a doctor or a carer, I acknowledge and thank those people for the contribution that they make to our society, whether in healthcare or other aspects of our community.

Sinn Féin wants to see an immigration system that works well, where the rules are applied, fairness is paramount and people — all the people — in our communities are treated with dignity and respect.

As this is an island that has two separate immigration systems, robust bilateral arrangements between the Irish and British Governments are, of course, necessary to ensure the free movement of citizens across the land border and, simultaneously, manage the immigration systems. A functioning and fair immigration system needs to ensure that those who are deemed to be in need of international protection are granted asylum in a timely manner. When someone is deemed not to be entitled to international protection, they should be returned to their country of origin safely and, importantly, with dignity.

It is important that those who are granted asylum are integrated into our communities and into Irish society, no matter which part of the island they find themselves in. People should be able to contribute to the place that has given them refuge. We already see that contribution every day across our communities. I know the benefits of that, and I see the incredible role that people from other places play in my constituency of South Belfast, whether that is in local hospitality, healthcare in the community, our hospitals, research and innovation in our universities, our culture and arts offering, many sports teams and clubs, crèches and, indeed, local shops. Those people are part of the community and work on its behalf.

Unfortunately, racism is an ugly reality in sections of our society. Last week, a man who was on his way home from work in south Belfast was physically attacked by a large group close to the City Hospital. The attack must have been deeply traumatising. Last summer, we also witnessed local businesses that provide services to the community being burnt to the ground, with their staff being attacked and threatened. Like every example of racism, those attacks are unacceptable and must be called out. Such attacks often happen when dehumanising and emotive language is used.

I appeal to all Members who address the motion to be mature, measured and cautious about the arguments that they deploy and the misinformation that can be used: your words have real consequences for people in the community. Instead of impersonating a pound-shop Enoch Powell, Sinn Féin will support the amendment.

Mr McReynolds: Last August, the Assembly was recalled because so-called protesters were emboldened enough to walk through Belfast and other areas of Northern Ireland attacking our infrastructure, disturbing the peace, attacking businesses and putting £2 million of additional pressure on our Police Service. Around that time, in the Chamber, we heard of "legitimate concerns" about immigration, with the use of deliberate and divisive rhetoric that ignores the systemic and structural pressures on our public services. Members in the Chamber who have contributed to those pressures in the past through inaction and collapsing the Assembly then lay the blame on people who come here from other countries because they are fleeing persecution or war or are, as we have heard, simply seeking a better life. Today's disjointed and confused motion tries to do the same thing.

I think of friends and colleagues, who have a different skin colour or accent from me, who, last summer, were fearful for their safety while walking on our streets. I think of someone else whose partner had stones thrown at her as she left work at a hospital in south Belfast. I distinctly remember the update that we received at the Policing Board on violence in Larne and healthcare workers living in fear after attacks on their homes. There are numerous other disgraceful examples from the past year, which Amnesty International recently labelled as "a year of hate", with 1,300 hate incidents reported during that time. Some of those people will hear today's debate and experience that fear and trauma all over again.

Today's motion raises concerns and issues about education, health and dentistry, but let us get real here: those issues are not because of so-called illegal immigration or asylum seekers. They are a consequence of the Assembly's dysfunction. One minute, we are outraged that we cannot have nice things because of our inconsistent politics, and, the next, we collapse the place as a bargaining tactic. I have seen HMOs work well, and I have seen them work not so well, but it is a stretch to suggest that amending the strategic planning policy statement will reduce pressure on our systems across Northern Ireland when the numbers are miniscule by comparison.

Moreover, if the Members who tabled the motion are so concerned about HMO policy, have they spoken to their colleagues in local government who have operational responsibility for and licensing powers over them? Have they spoken to the Communities Minister, who sits on their Benches and has responsibility?

I enjoyed Mr Buckley's contribution, as he has come on board with having stable and "sensible government". I am glad that he is now supportive of reforming the institutions and giving Northern Ireland the stable and un-collapsed government that people here deserve, all year round.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: No, I will not.

We need debate here to take place on the basis of evidence, of which I have seen and heard none today, rather than ideology. That is how we improve the working of the Assembly, the Executive and our public services. That is how we better integrate people who have chosen to settle in Northern Ireland and how we avoid a repeat of the violence that we saw on our streets last year.

Alliance opposes the motion on the basis of human rights, the rule of law and evidence-based policymaking, and we support the Opposition's amendment. Let us set the bar higher on the standards that the Assembly should reach for. Let us be an Assembly for all and show leadership on these issues based on human rights, equality and a Northern Ireland for all rather than on dog-whistle politics for social media clips.

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Hopefully, I will not go left or right but speak to the truth and, as the Member for South Belfast said, talk about the topic in a "mature, measured" way. The reality is that people are talking about this topic, whether you take a side or not. It is a debate that should be had. Immigration pressures on public services are a real issue, as is the rise in the number of houses in multiple occupation across Northern Ireland. They present specific difficulties in Northern Ireland, because we do not have the regulation and legislative clout that other parts of the UK have.

Let me state clearly that the Ulster Unionist Party supports a firm but fair immigration system. We believe in compassion for those who are fleeing persecution, but that must be balanced by proper controls and a system that works effectively across all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We have seen the cost of accommodating asylum seekers rise to around £400 million, as is mentioned in the motion. That is four times the original estimate. That level of spending is simply not sustainable and must be questioned. While immigration policy is a reserved matter for Westminster, its impact on local services, schools, GP practices and housing pressures is real. No Member from any party has refuted that part of the motion so far.

There are those who will quickly dismiss any discussion on immigration as intolerant or extreme, but this party will not be accused of that, even though, at one stage, the leader of the Opposition talked about "unionist politics". That is not good enough. Censoring debate helps no one and ignores the real and genuine concerns that people have. Is immigration the number-one issue that comes into my inbox? No, it is not. Is it an issue? Yes, it is.

Ignoring the value of controlled, managed migration is equally wrong. Across the world, responsible migration supports economies and fills skills gaps. In Northern Ireland, many of our doctors, nurses and key workers came from overseas and have made a positive and lasting contribution to our society. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber appreciates that. We must never allow honest discussion to slide into hostility. Those who come here to contribute, to work hard and to integrate should feel welcome, not vilified. Anything less is morally and socially unacceptable. That having been said, we cannot ignore the pressures. When public services are already stretched, adding further demand makes things harder. Let us be honest, however: the systems were failing long before now. Long waiting lists, overcrowded schools and a shortage of affordable housing did not appear overnight. I agree with the Alliance Member about the Assembly's failure to sit for five years out of eight, which will have compounded public service problems.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been much mention of the starving of public services and how fault for that lies at our door, but there has been no mention of the fact that, in 2024, £2·8 billion was spent on illegal immigration and asylum seekers' support in the UK. That money could be spent on 70,000 nursing places. Is that not, perhaps, where the money should be spent, rather than its being dished out on asylum and support for illegal immigrants?

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

Mr Butler: Thank you. On the breakdown of those figures, we have had a geopolitical crisis in that time, during which we have accommodated many people from Ukraine and other war-torn areas. However, the Member should not be dismissed in speaking to uncontrolled immigration, which is a legitimate point to speak to. I said that immigration can and does add pressure, but so, too, have repeated failures of the Executive.

The motion's main call is for the review and amendment of:

One of the most visible symptoms of the housing crisis is the rise in HMOs. Increasing numbers of properties are being converted into shared accommodation. That is not because it is ideal — from my perspective, as a former firefighter, I can tell you that it is worse than far from ideal; it can be downright dangerous — but because people have no other choice, that is where they end up. The unchecked growth in HMOs in certain area has a damaging impact on communities. Local residents often feel unheard and powerless to object, and the fault for that lies with the Home Office and its failure to adequately communicate and bring communities along with it. It speaks to a broken housing system that is failing individuals and families right across our Province. When the only option for some is to share a converted terrace house with five strangers, something is badly wrong.

Other parts of the UK have acted. In England, councils use article 4 directions to control the spread of HMOs. In Scotland, restrictions are in place in high-pressure areas. Those approaches are backed by robust planning policies. People in our communities feel powerless to oppose HMOs, because, in contrast, while councils in Northern Ireland do their best with licensing, they lack the planning powers and clear guidance to manage the issues effectively. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion. We need the strategic planning policy statement to be reviewed and strengthened so that councils can make decisions based on local needs, not abstract regulations. We urge the Infrastructure Minister to urgently begin the review and do all that she can in this mandate to make the necessary changes.

When we have debates on immigration, we really need to detoxify the space and allow each other to talk about the issues that impact on people. We need to deal with strangers to this land in a humanitarian way. Let us become a bit more mature about a very important topic.

Mr Frew: I am distraught about the level of the debate, which is on a very serious subject. It has been reduced to a zero-sum game. It has been about unionists being pitted against nationalists. It was horrendous to hear some of the language that was uttered in the Chamber over the past number of minutes. There is absolutely no need for that, but it is what we have come to expect.

I have a few truths to say. If you are concerned about immigration or have questions around it, you are not a racist. You are not a bigot. You are not a unionist just for the sake of raising issues around immigration. That leads to the point as to why it is so important to have this debate. I cannot be responsible for how other people react to the debate, but I wish that their reactions had not been so. I wish that my ears had not heard what I have heard over the past half hour, because reducing the debate to a racist sum is disgusting.

People in my constituency are so concerned about immigration.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. Unfortunately, the proposer of the motion was unable to do so. Can the Member explain why the motion focuses on HMOs and calls on the Infrastructure Minister to act on that particular element of housing rather than focusing on the wider housing crisis that we face? Doing that would call for his party colleague the Communities Minister to respond to the debate.

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

Mr Frew: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention. It is because the issue is very serious. If we were to tackle all the issues around people movement, the motion would be three pages long. Let us take one chunk at a time. I thought that the fact that our motion centres on HMOs would lead to a better debate —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Alas, I am running out of time. I am sorry about running out of time.

The thing is this: in the communities in the constituency that I represent, particularly those in Ballymena, there has been a massive concentration of people movement. There is nothing wrong with people movement. It is as old as mankind itself. People move for all sorts of reasons. That is not the issue. The issue is about controlling that movement, which is vital. We have been failed by our Government. It is not good enough to say, "It is not a devolved matter", because it really matters for the people whom we represent.

It matters to the people who have lived in an area all their life, have bought their house and have seen their environment change incredibly over the past 25 years. They have seen the difference in their workplaces, their environment, their homes and their neighbourhoods. It has a massive impact. Yet, when those people raise those issues, they are told that they are racist. They are even told that they are subhuman. They are told that they are extreme for fearing the change that is happening in their place and having no control over it. That is the worst part of it: the people there have no control. That is why politicians talk about taking back control. It is what the people want to hear. People want to be comforted and to know that something is being done to manage it, but, of course, nothing is being done to manage it.

When you come to a debate such as this and you are trying to raise concerns for the people whom you represent, you are labelled as a "pocket Powell" and a "pound-shop Powell". What populism we hear to get a hit on social media and to reduce the debate to unionists being the big baddies and nationalists being so good. The leader of the Opposition tweets about the planter and the Gael, yet he does not want us to talk about uncontrolled people movement. To the party that names itself Ourselves Alone I say, "How rich is that coming from the opposite Benches?".

All we ask for is that the people whom we represent and you represent are listened to actively and not pigeonholed as extremists, racists, bigots and right-wingers. I know people of a socialist nature who have come to my office with concerns about the issue and Polish people who have come into my office concerned about the welfare and safety of their children walking through Ballymena at night. There are massive issues in Ballymena alone that no one seems to be addressing. When you ask the questions that they ask, you are deemed to be a racist and a bigot. That is not the way it should be.

We need to have a decent, suitable, grown-up, mature debate on people movement and the controls and measures that are in place in our government to make sure that people move in manageable ways. That is something that we have not had. The most important thing now, which I am glad to hear, is that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, is coming out now and taking the issue seriously. I would not have used the words that he used, but, yet, there he is, using those words. That shows you how important the issue is now. There might be other motives —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Frew: — for why it has happened, but, at least, it is now on the agenda.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the amendment but not the original motion. The reason why I will not support the original motion is that it is plainly wrong. At an event in Belfast City Hall yesterday, real life narratives of how asylum seekers in Northern Ireland cannot access the education system were highlighted. Anaka Women's Collective published a report called 'Stranded Dreams' that shows that, without a specialist programme, asylum seekers in the 16-to-24 age group are effectively shut out from formal education. Northern Ireland already faces a greater challenge than neighbouring jurisdictions in keeping young people in formal education past the age of 16. However, that has precisely nothing to do with asylum seekers. In reality, the system works against them, even in a society where we need more people willing to take risks and set up businesses, as many asylum seekers would wish to do.

It is also the case that the motion makes a call on the wrong Department, and the amendment usefully corrects that. The amendment corrects a few other things as well. With unemployment here at just 1·7% and the date on which the population of Northern Ireland starts to decline now projected to be as soon as 2033, we have a skills shortage and an imminent demographic time bomb.

I share the sentiments of others in the Chamber around the immense contribution that people who have come to make this place their home have made to our healthcare, our economy and our education, and they should be welcomed and embraced. We do not need divisive rhetoric, because it becomes dangerous. It is reasonable to talk in terms of managing immigration more effectively but not to blame immigrants and pit them against others.

Everyone in the House should be clear that the dramatic rise in the funding required to house asylum seekers is the fault of those who mismanaged the process, not the fault of the asylum seekers. Indeed, the very issue is that not only has the entire funding requirement risen but the accommodation remains entirely unsuitable, particularly considering that people have been fleeing war zones with the complex needs that they have had to endure and now live with. A managed migration policy will focus on integration, and that is why the amendment correctly calls on the Executive Office to bring forward the refugee integration strategy, among other things.

Let us be clear about what the cost of inaction really is. Last summer, we saw the riots in south Belfast in particular after the anti-immigration rallies. We saw individuals and PSNI officers attacked, businesses damaged and community tensions heightened. The PSNI received an extra £2·8 million in the October monitoring round to cover the direct cost of tackling the disorder. What would that £2·8 million have covered? How many nurses would it have been able to employ? How many new houses could have been built? How many courses could have been put on for people who want to escape poverty?

The cost is not purely financial, however. Just this morning, I was alerted to between 25 and 30 pieces of anti-immigration graffiti that appeared overnight in the Belvoir estate in my constituency. That is where divisive and inflammatory rhetoric gets us. What were the people who put up that graffiti intending the outcome to be of its going on those walls? Was it to scare and intimidate young children and their families so that they are fearful of walking among their community? That is what happens when that sort of graffiti appears, and no one in the Chamber should be championing that or saying that it is the right way to address the issues in front of us.

We still await the draft Race Relations Order. We have been awaiting it for many years, and the community in question has been waiting for it for many years. That will see discrimination outlawed and will allow the order to be brought up to the standard that we require in the 2020s. We still await the refugee integration strategy with its implementation plan and funding model, and we need to see details of how the next racial equality strategy will be delivered.

What we see in the motion is an attempt to divert from doing the work of making sure that Northern Ireland plays its role in helping those fleeing war and natural disaster while ensuring that there is social integration. That means that we need to get on with publishing, resourcing and implementing the strategy, as I said. We can look at the concerns about housing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. Thank you.

Mrs Erskine: I rise to speak on this important motion, in which there is a lot of public interest. Many of our constituents have always shown generosity to those who play by the rules, yet that goodwill is being stretched to breaking point because His Majesty's Government have allowed an uncontrolled system of illegal immigration to flourish while focusing on curbing legal routes. That ultimately pushes people into illegal and unsafe practices, and that is at the heart of the motion. A policy that squeezes a nurse recruited by the NHS while people-smuggling gangs sail on undisturbed is the very definition of a misplaced priority.

At the outset, I will say that it is important that we have a measured tone, that we differentiate between illegal and legal immigration and that there is an understanding of the concerns of the people in the communities that we all serve. The people whom I am representing by speaking on the motion are not far-right extremists. They are not racist. They have concerns about our ability to deliver services in Northern Ireland and how they are impacted.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Ms Brownlee: Does the Member recall that, when one of our councillors and a former MLA raised genuine concerns that the local community had presented to them, that councillor was subjected to a two-year Local Government Commissioner for Standards investigation that was covered by the public purse, only to be vindicated under the rights afforded to them under article 10? Does the Member agree that people should have the space and the right to raise genuine concerns about the issue, without fear of investigation?

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

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. Politics is the answer to all of this. It is about debating the issues in the likes of this Chamber and raising the concerns that people bring to us.

According to the National Audit Office, the annual cost of accommodating asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has exploded to £400 million. Every pound spent on emergency accommodation is a pound not spent on cancer drugs, potholes or special educational needs classrooms. Today, I will focus on the houses of multiple occupancy. In town after town, the rapid conversion of homes into HMOs is often substandard, frequently unchecked and utterly unsuited to the character of neighbourhoods. They are no longer confined to student areas; they are appearing in established working-class and rural communities, driving up rents and hollowing out the very fabric of what, the Government say, they want to protect. There is a direct line from uncontrolled illegal immigration to unsustainable pressure on housing stock and, from that pressure, the proliferation of HMOs. It is something that I see in my constituency, particularly in Dungannon. The difficulties are manifold, with unscrupulous landlords profiting from people via the Government, opportunity rife for illness with poor quality housing and over-occupancy, increased housing costs and antisocial behaviour. That is not a society that we should advocate.

The Assembly cannot solve the small boat crisis — that rests with Westminster — but we can insist that, within our devolved competence, planning policy protects local people. The strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) is one such lever. Right now, it is far too permissive. Councils feel compelled to green-light HMO applications because of the SPPS, which gives them no firm footing to refuse. The approach to such planning controls also varies between councils, leading to inconsistencies and, at times, a failure to guard against the over-provision of HMOs and the corresponding impacts on community cohesion. That is why we call on the Infrastructure Minister to urgently revisit the strategic planning policy statement, give councils more direction and define the parameters for the over-proliferation of HMOs.

The answers to deal with this are in politics. That is why I say clearly that violence should not be on the table. Those who are acting as judges and jurors and taking the law into their own hands in communities are wrong to do so. That is why the DUP is fronting up and bringing this to the Assembly Chamber today. It is incumbent on us to act. People use the excuse of violence because they are frustrated with politics and feel that they are being let down. There is anger in communities when illegal practices happen under their nose. Many people whom I speak to are compassionate, but they are not fools. They know the difference between a refugee fleeing persecution and an opportunist who is coached to destroy documentation crossing the Channel. They also know when Westminster is asking ratepayers to foot the bill for their policy failures.

The DUP will not be silent while our health service, schools and communities are eroded through illegal practices. An immigration system should be firm, fair and, crucially, legal. I urge every Member to support the motion and to back our councils with stronger planning tools.

Mr Brett: I commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone on her excellent contribution.

Well, well, it did not take long for the insults and abuse to be heard across the Chamber. As I predicted yesterday, they would rather fight with insults than speak to the facts that are before them today.

The people whom we speak for are not far right, are not extremists and are not fascists, but, given the language used in the discourse from the Benches opposite, it is no wonder that members of the public feel unheard, unvalued and that politicians do not care what they have to say.

I want to respond to some of the issues that the leader of the Opposition raised. I will put my record, my commitment and the commitment of my party to working-class communities against anyone's in the House. I would not dare challenge any Member's commitment to their constituents, and I do not expect or appreciate his attempting to quantify my commitment to the people whom I am honoured to represent. He described these Benches as containing "young right-wingers". I do not think that I am particularly young or right wing, but, if standing up and speaking up for the people who put their trust in me makes me a young right-winger, I will wear that badge with honour.

My party and I will take no lectures on political extremism from the Benches opposite. This party never justified political violence, this party never supported the murder of people based on the sole fact that they were Protestants, and this party never attempted to inflict genocide on the Protestant population of this country. That was your party opposite.

The Alliance Party's contribution —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to let the debate flow. I have taken note of some of the adjectives that have been used, and I think that you need to watch what you say, Phillip, because you are accusing people of genocide, which is completely different from being called a pound-shop whatever it was. I think that it was Deborah who referred to having a tone. We need to carry on with the debate. Say what you have to say, but just be careful.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The only party, of course, that raised the issue of skin colour and religion — it is not included in our motion — was the Alliance Party. That party thrives on division. It thrives on looking down on those who do not subscribe to their woke nonsense and liberal elitism. This party has a right to bring forward the issues that matter to the people whom we represent, and that is exactly what we are doing today. Just as the Alliance Party is more interested in policing the flying of our flag from lamp posts than illegal immigration, we will stand up for those who voted for us.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, since Labour took office, somewhere in the region of 30,000 people have crossed the English Channel in small boats? That is a concern to everybody in Northern Ireland, not just unionists or nationalists but everyone.

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

Mr Brett: That brings me on to why this party will oppose the amendment. First, removing the lamentation about illegal immigration does a disservice to the tens of thousands of wonderful people in every corner of Northern Ireland who have gone through the proper process to come to Northern Ireland, who have invested in this country, who nurse our sick and who look on in absolute disgust that the process that they went through is not being followed by others.

The leader of the Opposition said that we are not interested in the issue of HMOs, so I want to touch on that. It is absolutely destroying parts of my constituency of North Belfast. Inner cities are unrecognisable from what they were many, many years ago. Pensioners who come into my office are concerned because they have seven or eight males moving into the house next door. That is not extremism or fascism; that is someone who wants to live in peace in a house that they bought 40 years ago. They paid taxes and should be looked after. The issues that face the people of North Belfast are no different from those that face all Members and all our constituents, but people seem to struggle with the basic fact that two things can be correct at the same time. Yes, we need to see more investment in housing, and, yes, we need to see more investment in the NHS, but having uncontrolled immigration continues to stress and strain a system that does not have the capacity. This party tabled the motion in the face of the hurling of abuse and mud-slinging that we knew would come, but, ultimately, we are not accountable to those who sit on the other Benches. We are accountable to the people who voted for us. I know where the people of my constituency stand, however, and that is firmly behind the motion that we have brought to the House today.

Ms Mulholland: I will begin by reminding the House why we were recalled to the Chamber last August: it was in response to the deeply disturbing racist riots that broke out. I will quote from a speech that was made at the time:

The Member went on to say:

Those remarks were made by a Member from the party that proposed today's motion: the same party that is doing exactly what its Member condemned last summer. The very people who were attacked last summer are the people whom the Assembly stood together to support, yet they are now being blamed in the motion for the pressures on housing, GP appointments, public services and education. The irony is striking, but the message is dangerous.

I want to be clear: I am not here to dismiss the concerns of those in our communities who feel anxious, frustrated or fearful, if those feelings are valid. The blame in the motion, however, is being directed at the wrong people. Migrants are not the reason that people are struggling to get a GP appointment. Refugees are not the reason that people cannot afford housing. Asylum seekers do not raise people's heating bills. There are consequences as a result of decades of political neglect, chronic underinvestment, unstable government and austerity, and those are not people's neighbours' fault. Many of the people who are targeted by the motion are here because they fled war, persecution and hardship that many of us can barely imagine, all whilst bringing children with them.

No human being is illegal. The language that is being used is so demoralising and dehumanising. If the safe and legal channel for asylum is removed, that plays into the hands of the gangs that some Members mentioned that profit off —.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, of course.

Mr Dickson: Does the Member agree that, given the language that some Members are using in the debate, they would not have given an example of seven or eight males from a student background who move into an HMO, as regularly occurs across Northern Ireland? The implication, however, that the people who are moving into HMOs are from a different racial or ethnic group is nothing short of blatant sectarian and racist language.

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have a duty when it comes to the language that we use in here. If people in our communities have concerns, and many do, bring them to us. Let us work together to address them with compassion, truth and facts, not fear and scapegoating.

I will return to the points that my North Antrim colleague made. Some 86% of all housing in Northern Ireland is occupied by people who were born here. In North Antrim, the percentage rises to 88%. Seventy-two per cent of tenants in the private rented sector across Northern Ireland are born here. In North Antrim, the percentage is 73%. The percentage of people in social housing in North Antrim is 89%.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: No. I do not have an awful lot of time.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I will come back to you.

Mr Kingston: You referenced me.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard. Go ahead, Sian.

Ms Mulholland: I just want to point out that, yes, there are issues. In places such as Ballymena in particular, however, migrants are not a burden but a necessity. They are staffing our hospitals. In fact, 900 people from North Antrim alone work in our health and social care system. [Inaudible.]

Ms Mulholland: You can disagree all that you want, Mr Gaston, but they are essential to our agri-food sector and are driving our hospitality and services industries, especially in places such as Ballymena. With a declining birth rate and an ageing population, Northern Ireland as a whole cannot function without some form of inward migration. That is why we will support the SDLP amendment, which recognises the positive contribution of migrants and calls for action on integration. It rightly demands that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister publish a refugee integration strategy by September 2025.

By comparison, the motion's conclusion, with its throwaway reference to HMO planning policy, is not a serious response to housing pressures but a fig leaf. The 2021 census data shows that we have 45,000 people waiting on a housing list. That pressure did not come about overnight, and it certainly will not be solved by HMO tweaks.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way and for her contribution, which is spot on. Does she agree that the DUP's language is nothing short of depressing and is trying to deflect from the fact that it has done more damage to public services in Northern Ireland than anything else, particularly through the collapse of these institutions, for which it was responsible, and RHI?

Ms Mulholland: OK. Thanks, Daniel. The housing crisis will not be solved with tweaks to the rules on HMOs. I agree that political instability has caused an awful lot of the issues that we face. I will not support a motion that others members of our community and uses infrastructure policy as cover. That does a disservice to the genuine concerns that people talk about. However, I will support an amendment that recognises everyone in Northern Ireland, no matter their race, faith or background, as part of our shared future. The communities that were targeted last summer are the same ones that are being blamed in the motion. We stood with them then, and I am proud to stand with them again now.

Mr Gaston: The motion exposes a simple but serious truth: the United Kingdom no longer controls immigration policy across its own territory. Why is that? It is because the protocol has placed part of our nation under foreign rule. It is a matter of deep regret that some returned to Stormont having promised the public that they would not do so whilst the protocol remained. However, here we are: back in office with the protocol still in place and bedding in more and more each day. Now the House is debating a motion that confirms what many of us already know: Northern Ireland is excluded from the UK's immigration system. The Rwanda case made it clear that, when push comes to shove, it is not Westminster but Brussels that is in control. Our colonial masters in the EU now hold sway in Northern Ireland.

On that basis, how the rigorous implementers in the House have lined up on immigration is not surprise. Mr Buckley summed up the attitudes of the nationalist and republican alliance in the House well when he said:

Despite the spin about the reset yesterday, no one even pretended that it will remove the immigration border in the Irish Sea. Let us be honest, —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — unless and until unionism gets back to the position that it abandoned after the election and refuses to implement the Union-dismantling protocol, no immigration policy will apply equally across the UK.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst I note his considerable concern surrounding the protocol and issues relating to immigration policy, does he accept that the UK Government's policy is no template for anybody to follow, with its record levels of illegal and legal immigration?

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

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely, I agree, but I hope that that policy will change. The election results in England a number of weeks ago have changed the mindset of the Labour Government, and I trust that they will follow through on some of their commitments.

As of today, people who arrive in the South illegally can still come across the border into Northern Ireland, with this place having no powers to stop them or even send them back across the border. On the other hand, we have the Irish Government actively checking border crossings. In the past seven months, they have sent 50 migrants back to the UK from the Irish Republic, at least six of whom were sent with a one-way train ticket to Belfast. Members, a sovereign nation must have control of its borders and, indeed, its destiny. Sadly, that is a fundamental that many in the House struggle to grasp.

Mr McCrossan, you were looking in.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I find it fascinating. I am sure that he would like to send pretty much most Members in the House across the border if he had the opportunity to do so. You may not agree with this, but I think that your mantra should be, "Brits in, and everyone else out".

Mr Gaston: Not at all. If you look at the name "Gaston", you will see that my ancestors came here years ago and made this place their home. That is not the problem, and that is not what we are addressing today.

The motion rightly highlights the cost of immigration. Not all of that cost is paid by Westminster; part of it is borne by the Executive.

Last September, I tabled a question for written answer to the Health Minister on translation services. In 2023-24, the Department spent £4·4m on face-to-face interpretation. Over £4 million of that was spent on translation for those who came to Northern Ireland and could not speak or understand a basic level of English. Let me be clear: no one is saying that people should be denied medical care or to come to this country to work. However, if we are spending over £4 million just to translate what a doctor or nurse has said, that shows that the system is broken. If you come to the UK, there should be an expectation that you are able to speak and understand a basic level of English. That is not —

Mr McCrossan: That is racism.

Mr Gaston: No. It is absolutely not.

Mr McCrossan: It is racism.

Mr Gaston: It is absolutely not. It should not be a controversial issue. That leads me to the problems that we have had in the debate today. It has been all about name-calling and mud-slinging, instead of creating the space to allow debate to happen.

We cannot keep asking taxpayers who have lived here all their lives to fund translation services on that scale. Migration puts pressure on hospitals, schools and housing: that is a fact. It may not be a problem in the leafy suburbs, but if you speak to working-class people in the Province, you will hear that many of them feel like strangers in their communities. Mr Frew rightly highlighted Ballymena. Take Harryville or Clonavon: my goodness, those were once working-class areas, but houses have been bought up by landlords who have turned them into illegal HMOs, many of which are overcrowded. I trust local people, and I understand why they are unhappy. They are not racist or ignorant; they are asking fair questions about why it is happening in their areas. They are asking, "Why do people not speak to us?", or, "Why does no one speak up for us?". My goodness, the intolerance shown in the Chamber today proves the point —

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

Mr Gaston: — that many of you are out of touch —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Gaston: — with what your communities want.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: Shame on the republican/nationalist side of the House. You will pay come election time.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, when I say, "Time is up", time is up. That will have an impact on when you are next called to speak.

Mr Carroll: I oppose today's motion in the strongest possible terms. There is plenty of objectionable, inflammatory language in the motion, but I will start with the term "illegal immigration". As has been said, no human being is illegal, and that includes asylum seekers and refugees.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No, thanks.

They are people who are fleeing war, ethnic cleansing and persecution. A very small number of migrants come here in search of a better life: they should be supported. Would anyone on the Benches to my right try to deny that they would not do the same? Would they not try to make a better and safer life for themselves and their families if they were in the same position? Yet, when migrants arrive here, they are often met with hostility, racism and violence. That hatred is consciously stoked up by the likes of the DUP. Shame on you, and shame on the proposer of the motion.

Describing fellow humans as "illegal" is where the hostility starts. The use of the word "illegal" to describe people who move across borders has been condemned by the UN and other organisations. The term "illegal" places the focus and blame on the person, rather than on the violence of border regimes and the difficulties and complexities of displacement and loss of status. People might come to Ireland to seek safety, and they might be forced to take unsafe routes to get here, but no human being is illegal. Migration is a natural —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No, thanks.

Migration is a natural part of the human experience. It always has been, and it always will be.

Housing is also mentioned in the motion. It is true that the estimated cost of accommodation for asylum seekers in the North has risen to around £400 million in 10 years. Some people, when they hear that number, think that asylum seekers are living in the lap of luxury. Some people believe the lie, which is spread by the far right, that asylum seekers live in luxury hotels and B&Bs, while so-called local people are left to rot on the streets. In reality, hundreds of asylum seekers across the North are living in inhumane, oppressive conditions. I was going to invite the Members to my right to visit those hotels, but maybe that is not a good idea given what they have said today. The people in those hotels are not able to cook meals or wash their clothes. Many of them have curfews and their rights limited.

The £400 million spent on accommodation over 10 years is not a small sum, but it pales in comparison with the amount handed over by the Government to landlords in the form of housing benefit. Every single year — every single year — £330 million is spent on subsidising landlords in the North. Landlords will always charge extortionate rents as long as Stormont foots the bill. The message from the DUP is, "Work away, lads". Who are the real scroungers? It is not migrants, refugees or asylum seekers. Many will say that it is those who rip people off with huge rents, subsidised by the state.

I remind the Members to my right that their party colleague the Minister for Communities is responsible for housing. In case they have forgotten, I say that he has overseen an escalation of the housing crisis: average rents in Belfast are over £1,100; almost 60,000 people from 30,000 families are officially homeless; and 12,000 families have been waiting for social housing for more than four years.

HMOs are a part of that housing crisis. To his credit, the Member for East Londonderry to my right asked the Infrastructure Minister about the impact of holiday lets and HMOs on residential areas. The only other time that HMOs have been mentioned by his party colleagues during the entirety of this mandate was when the Member for Upper Bann, during his recent Member's statement, shamelessly tried to scapegoat migrants for the housing crisis. Some people would question the DUP's legitimate concerns about HMOs.

What exactly is the link between "illegal" immigration and the rise in the number of HMOs? Is the DUP able to point out any evidence that clearly links the two? If anyone were to look into it, they would find that the vast majority of tenants in HMOs are people who were born here. The rise of HMOs has nothing to do with migrants and asylum seekers. HMOs are an efficient way for profiteering landlords to line their pockets as quickly as possible. It is a simple as that.

Do DUP members have any concerns about HMO landlords exploiting tenants in the Holylands and other student areas? My recollection from my time on Belfast City Council is that they are all too happy with it. Is the DUP content to let landlords charge upwards of £800 per room, raking in obscene profits? [Interruption.]

Are HMOs only a problem now because some people who are not white live in them?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member will be heard.

Mr Carroll: As long as some sections of society blame migrants for the housing crisis, we are letting the Communities Minister off the hook. We are letting the Executive off the hook for failing to build enough homes, not reducing rents and refusing to open up tens of thousands of empty homes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Shame on the Members opposite for bringing a disgraceful motion. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. [Interruption.]

Time is up. Order. Anybody speaking here will be heard, regardless of whether you like what they say.

Mr Durkan: I was not going to speak, but I feel compelled to do so. Raising concerns about immigration does not make someone racist. I do not dispute that unmanaged immigration compounds existing issues to a degree. However, let us not place the blame at the feet of the immigrants. The proposer of the motion made great play of the lady who could not get a GP appointment and the child who could not get a school place. He is speaking up and standing up for them. I did not hear him speak up or see him stand up for those people yesterday, when he voted for a Budget that is going to enshrine and exacerbate the difficulty that so many of our people have in accessing and relying on crumbling public services. Like other Members —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not accept that a difficult Budget was passed yesterday, but the motion talks of £400 million that is being spent —?

Mr Durkan: That is not Stormont money.

Mr Buckley: It is UK Government money. It is taxpayer money that could go to GP services, emergency departments, schools, roads or infrastructure. Yet he does not want to focus on that.

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. If the NHS was getting the extra £350 million a week that the Brexit bus told us that it would get and that the Member and party across the way championed, we might well be able to afford it. How much did RHI cost the public purse? [Interruption.]

This is Westminster money: sure, fill your boots.

Like other Members in all parties, I have heard and listened to the concerns of constituents. However, I back up and support what my party colleague said. The DUP is not interested in addressing or allaying those concerns; it is interested only in exploiting them.

Mr Gaston referred to recent election results in England. I have no doubt that that is a good part of the motivation behind the motion.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Like him, I did not intend to say anything. I have heard a lot in the Chamber about the cost of the migrant population. I have heard nothing about what migrants have added and the value that they have brought here. I am not just talking about the value in diversity but about actual economic value. In my area of Mid Ulster, many businesses in the manufacturing and agri-food sectors would not be there if it were not for our migrant population.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that helpful contribution, particularly because the reference to the pressure that migration is putting on the health service is — well, not laughable — risible. Have you had the misfortune of being in one of our hospitals lately? Without immigrants, our hospitals would collapse altogether.

On the HMO aspect, I tend to agree that there is a requirement to look at policy. I raised that issue on the Floor with the Minister recently. It was interesting to hear the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee speak so passionately on that today. We have had planning officials in front of us in the Committee on several occasions in the past year, and it has not been an issue of concern, as I recall. It is about protecting the character of existing residential areas and the amenity of residents from unsuitable overdevelopment, not from immigrants. I would point out that there is scope for councils, through their local development plans — I do not mean to give your response for you, Minister — to look at limits on HMOs in their areas. I implore the Minister to work with councils on ways in which they can do that to protect residents from overdevelopment.

Earlier, in an intervention, I made the point that we have a housing crisis. HMOs are a very small aspect of housing. It is blatantly obvious that the singling out of HMOs was to get a non-DUP Minister here to respond to the debate. Where is the Executive Office on a strategy? Unmanaged immigration does create issues, so where is the Executive Office strategy to manage it? Where are our Executive Office Ministers to address those concerns?

It is the Minister for Communities who is responsible for housing. Not only is his Department responsible for housing in general but for the regulation and licensing of HMOs. The DUP might want to rerun the debate and call him to the House. You will not, though, because you know the answer that he would give you, and you do not want to put him in that position. The conflation of those two issues is not just opportunistic or cynical but downright dangerous. Catch yourselves on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be the Minister for Infrastructure to respond to the debate. Minister, you will have up to 15 minutes.

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

I will not need 15 minutes, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned.

From the outset, I want to explain my perspective on migration. Like that of my colleagues, it has been shaped by republican values and principles that are embedded in equality, economic and social justice, sovereignty, anti-racism and anti-colonialism, because, as some Members have said, we are talking about human beings. Anyone listening to the conversation and debate today could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. It is important to point that out.

With regard to the contents of the motion, the overall responsibility for housing policy, including, as the previous Member to speak pointed out clearly, the regulation of HMOs, is primarily that of my ministerial colleague in the Department for Communities and local councils, not my Department. I am flabbergasted as to why I have been called here to respond to a motion that is for its proposer's colleague in the Executive. As has been pointed out, the strategic planning policy statement does not contain specific policy on HMOs.

There is not a whole pile more that I can say about that. If the Members want to learn more about it, they can, hopefully, ask their colleague.

As has been said, across the world, people are being forced from their countries by war, famine, the escalating climate crisis and persistent inequality. We can and must do much more to address those factors, which are causing more people to migrate.

As others have said, some of the language that has been used today is particularly dangerous. I use the opportunity to send my solidarity to the families in my community in Newry who were verbally abused recently while taking their children to a play park. They are workers in our health service, workers in Daisy Hill Hospital. This language leads to that behaviour, because, from the outset, some do not know whether those people are legal, illegal or what they may be. They just hear the noise around the matter.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Kimmins: Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Erskine: In the Chamber today —.

Ms Kimmins: Sorry, I have finished.

Mrs Erskine: Oh, sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next speaker is Matthew O'Toole, who will make a winding-up speech on the amendment. I advise you, Matthew, that you have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Today's debate has been robust, which it needed to be. It has not always been cool-headed, and the purpose in tabling the motion in the way that it was tabled was, in fact, almost revealed by something that was said by a speaker from the DUP Benches: it was designed to be provocative and to provoke a reaction, which it has.

The reaction has been, frankly, to remind the DUP, first of all, that the Executive have not published a refugee integration strategy. That is what our amendment says clearly. The primary mechanism in policy terms that the Executive have to address issues that there may be around the impact of irregular migration — asylum seekers who are human beings fleeing war and conflict — is the publication of an unpublished refugee integration strategy. That was not mentioned in the DUP's motion or in its speeches. That party has, in effect, called a Minister who has the most marginal — I spend a lot of my time holding this Minister and others to account — and relatively small responsibility, in statutory terms, for any of the issues that it is talking about. That reveals to me that the entire exercise is about playing populist, right-wing games, as I said, and I regard much of what various DUP Members have said today and the theatrical umbrage that was taken to people robustly calling them out as, frankly, synthetic.

Members on the DUP Benches, including Mr Brett and Mr Frew, said repeatedly, as did Mrs Erskine, that we were calling people who expressed concerns about migration "racist": that is a lie. It is an outright lie.

Mrs Erskine: You said that.

Mr O'Toole: No, I did not. Go back and check the record. I said that your party is chasing the TUV down a right-wing rabbit hole because it is desperate about polls and is playing to a populist gallery. I did not say anything —. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Hang on, Mr Clarke. I did not say [Interruption.]

No, no, you are heckling from a sedentary position. I did not say one word — not one word — about ordinary constituents.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I have really let a lot of this go through, but, on behalf of everybody watching, I have to say that I am starting to lose patience with people constantly shouting from a sedentary position. I have made sure that everybody has been heard, so I am telling you for the third time, Mr Clarke, stop it, please. It is not fair, OK?

I also advise Members to be careful with their language. You cannot call people liars. Go ahead, Mr O'Toole. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: I will address a few of the substantive points, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way, because I have a limited amount of time. I normally give way. As he knows, I am generous in that regard.

On multiple occasions, the amount that the UK Government are spending on asylum seekers and illegal migration, as it is called, was cited. It is important to say that that is a decision made by the UK Government. If you want us to have more control over migration policy, frankly, you should advocate an entirely different arrangement for this place, because we do not control immigration policy here.

It was also said on multiple occasions that money that was being spent on asylum seeker accommodation could have been spent on any number of other policy priorities. Of course I want more money to be spent on other policy priorities, and I am concerned about the amount of money that Mears, for example, receives in profits. Yes, I want to see more support and spending on a lot of those things. Your party is in charge of the Executive. You have the power, first of all, not to collapse the Executive every five minutes, and you have the power to direct the priorities of the Executive in a different way. Those are powers that you have here that, I am afraid, you are choosing not to use.

Somewhat absurdly, the argument — and I just want to capture this point. I respect what you said, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, about the ruling of the Chair, but I want to challenge the idea that I said anything about working-class communities or individual constituents not being able to have concerns about immigration and about that being racist. It is not, and I did not say that. I want to be absolutely clear about that. What I said —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have time, I am afraid. I normally give way, but I will not on this occasion.

I want to pick up on a couple of other points that were made. Mr Gaston, somewhat absurdly, blamed the protocol. Somehow, the protocol is now responsible for immigration. I would be genuinely fascinated to hear how that happened.

Mr Gaston: What about Rwanda?

Mr O'Toole: He is going to talk about the Rwanda policy and that judgement. That is one area of immigration policy, and that policy has now been changed by the UK Government. He should reflect on this: if the UK Government's immigration choices are so awful, he might ask himself why we are placed in a position of having to debate them in the Chamber while having very little control over them. He has one MP in the Commons: he might draw some conclusions in that regard. He said that the Gaston family came from elsewhere. I presume that that means that they are the 'Beauty and the Beast' Gastons. I will not ask him which section his family arose from.

It is important, when we talk about all of these things, that, first of all, we reflect on basic humanity and practicality. What we heard today was, I am afraid, an indulgence in pocket Powell politics rather than serious solutions [Interruption.]

Despite the jeering from Members opposite —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — there were no serious practical proposals.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up. Thank you.

OK. We are getting there. I call Brian Kingston to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Brian, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Illegal immigration is one of the hottest topics that people raise with me in political conversations, second only to housing. Our motion today combines those two issues in order to seek restrictions on the scale of the approval of houses of multiple occupancy, which, in some areas, are radically changing the nature of communities. Most HMOs are in areas of lower-value private housing, where landlords snap up such properties and seek to maximise their income by creating an HMO, including for asylum seekers through Mears, who pay a higher rate. That increases the density of population and demand on public services in the area. If it is left uncontrolled, we end up with high concentrations of HMOs in certain areas.

To be clear for those with selective hearing, the Democratic Unionist Party absolutely recognises and appreciates the vital contribution that migrant workers make to society in Northern Ireland, particularly those who work in our health service, care homes, agriculture, manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. However, the DUP also wants to see stronger measures taken by government to stem illegal immigration into all parts of the United Kingdom. Of those who commented during the debate that there is no such thing as illegal immigration or illegal immigrants I ask this: why are people deported? Why are they not given leave to remain, if they are not illegal immigrants? They are coming from a safe country — France — on boats. That is clearly not legal, and they are deported, if possible.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Go ahead.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for addressing the issue of genuine illegal immigration. Does he agree that it is worrying that, just last month, one of five Iranian refugees who crossed the English Channel was arrested for a terrorist plot in the United Kingdom?

Mr Kingston: I agree. That is a matter of great concern. We know that there are some organised gangs coming across. That is not to say that that is the case in all instances, but it is a matter of grave concern that this is very much an organised business and that some people are making huge amounts of money through illegal immigration.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, briefly.

Mr McMurray: Third time is a charm. Does the Member or others worry, especially given the context that we are in, that there is a fine line between migration from legitimate concerns to legitimate targets in the racism that we have had?

Mr Kingston: I do not quite understand the point there, so, if you do not mind, I will carry on.

This is a matter of huge public concern. The expression of such concerns should not be stifled, as we have witnessed during the debate. The public raise the issues and expect us to raise their concerns. That is what it means to be an elected representative.

As was reported recently in the news, the estimated cost of accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland in the current decade is now £400 million. That is four times the original estimate of £100 million.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, briefly.

Miss Hargey: The issue of the £400 million cost has been raised a couple of times. I would like to know where the anger is about the £23 billion still unpaid after the financial crash in 2008 by bankers and financial institutions or the £5·5 billion lost in tax avoidance schemes. Where is the anger, and how could that money be used for services?

Mr Kingston: That is an entirely separate issue. We would be glad to see any matter of public finance brought to the Chamber. I would be happy to see a motion from the Member. However, every matter has its own importance.

Public bodies and political parties cannot simply bury their heads in the sand and do nothing. There ought to be meaningful dialogue with the communities that have been acutely impacted on, which are often in inner-city and working-class areas. Across Northern Ireland, landlords are buying or converting properties with a view to turning them into HMOs simply because they can get a better return under the Home Office asylum accommodation contract with Mears. All of that leads to a change in the resident population, often eroding the residential character of the areas affected and placing increased pressures on basic services and local amenities, including car parking, bin collection and access to GPs and dentists. There is also the real problem of additional noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour associated with HMOs, all of which negatively impacts on property valuations.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Very briefly.

Mr Dickson: The opening words of the Member's winding-up speech were "illegal immigration": there is no illegal immigration in the United Kingdom until an individual has been determined by a due and legal process to be illegal, at which stage a process takes place to return them to the place that they came from. There are no illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom until the courts determine so.

Mr Kingston: The Member has answered his own point: the courts have determined that they are illegal immigrants, and they are returned. That is the point. People who are here should be treated fairly, but they should also be processed. There are people who are illegal immigrants and are abusing the system. I have no doubt that, for the vast majority of those coming across on boats from France, that is organised by crime gangs [Interruption.]

You should open your eyes to that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

Mr Kingston: Will I carry on, Principal Deputy Speaker?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Can I have order for a wee minute? The Member has less than four minutes left and, regardless of what he is saying, deserves to be heard. Please continue.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do not "Hear, hear" me either. Go ahead, Brian.

Mr Kingston: Right.

At present, planning permission is required as a precursor to a property's being converted and licensed as an HMO. However, the approach to such planning controls varies between councils, leading to inconsistencies and, at times, a failure to guard against the over-provision of HMOs and the corresponding impacts on community cohesion. That is why, in our view, the Minister for Infrastructure must revisit the strategic planning policy statement. Direction must be given to councils to define what is deemed to be over-proliferation, ensuring that planning controls are robust. Belfast City Council has incorporated a specific policy on HMOs into its local development plan, but it is clear that other councils are yet to follow suit. The fact that there are no dispersal targets in Northern Ireland for asylum seeker accommodation means that, in council areas and district electoral areas, the effects are often disproportionately felt by a small number of households.

There is a need to revisit the sense in which current planning and licensing powers leave councils powerless to respond to growing pressures in streets or areas in which there is already an over-provision of HMOs. That should not just be an exercise in preventing future upheaval. We in the DUP stand ready to work in the Executive to that end.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move on to the Adjournment debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Órlaithí Flynn to raise the matter of improving mobile phone coverage in West Belfast. I call Órlaithí Flynn. You have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I begin by thanking the Minister for being here this afternoon on an issue that is extremely important to the constituents whom we represent in West Belfast.

I will give a brief bit of background. We have been getting feedback from residents and workers from across our constituency that they have been facing severe mobile network problems. We have been receiving those concerns and complaints for some considerable time. Reports have been showing constant call failures, poor or no mobile data, very patchy 4G and 5G and reliance on unstable Wi-Fi in people's day-to-day functions. That has deeply affected healthcare access, work, education and personal safety. The problems have reportedly worsened after attacks of vandalism on local masts. The Minister, her officials and the network companies will be aware of those attacks, which, again, have taken place over a sustained period. We are also acutely aware of those attacks and their impact on the situation.

We welcome the recent results of a survey that my colleague the Sinn Féin MP for West Belfast, Paul Maskey, launched. The reason for that survey was to explore the extent of the mobile phone signal black spots that were being reported in the constituency. The survey had a fantastic response rate, with 2,602 responses. That figure clearly shows the level of frustration that is out there because of those poor signal and connectivity issues. My colleague Aisling Reilly will touch on that in more detail. She will provide an in-depth breakdown of the areas that have been worst affected and give some personal accounts of how that is directly impacting on our constituents and the quality of people's daily life.

I will provide a very brief summary of the key issues that the survey found. It found that the signal issues are widespread across West Belfast; the problems have persisted for over a year with no permanent repair; and health, work and personal safety are being seriously affected. I am conscious of a story that was in the news as recently as yesterday about a young woman who was, disgracefully, sexually assaulted on the Glen Road. It is even the thought of that, do you know what I mean? If you are out for a walk or a jog in West Belfast at 5.00 am, 6.00 am or 7.00 am, you should be safe undertaking such a simple activity. Even the reassurance of having a secure signal on your phone would definitely mean a lot. I know that signal issue is particularly bad in the Glen Road area.

Some of the other survey findings were that residents are being charged full price for their connections despite getting little or no service, and there is growing anger and distrust towards mobile providers. The survey revealed that 87% of people rated their signal as poor or very poor and, shockingly, only 3% of respondents stated that their signal was good or excellent. A staggering 83% experienced frequent dropped calls, indicating a severe service quality issue in the area, and 28% of people had issues with their service at home, with over 50% struggling with signal everywhere.

Those stats clearly illustrate the issues that communities face with signal across West Belfast and, hopefully, the need for some action and improvements. We are engaging with the relevant agencies on repairs to the damaged equipment, as well as bringing a case for an improved signal to phone companies in London. Too many people have told us horror stories about not being able to contact emergency services, missing appointments and being isolated from family. The priority for Sinn Féin is to hopefully deliver better infrastructure and signal to workers and families in West Belfast. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response today and to getting her assessment and feedback on the issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The way that we are going to do the Adjournment debate is that Members from the constituency will have up to seven minutes, and other Members will have four minutes, or we will try to give them four minutes. Not everybody will take their full time, so we will see how it goes, OK?

Ms Reilly: Gabhaim buíochas le hÓrlaithí as an díospóireacht seo a chur osár gcomhair inniu.

While it might seem small to some, this is a huge issue. Poor or next to no phone signal is affecting far too many people in West Belfast. Time and time again, I have experienced daily blackout spots, calls dropping out, or no signal at all in areas of the Glen Road, Dermot Hill and the Whiterock Road — the list goes on. It is not just a poor service, but a complete lack of service. It is a failure by mobile networks, and a failure of accountability. We are told that we live in a digital age, yet many in my community feel that they are being left behind. That is why Sinn Féin's Paul Maskey, the MP for West Belfast, recently launched a survey. The response was overwhelming, not just in numbers but in frustration and genuine fear.

As was previously referenced, yes, there has been vandalism on telecommunications infrastructure in the past year, which has worsened the issue. However, the issue goes back long before that, so the vandalism cannot be given as the sole reason. Over 55% of those who took part in the survey came from the Glen Road, Turf Lodge and Andersonstown areas, and 90% of people told us that their phone signal is either poor or non-existent, with 83% saying that they regularly experience dropped calls. People told us that they are missing calls from the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Mater Hospital, from their GPs and from hospitals that they have waited months to hear from. NHS workers are missing emergency call-outs, parents are unable to reach their children, elderly people are unable to ring for help, and self-employed painters, electricians and builders are missing out on vital work. One person who responded to the survey said, "I suffered a cardiac arrest last year, and now I am missing vital follow-up calls because my phone does not ring." We just cannot sit back and accept it when people are paying £50 or more a month for a signal that simply does not exist. It is not just about the inconvenience; it is about health and safety and about livelihoods.

I thank the Minister for the Economy for being in the Chamber today to hear these concerns. We know that telecommunications policy and legislation is a reserved matter, but I ask her to raise the issue at every opportunity with her officials, the telecommunications regulator, mobile network operators and any other stakeholders that she engages with in Britain, because people deserve better services, particularly when they are paying for them.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Danny Baker.

Mr Baker: I am not due to speak.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Danny, you are not down to speak. That was my fault. I call Pat Sheehan.

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

My two colleagues have already outlined major difficulties that exist with the mobile phone network in West Belfast. I live just off the Glen Road, and I can attest to the fact that the signal is woeful. On many occasions, I have had calls drop. On one occasion, I had a phone call from my GP, and, as soon as I answered, the call dropped off. Everybody, I am sure, is aware of how difficult it is to make a phone call to a GP and get an answer.

The vandalism to some of the telecommunications network has already been mentioned. It is not just random vandalism; there are some people, who I would describe as the "tinfoil hat brigade", who have been involved in a fairly concerted campaign of vandalism on that particular infrastructure. We have been in contact with the police and the networks in an attempt to ensure that there is better security around that infrastructure and that those responsible are caught and held to account for what they are doing.

My two colleagues have already articulated clearly the problems that exist, and I will not detain anyone any longer.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for West Belfast for securing an Adjournment debate on this important item for discussion. It is important that we discuss it in the Chamber.

This issue has plagued a lot of constituents, particularly in West Belfast, for a long time. For years, people, particularly in the Glen Road and Andytown area, have faced serious problems with phone coverage, although Members will probably agree that, in the past nine months or so, it has become noticeably worse. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, a mobile phone might have been seen as a luxury or an extra, but, for everyone today, it is now a literal lifeline.

Like Members opposite, my office has been contacted by people who face the consequences of dire mobile phone coverage or no mobile phone coverage at all. The result has been a real-life negative consequences for people. People, including the Member opposite, have missed doctors' appointments, calls giving medical advice and calls from doctors because the phone signal is completely shoddy or non-existent. One parent stressed to me that she needs to use the phone to order her son's medication, a particular form of medication, every four weeks and that it takes many attempts to do that. On several occasions, that person has been on hold waiting for a receptionist in the GP surgery when their phone has died, and they have had to start the process all over again. It is very frustrating and unnecessary for that parent and many others. That same child has additional needs, and, regularly, the school cannot access the parent, despite her having the phone in her pocket. ADHD clinician updates have also been missed.

The network providers may try to say that, on the basis of their graphs or assessments, their coverage in the area is great. However, if you speak to anyone in the areas that have been mentioned, other parts of West Belfast and, I am sure, elsewhere in the North, they will tell you otherwise. Parents have also reported to me difficulties with schools trying to contact them. Obviously, that can be an nuisance and an annoyance, but my concern is about what happens in an emergency when a parent, guardian or carer needs to be contacted and the school cannot reach them.

Even when calls can be made and answered, people report that, half the time, they cannot have a proper conversation, with words becoming muffled and broken up. There is also a question of privacy, with some people forced to take personal calls in parts of the street that have a better signal than is available in other parts of the street or area or in their home.

People have also reported to me and our office that they have missed universal credit telephone interviews. I hazard a guess — I am probably right — that people have been sanctioned for not being able to take those calls. That is, of course, not to mention those who rely on the emergency services, including elderly people, people who suffer from mental health issues, people with medical complications and people who have an NMO in place. Everyone, including all those people, has the right to be able to access and use their phone.

The other side of the debate is, of course, the financial cost borne by those who are impacted on by inadequate phone coverage. People on contracts are still paying hefty monthly bills to the providers, regardless of the service provided. It is time for the network providers to show some compassion for the individuals and communities affected by coughing up and paying them the money that they are owed. Of course, I am talking about the shareholders, the chief executives and those who make the financial decisions, not the ordinary workers at those network provider companies.

The fact that phone masts have been damaged needs to be challenged and called out, but that is not the whole picture and does not explain why there is such a bad connection. Mobile phone networks in Britain generated at least £3·5 billion in revenue in the year ending 2023. The BT group, up to March 2024, had revenue in the region of £21 billion. Who knows what BT's figures will be next year when it completes the likely sale of its shares in TNT Sports to the US joint venture partner Warner Bros. Discovery?

It is therefore clear that, in the North, in Britain and in the South of Ireland, the privatisation of telecommunications services and infrastructure has been a disaster for those who work in sectors that rely on those services but has been profitable for those who are at the helm. It is not an anomaly that such profits and revenues are being made by companies that were once viewed as providing essential public services. The telecommunications companies are interested not in service or infrastructure but in the bottom line of profit. It is absurd that we have four, five or more private networks competing with one another, fighting for market share and people's bank accounts. Internet and mobile phone coverage should be treated as a public utility and provided to individuals at no extra cost. I would like to hear the Minister's assessment of the situation and about what powers she will use to compel those companies to pay back people what they are owed for a lack of service and coverage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call Deborah Erskine. Deborah, you have up to five minutes.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and we all know that west is best. As someone from the west speaking about mobile phone infrastructure, I sympathise wholeheartedly with people who cannot access good mobile phone coverage. I would love to have 4G in my area, never mind 5G, and to see improvements made to masts and infrastructure. Such improvements are needed not just in West Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland.

I have spoken on the issue in the Chamber before, and I have concerns. It is ironic that this Adjournment debate was secured by Sinn Féin, which has Ministers holding the Economy and Infrastructure portfolios. Planning permission is one of the stumbling blocks to infrastructure improvements. It is important that we understand and progress the ideals of the barrier busing task force (BBTF). I have heard that investors are turning away from Northern Ireland because getting planning permission takes much longer here than it does in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that we make progress on some of the issues.

The attacks on masts and infrastructure that have occurred in West Belfast have been mentioned and are part and parcel of the debate. Four 5G masts were damaged over a 48-hour period in the area in July 2024. It is important that we show leadership. My ask of the Infrastructure and Economy Ministers is to come up with a community awareness campaign on 5G and improving mobile phone infrastructure. It is critical for technology development. Our health service, among many other services, is going to be using 5G. The technology that we are going to use in order to build better roads infrastructure will use 5G as we look to the future. A community awareness campaign would be important in order to demonstrate what mast improvements will mean for communities.

I hope that the debate is not just smoke and mirrors. We know full well that infrastructure in West Belfast is being improved and is going to be further improved. I hope that, through community engagement and awareness, we can focus on the progression made by the barrier busting task force, push forward with the mobile action plan for Northern Ireland (MAP NI) and show leadership in order to stop attacks on masts, not just in West Belfast but across Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I call Peter McReynolds. Peter, you have up to five minutes.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak about improving mobile phone coverage in West Belfast. I thank the Member for securing the debate. I am aware that her party has done a lot of local campaigning on the issue, and rightly so. I was chatting to David Honeyford — he joins me today as our economy spokesperson — about it just last week, and he was citing the regular black spots that he encounters when driving from Lisburn to Belfast.

The issues that are being experienced have been well documented today. It is a disgrace that many of the reception complaints are down to 5G masts being physically damaged by, as Mr Sheehan said, the "tinfoil hat brigade", as was the case last year. I read the statistics for such actions in advance of today's debate. Those actions are not only reckless, contributing to what we are talking about today, but a waste of police and fire service time. From an Alliance perspective, they directly impact on phone service and connectivity in the surrounding community. People and businesses are struggling to connect to telephone and internet services, sometimes for months at a time, but it is only a matter of time before somebody is seriously hurt.

As Members will know, and as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee just said, last year we debated the mobile action plan and improving rural connectivity. It is only fair and reasonable that the particular needs in West Belfast are taken into consideration and worked on to improve connectivity, productivity, innovation and growth in the area. I am delighted that the Economy Minister has joined us for the debate today. I look forward to hearing what her Department has been doing and what it will do to address those issues in West Belfast.

Mr O'Toole: I am glad to be able to speak today about this important subject. I welcome the fact that the Economy Minister is here. I commend the Member for West Belfast for securing the debate, and I hope that we will see some positive and practical steps arising from it. Notwithstanding the fact that telecommunications is a reserved matter, there clearly are steps that the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Infrastructure can and should take, and I hope that they will do so.

Obviously, I do not represent West Belfast, but I represent the constituency next door and I am frequently in the west of the city, so I am aware that mobile phone coverage is an issue there. I have spoken extensively to my Black Mountain colleague, Councillor Paul Doherty, who, as well as being a councillor, runs a food bank and community outreach operation in the area, and it is clear that there is a particular issue in West Belfast. There are connectivity issues in urban and rural areas of the North, but West Belfast has a particularly acute challenge that can be linked to persistent arson attacks — I have a list in front of me of the attacks that have taken place — on mobile masts that damage them and limit coverage capacity. Then we are told that there are challenges with the cost of rebuilding those masts. I think that Cornerstone is the company that builds or supplies that infrastructure on behalf of Virgin Mobile, EE and other such companies.

The tinfoil hat brigade — that is probably the right term for them — has persisted. Wherever those people have got their misinformation, they are fixated by 5G and 4G, and they have burned masts in West Belfast, including on the Glen Road, the Andersonstown Road and elsewhere in the west. Their preoccupation with the issue, which they have taken as far as committing arson, has consequences for elderly and vulnerable people who are concerned, particularly if they fall in the middle of the night or need to get in touch with a relative; healthcare workers who may need to be in touch with their employer or are on call and may need to get to work quickly; and taxi companies. I know that Paul has engaged with Gransha Taxis, whose drivers need to go about their business. People need to live their everyday lives. Órlaithí mentioned someone who goes out running and wants to have coverage in order to listen to a podcast or music or to be able to get in touch with someone in an emergency. They pay their mobile phone bill, so they are entitled to the coverage that their contract apparently provides. In West Belfast, they simply do not have that coverage at the minute. There clearly needs to be a policy response, because it is a particular challenge for the community in West Belfast. It affects not just local businesses but people's ability to feel safe, and it could create an issue when it comes to an elderly or vulnerable person or someone who needs to access healthcare. It needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

I and my party will work with anyone, including the Economy Minister, who is here, and the Infrastructure Minister. I am sure that we can also engage with people in London and the mobile phone companies to address the issue. We need to see practical steps for how we will address the issue that people in West Belfast in particular are facing. People travel into West Belfast from all over the city, all over the North and further afield. We want people to travel into West Belfast in order to make use of the brilliant hospitality, shopping and infrastructure there and, hopefully, a new Casement Park at some point in the years ahead, so we need to ensure that it has the mobile phone coverage that it deserves. I am glad that this debate was secured, and I look forward to hearing about the practical steps that we, including the Ministers, can take collectively to address the issue.

Mr Kingston: I had not planned to speak, but I will say some words in support of the request for better mobile phone coverage in West Belfast. When I saw that the matter had been raised for debate, I spoke to various people who live in the greater Shankill area of the West Belfast constituency, and they told me that they do not have problems with their phone signal. The problem may affect isolated spots — the Glen Road area has been mentioned — but it does not seem to affect the northern part of the constituency.

I have heard about the attacks on masts. Some people believe that the masts are a cause for concern. I have looked into the issue when I have been asked about it. All the research shows that 5G technology poses no risk to human health. The technology is similar to that for Wi-Fi and ordinary phone coverage — it is a radio signal. People can research the matter for themselves, but all the indications are that there is no health risk. Attacks on masts are criminal activity that should be condemned and reported to the police. The people who are responsible should be prosecuted. I support any calls for information about those who are responsible to be brought forward. The real-life consequence of those attacks is that people do not have a good signal. As phone technology advances, phones need a stronger signal.

I have received more complaints from people who object to the aesthetics of the masts. Additional masts have been erected in North Belfast recently. Nobody wants the eyesore close to them, but they receive planning approval. The masts seem to go through the council without being brought to the planning committee because they satisfy the planning criteria. As with most things, people do not want the masts beside them, but they complain if the signal strength or coverage is not sufficient. That coverage is essential for modern life. The masts should be located as sympathetically as possible and not disrupt people's views or be put up right beside their houses, but they need to go up somewhere.

I will continue to monitor the situation and check with people who live in the West Belfast constituency whether they are having problems. I certainly support all calls for more attention to be given to improving coverage in that area and for an end to the foolish attacks.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. I appreciate also that he has not had a huge amount of correspondence on the issue. I agree with him on challenging the conspiracy theories about 5G and 4G. However, we have a concern that network companies could use the attacks as the sole excuse for there being bad signal, rather than it being caused by infrastructure decisions that they have or have not made. Is the Member concerned about that as well?

Mr Kingston: Yes. There may be a need for signal boosting and better aerials anyway. I cannot say whether the signal is poor only because of the attacks, but companies should not use the attacks as an excuse not to take action. Those who are responsible for the attacks will know that they cause inconvenience for people. I have no doubt that the attacks are a factor as companies may be reluctant to invest in areas where there will be attacks that result in more costs. Let us hope that it gets sorted.

Mr Honeyford: I was not going to say anything. I just want to pick up on one small thing. Matthew said that his constituency is next door to West Belfast. My constituency is on the other side of West Belfast, and I travel through it every day on my way here. It is frustrating for me, but it is much more frustrating for the residents. The Glen Road has been mentioned: I stopped using that road because it would do your head in. You simply cannot have a phone call when you are driving down that road. If you try to use data to make a call, that does not work either because it drops out. There is exactly the same problem in the Monagh bypass area near Aisling's office. It is a significant issue that definitely needs to be addressed. My frustrations pale into insignificance when compared with those of the residents who need emergency services or a call back from a GP and the businesses that need to take calls to grow their business.

Alliance will support whatever can be done. We need to look at having better security to stop the physical damage to the transmitters. I have noticed the stencilled signs about 5G. A transmitter was burnt in the Monagh bypass area near Aisling's office, and it had been stencilled just before that.

Recently, I have noticed around my constituency that people mark transmitters. I do not know what can be done to provide better security or what work can prevent that from happening.

Conspiracy theories have grown since COVID. I want to touch on that subject. It is not helpful. Pat Sheehan talked about the "tinfoil hat brigade". That is probably the best description that we can have. It is not helpful when we have it in here. We had a debate earlier in which conspiracy stuff around COVID was spewed out as though it were fact. That is so unhelpful, as the language that comes from the House feeds into it, is heard by others and is understood to have some sort of merit. The attitude of, "Because somebody said it somewhere on the internet, it must be fact" has to be challenged. This place needs to show leadership across all parties and to challenge that. Just because you have heard or seen it does not make it fact. If people have concerns, that is fine. We can list the concerns and talk through the facts. Discussion should be based on facts.

I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can take any steps or about what she can do. I give my support and that of the Alliance Party to addressing the issue and hearing what practical steps can be taken to address it and sort it out for residents of West Belfast.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The last Member to speak is Dr Caoimhe Archibald, Minister for the Economy, to respond to the Adjournment debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Member for securing this Adjournment debate and welcome the opportunity for this discussion. I very much recognise the frustration of poor coverage. Like Deborah, I live in a rural area where coverage is very patchy indeed. I also recognise the reliance that many people place on their mobile phone. Many, including me, no longer have a landline. There is not just an expectation but a need for good-quality coverage. The examples that have been given by Members highlight people's reliance and the impact of not having decent coverage.

Affordable, reliable and secure digital connectivity is absolutely essential to citizens and businesses. The availability and exchange of information that is afforded by telecommunications ensures that citizens and businesses are connected within communities and with the wider world. It is essential for our everyday lives and long-term prosperity, as Members have mentioned. Modern society simply demands reliable and fast communication networks to drive economic activity and to allow citizens to keep in touch, stay safe, access public services and participate in modern society.

Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, publishes mobile coverage measurements in its 'Connected Nations' report. Coverage here is reported as one of the best in these islands, so it is really concerning to hear of the issues in West Belfast. Ofcom relayed high and very high levels of confidence for outside premises 5G coverage here. It also reports that, overall, 4G geographic coverage is widely available.

That having been said, people's actual experience does not always match up to reported coverage, and, clearly, in this case, it does not. Ofcom is currently taking steps to improve the accuracy of coverage reporting. In the wireless infrastructure strategy, Ofcom has been tasked with continuing to hold the mobile network operators to account through on-the-ground signal testing and to improve the accuracy of its coverage reporting through increased use of crowdsourced data.

I understand that Ofcom has developed proposals to improve coverage reporting, and I met Ofcom representatives recently to discuss their proposed improvements and several other local related issues regarding telecommunications. I raised this particular issue.

While mobile infrastructure roll-out is delivered on a purely commercial basis here, my officials participate in a number of activities to help to support investment in telecoms infrastructure and to facilitate improvements in connectivity. They coordinate the barrier busting task force, which is the delivery vehicle for the mobile action plan developed to identify the barriers to fast and efficient deployment of mobile infrastructure and the practical actions that could be taken to create the right environment to encourage further investment in its roll-out. Officials are also investigating potential alternative funding streams to establish their viability for extending and improving mobile connectivity here in the North.

As has been discussed throughout the debate, mobile network operators report that vandalism and damage to mobile masts and equipment is a key cause of reduction in service in West Belfast. I urge the perpetrators of that unlawful and dangerous behaviour to stop so that the West Belfast community can avail itself of reliable mobile connectivity. It is quite simply unacceptable to endanger life and property through wanton acts of vandalism and arson. Communities should not be subjected to the risks and consequences that are experienced when essential equipment is damaged.

Any damage to mobile infrastructure is costly to repair or replace, and has the potential to inhibit operators' ability to invest in improvements. I am aware of a survey of West Belfast residents that has recently been conducted by my party colleagues. Results indicate that there is a direct correlation between the mast attacks and the level of service that is available. The emergency services have used valuable resources to attend those attacks. I understand that residents, local businesses, leisure facilities, on-call nurses and taxi companies in particular, have all been impacted on. It is completely unacceptable. I share the frustration of the West Belfast community, who have been severely inconvenienced.

Digital connectivity is an enabler for many of the Executive's economic priorities. It is essential that we are able to realise the same benefits here from mobile connectivity that we have for our excellent fixed-line connectivity. I am happy to engage with my officials, who will continue to work with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that residents and businesses can avail themselves of world-class connectivity. I am sure that my officials would be happy to engage with local elected representatives. I recognise the concern that has been raised, including by Aisling, that those issues predate some of the attacks. It is important that we understand all the challenges that are being faced with regard to those issues. I am, of course, happy to engage with my counterparts in the British Government to highlight the issue and the frustration of the local community. We can all continue to work together. I am more than willing to work with my Executive colleagues to overcome some of the challenges that we face with the roll-out of the type of high-class mobile infrastructure that we need.