Official Report: Monday 02 June 2025

Mr McGuigan: Last week, I attended a very useful engagement, which was organised by Living Wage NI and Advice NI, on making a real living wage a reality for those who work in our care sector.

The real living wage must be the bare minimum for all workers, and Sinn Féin is committed to delivering that across this island. That can be seen in the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, making the Civil Service a living wage employer as part of the latest pay deal, and in former Finance Minister Conor Murphy's ensuring that the living wage is now a requirement for firms that attain government contracts here in the North. Dr Caoimhe Archibald has sought to continue to make progress on improving the rights of workers, including their being paid the living wage, through the introduction of her 'good jobs' employment rights Bill.

The living wage has a clear role to play in raising people's living standards. Evidence shows that fairly paid workers are more productive in their employment and that they and their families enjoy better levels of physical and mental health. I want to put on record my sincere thanks and genuine appreciation to all our care workers. The work that you do is invaluable, so, clearly, that value and appreciation must be matched by your pay and working conditions. Our care workers are the backbone of our health service, and a fair wage is crucial, not only to recognising the value of their work but to attracting more people into the care sector. The Health Minister must move swiftly to make the care sector a living wage sector.

As a constituency MLA, one of the biggest issues brought to my office is that of families desperately trying to get appropriate care packages for their loved ones. As Sinn Féin's health spokesperson, I recognise that more domiciliary care staff are needed to ensure timely hospital discharges to relieve pressure on our hospital beds, hospital emergency departments and the Ambulance Service. A real living wage and proper career progression opportunities can only help to bring more people into the care profession and encourage those who are employed in that profession to stay there. That will benefit our care workers and improve our health service and, importantly, patient outcomes.

If we value our health service, we must value the staff who make it function. Paying the real living wage to all our care workers is good, not just for those workers and their families but for our economy, our health service and society as a whole.

Mr Kingston: There has been a great deal of focus on a court ruling in Dublin last week relating to Gerry Adams. Let us be quite clear: the case that Gerry Adams took related to a very specific allegation that the BBC broadcast. The ruling has not, and will not, change Gerry Adams's past, and nor should it change the views of anyone in Northern Ireland about him. We all know the truth.

Neither Gerry Adams's actions nor his words have "gone away". Nothing has changed about the vast number of reports detailing his role in the Provisional IRA up to and including his membership of the IRA army council. Gerry Adams has never challenged those claims in court; instead, the former Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead chose to challenge one specific allegation through the Irish Republic's courts system.

The BBC has significant questions to answer about how it found itself in a situation whereby allegations were insufficiently evidenced, leading to licence fee money needing to be spent on damages and legal costs. In the Gerry Adams case, we know clearly that his motivation was, as he said, about "putting manners on" the BBC. The attitude of republicans towards the freedom of the press is nothing new, however. Gerry Adams previously cited Michael Collins's actions in 1916 in response to criticism of republican violence. Those actions were:

It takes a certain level of dangerous fanaticism and contempt for the freedom of the press and public free speech to think that that is a story worth boasting about.

Adams's comments have served as a reminder of the republican movement's hypocrisy and contempt for the rules and values that it demands of others but thinks should not apply to it. We see that time and time again, including in relation to COVID restrictions and to revealing the truth about victims of republican violence during the Troubles. The court ruling will not change the view that many victims of IRA violence have of Gerry Adams. Our thoughts today are particularly with those who were bereaved and injured by that campaign of violence.

Mr Donnelly: June marks the launch of the 2025 active travel challenge, which is a brilliant initiative that encourages people across Northern Ireland to leave the car at home and to instead walk, cycle, wheel or use public transport for their everyday journeys. I am delighted to be taking part myself. This morning, I came here from Larne by train and bus, so I have earned at least two challenge points and a strong coffee.

Joking aside, it was a great reminder that, with the right infrastructure, public transport can be a viable, reliable and even enjoyable option for many of us. Last year, the challenge saw 1,400 people log 21,000 active journeys, saving an estimated 13 tons of carbon dioxide. That is not just a public health win; it is a climate win, a congestion win and a step towards a cleaner, greener and healthier Northern Ireland. Active travel is also one of the most immediate tools that we have to reduce emissions from transport, which is the second largest source of greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland, responsible for 18·1% of emissions. If we are serious about climate action, rethinking our travel is a place to start.

This year's campaign is being delivered in partnership with the Department for Infrastructure, Translink, the Public Health Agency, local councils and health trusts. It is a great example of joined-up thinking and civic leadership, but we must match that with long-term delivery. Many people want to walk, cycle or take public transport but are held back by real barriers: unsafe roads; disconnected cycle lanes; missing pavements; or lack of transport services, especially in our rural areas. It is not enough to encourage behavioural change if the infrastructure does not support it.

Active travel month should not be just a one-off initiative; it should be a launch pad. Let us use this momentum to push for safer streets, more connected transport networks and an environment where active travel is not the exception but the default. I commend Minister Kimmins and all the partners that are involved, and I encourage Members and the wider public to sign up, take part and start reimagining how we might move through our communities, one journey at a time.

Mr Crawford: I extend my congratulations to the Junior Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland on its centenary parade, which was held on Saturday in the city of Lisburn. I declare an interest, as I currently hold the position of deputy grand master — a position that I hold with deep personal honour and high privilege. I see and witness first-hand the remarkable contribution that our junior members make not only to the wider Orange Institution but to civic society as a whole.

The Junior Grand Orange Lodge has, for 100 years, instilled in young boys and young men the values of loyalty, faith, culture and community service. It has provided a space where character is formed, friendships are forged and pride in one's heritage is passed down through the generations. That was very evident for all to see at the weekend when thousands of junior brethren marched through Lisburn with pride, discipline and dignity. Saturday's parade in Lisburn was a powerful testament to all that is good about our Orange family. The city was filled with thousands of spectators, families, supporters and friends lining the streets in celebration. The turnout was not only large but dignified, disciplined and an absolute joy to witness. In an age where young people are bombarded with so many distractions and challenges, the Junior Grand Orange Lodge continues to offer something different — a sense of purpose, belonging and identity grounded in the best traditions of Ulster's Protestant and unionist heritage. I was especially heartened to see such a strong representation of our junior Orangewomen. Their pride and presence on parade were inspiring and a clear reflection of the strength of our Orange culture as it flourishes into the next generation.

As a proud Orangeman and a committed Ulster Unionist, I take great pride in seeing the next generation walk tall in the footsteps of those who came before them. Here's to the next century of the Junior Grand Orange Lodge and a future built on the strong foundations of our proud past.

Mr McNulty: The ongoing saga surrounding Casement Park is not just a matter of bricks and mortar; it is about promises made, opportunities squandered and a vision for a new North that remains unfulfilled. Recent revelations have cast a glaring light on the inertia that has plagued the project. Hidden files now brought to public attention indicate that, by May 2024, the UK Prime Minister had all the necessary information to make a decisive call on Casement Park's funding, yet, action was conspicuously absent. The delay was not due to a lack of clarity or data; it was a choice to sideline a project of immense sporting, cultural and economic significance. The recent revelations that key information was withheld from the public and decision makers by the Department for Communities are not just troubling; they are indefensible. The Information Commissioner has now confirmed that vital documents were wrongfully suppressed. Why? Was it to cover indecision, to avoid scrutiny or, worse, to politically manipulate the future of a project that should have united us?

We all remember the UK Government's September 2024 decision to pull funding from Casement Park. Cost increases were cited, but what has been revealed is a failure in governance, a failure to manage expectations, a failure to defend the project when it mattered and a failure to provide leadership at ministerial level. The First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, described the decision as deeply disappointing and a missed opportunity for sport and our economy. I agree, but what does it say about the dysfunction of our Executive when the right hand does not know or even care what the left hand is doing? Astonishingly, we know that there has been no official correspondence between the First Minister and the Communities Minister or between the Finance Minister and the Communities Minister on the development of Casement Park. That is quite staggering. All show, no go.

Moreover, the disparity in treatment between Casement Park and other stadium projects cannot be ignored. While Windsor Park and Ravenhill rightly saw successful redevelopment, Casement Park has languished, mired in bureaucratic delays and political hesitancy. That inconsistency raises questions about equity and commitment to all communities in the North.

Casement Park must be built, not just for the GAA community but for everyone in the North. It can be a shining beacon of hope at the main gateway to our island's second city, a testament to our shared history, to our collective aspirations and to our potential to come together to build a brighter future. I call on the UK Government and the Executive to honour their commitments —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — to act with urgency and transparency and to recognise that Casement Park is more than a stadium but is a beacon of hope —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — unity and progress.

Mr Boylan: Last week, I met Inclusive Ability Trust, a local disability group that provides support, activities and advocacy to children with additional support needs in the community of Armagh. The group raised its concerns with me regarding the number of appropriate school places in the Armagh area for children with a statement of special educational needs (SEN). Members of the group told me that their concerns are compounded by less than satisfactory communication from the Education Authority. They told me that parents often feel left in the dark, and concerns are growing among many parents that their child will not have a suitable school place this September.

The additional stress and anxiety that many families experience because of a lack of SEN school places is not acceptable. Members will know that it is not a new issue. What is more concerning is the fact that parents have yet to see any significant change in the SEN system. Therefore, I encourage the Education Minister to consider implementing a "SEN first" approach to school placements that would deliver real change in our school system. By doing that, assurance could be provided for parents, and clarity could be provided for schools. It would ensure that the proper support required for children with SEN is in place from the beginning of term.

Members of Inclusive Ability Trust also discussed the disconnect between Health and Education and the issues that that creates for services that should be supporting our young people. I will finish with this. When a parent tells you that they feel that their child is being ignored, disregarded and overlooked by public bodies, it is clear that things need to change. I commend Inclusive Ability Trust for the work that it continues to do, and I look forward to working with it to send its message that it is time for change in the system. Clearly, that message needs to go to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I, too, pay tribute to the Junior Orange Association of Ireland as it celebrates its remarkable achievement of reaching its centenary. On Saturday, Lisburn, in the heart of my constituency of Lagan Valley, hosted junior lodges from all over Northern Ireland and, indeed, further afield for a truly special occasion of the hugely successful centenary parade. It was an honour to attend. The young people should be proud of themselves for their presentation, turnout and conduct.

I congratulate the Junior Orange Association of Ireland on 100 years of guidance, fellowship and commitment. The institution is rich in tradition, with a proud record of 100 years of upholding culture, faith, truth and service. There is a weaving of colour, music and fellowship with hundreds of years of heritage and the firm foundation of core values and principles. It is also an opportunity to recognise the many hundreds of volunteers who have served the association with diligence over all of those years.

The centenary year is one of celebration and remembrance but also reflection on what has been achieved and the rock on which our traditions are founded: loyalty to the King; protection of the Union; the brotherhood and sisterhood; and, most of all, an unshakeable faith in God. I wish the association all the best as it looks forward to its next 100 years. May God continue to bless and guide.

I also congratulate the Hillsborough Fort Guard. On Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend the attestation to bring it up to its full complement of 20. The Fort Guard is the oldest private army across these isles and, indeed, one of only two legal private armies across the United Kingdom. It was formed in 1660 to protect the ancient fort of Hillsborough and the road from Dublin to Carrick. It is great to see not only that it has been reformed but that it has achieved full complement. I congratulate all the men for their excellent presentation on Saturday, and I wish them all the best.

Ms Egan: I pay tribute to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield following his passing at the weekend at the age of 94. Sir Kenneth, who was a North Down constituent, had a long and distinguished career and life, modelling for all of us what it means to hold a lifelong commitment to public service. Sir Kenneth served in a number of prominent roles throughout his career, including head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Cabinet Secretary to the 1974 power-sharing Executive, Victims' Commissioner and member of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains.

Sir Kenneth was one of the most distinguished civil servants in Northern Ireland's history. Even when he and his family were targeted and attacked during the Troubles, he did not waver in doing what he could to serve our public and improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland. His dedication, commitment and contribution to public life will not be forgotten. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to Lady Elizabeth and the family circle on their very personal loss.

Mr McAleer: I pay tribute to two Tyrone GAA underage teams on their fantastic victories last week. Tyrone minors won the Ulster Championship against Cavan, and Tyrone under-20s won the All-Ireland Championship against Louth. I was present at both games, which were fantastic, edge-of-your-seat encounters and were played in the best spirit of the game.

It is an absolutely incredible achievement for the under-20s team to have won its third All-Ireland Championship in four years. The final, which was played at the Athletic Grounds in Armagh, was a very exciting game. Tyrone ran at Louth from all angles and displayed fantastic clinical finishes. I was also at Brewster Park at the weekend to watch Tyrone minors win the Ulster Championship. It was amazing to see young people on the field at half-time and at the end of the game to get autographs from their home-grown, local heroes. Young boys and girls look up to those footballers, who are from our community, our parishes and the local schools. They are the sort of role models whom we want our children to have.

I pay tribute to the managers — Gerard Donnelly of Tyrone minors and Paul Devlin of Tyrone under-20s — and back-room staff of both teams. I also note the contribution of the parents and guardians of the footballers, who put in a lot of time, sacrifice and dedication. The football series happens during examination time for many of the players. It is a remarkable feat for them to do all the studying that is required for their examinations and to compete at that level of football.

I wish the Tyrone minors every success in the next game in the All-Ireland series against Cork. I also wish the under-20s team well. I hope that the under-20s enjoy the year as All-Ireland champions and can go for a fourth All-Ireland title next year.

Mr Frew: I wish to congratulate a local football team. Braid United Football Club is based in the village of Broughshane, but its catchment area goes right through the picturesque Braid valley and further afield. Braid United won the final against Larne's Ruby's Rovers Football Club, picking up the Tullyglass Residence Cup to win promotion to the first division of the Firmus Energy Ballymena Saturday morning league. The league takes in teams from Ballymena and every village and hamlet between Ballymoney, Larne and Antrim. It is a prestigious league that does sterling work. I pay tribute not only to Braid United Football Club for winning promotion to the first division but to the league itself and all the volunteers and others who make the three football leagues a success every Saturday morning. There are even midweek matches in the summer months.

It is important that our young people play sports, no matter what that sport is: you can learn so much about life on the field of play. Therefore, the dedicated volunteers who make the league happen should be encouraged, valued and honoured in good fashion for getting our young people out to train two nights a week and play a match on Saturday mornings. That takes dedication.

Credit goes to the Firmus Energy Ballymena Saturday morning league and to Braid United Football Club, which is just one of the clubs in the three divisions and has found success this year. The dedication, training and tactics of the managerial team have paid off, and the team has won promotion to the first division. I wish them all the best in the season ahead.

Mr McReynolds: I wish to speak about the reappearance of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh. It was the subject of one of the first motions that I spoke on in the Chamber last year, and it is something for which there is no silver bullet. Instead, it is for all of us in the Chamber and Departments working cross-departmentally to restore Lough Neagh to a clean and environmentally sound waterbody.

The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has rightly put his shoulder to the wheel on the challenges that he faces to correct the pollution at Lough Neagh, but he cannot do that alone. As an infrastructure spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I am fully aware of the role of the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) in adding to the pollution of the lough, an arrangement that puts Northern Ireland Water into a separate regulatory regime from others and lets it off the hook for polluting our waterways. That said, 24% of nutrients found in Lough Neagh originated in waste water. The discharge of untreated sewage by Northern Ireland Water is currently allowed under the SORPI arrangements, with minimal punishment in place. However, while I am content to criticise Northern Ireland Water, we must recognise that it discharges so much untreated sewage because of years of inadequate capital budgets from the Department, and its hands are tied behind its back. The solutions being proposed and explored by the Minister for Infrastructure will barely touch the surface of what we need to deliver a world-class water service for everyone across Northern Ireland. As with all major engineering projects, long-term strategic planning and the ability to borrow what is needed are required to deliver clean water and stop polluting Lough Neagh and other environmental assets.

Northern Ireland Water is an outlier in comparison with water utilities across the world, and the fact remains that no other country provides water services like we do. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure and her Department to publish the reports that have been prepared over the years on the efficacy of the funding model. I have asked for the reports multiple times at the Infrastructure Committee, but they are kept internal and are unavailable for scrutiny.

The Department for Infrastructure can no longer bury its head in its hands on the matter. It is not just us in Alliance calling out the chaos: last week, the Office for Environmental Protection called it out in the AERA Committee. The Department can no longer ignore the role that NI Water plays in an ecological crisis that we can, once again, see with our very eyes in Lough Neagh and other waterways in Northern Ireland.

Mr Robinson: Following a huge fire in Limavady town centre on the evening of 30 May 2024, I have raised the matter on two occasions in the Chamber. On the first occasion, I praised the Fire and Rescue Service, which had prevented an inferno at a former nightclub from destroying an entire street and, indeed, taking other buildings with it. Six months later, in the run-up to Christmas, I stood in the Chamber and called for all agencies and individuals to resolve the eyesore that stood on the entry point to the town centre.

The building remains a burnt-out shell. The footway along a section of Catherine Street in the town remains closed to pedestrian access. A number of parking bays remain closed to vehicles. The site is still littered with debris from the fire.

Members, here I am, yet again, exactly one year on. I am sick of looking at the site. The public mood was once one of frustration, but it is now one of anger. It has even caused splits in the town and the hurling of abuse. I am beyond frustrated to see an area of the town in which I grew up in that state.

On numerous occasions, I have pressed the local council, the owner of the building and DFI Roads to act. I have supplied supporting documentation for loss adjusters and insurance companies. I have supplied supporting documentation for the NIO. I have engaged with affected businesses. I held an update meeting with the council and businesses just last week. Unfortunately, it looks as though there is still some distance left to travel. That saddens me. No one wants to see the situation go on any longer, because residents and traders remain caught in the middle. Everyone wants the process to conclude so as to allow the clear-up to commence and the town to move on from the night of 30 May 2024.

The council continues to tell me that, contrary to what the public think, it does not have the powers to deal effectively with derelict private buildings. I say this to the AERA Minister: get on with urgently beefing up the outdated legislation from the late 1800s under which councils have to operate. There is no better example of an eyesore to help mould new, better and more powerful legislation for councils to deal with other privately owned eyesores in our towns and cities. The sooner that that happens, the better that it will be for the residents and traders of Limavady and, indeed, many villages, towns and cities across our Province.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the time for Members' statements.

Mrs Erskine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the record regarding a debate on Tuesday 20 May on the impact of illegal immigration on Northern Ireland. It has come to my attention that, during the debate, I said:

That is incorrect. I should have stated that that is the projected figure for a 10-year period between 2019 and 2029, rather than the annual cost. I apologise to the House for my error and for any confusion created. It was not my intention to mislead anyone or to create any annoyance by incorrectly stating that figure.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for that correction.

Mr Speaker: Stewart Dickson has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Dickson: Today, I present a petition that was created by Isla Gear, from Leven in Scotland, who tragically lost her brother, Tam, to pancreatic cancer just four weeks after his diagnosis. Isla launched a UK-wide petition from Tam's bedside on Christmas Day that calls for the targeted monitoring of high-risk individuals and for increased funding to develop effective, accessible diagnostic tests for pancreatic cancer. Tam and Isla were determined to prevent others from facing that devastating disease and agreed that more needed to be done.

Tam Barker was only 47 years old. He was a dedicated father to his then 11-year-old son, Max. He had previously lost a cousin to pancreatic cancer and therefore had annual blood tests done. Throughout 2024, Tam repeatedly sought medical help, attending at least six GP appointments and visiting A&E on numerous occasions with stomach pain, back pain, constipation and dramatic weight loss. It was not until months after his initial symptoms appeared that a CT scan finally confirmed that he had pancreatic cancer. Tragically, he passed away weeks later, on Boxing Day, without even meeting the consultant who had been assigned to his case.

The impact of Isla's campaign speaks for itself: it is now the biggest petition ever relating to pancreatic cancer in the United Kingdom. That demonstrates the strength of feeling from the public that something must change. Here in Northern Ireland, pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer. Half of all patients die within three months of diagnosis. Without urgent action, pancreatic cancer is set to claim thousands more lives in Northern Ireland and is projected to overtake breast cancer as the fourth-biggest cancer killer here.

Today, Pancreatic Cancer UK has submitted an open letter to accompany Isla's petition as part of its Unite, Diagnose, Save Lives campaign. The letter, which has received over 1,000 signatures in Northern Ireland, calls on the Executive to urgently introduce regular monitoring for those who are at high-risk, support the roll-out of new diagnostic tests and secure sustained funding for research.

We welcome the Department of Health's recent commitment to deliver optimal care pathways for pancreatic cancer. That initiative aims to streamline diagnosis, treatment and supportive care, ensuring that pancreatic cancer patients receive the right support at the right time. We commend the vital work of charities such as Pancreatic Cancer UK and Northern Ireland Pancreatic Cancer.

This petition and open letter highlight the urgent need for the Government to act swiftly. We must make early detection a reality instead of a rarity for people across Northern Ireland. Today, we are here for Tam, Max and Isla — Max and Isla are in the Public Gallery — and for every family who could face the devastating disease of pancreatic cancer. The time for action is now.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and send a copy to the Committee for Health. I trust that we will make progress on this incredibly important issue, which needs to be afforded real priority.

Mr Speaker: In November last year, I reminded Members about the need to uphold the authority and impartiality of the Chair. I particularly cautioned against playing politics with procedural decisions that are made by me or the Deputy Speakers. Over the past few weeks, Members have made a number of comments, particularly in the media and on social media, that have included criticisms of decisions made on the selection of Matters of the Day, questions for urgent oral answer and amendments to motions and Bills. Interventions that are made by the Deputy Speakers or me during Members' contributions are often criticised and portrayed as decisions to silence Members from expressing their views. In addition, there has been a trend for Members to anticipate my decisions or those of the Deputy Speakers by announcing that a Member has tabled a Matter of the Day, question for urgent oral answer or an amendment, very often when it is clear that the procedural requirements for those items to be selected have not been met. The Principal Deputy Speaker, Deputy Speakers and I do not take any of those decisions lightly. We take such decisions in a procedural context, not a political one, following advice from officials.

I therefore remind Members that it is out of order to challenge the authority of the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker in the Chamber. Further, Members should not think that doing so on social media or in the media is a way of subverting our procedures. If a Member challenges the Chair in the Chamber, that Member will be asked to take their seat. If a Member challenges the Chair outside the Chamber, that will inform the decisions of the Chair when the Member is next called to speak or on whether an item that they have tabled is accepted.

I also warn Members that trailing an application to the Speaker to bring something to the House may lead to its not being selected without consideration of its merits. The impartiality and authority of me, the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in this Chair is not just for us to uphold but for every Member to uphold. That is vital to the well-being of this democratic Chamber.

I ask Members to take note of these remarks. If they do not, I will act.

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members to be concise when asking questions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly regarding my Department's 2025-26 initial Budget allocations. The work that my Department does is transformational. It impacts on people across Northern Ireland and delivers positive outcomes, often to those who are in greatest need. Housing, the arts, culture; sport, benefits and pensions, child support, the historic environment, urban regeneration, local government, social inclusion and libraries and museums touch the lives of almost everyone in Northern Ireland. I know that there is so much more to be done. I want to do more. I am operating in a continually constrained budgetary environment, but I am determined to use to best effect the money that has been secured. Pressures will, of course, remain right across my Department. I have no doubt that, today, Members will set out all the areas in which they would like me to spend more. However, I must operate within the budget that I have been allocated, and that is why, this year, I am doing things differently.

Let me turn first to housing. I have made it clear that addressing homelessness and increasing the supply of housing is one of my top priorities. That is why I have delivered a housing supply strategy, launched an affordable rent scheme, allocated £10 million for loans to acquire move-on accommodation, secured cross-party consensus on the need for borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), removed intimidation points to level the playing field and ensured that Housing Executive reserves are used to buy homes to address pressures on temporary accommodation, which will realise savings of up to £75 million over the next seven years. However, there is more to do. I am therefore pleased to announce that I am proposing an additional allocation to homelessness and the Supporting People programme of £3·7 million above the 2024-25 budget position. In addition, I am proposing £2·8 million capital to the new foundation project to move forward with securing 110 units of accommodation to support young people leaving care.

That is not just about providing shelter; it is about restoring dignity and hope to those who have fallen on hard times and preventing those people falling into hardship. However, in order to tackle that issue properly, we need more homes. Social housing is crucial, as it provides affordable, stable housing options for those who might otherwise struggle in the private rental market. The inclusion of housing as one of the key pillars of the Programme for Government (PFG) shows the widespread support to deliver affordable, sustainable and quality housing. My proposed budget of £63 million will facilitate the start of approximately 900 to 1,000 new-build social homes. That is on top of the £105 million from last year for pre-commitments to housebuilding.

That is not enough, however. Last year, the Assembly declared that there is a housing crisis in Northern Ireland, yet we are left in a position where we are funding less than 50% of the Programme for Government's housing target. Last year was even worse, with my budget allocation allowing for only 400 new starts. I am proud to say that, by the end of the year, that had increased to 1,502. We will put the same effort into driving up those figures this year as we did last year, and we will continue to make the case for that at every possible opportunity. However, it is not enough to simply ask for more money. We need to do things differently. That is why I will bring proposals to the Executive shortly on how we can do more with the money that we have to build more homes. I look forward to working with other Ministers, the Housing Executive and housing associations on that.

I also want to increase opportunities and life chances for everyone in Northern Ireland. Far too many people, and, indeed, generations, are stuck in a cycle of welfare dependency. That should be a cause of concern for us all. We should have greater ambition for our people. There are far too many economically inactive people who want to get into work but just need some help to do so. I want their talents, potential and opportunities to be maximised. Therefore, I am also pleased to announce that I will invest in a new multimillion-pound employment programme that will support all age groups and tackle the barriers to economic activity. I will make an announcement to the Assembly on the details of that in due course. It will be one of the most extensive job programmes of recent times.

We also need to continue to support those who need it most. Therefore, I propose to maintain the discretionary support grant budget at £25·5 million, but we must ensure that that fund is not abused and goes to those who are genuinely in need. Therefore, I will introduce reforms to protect that money from fraud and thereby protect those who really need it.

My Department's arms-length bodies (ALBs) play a vital role in helping us to deliver our objectives. Despite the constrained financial position facing my Department in 2025-26, I propose that my Department's ALBs receive an additional £3·7 million general allocation in 2025-26 above their 2024-25 funding level. Furthermore, I propose an additional allocation to National Museums NI and Libraries NI to maintain operational stability and ensure continued public access to those key cultural and educational institutions. The proposed allocation will not fund all pressures faced but will ease service delivery pressures in 2025-26.

Year-on-year budget cuts have placed increasing pressure on those institutions, threatening their ability to serve the public effectively. To reverse that trend and to secure the future of our libraries, I propose capital funding of over £1 million: £750,000 towards the replacement of Enniskillen library, without which major health and safety concerns present a high risk of potential closure of the facility. I also allocate £200,000 to Newtownards library. I also propose capital funding to the Northern Ireland Museums Council of £30,000 for the museum collection fund and £80,000 for small capital grants. Grants to local museums for the acquisition of specimens to add to their collection or to address urgent needs in the storage, conservation and rationalisation of collections will be welcome news for the sector. I also want to ensure that National Museums gets back to a stable operating base after many years of constrained funding. Therefore, I propose an opening resource budget of £20 million alongside £3 million of capital. That capital funding will allow investment of nearly £1·5 million in the Ulster Museum store and in exhibit buildings and gallery works.

Turning to the Arts Council, I propose capital funding for several programmes, including £750,000 for musical instruments, so that everyone has the chance to learn, to play and to perform, connecting more people with the arts. That money has helped individuals, bands, professional and non-professional groups, primary schools, creative arts centres and talent development organisations. I said that I wanted to get more people involved in the arts. This year, we were able to help 4,500 people to do just that, and I want to see that continue. I also said that I would ensure a better balance of arts funding to every community and corner of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am also pleased to announce a £500,000 small capital grants programme to support local arts venues and creative spaces, as well as funding for artists in residence, to each borough and district council.

Today, I also acknowledge the vital role provided by the voluntary and community sector. Those organisations create an enormously important social value through community engagement, job creation and overall improvement in people's quality of life. Given the rising cost pressures facing the sector, I propose that the voluntary and community sector funding increases by £2·8 million on the Department's 2024-25 funding level. I understand that that funding offers a lifeline but not a solution, and I understand that the sector continues to operate under immense strain.

Capital funding of over £4 million will be allocated to neighbourhood renewal to support community and voluntary sector partners and will deliver funding for projects that support communities. I am delighted to announce support for several projects, including a new youth hub for Ardoyne Youth Enterprise; a new-build community centre for a local community organisation, Glencairn Community Partnership; and the redevelopment of Bloomfield Community Association's centre in east Belfast. I am also pleased to be able to support Ballee Community Group in Ballymena to provide an outdoor canopy to cover the children's play area there.

Capital investment in our community infrastructure is vital. Their facilities are the heartbeat of every community in Northern Ireland. I recognise that and, as a result, will make a significant announcement on 26 June for a new community infrastructure grant that will be transformational to the voluntary and community sector.

In addition to the capital funding that I have highlighted, I am initiating and funding a wide range of regeneration projects. The larger projects include the Glengormley public realm project, which will see a total contribution of over £2·5 million as part of a wider funding package. The £3 million Shankill gateway public realm scheme will also begin this summer and will take approximately 12 months to complete. That scheme will bring much-needed improvements to enhance the linkage of the Shankill community to Belfast city centre. In tandem, the £5 million public realm works adjacent to the city walls will deliver on improvements to several streets in the historic Londonderry city centre. I am also pleased to announce that I will invest £1·6 million, this year, in essential conservation works at Carrickfergus Castle. A significant part of that funding will be directed at enhancing the visitor experience of and improving access to and within the castle. That will realise the castle's status as a world-class attraction, bringing more visitors to Carrickfergus and establishing it as the gateway to the Causeway coastal route. We must protect our heritage assets, and I will do everything that I can to ensure that we do. Finally, on regeneration, I am delighted to confirm that I will make a major announcement tomorrow at 2.30 pm on the development of Queen's Parade in Bangor.

I move now to sport. We know that sport plays a vital role in communities and is critically important to our young people. The provision of places to play and train is one of the concerns on which I get lobbied most frequently. I know the impact that a lack of facilities has, and I am determined to act on it. One of the ways that we can do that is by ensuring that we maximise the use of the schools estate. To that end, the Your School Your Club programme has been effective in making sure that improvements are made to school sporting infrastructure that can be of benefit to the school and the local community. Last year, I invested £500,000 in that programme. It has been transformational, but so much more can be done. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that, this year, I propose that the budget will be £3 million. Working alongside my colleague Paul Givan, my ambition is for every post-primary school in Northern Ireland to have a 3G pitch and sporting facilities that can benefit local communities. Building on last year's investment, I am making additional capital funding available to help improve safety at motor sport events. That is crucial in helping to ensure that racing can be as safe as possible.

We must also restore confidence in a welfare system that is fair, transparent and focused on the right people. My Department's latest published estimates for 2023 show a loss of £240·3 million due to customer fraud, customer error and official error. At a time of great uncertainty, following many announcements from the Labour Government, we must ensure that every pound that we spend is spent well and goes to those who need it most.

Many of my Department's stakeholders are feeling the pinch from the general cost-of-living increase, rising prices, increased taxes or inflation. Now is the time to cut our cloth and ensure that our budgets are spent well. That also applies to me, so my final announcement is to confirm to the House that, as of this year, I will review all vacancies that sit within the Department for Communities' baseline. More than 1,000 of those posts have not been filled due to consecutive bids in Budget rounds not being met. I have decided to lead the way on the drive for efficiency. It is right that, as Minister for the largest Department, I show leadership and make that move. I look forward to engaging with trade unions and departmental officials in due course.

I understand that there will be concerns and questions about the proposed allocations, but I emphasise that the decisions were not made lightly. My commitment to the House and to the communities, people and organisations that my Department supports is to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland, maximise the impact with limited resources and ensure that every pound spent is a step towards a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend the statement to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McCrossan: I am not sure why the Members across the way are clapping. Many people, including the 49,000 people who are on a housing waiting list and the 38,000 in housing stress, will be very concerned about parts of the statement. The Minister has declared it a crisis but funded it like an afterthought. Minister, you have admitted that the budget will fund only around half of the social homes needed to meet the Programme for Government targets — your targets. How do you justify calling it "a crisis" and then not putting your money where your mouth is?

Mr Lyons: It is clear that the Member did not listen to anything that I said. It is always easy for the Member to put his angry head on, but he never comes forward with any proposals or solutions. I am taking the issue seriously. After you take away the inescapable pressures, 80% of my remaining capital budget is going towards housing. Last year, I was in a similar position and did not have enough money to build all the social homes that I wanted to, but we found other ways of doing that; additional bids were made.

If the Member had listened to my statement, he would have heard that I am looking to do things differently. I am looking at how we can ensure that public land is best used so that we can build more homes. I have brought forward a housing supply strategy. I have secured Executive agreement on the need to ensure that we again have a Housing Executive that has borrowing powers. I am taking action where I can and putting the money where it needs to be.

If the Member has any other ideas, I would love to hear them, but he offered none in his speech. I will continue with the progress that I have made. I will continue to deliver, and I will not be distracted by the Member.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, you said that you understood that there would be concerns and questions about the proposed allocations: there will indeed. We have not had a huge amount of time to see the details, but I suspect that Members will look at the allocations in more detail.

You referred in the statement to restoring confidence in the welfare system. Given the British Government's decisions around winter fuel payments and their Green Paper on withdrawing support for many people with disabilities, what concrete assurances can you give to the most vulnerable in society that they will be protected and supported during these challenging times?

Mr Lyons: I can certainly give the assurance that we will do everything that we can to support those who are most in need. You can see that already in the work of the Department. When the Labour Government announced last year that they were, disgracefully, removing the winter fuel payment for many of our pensioners who were in genuine need, I secured money and delivered that for tens of thousands of households across Northern Ireland. I have brought forward the anti-poverty strategy. I am aware that the Member has had a briefing on that. He will also be aware of the work that is being done on the fuel poverty strategy. I want to make sure that we put in place real action that makes a difference in people's lives. We will continue to lobby the UK Government to make sure that they, too, provide the support that is needed.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for the statement and welcome the many positive announcements in it. In particular, I welcome the funding for Glencairn community hub and the public realm schemes in Glengormley and Shankill gateway. It is disappointing that the Minister has not been given additional resources to tackle welfare fraud, which he touched on. In recent weeks, we have seen horrendous examples of people who have brazenly been cheating the system, sometimes for tens of thousands of pounds. Will the Minister commit to continuing to do all that he can to ensure that those who need and are entitled to support get it and that cheats are caught and dealt with?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can. Many in the House were sceptical of the move that I made to ensure that those who were found guilty of benefit fraud were named. I am glad that that decision occurred, because, over the past number of weeks, we have seen many individuals who have been responsible for defrauding the system of not £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 but tens of thousands of pounds. It is right, therefore, that we take a strong line and say that it is not acceptable to take money to which you are clearly not entitled.

I am determined to take action that will make a difference. I have submitted a request to Executive colleagues about how we can better tackle the issue, because it is not acceptable that we lose £240 million a year in this way. I want to see the right money going to the right people at the right time, and others in the House should support me in that.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I pass on my thanks to your officials, who have worked with a difficult budget. I appreciate that you have not got everything that you were looking for, but I was disappointed to see that there is still no money for taking legal action against landowners who are letting our built heritage collapse.

I go back to the matter of housing. Minister, you talked to one of our colleagues about solutions. One of the biggest solutions to the housing crisis would be for the Housing Executive to build houses. How and when will the Housing Executive get the borrowing powers that the Executive have, you say, agreed to? What will those borrowing powers deliver in terms of new homes provided by the Housing Executive and reduced dependency on the private rented sector?

Mr Lyons: Good work has been done by my officials and officials in the Department of Finance to ensure that that issue can be progressed. It is important that we see a resolution and that the Treasury confirm what we all believe, which is that the Housing Executive should be treated the same as local authorities — councils — in the rest of the UK. I raise the issue with UK Government Ministers at every opportunity. I will see the Deputy Prime Minister later this week and will raise it with her as well. The First Minister and deputy First Minister raised that issue with the Prime Minister last week, and I will write to him again to ask for movement on it.

I am pleased to say that the Housing Executive has not just been sitting around waiting for the approval. Plans are in place so that, once the change has been confirmed, it will be able to start looking at how to deliver those homes. This is not, however, just about building new homes; it is about improving the quality of homes in Northern Ireland. I have been pushing that since the start of my time in office and will continue to do so, because it is critical that we get delivery.

Mr Allen: The Minister provided an overview of the many areas that his Department covers, but his statement was limited insofar as it did not include extensive detail on tackling poverty. I appreciate that the anti-poverty strategy is to come forward, but will the Minister detail what further actions his Department will take, through this Budget allocation, to tackle poverty, including fuel poverty?

Mr Lyons: The Member referenced the anti-poverty strategy. That will be published very soon. As I promised in the House, I want to brief those who have been central to the design of the strategy, and that will happen very shortly. We will then be in a position to publish the strategy, and the Member will see some of the actions that will be taken not just by the Department for Communities but across government, because it is not simply down to one Department to solve the issue. Indeed, it is not down just to government to solve the issue: individuals, families and other organisations will play their roles as well. The fuel poverty strategy will also be critical to dealing with the issue, because it is the cost of heating homes that drives so many people into poverty. I am absolutely committed to dealing with that.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Minister, you referenced reforms to fraud and error. Will you outline what those reforms will be and whether funding has been allocated in the budget to meet them?

Mr Lyons: I want to see changes brought in to make sure that we have a robust welfare system in which the money goes to those who are actually in need and are entitled to it. One of the best ways to do that is to increase the number of staff working in those areas. I have submitted a bid to Executive colleagues as part of a wider paper so that we can tackle the issue. I am also working with the UK Government to ensure that we can invest more. Additional investment in tackling fraud and error brings a huge return to the Treasury as well, and I would be interested to see how we could share that dividend. That is good news for everybody. It will make sure that money goes to those who need it, with the potential for more money to come back into our pockets, as well as back into the Treasury, so that it can then be directed to those who are in need.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you refer to a community infrastructure grant. I welcome your commitment to that grant and to community halls in general. Is there an indicative budget for the grant and a timeline for when we can expect applications to open?

Mr Lyons: Many of my colleagues in the Chamber have invited me to see the state of community infrastructure in Northern Ireland, be it at a hall or another community organisation's premises. I recognise that there is a deficit, and I am introducing the grant scheme because I know that such facilities are key to the success of so many of our community and voluntary organisations. I am afraid that the Member will have to wait a little longer for more information, but I will announce full details of the scheme on 26 June, including timelines, total funding allocations and what can be expected from it. I hope that the Member will keep that date free.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. The proposed funding for musical instruments and local arts venues is very much appreciated. How will those initiatives be sustained in the long term? With arts organisations still waiting for confirmation of their full allocation three months into the new financial year, how quickly after your statement will allocations to your arm's-length bodies be confirmed?

Mr Lyons: If they have not received confirmation yet, I hope that they will very shortly. The Member has frequently raised Arts Council issues with me, and I hope that she is encouraged to hear that, having been allocated £9·7 million at the start of the previous financial year, the Arts Council's opening allocation for this year is almost £10·3 million. I hope that, even in the constrained budgetary environment, the Member can see the additional investment that I am trying to put towards the arts.

I want the rural small grants programme and the musical instruments fund to be sustainable programmes, because they are making a difference. It is not the same people who get the resource every time. Rather, it is shared around different groups, organisations and bands across all parts of Northern Ireland. I thank those who have taken me to visit some of the individuals who have benefited from the programmes. Other colleagues, including Diane and Phillip, have taken me to see where the money has been used. It is making a difference to people's lives, which is why I will make sure that the programmes continue.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given the fact that over a third of the population live in rural areas, will there be opportunities for rural investment? How many jobs will be created as a result of the Budget allocations?

Mr Lyons: It is hard for me to put a figure on how many jobs will be created, because so many areas of my Department are involved, but the departmental budget demonstrates my commitment to rural areas. The Member can see what I have already done about housing in Northern Ireland, and a significant number of regeneration projects will be in rural areas. I am not someone who focuses only on cities. I am here to serve all parts of Northern Ireland, urban and rural.

Mr Martin: I welcome the statement. It is an excellent example of how the Minister and his party are delivering for people in Northern Ireland across a wide range of policy areas within a really tight budget.

Minister, your statement was seven pages long. You will not be surprised to learn that I have picked up on the sentence about the development of Queen's Parade in Bangor. Do you believe that it will be delivered on your watch?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his kind words and can confirm that significant progress has been made in recent weeks. People have been waiting for the development of Queen's Parade for almost 40 years, or perhaps a little longer. I am delighted that we are making progress. There will be a significant announcement tomorrow at 2.30 pm. I pay tribute to the mayor of Ards and North Down Borough Council, Alistair Cathcart, who has worked closely with me in recent days to make sure that we get the project over the line. I look forward to that work starting, because the people of Bangor have been waiting too long. It is time that the development is delivered, and I am delighted that it will be.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for allocating funding for the canopy over the play park for the Ballee community and the young people there. He will be much thanked for that.

The Minister will know, because I have asked questions on this, that there are two anchor football clubs at Broughshane community centre and playing fields; Braid United and Raceview. The players from those clubs have had to change in temporary, makeshift changing rooms that have been there for over 20 years — temporary changing rooms that have been there for over 20 years — and are now in a state of disrepair. Will the Minister commit to meeting me on-site to discuss the facilities with the two football clubs concerned?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to meet the Member there to see how we can help and make sure that they are given support. I agree with him that that is not an acceptable situation for the clubs to be in after all that time. I have met members of the community association there as well, and I understand the pressure that they are under, so I am more than happy to meet the clubs. I am passionate about making sure that we have provision for sport in Northern Ireland, because I understand how important sport is. My Department will do anything that it can to help.

Ms Egan: Progress on the Queen's Parade redevelopment is, of course, welcome. Can you give us any indication of what your announcement tomorrow will be about? When will work on the Queen's Parade development start? Many people in Bangor will not believe it until they see it.

Mr Lyons: If I were to tell you now, I would not have anything to announce tomorrow. [Laughter.]

I am afraid that the Member will have to wait a little while longer. I can tell the House that we have had some good news. Officials have been working intensely with all the relevant stakeholders, including the council, over the past number of weeks, and I am absolutely determined that we get the work started and the project delivered, because I understand the frustrations that many people have had about it.

Mr Durkan: The Minister said that he will ensure a better balance of arts funding. What action will he take to address the obvious imbalance that last year saw 83% of the £13 million that was allocated for arts funding go to arts organisations based in Belfast and left artists and organisations based elsewhere fighting over the crumbs? That situation has been compounded by the Arts Council's proposed removal of 100% of its funding from Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company in my constituency.

Mr Lyons: That is exactly why I have made the announcements that I have made today. The musical instruments fund is not focused on one area but spread across Northern Ireland; the funding for artists in residence is for every district and borough council in Northern Ireland; and the small grants scheme focuses on areas outside Belfast. The Arts Council has a number of inescapable pressures — some things continue to need to be funded — but where there is flexibility and where I have been able to allocate extra money, I have ensured that that has been done in a regionally balanced way, because I do not want anyone to have less opportunity to participate in and enjoy the arts simply because of where they live. I have made concrete announcements and proposals today on how we will do that.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, this is a good day for many communities across Northern Ireland in many sectors, and I thank you for the statement. You talked about money being tight and having to be careful with money: what will be the potential cost if we do not have regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling?

Mr Lyons: I believe that the Member is referring to the Supreme Court ruling against Scottish Ministers. It is absolutely right that all Departments are aware of that. Some like to say that the judgement does not apply to Northern Ireland because the Equality Act 2010 does not apply to Northern Ireland, but that is completely wrong. It does apply; of course it does. Of course it will impact on us. I welcome the judgement. Above everything else, it was a common-sense judgement, but there are requirements that have come from it. The highest court in the land has made a declaration on same-sex spaces in particular, and that has consequences. I will not be found on the wrong side of that.

I do not want to fall foul of the law or open us up to any challenges that might come our way.

I know that others in the House have struggled with that reality and with the court judgement, but I will not be found wanting in ensuring that we protect ourselves by following and implementing the law. That is not dependent on me waiting for advice from anyone else. We will take our own counsel on it and ensure that we give out the guidance and, where necessary, the instruction to make sure that we are on the right side of the law.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind Members that they should stick to questions on matters that are referred to in the statement.

Ms Bunting: I am immensely grateful to the Minister for the announcement on Bloomfield Community Association. I have lobbied for it everywhere for many years, and this DUP Minister, following our recent visit, has recognised the value of the work that Karen and her team do there. The redevelopment will make a significant difference to many children in East Belfast for generations to come, so I thank the Minister. In regard to the Minister's pitches strategy, where there are existing links between a community and a school — I think of Nettlefield Primary School — might there also be options for primary schools?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her lobbying for Bloomfield Community Association and for inviting me out there. We had a fantastic morning a few weeks ago, and there is a photograph to prove that. I am delighted to provide that support along with Belfast City Council, ensuring that it has the facilities that it deserves.

With regard to Your School Your Club, my priority is to make sure that existing facilities or areas where facilities can be enhanced are given the support that they need for that to happen so that we can help schools and, at the same time, ensure that there is community access. I am more than willing to look at all options. I know that the Member is vociferous in her lobbying, and I have no doubt that I will hear more from her on that matter soon.

Mr Middleton: I very much welcome the £5 million of funding for public realm works in the Walled City of Londonderry. That is welcome news that comes on the back of the announcement on Austins.

Minister, just a few weeks ago, we commemorated the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic and the key played by Ebrington Square. What support is your Department providing to the maritime museum at Ebrington Square, and will you commit to ensuring that that project is realised?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question and for inviting me, when I was in a previous job, to his constituency to hear about the plans for the maritime museum. I am pleased to confirm to the Member that, this year, I am allocating £500,000 to the development of the maritime museum. It has an incredible story to tell. There is so much history there and a story that is often not told, but I want to make sure that we can tell that story. I hope that the half a million pounds of funding will contribute towards that.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you outlined the importance of places to train and play, yet there is no mention in your statement of either Casement Park or the football fund. Can you give us an update?

Mr Lyons: The statement is about budget allocations for 2025-26. The Member will be aware that there is no confirmed overall budget in place for Casement Park that comes anywhere close to our being able to proceed with that development. That is why I have not allocated money for that purpose.

I am happy to announce once more that, after 14 years of the football fund being held up, it is progressing. I look forward to that money being spent, and I will make a statement on it in due course. Whether that money is allocated and spent during this financial year and how much money there will be are yet to be seen.

Mr Brett: The statement rightly puts housing supply at its forefront, but does the Minister share my concern about the impact that a broken immigration system is having on the supply of housing, particularly in my constituency of North Belfast, where private rental continues to soar and local families are left to languish on waiting lists? What can the Minister do to tackle that disgraceful situation?

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely the case that illegal immigration is having an impact when it comes to housing costs in Northern Ireland, and those who say otherwise are lying to you. It is a real problem, and it is time that we had a bit of honesty when it comes to the debate, because, ultimately, it is a supply issue.

I can inform the House that close to 2,600 individuals in Northern Ireland are being supported by the Home Office while awaiting a decision on their application for asylum. Those are obviously issues for the UK Government. They pay through the Home Office for that accommodation, but that still has a pressure on housing costs here, because of the increased demand and the prices that Mears is often able to pay in relation to that.

The causes of homelessness have mostly remained relatively consistent over the past nine months, but those who are transferring from being the responsibility of Mears to being the responsibility of the Housing Executive — no accommodation in Northern Ireland under section 95 — are in the only category that has shown clear growth. Numbers in that category rose from 365 households last July to 578 households in March this year. As a result, it has now become the fourth most common reason for temporary accommodation.

It is an issue that primarily lies with the UK Government. That is why it is so critical that they get their immigration policy right and deal with those who are coming here outside of the immigration policy that is in place.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will not be surprised that I welcome the £1·6 million for Carrickfergus Castle. I thank him for the recognition of how important that asset is to Northern Ireland as a world-class visitor attraction. Will the Minister detail what the investment will entail and what difference it will make to Carrickfergus Castle and, of course, the town centre?

Mr Lyons: I share the Member's delight at the money that is being allocated to Carrick Castle. That £1·6 million will be used for works to the castle vaults and officers' quarters and refurbishment of the cannons and the main gate. I do not know whether that takes them entirely back to the working order that they may have been in some time ago, but I have been told that the cannons are being refurbished anyway. There will also be works to the castle sea tower, along with conservation works to Carrick town walls and Carrick gasworks.

The castle is an incredible resource in East Antrim, but it has been underutilised and underdeveloped in the area's tourism potential. I hope that it will encourage more people to come to Carrickfergus to visit the castle and to spend more time in East Antrim before they head up to the Causeway coast.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the £750,000 for musical instruments through the Arts Council. Will the Minister advise what more can be done to streamline the application process?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that question, because it is raised frequently with me. There was an Arts Council event a couple of Saturdays ago in the town hall in Ballymena for those who applied to the musical instruments fund, and it was raised with me time and time again how the application process could be better. Therefore, I have tasked officials with reviewing the application process to make it much more streamlined in order to ensure that it does not become an obstacle to application.

Mr Harvey: I welcome the Minister's statement. To build on the success of Olympic medal winners, such as our own Rhys McClenaghan from my constituency, can the Minister update the House on his plan to grow success through legacy funding?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for raising Rhys's incredible success at the Olympic Games in Paris last year. I will see him today and will get an update on the funding that I made available for the medal winners from Paris 2024. That was split between those who were successful, and the funding has been used for new equipment and to expand opportunities to participate in sports.

Building on that fund, I am pleased to announce a £1 million capital investment programme under the theme of Olympic legacy, and that funding will enable our sports clubs and community groups to develop or modernise their facilities or buy large items of equipment. The objective of the fund is to generate a substantial legacy for sport in Northern Ireland following Paris 2024 and to improve infrastructure and equipment provision.

Mr Gaston: I join others in welcoming the statement. There are plenty of positives that you have outlined, Minister, for your year ahead.

I want to pick up on the housing issue, and I note that you said that we are:

Can you enlighten the House about that? Is it solely down to funding, or are there restrictions on that number because of an inadequate sewerage network to allow for connections? I have massive concerns that the targets that you have set for new housing will be held back by the lack of sewerage connections. Can you update the House on what discussions you have had with the Minister for Infrastructure on that issue?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his hearty welcome for my statement and for his endorsement of that and of the job that I am doing.

The Member mentioned the serious issue of housing. Clearly, if I had all the budget allocation that I wanted, we would be able to proceed with the homes; it would just mean that we would be looking at areas in which there is capacity in the system. We are keen to look at that. On the wider issue of housing, is the lack of waste water capacity an issue? Absolutely. It is driving up the cost of building and completing homes. I want to see that change. I met the Infrastructure Minister's predecessor in relation to that issue and will, no doubt, meet the current Infrastructure Minister soon, because infrastructure, particularly waste water infrastructure, is absolutely critical, if we are to meet the targets in the housing supply strategy. I will work with all Executive colleagues to make sure that that happens, because it is one of the most critical issues that we face.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, thank you for stepping up and showing leadership to do things differently and to deliver the best use of public money and reduce fraud. I welcome, as is outlined in your statement, the approach to streamlining the Civil Service and driving forward with efficiencies when we need them most. Could the Minister please outline the impact that that will have on vacancies?

Mr Lyons: I have been clear that I want to make sure that we have the right people in the right place doing the right jobs. We have to remember that every post is funded by people who pay their rates and taxes, and therefore we need to make sure that we have the right staff in place. Earlier, I announced that I had 1,000 vacancies that, for a number of years, I have not been able to fill. That is the sort of thing that we need to look at. I want to look at all our vacancies and make sure that we have the right people in place throughout the Department and that we no longer retain posts that are not needed, because, ultimately, we are here to serve the public and to make the best use of the resources that we have. I just want to make sure that I prioritise my baseline and that any additional money that I get goes to the right place.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his important and far-reaching statement. I particularly welcome the additional allocation to Libraries NI. As the Minister is aware, I have been championing investment in Newtownards library for 20 years — I am that old — and I am delighted to see £200,000 being allocated to it. Could the Minister provide some more detail on the purpose of that money and on whether we will see that much-needed new build become a reality? To copy a colleague's phrase, I hope that it will be on his watch.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for inviting me to Newtownards library. I found it unacceptable just how small that library is for a town the size of Newtownards, and I am really pleased that there are plans in place to expand it.

The £200,000 that I have allocated is for work that will need to be done in this financial year to start the process. That money is part of a wider package of almost £6 million of capital investment by my Department. I am pleased that we have been able to deliver for libraries in Fivemiletown and Enniskillen. I look forward to doing the same for Newtownards. Mrs Dodds is lobbying me about Banbridge library, and no doubt I will hear from other Members about libraries in their constituencies. Libraries are an essential resource. I want to make sure that they are fit for purpose, and I will do all that I can to progress that work on behalf of the people of Newtownards and beyond.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his investment in Enniskillen library, which is getting the lion's share of the £1 million that he allocated. That is proof that the Minister has not forgotten about County Fermanagh, and I thank him for that. He will remember his visit to Enniskillen library, which was in a really poor condition, but, hopefully, will become a state-of-the-art facility. Does he agree with me that investing in libraries is important for the community, and can he provide a timescale for Enniskillen library?

Mr Lyons: I absolutely agree with the Member. For too long, Libraries NI has had to deal with year-on-year cuts. It has managed to keep its head above water despite those financial challenges. This year, I increased the resource allocation and, as the Member outlined, provided capital money for Libraries NI. I hope that that will ensure a more timely spend for Libraries NI's book stock and ensure that libraries are fit for purpose. I do not have a timeline to share with the Member today, but I have no doubt that she will continue to lobby me on that and many other issues in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement and for securing special status for Northern Ireland in the celebration events to mark the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Will he provide an update on those plans and on what budget has been allocated to them?

Mr Lyons: I am really proud of this place and of the people who came before us. I am proud of those who left these shores and had such an incredible impact on the founding of the United States of America. I want to capitalise on opportunities, and the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is one such opportunity. That is why I announced funding of £250,000 in 2025-26 to support community-based and high-profile cultural events. My officials are working on the development of a funding scheme. A number of people from arts and cultural organisations have already come to me with ideas about how they can showcase Northern Ireland and tell the stories of the people who left this area to go to the United States.

In the US, the commemoration is being led by America250. I met Jen Condon, executive vice president, during my visits to Washington. I was able to secure special status for Northern Ireland. America250 is enthusiastic about the opportunities to partner on events to commemorate the anniversary. I am pleased to say that the memorandum of understanding between my Department and America250 is nearly complete. For me, it is about promoting this place and highlighting Northern Ireland in the United States of America. Some in this House do not seem to like that too much — some would rather that I did not get stand out for Northern Ireland — but I am going to continue to do that, because it will be of benefit to people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. Members, that concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item in the Order Paper is a motion from the Opposition on improving safety at school bus stops. I ask anyone who is leaving the Chamber to do so quietly.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 16 minutes be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Durkan, please open the debate on the motion.

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

Many of us will have a familiar school day routine and rush — alarms ringing, the battleground of breakfast and ushering children out the door, ensuring that they have everything they need for the day ahead, including lunchboxes, pencil cases, PE gear and a warm coat. They go to school, they learn, they laugh with their friends and count down the minutes until the bell rings. Then, just like every other day, they line up to go home, trusting that the same bus that carried them there will take them back home safely. With that comes the fundamental unspoken contract that, as parents, carers and school staff, we all hold to: when we send our children out in the morning to go to school, they will return to us safe and sound. I pay tribute to all those who, almost 100% of the time, play their part in making sure that they do: our school staff, bus drivers and so many others.

For one family, 88 days ago, what should have been just another school day ended in horror and heartbreak with the devastating loss of their beautiful child Caitlin-Rose, who was doing what children across the country do every day — getting off a school bus. I thank Stella McMullan for her attendance here today and for her family's incredible courage in the face of such unimaginable grief. I never cease to be amazed and inspired by families who channel their loss and grief to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the same. It is a sad truth, however, that that tragedy was not an isolated incident but one of many. Each life lost is one too many. Across our communities, children have suffered life-changing injuries or lost their lives in similar circumstances after stepping off a school bus.

Today, we are also joined by Amelia O'Neill, whose children Fintan and Mary were struck in 2017 and live with life-altering injuries; by Rosemary and Bob Hogg, whose 13-year-old daughter Caitlin was killed in 2022 in circumstances tragically similar to those of Caitlin-Rose; and by leading paediatric consultants, who know all too well the consequences of our inaction, and others who work every day to reduce deaths on our roads. Their testimonies and presence here today are moving, and they should move us all: they should move us to action and to commit ourselves to meaningful change.

The motion calls for a straightforward and essential safety measure — a legal requirement for vehicles to stop when school buses are picking up or dropping off pupils. It is not radical or even new, but it is long overdue. In rural areas, in particular, where roads are narrow, footpaths are absent, visibility is poor and signage is inadequate, that measure could and will save lives. The Assembly has passed road safety motions before. We have commissioned reviews, but, today, we cannot just go through the motions of another motion. It must be a springboard to change: to changing the law to protect children.

We support calls for a broader strategy involving the Department of Education, school transport providers and the PSNI. We need safer infrastructure, public awareness campaigns and shared responsibility. We need to review where buses stop and ensure that those spots are safe, but strategy is no substitute for law, which, in itself, will drive behavioural change.

We will accept the second amendment, which seeks to enhance road safety around schools, and we, of course, welcome the continued roll-out of the 20 mph speed limit, a campaign that was started by the SDLP, and the commitment to model legislation on best practice elsewhere. We welcome the commitment that we have now seen on social media from the Minister to introduce the legislation that the motion calls for. We would have preferred to hear that in response to the motion, but that is irrelevant. It is so important that we have it today and that the families have it. I pay tribute to all of them for the role that they have played in getting us to this point. If we do not do this, more families will be left with grief that never ends. Do not just take my word for it. I quote Stella McMullan directly:

That chance is now.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Member will have five minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Beattie: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I acknowledge the tragic death of Caitlin-Rose McMullan, Caitlin Hogg and the other schoolchildren who have been killed or injured owing to our poor road safety and infrastructure. I know that my words will never ease the families' grief, but I commend them for the courage that they have shown in that grief.

I also commend Mr Durkan for proposing what is an important motion. The Member for Foyle is right to focus on improving safety for all children who transit to and from school. On that point, the Ulster Unionist Party supports the premise of the motion. We have a number of issues with it, however. Our amendment is not designed to derail the motion but to add value to it in a positive way. I hope that Members will listen to my words, because they are positive, and the issue is far more complicated than people think. Let me explain. The motion:

The vast majority of buses that are used to ferry children to and from school are not Education Authority (EA) buses but Translink or private-company buses. They are not as clearly marked as many of us would think or would like. For example, of the 91,500 children who availed themselves of public transport to and from school in 2023, only 21,000 did so in an EA-marked bus. It is therefore near impossible for drivers to know that they are to stop for pupils because it is a school bus, because, in many cases, they do not know that it is a school bus. That is why our amendment:

Of course, out of that, we want legislation. That includes the correct marking of buses. To add to the complication, around 4,800 children do not get free bus transport in year 1. Many travel on buses that are for the public, so there are schoolchildren on buses for the general public that are not marked. That is just the figure for year 1 pupils. Remember the lifetime of the child: if they do not get free bus transport in year 1, they are not going to get it in years 2 to 7, so the number increases. Remember also that 4,800 pupils get taxis and that 8,800 use private buses, mostly unmarked.

Of course, the motion is bigger than making sure that vehicles stop for school buses. That is the tip of the iceberg. It is also fair to say that bus stop infrastructure is, in some places, not fit for purpose. Indeed, I have witnessed bus drivers drop children off at non-designated bus stops on busy roads with no footpaths. A significant number of bus stops are on country roads, with no footpaths or lay-bys for buses to pull into. Children use those stops daily. Schoolchildren are walking to bus stops on rural roads that have no footpaths. It is therefore not just an issue with bus stops but an issue of how children get to those bus stops in the first place on rural roads with no footpaths. My office regularly gets complaints from parents whose children get a private bus that the EA provides but still have to walk on rural roads to get the bus, because it is not a pickup service.

In Knocknamuckley — near Bleary, for those who do not know — there is a busy, fast and dangerous road where children stand on a grass verge in order to get picked up by a Translink bus. There is absolutely no visibility for oncoming traffic.

There are school buses that pass children who are waiting to get to school. The children are not allowed on those buses because they are specified for particular schools, even though they are heading in the same direction. Instead, the children are forced to wait for a bus that is designed for the general public and is not marked as a school bus. We have children getting public buses on roads where cars are allowed to drive at a minimum of 50 mph. There are not even islands in the middle of the road to help children to cross.

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

Mr Beattie: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have timed myself out.

Mr Boylan: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Mr Boylan, you will have five minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have three minutes.

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

First, I welcome the motion and send my deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones in incidents related to school buses and all those who have been affected in any way. Recent tragic events have refocused minds on this issue. Campaigns on the need for increased driver vigilance near schools and school buses are important for further improving the safety of all our children.

Like other Members, I welcome the families who have joined us in the Public Gallery today and send them Sinn Féin's full support. We should all be doing more to improve the safety of all road users and of children in particular. Too many families have had to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one on our roads. Eighteen lives have been lost on our roads in this year alone. While that is a reduction on previous years, one life lost is one too many. We must do all that we can in this place to make sure that road safety is a priority across all our communities.

Our amendment therefore seeks to highlight work that has already been done. Given all the issues that we face, we must make a start somewhere. The Department's implementation of 20 mph zones outside schools goes some way towards getting people to reduce their speed in those areas. I also note that the review of the current scheme recommends that a third tranche of schools be included, and I hope that the Minister can say more about that in her remarks. The most recent development in relation to school buses and road safety has been the launch of the campaign around the safety of children around school buses. The safety concerns around children when they are getting on and off a bus are worse in rural areas, where buses make a number of stops on roads without paths or bus shelters. I hope that people will take stock of the messaging campaign and ultimately change their behaviour on the roads. Moreover, I recognise and welcome the Minister's commitment to bring forward legislation to improve road safety around school buses. I am sure that she will wish to set out her position during her remarks in this debate.

Our amendment clearly states that any legislation should be modelled on best practice in other jurisdictions in order to ensure that we are introducing the best possible measures to improve our children's safety. Whether it is advertising, reducing the speed limit outside schools, amending existing legislation or bringing forward new legislation, we should all be focused on what will improve our children's safety on the roads.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boylan: I have nearly finished, sorry.

I make a direct appeal to anyone who is listening to the debate: each of us, as drivers, can do more to improve the safety of our roads. Slow down, stay focused and ignore mobile phones. Let us all play our part to make our roads safer.

Mrs Erskine: We are debating an issue that strikes at the heart of our responsibilities, as citizens who use the roads and as MLAs: protecting the safety of our children is paramount. We cannot ignore the daily risks that young people face as they travel to and from school, especially in rural areas where the road infrastructure was not designed with the modes of transport that we have today in mind.

The motion highlights the absence of a legal requirement for vehicles to stop when a school bus is picking up or dropping off pupils. There is a need to explore road safety in that context, and I welcome the Minister's announcement today. I raised the matter at the Infrastructure Committee in March of this year, following the tragic death of Caitlin-Rose McMullan. I pay tribute to all the affected families, some of whom are in the Chamber. I apologise that I was not able to meet them in person due to my being in the Chamber for another statement.

In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we have, unfortunately, had our fair share of accidents. In November 2008, Devenish College pupils Nathan Gault and Debbie Whyte were killed in a road accident on a rural road in Florencecourt. The accident prompted the school to think about putting reflector strips on its school blazers. The Hogg family are also here today. Their daughter, Caitlin, also sadly died after exiting a bus in Fermanagh. Sadly, too many young people have lost their lives in Northern Ireland in such circumstances. We support the purpose of the motion and will support the UUP amendment because it recognises the need for a comprehensive, multi-agency approach to pupil safety. It is a cross-departmental issue, and it should involve Infrastructure and Education as well as Justice, through the resourcing of the police to carry out speed checks and apprehend offenders.

A child's journey to school is not confined to the moment that they step on or off a bus. Risks are present at poorly lit rural bus stops, narrow verges and fast-moving traffic zones. Any review of legislation must encompass safer, designated bus stops with protective features; targeted signage and lighting, particularly in high-risk rural areas; driver education; public awareness to shift culture and behaviour; and better guidance for schools and parents on how to keep pupils safe for their entire journey. The current system leaves too much to chance. That ambiguity creates danger. We must remove the guesswork. I thank those who tabled the motion.

Mr McReynolds: I will speak to the motion as a member of the Infrastructure Committee, a member of the Policing Board and the chair of the all-party group on road safety. I thank the motion's sponsors and those who tabled the amendments.

I start by acknowledging the family of Caitlin-Rose McMullan, who tragically lost her life earlier this year in circumstances that the motion and amendments seek to prevent happening again. I also pay tribute to the family of Caitlin Hogg, who lost their daughter in 2022 in similar circumstances, and the O'Neill family, whose son and daughter were, sadly, struck by a bus. I thank them all for joining us for the debate, and for their time before the debate.

We like parts of each of the amendments and the motion. We are happy to support the will of the Assembly and support the Infrastructure and Education Ministers to ensure that no child is killed on our roads while they are simply going to or from school. At the most recent meeting of our all-party group on road safety, I was fortunate to receive an update from Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, as I have done before as a Policing Board member. He speaks regularly about the "fatal five" causes of fatalities on our roads. The all-party group will be fortunate to have him back later this year to hear about the PSNI's work on keeping us all safe on the roads. He also speaks regularly about the 3 Es: engineering; education; and enforcement.

I have also been fortunate to speak regularly to the secretariat of the all-party group and to Davy Jackson from the charity Road Safe NI, who works tirelessly to educate young people about the dangers on our roads and who advocates greater education, awareness and acknowledgement of the fact that driving a vehicle is a serious matter that requires vigilance, care and responsibility. That is why there are so many measures outside legislation that are crucial to reducing deaths on our roads.

If you want to achieve the road to zero, education and enforcement must be everywhere. Drivers must always be aware of the significant consequences of the way in which they drive. The trend in the statistics suggests that the most effective way to reduce road deaths is to increase spending on education. The Infrastructure Minister is present for the debate, and I am keen to hear her thoughts and views on that during her contribution. In 2023, when the Assembly was collapsed, sadly, we saw the highest number of fatalities for some years, but that was also the year in which the least amount of money was spent on road safety education.

There is no easy answer to road safety. Instead, consistent hard work across Departments and sustained investment in education and enforcement will ensure that all drivers know about the impact that they can have and how lack of attention can change their life and the life of a family in an instant. Let us, as an Assembly, work together to ensure that our roads are safe, children are protected and we see no more needless deaths on our roads.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Declan McAleer.

Mr Speaker: Mr McCrossan is not in his place.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and I am committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users. Since 2020-21, the Department has delivered two tranches of part-time 20 mph speed limits at 216 schools, which is an investment of £4 million. The Department previously piloted that approach at 17 schools, bringing the total number of schools with part-time 20 mph speed limits to 233.

A review of the initiative introducing part-time 20 mph speed limits at schools has been undertaken and is available on my Department's website. The review recommended the provision of a third tranche of part-time speed limits at schools with a more targeted intervention approach. A new policy document has been issued to enable an interim and modest programme to be taken forward in 2025-26. Given current funding pressures, tranche 3 will be modest in size and will primarily include two schools per council area.

A programme of schools to be treated in the next financial year is now being prepared. That draft programme is based on the existing scored listing but with preference given to rural schools that are located on roads where the national speed limit applies. I am currently considering the draft programme, and I hope to make a formal announcement in the coming weeks.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. She said that a lot of it is still under consideration. Will she inform me whether Bunscoil Phobal Feirste, which is on the Shaw's Road and is located in a residential area, is likely to be included in the third tranche of 20 mph speed limits, please?

Ms Kimmins: I am aware that the Department recently received a request for that school to be included in the third tranche programme for 2025-26. As I said, I am considering the draft programme and plan to finalise it in the coming weeks.

The proposed programme will have a primary focus on schools on rural roads where a national speed limit applies: that is a speed limit of 60 mph. However, I am aware that there are schools in urban and residential areas that would also benefit from a reduction in the speed limit. I have therefore asked officials to prepare a paper on the use of permanent 20 mph speed limits, particularly near schools in predominantly residential areas and places such as town centres, where there is a higher number of those walking, wheeling and cycling. We have looked at other jurisdictions where that is already in place and at its success. It has been shown to work and really improve road safety. I hope to be able to make further announcements on that in the time ahead.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the confirmation that the scheme will be progressed, and I encourage its swift roll-out. Will the Minister provide an update on the exact timings of when the new signs will be in place? Does she agree that poor maintenance by her Department can also compromise road safety, through the fading of signage and yellow lines outside schools? That can also compromise road safety around our schools.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. He asked about the timelines for its being introduced. As I said, I am finalising the draft programme of which schools will be included in the next tranche. I hope to be in a position to make a formal announcement very soon. Following that announcement, formal engagement and consultation with the schools that have been selected in this tranche and other stakeholders will commence. That will form part of that timeline.

In relation to road markings and road safety signs around schools and other areas, I agree completely that it is important that they are kept refreshed and visible, as they impact on road safety. Where there are issues with signage or road markings that have faded or are in disrepair, it is important that those are reported to the Department through your section office at the earliest possible stage so that they can be addressed as urgently as possible.

Mr McMurray: Minister, I think that you made a slight reference to permanent 20 mph speed limit zones outside schools. I would welcome any further information on that. I also want to draw the Minister's attention to the village of Dundrum — I am sure that she is aware of it — where there is a school with a 20 mph speed limit at one end of the village, but Knockevin School, at the other end, does not have a 20 mph limit. People in that village would greatly appreciate a permanent 20 mph zone. Can the Minister elaborate on that? I would greatly appreciate it.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that. As an MLA and prior to my role as Minister, I lobbied on the issue for a long time after coming to the Assembly in 2020. My child's school has a 60 mph zone outside it. I am acutely aware of just how dangerous that is and of the impact that that can have. It is something that we should see outside all schools, as we heard in the debate before Question Time, because we have to ensure that, in every possible way, we mitigate the risks that present on our roads every day, particularly for our schoolchildren, who want to get to and from school safely.

When I came into the Department, I asked about looking at how we can make those zones permanent — my predecessor had already started work on that — and rolling that out so that we do not have to pick one school over another. It would be good to see that rolled out further as quickly as possible. Budgets will constrain that. We have to do it with a phased approach. I hope that we get to a place where no school is left behind, and we are working through those. As I said, 233 schools already have the 20 mph speed limits outside them. We are looking at how we can roll that out further, be it in residential areas or town centre areas where we have lots of pedestrians.

We want to encourage greater use of active travel, and the Member will rightly be supportive of that. That is one way in which we can ensure that there are active travel routes and that people can get out to walk, wheel or cycle in a safer way. Reducing speed limits is one way in which we can help to make those areas safer.

Ms Hunter: A number of schools in my constituency would welcome the extension of the speed limit scheme. Off the back of that, will the Minister commit to exploring the implementation of school streets schemes that would temporarily restrict traffic around schools to improve safety and encourage active travel?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, we are looking at improving safety around schools in general. I have mentioned the further roll-out of 20 mph speed limits. Included in that is our active travel delivery plan and how we link communities with schools and other facilities that are well attended. We want to encourage, in particular, our young people, parents, carers and families to be able to get there safely, whether that is by walking, cycling, wheeling or whatever it may be. Some of the measures that designers are encouraged to consider include the provision of greater pedestrian priority at crossings in the vicinity of schools, as well as measures to discourage inconsiderate parking that could cause difficulties for those who are walking or wheeling.

We are looking at everything in the round. The work includes the development of a toolkit of measures that can be implemented around schools to help with all the things that Members have described. Whilst we talk about speed limits, they are not something that the Department is working through in isolation: lots of other things are part of the bigger delivery plan that we are working on across the board for our urban centres and rural areas to encourage people to get out of cars and give them a safe option to do so.

Ms Kimmins: I am pleased to advise that it is my intention to publish the new transport strategy to 2035 for public consultation in the coming weeks. In the past month, my officials provided a briefing to the Infrastructure Committee in advance of finalising the text of the document. The drafting of text is now complete, and officials are undertaking the final tasks needed for the public consultation. Importantly, that includes measures to ensure that the document is accessible for a wide audience, including those who use e-readers or other assistive technologies. My officials engaged with the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) to help ensure that the requirements of those with special mobility needs are reflected in the wording of the strategy. It is equally important that we now ensure that the document itself is inclusive.

Transport is fundamental to the growth and development of our society, influencing how we live, work and connect. A modern, efficient and sustainable transport system is essential for our future prosperity. The transport strategy is the beginning of a bold and necessary journey to ensure that our transportation system meets the demands of tomorrow, while reflecting the values and priorities of our community today. I recognise that transport is not just about infrastructure; it is about the people who rely on it daily. My commitment is to build a system that is safe, efficient and inclusive and to ensure that everyone, regardless of their location, income or ability, can access the opportunities that they need to thrive. The transport strategy is an important first step. I encourage people to engage in the consultation, when it launches, to help shape a transport system that works for all and safeguards the environment for future generations.

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

I welcome the emphasis in the strategy document on increased access for people with limited mobility and the overall approach to inclusion. How will the strategy relate to local transport plans?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the strategy is a significant piece of work. We are trying to ensure that it is inclusive of all the needs of our society. The transport strategy has an important role in the preparation of the new suite of transport plans by providing the overarching strategic context, consistency and rationale for transport decisions. The strategy sets out the long-term vision and the overarching strategic goals for the region, while the transport plans are more detailed and spatially focused on specific areas — the demographics and the topography of those areas — and how we can ensure equity across the piece. Essentially, the strategy provides the why and the what, while the plan focuses on the how and the when. I am excited about what they will bring. I hope that Members will, when they are made available, engage fully with the plans for their local areas and the wider strategy.

Mr Brett: Minister, the transport strategy aims to increase the use of public transport. One of the key ways to do that is to provide a late-night service from Belfast city centre all year round, not just at Christmastime. Last month, the Minister met stakeholders about bringing forward a business case for Translink to deliver a late-night service all year round. Can the Minister provide an update on that meeting?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member is aware, following the debate on the pedestrianisation of Hill Street, I had a brief engagement with him and some city centre stakeholders. I am due to meet the Economy Minister and others to further explore having a better night-time service for the reasons that he mentioned. As we move through that, I will be happy to keep the Member updated.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I hope that you can give a specific pledge on the night buses. I appreciate that you are still meeting about the matter, but, further to Mr Brett's point, we would like to see specificity on it.

Will the transport strategy include actions from the all-island strategic rail review? It would be illogical to have a transport strategy to 2035 that does not mention the all-island strategic rail review.

Ms Kimmins: The strategy acknowledges the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review and the high-level time frames that it presents up to, as the Member will know, 2050. The review provides the evidence-based framework to inform future investment in railways across the island of Ireland. This high-level strategy is for the period up to 2035. It acknowledges that more work needs to be done to test the feasibility and affordability of the review's recommendations and to secure the necessary funding to take the projects forward. As the strategy is set out to 2035, I imagine that it will incorporate some of that work. However, the all-island strategic rail review, which, as you know, reaches to 2050, is a longer-term plan. We are still working through the feasibility aspects of that. Hopefully, we will see delivery of that throughout this period, but the strategy is not specific to that review, which is longer-term.

Ms Kimmins: Following the introduction of the first residents’ parking scheme in the North on Rugby Road and College Park Avenue in Belfast, my Department completed a review of the scheme and our wider approach to residents' parking.

Whilst the review found that the scheme introduced on Rugby Road has been generally well received among the residents of the area, it highlighted the point that other such schemes have been difficult to implement.

Challenges to progressing these schemes have included the resource-intensive nature of continuous redesigns of potential schemes and the inability to secure the appropriate level of consensus of local residents for a scheme to be implemented — a fundamental premise of the residents' parking policy. As previously committed, my Department is continuing to work on the development of the residents' parking schemes that have already commenced in the Bogside in Derry and the Iveagh area of Belfast and will give consideration to schemes in the vicinity of the new Ulster University campus in Belfast and the Magee campus.

Following the publication of the review, there has been significant interest in the establishment of residents' parking zones across the North. Given the level of demand and ongoing budgetary and resource constraints, I have asked officials to expedite the development of an application process for demand-led schemes and an assessment process for all potential residents' parking schemes to ensure that any requests can be considered appropriately. That process will take into account the findings and recommendations of the review and provide a streamlined approach to considering, assessing and prioritising requests going forward. I am considering officials' recommendations, and it is my intention to make an announcement on how future schemes will be assessed by my Department in due course.

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

Why has the Minister decided to introduce an application process?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the process for implementing a residents' parking scheme is resource-intensive. As highlighted by the recent review and given the significant budgetary constraints in the Department, I must be sure that any scheme proposed for implementation is considered value for money. Before any residents' parking scheme can be implemented, traffic and parking surveys are required to be carried out to confirm the viability of the scheme, and a scheme needs to be designed appropriately to ensure that it meets the needs of residents. My Department has received over 305 requests for schemes. Given that significant level of demand, it is not feasible to survey and design every request. There is a need, therefore, to introduce an application process for demand-led requests, as well as an assessment process for all schemes to ensure that schemes can be assessed and prioritised appropriately going forward. That will help to ensure that the schemes that are viable and that have the support of the majority of residents can be prioritised, ensuring that we are using our resources in the best way possible.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful for progress on this issue. The Minister will know that there are areas in Belfast that lend themselves to schemes such as this. I think immediately of Pasadena Gardens, for example: bin lorries cannot travel down that street because of the parking, and Ballyhackamore is just a nightmare. What will be required for the application process? With what type of information will residents have to be forthcoming? What support can be given to help to move things along?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that. I could probably share a lot of examples from my area that are similar to those that the Member has highlighted. In the application process, it is important that we have quality evidence to show what will work well. As I said, I am finalising that — there is a paper with me. We must ensure that the areas that are selected have everything in place — the support of residents, proof of viability and evidence to show that there is a real need for the scheme — before we can move to implementation. That evidence will vary from area to area. The specifics will be available once we have finalised the process.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister outline her assessment of the merits of introducing a residential parking scheme or zone around Boat Street in Newry and Daisy Hill Hospital?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous answers, there will be an application process. I suggest that the Member encourage residents in the areas in which a residents' parking scheme would, he believes, be suitable to apply for it through that process or through his constituency office. The Department can look at the specifics and the evidence to ensure that the application is considered appropriately.

Ms Kimmins: I have not taken decisions on the 2025-26 budget as yet. I am in the process of considering allocations, including the allocation for road maintenance, in line with my priorities, the wider Executive Programme for Government commitments and equality considerations following the closure of my Department's equality impact assessment (EQIA) consultation later this week, on 5 June. I am keen to get infrastructure right. I recognise that the road network is a critical element of infrastructure that underpins and supports our society, economy and well-being. Indeed, it is used either directly or indirectly by almost everyone daily. We all know about the challenges of keeping the road network in good condition. I know how important that is to the people whom we all represent.

The well-discussed funding shortfall and the years of limited service have seen the condition of our roads deteriorate. It is time that we tried something different. That is why a new approach to road maintenance is one of my foundations. We need a new approach to how the road network is maintained: one that focuses limited resources in a way that balances safety against value for money. It should be data-driven and supported by sound engineering judgement and should address the problem in a meaningful and, most importantly, sustainable manner. My officials have been developing a new approach to road maintenance. We will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly, thus ensuring a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene.

Mrs Erskine: Roads are crumbling. There have been warm words about delivering a new road maintenance scheme using technology. The major roads prioritisation programme has been delayed. There has been an increase in the number of claims because of potholes. Road safety has been put in jeopardy as a result of the poor maintenance of our roads. I understand, however, that £4·2 million was underspent on roads in the previous financial year. Why was that?

Ms Kimmins: I came into post at the end of the financial year, so I probably do not have all the answers to those questions. The Department looks to put additional funding into road maintenance at every opportunity. It is a critical issue for all of us. We all use the roads every day, and we all recognise the huge challenges. What we see every day is directly attributable to the chronic underfunding that the Department and the Executive have experienced.

The Member may feel that there have been warm words, but I am keen to do something about the situation. That is what officials are working on currently. We cannot magic money out of nowhere to do what needs to be done, just as we cannot do so to address the issues with our waste water infrastructure. We cannot sit on our hands either, however, so we are looking at how we can find solutions that will help create more sustainable road maintenance so that we can do what needs to be done next without having to go back to the same areas time and time again. As representatives and citizens of this part of the island, we have all seen that happen. We are continually seeing the same roads having to be repaired. That is not cost-effective, so we are looking at how we can make sure that road maintenance offers better value for money and is more sustainable so that our roads are in a better condition for longer, until such times as we have a bigger budget, which would be ideal for us all. I am sure that the Member's colleagues in the Executive would also like more money so that they are able to do what they want to do and what needs to be done for all our public services.

Mr Boylan: Will the Minister provide some detail on the proposed road maintenance strategy?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, officials are working on a new approach to road maintenance that will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of trying to spread resources too thinly. That will contribute to a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene. The use of modern technology will help direct our investments at where they are needed most, thus ensuring smarter maintenance decisions, which, hopefully, will future-proof our roads to meet the changing needs of our society, including, as we talked about earlier, active travel. It is also about reducing the carbon footprint of our operations and ensuring that the network is resilient after adverse weather events, which we are seeing more and more frequently and which have a massive impact on the quality and structure of our roads.

I therefore look forward to engaging with everybody as the new strategy is developed. It is important that everyone engage as we move forward. It will be the first time that such measures have been taken. The new strategy will not be the answer to all our problems, but I hope that it will put us in a better position and that we will see a marked improvement in our roads.

Ms D Armstrong: Can the Minister give an assurance that funding allocations for road maintenance are fair across Northern Ireland, given that, in the current mandate, the spending on a two-mile project in Belfast was £4 million, compared with £1·5 million on a 30-mile stretch in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Ms Kimmins: That question comes up quite a lot: as I have said, it is one that I have also asked as a constituency MLA. It is fair to say that funding allocations are made in the most equitable way across all DFI Roads divisions in the North. There is a complex methodology for how funding is allocated, but it is based primarily on need. There are different schemes, which are worked out by the divisions. The funding stats for each of the divisions are accessible through the Department and have been accessed through questions for written answer, of which I am sure the Member is aware. The decisions on how that funding is allocated within the divisions are taken by the staff in those areas, who are best placed to know the greatest needs in those areas.

If the Member has specifics to ask about, I am happy to follow up with the relevant section offices and divisions. It is fair to say that we could make comparisons without understanding the mechanics of all those things and what quantifies greater need in some areas. The methodology is very complex — I have asked those questions myself — and sometimes it does not look like that on the face of it.

Ms Kimmins: I have met the Member on this issue. He knows that my Department has legislative responsibility to maintain roads and footpaths to an appropriate standard, ensuring the safety of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. That is managed through the provision of infrastructure that is designed and installed to current safety standards. Substandard railings along the Shore Road, Newtownabbey were identified for replacement due to their poor state of repair. The railings were adjacent to a combined footway/cycleway, and the replacement railings were required to be increased in height to 1·5 metres to meet the minimum safety standards. My Department was not required to consult the public on the routine parapet upgrade works at that location. However, my officials did consult Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council on the design of the new railings at the location and provided two options for its consideration. Due to the additional cost associated with the bespoke design option, the council confirmed that it was content to proceed with the standard railing option in August 2024. My Department further highlighted the proposed scheme as planned works in its annual report to council in November 2024.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Minister, for your answer and for meeting me on the issue, when, as you know, we had the opportunity to express local concerns. You undertook to re-examine the unnecessarily overly engineered barrier, and particularly the chicken wire that covers it, not only blocking the view but causing further health and safety issues. Will you soon be in a position to respond to the specific issues that I raised with you? Will it be possible to remove that unsightly chicken wire, which blocks the view of Belfast lough for residents, commuters and cyclists?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that. In response to the issues that he raised — it is fair to say that he documented and clearly showed me the key issues about which he and his constituents have been concerned — I spoke to officials and got some updates on why that was done in the first place. The wire mesh is an anti-climb requirement, as prescribed in design standard 'CD 377: Requirements for road restraint systems', which I am sure means nothing to you, me or many of your constituents. With that being said, I asked whether we could look at removing it, because I recognise that the view of the lough has been restricted and that there has been a real issue with the aesthetics of that beautiful area.

To ensure that we continue to meet safety standards, we have come to a bit of a compromise. Complete removal is not permitted under the design standard, but my Department is considering the removal of the wire mesh between the two uppermost rails so that it will potentially remain on just the bottom one. That would ensure that views of the lough were opened up, while still providing the required safety interventions for cyclists and others who use the topside. As part of our discussions, the Member mentioned his concerns for those who are on the shoreside of the railings and the potential for them if somebody were to get into difficulties with getting out. I raised that matter with officials, and I hope that, should we decide to move forward with the proposal, that would be a welcome compromise that would address the needs of everybody involved.

Ms Kimmins: Since the Belfast cycling network delivery plan was published just over three years ago, significant progress has been made on many of the short-term schemes in the plan. A scheme on Lagmore Avenue is in construction, and phase 1A of the west Belfast greenway is programmed to commence in early autumn.

Work is also ongoing on the upgrade of existing pedestrian and cycling facilities on Stranmillis Embankment. That work will include a new pedestrian crossing to improve the linkage between the embankment, Queen's Physical Education Centre (PEC) and Botanic Gardens. Environmentally friendly street lighting has been installed on the urban section of the Comber greenway, and Belfast City Council has led the delivery of sections of Forth Meadow greenway and Lagan Gateway. Design work is substantially complete on a further four schemes that are at various stages of the statutory process required to legislate for cycle routes before construction can commence. Design is ongoing or due to commence on a further eight schemes, and officials are working to bring a number of those forward for public engagement later this year.

Prioritisation of future schemes in the Belfast cycling network is also being considered by my officials, taking into account the emerging eastern transport plan, which I spoke about earlier, and other significant changes that have occurred in Belfast in recent years, not least the relocation of Ulster University and the increased number of students now living in the city centre.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are still considering budget allocations. I have been working with Translink, as the Member will be aware, to look at how we move forward. I hope to make a decision on that fairly soon.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, your party colleague Dr Caoimhe Archibald, as Finance Minister, stated that fare hikes had been earmarked as a means of getting more income into Executive coffers this year. Does the Minister agree that, given the need to make public transport more attractive — more convenient and more affordable — that is the wrong direction of travel?

Ms Kimmins: We could look at lots of things and say that they will bring income for the Executive, but that does not mean that we will do them. We have to look at everything in the round. The Finance Minister does not make those decisions, so her saying that does not mean that that is the direction of travel. I recognise, however, that part of my role and part of the work that I am doing that is a priority for the Department is to encourage people on to public transport. I am cognisant of that when looking at any decision to increase fares. As I said, I will make a decision very soon, but I am cognisant of all the things that we are trying to do and of what would potentially go against them.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that question. As he will know, in October 2024, my Department issued a letter of offer of £6·6 million to Translink to provide 466 new car parking spaces with safe and convenient links to Moira train station. The project will also deliver 23 new disabled parking spaces along with secure cycle parking, CCTV and lighting. With the 89 spaces that are currently at the station, that will make a total of 578 parking spaces. Work will commence on-site later this month and is expected to be completed by September next year.

I am not aware of the detail on the delay, but I am happy to come back to the Member with that. Work is due to start in the coming weeks, so I hope that that is a good news story.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is really good news that work will start, but DFI Roads has failed to address the urgent need to upgrade the junction on the A26 as you turn towards the station and the street lighting from the station towards the village. Will the Minister ensure that the scheme to upgrade Moira station will include street lighting for those walking to the station and a safety upgrade on the main A26 from Nutts Corner to Moira Road?

Ms Kimmins: I am not aware of that being part of the development. I will speak to officials to see whether there are any such plans as part of the broader piece of work. I am happy to come back to the Member on that, because I recognise that, as we are trying to attract more people to use the park-and-ride and subsequently public transport, if it looks as though traffic volume in the area will increase, we should certainly consider that.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that important question. I fully appreciate the significance of providing those measures to the Divis and Clifton Street bridges over the Westlink. I can confirm that my officials have been finalising the detailed design contract documents and business case for the scheme at an estimated investment of £1·8 million. That is a significant investment, and, as everyone is aware, budgets in the current year are once again overstretched. However, I will endeavour to allocate funding to get those schemes, which are so important for the local communities, pushed forward. I recently met the mental health champion, Professor Siobhán O'Neill, to discuss how we can provide greater safety on bridges. I am very aware of the issue, and I thank the Member for bringing it forward.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response and her efforts to deliver the suicide prevention measures. It may be hard for the Minister to answer this question, but given that £1·8 million funding is required, does she have any timeline for when the barriers will be erected?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are still finalising the budget allocations. I hope that, following that process, we can look at the timelines, and I will ensure that I keep the Member updated.

Ms Kimmins: Like everything that we are seeing on the back of the Climate Change Act 2022, lots of things have to be taken into consideration. The recent A5 case is another example. As with all such matters, where we need to undertake further consideration, make amendments or try to address issues, we will do so as required where we can.

Mr Clarke: Minister, given that that application has been in the system for some years and that successive Ministers have made various decisions on it, will you play politics with it, like other Ministers, or will you adhere to the planning policy and that of your officials?

Ms Kimmins: I do not play politics with anything. I am doing what is best for the people whom we all represent. That is what I endeavour to do on all such issues.

Ms Kimmins: The drafting of the water, sustainable drainage and flood management Bill is complete. I tabled the Bill for discussion at the Executive meeting on 29 May. Debate took place over certain aspects of the Bill, but I hope to secure Executive approval for its introduction at the next meeting on 5 June.

The legislation is a major step forward in helping us to meet the challenges of how we manage, use and treat our waste water resources, future-proof the system and get on a path to recovery from years of historical underinvestment. With seven key policy areas, it forms an integral part of my three-pronged approach to delivering a better water and waste water infrastructure system to meet the needs of our growing population and adapt to changing weather patterns. The Bill will expand hosepipe ban powers and allow my Department to issue future guidance on sustainable drainage systems. It will also provide grant-making powers for homeowners who are at risk of flooding.

Other powers will allow NI Water to adopt private drainage infrastructure constructed prior to 1973. It will enable NI Water to repair drainage miscommunications and recover costs, enable the registration of article 161 agreements on the Statutory Charges Register and allow my Department to make certain regulations for flood management and drainage purposes.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. You touched on this, but can you explain how important the Bill is to your approach to upgrading our waste water infrastructure?

Ms Kimmins: As we have talked about quite a lot in the Chamber, we in the North have seen underinvestment in the water and sewerage infrastructure for decades. Capacity issues caused by that underinvestment can and do constrain the development of housing and businesses and potentially harm our natural environment. To counter that, as I said, the three-pronged approach that I am taking involves seeking to secure additional funding from Executive colleagues, consulting on developer contributions to help fund waste water infrastructure and introducing the Bill.

The Bill will be important in enabling my Department to manage valuable water resources and should therefore be given the utmost priority. As I said, I have submitted the Bill to the Executive. We discussed it last week, and I really hope that we can get agreement on it as soon as possible to enable me to introduce it in the Assembly.

Ms Kimmins: As I mentioned in my answer to Diana Armstrong, the methodology is very technical, so I do not intend to go through the detail of how it is worked out. However, I have spoken to officials, and they have provided me with answers to questions for written answer and questions for oral answer from other Members on how it is worked out. We can get a more detailed answer for the Member, but, as I said earlier, it is a needs-based approach. It looks at where the greatest need is and factors in roads that carry the greatest volume of traffic in order to ensure that they are repaired quickly. Different priorities are given to different levels of disrepair, as required. I am happy to get further information on the exact way that the issue is looked at and considered, if that would be useful to the Member. Hopefully, it will help, as it helped me to better understand how the allocations are made.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate that. Following on from what you said about the needs-based approach, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council in my constituency of South Down has the largest number of road surface defects of all local government districts and the worst ratio of defects to road length. Both have worsened in the past year. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that they will see noticeable improvements under her Department's new road maintenance strategy?

Ms Kimmins: That is certainly the intention. I looked at the allocations to the various divisions, which probably cross some of the areas that the Member has mentioned. Given what he said, although the amount allocated does not necessarily reflect the level of work that is done, southern division, for example, has one of the higher allocations. That division covers part if not all of the area that the Member mentioned. That also tells us that the need is significant and continues to be so. We can look at who gets the biggest portion of the pie, but we can see that the overall budget still does not go far enough. That is why we are looking at a new road maintenance strategy to address the issues in a more cost-effective way. From that, I hope that all our constituents will see the difference and that we get longer-lasting, more effective results from what is being delivered. That will ensure that all our road networks are made more reliable and safer for everybody who uses them.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member may be aware, the issue around unadopted roads is an ongoing one. We see it in relation to retail parks or housing developments. There are many examples in my constituency, so I share the frustrations. However, there is a process that we have to go through with unadopted roads. Essentially, it is the responsibility of the developer or whoever put the road in place in the first instance. In areas where there are shared roads, it looks like the responsibility can be shared between the various residents who might live along the road, and there are things there. The road needs to be brought up to a certain standard so that it can be adopted by my Department, which can then take on the maintenance going forward. There are so many unique issues around unadopted roads, but I am happy to consider those specifics and provide a more detailed answer, if that would be useful for the Member.

Ms Sugden: I have written to many of your predecessors about a road at Riverside retail park in Coleraine. The issue in that instance is that we cannot ascertain who owns the road, so there is no right of redress. It is getting to the point where the road is becoming unsafe, and I expect that the PSNI might look at closing it. How do we help people in situations where ownership cannot be ascertained?

Ms Kimmins: Again, it is a difficult one, because, essentially, the policy is that, where the road is not adopted by the Department, we cannot take control of that. When we talk about the best use of public money, that is an issue, because, were we to intervene, all sorts of issues could arise. Intervening is also challenging given the funding constraints. I do not really know the answer in the specific situation where no one has responsibility. I am not sure of the specifics, such as whether the road is within or outside the retail park.

I am happy to look at it again to get some clarity around that. Speaking from experience of a retail park in my constituency, I know that the owner of the park had responsibility for those issues. However, if there is no one in place, we could, potentially, look at what other options are available and come back to you.

Mr Speaker: We move now to questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): As the Member will be aware, I have previously made clear my concerns about the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which marked a significant departure from the Stormont House Agreement, blocked access to justice for many people and caused distress and anxiety for many.

I am not surprised by the Chief Constable’s comment that legacy issues contribute to an individual’s decision to apply to join the Police Service, amongst a wide range of other considerations. It is important that our Police Service is reflective of the communities that it serves, not just in respect of religious make-up but in respect of other characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and so on. When communities can see themselves represented in their Police Service, trust and confidence in policing grows stronger.

I am confident that there is an appropriate legislative framework in place to encourage applications from all under-represented groups, and I emphasise once again that it is incumbent on us all, as elected representatives, to encourage all members of our community to consider joining the PSNI and to help to create the societal conditions where that is most likely to occur.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister confirm whether she agrees with the evidence of the former Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee legacy inquiry:

Does the Minister also agree that there must be an independent public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown?

Mrs Long: They are two separate issues. First of all, with respect to the former ombudsman, obviously, she is entitled to set out her views, but I have been clear that a patch-and-repair job with respect to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is not the way forward. I do not believe that that will build the confidence in the community that we need to see. The UK Government are committed to continuing with that structure but reforming it significantly, so there is somewhat of a divergence in our views.

With respect to the Sean Brown inquest, you will be aware that the matter is before the courts. It is a matter for the Secretary of State and the NIO, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on matters that are before the courts currently. However, I will say that my thoughts are with the family of Sean Brown and with other families who continue to seek to have truth and accountability around the deaths of their loved ones and have, so far, been unable to achieve it.

Mr Clarke: I will take the Minister back to the original question around legacy and rebuilding trust and confidence in policing. I concur with her remarks about supporting people from all sections of the community to continue to apply to join the police. However, in the Chief Constable's comments, it is obvious that there is a financial pressure greater than no other in respect of policing. What representation has the Minister made to the Treasury directly around the legacy piece to see whether we can come to a conclusion around funding that can support the police to allow them to rebuild trust and confidence in other areas?

Mrs Long: As you will be aware, representation on behalf of the Executive to Treasury does not happen through each individual Department; it happens through the Department of Finance. However, the case has been made by the Department of Finance on behalf of the Executive that additional resource is needed.

I raised the issue of legacy with the Prime Minister when I met him previously, and I raise it with the Secretary of State on an ongoing basis because it is clear that the contemporary justice system in Northern Ireland, on which we rely today, is not properly resourced, funded or equipped to deal with the ongoing burden of legacy. That takes a toll on the morale and the capacity of our current organisations. It has an impact, whether that is on the ombudsman's office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the court system or any other part of the system. That is not in any way to diminish the rights of the victims who need to get access to that information and to justice and truth, but it is to say that the UK Government, as the body responsible for legacy, ought to be properly funding it in our system.

Miss Hargey: Minister, do you agree that the ongoing debacle and treatment of Sean Brown's family in regard to his case is presenting significant barriers to trust and confidence not only in policing but the wider criminal justice system?

Mrs Long: Any legacy issue that is contested in the public space will have an impact on people's views of the contemporaneous justice system. That is an unavoidable inevitability. However, it is important to note that the decisions around it have been made by the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate for me to provide any assessment of the Court of Appeal judgement, because that is a matter for the UK Government and is subject to ongoing legal proceedings. I do not want to dip into that space, as that would be inappropriate. However, I am very aware of the hurt and disappointment felt not just by the Brown family but by those who support the family in their calls. I offer them my heartfelt sympathy. They continue to seek answers about what happened to their loved one, as so many families are doing and as so many families have been frustrated in doing over recent years. I hope that that will soon come to an end.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, what is your assessment of the extent to which the PSNI's requirement to deal with legacy investigations impacts on the delivery of contemporary policing and justice priorities?

Mrs Long: There are a number of issues here. The devolved justice system was never properly resourced for legacy matters. When Justice was devolved in 2011, all the liabilities that related to the Ministers who held office prior to that were devolved to Northern Ireland, but, at that time, no one anticipated that we would be standing here, in 2025, with legacy matters unresolved. The lack of a proper funding package for legacy investigations undoubtedly impacts on trust and confidence in policing and the capacity of policing to deal with contemporary issues, but it also diminishes the confidence of sections of our community in policing being able to respond to those historical issues. The constant association of our contemporary justice system with what went before means that there is a danger that we will lose sight of the extensive reforms that have happened in our justice system during the past 15 years and beyond.

From my perspective, resource is probably our biggest challenge. The organisations for which my Department has responsibility will continue to comply fully with their statutory obligations, but it has to be acknowledged that, even if the ICRIR takes over, is in place, is human-rights compliant and is all the other things that the Government say they intend it to be, there will still be a burden on the justice system, both from those cases that lie outside the strict legal definitions for the ICRIR and also from servicing the ICRIR in respect of disclosure.

Mrs Long: The legal framework governing the rights of parents and children vests in the Department of Finance rather than in my Department. My Department is responsible for the operation of the justice system and the courts.

I am committed to taking whatever steps I can to improve the operation of the family justice system. I continue to prioritise action to improve outcomes and the experience of families involved. Together with the Minister of Health, I continue to develop tools, under the private law early resolution action plan, to support parents to resolve disputes outside the adversarial court environment and to aid the earlier resolution of disputes that do come before the courts. I am taking steps, under my recently announced enabling access to justice programme, to ensure that we are effectively supporting the most vulnerable and using resources to best effect. That includes revisiting eligibility and merit tests for the provision of legal aid to ensure that resource is focused on greatest need and risk of harm. It also includes introducing bespoke delivery models to provide specialist tailored support and advice to vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic abuse involved in family proceedings. Scoping work is in train to consider the potential to increase the transparency of family courts whilst ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of the children and families involved. I recently discussed that matter with the Lady Chief Justice. Her office is giving the matter further consideration, and I hope to be in a position to advise as to next steps in the near future.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Women, in particular, and families who go through the family courts feel that the operation of the system is failing them. The work that you outlined is really useful, and the fact that the scoping exercise is under way is really helpful. Do you have any practical suggestions that we could explore so that families can get help more urgently at that time? A commitment of additional funding to support those who are going through the system would also be helpful. Is any of that on your to-do list?

Mrs Long: We have set aside additional funding for legal aid in year. Those who are seeking general advice and legal representation, where they are enabled to do so and are entitled to legal aid, should be able to do so more readily. As the Member may be aware, in the previous mandate, we included a waiver for domestic abuse, which was to allow those who were engaged in family proceedings and who were victims of domestic abuse to have the monetary test for legal aid waived so that they could access it. That has not been the success that we had hoped for and does not seem to be used as regularly as we would wish. One reason for that seems to be the complexity of the application process, so we are looking at simplifying it.

Obviously, decisions in individual cases are and will remain a matter for the independent judiciary, but any party who is concerned about the outcome or handling of their case can seek legal advice on whether there are grounds for appeal. Complaints have also been made to me about social workers, but those are a matter for the Department of Health, which is responsible for matters relating to their training and regulation.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what more can your Department do to address the lack of children's court guardians impacting on children in the family courts system?

Mrs Long: I am not aware that the absence of guardians ad litem or children's court guardians has been a significant issue in slowing access to justice. However, if there are specific areas or issues that the Member is aware of and wants to bring to my attention, I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss them further.

Ms Bunting: If I may, I would like to direct the Minister to discuss the domestic abuse space. We are getting significant complaints from victims of domestic abuse that the non-molestation orders (NMOs) are not as effective as they might be and that perpetrators are perpetually in breach of same. In light of the delay in prevention orders and notices, what scoping has she undertaken to establish the effectiveness of non-molestation orders and whether anything could be changed to make them better?

Mrs Long: I understand the Member's frustration, but non-molestation orders are a matter for the Department of Finance and not the Department of Justice. Enforcement in individual cases is a matter for the relevant judge, and, in reaching decisions, the judge will strive to ensure that the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child is not compromised. Breach of a residence or contact order can readily be dealt with through contempt of court proceedings or a summons initiated under general enforcement powers in article 112 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which gives the court the power to fine or imprison.

The best outcomes for children will be achieved if parents avoid the type of acrimonious dispute and entrenched relationship difficulties that can lead to the breakdown of contact and residence arrangements in the first place. However, that is not possible in cases such as the Member referred to: those in which domestic abuse played a role. Therefore, it is important that we look forward to the domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) and domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and the work that my Department has been doing with PSNI colleagues to scope out how the trials of those are operating in England and Wales. You will be aware of the considerable concerns that the PSNI expressed prior to our going live with that legislation here. We are working with our counterparts in England and Wales to understand better how they are implementing those and what structures are around them to see whether there is something that we can do in that space that may, perhaps, be more useful than an NMO.

Ms Egan: Minister, I have been contacted by many parents who have concerns about how the family court system operates. What steps is your Department taking to make the family courts more transparent?

Mrs Long: Transparency in the justice system, and particularly in the family courts, has to be balanced against the private and personal information, often related to minors, that could be disclosed. We are looking at that, and the Member might be aware of the work that my Department has been doing on that. However, it is important that we understand the consequences for the legal system and individual privacy.

We have been following developments in England and Wales, which have a reporting pilot in the family courts, and we will continue to monitor that. More widely, we are looking at the reporting of family cases. The Gillen review and the shadow Family Justice Board proposed that, but, in both cases, it was very contentious. There are strongly held views on both sides of the issue, so there will need to be detailed consideration. However, people's understanding of the court system would be enhanced considerably if, at a minimum, they were able to see transcripts, even if they were redacted so that individuals could not be identified, thereby understanding better a court's considerations in reaching its conclusions.

Mrs Long: Investigations into complaints about the police are an operational matter for the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI). However, I recognise the potential for abuse of position, including sexual exploitation, by persons in authority when engaging with vulnerable persons. I therefore support the direction of travel from the office of the ombudsman to develop and take forward a work plan that aligns with a key Programme for Government (PFG) objective to combat violence against women and girls. As part of my consideration of the OPONI 2025-26 business plan, I will give careful deliberation to those robust and effective processes to ensure that they are in place to have accountability and safeguarding.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her answer. A recent Criminal Justice Inspection report noted that, as of July 2024, the Office of the Police Ombudsman had 19 active investigations of abuse of position for sexual purposes. Does the Minister plan to introduce a more comprehensive vetting process and a code of conduct?

Mrs Long: The vetting and employment of police officers is not a matter for the Department of Justice. When you look at the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report on abuse of position concerns and complaints, however, you see that there are recommendations on how justice organisations should address matters and the time frames within which they should do so. The PSNI, OPONI and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) all have responsibilities in addressing the abuse of position that was referenced. Given that those organisations are operationally independent of me, as Minister of Justice, and my Department, I cannot comment on the recommendations' progress. I agree, however, that it is important that robust and effective processes be in place to ensure accountability and safeguarding. We are certainly supportive of engagement on the issue, and, if it is found to be appropriate, we will consider what steps could be taken to improve outcomes, particularly given that the ombudsman's investigations of abuse of a position of trust concern abuse of position for sexual purposes. Given the vulnerability of some of the people in contact with the police, it is important that we have absolute confidence that the individuals involved in that unethical behaviour do not draw other, ethical officers into disrepute.

Miss McAllister: As a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board's performance committee, I often look at police officer misconduct, for which the professional standards department is responsible. We are aware that there are some issues with the processes. Will the Minister provide an update on her Department's review of the police officer misconduct process?

Mrs Long: My Department is exploring legislative proposals on police officer misconduct. Members will be aware that OPONI, in its five-year review, made a number of recommendations, as did the PSNI. I think that there were seven in all on misconduct. Should primary legislative change be required, such legislation may not be able to progress in this mandate, given other legislative pressures. Whether it is primary or secondary legislation, however, it will be subject to a statutory consultation process. It is anticipated that a targeted stakeholder consultation will be initiated in the coming months to look at some of the options that the Department is considering for making more robust investment in professional standards.

I think that the Member previously asked about vetting, on which I did not provide an answer. It is not just about vetting people who, when applying to the PSNI, are vetted in advance but about internal vetting, where information may have come to light about an officer's conduct or behaviour while he is a member of the PSNI. That should be considered carefully if he or she is moving into a sensitive role that could in any way create conflict or concern.

Mr Chambers: Is the Minister in a position to outline the number of cases of abuse of position for sexual purposes that have been investigated in the past 12 months compared with the previous 12 months?

Mrs Long: It is not possible for me to do so, because I do not have access to that information directly. OPONI has, however, advised me that, since 2021, it has received around 40 complaints of what it described as "police predatory behaviour" and that it continues to receive an average of eight cases a year. It has not suggested that the number of cases has significantly increased, but there has certainly been a steady flow.

Mrs Long: A late guilty plea can cause particular challenges for victims, witnesses and the justice system. Victims and witnesses will have experienced the considerable stress of anticipating and preparing themselves for a court trial that does not proceed or does not proceed to its conclusion because of a late change of plea. Seeing sentences reduced following a guilty plea can also lead to a sense of injustice and loss of confidence in the court system. For the justice system, which will have seen a lot of police, prosecution and court time taken up by investigation, case preparation and court scheduling, additional costs will be incurred that could have been avoided had an earlier guilty plea been entered.

One of my key aims as Minister of Justice is to drive consistent improvement in the Northern Ireland justice system. With that aim in mind, I have recently published a consultation to seek views on the way in which the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland deals with reductions in sentence length when a plea of guilty is entered in order to hear a range of views from the public and stakeholders on what is a critical issue.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer, outlining the pathway that is required. In addition, what actions is she as Minister or the Department taking to address those challenges?

Mrs Long: The consultation that I referred to will close on 11 July, and, after that, the Department will carefully consider all of the responses. It would not be appropriate to predetermine the potential policy solutions that may be introduced until the responses to the consultation have been considered, and it should not be assumed that the consultation will automatically result in decisions to change legislation. However, it is fair to say that I am open to doing so. The timing of the consultation has been chosen so that, should change be required and should the Assembly and the Executive be minded, there may be an opportunity to progress this as part of the sentencing Bill that is due for introduction in the autumn. That, as you will appreciate, is a challenging timetable, but, with the assistance of the Executive and with the Committee's support, it is entirely achievable.

Mr O'Toole: Someone who changed their plea from not guilty to guilty was, of course, Mr Winston, aka Winkie, Irvine. Public confidence in the justice system has been damaged by the reduced tariff given to Mr Irvine after letters from, apparently, the great and the good on:

Minister, what actions will you specifically be taking? First, do you agree that that has damaged confidence in the justice system? What specific actions will you take to review the sentencing rules to improve public confidence after those events?

Mr Speaker: I note, Minister, something that you brought up last time about Members asking you for your opinions. It continues to happen today, but I will leave that in your hands.

Mrs Long: As the Speaker knows, I am full of opinions, but I am not always willing to share them in this setting.

Members will be aware that sentencing decisions are determined by the independent judiciary and are based on individual circumstances for each case. The relevant sentencing guidance is available, and the sentence maxima for the offence in question were specified in legislation. The statement issued by the Public Prosecution Service set out the issues around exceptional derogation from that, so all of that is in line with how the courts operate. I do not direct how sentencing is done, only what the maxima are at certain points in legislation.

More widely, it is wholly inappropriate for Members to ask me to comment on sentences in individual cases. To do so is to invite me to interfere in due process, and that is an egregious breach of the firewalls that exist between the political and judicial spheres. Where a sentence is considered unduly lenient, the Director of Public Prosecutions can refer an eligible case to the Court of Appeal for consideration within 28 days. As the public prosecutor has indicated that they are considering that, this case remains sub judice. Therefore, I do not intend to comment further.

Mr Beattie: Minister, I have already completed the consultation on sentence reduction for guilty pleas. Can the Minister outline the benefit of a late guilty plea receiving up to a 25% reduction in a sentence?

Mrs Long: It is not for me to set that out; that was a judgement made in the courts in a challenge that was taken on the difference between an early and a late guilty plea. Initially, the range available to the judiciary was much greater, starting at 33% for what was considered an early guilty plea and going down to zero if it was felt that it was sufficiently late that it did not merit consideration. That was challenged, and now the courts have said that 25% is around the minimum established.

From my perspective, it is not about whether I think that that is the appropriate level; my issue is about how transparent, open and credible that system is. Therefore, for me, it is about suggesting and testing the water through consultation on whether, for example, a clear sliding scale against when guilty pleas are entered should be made so that it is clear what the importance of the guilty plea will be and how that will factor in. It also has to be said that it is not only about early and late guilty pleas; it is also about the definition of "early". What is early for the court may not be early for the police or the victim or the public prosecutor or the court system. It may be the first opportunity that somebody has had to plead in open court at the start of the trial, but it may not be the first opportunity that they have had to plead guilty and save a lot of people a lot of work and time.

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

I received Executive approval to the proposed content of my sentencing Bill on 19 December 2024. The Bill will deliver on a number of the recommendations arising from my Department’s public consultation on a review of sentencing policy. It will also make provision for Charlotte’s law, introducing measures to encourage disclosure of the location of victims' remains in no-body murder cases, and introduce a statutory aggravator model for hate crime offences. My officials are engaged with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), and the process of drafting the provisions for the Bill is under way. It is intended that the Bill will be introduced in the Assembly before the end of 2025.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am glad to hear that the sentencing Bill will finally be coming to the House, because it is really important. Can you give us some sense of what will be included in the Bill? I am really happy to hear that Charlotte's law will be included, but, when it comes to violence against women and girls, what else will be included? Some recent sentences for serious crimes against women and girls have been nothing short of absolutely disgraceful.

Mrs Long: Again, I do not want to give opinions on sentencing for crimes against women and girls. I can, however, tell you what will and will not be in the Bill. There will be a statement of the principles and purposes of sentencing; provision to allow the further use of community sentences; statutory starting points for life sentence tariff calculation; expansion and simplification of the current unduly lenient sentence referral provisions; creation of a new offence of assaulting those providing a service to the public or performing a public duty; creation of a statutory aggravator for vulnerable victims; and an increase in the maximum penalties for offences causing death by dangerous driving. There will also be measures to encourage the disclosure of the location of victims' remains, which I referred to earlier, that will be known as "Charlotte's law" and the provision of a statutory aggravator for hate crimes.

Those measures are based on the 2016-17 review of sentencing, and considerable work has gone into getting the legislative proposals in place. In tandem with that, however, I plan to launch a further review of sentencing that may pick up on some of the issues that the Member has raised.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for those answers. Will you elaborate and provide an update on the proposed review of further sentencing issues?

Mrs Long: My Department is planning a review of further sentencing issues that have emerged in recent years, particularly those that have emerged since we went through significant legislative change in the previous mandate in relation to domestic abuse and sexual violence. Several issues have been identified for consideration, including the use of character references, particularly in domestic and sexual violence trials; sentencing for serious sexual offences; sentencing guideline mechanisms; and sentences for drug offences. The review will also consider recommendations arising from the recent review of sentencing in England and Wales and, hopefully, lead to a further sentencing Bill at some future point.

Mr Brett: The Minister will be aware of my support and, I believe, that of the public for the introduction of Harper's law in Northern Ireland, which would require a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of killing a front-line officer, be that through murder or manslaughter. Last summer, in response to a question for written answer, the Minister told me that she had asked her officials to look at that matter when scoping out the Bill. Does she have an update on that?

Mrs Long: First, every person who is guilty of manslaughter or murder receives a mandatory life sentence. The issue is the length of the tariff that is attached to that sentence before they can be considered for parole. In Northern Ireland, for good reason, we do not have whole-life sentences, which is the model that some are looking for on this issue. The Department has looked at the matter, and I am more than happy to meet the Member to discuss it in more detail.

I have some sympathy with the concerns that people have. When you attack, fatally or otherwise, someone who is providing a public service, such as a police officer, you are attacking not only that police officer but the community that they are there to protect and serve. Therefore, it is important that we recognise the impact on the wider community when such events take place.

Mrs Long: I am aware of ongoing issues with the illegal use of off-road motorcycles. Such issues, as with any community safety issue, require collective partnership working across local and central government to identify the causes and put in place joined-up, long-term solutions to prevent incidents arising and tackle the cumulative impact that they have on individuals and communities. My Department has spent considerable resource on awareness-raising and supporting a bespoke motorcycle awareness programme that my Department part-funded with the Department for Communities from 2018 to 2023.

Due to the constrained financial position that was imposed on my Department, it was not possible to continue that funding, although the PSNI and councils were encouraged to continue the programme with further projects that were organised by the PSNI, which had secured funding from other sources.

Some of the initiatives that tackle the issue include education and awareness raising by police and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), which are jointly funded by my Department and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Those initiatives include engagement by community safety wardens who actively work with the PSNI local neighbourhood teams in some areas to tackle the issue. To address the spontaneous and mobile nature of street scrambling, the PSNI has advised that local response officers work closely with the air support unit to help tackle the issue. The matter also engages the interests of the Department of Infrastructure, as it is responsible for road safety, and the Department for Communities, which leads on sport.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: Peaceful protests are an important part of our civil rights. If any person considers that the actions or behaviours of the PSNI when policing peaceful protests are inappropriate, they can lodge a complaint with the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. However, policing demonstrations is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI, and it is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting the operational independence of the board and the PSNI, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. However, it is appropriate to say that there is, of course, no law against peaceful protest, but where a protest crosses a line or someone is resistant in their engagement with the PSNI, they may breach other laws that have nothing to do with free assembly and free speech.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr McNulty, let me say that, over the past few weeks, there has been an increasing number of questions from Members about policing operations and how the police conduct themselves. There is a place to do that, and it is called the Policing Board. Use the members of the Policing Board to ask those questions. The Chamber is not the place to question policing decisions that have been made on the ground at any particular time. It is not appropriate to ask the Minister to give her views on those matters, because she cannot do that. It is as simple as that, and she has quite rightly refused to do that. I will call you again, Mr McNulty, for your follow-up question, but I caution you against bringing that type of matter to the Floor.

Mr McNulty: I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is at liberty to give her views on the erection of illegal billboards by the main party in government here, but she is not able to give a view on peaceful protest against genocide.

More than 55,000 people have been slaughtered by the state of Israel. Women and children are being murdered on a daily basis.

Mr Speaker: Do we have a question, Mr McNulty?

Mr McNulty: It is being live-streamed into our homes on a daily basis. Genocide is being live-streamed into our homes on a daily basis.

Mr Speaker: Do we have a question, Mr McNulty?

Mr McNulty: What is the Minister's assessment of —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member resume his seat?

Mr McNulty: — the reality that peaceful protest —?

Mr Speaker: The Member will resume his seat. I call Stephen Dunne.

Mrs Long: I could say that Sorcha is always right, which would save me answering the question, because, of course, she is. However, there is no thinly veiled criticism of me as the Justice Minister in Sorcha's comments. I could also stand here and say that the law must apply and be seen to apply equally to all. That is why I do the role that I do and why I do not allow myself to be drawn into commentary on individual cases.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. How does the Minister explain the fact that, going back to the November 2024 report, inspectors have found no meaningful progress in the transformation of our justice system since devolution returned back in 2010?

Mrs Long: First, I do not recognise those comments. For example, when I look at the improvement in our prisons, I see that there has been ample recognition of the significant improvements in safety, security and rehabilitation activity in our prisons. There has been an acknowledgement of the additional resources for, investment in and improvement to the witness and victim experience of the court system. There has been an acknowledgement of the improvement to the time that is taken to deliver on some of the statutory functions of the Department, particularly in matters such as AccessNI checks. There has been a significant improvement in the work being done to tackle paramilitarism. If the Member wishes to cherry-pick comments from an individual report, he may have to go somewhat further in his homework by identifying the particular report and the area of criticism before I am able to give him a comprehensive answer.

Mrs Long: The current sentencing landscape for Youth Court disposals for children in Northern Ireland is very complex. There are seven different types of community orders available to the courts, some of which are rarely, if ever, used. Currently, the orders are provided through different pieces of legislation, some of which are more adult- than child-oriented, and are, therefore, supervised by two different organisations: the Youth Justice Agency and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI). Children can be subject to multiple and different orders at any one time, with numerous requirements, and under the supervision of two different justice agencies. We know from our discussions with children and their families, parents and guardians that that can be very difficult to understand and comply with. The justice professionals who work in that sphere agree. That is why the strategic framework for youth justice contained a commitment to update and simplify the community sentencing framework for children.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. That being the case, does she have plans to deliver a new single youth community order?

Mrs Long: We are taking action to streamline. The Department is holding a 12-week public consultation on proposals to simplify the sentencing framework by introducing a single, flexible order that will be supervised by a single organisation in the Youth Justice Agency. The duration and requirements of an order will be tailored to the seriousness of the offence, the needs and best interests of the child and the risk of harm and reoffending. It will be underpinned by restorative justice principles that have been a successful feature of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland for the past two decades. It will enable victims' views to be part of the process. I encourage anyone who has not already engaged with the public consultation to do so.

Mrs Long: The protection of neighbourhood policing is a matter for the Chief Constable, who has to live within his budget and make decisions about his priorities. It is not for me to tell him where he spends the money that the Department gives him. It is, however, important to note that, throughout the constraints that my Department has faced, not only has the PSNI continued to receive roughly 65% of my Department's budget but it has been at the front of the queue when it has come to additional funding. For example, the Executive's Programme for Government prioritised safer communities, which is one of the areas where neighbourhood policing and other forms of policing are critical. It also recognised that other agencies and, indeed, other Departments have responsibility in that space, as it is a cross-Executive target. We are now working on a proper strategy that will draw in every Department that has a contribution to make. Of the £5 million that my Department received for community safety from the Executive in the anticipated June monitoring round that has now been confirmed, £4·75 million of that went to the PSNI.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. I am sure that other MLAs' constituencies are no different from my constituency, given that response times are a real problem throughout the country. I and a lot of people out there do not think that we have the numbers to respond in order to keep the people in this country safe in their homes and when going about their business. Can the Minister explain why there has been a reduction in numbers? How many officers does she expect there to be by 2026 compared with the 2020 baseline?

Mrs Long: I can explain it. It was because the previous Chief Constable decided not to go out and recruit in a period when the Executive were not here, because he did not feel that he had the confidence, in terms of political leadership, to spend that money without the political cover to do so. That is why the figures fell quite dramatically. As the Member may recall, we increased police numbers from 7,000 to 7,100 during the previous mandate when I was in office. We have fallen quite far from that, and attrition, year-on-year, was quite significant.

As to how we restore that, as the Member will be aware, we submitted a business case to the Department of Finance. That has been approved with regard to value for money. There is still an issue about affordability, but that is not unusual with business cases in the Executive. Therefore, I am meeting the Minister of Finance — I have already met the Chief Constable — and we will work through the affordability issues.

Whilst I recognise that I would like to see higher numbers of PSNI officers available to police Northern Ireland, if you compare Northern Ireland's number of officers per head of population with other regions, we have a higher number per head of population than other regions. If you compare the number of crimes per head of population in Northern Ireland, we have a lower number in Northern Ireland than in other regions. Therefore, we need to be careful about the line between making a robust case for additional investment in policing, which I think is justified, and talking up a crisis in policing, which is not helpful to public confidence.

Mrs Long: As the Member will know, we touched on a separate issue on the family courts. However, the broadcasting of certain court proceedings would be a positive step in improving the public's right to see justice done.

A consultation was published last Tuesday, in which I propose that the following aspects of the Court of Appeal and Crown Court would be suitable for broadcast: the handing down of a judgement in the Court of Appeal; the submissions of legal representatives and exchanges between legal representatives and the court; and judges making sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. Should there be support for the proposals, primary legislation will be required to provide the Department with the power to permit the recording and broadcasting of those aspects of proceedings. Given the current legislative programme, that would be progressed in the next Assembly mandate, subject, obviously, to the incoming Minister and any new Executive agreeing to legislate in that regard.

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister outline the safeguards in the proposals to protect victims and witnesses and prevent undue prejudice?

Mrs Long: I reassure Members that I have no intention of our courts being opened up to broadcasting in the way that, for example, has happened in the US, where they are a televisual spectacular as opposed to being conducted in the interests of justice. What we are talking about is not a proposal that would allow the recording or filming of victims, witnesses, parties to proceedings, jurors, members of the public or court staff. The proposal that we are consulting on is to give the Department the power to make secondary legislation, subject to the Lady Chief Justice's agreement, that would prescribe the proceedings and the particular aspect of them of which broadcasting would be permitted. Even in those circumstances, the decision on filming in a particular case would rest with the judge hearing it. Recording by the broadcaster would have to be in accordance with the conditions imposed by that judge. Further, the judge would be able to direct that filming is not allowed in the interest of justice or to prevent undue prejudice. In considering any application from broadcasters to film, the judge would take into account any reporting restrictions in place to protect victims and witnesses. If filming takes place, it would be incumbent on the broadcaster not to breach those restrictions, including any entitlement that there may be to anonymity.

Mrs Long: I am very pleased to have recently launched a draft victims and witnesses of crime strategy 2025-2030 for public consultation. It aims to ensure that victims and witnesses are aware of their rights and are fully informed throughout their journey and that services are tailored and responsive. We are trying to create confidence in our justice system by empowering and supporting all victims and witnesses with a trauma-informed approach.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. What is her assessment of the impact of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime since her appointment in 2022?

Mrs Long: Three years ago, I established a new role of Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime for Northern Ireland. The objective of the role was to give a voice to victims of crime, promote their rights under the Victim Charter and raise their issues with government and criminal justice organisations. I was also keen that that commissioner would drive forward system improvements for victims of crime and contribute to more cohesive, coordinated and victim-centred criminal justice approaches.

I am grateful to Geraldine Hanna for all that she has achieved during her time in office thus far. She has continued to identify and highlight issues that affect victims and to effect real change for victims and witnesses in the system. The commissioner designate has completed and published her annual report and will produce her second annual report in the coming weeks.

The work that she has done on victims' engagement; research; policy influence; disclosure compliance; issues such as access to public galleries in courts and remote evidence centres; developing the statutory role for the Commissioner for Victims; awareness raising; media; and Victim Charter compliance has made a positive contribution to the justice system and to victims and witnesses in particular in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mr McCrossan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing a point of order. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Infrastructure and the House for not being in my place to ask the first question of Question Time. I will not make a habit of it. I apologise.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Mr McCrossan.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I commend the SDLP for bringing it to the House. I welcome the families who have lost loved ones through tragedies at bus stops. I can only imagine the heartbreak that you are experiencing. Indeed, as a parent, I can hardly imagine what you feel. I witnessed my two children narrowly miss being hit by a car that sped past a bus that they were attempting to get on. That was about five years ago. Until this day, if I am there when they are leaving in the morning, it is the last thing that I tell them. As they head out the front door to get on the bus — if I am not there, I ring them — I say, "Listen: just be careful when you are getting on that bus". It is incredibly dangerous.

I have raised the issue previously. I know that DFI and DE have engaged in a lot of awareness raising through, for example, Share the Road to Zero and other road safety resources, but legislation is absolutely vital to reduce death and injury around school buses and at schools. I am glad to note that the Minister is minded to take this forward. Obviously, a Bill would go through Committee Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. It is important that, when it does so, we look at international best practice. I have colleagues who teach in the UAE and friends in Canada. I know that, in the UAE, it is illegal to pass a stationary school bus. If a driver attempts to do that, they face a fine of 1,000 AED, which is equivalent to £210, and 10 penalty points on their licence. In Ontario in Canada, if a school bus is stationary and the lights are flashing, a vehicle that is either approaching or coming behind must stop at least 20 metres away until either the lights on the bus go off or the bus takes off. It is important that we get legislation to enforce that.

There are issues, yes, as not all children travel on designated buses that are obviously school buses. However, if there is the political will to sort this, a way will be found. It will be found through the legislative process. I welcome the Minister's commitment. I hope that the legislation can be progressed without any unnecessary delay to —

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

Mr McAleer: — go some way to prevent any further loss of life and heartbreak for families.

Mr K Buchanan: The matter before us is emotive. It is important to safeguard children travelling to and from school on Education Authority-provided transport and public transport. The latest figures, from 2022-23, highlight the fact that a significant number of children rely on bus transport: 42% of post-primary students and 7% of primary-school children. That underscores the importance of having a robust, well-monitored system that not only provides efficient transportation but prioritises the protection and welfare of our children, no matter how they travel to and from school.

The devastation caused by road traffic accidents is not just reflected in statistics; it is felt in the lives lost, families shattered and communities mourning loved ones. Each incident is a stark reminder that safer driving is not just a personal responsibility but a social duty. We need enhanced road safety education, increased penalties for dangerous driving and better infrastructure to protect vulnerable road users. We must work collectively to ensure that every journey is a safe one, whether we are drivers, pedestrians, cyclists or public transport users. The responsibility for reducing road traffic collisions belongs to us all. It is our collective responsibility, along with parents, the PSNI, transport providers and all drivers, to ensure that every child or adult who steps on to a bus in the morning returns safely home in the afternoon.

As already highlighted today, there is no law in Northern Ireland that requires drivers to stop or prevents the overtaking of a school bus. Rules 208 and 209 of the UK Highway Code, under "Near schools", state:

Obviously, that is near school estates, not out in the countryside or on rural roads.

The motion and the amendments fundamentally want to achieve the same thing: the safety of our children. Other jurisdictions have acted. In the United States and Canada, passing a stopped school bus is a serious offence, and, in other parts of Europe, stricter laws, awareness campaigns and stricter enforcement have made a difference.

In March 2025, my colleague Deborah Erskine, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, and her Committee colleagues wrote to the Minister to scope out options to further safeguard children. We acknowledge that that requires collaboration. The Committee also agreed to write to Translink and the Education Authority.

The whole of the mid-Ulster community was shaken by the tragic death of Caitlin-Rose McMullan. Her loss is not just a statistic but a heartbreak that ripples through her family, her friends, her school and every parent who hears her story. The grief for a loved one carries a stark reminder of why the issue matters. When a parent sends their child to school in the morning, the natural expectation is that they will come home safely. Sadly, that expectation was shattered not just for the family of Caitlin-Rose but for other families in mid-Ulster who have lost children in fatal accidents when getting off the school bus. It is our responsibility to ensure that no other family has to endure the pain. Indeed, my wife's cousin was tragically killed in the mid-1980s on the same road in very similar circumstances, so it brought it home to us.

I urge the Minister to work with all other relevant Departments and organisations to ensure that our children, who are the next generation —

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

Mr K Buchanan: — are safe when travelling to and from their place of education.

Mrs Guy: Since becoming an elected politician, I, like others, have spent a huge amount of time lobbying for road safety in our communities and at schools. Trying to get things done in that space is frustratingly slow, and I am always left asking the question, "Why do we seemingly have to wait for a tragedy before action is taken?". The Minister has reacted and announced some welcome legislation today in relation to overtaking school buses. I urge her not to let up and to ensure that the sustained investment that, evidence shows us, is needed to stay on top of road safety happens.

Our schools are proactive on road safety, and it is integrated into the curriculum at primary and post-primary levels, but they are also proactive in identifying risks at their schools and lobbying for interventions to mitigate them. Here, we have an issue. I worked with one school in particular to get a simple path that would make getting to school safer for pupils. It would also tick the active travel box, would encourage more parents to use public transport — it would connect to a park-and-ride — and would not cost the earth to deliver, yet progress has been excruciatingly slow. Minister, your Department has to find ways to make common-sense road safety decisions such as that more easily, more quickly and with more agility.

The 20 mph initiative at some schools has had a positive effect, but the call in the UUP amendment to look at some specific infrastructure and road layout suggestions feels like a good one to explore, especially in rural areas. Largely, we have agreement across the Chamber on the issue, but, following the recent, tragic loss of young Caitlin-Rose McMullan, we are not just persuaded by the logic of the call in the motion and the amendments; we are moved by it.

The messaging of the Department's recent campaign states that children are more at risk around a bus than when travelling on it. What does that mean for those of us who are drivers as we wait for legislation? It means this: if you are driving near a school bus, you are no longer in a hurry — you stop. Wherever you have to be, whatever pressure you are under, it is not more important than a child's safety. Slowing down to let those kids get safely off the bus may cost you minutes, but better that than the cost of a child's life. That is not hyperbole. It is the real-world message that drivers have to get. I support Departments working together to achieve that.

I close by thanking the families who have come here today and laid bare the unimaginable pain and trauma that they have experienced in order to fight for change. You have already prompted some action from the Minister today, and I hope that that provides some small measure of comfort in your grief.

Mr Dunne: No parent should be sending their child to school in the morning and be worried that they may not come back. Tragically, events in recent months and years have made that a genuine concern for many parents across Northern Ireland. We must recognise that the danger is particularly acute in rural areas, where narrow roads, blind bends and sometimes higher speeds can only magnify the threat. It is important, however, to point out that those concerns also exist in our busy urban areas. Tragically, we have seen too many near misses and, in some cases, heartbreaking accidents that might have been prevented, had stronger safeguards been in place. Some of those incidents have been referenced already this afternoon. We need to see action now, and we must always remember the families of those who have been most impacted on.

Primary responsibility for exploring legislative options lies with the Department for Infrastructure. Since the Minister has been in post, she has outlined how road safety is a key priority for her. The motion provides her with an opportunity to demonstrate that further through actions, not just words. I welcome her commitment made earlier today — outside of the Chamber, I may add — on the issue. I welcome that step. We also recognise, however, that improving road safety around our schools will require a joined-up approach and collaboration among such stakeholders as DFI, the PSNI, the Education Authority, the Department of Education and our local communities and councils. All have a role to play. As was mentioned during Question Time, the 20 mph zones are a welcome step forward. They have made a positive difference across the country in urban and rural areas, and we need to see more of them. I welcome the commitment to a further tranche of 20 mph zones, albeit that "modest" was the word used. It should be kept high on the agenda, so I encourage the Minister to make further progress on the roll-out of 20 mph zones.

Additionally, we still await the publication of the 2025-26 road safety strategy action plan, which, I trust, will include measures to improve road safety not just around bus stops and on school routes but across our local communities. A gap exists, but we must look at introducing short-, medium- and long-term measures that will give confidence to parents and ensure safer routes to and from school.

We know that awareness campaigns and advertising methods can be powerful. I welcome the Department's recently launched advertising campaign that highlights the dangers that children face when getting on and off buses. It is important that that campaign be spread as widely as possible. At Question Time, I mentioned the need for proper maintenance to be undertaken around our schools. Our section offices should be supported with investment to ensure that warning signage, yellow markings and so on can be kept well maintained and that every effort is made to prioritise and not compromise on road safety for all road users, including our schoolchildren.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, and thanks to all Members who have spoken. I call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank all Members who have spoken, particularly the proposer of the motion. It is a very important issue. It is an issue on which I publicly stated my intentions a number of weeks ago. Members said that I did so just today, but it was a number of weeks ago. Sadly, the issue has been highlighted in the worst way imaginable following the recent death of young Caitlin-Rose McMullan. I pay tribute to Caitlin-Rose's mum, Stella, whom I met this morning, and to all the other families who have experienced such a significant loss. I met families this morning who have been bereaved through road traffic collisions. It is something that none of us wants to come to our door. I pay tribute to all the families who have used their experience to drive the message about road safety forward holistically and to the work that they continue to do.

As Members will be all too familiar with, too many lives have been lost on our roads; too many families, such as those whom we have mentioned, have had their world shattered; and too many people have set out on what was a routine journey but have not arrived at their destination and will never return home to their loved ones. As I said, I met some of those families today — I have met many of them during my time in this role — and heard their heartbreaking and moving stories. I pay tribute to them for their dignity and bravery in sharing their experience to try to ensure that no one else goes through the emotional trauma and loss that they continue to endure every day. It is a sentiment that we all share, which is why road safety is such a priority for me. I say not just as a Minister or an elected representative but as a mother of two small children that I think about this issue every day, no matter the journey. I think that, on a very human level, we can all agree that we need to address the issue. I am committed to doing that in the best way possible in the time ahead. I am committed, where possible, to implementing initiatives that will prevent lives from being lost or for ever changed by serious injury.

As you will all be aware, in the wake of the recent tragedy of Caitlin-Rose's death, I asked my officials to look at all options available to us to improve bus safety for schoolchildren. In doing so and in order to have a fuller picture of how the issue is being tackled in other countries, I have looked closely at the legal provisions and measures in place in other jurisdictions — some Members have mentioned them — including the USA, Australia, New Zealand, the South, England, Scotland, Wales and Canada.

As I said, it is my intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the overtaking of school buses that have stopped to drop off or pick up schoolchildren. That legislation will not work in isolation; it will be part of a package of measures. Some of those are already in place, and others will be put in place in the coming weeks and months. I thank Caitlin-Rose's mum, because some of the suggestions that she has brought to my attention have shown me that this will not work in isolation; we have to look holistically at everything that we can do. For example, as I have mentioned, I am putting in place measures to reinforce existing policy around the proper use of signs and lights on buses carrying children to and from school. Those warning lights are an important tool in helping to improve bus safety for schoolchildren. Under new measures, fixed penalty notices will be issued if that is not done correctly or if they are not working. I expect to have that in place by the beginning of the new school term in September this year.

Work to finalise the safety initiatives that I have announced was already under way before today, but, nevertheless, the motion is a welcome opportunity to highlight what can be and is being done to address the issue of safety for children travelling on school buses. I recently commissioned a new outdoor road safety campaign regarding the safety of children around buses. The campaign highlights a key risk: children are more at risk around a bus than on it. The call to action for motorists is to watch out for children crossing from either the front or the back of the bus. The campaign utilises point-of-danger messaging in the form of bus rears and on-street advertising. The campaign went live on 19 May. It is now part of my Department's advertising portfolio and will run at regular intervals. Buses display the road safety message across the North of Ireland in rural and urban areas. The on-street advertising also appears across the North in rural and urban towns. Officials have developed further information on safety around buses that is frequently issued through my Department's Share the Road to Zero initiative, which is associated with its Facebook and X accounts. As others have mentioned, my Department has implemented part-time 20 mph speed limits at 233 schools. A review of the scheme recommended the provision of further tranches at targeted schools, particularly those in rural areas, which we are currently preparing and finalising for this financial year.

Education is also an important preventative measure. A number of road safety resources are already available to schools, but, following my conversation with Caitlin-Rose's mummy this morning, I think that it would be beneficial to look at increased and more targeted learning around bus safety. I hope to engage with the Education Minister in relation to that; there is definitely something that we can do to improve education. It is not only about putting the onus on motorists; we can all play our part in developing that. My Department also produces a road safety teaching aid calendar that is available electronically. It covers a wide range of road safety messages that teachers can use in the school environment. Our Highway Code emphasises that drivers need to take special care around buses and give priority to people getting off a bus and crossing the road, but I recognise that we need to do more on that. It is important to point out that, in countries such as the US, where legislation on overtaking school buses already exists, the package of measures includes education, enforcement and the use of schools to address school bus safety.

The package of measures that I am introducing builds on the foundations that are set out in the road safety strategy and its accompanying action plan. The strategy is founded on the internationally recognised Safe System principles. There is a deliberate focus on safe road use, safe roads and roadsides, safe vehicles, safe speeds and safe people. The strategy places a renewed focus on making our roads safer to use for all, particularly those who are more vulnerable, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders, with the long-term goal of eliminating deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2050. In addition to what I have set out today, I am keen to explore how we can work better with our blue lights road safety partners and other Departments, including Health and Education, on joint, targeted campaigns and safety-improving measures through the strategic road safety forum and its subgroups. At official level, cross-departmental discussions have been taking place at pace to make that happen.

School bus safety is also a key area of focus for Translink, which has led on initiatives over the years to help to promote school bus safety and ensure that safety measures are communicated effectively. It has also enhanced its internal driver training to support that messaging.

I believe that the extensive package of measures that I am introducing, which I have outlined today, will make a difference in safeguarding our children on their journeys to and from school. Legislation is not a quick or immediate fix. However, strengthening the legislation is the right thing to do, and, as I have said, I have instructed officials to progress that as a priority. I hope to do that in the most efficient and effective way, as I recognise that we have a short mandate. If we have the opportunity to deliver that within the time frame that is available to us, it is important that we do so.

Some of the measures that I have outlined require investment, and others require legislation, but there are some things that we can all do right here and right now that will help us to reach the goal. We can all take more care on the roads. We can all slow down and ignore our mobile phones. We can all have conversations with our families and friends about our shared responsibility as road users. We can all share road safety messaging to ensure that it reaches as wide an audience as possible. No budget is required for any of that, and there is no need to wait for legislation. The impact is immediate, and, although we may never know it, we could be saving lives.

I hope that I can give assurances to the families here today, to the medics and to all those who play a key role in dealing with the ripple effect that tragedies such as the death of young Caitlin-Rose McMullan can have on many people's lives, not least those of the families. I hope that we can all use that to deliver something much better that will help to save lives, particularly those of our schoolchildren.

I thank Members for the debate. I look forward to working with all of you to deliver in the time ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Linda Dillon to wind on amendment No 2. You have up to three minutes.

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everybody who took part in the debate and those who tabled the motion and amendments.

We cannot overstate the significance of the issue, which is most vividly expressed by the attendance in the Public Gallery of families who have been impacted on by serious road traffic collisions resulting in the death of or serious and life-changing injuries to their children. As others have outlined, our thoughts are with you and your families. I am sure that the debate, whilst welcome, is extremely difficult for you all.

I am glad to hear resounding support from all Benches for improved safety for children and young people on our roads. In that vein, I welcome the Minister's campaign, launched a few weeks ago, on the overtaking of stationary school buses. It is clear that we need to see a change and a cultural shift in safety awareness. We must all be aware of the danger that we can pose to ourselves and others through our behaviour on the roads.

As Members, we have outlined that an education response will be required. We need to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose, robust and compulsory road safety programme as part of the curriculum. I was glad to hear the Minister's comments about engagement with the Education Minister on what more we can do, and I ask that specific work be done by the Education Department with the Education Authority's transport division to look at the safety of bus pick-up and drop-off points. We have talked much today about speeds around schools, but children are getting off buses on rural roads, and most of the incidents do not happen around schools. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything that we can as individuals, leaders in our communities and legislators to ensure the safety of all road users. If the Minister's announcement today about her intention to introduce legislation can help to ensure that no family has to suffer the loss and trauma that the families who are with us today have endured, that is one positive step.

Last week, as a member of the Policing Board, I visited the road safety division of the PSNI. It was a real eye-opener to understand the full extent of the work that it carries out. When I met the families earlier today, they highlighted the fact that they do important work with that division by advising it on how its processes work for families and victims.

The most important thing to all of us, as parents, is the safety of our children. When they go to school every day, we think that they will come home. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like for the families who did not have that experience or those for whom the child who came back to them was not the child who left home that morning. I cannot begin to put myself in your shoes. Through what Minister Liz Kimmins has done in recent weeks, in launching the awareness campaign —

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

Mrs Dillon: — and her announcement today, I hope that you will know that we have listened and acted and will continue to listen. It is not a silver bullet solution. We need to work with everyone, including families, advocate groups, school and youth groups —

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

Mrs Dillon: — young people and the PSNI and DFI. I again thank all the families who have come here today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin Crawford to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have three minutes.

Mr Crawford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members opposite for bringing this important motion to the Floor and, indeed, all Members who have constructively added to the debate.

The safety of our children in travelling to and from school is something that rightly unites the House. The SDLP's motion raises a valid concern: the absence of a legal requirement for vehicles to stop when a school bus is picking up or dropping off pupils. That gap in our legislation is deeply concerning, and we fully understand the motivation behind the motion. However, we believe that improving pupil safety demands a broader and more robust response, so we tabled our amendment not to weaken the call for action but to strengthen it.

Our amendment recognises that legislation alone will not solve the problem. Yes, the law must be reviewed, and, where gaps exist, they should be addressed, but we must also tackle the root causes of risk through better infrastructure, awareness and cross-departmental cooperation. In rural areas especially, poor road layouts, inadequate lighting and inconsistent signage contribute to danger not just when children board buses but as they walk to stops or cross roads. Simply requiring vehicles to stop without addressing those underlying factors risks creating a false sense of security. That is why our amendment calls for a strategy, not just a law. It demands collaboration between Infrastructure, Education, the PSNI and transport providers to deliver practical measures, including safer bus stops, improved warning systems and targeted public awareness campaigns to change driver behaviour.

This is not about dismissing legislation; it is about ensuring that any changes are part of a broader, evidence-based approach that keeps our children safe. Other jurisdictions have strict stopping laws, but they also invest in enforcement, education and engineering solutions. We must do the same. I urge Members to support our amendment. Let us move beyond a piecemeal response and deliver a plan that protects pupils at every stage of their journey to school.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Patsy McGlone to conclude and wind on the motion. You have up to five minutes.

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

I thank all Members from different parties who contributed to this important debate. The contributions have reflected a shared understanding across the Floor that the safety of children at school bus stops cannot be left to chance.

I especially acknowledge the families and the doctors who are in the Public Gallery. The families have experienced, in the most devastating way, the consequences of a system that does not go far enough to protect our children. Their presence today is a powerful reminder that this is not just a policy issue. It is not just about legislation or infrastructure; it is about people. It is about families and about children who leave their home in the morning and deserve to come back safely and well in the afternoon. To those families, I say this: thank you for your courage in being here today. Your loss has touched hearts across the Chamber and across the community. Nothing that is said here today can undo the pain that you have suffered, but I hope that you take some comfort in knowing that your determination and advocacy are already making a difference. The debate is happening because you spoke out and because people listened.

The motion notes that, at present, there is no legal requirement for vehicles to stop when a school bus picks up or drops off pupils. The absence of legal clarity leaves children exposed to completely avoidable danger, especially, as was mentioned multiple times in the Chamber, in rural areas, where visibility is limited, road layouts are often poor and vehicle speeds can be dangerously high. We have heard about near misses and close calls, but we have also heard about real tragedies, including those marked by the families sitting with us today. Unfortunately, those are not rare, isolated incidents. They are the direct result of legal and policy gaps that must be closed.

As we have heard, many jurisdictions around the world have introduced clear and enforceable laws requiring vehicles to stop when school buses collect or drop off children. In parts of the US, Canada and elsewhere, drivers know the law: when the lights flash, you stop. You do not slow down or hope for the best; you stop, and that saves lives. The children of Northern Ireland deserve no less.

The motion calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to introduce legislation that will bring us into line with international best practice. The legislation must be robust, enforceable and developed in consultation with all the relevant agencies, including Translink, the PSNI and education bodies, and the Minister said that she intends to speak to the Minister of Education about it. Above all, it must be developed with urgency, hopefully within the mandate, because every day that we delay is another day that children stand at the roadside, hoping that the driver coming towards them is paying attention. That is not a sustainable position. It is not acceptable.

I recognise that legislative change can take time, but I am glad that the focus of today's debate has acted as somewhat of a catalyst. We cannot wait until another family experiences the heartbreak that has already befallen those in the Public Gallery. If we truly believe in protecting children, we must act as though their lives depend on it, because they do. The motion is a call not just for a law but for a culture change — for a road safety culture that places children first; for a public awareness campaign that leaves no ambiguity; and for a clear and enforceable message: when a school bus stops, so do you.

Let us honour the memory of those who have been lost. Let us support those who continue to grieve. Let us work together across parties and across communities to ensure that no other family has to sit in the Public Gallery because of something that could have been prevented.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes to wind up the debate. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so 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 O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Time flies. This month, it will be nine years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. Of course, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That act — specifically the fact that it was enacted in the hardest, most destructive way possible — remains, as our motion says, an historic act of economic and political self-harm. I want the debate to be about the future, not the past, but the events of the past decade are a fundamental part of our understanding how we got here and where we go next, including our detailed options. Those events are also critical to understanding why we need to choose a different future.

In June 2016, as I said, voters in Northern Ireland chose a different future. We chose to remain in the EU, but that choice was negated and overruled by a choice made by voters in England [Interruption.]

Members opposite are already making interventions. I am happy to take interventions from Members across the House, and I will be generous with interventions all the way through my contribution. However, that decision was made in England, and if the DUP Members opposite wish to challenge or correct that, I would be more than happy to hear them do so. I will come back to that point, because it is also relevant to our response to the amendment that is published on the Marshalled List.

The UK has lost literally hundreds of billions of pounds of economic output as a result of a decision to pursue the hardest Brexit possible. That is no longer a subject for academic debate. It is not a legitimately or seriously contested point among economists. No serious economist doubts that the hard Brexit has cost the UK hundreds of billions of pounds of lost economic output. It is not just a statistic or an academic point; that is lost tax revenue, which has led to less spending on public services and the constrained spending and fiscal position that every party in the House, be they unionist, nationalist or neither, laments weekly.

Of course, Brexit has contributed to the political instability that has not only plagued the UK but has compounded the persistent instability in these institutions. I think of the backstop, the protocol and the Windsor framework. I argued for many of those in the context of them being a protection from the worst consequences of a hard Brexit on this island. However, they are all things that every unionist deeply objects to. Not one of those things would exist were it not for Brexit. They literally could not possibly have come into existence had the UK not left the EU and left it in the hardest possible way. I will, again, pause and take interventions from any Member who wants to correct or challenge the point that I have just made.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will, of course.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member accept that those interventions were required because parties such as his sought to thwart the democratic process as expressed through probably the largest democratic exercise that the United Kingdom has ever undertaken?

Mr O'Toole: I acknowledge his point. He is entitled to make it, and I gave way for the purposes of him doing so. I repeat this point: people in Northern Ireland did not vote for that democratic outcome. The purpose of the motion, respectfully, is to deal with the fact that people in Northern Ireland made a different democratic choice. I respect that he chose to leave the EU, but that has had consequences for other people in this society, and, with respect, he and his party have to understand that it has had consequences.

The UK state has changed deeply and structurally. Economists talk about the difference between a cyclical change and a structural change. Cyclical change cycles through the system. Structural change is deeper: it is change that does not get washed through or unwound. The UK state has structurally lost economic output as a result of Brexit. The UK has changed structurally as a result of Brexit. It is poorer and less influential in the world. You need only see the sucking up to Trump — the desperation to win that man's approval. You need only see the progress made by Reform, Nigel Farage's party, which could well be in government after the next election. You need only see statements by Farage and his fellow travellers, including his objectionable statements about Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, in the past 24 hours.

Our party's commitment to the European project has never been about just diplomatic influence or trade; it is about peace and respect for diversity. It is about a profound belief that the European context is one that can help to solve and make progress on the historic divisions on the island of Ireland and to celebrate that diversity. The EU is also the place where we can deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Those challenges go far beyond identity or even some of the challenges of our history. I am talking about things like human beings' relationship with technology, which it feels like, at times, can overwhelm us. The European Union is one of the few entities that is large enough to properly regulate and confront the, at times, uncontrollable power of big tech, climate change and a range of other issues. The biggest challenges of the 21st century will require cooperation across national boundaries, which is exactly the kind of cooperation that the EU represents. It is imperfect but hugely important.

As I said, our motion welcomes the EU-UK reset. We want it to go further. We think that a full-blown veterinary agreement would be a good thing. We have been a champion, the whole way through, for our specific arrangements under what is now called the Windsor framework and our ability to have dual market access. We championed it proudly and unabashedly when others would not and did not. We want to go further in the here and now. We want a voice in the European Parliament. We want a European Commission office in Belfast —

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have a huge amount of time, but I am happy to give way since I promised that I would.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you very much. I know that the Member is passionate about the EU. He and I will always have a strong disagreement about that, but will the Member agree that his wanting an EU office in Belfast in order to petition the EU to do something that he should be doing as a Member of the Legislative Assembly — that is, making laws for Northern Ireland — borders on the ridiculous?

Mr O'Toole: As the Member is a former MEP, I am happy to take on board her views about the European legislative programme. I am pro-European, and I am not just making an argument about Northern Ireland in the here and now; I am making an argument about rejoining the EU in a new Ireland. I recognise and respect the fact that the Member will never agree to that, and I would insult her if I pretended that she was going to be persuaded, but I am, and lots of people out there are. That is what I am just about to come on to.

A lot of the time, when we debate in the Chamber about unionists and nationalists and identity and history, we act as if it is all binary and people are not entitled to make decisions about the future on other grounds.

I think that lots of people in Northern Ireland want a European future, not necessarily because they are nationalist. Many of them are from unionist backgrounds, or, indeed, they are not unionist or nationalist. They might not even be interested in the constitutional question or identity all that much, but they sense something wrong about the way in which our politics is currently constituted and want to hear about the possibility of a European future.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have time. I am happy to take interventions later on.

The only way in which they can positively make that choice — this is why our motion says so — is via a new Ireland back in Europe.

My professional background is well known. I was in Downing Street on 23 June 2016 and spent the night there on the day of the vote, so no one can tell me that the UK's politics has not structurally changed. The amendment before us today is a card trick. It pretends to the public that this is a choice between tea and coffee — on the one hand; on the other. It is a bit like saying, "Well, there are two ways you could get to Derry from here. You could, as most people do, go up the A6, but you could also go via Limavady or whatever". It is not the case that this is an equal and opposite choice between two equally plausible outcomes.

UK politics has changed. Not one major party in Britain is calling for the UK to rejoin. Not one. I think that there is, at best, a 5% chance of the UK rejoining, but, even if the politics of the UK were moving in that direction, we have no ability to shape it. Theoretically, there could be a vote on the UK rejoining, but we could vote 90% in favour of rejoining and still be beaten by English voters. It is also the case that we have no ability to shape whether the UK rejoins. None. It is marginal. It is tiny.

I hear Members from the Alliance Party chuntering because they are clearly uncomfortable with the point that I am making. They have spent an age making out that this is a question of narrow or even sectarian division. It is not. This is about a European future. There is only one way in which the people of Northern Ireland can make that choice, and it is a choice that my party and I are proud to represent. The only way that they can make that choice —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, your time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — is via a vote for a new Ireland under the —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, your time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Honeyford: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Honeyford: Cheers. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Alliance is a proud European party that wants Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU and have full membership at the first opportunity. We have been consistent on that, but we work to unite people and do not base policy on exclusion. Leaving the EU has been the biggest act of diplomatic and economic self-harm, and practically every stat has shown that the UK economy has struggled since. Thankfully, Northern Ireland's economy has been sheltered from that and has benefited from staying within the EU for products. I want to be really clear that Alliance believes that the best long-term future for this region is within the EU.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an amend — an intervention?

Mr Honeyford: An "amendment"? [Laughter.]

Mr Martin: An intervention.

Mr Honeyford: Go quickly.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. Does he accept the figures that I have here, which show that, between 2010 and 2025, the UK's net GDP has grown more than Germany's? German GDP growth was $1,250 billion, and the UK's was $1,400 billion.

Mr Honeyford: Listen: you want to go back that far because there was a collapse in Germany. Let us look at the period — [Interruption.]

There was a collapse in the UK that you helped to cause. We will get on to that in a wee second.

Restoring the three freedoms that we have lost is fundamental to us, and we welcome the fact that the UK has finally aligned more closely with the EU. Alliance led the campaign against Brexit, which was sold as every dream under the sun. It was never defined, and there was never a plan. The campaign to leave ranged across a spectrum of fantasies: we could stay in the Union

BMWs and always being part of that; the parading of a bus advertising savings of £350 million for our NHS; and the approach of all out at all costs — who cares what damage it does?

Let us not forget that the DUP was the dealmaker for that Tory Government and that it chose the option of the hardest of Brexits, thus destroying our economy and lowering our living standards. Let us face facts: it created a border and trade barriers between our businesses and those in GB that then had to be sorted out.

Even last week, in the debate on funding North/South bodies — we had been offered greater funding and better resources to grow our economy and increase tourism — the DUP chose its failed ideology over what was best for people here. The DUP literally voted to keep people down rather than seize an opportunity to create jobs and grow tourism for people here, once again exposing the fact, which it reinforced through its Members' voting, that it has absolutely no intention of making Northern Ireland work. In fact, it votes against everything that would bring about any change.

Moreover, the SDLP has lowered the debate by returning to the old style, which we also saw in the media stuff today about "not Farage". In other words, it is using the "I must win" argument as an alternative to constitutional politics. It is really disappointing that the SDLP has focused on fear rather than send a positive message, have a positive debate on the benefits of the EU and continue to build a coalition of support on all sides to oppose our leaving the EU. Rather than be positive and outline the benefits of EU membership and how it would —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr Honeyford: I heard a rant, but I do not know what it was about. If I had, however, I do not think that I would have understood it.

Rather than be positive and outline the benefits of EU membership and how it would make the lives of the public better, and rather than outline how we might grow our economy and create jobs and prosperity, the SDLP has instead risked all to fall into the same trap of the first Brexit debate, with no plan and with Farage politics, where the option for change is not defined or outlined. I worry that the SDLP set up this debate to divide, knowing exactly what would follow in the Chamber. We are obsessed with the word "united" in this part of the world, whether a united Ireland or the United Kingdom. From sitting here listening to both sides of the House, however, I have not heard a vision of anything from either side: a vision for what a future would look like now, or in any of the years to come. All that I have heard are words that I am supposed to understand.

Alliance is not interested in your battles over territory. We do not base our politics on that. Alliance is interested in people and in making their lives better. That is fundamental to us, and fundamental to me is uniting people. I am more interested in working now to make changes to deliver a better future in 2030, 2035 or 2040, regardless of the constitution and regardless of what change may or may not come about.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: I will let you in in a second.

I have set out clearly the Alliance position and its values for a shared island two or three times now in the Chamber. We will work to unite, to create and deliver the best health system, to grow our economy, skills and education system, to clean up our environment and to look for investment in our communities through the arts and sports. Those are the areas around which the House should be uniting. Each requires a shared island approach in order to enable the delivery of the best possible public services. The best is what all our people deserve, and I am not trying to win any constitutional argument by saying that. Whether there is constitutional change or we remain in the UK will be decided by our people, not by the political parties in the House.

We came through the trauma of the Troubles, which ended with the Good Friday Agreement. No side won, but everybody benefited. In the future Northern Ireland, regardless of whichever "united" we have, we must provide better opportunities and greater prosperity for all our people. We all must win, and everybody must benefit. Alliance is really clear in its belief that will come from being in the EU.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Very quickly.

Mrs Dodds: I hear the Member talk about the Belfast Agreement, yet his beloved EU set aside and then shredded the Belfast Agreement when it agreed to a majority vote in the maintaining of the Windsor framework/protocol arrangements. How is that supporting the Belfast Agreement?

Mr Honeyford: That is completely not true; it is not a devolved issue. [Interruption.]

The fact that we had a vote was because of you, so maybe try looking in the mirror before you start firing any shots across a Chamber.

Regardless of anybody's opinion on a new Ireland, it is simply not factual and not true to state that it is the only way back into the EU, and that is what has been paraded out today. The mindset of having to win is actually the root cause of division, causing further division rather than less. The spirit and values of the Good Friday Agreement, of peace and reconciliation, bring our communities together; they do not divide them. Those are the values that the EU was built on. [Interruption.]

I can hear a rant over here, but I do not know what is being said. [Interruption.]

Yes.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: You have 10 seconds.

Mr McNulty: I find it quite hilarious for the Alliance Party to stand here today and claim to be the party of unity when we are the party who led the peace to bring unity to this place.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, resume your seats. Two people cannot be on their feet at once. I will return to the issue once Mr Honeyford has finished.

Mr Honeyford: I will address that very simply: the SDLP's head is in 1998. It has remained in 1998 and it is not relevant to anybody in today's world, which is why it has eight Members.

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Honeyford: That is the reason for this debate: to try to become relevant. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members.

Mr Honeyford: The pro-European campaign — this is vital to state — united people across a range of parties, but to suggest that re-entry is only a binary constitutional position potentially alienates a group of people who want to rejoin the EU but who currently either vote for unionist parties or do not have a view on the constitution at all and remain unconvinced by words towards a united Ireland when there is no plan and nothing in front of them to judge it on. Who could blame them? The SDLP has never given us an idea of what that would look like. Using fear is not the best way to gain support or build our future. The reason for our amendment is to factually state that there are two entry routes back into the EU, not one. The wider coalition against leaving the EU was from a wide base from every background. Building re-entry must keep everybody on board, and every option must be open to us as we build and unite our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I call the next Member, I am telling everyone, as clearly as I can, that interruptions from a sedentary position and chuntering and heckling from any side or centre Bench of the House will not be tolerated. I will not hesitate at all to call out anyone who persists or any Member who should know that, when they ask to intervene and the Member is not facilitating it, they should desist from doing it. From the next Member on, I ask that all those who are participating in such behaviour and all those who appear to find it humorous or entertaining to desist so that progress in the debate can be made.

Mr Kearney: Cuireann Sinn Féin fáilte roimh rannpháirtíocht an Aontais Eorpaigh agus Rialtas na Breataine le caidrimh nua a fhorbairt. Beidh muid ag fanacht leis na sonraí a socróidh siad orthu sna míonna amach romhainn agus le cad é a bheas i gceist do na Sé Chontae. Ní mór d’aon toradh fiúntach aghaidh a thabhairt ar thionchair thubaisteacha leanúnacha an Bhreatimeachta ar an réigiún seo, agus caithfidh sé an geilleagar uile-Éireann a chosaint.

Sinn Féin has been consistent in its opposition to Brexit. All the negative consequences that we predicted have materialised. Brexit has been an economic, political and constitutional game changer for all of Ireland. That reality was affirmed by the European Commission when it said in April 2017 that, in the event of Irish unity, Ireland, as a unitary state, would be fully reintegrated within the European Union. As a result of constructive engagement by the European Union with the post-Brexit landscape, cross-border trade has been protected and now stands at record levels. The Windsor framework has, indeed, sought to insulate local businesses, workers and families from the devastation of Brexit.

However, the reality is that full membership of the European Union is better for our island and for everyone who lives and works here. An Irish unity referendum under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement provides the pathway to bring that about.

In the meantime, Sinn Féin's MEPs, Lynn Boylan and Kathleen Funchion, continue to advance Irish national interests in the European Parliament and represent citizens in the North. Tá ballraíocht acu ar choistí tábhachtacha, ar nós trádáil idirnáisiúnta , comhshaoil agus aeráid, fostaíocht agus gnóthaí sóisialta agus forbairt réigiúnach.

As chair of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Palestine, our MEP Lynn Boylan has given expression to the popular demand for the EU to act unambiguously to end the genocide in Gaza, secure a permanent ceasefire and allow unhindered entry of humanitarian aid to the starving people of Gaza.

Even though the Windsor framework gives the North a unique designated special status, it also creates a democratic deficit. While we adhere to European rules and regulations, the North no longer has elected representatives in European institutions. That is why I and others have used every public and private platform that we have to advocate for observer status in the European Parliament for political representatives from here. We have also called for direct engagement between the European Commission and our political institutions and officials. To that end, Sinn Féin has also called for a European Commission office to be opened in the North. That would help us to navigate the issues arising from the Windsor framework much more cohesively and it would institutionalise political connectivity between our power-sharing Executive, the Assembly and the European Commission.

The best thing for the future of all our people is to undo the economic and political harm that was caused by Brexit and its supporters. We can do that through continued and improved relations with the European Union. Of course, the key to fully restoring our membership of the European Union is Irish unity and a new constitutional settlement for our island.

Mr Brooks: The rigorous implementers seem to have fallen out, which I regret. Here we are. In recent weeks and months, the constructive Opposition have taken to making rather disingenuous and selective social media jibes about the finishing times of this place and regularly whinging about what is debated on the Floor. Yet, they are using one of their picks on this Opposition day to debate a motion that seeks to rehearse our party positions on the lesser-known issues of Brexit and a border poll.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Certainly.

Mr McGrath: Do you know that it was one of your colleagues rather than any of us who made a point of order about an Opposition day finishing early?

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

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was referring more to my following of your leader's TikTok account. I will leave it at that.

Mr Martin: TikTok?

Mr Brooks: TikTok, indeed.

In the current global context, it always strikes me as curious that we have two nationalist and separatist parties in this place whose primary objective is to achieve full Irish sovereignty over the whole of this island, yet they would enthusiastically see any new state subsumed immediately as part of the ever-closer union with Brussels. The pan-European solidarity, however, is not all that it seems. They have watched the Republic, which, before Brexit, unlike the UK, had long been a net beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU, and they have seen how the Republic's infrastructure has been modernised by EU funds. They like the ability to travel and work across the continent freely. Perhaps most all, the SDLP, in common with the Irish state, which it aspires to join, would say that it likes those common European values of freedom, democracy and equality. Yes, those are virtues that those parties hold dear, but do not ask them to provide defence for those European values or their allies. The first duty of any credible nation is to provide for the security of its citizens. That is where the Irish state is found wanting and where Irish nationalism has a disinterest. The shameful policy of neutrality is an article of faith in the South and on the opposite side of the Chamber. They will require this European future to be without threat, because if it is not, do not ask them to pick a side when those values or their supposed allies are challenged by tyrants. They did not do that when Europe faced its greatest historical threat, and they do not do it today. There is money for everything, it seems, except for the defence of themselves, their borders and their friends. Irish nationalism is keen to have a European future but is content that His Majesty's armed forces and their European and NATO allies continue to pay for and provide its defence. Mind you, this is an SDLP motion, so what could be more socialist than a reliance on other people's money?

I will move on to Brexit issues and the UK's vote to leave. It is welcome that, on this occasion, the Opposition uncharacteristically recognise that the vote was UK-wide, even if the Social Democratic and Labour Party showed itself throughout the Brexit process not to be particularly committed to democracy by honouring the outcome of that vote, which its members claim in the motion to be a self-harming decision. I would argue that it was the attempts of undemocratic elements in this place, London, Dublin and Brussels that have wrought harm upon Northern Ireland and have meant that Northern Ireland has not been treated fairly or equitably in line with the outcome of the referendum.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Dickson: I am interested in the referendum; I am old enough to remember it. [Laughter.]

Perhaps the Member could explain to us something that has mystified me for quite some time. Who paid for the wrap-around advert in a popular morning newspaper that, as pundits will tell you, seriously influenced UK voters to leave the EU rather than to remain? Where did that money come from, and who funded it?

Mr Brooks: That was an admirable attempt at deflection, but I have no answer for him in any case.

Moving on, the SDLP and the rest of the rigorous implementers, including its friends in Alliance, were not prioritising the economy of this place. Certainly, they were not prioritising our links to the UK internal market, which is by far our largest market for goods. Instead, they sought to aid Brussels in using Northern Ireland as a punishment and a price to be paid by the UK for daring to leave. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. That it did not was plainly down to the undemocratic Remainers and to the weakness of successive Conservative Governments and Prime Ministers by not standing up to Brussels.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I want to make some progress. I will perhaps give way if I can make some progress, although I am nearly finished.

A Member: You are. [Laughter.]

No, you have another minute.

Mr Brooks: I have another minute? OK.

The best of both worlds remains elusive: the much talked-about but never evidenced unicorn of the protocol. I suspect that that is largely because international investors are not mugs. There are many positive reasons to invest in Northern Ireland, but facing friction and trade in one's own country while not being a full member of the European Union has proven to add complications, a lack of clarity and, as those of us who sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee can attest, a continuous lack of necessary information from the Government. That is not the best of both worlds but the greyest of grey areas.

That is why the chief executive of Invest NI was unable to evidence any significant foreign investment, noting our supposedly dual position as a key incentive. The detail does not line up with the sales pitch. Moves by the current Government to reduce friction and minimise divergence are not enough, but, in the context of the current arrangements, they may be an improvement. It does not —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, David.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I am sorry for cutting you short, but we have to stick to the time. Robbie Butler is our next contributor.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Having read the motion and the amendment, I found that the motion contained four obvious tenets. One was the inarguable realism as it started out, and then there was the arguable perspective on some of the fallout of Brexit and the protocol. That was followed by its inarguable contradictions and reframing of the constitutional debate. For those reasons, we will not support the motion. We will not support the amendment either, even if Alliance portray it as being helpful, because that would be tantamount to treating national referendums as hokey-cokeys.

In reality, however, the motion is riddled with contradictions, half-truths and a selective reading of our recent history and our current political realities. At first glance, it appears to be balanced. In the first three or four lines, it welcomes reduced trade friction, heralds dual market access, which has been a mantra for the SDLP and Alliance for some time, and talks about pragmatic cooperation with the EU. However, when you scratch the surface, it quickly becomes clear that it is not about practical governance but political positioning and, more worryingly, an attempt to reframe every recent development as a stepping stone towards a predetermined destination, which is EU re-entry through Irish unity.

Let us begin with the core contradiction at the heart of the motion. It praises dual market access as a "competitive advantage" for Northern Ireland, something that the SDLP and Alliance have spent years highlighting, and some would argue rightly so. Then, with the same breath, it claims that our best long-term future can be secured only by leaving the UK altogether and fully joining the EU. Which is it? Is the dual market access under the current arrangements an opportunity to be maximised, or is it a stopgap en route to something else? We need to wake up and smell the coffee. You cannot credibly claim that you want to capitalise on Northern Ireland's unique trading position whilst arguing that the only real solution is to scrap it and start again. It is a political bait-and-switch, using the economic argument to smuggle in a constitutional one.

The motion also claims to support the reduction of trade friction, yet champions an outcome — rejoining the EU — that would almost certainly increase friction with our largest market, Great Britain. That is not friction reduction; it is friction redirection.

Then there is the consent issue that is at the centre of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement was designed to ensure that both communities had a say in their future and that no change to Northern Ireland's status could come without majority consent, but the motion does not read like an invitation for dialogue. It reads like a declaration of intent: a future in Europe and, by implication, outside the United Kingdom is framed not as one of many options but as an inevitability, and that does not reflect the spirit of partnership or balance that was promised in 1998 by a co-author along with us. It is quite strange but not that surprising these days.

The Assembly should be focused on stability, prosperity and a pragmatic sense of cooperation. Instead, the motion attempts to retroactively define Brexit as a national error whilst glossing over the contradictions in its argument. Members, you cannot celebrate dual access and simultaneously advocate for its elimination. You cannot claim to respect the Belfast Agreement while using it to advance a single, unilateral constitutional vision. You cannot reduce democratic complexity to a binary narrative of historic self-harm versus salvation through Brussels.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. There is a lot of thoughtful stuff in his remarks, but he said that the motion reduced the Good Friday Agreement to constitutional outcomes, but is the agreement not all about respecting constitutional aspirations, including his own?

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

Mr Butler: The Member will know that I have absolutely no issue with and totally respect the fact that we have differing constitutional priorities and visions. However, the Belfast Agreement is absolutely clear that it is about respect, and it is not about a single, unilateral direction. Today, we are speaking about the motion, and its last two sentences literally take any other avenue off the table and out of the discussion and fundamentally say that there is only one route to achieving the desires of the party.

I will conclude my comments. I urge the House to reject the motion and the amendment.

Mr McAleer: The recent reset of EU-UK relations is a positive step forward in rebuilding the bridges that were damaged by Brexit. In a time of global economic uncertainty, it is reassuring to see the removal of barriers between us and our largest trading partner, the EU.

The deal promises fewer checks and less red tape for the agri-food sector, which is essential for our farmers and rural communities. Keir Starmer has said that the boost to the UK economy will be in the region of £9 billion. However, analysts have pointed out that it will recover only a small fraction of the overall cost of Brexit, which in itself confirms it to be an act of historic, diplomatic and economic self-harm.

As I have said previously, in the North, we voted resolutely against Brexit, and its impact has been felt very keenly, especially in our agricultural heartlands. Indeed, as the agriculture spokesperson for Sinn Féin, I looked at some of the statistics to see the impact. When we left the EU, the UK Government promised that any lost EU funding would be replaced pound for pound. However, the Shared Prosperity Fund made no mention of the CAP funding being replaced. We were grossly underfunded compared with the position before Brexit. Whilst the British Tory Government did ring-fence the single farm payment budget of £330 million for a number of years, eventually that ring fence was taken away, and we were told to find the money ourselves.

Thankfully, our Ministers and our parties have agreed to ring-fence that budget within the under-pressure block grant.

Whilst that happened here, our counterparts down South received €9·8 billion for the period 2023-27 under the common agricultural policy plan. Their budget for single farm payments this year is €2·1 billion. On top of that, they have a sheep welfare scheme down South that we do not have here. They also have a beef welfare scheme. They have a €60 million agri-climate rural environment scheme (ACRES). They have a €320 million capital investment programme for farms. They also have a €0·5 billion rural development programme. We do not have a rural development programme here as a consequence of leaving the EU. That is all in the context of a much more favourable agricultural tax environment there. They have agricultural relief down South that we do not have here as a consequence of our being manacled to Westminster. On top of that — we have heard this week after week in Committee, most recently from the mushroom sector — British Home Office immigration rules are crippling the industry here. The mushroom industry here has been crippled because it cannot get seasonal workers.

It is dubious that the British Government will ever rerun the Brexit vote. That simply will not happen. It is important therefore that we have our say. We should let the people here choose: stay in a sinking UK or rejoin the EU as part of a new Ireland.

Mr Martin: I will start off by addressing some of the points made so far. When I was chatting with — he has just disappeared — the leader of the Opposition about the figures for Germany's GDP and pointed out that the figures were from 2010, the Alliance economy spokesman suggested that they were skewed, in some way, by the financial crisis in 2008, and he said that we were responsible for it. I was not sure whether he was saying that I was responsible for the 2008 crash or that my party was responsible for it; we were responsible for quite a few things. Maybe he meant that the United Kingdom was responsible for the financial crash. I have to tell him that the crash was started in the US by a financial firm called Lehman Brothers. It certainly did not start in the UK. That is one thing that we are not responsible for.

I nearly feel sorry for the Opposition for bringing the motion. I am not really sure that the leader of the Opposition warranted the attacks from the Alliance economy spokesperson in this debate. Notwithstanding that — I will certainly take an intervention from the leader of the Opposition on this — two bits of the motion are counterintuitive. Part of it states:

However, later in the motion, there is a call for us to rejoin the EU. It is unusual for a motion to praise something that, if you follow through on the logic, you will lose at the end. If he wants to pick up on that, I will certainly take an intervention.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's taking the intervention. It is a good-spirited debate. My argument is that — I think that lots of people agree with this — in the context of a new Ireland back inside the European Union, a whole range of other benefits, including economic benefits, will be unlocked. That sounds like a grand promise. I will not detain him in the middle of his speech to talk about those. Yes, there are certainly dual market access benefits that I am championing here now, and I would love to see those continue in a new Ireland. I assume that he is now on board with dual market access, given his interest in it.

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

Mr Martin: I am not sure whether the leader of the Opposition has a hotline to Mystic Meg about what a new Ireland will look like, but that is all probably speculation.

I want to reflect my fondness for Europe and for the diversity of cultures and language that are present there. I have visited Europe on many occasions. I honeymooned there. I always found Europeans to be very kind and gracious as long as you had a go at speaking their language, which I always did, although that sometimes drew wry smiles. However, that does not mean that I want my country to be in a political and economic union with Europe. I am incredibly proud to be British; other values are available. I am proud of that politically, culturally and socially. Our country — my country — was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade. As my colleague mentioned, in the last century, we stood against dictators who were hell-bent on destroying Europe. Also during the last century, the NHS was established by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who some of the Members opposite may have a passing respect for. I do not think that Northern Ireland desires to be part of a united Ireland, and I will continue to make the case for a union with the sixth-largest economy in the world.

It will be useful to give an example. We have talked, in this debate, in very high-level terms about the machinations of the motion, but think about this one example of the impact that closer EU alignment would have. The example presented itself at the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee recently. Antimicrobials are, essentially, antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal medicines with which you would treat athlete's foot, thrush or dandruff. We found out two weeks ago that there is an EU proposal to make those medicines prescription only. Think for one second about the impact that that would have if it were adopted in Northern Ireland. Think about the impact on patients if, when you wanted one of those medicines, you could get it only by having a prescription from your GP. Think about the impact on our pharmacists and the general workload of the NHS, which, as we all know, is already under pressure. I give that as one example, because we need to understand what closer alignment to the EU would mean. The Members opposite are clearly in favour of it, but it is worth reflecting, for real-world people who may be listening to the debate, that these things can have impact. This is not a problem that the Department of Health has caused in any way. In fact, the Department of Health has been very useful. In that one small example, the proposal would have an impact on every person in Northern Ireland, and the Department of Health has said that it is completely "counterproductive" to what it is trying to foster, which is self-care.

While perhaps well-meaning, and certainly in line with the SDLP's political objectives, I do not believe, to quote the motion:

I urge Members to vote against the motion.

Mr McGrath: In the surreal world of Stormont, I rise to speak after a speech that included references to Mystic Meg, thrush and dandruff. I will try my best to continue.

I do not have long to speak, so I will get straight to the point. Our place is in Europe. The motion from the Opposition is important, because it offers us a moment to consider not just where we are but who we want to be — who the majority want to be. If we truly want to be back in the European Union, with the many benefits that that would bring to us in trade, movement of people and developing communities, we need to be honest with ourselves that that road now runs through a new Ireland. To be direct, anyone who believes that we will re-enter the EU as part of the UK is either naive, fooling themselves or just wilfully blind to the reality of where we find ourselves. Our re-entry will not happen as part of the United Kingdom: that is the hard truth. If the Members who tabled the amendment were entirely honest with themselves, they would accept that the UK is not moving back towards Europe; it is drifting further away from Europe and doing so at disturbing speed. When far-right voices like Reform are gaining ground, when schools are used as political weapons and when the rich are given bigger breaks while people who are struggling are left to fend for themselves, we can no longer pretend that re-entry to the EU will come from that direction. The British state has made its choice, but we must be allowed to make ours.

I do not say that in anger or bitterness; rather, I say it with a sense of hope for the future. The truth that gives me strength every day is that Northern Ireland has shown the world what peacebuilding looks like. We have shown that history does not have to define us. Rather, it is our choices that do so. Now, we have a new challenge and a new opportunity to set a new course as one nation: a new Ireland that would take us back into Europe. In that single market of over 440 million customers, there would be stability for businesses, free movement for our young people, the rights of all and the rule of law would be enshrined, and we would be rejoining a larger family of nations.

I believe in that future. I believe in it because I have seen it first-hand in our communities. I have seen people in Downpatrick, Newcastle, Warrenpoint and further afield working hard for their communities and looking out for their neighbours. That, to me, is what the EU is about. That is not something that any of us has to fear. We have lived through a century when we have seen our world become smaller. We now live in a global neighbourhood. People such as Trump, Farage and Putin — imperial isolationists — will struggle and ultimately fail. Our neighbourhood and our future could be more welcoming, inclusive and prosperous. I urge Members to think of the future — think of their children and grandchildren and their future. If the UK will not take us back into Europe, we must ask this: what or whom will that take us towards? The United Kingdom is no longer united, nor will it act in our best interests. Let us choose a future that will look after us.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: I am on my last two words of "thank you", but, if you want, I will let you in.

Mr Brooks: The UK has announced just today that it will invest significantly in defending that neighbourhood. Does he agree that the Irish state needs to step up and do the same for its neighbours?

Mr McGrath: An arms struggle — just what our world needs at this exact time. Maybe it is that mentality that we need to try to challenge. I hope that we can challenge that as part of Europe and not as part of the disunited United Kingdom.

Mr Brett: Well, well, well: the rigorous implementers have well and truly fallen out with themselves. Barnier's "Brady Bunch", who all went down to Dublin together to try to impose the current sanctions here in Northern Ireland, have now fallen out because, unfortunately, the Alliance Party, through wilful ignorance or intentional neglect, has found out what the imposition of the protocol was really all about. In fairness to the leader of the Opposition and Sinn Féin, they made it clear for the entirety of the way through that they saw the implementation of those measures as a constitutional attack on Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, but the Alliance Party, so blinded by its loyalty to its EU masters, went along with it.

Unfortunately, the motion means that the Alliance Party's fence sitting has to come to an end. That is why we have seen Members on the Benches opposite being so irate with the Opposition for tabling the motion: they have called their political bluff. Instead of aiming the entirety of their contributions at the Democratic Unionist Party and insulting the 17·2 million people across the United Kingdom who willingly expressed their democratic consent to leave the European Union, they may wish to look at how they behaved over the past nine years. It was clear that it was always going to end like this. When you get caught out, you lash out at those who are closest to you. We have seen the leader of the Opposition being subjected to that abuse because, unfortunately, he has politically outmanoeuvred them here today.

Remarks that have been made explain why the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. They see their political leaders talk down to them as though they are intellectually or morally inferior because they dared to choose to leave the European project. We thought that we had learnt lessons from doing that, but, instead, we have Members saying that 17·2 million people decided to leave the European Union because of an advert in the 'Metro' newspaper. I will just remind the Members for East Antrim and Lagan Valley, who have spent their time attacking that democratic decision, that their constituents — not mine — voted to leave the European Union.

Mr McGrath did a much better job than I ever could of attacking his sister party, the Labour Government, and the terrible policy decisions that they have taken. I just hope that, at the next Westminster election, when we hear party political broadcasts telling us to vote for the SDLP because it has an in with Labour and can influence its decisions, Mr McGrath will be a bit more honest with the public, because the SDLP has no influence over or say in the issues on which the Labour Government will decide.

Finally, I will pick up on some of the points made. It was said that we have to be a member of the European Union to preserve peace in Northern Ireland or to be kind to our neighbours. Let me be clear once again: the European Union did not deliver peace in Northern Ireland. It was the public at large, who rejected terrorism from wherever it came, rejected paramilitarism and stood up to those terrorist thugs, who delivered peace here. We do not need to be part of the European project to know right from wrong. Looking after our neighbours is a core value of people in Northern Ireland, be they unionist, nationalist or neither. We do not need to be a part of the European Union to continue to show generosity.

I see Mr Honeyford getting active in his seat, so I am happy to give way to him.

Mr Honeyford: I do not know where that part of your speech came from, but it is interesting that the DUP has caught up now. In 1998, the DUP did not agree with any of what you have just said. Your party did not vote for it. You campaigned against peace. You did not want to see an agreement. It is good to see that you have caught up.

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

Mr Brett: As a seven-year-old, I did not have too much say at the time of the Belfast Agreement.

Mr Honeyford: As a party.

Mr Brett: This party has never campaigned against peace. This party, unlike your party, campaigned against the release of terrorists who continue to inflict damage on society today, so your party should be the one that is ashamed of itself, not Members on these Benches.

The people of Northern Ireland want us to focus on the issues that matter most to them: fixing our NHS, growing our economy and sorting out issues with childcare. That is where the focus of this party will continue to be. It is clear that the non-binding motion from the SDLP will not pass today, nor will the Alliance amendment. We have managed to spend two hours of precious time rehashing the arguments of nine years ago, but, finally, we have exposed the Alliance Party for what it is: a party that blindly follows the pan-nationalist front that wants to deliver Irish unity.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what has been an interesting and exciting debate. I wholeheartedly push back on the notion that discussing the constitutional question is inherently negative. It is being perceived today as something that, by its nature, is problematic or controversial: I could not disagree more.

I was born and raised on this island. I am a passionate Irish nationalist, and, as a nationalist, I like to talk about our constitutional future on this island, as is my right. I respect the right, ability and position of my unionist colleagues to argue against me, because, whichever way we cut it, we all call this place "home" and are allowed to take pride in our political and cultural identity and in our constitutional belief. That is neither controversial nor divisive; it is our birthright, having being born here.

Although it may be politically beneficial for some Members to strike down anyone who speaks about a brighter future in a new Ireland while they, on the fence, are perceived as the good guys who care about the here and now, I see it differently. Those who condemn the motion being discussed today are enablers for no change. They are the maintainers of the status quo, and they are arguably the very deniers of true, tangible change being achieved on this island. Another good point is that the Good Friday Agreement is the backbone of this Building. It allows us to live in peace and gives us the freedom to identify as Irish, as British and as both.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Not at this time, no.

It provides us with the right to self-determination on which the SDLP led in 1998. If Members feel that that makes us irrelevant, they should feel free to thank us and the UUP on the way out for the peace that we helped to secure.

The argument against talking about a new Ireland in Europe is fundamentally flawed. To state that any discussion of our political future is divisive is not only foolish but entirely incorrect, and it does a disservice to the very essence of the Good Friday Agreement. Painting anyone who wishes to engage in political discussions on such matters as troublemakers, as problematic or as stuck in the past is politically shrewd, but it is painfully transparent. While everyone else is the big bad wolf for talking about the constitutional question, a certain party claims to be focused on the everyday issues. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am here to say that, thankfully, we in the SDLP can walk and chew gum. We can do both and have done so since 1998, and we have had a backbone while doing it.

Northern Ireland is struggling to work. That is self-evident from the waiting lists, the unacceptable lack of support for those in need and much more. There is another way to provide a better life for our people here. We in the SDLP believe firmly that that is in a new Ireland in Europe, and we will not feel awkward or ashamed or be painted as being divisive for believing so. In 1973, Ireland and the United Kingdom took a bold and visionary step by joining the European Economic Community. That move was more than economic; it was symbolic. It represented a conscious choice by both states to move forward on a shared path of peace, prosperity and partnership. Membership of the EU helped the UK secure billions in foreign direct investment and opened its doors to many of the best and brightest minds across Europe who call here "home". Moreover, European integration was the context in which peace was delivered. It helped soften borders, reduce tensions and foster cross-border institutions and solutions. The EU was not a bystander to peace: it was, in many ways, a guarantor of peace.

We feel strongly that there is only one real alternative in which Northern Ireland and its people can decisively effect change. That is within a European future, which the majority of our people want. It is vital that all of us recognise that our interests are better served as part of a new Ireland back in Europe. How long will our children in the North look to the South — at a thriving economy and a stable government, with endless opportunities — while we in the North can offer our young people so little? That is reflected in the brain drain. Our future belongs in the united new Ireland, and I firmly believe that we will see it in our lifetime. There is still time for those on the fence to recognise the benefits that it can bring to all of us across all of our communities.

Mr Gaston: The only aspect of the motion that I welcome is the public falling out that we have seen between the SDLP and the nationalist and republican Alliance about who can beat their chest the most and say that they are biggest Europhiles in Stormont. By all means, the comedy is good and the crack is good, and I hope that they continue it in the weeks and months ahead.

The very fact that the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal is between the EU and Great Britain is confirmation that Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU. The SDLP may try to spin that as a positive step forward, but the facts remain. Northern Ireland is still wholly subject to the EU's customs code. There is no reduction in the customs border or its expensive bureaucracy. Regulation (EU) 2017/625, which treats Northern Ireland as EU territory and GB as a third country, remains untouched. EU tariffs and checks still apply: why are the UK Government still spending £190 million on Irish Sea border infrastructure? The parcels border remains. Non-food goods face the same red tape; and there has been no removal of the Irish Sea border, only more PR and deception.

On Wednesday, at the Executive Office Committee, we were briefed by Executive Office officials who said that regulatory divergence from GB is not an issue any more. Is the DUP happy that that nonsense is coming from civil servants under the direction of the Department led by the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly? One official even claimed that there is no real issue with EU tariffs on GB goods entering Northern Ireland, because businesses can claim the money back. Really? Tell that to Richard Snape, owner of the Wooden Floor Company in Belfast. Speaking on 'The Nolan Show' last month, he outlined how a 49% anti-dumping tariff on wooden flooring from outside the EU has hammered his business. He runs shops in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland but can no longer move goods freely from GB to Northern Ireland. Yes, he can reclaim the tariff through the duty reimbursement scheme, but what does he have to say about that? He says:

Members, that is the real-world impact of the protocol. That is the reality of the divergence that, the Executive Office officials, claimed did not exist. Let us be clear: the motion is not pro-business. It has a pro-Brussels, pro-border and pro-break-up-of-the-United-Kingdom agenda. The motion and the amendment should be rejected in their entirety. They speak for Europhiles and border builders; they do not speak for the businesses that are impacted by the very thing that they champion.

Ms Sugden: When I became an MLA, I, like every MLA in the House, was required, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to designate as unionist, nationalist or other. I have no difficulty in being honest about a view that I have every right to hold, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. In fact, I have a responsibility to take a position, not just because of our past and what we should not go back to but because of our future, in that that choice might one day be put to a referendum. I appreciate that, for many people, constitutional identity is not a daily concern, but, as an elected representative, I know that it shapes how we fund, deliver and improve public services. That would look very different in a united Ireland.

I am a unionist because I believe that the Union gives us the most stable and fair foundation on which to deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland through properly resourced public services and a model that redistributes according to need. That does not make me sectarian or orange, as opposed to green — indeed, I am both and every colour in between — but it makes me focused on how we best meet the needs of the people whom we were elected to represent.

I am disappointed by the motion. Those who tabled it will have known that unionists could not support it. In doing so, they have moved away from the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, which recognises that Northern Ireland's future is a matter for its people. It is not about motions that promote one outcome over another in the Chamber. The motion goes beyond economic cooperation and uses trade language to advance a constitutional project that points towards Irish unity and EU re-entry. Of course, as a unionist, I cannot support that. What was to be the outcome of the debate? To divide the House? That is disappointing.

I fully respect those who hold a view different from mine. Nationalism is a legitimate aspiration, just as unionism is. The agreement did not ask us to abandon those identities; it asked us to express them peacefully and with respect. Of course, we have serious challenges with public services. Health services are under severe pressure; the housing system is stretched beyond breaking point; and our education sector is having to choose between cost and developing our children in the way that we should be. Those challenges are not unique to us, but they are perhaps in a more critical state because of years of political instability and dysfunction. However, despite all that, the Union still gives us the means, if properly governed, to protect and improve public services fairly and equitably. Too often, those who call Northern Ireland "a failure" are the people who have held power here for a decade or more. If it is failing, maybe they need to take responsibility for that. It is not a failure of the constitutional framework; it is a failure of government parties to deliver.

The tools we are here. We benefit from block grant funding, diplomatic standing and market access as part of one of the world's largest economies. However, those advantages matter only if we have the leadership in the Chamber to turn them into outcomes. That is why I have always taken a pragmatic view of big constitutional shifts, including Brexit. I voted Remain, not because I felt especially European but because I understood how deeply rooted and intertwined our systems had become and how disruptive a Leave vote would be with an open land border. Everything that has happened since has shown how difficult it has been to navigate that.

Some say that Brexit has brought us closer to a united Ireland. I argue the opposite: it has shown how disastrous constitutional upheaval can be, and, in Northern Ireland, with our layered identity, law and infrastructure, the consequences would be even more destabilising and far-reaching. What concerns me is how the conversations are increasingly being framed as though they are heading in one direction. A united Ireland is not inevitable; in fact, opinion polls consistently show that we are nowhere near to having a majority in support of constitutional change.

We are hearing more about momentum than reality, and that often ignores the fact that many who would vote to stay in the Union feel politically unrepresented.

Unionism is often misrepresented as being narrow or outdated. I understand why. That is why I am independent. Many of the largest parties represent conservative views, but that is not the whole story. You can believe in the Union and be progressive. You can support LGBT rights, call out injustice in Gaza or advocate for women's equality and still support remaining in the UK. Many of those who support staying in the Union take a centrist or centre-left view but feel politically homeless. The drop in support for the unionist parties suggests that there is a drop in support for the Union, but that is not the case. That is a shallow argument and one that we need to look at.

I will not support the motion not because I do not value cooperation with the EU but because I do not accept the framing that our future is already decided. It is far from it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Claire. Thank you. The next Member to speak is Eóin Tennyson, who will wind on the amendment. Eóin, you have five minutes.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. In the five years since the UK left the EU and almost a decade since the referendum, we still have no sign of a single, solitary benefit of Brexit. We are still waiting on even a glimpse of the "sunlit uplands" that were promised by the grifters who promoted Brexit in the first place. Brexit has changed our place not only in Europe but in the wider world, and, with that, our ability to respond to global challenges, including climate change, peace and security, poverty and migration. It also damaged the UK economy, contrary to what a number of DUP Members have said. Those Members need only take a cursory glance at the economic growth that Northern Ireland has enjoyed relative to GB, or, indeed, at our export growth under the Windsor framework. They need only compare those with the alternative to see the protections that are now in place and the dividends that we are reaping from them for our economy.

Of course, the borders and barriers that Brexit has created have been felt most acutely in Northern Ireland. They have threatened the delicate balance of relationships upon which we, as an interdependent and shared society, rely. We in Alliance have always been clear that the key to resolving those tensions is closer alignment with the EU. The people of Northern Ireland know that too. That is why people from across our community voted in 2016 to remain and why they have voted in increasing numbers since for parties that recognise the need for pragmatic solutions. Meanwhile, as we heard today, those who cheerled Brexit are in complete denial about how we got here and where we should go next. The DUP continues to engage in the same fantasy politics that walked us into this position in the first place, calling for the removal of the Windsor framework in the absence of any credible or workable alternative. The recent UK-EU summit was undoubtedly a step in the right direction, finally embracing the veterinary agreement, which Alliance was the first party to call for. It has been remarkable to watch the longest U-turn in history by Members from the DUP, who now seem to also embrace that solution.

In an increasingly uncertain and unstable world, where there is war in Europe, tech broligarchy threatening to interfere with democracy and an unpredictable occupant in the White House, the reset of the relationship between the UK and the EU is more important than ever. However, we want to go further. We want to build a closer and more dynamic relationship with Europe, with progress being made on issues such as veterinary medicines, forming a customs union and, ultimately, reversing Brexit, as that is the only way to deal with the tensions, contradictions and frictions that have been posed for Northern Ireland in particular.

In coming to the debate, we felt that an amendment was necessary for a number of reasons. I will walk through those in turn. The first is the fact that there are two routes back to the EU. Those are either via the UK as a whole reconsidering its position or via constitutional change under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. We can quarrel in the Chamber over which of those is the more likely, but that is a factual statement. Our amendment recognises, with parity of esteem and without diminishing the motion, the opposing aspirations of some Members. More fundamentally, irrespective of whether Northern Ireland is in the UK or part of a united Ireland, I do not want to see borders or barriers anywhere on these islands. It is in our interests, as an interdependent society, therefore, for both the UK and Ireland to be full EU members. That would avoid those tensions and frictions, irrespective of our constitutional position. The coalition for Remain in Northern Ireland drew support from across our community from people who are nationalist, people who are unionist or people who do not fit comfortably into either of those boxes. Our amendment recognises the diversity in that coalition, which has been the strength of the pro-European Union movement in Northern Ireland over many years.

I will reflect on some of what was said in the debate. I agreed with Cara Hunter when she talked about respect for different constitutional perspectives and about constitutional change not being inherently negative or divisive, with people being entitled to express their view. I agree with that, but she proceeded to deride, insult and dismiss those of us who are non-aligned as fence sitters. That is an interesting strategy to persuade people to come around to your side of the argument. Crucially, however — I would expect the SDLP to know this — the motion is not inherently divisive. If it were simply a question of having a non-binding vote in the Assembly to determine our constitutional future, we would have sorted it out a hundred or more years ago. The only outcome of the debate will be that people will discover that the DUP and UUP are unionist, the Alliance Party is non-aligned and Sinn Féin and the SDLP are nationalist. You could have asked a school student that and got the same answer.

We implore all Members to support the amendment as an inclusive —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Tennyson: — way forward on the issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude the debate by making a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who participated in a lively and important debate. It is an important debate. I turn to what Mr Tennyson just said, which was, I think, that we could have had this debate over 100 years ago and that it revealed only that one group of people is unionist, another group is nationalist and another group is unaligned. That was not the purpose of the debate. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, my patience may be tried. I am trying to be emollient and calm in this debate and not rise to provocation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, leave that to me. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: OK. Let me just say this: we all had to sign in. After we became MLAs, because of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, we all had to designate as "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other". I designate as "Nationalist" and "Social Democrat". I am also proudly pro-European. I am proud to be Irish, and I believe that there should not be a border on this island, but everything about my life, my family and the way in which I live and approach politics has been cross-border and cross-community. I have lived most of my adult life on the island of Britain rather than the island of Ireland. I do not belong in a narrow, binary box.

I sometimes feel that the party that, more than any other in the Chamber, is constantly obsessed with binary categories is the party that does not designate, and that can be frustrating. I do not want to have a debate purely based on the categories of unionist or nationalist. [Interruption.]

I am already hearing hectoring from a sedentary position. I do not want to have a debate on that basis; I want to have a debate about Northern Ireland being back in the EU. OK? I respect everyone's political perspective, whether they take a position on the constitution or whether they, like Claire Sugden, have a position on the constitution that is decided and clear but entirely different from other people who have the same designation, which Claire Sugden articulated very well.

The point was made that there are two routes back into the EU for Northern Ireland. In a theoretical, literal sense, that is true. In fact, one could have added to the motion other potential routes for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU. There used to be, going way back, a marginal theory in parts of loyalism that Northern Ireland should unilaterally declare independence. Northern Ireland could, theoretically, declare independence and then seek to accede to the EU. We could try to join France, Belgium or Poland. I say that not to be facetious but to talk reality. The UK is, I am afraid, extremely unlikely to rejoin the EU. With the politics of Britain —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: — as they are — I will give way in a moment — there is probably no more than a 5% chance that, in the decade or two to come, there will be a move towards a vote to rejoin, which is the stated position of no major party that is represented in Parliament. I will give way to Mr Tennyson.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that he likes to see himself as a modern-day Nostradamus, but most of the rest of us in the Chamber are self-aware enough to know that none of us can predict the future. The Member may be right in his analysis that Farage will sweep the board and become Prime Minister, but it is equally possible that pro-European parties will end up in coalition, so can we not debate where we are as we stand rather than what will happen 10, 15 or 30 years down the road, as none of us knows the answer to that question?

Mr O'Toole: I offered the Member an intervention for the purpose of the debate, and I am glad that he said that, because — let me be clear — at the minute, those do not seem like equal propositions. He said that, in British politics, a Government involving Nigel Farage and a Government involving a pro-European coalition that would push for a second referendum seem equally likely. Those are not equal propositions at the minute, and no serious observer of British politics thinks that they are. Here is the important point, however, and this is what our motion is all about: even if they were, we have no say over that. No one in the Chamber and none of our voters have much say over that at all.

I think that it is really important — others disagree — that we send MPs to Westminster to articulate the interests of our constituents, even though I aspire to a different constitutional position, but the votes of people here will not fundamentally shift the tenor of UK politics.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second.

We cannot shift that. We are about a million and a half voters out of 60 million.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way. I have already given way. By the way, the Member will not debate me. His party has refused to debate me tonight on UTV. If he wishes to make an intervention, he can join me on television in a couple of hours' time. I am told that the Alliance party has pulled out.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, will you —.

Mr O'Toole: I will return to the subject of the debate, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If Alliance Members want more interventions, they can see me at UTV in an hour's time. Apparently, they were not so keen on doing that, but we are here in the Chamber.

The point about the options for European Union membership is that there is no serious route back in. I would genuinely love the UK to rejoin the European Union. If there were a referendum in the next five years, I would canvass for the UK to rejoin. As a civil servant, I worked hard to keep the UK in, so I have direct knowledge of this, and I do not think that it is likely. The campaign — the argument for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union — is the only viable, realistic route for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU. I genuinely do not think that that is a controversial point. It is also the case that it is the only option over which we and our voters, the people who elect us, have a clear ability to affect the outcome. That is true. Even if UK politics were moving towards Remain — it definitely is not — we cannot move it. If there were a referendum, we could be easily outvoted by voters in England. For all those reasons, there is one clear, decisive option to get back into the European Union.

I will come on to some of the points that Members made. The debate has been really interesting. Some of the comments have been relatively testy, but others have been good-natured. It is important to have such debates in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is nothing illegitimate about debating the constitutional future, and the debates do not have to fall into binary categories. As I said, lots of the people whom I represent are from unionist backgrounds and are interested in the debate. I hear from them all the time. I know them. I do not just represent those people; they are my friends.

There is nothing in our motion about the politics of exclusion, as Mr Honeyford said that there was. Those words are put in my mouth by the Alliance Party. Mr Honeyford also called the SDLP irrelevant. That is not really an appropriate way in which to engage in debate here. We have the same number of MLAs as his party had before the last elections, so let us just park all that stuff, please.

I very much want the best possible future for all the people of Northern Ireland. I want a future that leads to proper investment in our public services and ends the division that has held our people back for far too long. I genuinely believe, and my party has always believed, that the European context is a really hopeful and positive way for us not just to manage but to celebrate that diversity. By the way, that would also mean an enhanced and close relationship with the UK state after we re-entered the European Union.

Lots of the comments were interesting. Declan Kearney correctly said that there is a democratic deficit. I acknowledge that. Those of us who support the protocol acknowledge that. That is why we want to see improvements. David Brooks made interesting and robust remarks, and I was glad to have him participating in the debate. Robbie Butler said that there was a predetermined outcome from our motion. No: we have a predetermined view, but it is our job to persuade people. In the same way, he has a predetermined view about the status quo, and it is an entirely legitimate one that he is more than able to deploy. Peter Martin talked about being proud to be British. It is really important that I, as someone who advocates a European future for Northern Ireland, not just acknowledge his Britishness but celebrate it and that of all the people who vote for him. I have no vision of the future that does not involve Britishness in this part of the island being treasured, celebrated and special. That is why I think that the European context is so important for our future.

Phillip Brett, who, I think, is not here now, said, among other things, that the protocol was always part of pursuing a constitutional endpoint. It genuinely was not and is not. Ultimately, people in Northern Ireland and the Republic will get the say over the constitutional future. It will not be the EU or the UK.

To go back to the point that Northern Ireland rejoining the EU is really only viable via a new Ireland, it is true to say that Sinn Féin MEPs have worked on it, but the very first commitment from a UK Government Minister was secured by our former party leader Mark Durkan. He secured a commitment from the UK Government in 2017 that Northern Ireland would automatically rejoin the EU upon a vote for a new Ireland. No such equivalent commitment exists. There is not even a formal accession process under way or theoretically under way for the UK at any point in the future.

Timothy Gaston made his points robustly, as always. It is probably unlikely that Timothy will vote for the motion or the amendment, but he set out his views.

I understand why Claire Sugden will not vote for the motion. She said that she was disappointed in the motion because it effectively sets out a constitutional aspiration. She then went on to explain eloquently why she is a unionist. There is nothing wrong with her explaining why she is a unionist, just as there is nothing wrong with me explaining why a new Ireland back in Europe is the best possible future for Northern Ireland. We will continue to make that case positively and constructively in the Chamber and elsewhere. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on the motion, I advise that, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3) —.

A Member: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Oh, yes. [Laughter.]

In accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, whichever is earlier.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr McGrath: Reluctantly, I propose the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That means that the Assembly may sit until 8.30 pm if necessary.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. I have also been notified that junior Minister Reilly is responding today on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is on departmental business in London.

Sinéad, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Local businesses across our region are suffering. They struggle to pay their bills and face relentless pressure from online competition and falling footfall on our high streets. Now they are being hit again, this time by a steep rise in employer's National Insurance contributions. However, let us be clear: this is not a new issue but a crisis that has been building for years. Businesses across the region are still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis that followed. Those are not abstract forces but real pressures that are felt every day by traders in our town centres, local employers and the workers and families whom they support.

A report by Ulster University called 'The impact of the increased Cost of Doing Business' lays bare the scale of the challenge. Let me tell you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, it makes for grim reading. The report warns that the combined effect of National Insurance contribution increases and changes to the national living wage will fall hardest on Northern Ireland for three key reasons: our average earnings are lower than those anywhere else in the UK; we have more people who are employed in low-paid work; and our community and public service providers have limited scope to absorb further cost increases. That is not just a statistical anomaly but the result of years of political failure by Governments who have either been absent or unwilling to act.

While other Administrations across the UK have introduced targeted support or fiscal interventions to shield their businesses, the Government in Northern Ireland have let time pass. They have allowed pressure to mount and have compounded the crisis through inaction. The result has been devastating. We have the highest share of workers on the minimum wage in the UK: one in 10. That means that a part-time worker on the minimum wage now costs an employer 14% more to employ. For small businesses that are already battling to stay open, that is an enormous burden.

The crisis is not just hitting retail but is hammering the voluntary and community organisations, our GP practices and dental surgeries, our hospitality and tourism employers and our creative and cultural industries. Those are the people and organisations that care for us when we are sick, support our most vulnerable, feed our families and keep the lights on in our towns and villages. Failure to support them is failure to support the very fabric of our society. When local businesses close, it is not just the closure of a shop but the loss of jobs, local services, pride in our place and confidence in our economy. It is another blow to towns such as mine in Derry. We see businesses in my Foyle constituency close every week not because they are mismanaged but because the conditions in which they are expected to survive have become impossibly hostile. Derry should be thriving, and our high streets should all be full of life, with shoppers, tourists and local entrepreneurs, but, instead, they are filled with vacancy signs.

The National Insurance hike is only part of the problem, and I have seen first-hand how the current challenges compound that. Our energy prices are among the highest in Europe due to underinvestment in our grid and delays in delivering the North/South interconnector. Our business rates system is outdated, antiquated and unfair, punishing regeneration instead of rewarding it. Our broken waste water infrastructure is blocking new homes, stalling commercial investment and deterring business expansion.

Those are not theoretical issues; they are barriers to growth, plain and simple.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has warned that the UK Budget will leave businesses carrying the weight of an astronomical quarter of a trillion pounds in new taxes. While the increase in the employment allowance is welcome, the FSB has said that the Budget contains little to inspire growth or entrepreneurship. Retail NI has also raised the alarm, setting out a five-point recovery plan that includes the reconvening of the high street task force; the creation of a cost of doing business advisory forum; and planning reform to support town centre revitalisation.

The message is clear: Governments, at all levels, must act to address that perfect storm. Despite those urgent calls, little progress has been made. I understand that these are difficult problems, but they are solvable if there is the political will to solve them. The Executive must stop sitting on their hands. We can take real, practical steps: investing in energy infrastructure and delivering the North/South interconnector to reduce costs; reforming business rates so that they reward investment and support our town centres; fixing our waste water infrastructure so that we can unlock development; and, crucially, reconvening the high street task force to create a joined-up, cross-departmental strategy to back local businesses.

That is why today's motion matters. It asks for the bare minimum in response to a crisis that is already well under way. Its asks should not be controversial; they should be common sense. Our businesses do not need more warm words. They need action and reform, and they need government to finally be on their side. Northern Ireland can be a great place to do business. We have the talent, creativity and determination, but that potential will continue to be wasted if we remain on the path of delay and denial. We must act now before more businesses are lost, more workers are laid off and more communities are hollowed out. The Executive need to take action today, stand up for local businesses and jobs and do what it takes to turn the crisis around.

Ms Forsythe: I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have been long aware of the pressures on our local businesses across many sectors, including childcare, which underpins all sectors. The Labour Government's announcement in October about the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions and the rate of the minimum wage at short notice and without warning was a huge blow to businesses, especially in Northern Ireland where our economy has a high number of small businesses.

The Finance Committee had a joint Committee event with the Economy Committee on all those issues. We then issued a report outlining the issues and brought that to the Chamber. The previous Finance Minister also commissioned a review of the cost of doing business from Ulster University. Its sentiment was welcome, as it recognised the need of the sector, but, on its completion, it outlined nothing new. All the same issues that we have been lobbied on at length and have worked through were laid down again in more detail. However, as the report was commissioned by our Northern Ireland Finance Minister, the hope was that, on its completion, the Finance Minister would use it as a basis to take firm action to support under-pressure local businesses in Northern Ireland. However, that does not appear to be the case. I agree with the point in the motion that the Minister needs to do more than just forward the report to the Treasury.

This morning, I heard the Finance Minister say on the radio that he was going to London today to meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the two key points that he said he would make were on increasing the level of funding need for Northern Ireland and funding for Casement Park. The case for increasing the level of funding need for Northern Ireland has been well made, and the campaign has been led by the DUP and Gavin Robinson MP for some years, so we welcome the Finance Minister's taking that up. However, it was disappointing that his other priority was to make the case not for struggling businesses here in Northern Ireland but for Casement Park. When the deputy First Minister recently met the Prime Minister, she took the opportunity to raise directly the pressures on Northern Ireland businesses from the increase in National Insurance contributions and the increase in the minimum wage and the pressures placed upon family farms. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Finance Minister will not take the opportunity to highlight those issues, but I hope that he will do so going forward.

The cost of doing business research provides clear evidence of the challenges that are faced by businesses and how those vary across sectors. One would have thought that that evidence would provide the Minister with the ability to see what targeted support was required, yet it appears that the solution is to write to the Government. The Minister cannot shirk responsibility and must use the levers at his disposal. Our amendment seeks to enhance the original motion and include further powers that are at the Minister's disposal. High-street retailers have been complaining for years about the soaring cost of business rates, which is a property-based tax. They tend to pay far higher rates than online rivals that do not have stores to run. There is a long-standing need for the reform of business rates to reflect commercial realities and business trends. Additional pressures are placed on businesses as a result of the increase in their National Insurance contributions and the risk that online corporates can undercut retailers with a presence in our towns and high streets.

Reality is laid bare in the cost of doing business report. The rates review, which the Minister of Finance and the Executive have agreed to undertake, is an important step in making sure that we continue to target and support businesses. However, that work must be expedited. The Minister must progress that work at pace. April has been and gone, and businesses face numerous challenges due to the changes in National Insurance and the living wage. Every Member in the Chamber has been lobbied by businesses that operate across retail, hospitality, childcare and healthcare that are lumbered with those additional burdens. Bespoke rates relief has been provided for retail, hospitality and leisure in England at a rate of 75% in recent years. In Wales, the rate relief is lower, at 40%, but it is still a crucial means of support for industries that have weathered the storm of the pandemic only to find themselves cast into a cost-of-living crisis where energy costs, other inputs and overheads are soaring. Work on non-domestic vacant rating is crucial. The current discount is helping to sustain the dereliction of our high streets and towns across Northern Ireland. We in the DUP have been champions of the manufacturing sector for many years and the delivery of the industrial derating policy ensures that manufacturers across Northern Ireland benefit from the rate relief that they deserve.

Our amendment seeks to enhance the original motion. It calls for action, not just the re-gathering of groups and formation of new ones. We want to see real action from the Finance Minister in response to the cost of doing business report, on the previous recommendations of the high street task force report and on rates reform — sooner rather than later. Businesses in Northern Ireland need to see action. We need to see delivery to support our local businesses, grow the Northern Ireland economy and deliver on the commitment to making Northern Ireland work.

Mr Honeyford: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, David. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. David, you have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have debated the issue of high streets several times in the Chamber. I want to concentrate on that and look at it and the wider business around it. The reason for commissioning reports is to gather evidence, look at best practice, enable, deliver and bring through change that will help our high streets to flourish once again.

The cost of doing business report by the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre and the previous high street task force report, when put together, clearly lay out the concerns that need to be addressed. Often in the House, we see a photo opportunity for the launch of a report, another in the receiving of that report and a third when a statement is made here. The perception is that that is the job done, rather than it being only the beginning of the work. The lack of action to implement reports, to take difficult decisions and to deliver is where the frustration of our business community with the Assembly comes from. It undermines the credibility of the Assembly as a whole. Businesses in our community do not have time to waste. They do not work to the same timelines as the government processes; they need quick, fast action.

The Alliance amendment simply calls on the Minister for the Economy to work to publish proposals and set out how those recommendations can actually be implemented. It puts focus on the Department for the Economy and its remit, rather than exclusively on the First Minister and deputy First Minister's office, so that the issues can be addressed.

When you see the issues that the report addresses, you see that rate relief is not being passed on. The money that is coming from Treasury is being used for something else. Look at Bow Street in my city of Lisburn. I have engaged with businesses, property owners and shopping centres there to look at what could be achieved, brought forward or done differently. I have asked them, "If there were a blank page, what would you do?". I have brought property and business owners there together to discuss their ambitions. I have brought in architects to put that down on paper and "space shape" a vision for the future. I look forward to moving on that quickly in the near future.

Fundamentally, what are we aiming to fix? What should our future look like? We need to enable a reshaping and repurposing of our town centres to create vibrant, regenerative, sustainable places that are thriving and inclusive, and where retail plays a huge role but the burden to drive footfall is not placed on just one sector; it is opened up. The high street task force report details a lot of that.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. Recently, I asked a question of the Executive Office about the high street task force report. Its rather weak answer was that it had sent questions to each Department to ask what action it is taking. Clearly, there was no leadership. As the Member has said, it is all about the launch, the photo opportunity and the report itself, then nothing happens.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you for your intervention. The feeling is that there is a blockage when stuff goes into the Executive Office.

We need to start delivering for businesses and the wider economy. We need to look at rate relief, but, more widely than that, we need a restructuring of the rating system that encourages the reworking that Sinéad talked about: a rethinking of our town centres that encourages investment and mixed use that tips the advantage towards redevelopment and developing places where we would shop, live, go out and enjoy hospitality and the arts and be entertained in our streets; a place that is a home but somewhere that people can also work. We need to tip the tax advantage towards town centres to encourage growth and also, as has been referenced, for large manufacturing companies and other businesses. In Northern Ireland, we need a system that is best for us and delivers our goals and what we are trying to achieve over the next while.

How can it be right that we give rate relief to an empty building in our town centre that is falling down and left to rot, yet we give no support to struggling businesses that are the heartbeat of our town centre, commit to the town centre, provide employment in the town centre and create spaces that the whole community needs and enjoys? When you look at the recommendations that come through, be they on planning, rate reviews, the Town Centre First policy or parking, you see that we need to start acting and working towards solutions. None of those is being held up by financial constraints. Work towards that needs to happen now. It is being held up simply because of lack of ambition and the speed of delivery in this place. Our businesses need focus and the help and support that we can deliver. That needs to happen as soon as possible.

Miss Dolan: Our local economy is highly dependent on the contribution of small and medium-sized businesses. Therefore, it is deeply concerning when decisions are made by politicians in Britain that do not take into account the circumstances and context in which businesses here operate.

That is exactly what happened last year. Decisions taken by the British Chancellor in her autumn statement have, as the cost of doing business impact report by the Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre has highlighted, had a more detrimental impact on various sectors in the North, such as agriculture, hospitality, retail, arts and entertainment, as well as voluntary and community organisations, than on their counterparts in Britain. The commissioning of the report was a proactive approach taken by the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, as a response to the concerns of local businesses following the autumn statement. While it mentions various factors that have contributed to the challenges faced by local businesses, the raising of employers' National Insurance contributions is recognised as having had a significant impact that affects the North more due to our lower earnings.

The current Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, has continued the work of his predecessor by pressing the British Government on various fiscal matters, including ensuring that we are funded at the correct level of need and sending that report to the British Treasury to highlight the operating context of our businesses and to push for greater consideration of our circumstances as we move forward. As we all should be aware, the Executive do not have the financial powers or capabilities to mitigate negative taxation and spending decisions by the British Government. Therefore, it is appropriate that we continue to challenge them and provide the best supporting evidence that we can to do just that.

I had thought, in light of previous motions that the SDLP had tabled on Opposition days, including one specifically on greater fiscal devolution, that the SDLP was aware of the limits of our financial powers. However, today's motion seems to contradict that assumption, as it fails to recognise where the main financial levers of power lie and, indeed, where major decisions that have detrimentally impacted on our local businesses have been taken.

I take the opportunity to recognise the positive interventions by the Finance Minister to support businesses in recent months, including implementing recommendations of the high street task force report, such as the extension of small business rate relief, which provides reductions of between 20% and 50% to around 30,000 businesses, and the Back in Business scheme, which encourages growth in our high streets. The rural ATM scheme is another measure that has an important role to play in helping to retain access to cash in our rural communities. The review of small business rate relief, which forms part of the strategic road map for rates announced in December, has also been prioritised by the Minister to help to stimulate the economy and support the growth of the tax base. As the only major tax that the Executive have control over, the regional rate is a vital source of income that supports the delivery of our public services. Therefore, any consideration of further rates relief in addition to the quarter of a billion currently provided for, as suggested in one of the amendments, needs to take into account the wider impact that that could have. The report also underscored the costs of partition by highlighting the negative impact that the different VAT rates in the two jurisdictions have on our economy, particularly on the hospitality sector in border areas, such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

The upcoming spending review by the British Government is an opportunity for them to change course from previous decisions that have significantly contributed to making the cost of doing business more difficult here. The report by Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre has reiterated the harm that can be done when decisions made by elected representatives in Westminster do not prioritise the interests of our citizens. It shows why there is growing desire to see Irish unity, which would enable economic and political decisions to be taken by those elected by the people here.

Ms D Armstrong: I do not believe that any of us in the House can fully grasp the financial challenges that many local businesses currently face. They are navigating a constant state of uncertainty in costs, in global markets and in government policy. One thing that they can be certain of is this: spiralling costs that continue to rise.

As a former business owner who once took a gamble without thinking twice about costs, I look at the challenges that entrepreneurs face today and ask myself, "Would I take that same gamble in today's climate?". We are, effectively, taxing businesses out of existence, so probably not. That is why I welcome the cost of doing business report. It presents a stark and sobering picture of reality. It brings to the forefront the serious challenges facing the business and manufacturing sectors in Northern Ireland and the real danger that many businesses may not survive, potentially plunging our economy into recession. We now have the facts. We now have a road map. What we need now is action. The Minister for the Economy must outline the support measures that she intends to pursue to sustain the Northern Ireland economy, particularly for small businesses in regions such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which I represent.

It is not enough to present it solely as a UK Treasury issue. Yes, Westminster policies such as the increase in employers' National Insurance and the disparities in VAT rates hurt our businesses, but to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "It is someone else's problem" is to do a disservice to our local business community. Sectors such as hospitality, agri-food, high street services, haulage, retail, childcare and healthcare, which are largely made up of small businesses, face higher operating and employment costs, an outdated business rates system, the looming threat of additional regulation from the 'good jobs' Bill proposals and constraints on growth due to underinvestment in infrastructure and an inadequate planning system. A local business owner recently shared a telling example of our rates system, having opened a premises in one of Dublin's most prestigious streets, where the rates were just €9,000. The rates for a comparable premises in Belfast are €36,000. That disparity is totally unacceptable.

It is a critical issue. The groundwork has been laid, so now the Minister must act. That is why I will support the motion as amended by Ms Forsythe's more comprehensive understanding of the issue. It is not just about the high street task force; it is about much more than that. If I could make one further request of the Minister for the Economy, it would be this: expedite the review of small business rate relief and the non-domestic vacant rating exclusion. Those reforms are essential to unlocking opportunity and growth in our town centres. We must support our industries, manufacturers, indigenous retailers, service providers, farmers, hauliers and all those who work tirelessly every day to keep our economy moving.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be junior Minister Reilly, who will respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister of Finance. You have up to 15 minutes to respond.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of my colleague Minister O'Dowd.

I begin by saying that it is important for our local businesses to thrive and create good jobs. That is central to our Programme for Government priority to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy that works for everyone. It was therefore disappointing when the Chancellor announced changes to employers' National Insurance contributions last autumn. In response, just a few weeks later, the then Minister of Finance, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, proactively commissioned the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre to carry out a sectoral study of the cost of doing business here. I am sure that, by now, all Members have had the opportunity to read that independent research, which was published by the Department of Finance on 6 May. It included an extensive consultation exercise with over 25 sectoral groups and drew on comparisons with Britain from a wide range of available data. It considered a number of factors, including the impact of labour, energy, property and transport costs.

A key concern for the North, however, relates to the changes to National Insurance contributions. The report identifies those changes as likely having a more significant impact here than in Britain owing to our lower earnings. It was therefore right for the Minister of Finance to send the report to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as an independent evidence base ahead of the forthcoming spending review. The research showed that the sectors that will be hit hardest by the National Insurance contribution changes will include hospitality, agriculture, retail, the arts and entertainment, as well as the community and voluntary sector. Those are important and vital sectors in our economy. In addition, the research highlighted the disparity in VAT across the all-island economy and the negative implications for businesses, especially hospitality businesses, that operate near the border.

I share the concerns of many in the Chamber about the impact of changes to employers' National Insurance contributions. Alongside other increasing cost pressures, they will put further pressure on employers here. I acknowledge the proactive and consistent efforts that my colleague Minister O'Dowd has made in making the case to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He has impressed on him in writing and when they met last month the need for support or mitigations to be put in place to ease the impacts of the National Insurance contribution changes. The changes place additional strain on already stretched budgets across the public, private and third sectors. It is unacceptable that that additional pressure has been put on employers. With little advance notice to allow for sufficient budget planning, businesses, public bodies and community and voluntary organisations have had little time to prepare, and the consequences are being felt across the board. It was a decision taken in Westminster as a taxation measure, and the Executive do not have the ability to mitigate it. The spending review is an opportunity to remedy the situation for the employers who are most affected across the sectors instead of continuing the pattern of austerity, where those most in need are left without the support that they deserve.

Minister O'Dowd, through his engagement with them, has asked that business representative bodies use the report to lobby Westminster to take account of the implications of its decisions and the impact that they have had on individual sectors. I ask Members here to do the same: take every opportunity available to you to highlight our case to Westminster. The Finance Minister has also shared a copy of the research with his Executive colleagues so that they can consider the implications of the work for their Departments and the areas that they are responsible for. While the Executive do not have the financial capability to mitigate decisions taken in Westminster, they are committed to supporting businesses and our economy. That is evident from the 2025-26 Budget, which provides investment in skills, childcare, agriculture and capital funding to stimulate economic growth. The constraints that many employers face are understood, and the independent research is an important evidence base that sets that out. However, the Executive also face budget constraints while the demand for public services is growing. It is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the Executive to mitigate the decisions that are being made in Westminster. However, Minister O'Dowd has vowed to continue to make the case for better funding and to work with Executive colleagues to support our employers, workers and communities.

In terms of what local support the Executive or individual Departments can provide to ease cost pressures for businesses, it is important to understand that any new funding measures will require decisions to cut funding elsewhere or to increase revenue. It is easy for members of the Opposition to call for more support. Suggestions of where cuts could be made to pay for that increased support are less forthcoming from those Benches. Ministers do not have the luxury of ducking those hard questions and stark choices. The Department of Finance, through Land and Property Services (LPS), already offers a wide range of rate support schemes to support business ratepayers, providing £250 million of rate support. The Department recently extended the small business rate relief scheme, which supports almost 30,000 businesses, and restored the Back in Business and rural ATM schemes to support businesses. In addition, policy reviews of the small business rate relief and non-domestic vacant rating as part of the Department of Finance's strategic rates review are under way. The business community wanted those areas to be prioritised. The terms of reference for those reviews have now been published, and the process will utilise the cost of doing business research in its suite of evidence.

The motion calls on the Minister of Finance to establish a cost of doing business advisory forum. I understand that the purpose of Retail NI's five-point plan is to ensure that small businesses are fully consulted before any new legislation, rating policies or levies are introduced. The Minister of Finance and his officials already engage extensively with the business community on matters of mutual interest, most recently hosting a business round table just last month. Indeed, the rates review has already been determined by what the business community wanted to be prioritised. Without giving it a name, that is, essentially, already happening as part of Minister O'Dowd's day-to-day business for the areas within his remit.

Amendment No 1 calls for retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief to be introduced. That measure is being phased out in England. It was reduced last year from 75% to 40%, with proposals to adjust the business rates system under the British Government's 'Transforming Business Rates' paper. That paper and the important context of the local tax base are the key aspects of the strategic review of small business rate relief that is now under way.

The cost will also be a key factor. Any new rate relief means either forgoing revenue or charging other ratepayers more, as every pound that is raised through the rating system stays here as a resource to pay for hospitals, schools and other essential public services. There are calls in the motion to recall the high street task force and for the Minister for the Economy to work with the Minister of Finance to publish proposals on how the recommendations contained in the high street task force report will be implemented. However, the high street task force recommendations cut across the remit of many Departments, such as the Department for Communities' work on urban regeneration and improving places. The Department of Justice will also play a role through its work on safer communities. One or two Departments alone cannot tackle the issues.

The Department of Finance was responsible for the rating elements in the report and has already undertaken actions in response to the recommendations, including extending the small business rate relief scheme for 2024-25 and the reinstatement of the Back in Business scheme to incentivise the use of long-term vacant retail space by helping new ventures across our council areas in their vital first years in business. In addition, the "Fair Work on Our High Streets" recommendation aligns with the Minister for the Economy's priority on good jobs. Minister Archibald is proactively taking forward measures to support that.

Minister O'Dowd has taken a number of actions to address the issues that are highlighted in the report on the cost of doing business. He has called on Treasury to take action on the taxation matters that are identified in the report, and he is actively engaging with business bodies on the outcomes in the report. That work will complement the policy review work that is already under way as part of his Department's strategic rates review. Devolved government should not be left to pick up the pieces following decisions taken on taxation matters. What we need is action from Westminster.

Mr Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Reilly: I want to get through this, if that is OK. I will bring you in at the end.

The spending review is an opportunity to do the right thing and support workers, families and businesses. We will know the outworkings of that next week.

I will bring the Member in now, if he wants to come in.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister said that Ministers do not have the luxury of ducking questions and decisions. We contend that that does not always stop them from doing so. Does the Minister recognise that, as well as the cost of rates, businesses are liable to pay water rates, which have been increasing by about 5% each year. Does the Minister accept that that is a hidden but not insignificant burden on businesses?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for that intervention. Ministers have difficult decisions to take, and they do not duck them. With the Benches opposite, sometimes we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

We are absolutely committed, through the Programme for Government, to supporting businesses. The Minister of Finance is committed to doing that, as was the previous Minister of Finance.

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

The next Member to speak is Stewart Dickson, who will make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have five minutes, Stewart.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The Alliance Party recognises the extreme cost of doing business in the current economic climate and the fact that many are experiencing financial strains that have been further compounded by recent decisions by the UK Government. Reference has been made around the Chamber to those decisions, particularly the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions in this financial year on top of inflation. Add in rising energy costs and the effects of Brexit, and a perfect storm of crisis has been created in a matter of a few years.

As we have said many times in the Chamber, the UK Government took a decision to increase employers' National Insurance contributions without any meaningful consultation with the devolved nations or, more importantly, with those who run businesses. Those who run businesses are the people who, as employers, have to pay the extra money and, in turn, make a decision on whether to employ fewer staff. Unlike the public sector, which has been given some contribution towards those increased costs, businesses have once again been left on their own to chart their way through a difficult economic tide. The UK Government are making businesses fund a black hole that would best be addressed by pursuing progressive taxation and easing pressure on businesses and workers.

Without appropriate support and the ability to function, businesses remain under threat. Simply forwarding to the Treasury a report of the issues that we already knew existed is not the tangible action that we should be taking as a devolved Administration. Indeed, there are much more targeted measures that could be taken that would ensure that local businesses feel that the Government are supporting them. The most obvious of those is the one that we have been discussing this evening: rates relief. My party — the Alliance Party — has consistently called for an independent and holistic root-and-branch review of the rating system in Northern Ireland in order to ensure that it is fair, fit for purpose and, importantly, supports economic growth. The various rate relief schemes that are offered in Scotland and England provide much more direct support to the sectors that need it most, which, ultimately, sustains their economies. What we have from our Minister of Finance is a step-by-step individual review of each rate relief. We are having one review now, but the likelihood of that relief needing to be changed again in five years' time is high, given the volatile economic climate in which we live.

There was a clear recommendation in the high street task force report, which I made reference to in my intervention, for immediate rate relief. Schemes such as the small business rate relief scheme and Back in Business have enabled businesses to operate effectively in Northern Ireland and have brought vibrancy, footfall and investment back to our high streets while providing businesses with a boost at the start of their business journey, helping them to support jobs and bringing long-term vacant units back into use. I welcome the Finance Minister's plans to review the small business rate relief scheme by October this year. I encourage the Minister to consider expanding that scheme to enable more businesses to avail themselves of it so that our economy can grow.

Other measures would help to relieve businesses in many sectors in Northern Ireland of the financial pressures that they face. We support an increase to the VAT registration threshold for small businesses to reduce their financial burden. Additionally, we propose a lower VAT rate for the hospitality, tourism and beauty and hair sectors, which are crucial to our local economies and job creation. As an Executive, we should lobby the UK Government on those issues at every opportunity. I trust that those items are on the Finance Minister's agenda today.

The high street task force brought forth a wealth of ideas from various stakeholders — the very people who know what they need to drive our high streets forward. Sadly, there has been a lack of action from the Executive Office, which is responsible for the implementation of the task force report, not least because of the lack of an Assembly over the past number of years. The Alliance Party has long held the belief that the Department for the Economy, as the lead Department, should take forward the recommendations in the report. That is why our amendment seeks to put the onus on the Economy Minister to work with the task force and the Finance Minister to put forward realistic and pragmatic proposals to implement the recommendations and drive the economic growth that we all seek. Ultimately, our businesses cannot afford any further dither or delay. We know the issues, and we know the solutions. Now is the time to take action.

I thank the Members who spoke in the debate. They all made valuable contributions, and, in reality, we are all talking about the same issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Stewart; that is much appreciated. I call Brian Kingston to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Brian, you have five minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Opposition motion refers to the recent cost of doing business report and to the earlier high street task force, which presented its report 'Delivering a 21st Century High Street' in 2022. In that report, the task force made 14 recommendations that spanned a range of Departments and district councils. On 10 October 2024, the Executive Office wrote to relevant Ministers asking them to consider the progress that had been made on those recommendations. In our view, Ministers have their tasks, and, as our amendment states, they should get on with them.

The motion calls on TEO to reconstitute the high street task force, despite TEO's having no direct responsibilities in the relevant areas. The recommendations are clearly stated in the task force report for the various Ministers to carry out. We want to see that work expedited and a joined-up approach adopted to ensure meaningful delivery. There needs to be a cross-cutting approach across Departments, particularly Finance, Economy, Communities and Infrastructure.

Our town centres and high streets need a planning system that is fit for purpose so that businesses can thrive and diversify without lengthy delays. It is a well-rehearsed argument that our planning system is not working effectively. How can businesses grow when that is the situation? How often do businesses come to us after having said that they want to expand and invest only to be told that they cannot get planning permission in a timely manner? When the cost of doing business is being considered, the Minister for Infrastructure must look at her Department's role.

The DUP recognises the importance of the local hospitality sector in realising Northern Ireland's tourism potential and boosting the economy. Hospitality is our fourth-largest private-sector employer, and it provides economic opportunity throughout our Province. My party colleague Diane Forsythe referred to the long-standing need for reform of business rates, particularly given that high-street businesses that pay business rates on their premises are at a financial disadvantage compared with businesses that operate primarily online. Our amendment therefore calls on the Minister of Finance:

We commend our amendment to the House.

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

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members who have contributed to this important debate. We have heard a reflection of the concerns being raised to each of us, collectively, by businesses across Northern Ireland that are being pushed to the edge by rising costs and of the fact that action to support them, particularly at Executive level, has been far too slow or, in some cases, non-existent.

In a recent survey by Retail NI, 96% of businesses reported that they felt that the Executive were doing nothing to support them. That is a damning indictment of how the Executive are failing to support our local businesses across this place. We in the SDLP have listened to what businesses in every town and village across the North have told us. They warn of reduced hours; job losses; in some cases, service cutbacks; and, all too often, closure. The Ulster University Economic Policy Centre's cost of doing business impact report, which many Members referenced during the debate and which the Department of Finance commissioned, spells that out clearly. Northern Ireland faces some of the highest cost pressures in the UK, particularly in sectors such as hospitality, care, retail and the voluntary sector. A typical hospitality business could face significant increases of up to £73,000 in labour costs, which is enough to put any of them out of business. That is not just a figure in a report; it represents people's livelihoods and the viability of local services hanging in the balance.

I note that the Finance Minister is not here in person, although we appreciate the presence of the junior Minister, who has updated the Assembly on the Department's work. It is important that we ask the Finance Minister what action he intends to take and what response his Department will make to the report. That is important. From a recent response that I received to a question to the Minister, it seems that the only action that has been taken to date is simply sharing the report with the Treasury and meeting the Chief Secretary in April to press for action. The Finance Minister also circulated the report to Executive colleagues and encouraged business groups to lobby Westminster themselves. That is all noted, but let me be blunt: that is not a plan. It is ducking and diving. Forwarding a report and telling others to make the case is not the same as taking decisive local action. It is delegation, not leadership.

In the Assembly today, we again heard from Members from the Minister's party, Sinn Féin, who are quick to blame the Government at Westminster for the many faults that exist here. For the first time, however, the Minister's party has its hands on the most significant economic levers through its Departments. It has the First Minister, the Finance Ministry, the Economy Ministry and the Infrastructure Ministry, so excuses will not wash any longer. You wanted power, and you have power, so you cannot stand on the same spot and point your finger at Westminster, particularly given that you spent the past 20 years telling the people of the North that what happens in Westminster does not matter here and that you do not need to take your seats to press for change. Today, all I have heard from Sinn Féin Members is, "We need to make the case to Westminster. We need to go over and get the business community to make their case to Westminster". Why are you not in Westminster with your MPs, who have a healthy mandate, making that case daily, as the SDLP does, as the DUP does and as the Alliance Party does, collectively, putting the interests of this place first rather than ducking and diving?

It is so important that we listen to our business community and do not simply pass on a report and expect someone to come in like a great white knight to save the day. The Minister of Finance has a responsibility to businesses. The Minister for the Economy has a responsibility to businesses. Pushing a report and saying "business as usual" will not wash.

We also heard reference to the current rate support schemes through Land and Property Services. Yes, those provide a baseline of assistance of around £250 million a year, but they are long-standing schemes. They are not tailored responses to the specific escalating pressures detailed in the Department's commissioned report. Again, I ask this: what's new? What has changed in response to the findings? John O'Dowd jumping on a plane to Westminster will solve nothing. We need to see a clear plan of action from Sinn Féin, and we need to see its vision for this place.

The motion sets out three practical, achievable actions that the Minister and the Executive could take quickly. First, we need to recall the high street task force, which has been referenced by many Members. We already have the structures in place to bring together Departments, councils, business leaders and communities. The task force could provide coordination, drive recovery efforts and give much-needed focus to regeneration. It has been dormant for too long — dormant almost as long as the Executive have been since they returned when it comes to the interests of serving our businesses.

Secondly, we need a cost of doing business advisory forum in place by 1 September. It would not be just a talking shop; it would give businesses a formal voice and shape local responses. Stormont needs to stop assuming what businesses need and, instead, ask them directly, which, again, according to the recent survey by Retail NI, has not been happening.

Thirdly and most urgently in the long term, we need to get serious about rates reform. That has been promised time and again. It is entirely within our devolved powers. It is unacceptable that we keep citing Westminster delays and blaming the Brits while ignoring one of the few economic levers that we can control. Businesses do not care which Department it sits with. They do not care if it is taken from here or anywhere else; they just want it to happen. We have a responsibility to ensure that it does.

No one is suggesting that every problem can be fixed, but the Executive can and must do more than simply pass the buck. While we debate, real businesses are having to make real decisions to reduce their hours, let staff go or shut their doors altogether. Let me say this clearly: we cannot continue to blame Westminster for every pressure, if we are not even prepared to use the powers that we already hold. That excuse has worn thin. People want solutions, not excuses. We have a duty to act, and if the Finance Minister is serious about protecting employers, workers and communities, I urge him and his Executive colleagues to back the proposals in the motion and implement them without any further delay.

To be clear, this is a huge point of frustration for many people. It is also about ensuring that small businesses in West Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, South Belfast and every corner of the North are not left to struggle alone while the Government hesitate. It is unacceptable that, every time a problem arises here where we could sit down, work out a solution, respond to the report and put in place measures to bring about real change that could help businesses today, we simply forward the report, do not produce a plan and hope that everything will work out.

The situation is getting worse. If our small businesses struggle, people lose jobs and they lose their livelihoods, and what is a serious problem today will become an even bigger problem tomorrow. I say to the Executive parties that were tripping over each other to get the First Minister's post that this is about real people, real lives and using the power that you so badly wanted. This is about using the office that you hold and the privileged position that you have to bring about change and not simply stand in front of the camera, smiling and holding a glossy report but not implementing any of the powerful recommendations in it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Daniel.

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.