Official Report: Monday 15 September 2025

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the death of Charlie Kirk and its impact on Northern Ireland that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place in the usual manner. You have up to three minutes in which to speak, Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to and give thanks for the life of Charlie Kirk. At just 31 years of age, Charlie was a devoted husband to Erika and a loving father to his two beautiful children. His loss is deeply felt not only by his family but by all those who value conviction, courage and the right to speak freely. Charlie Kirk stood for family, his Christian values and his conservative principles when he advocated, as he did all the time, for family, faith and liberty. His approach to those who disagreed with him was grounded in biblical exhortation:

Through social media, his work reached a global audience, with many homes in Northern Ireland, including my own, following him. He gave a voice to those with Christian and conservative views by defending the right to speak without fear of censorship or intimidation. The Assembly should reflect on what his life teaches us: freedom of expression and the liberties that we hold dear are fragile, and they must be defended against political violence.

Politically motivated murder is and was always wrong. We need only to look at our history. Memorials in Parliament Buildings remind us of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, James, murdered by the Provisionals; Senator Jack Barnhill, murdered by the Official IRA; and Senator Paddy Wilson, murdered in particularly vicious circumstances by loyalists. Regardless of ideology, such acts are and have always been wrong.

There is, and there has always been, an alternative.

I began by noting that Charlie lived out the biblical love and concern to reason with his opponents. On that same theme, I want to bring my remarks to a close by observing that he knew the full truth of the verse:

Whatever differences I have with other Members, I urge each and every one of you to seek the same experience, go after the same saviour and put your trust in him, as Charlie Kirk did.

Ms Forsythe: On Wednesday evening, the world watched in horror as Charlie Kirk, aged just 31, was assassinated in the United States of America. It was shocking and heartbreaking, especially for his wife and two young children, who I keep in my prayers. Charlie was the co-founder of Turning Point USA, a political activist and commentator, who, at just 31, had built a strong platform, giving a voice to millions of people who felt silenced by the left. Charlie's politics were shaped by his Christian faith, common sense and his conviction that the truth should be spoken plainly, even when it is unpopular. For that, he was hated by people who could not bear to see their ideology challenged.

The battles that are being fought in America are not confined to the United States: they are being fought here, too, in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. On Friday night, we saw Erika Kirk, Charlie's wife, speak publicly with grace and incredible strength. She spoke to the evildoers and told them:

She said:

Erika, I have certainly heard your cry. I will speak up here, in Northern Ireland, for what is right and share that message.

Charlie Kirk stood firmly for a common-sense approach. His convictions were rooted in his faith, as mine are. He spoke more broadly, though, to anyone who values truth and fairness, love of their country and the foundations of a stable society. Charlie Kirk never shied away from the challenging issues. He spoke truth with conviction and compassion, and so must we. We, in the DUP, will not bow to those who sneer at the values of ordinary people. We must stand up against the woke agenda. The older I get, the more I see people turning to Jesus. In a world where evil seems to grow louder every day, faith is a refuge; a light that refuses to be swallowed by the darkness. Belief is not just about religion: it is about hope and strength, the promise that goodness has the final word, as, in death, those who are saved live forever with God.

Since Charlie Kirk was murdered, over seven million people have newly followed his social media platforms. His message is stronger from beyond his death — from heaven. His name "Kirk" is the Ulster-Scots word for "church". Members, nothing happens by chance: it is all part of God's plan. Let us remember Charlie by taking up the challenge, honouring his beliefs and values of faith, family and country, and keeping his family firmly in our prayers.

Ms Ennis: Colleagues, at the heart of this, and what we should focus on, is the fact that there is a grieving family who are mourning a terrible loss. There was no justification for the killing of Charlie Kirk. His murder was wrong. The horrific scenes that were played out on social media were absolutely dreadful to watch. There has been a lot of talk about freedom of speech. While I uphold everyone's right to that, it must come with the understanding that there is huge responsibility with regard to what we say and the impact that it can have. We must be mindful of the language that we use. I am sure that that will be debated ad nauseam over the next period, but, today, I will think of the grieving family at the heart of this who have been left to pick up the pieces.

Mr Tennyson: The murder of Charlie Kirk is the latest incident in a worrying rise in political violence in the United States and, indeed, across the world. It was an act of political cowardice. I speak as somebody who disagreed with just about every word that came out of Charlie Kirk's mouth, but I can recognise his talent as an orator, debater, activist and organiser. Today, my thoughts are with his young family who are suffering an unimaginable loss.

There is no place for political violence in any society. Indeed, a fair and free democracy relies on the ability of all of us — politicians, activists and members of the public — to engage in public life without fear of reprisal, violence, attack or intimidation. It is important to say that political violence is not the preserve of left, right or centre. Irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum, we have an obligation as democrats to stand against political violence wherever it raises its head, whoever is responsible for it and whomever it is targeted against. At a time when democracies across the globe are under attack, let the loss of Charlie Kirk be a reminder to us all that those democracies are precious: we must all resolve to defend them.

Mr Burrows: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I extend our thoughts and condolences to the wife and family and friends of Charlie Kirk. It was a brutal assassination, carried out in the full glare of today's social media. Many people beyond his family and friends and, indeed, beyond America will have been traumatised. Such things can be a chill factor when it comes to people expressing their views honestly and passionately.

It is not appropriate, as we acknowledge the terrible crime and atrocity that we witnessed last week, to bring into it in any way a conversation about responsible language. It is absolutely vital that people can speak and be heard and be controversial. Yes, they can be governed under the law, but nothing about a person's words ever justifies the use of violence against them. Nothing about one's political views or views of faith or on how a country should be governed or its constitutional status ever justify one's murder. Every one of us in this place should use our language to say that violence is wrong and always has been wrong. There are people listening to us out there, particularly young people, who cannot make the distinction that some who sit in this place can, in saying, "Violence was OK up to that point — that date — when we said so, but it is not justified any more". We need to take that out of the equation.

As a party, we remember, of course, that we have lost members, including Edgar Graham, to political violence. Therefore, I extend our thoughts as a party to the family and friends of Charlie Kirk, and to people who feel that they cannot speak out because, if they do so, they will be oppressed and may even be assassinated. We all need to stand for free speech, and we all need to have this clear red line: violence is wrong, will always be wrong in the future and was always wrong in the past.

Mr O'Toole: Violence begets more violence; hate tends to beget more hate. The scenes, brutally and traumatically relayed throughout the world via social media on people's phones, including those of many young people, of the assassination of Charlie Kirk will leave a lasting legacy for many people who supported and sympathised with him. It will motivate them politically, which is their right, but, for them and for everybody else, it is a grotesque, horrifying sign of the breakdown of basic democratic values. It should go without saying in any democracy that the right to disagree is sacrosanct. The right to free speech, even to say things that offend other people, has to be protected. It should also go without saying that we share our profound condolences with Charlie Kirk's widow, his family and all who were close to him.

It is probably obvious that I did not agree with anything that Charlie Kirk said. In fact, I thought that a lot of what he said was abhorrent and wrong. I am willing to say that here; I am not in any way minimising or giving succour to people who thought that it was appropriate to take his life. My party and I have always believed that political violence of that kind is not just morally wrong but profoundly counterproductive, because it emboldens people and creates martyrs for their causes.

Just before I was born, a man named Robert Bradford was assassinated in the constituency that we share, Mr Speaker. Not long after, when I was a baby, Edgar Graham was assassinated near where my constituency office is now. I have no doubt that, had I been a politician at the same time, I would have profoundly disagreed with most of what those two gentlemen stood for and said, but the taking of their lives was profoundly morally wrong and deeply counterproductive. Ultimately, it was the kind of violence that made it harder to make progress in any society.

While saying that I did not agree with anything that Charlie Kirk said and robustly oppose lots of what he said, let me say on behalf of my party that his murder was grotesquely morally wrong and indefensible. We are at a moment in the United States and in other parts of the world in which we need to be able to stand up for freedom of speech but also for respectful debate. Sometimes, that debate will be challenging, robust and very contentious, but it has to happen in the space of respect for difference and for democracy.

I know what my values are, and I will keep championing them. Others in the Chamber have values that I will continue to challenge robustly, but I respect their right to have those opinions and to make their points. I hope that they will respect my right to challenge them robustly. I wish that Charlie Kirk had been around: if he had been, I and others would have been robustly challenging his views. The taking of his life is an affront to democracy —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and I offer my condolences to his family and all who cared about him.

Mr Frew: Charlie Kirk was a champion. He was a tremendous speaker and a talented debater. First and foremost, however, he was a family man: a father of two young children. He was brutally assassinated because he was effective and because he spoke the truth. He warned against intolerant liberalism and the totalitarian left, but he preached libertarianism. He fought for freedom. He supported family: everybody's family. He talked about his Lord, and now Charlie is in glory. He leaves behind a grieving wife and two young children, however, and that is intolerable. I will continue to pray for that family.

We sometimes think that America is so far away, but it is not. The battles that Americans fight we fight also. Surely the past five years have taught us that. Charlie Kirk was a champion to so many people throughout the world. There are many people who had never heard of him but aspired to the same values. Those people now know Charlie Kirk. They know what he stood for and what his family stands for. They know what his organisation stands for. A fire and a passion have been ignited that will grip this world. It will grip America and the UK. Charlie Kirk's legacy will be stronger in death than it was in life.

I am part of a Christian hillwalking club, and we were out in the Highlands at the weekend. The club has young and old members, but Charlie Kirk was the topic of everybody's conversation. There was deep sadness and shock that Charlie Kirk is no longer with us. I recognised the burning passion in those young people's lives for Charlie Kirk and his strength. That strength will go right across this land, and those young, Christian, conservative people will no longer be scared to speak up. They will be like Charlie Kirk, and that will be his lasting legacy.

Mr Buckley: Last week, the world was shaken by a senseless, barbaric and tragic act: the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

First and foremost, our hearts go out to his wife, Erika, and their children. Today, we hear the courageous battle cry of a young widow. At its core, this is a human loss, with a family broken and torn apart in the most cruel and inhumane way imaginable. No words can ease their pain, nor will they ever, but today, we stand with them in their grief and their loss.

Charlie was a beaming light in a world that is consumed by darkness. A man with unwavering conviction, he stood boldly for the truth, guided by courage and passion. His voice resonated with a generation, especially with young people who saw in him a rare form of leadership, unafraid, unfiltered and unshaken. Charlie Kirk was not assassinated because of the words that he spoke. He was assassinated because our young people were prepared to listen and to take courage in standing up for truth with conviction.

More importantly than any of that, Charlie embraced his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and he proclaimed the gospel proudly. In his own words, he said:

He also said:

In Belfast and in London and in cities and towns across his beloved USA, Charlie's name is being lifted up and remembered. His impact was nothing short of seismic as it helped to reignite conservative family values right across the world not in anger but in reason. He gave a voice to the unheard. He empowered people, young and old, including here in Northern Ireland, to question and to challenge. He reminded them that they are not wrong to think differently. Charlie's legacy will endure. It will inspire a boldness in those whom he touched. A new generation will honour him not by retreating into silence but by speaking truth. Thank you, Charlie Kirk.

Mr Brett: On behalf of the people of North Belfast, which is a community that is used to the damage of political violence, I add my sympathy and that of those whom I represent to the Kirk family. Charlie Kirk's murder was motivated by hatred: hatred of his ability; and hatred of his willingness to challenge the status quo and of his willingness to stand up for traditional values. It falls to all of us who are public representatives who value democracy to call out that attack, which was an attack not just on one man or a set of ideals but on a process that we should all hold dear: freedom, tolerance and respect.

To those across the United Kingdom and in the United States who are engaging in the ghoulish and obscene behaviour of celebrating this death, I say, "Shame". However, I also say that the Kirk family will take great solace in that disgraceful act, as they know that those people do that because they hate him. We can look at the words that Charlie spoke. He knew that people hated him because he was willing to challenge them, willing to stand up to them and willing to take on vested interests.

It falls to all of us who value democracy to continue to speak up for that right, which is the right to challenge and to represent those whom we hold dear. This party will continue to be on the side of the silent majority and will stand with the Kirk family.

Dr Aiken: Mr Speaker, I was not going to speak, but I have just had a message from Senator Wayne Harper, from the Utah State Senate.

I said to him, "Senator, we woke to the terrible news of the death of Charlie Kirk. The use of violence to silence free speech is, regrettably, something that we in Northern Ireland are all too aware of. Charlie Kirk and his young family are in our thoughts and prayers. We also pray for you and your great state at these sad times."

Senator Harper responded, "Thank you for reaching out, and thank you to the Northern Ireland Assembly for reaching out to us all. This is, indeed, a travesty. As you know all too well, violence is not a political solution. Sitting around a table to talk is."

Mr Speaker: I thank all Members for their respectful handling of the issue, as was the case when we had Members' statements on George Floyd, when Members were equally respectful. On Wednesday, we will have a round-table discussion about MLAs' personal safety and the abuse that is ongoing. We all need to reflect on the issue and be conscious that the public square is not necessarily always a safe place to be. Every Member needs to reflect on that and be aware of it. Whilst, in America, such an event can happen somewhat more easily because of the number of guns that are available, we have seen the murder of two Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and a number of our offices have been targeted recently and not so recently. Members need to be aware of all those things and reflect on them.

It is important — it is why we are here as a democratic institution — to give voice to people. That voice can disagree a lot and be forceful and contentious at times, but that does not give anyone the right to take anybody's life or to cause harm to another person because of the views that they have expressed. I encourage every Member, as a public representative, to be strong and to go out and represent your people as you are elected to do in the way that you see fit. We all have a job to do for our constituents.

Mr Gildernew: Beidh mé ag labhairt as Gaeilge ar dtús. Ar an drochuair, is gá dom aird a tharraingt arís ar chur chuige do-ghlactha an Aire Pobal i dtaca leis an Ghaeilge.

The Minister for Communities has responsibility for developing an Irish language strategy. Although, to date, the Minister has failed to publish one, he clearly has his own strategy for the Irish language. It is a strategy to prevent the development of Irish and work against its ongoing growth on this island. It is a strategy to undermine and attack Irish at every opportunity. In his decision to remove trilingual letterheads from his Department, it is a strategy to make Irish invisible. Unfortunately, that is one of a number of interventions that the Minister and his party have made to thwart the development of Irish, including blocking additional funding from the Southern Government for North/South bodies including Foras na Gaeilge and opposing Irish-language signs at Grand Central station.

The Irish language has endured attacks before and survived. It will endure these attempts to undermine and suppress it as well.

Mr Brett: Following on from that, I welcome last week's comments from the High Court judge, which pushed back against Sinn Féin's attempts to continue to push cultural dominance in Northern Ireland. As the High Court judge made clear, the Infrastructure Minister's attempt to impose additional Irish-language signs at Grand Central station has made the Executive into a laughing stock. Should we be surprised? My party made clear from the start that the Infrastructure Minister's attempts were unlawful. That was called out by the deputy First Minister and, indeed, in actions by the Communities Minister. Since then, we have seen an attempt to whip up faux outrage.

The previous Infrastructure Minister — now Finance Minister — happily signed off on the Grand Central station project without additional signage, but Sinn Féin has now attempted to politicise this as a johnny-come-lately. Let me be clear: it is not about inclusion. Sinn Féin wants to raise the Irish language above every other minority language in Northern Ireland. Not content with Irish being included with all other minority languages, Sinn Féin believes that its culture and identity should be raised above everyone else's. It is about supremacy, not partnership. Sinn Féin is willing to squander £150,000 of public funding on that project; money that should be used to fix roads and for other infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland.

Of course, we have seen the same supremacist attitude to language adopted by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party at Belfast City Council, where they have set aside democratic norms. Despite a majority of residents not wanting Irish-language street signs, they are installed in order to whip up fear and intimidate unionists. Sinn Féin is helped by the SDLP and the Alliance Party in doing that. It has become a pattern: every time, they try to make a cultural issue out of it. There was no mention of the fact that Sinn Féin-run Departments exclude Ulster Scots from their letterheads, yet Sinn Féin goes after our Minister for having only one language on his. Once again, I say that Sinn Féin wants dominance, not partnership.

We know what Sinn Féin members mean when they say, "Equality". Gerry Adams was secretly recorded telling the unionist community what he meant by "equality": he wanted to break unionists. Sinn Féin will not break unionists, and he will not break this party.

Mr McReynolds: As an East Belfast MLA and chair of the all-party group on ADHD, I ask where the report on commissioning adult ADHD services in Northern Ireland is. In March 2024, thousands of people signed my petition calling on the Health Minister to urgently commission those essential services here. My inbox has become flooded with the concerns and anxieties of those living with and potentially living with the condition, who, crucially, are unable to access a diagnosis or treatments, because we do not have commissioned services.

Since then, I have persisted and fought to meet the Minister in his office alongside ADD-NI. I was told in the Chamber that the report would be completed by the end of the financial year. I was then told that it would be finished by the start of the summer. I was then told that it would be finished by the start of September. I fully appreciate the work involved in creating a meaningful and purposeful report, but people who live with ADHD have been overlooked for too long and have waited for too long, living in crisis and despair. It is likely that we have already missed two to three generations of struggling young people who are now struggling adults.

My petition was launched in April 2024. We are now midway through September 2025 and have still heard nothing officially or unofficially. That is nearly a year and a half. I do not want to prejudge what the report will say, but I fear that I could write the conclusion: "I'd love to do it, but it's too expensive, and you all voted for the Budget". Meanwhile, adults living with or potentially living with ADHD will suffer by facing high costs for access to transformative medication, lengthy waiting list times, damaged relationships, missed opportunities to use ADHD for the better, self-medication through alcohol and substance abuse, chronic disorganisation and poor mental health.

I was delighted to open the new ADD-NI office in south Belfast earlier this year, and I am proud to have my name on the wall there for having done so. However, I am about results, and I will continue to raise how ADHD and the lack of commissioned services here destroy families and lives across Northern Ireland. I call for the urgent publication of the report and for the commissioning of ADHD services in Northern Ireland.

Mr Durkan: There is a lot of disappointment and anger, although not a lot of surprise, across the football fraternity and beyond in the north-west at the Communities Minister's announcement last week on the Northern Ireland Football Fund. The decision not to fund Derry City Football Club and Institute Football Club has caused cross-community consternation and concern and makes a mockery of the claims of regional balance in the Executive's Programme for Government.

It was a political decision that coincidentally, was made in the week in which the DUP leader threatened funding for Derry. Since that announcement, which should have been made in the Assembly, we have heard Minister Lyons do his best to distance himself from it wherever clubs have been disappointed: "It was an independent process. It was nothing to do with me".

However, he will clamour for credit from those who are content. While the Minister will point to the application criteria and the assessment process, how can he expect us or anyone to believe or accept that he had no say in how £36 million of public money is to be allocated? Remember, this is the same Minister who is spending public money to challenge another Minister in the Executive over spending £150,000.

This is £36 million from the Executive's Budget, so it is right that MLAs should get clarification and assurance where there has been understandable consternation. Given the Minister's having suggested that he hopes for money in the future, it would be a naive dereliction for MLAs not to scrutinise criteria, weightings and their working application. The SDLP is demanding a VAR-like review of this diabolical on-field decision, and we will be canvassing cross-party support for such a review, be it through a petition of concern, the Communities Committee or the Executive. This cannot lead to accusations of delaying a process that has already been disastrously delayed by being used as a political football and by five years of Assembly collapse. The Minister himself has conceded that funding will not be allocated until late next year and that several of the successful projects will probably never even come to fruition. This decision cannot stand. Derry clubs deserve better. We all deserve better. We all demand transparency.

Mr Burrows: I raise the issue of a dog that has been incarcerated for life, I am afraid to say, in Magilligan prison by the leadership of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and by our Department of Justice. There is not single animal charity that has not, to me, expressed outrage that a dog has been placed, with the title of "comfort dog", inside Magilligan prison. It has no master, and it has no handler. I am unaware of any service dogs that are in that position. Anyone who understands pets or working dogs professionally knows that they need to have a handler and a master. This dog does not go home; it lives in the prison.

I think that it is our job to cut across party lines. We are here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and a great number of people in the Prison Service are very uncomfortable with the fact that the dog is there. The staff who are looking at after it are not trained, it has no designated handler and it is passed from pillar to post between untrained staff. I have had it confirmed in writing by the Justice Minister that it does not go home and that it has no master. Those who understand service dogs know that they have clear boundaries. Dogs in the Prison Service or the Police Service and other service dogs wear a different harness at work than they do when they go home. There are dogs that will be hypervigilant at work but will sleep through a thunderstorm when they go home because they know that they are at home. This dog lives in a prison.

The Justice Department should be a role model for good behaviour, not ignore it. Every dog charity agrees, and Causeway Coast Dog Rescue has been speaking to me all weekend. I saw some pictures — an attempt, perhaps, to draw equivalence — of a comfort dog supporting victims of crime in court. I welcome that. That dog, a St Bernard, is brought in to see the victims of crime by its handler, its owner. It then goes back home. There is no equivalence between that and a dog that is kept in prison.

There are real questions about the welfare of this dog. To whom is it microchipped? Who is the lawful owner? Who is responsible for it? No rules, no regulations, and yet it is in one of the most high-risk settings that you can have in society — a prison. It is housed in the H2 wing, and it is walked by a sex offender. We agree that there is a role for rehabilitation, but there have to be proper boundaries and proper safeguards for our animals. Therefore, I ask for cross-community and cross-party support. We need to look out for this animal. You cannot pluck out an animal and put it in a prison with no trained handler and never let it go home. It is an abuse of the animal, and I am calling for the Justice Minister to cease this programme until there is proper legislation and proper safeguards and boundaries.

Ms Ennis: There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel for the community in Warrenpoint, which has suffered a nightmare of almost three years due to the storage of tens of thousands of tons of black bin waste at Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and in close proximity to homes. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority has released a statement today stating that ReGen will cease storing waste at the harbour authority immediately. I tentatively welcome the statement. Members of the House will know — they have heard me talk about it before — that, for almost three years, the odour has invaded not only people's sense of smell but every aspect of their daily lives in Warrenpoint. It was wrong to allow the waste to be stored at Warrenpoint Harbour Authority in close proximity to homes and businesses to begin with. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and ReGen owe the community in Warrenpoint an apology for the torment they have suffered over the last almost three years.

It is appropriate to pay tribute to the community in Warrenpoint, the various campaign groups and my political colleagues from across the spectrum of parties who have campaigned on the issue for the last three years. We stepped in along with the community and the campaign groups when the Environment Minister, the NIEA and those with responsibility for making sure that people's lives were not impacted by the waste and put an end to the smell washed their hands of the matter. I pay tribute to the community, the campaign groups and everyone who did not let up on the issue over the last three years.

While it is good news that the waste will no longer be stored there, and we tentatively welcome the statement, we will keep a close eye on the situation, because, ultimately, it is for others to decide how this is achieved. Ultimately, the odour issue must end, and we will focus on that. While Sinn Féin welcomes the statement, we will watch closely to make sure that all the odour issues associated with the ReGen operation at Warrenpoint port stop.

Mr Buckley: How many times has unionism been told of a mythical new Ireland that will be inclusive of all our cultures and traditions? How many times have we been told by Sinn Féin and the SDLP and by some quiet voices — they are getting louder — in the Alliance Party about that myth? Members may be aware that, at the weekend, Heather Humphreys launched her campaign for the Irish presidential election. In doing so, she described herself as a symbol of Ireland's tolerance and inclusivity towards Protestants and unionists.

Heather is from County Monaghan, a place not far from here or the communities that I come from and represent, but one wonders if her perspective has been shaped and moulded by her place in the Dublin establishment politically, rather than the everyday lived experiences of the many Protestant families who live in border counties. For those families, the picture is very different. Their story has often been one of exclusion, quiet and vocal discrimination and gradual erasing. Whole communities, once vibrant and confident, have dwindled. The sharp decline in the Protestant population of border towns and villages has not been by accident; in many cases, it has been by design. It is the result of sustained social, cultural and, at times, violent pressures that are simply not acknowledged in the narratives presented by the Irish political class.

Just two weeks ago, we paused to remember the anniversary of the Tullyvallen massacre, when five innocent Orangemen were murdered in cold blood by republican terrorists. Those wounds have not healed, and they should never be forgotten. We have a "Bury your head in the sand" approach from the Irish Government when it comes to legacy, facilitating and protecting terrorists who skipped across the border, terrorised communities and destroyed innocent lives. We have border bogs that still hold the bodies of certain individuals who have never had the comfort of a simple burial.

Over the weekend, it got worse, when a national newspaper had a sensationalist headline about Heather Humphreys's family's former Orange links. Is that the approach that republicans take to anybody from a unionist tradition? Has the mask slipped? Be assured that unionists know exactly how they would be treated in a so-called new, inclusive Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: Today, I welcome the investment in 1,000 new jobs. That good news shows the value of investing in our people. Three years ago, funding went into college training programmes. The weekend's announcement proves that supporting skills and backing our young people delivers real opportunities. That is why it is essential that, moving forward, Northern Ireland have a joined-up approach, such as that taken by Skillnet Ireland in the South, in order to build a pipeline of talent linking business with education and our colleges to build opportunities and attract global investment. I have just left a meeting with Seagate, during which we talked about exactly the same thing.

Last week, I spoke at the Northern Ireland Manufacturing and Supply Chain Conference and Exhibition at the Eikon exhibition centre, at which industry leaders showcased the latest technology and innovation. They were really clear that they need to hear more than words from the Assembly. I again call on the Minister for the Economy to bring forward a manufacturing strategy and, crucially, an action plan to go along with it.

Other regions are racing ahead. Germany has its Industrie 4.0 strategy, Singapore has its advanced manufacturing 2030 vision and the Republic updates its strategy every five years. Only last week, it launched a new action plan to deliver on that. Meanwhile, we risk falling behind here, and that means missed investment, weaker productivity and lost opportunity.

We need a strategy and delivery plan that provide a strong skills pipeline for apprenticeships and reskilling; a Skillnet Ireland-type body in Northern Ireland that supports SMEs to adopt digital and industry technologies; regional investment zones such as at the Maze and Blaris, which are in my area; plug-and-play industrial parks; and net zero manufacturing to keep firms competitive. We have the talent, the ambition and the entrepreneurs here. We have 19,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training. We need to identify how we can address that issue. We need government leadership and a manufacturing strategy and action plan that deliver on growth and bring in skills and jobs for the next generation. It is about providing good jobs, achieving regional balance, having stronger exports and putting money back in people's pockets. It is also about creating hope and securing our place in a modern economy.

Mr Delargy: This morning, we stood with the Bloody Sunday families, as the trial of Soldier F began in a court in Belfast. For over five decades, they have been denied truth and justice. I take the opportunity to acknowledge their dedication, determination and support and the inspiration that they provide to other families in a similar situation and, indeed, to families right across the world.

The civil rights that people marched for in 1972 were for a better future and for equality in housing, employment and voting. Those people created a better future and a more equal society for my generation. My generation has a responsibility to stand with the Bloody Sunday families and to ensure that there is truth and justice.

Although a soldier stands trial in a Belfast court today, those culpable also include the British Army generals who ordered the murder of innocent civilians on the streets of my city and the successive British Governments who denied truth and justice and who took every opportunity to cover up what their soldiers did. Successive British Governments did that. I call on the current British Government to repeal the Legacy Act, which all parties in the Chamber oppose, and finally to put the voices of the families first.

As has been stated today by John McKinney, a brother of William McKinney:

Ms Brownlee: I rise to celebrate a phenomenal victory and a moment that echoed across boxing circles and in the heart of everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond. Lewis Crocker, "The Croc", has done what few believed he could and claimed the IBF welterweight world title against Paddy Donovan in front of a roaring crowd at Windsor Park on Saturday evening.

From the outset, Crocker was the underdog and was doubted by many. On Saturday, he showed heart, composure and power and finished 12 rounds without even a mark on his face. He boxed smart and walked away a champion. It was clear how much it meant to him, and he called it the "greatest night" of his life. He said, "Nobody gave me a chance", but Saturday was all the proof that was needed, and more, to show what a fantastic boxer this young man is. I say this to Lewis: Northern Ireland is incredibly proud of you.

It really was a dream come true. He was boxing on the world stage, which that night was a stone's throw away from his Sandy Row, and he walked out to 'Sweet Caroline' at the home of his beloved Linfield Football Club. The achievement has been fantastic for Lewis, but I hope that it resonates with every person. Even when you feel that you have been written off and that the world may be against you, that should give you even more fire to achieve anything that you set your mind to.

Lewis has paved the way for many boxers, putting himself above the parapet and raising very real concerns about treatment and selection in the Commonwealth Games selection due to his community background as a Protestant, giving other boxers, such as Daryl Clarke from my constituency, the confidence to come forward and demand equality in boxing and to call out sectarianism.

We still await the report from the Equality Commission, but, despite those past barriers, Crocker managed to become world champion. My North Belfast colleague Phillip Brett was also incredibly proud for his constituent, young Kyle Smith, who, on his debut, scored victory over Connor Meanwell in the super middleweight division. What a promising career that young man will have.

On this occasion, fortune favoured the brave. I say this: well done, Lewis and Kyle. We are all so proud of you.

Dr Aiken: The president of the United States will arrive tomorrow for his historic second state visit to our nation. Not only should that be warmly welcomed but it comes as the Bank of America is setting up a centre of excellence for financial technology and security operations and Citibank continues to announce further investment in those cutting-edge sectors in Northern Ireland.

In comparison with the relationships with other presidents, that with the forty-fifth and forty-seventh president, though controversial for some, has brought real benefit to Northern Ireland. The advantageous 10% tariff deal with the United States, against the 15% or more for the EU, gives us, unlike the usurious Windsor framework, an actual advantage. That should give us further reason to welcome POTUS to our nation.

Some here regularly complain about the president's stance on international relations while remaining remarkably coy about making similar comments about the leaders of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. If I were an investor or a balanced political commentator from the United States, I would closely question that hypocritical attitude to the United States and its key allies. In fact, the United States and United Kingdom work closely together on cybersecurity along with key partners such as the Five Eyes community and Israel. That should also be celebrated, particularly by those whose job it is to promote our economy.

Next year is the 250th anniversary of the United States. Our links to its Founding Fathers are many, because they came mostly from us. As we celebrate our transatlantic relationship, it gives us many more opportunities to promote Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. As we look at the many journeys that our two nations have taken, we should remember John Adams's view:

in bringing together a much closer relationship. We should use every opportunity to do that.

Sadly, it is therefore incomprehensible that the so-called First Minister for all has refused an invitation to the state dinner. However, I am pleased that the deputy First Minister will attend. Despite the disrespectful stance of Sinn Féin and some of its fellow travellers on this issue, I hope that we give President Trump a warm welcome to our nation.

Mr McNulty: Today, on Lymphoma Awareness Day, I will speak about a young mother from my constituency Catherine Sherry, whose story must compel the Executive parties to act. Catherine was undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in London when she tragically passed away in May.

The treatment was working, but her immune system was severely compromised, and the repeated air travel left her too weak to fight off a final infection. Catherine died far from home and far from her three young, heartbroken boys: Manus, Tomás and Donal.

Here is the devastating truth: life-saving treatment is available just 60 miles away in Dublin at St James's Hospital, but Catherine could not access it because no agreement exists to allow patients in the North of Ireland to receive the specialist treatment in the South. I have raised that directly with the Health Minister, and I have urged the Department of Health to act, but, so far, they have shown reluctance to explore or facilitate access to CAR T-cell therapy in the Republic. It is not a question of resources or a question of medical capacity or capability; it is a question of political will. We are now being told that the CAR T-cell therapy centre in Belfast may not be operational until 2030 and only after accreditation. That is at least another five years of patients being flown to London or Manchester, when a short drive to Dublin could spare them and their families an enormous physical and emotional toll.

There is already a shared all-island commitment to cooperation on cancer care. That commitment must mean something. It cannot be allowed to gather dust while patients suffer and families grieve. Catherine's story is not just a tragedy; it is a call to action. Her treatment was working. Her battle and her bravery were heroic, but the journey — the unnecessary travel — ultimately cost her her life. No mother should have to leave her children behind in order to fight for survival in another country. No family should ever again be told, "We did all that we could", when we know that the system did not. The infrastructure exists, and the expertise exists, but the barrier is political will.

I have organised a round-table discussion next Monday in Stormont with representatives from Leukaemia & Lymphoma NI, Blood Cancer UK, leading clinicians and families of those who have been impacted on by the inaccessibility of CAR T-cell treatment close to home. It is an issue that impacts on people and families across the North. Therefore, it requires a collective response and a joined-up effort from all Executive parties. If any Member wishes to join that discussion or to support the SDLP's campaign to right that wrong, please reach out to me directly.

On Lymphoma Awareness Day, let us say clearly that people in the North deserve access to life-saving cancer treatment on this island, and they deserve it now. My heart goes out to Catherine's family — her husband, Fergal; her sons, Manus, Tomás and Donal; her parents, Roisin and Phil; and her colleagues, her club and her community.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: I measc na naomh go raibh sí.

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

Mr Gaston: I present the petition on behalf of over 3,300 citizens, parents and taxpayers who are deeply concerned about the Health Minister's decision to fund a so-called lifespan gender identity service. The scheme commits to spending £806,000 every year: money that our struggling health service cannot spare. While cancer patients wait and mental health services collapse, Mike Nesbitt has chosen to bankroll a controversial project built on ideology and not on evidence.

At the root, it comes down to truth. A man is a man; a woman is a woman; and no service, ideology or lobby group can change that. Yet, the Minister invited the Rainbow Project — a radical activist organisation that rejects those basic realities — to act as a co-design partner. That is outsourcing public health policy to lobbyists.

The petition highlights three fundamental issues. The first is the lack of medical evidence. The Cass review found the evidence base for child gender services to be of poor quality and insufficient. The Minister's hasty, rapid review announcement, made only after the petition began to get traction, merely proves that he acted first and thought later. The second issue is the vulnerability of children.

Young children are still developing. They cannot meaningfully consent to lifelong consequences. Referrals at such an early age push them down a path from which they cannot return. The third issue is the misuse of public funds. An FOI request revealed that the funding was not a one-off but will be repeated year after year, with even more costs planned for GP involvement in phase 2.

Minister, listen to the public, not the Rainbow Project. Heed parents, not activists. Stand with biology, not ideology.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and forward a copy to the Chairperson of the Health Committee.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education, Mr Paul Givan, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 4 and 8 to 12, which deal with the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines. Members should note that amendment Nos 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3, 5 to 7 and 13, which deal with the contents of guidelines and commencement.

I remind Members who intend to speak in the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each amendment will be put without further debate. The questions on each clause standing part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mr Nick Mathison, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Mathison: With your permission, I will make some comment on the Committee Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill before speaking directly to the first group of amendments. The Committee ran a robust scrutiny stage despite the constrained timescales imposed on it, and I will give a brief overview of how that stage was conducted.

The Bill was introduced on 18 February 2025 and referred to the Committee for Education for consideration after Second Stage on 3 March 2025. The Committee received 19 written submissions and took evidence from 14 stakeholders in oral evidence sessions. I record the Committee's thanks to all who took the time to engage with us on the Bill and to inform our deliberations.

I turn to the timeline of our process. On 25 March 2025, the Minister wrote to the Committee outlining the process for the publication of information around school uniform policies by schools and the corresponding timelines being observed by the Department in an attempt to facilitate the publication of guidelines, which is a key part of the Bill and forthcoming Act. The Department flagged the tight turnaround times and urged the Committee to conduct a Committee Stage to complete by summer recess.

The Committee set a longer Committee Stage, which was to complete in December 2025. The motion was agreed on 18 March. The motion and amendment in relation to the timeline was debated in a plenary session here on 7 April 2025. It proposed an extension of the Committee Stage to 30 August rather than the longer date proposed by the Committee. That was agreed as the end date of the Committee Stage.

I put it on record again that I did not support that date of extension. I felt that the Committee needed more time to scrutinise the Bill, and we found that our processes became incredibly rushed towards the end. Undoubtedly in my mind, there was evidence that we would like to have heard from a range of stakeholders, particularly schools and school leaders, but that we were unable to hear. The shorter timeline meant that the Committee Stage required significant reorganisation of the Committee's schedule of work, and we had to consider the availability of members as well as the times and spaces required to facilitate our engagement with stakeholders in order to give us the opportunity to deliberate on the Bill.

It was notable that, at the Committee Stage extension debate, members expressed their intention to be available to facilitate the shorter time frame. It is a credit to members that we remained quorate for the whole process when, at times, we were convening two or three times a week through May and June, often during plenary sittings. I pay tribute to the Clerk and Committee staff team, who facilitated every meeting with the administration and record-keeping needed to keep the process moving effectively.

That is not to say that the shorter stage did not create challenges. For example, with the extension date running to 30 August, we considered how appropriate or feasible it would be to engage with education stakeholders during the holiday period for them. Therefore, we endeavoured to complete our task by 2 July 2025, and we succeeded.

Later in the Committee Stage, concerns were expressed by some members around the Department's engagement on the Bill. There was a query about whether there had been a miscalculation of time frames and the necessary resourcing to deliver the Bill. For the sake of balance, I would add that, in its responses and engagement with the Committee, the Department strenuously contested that assertion.

I am sure that this will get much debate today in the Chamber, but the Committee was not given sight of the Department's proposed guidelines for schools on their uniform policies. That is the principal outworking of the legislation. Initially, we were given a clear assurance that those would be provided. To my mind — I think all members agreed — that would have been a significant and substantial assistance to the scrutiny process, particularly for clarity with regard to the provisions of clause 7 and the enforceability of the guidelines. The Committee had no desire to create unnecessary levels of prescription in the Bill with any proposed amendment, but, without sight of the draft guidelines, it, at times, felt compelled to insist on prescription to satisfy members as to the effectiveness of the guidelines that would flow from the legislation.

In delivering the Committee stage, the Committee's priorities were clear. We wanted to ensure that there would be robust measures to deliver affordability for parents. That was a priority for all members. Members will know from their constituency offices how much pressure the cost of school uniforms brings to bear on family finances. The Committee also sought to ensure the best interests of every child and non-discrimination principles in the Bill, and it was interested in limiting contracts with retailers that might amount to market dominance. The Committee sought to improve transparency around available sanctions for breaches of the guidelines on uniform policy and to improve complaint-handling and implementation reports for the future monitoring of the Bill's effectiveness. Those are the intended impacts of the proposed amendments that have been accepted for debate, notwithstanding the fact that a range of amendments that were put forward have not been accepted. Of course, that was a decision not for the Committee but for the Speaker.

On 1 July, the Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause consideration and agreed 23 amendments to the clauses drafted. Twelve of those amendments were selected for debate, plus an additional amendment from the Minister.

With that summary of our process, I move to the Committee's proposed amendments in group 1, which, as the Speaker has referenced, refer to the monitoring and enforcement of the guidelines.

Amendment No 1, which relates to clause 1, specifies the frequency of the review of guidelines. The Committee's research and stakeholder feedback quickly identified a widely held view that there was substantial appetite among stakeholders to have aspects of measures proposed in the Bill more precisely defined. Several witnesses highlighted concern about the wording of clause 1 regarding the proposed frequency of review of the guidelines. It is currently framed as "from time to time". The Committee was conscious that review mechanisms of the legislation would create milestones to improve efficiency and flexibility of the guidelines but would also create opportunities for reflection, post-legislation, on whether the implementation of the guidelines aligned with the objective of the legislation of reducing costs. The Committee felt that it was entirely reasonable that a period of at least once every three years for review would give clarity and continuity. We felt that that would likely result in a review being carried out each mandate, which, we felt, would be an appropriate and necessary measure to ensure that effectiveness was routinely given attention by the Department.

Mindful of the importance of the guidelines, the Committee decided on amendment No 4 as a measure of post-legislative scrutiny to require the Department to formally lay them before the Assembly. That would ensure that the Committee and Members remained up to date and clearly informed in a timely manner about any changes to the guidelines made under the Bill.

I turn to amendment No 8. Throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill, repeated concern was raised by stakeholders and members across our evidence sessions about the cost of uniforms. There was also agreement on the need to monitor and report on those costs and for the Department to consider whether it was necessary to introduce a cap on uniform costs. The Committee agreed that introducing a regular report on that would identify areas of concern and improve our ability to scrutinise the impact of the Bill. The Bill had no such provisions. It created enabling powers around a cost cap. I must emphasise that the evidence that we heard from parents and anti-poverty groups was clear that the cost cap was where they would like to see the intervention of the legislation. There was a concern that the enabling powers around the cost cap could gather dust for years with no formal mechanism for Members to hold the Minister and Department to account on whether the Bill was delivering for parents and whether the cost cap needed to be implemented. The Committee believes that the new clause addresses that risk and puts in place robust accountability measures that, I hope, Members will support. I may, if given permission, speak to that amendment as a private Member later.

The Committee's intention around amendment Nos 9, 11 and 12 is to improve accountability in situations where the Department is concerned that schools are not following the required guidelines. If the guidelines, as seems to be the case and as the Minister assures us — I am sure that he will set it out clearly — are what will deliver the meaningful changes in how schools manage their uniform policies and reduce costs, how schools are held accountable in how they follow or do not follow the guidelines is absolutely crucial. The Committee was satisfied, on balance, that the amendments struck a balance between requiring the Department to intervene when guidelines are breached and ensuring that the process is open and transparent.

I understand that there is likely to be debate on the amendments. It was rehearsed at length in Committee how best to do this. How do you find the balance? Nobody wants to name and shame schools, but nobody wants an enforcement mechanism that has no teeth and cannot be utilised to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to. On balance, there was debate backward and forward and differences in opinion, but we feel that that balance has been struck with the amendments.

That concludes my remarks on the group as Chair of the Committee. I hope that that contribution sets out clearly the rationale of the Committee in proposing the amendments.

With you permission, Mr Speaker, I will speak to one amendment in particular in the group in my capacity as an Alliance MLA, and that is amendment No 8. To my mind, it is fundamentally important in ensuring that the Bill is effective. Amendment No 8 is the requirement that whoever holds the office of Minister of Education in future years come to the Assembly every three years and report clearly on the impact of the Bill and what it has done to the costs of school uniforms across Northern Ireland and, specifically, to address whether the cost-cap power will be utilised; if it has, what has been the impact; and, if not, whether there is the intention to do so.

Every Member of the Assembly will hear from their constituents about the impact of excessive school uniform costs on their family finances. At times, for some schools, those costs can be crippling and create huge stress and distress, particularly over the summer months. As the Bill is really fairly light on detail about what will be delivered as an outworking of the guidelines, we felt that it was vital that there was a mechanism to ensure accountability. To my mind, the Bill gives us no assurances of what the guidelines will specifically require schools to do.

We have not seen the draft guidelines. I assume that they have been drafted and are in place, but, for whatever reason, they have not been provided to us. We certainly do not have even a sense of what their content will be. I sincerely hope that the guidelines will provide a clear, enforceable framework that will require schools that still expect parents to pay excessive costs to get the situation under control. No Member wants to see £180 blazers in any school uniform policy. That price seems to be so disconnected from parents' lived financial realities as to make it hard for me to comprehend how it could be stood over.

The Bill is light on definitive elements that schools will be required to adhere to in guidelines, while the provisions to restrict branded items or to introduce a cost cap remain either "may" provisions that are subject to amendment today or, in the case of a cap, an enabling provision that may or may not be used in the future, so I am clear that there is a need for accountability. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me that, once a mandate, whoever holds the office of Minister of Education should report to the House on the legislation's impact on reducing school uniform costs; on any intention to implement a cost cap, and if not, why not; and on any plans that the Department has to carry out a further review of the guidelines.

Without amendment No 8, I fear that, regardless of its impact on cost — positive or negative — once it gains Royal Assent, there is a real risk that the Bill will be seen as the final destination when it comes to intervention from the Department on the cost of uniforms. It is therefore vital that there be accountability regarding its effectiveness and what the Department will do if the legislation does not deliver as promised.

I wish to be clear. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: I sincerely hope that the legislation is effective, and I welcome the fact that it is being debated in the Assembly today. I will welcome its impact if that is the scenario in which we find ourselves, because if we are serious about doing our job, everybody here will want to see uniform costs be reduced for parents. It is not in any way about getting one up on any other party or winning but about making sure that parents win out of the process. If the Bill is not effective, or it is not as effective as it could be, the Assembly should have the opportunity to interrogate properly why that is the case and to hear how it will be corrected.

I am satisfied that my remarks as Chair set out a clear rationale for the other amendments in the group, but I place firmly on the record my views on the importance of amendment No 8, which I was pleased to propose at Committee Stage. I am also pleased that it received support from all members when we went through our clause-by-clause deliberations. I look forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments in the group.

Mr McCrossan: I speak in support of the Bill and the amendments in group 1. Those amendments, which cover regular review, reporting, enforcement and transparency, are about making sure that the legislation delivers real relief to parents rather than gathers dust on a shelf.

Let me be clear that, although schools may close their doors during the summer months, parents' stress does not stop. The reality of school uniform costs weighs heavily on the mind of tens of thousands of families across Northern Ireland, and each September is marked not by excitement but by dread at the mounting bills for blazers, PE kits and endless branded items. Research from Pivotal has shown that one in 10 children here has missed school because they could not meet uniform requirements. Just think about that for a moment. Young people are being excluded from education not because of their ability or willingness to learn but because their parents cannot afford the right jumper or trainers. The same study showed that 73% of low-income families struggled to meet the costs.

Those are not just statistics. We all hear from our constituents day and daily. Families are paying over £100 for a single blazer, and often more when the school insists on specific suppliers being used. For families with two or three children in different schools with various uniform requirements, the costs become crushing, yet a £100 blazer does not make a child a better learner. It does not help them in their maths test or help improve their spelling. Rather, it drives up inequality in our classrooms. The Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) tells us that the average cost of getting a child back to school is nearly £1,000, and uniforms make up a huge part of that cost. Figures from the Parent Engagement Group (PEG) suggest an average uniform cost of £378 in Northern Ireland.

That is simply not sustainable. It is pushing families into debt and forcing them to make impossible choices between heating, food and their children's education. That is why the group 1 amendments matter.

Amendment No 1 requires guidelines to be reviewed:

Without that amendment, the Department can review them "from time to time", which, in practice, means maybe or maybe not. Families cannot wait on good intentions. They need regular scrutiny to be written into law in order to ensure accountability.

Amendment No 4 requires guidelines to be laid before the Assembly. That matters, because guidelines have power only when they are open to proper scrutiny and debate. We cannot outsource that to departmental corridors. The Assembly must see and approve what is being done in the name of affordability.

Amendment No 8, as outlined by the Committee Chair, introduces "Reporting on school uniform costs", including figures on mean and median costs, the effect of any capping and future plans. The Minister has argued that that is too prescriptive or unclear, but there is nothing unclear about a family staring at a £400 bill for a uniform for a single child. Parents will want clarity on whether the Bill is working and whether schools are lowering those costs. Without data, we are blind. Amendment No 8 ensures that the Department gathers and shares the evidence that we need.

Amendment Nos 9 and 11 strengthen the Department's power to intervene when schools fail to follow guidelines. If schools do not comply, it cannot be optional for the Department to act, otherwise we risk creating a law with no consequence, which is a mistake that is made too often in the House. Families deserve to know that, if a school breaches its duties, the Department must step in.

Amendment No 12 ensures that directions that are given to schools are published. Again, the Minister has objected, suggesting that that amounts to naming and shaming, but let us be honest: transparency is not about shaming. It is about accountability. If a school is failing its pupils by imposing unaffordable and unfair uniform rules, parents have the right to know. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and secrecy will only erode trust.

The amendments are not radical; they are quite modest, practical and necessary. They place transparency, regular review and accountability at the heart of the Bill. Let me add this: while we work through the law, parents and communities have not been waiting. Across Northern Ireland, pre-loved uniform schemes are making a real difference to many families and to the lives of young people. The Redeeming Our Communities project, for example, has helped nearly 900 families with recycled uniforms. Those initiatives save money, reduce waste and build community spirit. Similar initiatives in my constituency have played out well and have supported countless families over the summer and leading into September. It is a pity that amendments to embed such schemes more fully in the Bill were not accepted, but the fact that those projects exist shows the will of parents and communities to act where the Government have been too slow or non-existent.

As we consider the group 1 amendments, let us remember this: the success of the Bill will be measured not on its technical drafting but on the pounds and pennies that families save come September. The group 1 amendments make sure that the law is not just words on the page but a tool that can deliver affordability, fairness and dignity for parents and pupils alike.

Mr Sheehan: I would like to be able to get up and say that I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does not go very far at all, and that is the difficulty with it. We on the Committee had a very productive Committee Stage. The Committee heard evidence from many witnesses, including from schools, teachers, parents, the Children's Commissioner, representatives from the Human Rights Commission and others. There was an opportunity to include in the Bill affordability and equality, not just for boys and girls but for children with special needs, so that they would also win from the legislation. The Minister and his party, I have to say, were opposed to practically all the amendments that were brought forward by the Committee. That is unfortunate. What we are left with is a watered-down piece of draft legislation. We are not even sure what impact it will have. I suppose that what the Minister wanted was for the Assembly to give him the power to make guidelines. What the Committee wanted was for the Bill to be much more prescriptive, because, whatever guidelines the Minister may intend to implement at some stage, another Minister could come in and change those guidelines. If the Bill were more prescriptive and issues such as affordability and equality were included in it, we would be in a much stronger position.

The amendments in group 1 ensure that any guidance that comes out of the Bill is not only written but enforced and monitored. I will speak briefly in support of amendment Nos 1, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12. I will not support the Minister's amendment No 10.

Amendment No 1 puts a clear duty on the Department to review guidelines at least once every three years. Families deserve the reassurance that those rules will not gather dust on a shelf. The cost of uniforms is not static. In recent years, we have seen the impact of inflation as well as the behaviour of some schools and suppliers, all of which drives up prices for families. Recently, we saw that a school had introduced a new blazer for its high performers. No one objects to schools acknowledging excellence in their school, but what that school did was to say that, if you were a high achiever, you could get a £180 woollen blazer to show how good you had been. I listened to the Minister — this is why I am so concerned about his intentions — when he was asked about that in a radio interview, and he could not even mildly criticise what that school had done. That was very disappointing. It showed that the Minister is not really serious about building affordability into the legislation.

Amendment No 4 requires guidelines to be laid before the Assembly. That is democratic oversight: pure and simple. If we want parents to trust the process, we cannot have decisions taken quietly, behind closed doors, by the Minister and his colleagues. As my colleague Daniel McCrossan said earlier, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

Amendment No 8 forces the Department to report on uniform costs, to assess the impact of any cost cap and, if no cap is introduced, to explain why. Families deserve full transparency and a clear rationale from the Minister if no cap is introduced.

Amendment No 9 gives the legislation some teeth by compelling intervention when schools ignore the rules. Is that not just simple and straightforward? If you tell a school what it has to do, and the school says, "No, we do not like that and will not do it", should there not be some sanction for that? There are already guidelines, although they are not statutory, on school uniforms and school uniform policy.

I wonder whether the Minister has spoken to any schools about implementing those guidelines. I am pretty sure that he has not.

If schools ignore statutory guidelines, what will the Minister and the Department do? Will they say, "Come on, play the game. Get your act together and implement a fair and affordable uniform policy in your school"? The school will say, "Minister, sling your hook". What will the Minister do? The days of schools ignoring such guidance cannot —

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that any attempt to dilute the amendments that the Committee has tabled on the enforceability of the directions and on openness and transparency around them will not inspire confidence in how serious the Department or the Minister is about ensuring that the guidelines are implemented?

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly. Any legislation must garner the confidence of the House in the Minister's seriousness about the intention behind it. It seems that the Minister is involved in a bit of window dressing, saying, "Look at me. I will bring in legislation that will make uniforms more affordable". In reality, we have thus far seen no evidence that that will happen. The Chair of the Committee will know that we were promised that we would see the guidelines. At one stage — probably April or May; maybe even before then — we were told that we would see them the following week. When they did not arrive, we were told, "It might take us a couple of weeks. We have to dot the i's and cross the t's". Where are the guidelines? We still have not seen them. If the Minister were serious about trying to marshal support for the legislation, the guidelines would have been available long before today.

As I said, the days of schools ignoring guidance cannot continue. Families are relying on the legislation to make a difference.

Amendment No 11 removes ambiguity, and amendment No 12 requires directions to schools to be published. Parents need to know when a school has been instructed and compelled to change course.

I will touch on amendment No 10, tabled by the Minister. It would undermine any limited protections that the Bill might have offered to children and young people. It proposes to insert the word "undue", which, in my opinion, raises the threshold for intervention. That means that pupils could still be punished for uniform breaches as long as the punishment is not judged to be undue. The point of the Bill is to stop unfair penalties on families, not legitimise them with wriggle room. We will oppose that amendment.

For Members' information, we recently spoke to a principal whose school has an excellent uniform policy. Parents are able to purchase the uniform of that school for £2 less than the uniform grant. With the Bill, the Minister could have done the same thing for every school. One of the big issues in our schools is absenteeism. Many children are absent because they have not conformed with uniform policy. That principal told us that he does not care what children wear, as long as they are in school. We should all have that attitude in trying to get our children into school, because we all know about the long tail of underachievement here.

There is a wider issue. To date, as I have mentioned, neither the DUP Education Minister nor his Department has produced the draft guidelines that will accompany the Bill. Never mind that we were promised the guidelines; it is just not good practice, if we are serious about legislating properly, that the Department and the Minister should promise us guidelines but we do not get them. We are being asked to blindly trust the Minister, and we are not prepared to do that. That is exactly why we worked with others across the Chamber, particularly the Alliance Party and the SDLP, in the Education Committee, to table wide-ranging amendments so that, no matter which Minister may be in post, families could be assured of consistency and fairness regardless of who holds office.

Finally, while we support this group of amendments, again, I must mention the missed opportunity. We tabled amendments on children's rights, on equality, on making reasonable accommodations for pupils with additional needs and on uniform reuse schemes, all of which were considered not to be part of the Bill and that, therefore, cannot be debated today. Perhaps, in due course, we will get an explanation of why that is the case. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

Mr Brooks: The legislation should not greatly divide the House. There were several times during the Bill's Committee Stage when some were distracted from the Bill's original intent and the core promise that we and a number of other parties in the House laid out as our overriding aim: to bring down the cost of school uniforms for hard-pressed families across Northern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and we should all be united in ensuring that no child is denied opportunity or dignity in school because of the cost of a blazer or a PE kit. To be fair, despite the areas where we differ, I do not believe that any Member here is blind to the pressures that households face, particularly in today's climate, where every pound is stretched further than before. While we share that concern, it is our duty to ensure that the way in which we legislate is proportionate and workable. There is always a balance to be struck between affordability, with checks and balances against excess, and school autonomy.

To be clear, most of our schools are mindful not only of their pupils but of the families that support them. Schools seek to do their best to balance uniform requirements and practicality against the costs that, they know, their choices will place on parents and guardians. The schools are communities in themselves, and often uniform is a vital part of fostering identity, discipline and pride. In seeking to solve one problem, we must not create another by imposing rigid, centralised rules that leave governors, principals and parents without flexibility or, worse, add to the burden of bureaucracy. It has been clear in the Committee process that some of the aspects that we might understandably wish to have in the Bill are neither as simple as they sound nor as likely, without significantly more work or learning from other jurisdictions, to have as positive an impact on parents and schools as we might wish.

I suggest that the answer lies in strengthening the guidance and partnership, rather than legislating every detail. The Bill does that, and it gives the Minister the power to bring in sanctions where justified, should a school gratuitously continue to ignore guidance. While such powers under the Bill would reside in the Minister's gift — Pat has looked at that point from another angle — I remind the House that, as the mandate draws on, we do not know who will hold the portfolio in future. Parties should not be unduly influenced in their judgement over how aligned or not they are with the current Minister. I thank Pat for his vote of confidence in the current Minister, but I wonder which party he is afraid of holding the post in future.

Parents want fairness and transparency, schools want discretion and respect for their ethos, and that balance can be struck appropriately. We are mindful, too, of the impact that such legislation can have on many of our small retailers, and we heard about that from Retail NI. Those retailers have been diligently serving families and schools for many years — some for generations. The Committee heard from a panel from Retail NI about the complex web of supplies and turnaround times and the effects that that can have, particularly in trying to come to a conclusion on a cap. While we cannot expect that they can compete on price with online giants for generic items — some have moved away from supplying PE kit due to schools' direct arrangements with branded manufacturers, as we have heard — they have long done their best to provide good school-specific items at the lowest cost they can to our communities.

As we move through the clauses of the Bill, our party has given and will continue to give each one careful consideration. We have listened to the sensible provisions to improve accountability and transparency, but we have resisted and will resist measures that add bureaucracy without significant gain or have been more about projecting ideology over achieving a better outcome for families.

We are not minded to oppose amendment Nos 1 and 4 to clause 1. There are some concerns about the additional bureaucracy but not so much as to oppose.

Despite allowing it to pass to this point, we will oppose amendment No 8. That is the new clause 4A. We share the concerns that the Minister laid out in correspondence to the Chair of the Committee this morning, and we feel that the terminology of the clause is unclear. There is also a lack of recognition that uniforms at secondary level are normally, as a standard, more expensive than those at primary school. Clearly, we understand that, as he has laid out, the Minister will undertake to table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that should give the same outcome as that which Members intend but takes into account the complexities around the cap that the Committee has heard.

On principle, we will also oppose amendment No 9 to clause 7. The amendment would remove consistency, as, again, the Minister laid out, with article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and we feel that the impact of the amendment would be limited, as the assessment of whether a direction is required still takes place.

We will support amendment No 10. We will oppose amendment Nos 11 and 12, as with amendment No 8, in light of the correspondence and engagement with the Minister. On amendment No 11, it is on a similar basis to that laid out with amendment No 9, as it introduces inconsistency with existing provisions and legislation and prevents consultation with the school and an opportunity to resolve any issues informally. On amendment No 12, we share the Minister's concern and do not feel that placing in legislation rather than at the Minister's discretion the requirement to name and shame schools is helpful or necessary.

Mr Mathison: Thank you for giving way. In relation to the issue of publishing directions that are made, do you agree that that would deliver a more effective deterrent and that schools would be much more likely to roll the dice around whether to comply with the guidelines if they knew that there was a sanction that could impact on their reputation?

Mr Brooks: It can, of course, act as a deterrent. In all of these things, it is about a balance. Naming and shaming and balance in any sector on any cause is always a controversial subject, so it is really about whether we think that the effect that naming and shaming a school might have is disproportionate and, not least, unhelpful as regards a conducive atmosphere between the Department and our schools. It is about finding that balance. I understand the argument, but, in this case, I side on the other side, I am afraid.

We must be clear: the objective of affordable, accessible school uniforms for families and of no child making school choices either on the institution that they desire or the activities and subjects that they get involved with on the basis of affordability is an aim that we should surely all share, but the means of achieving that must be fair, workable and respectful of school communities. That is the test that we have always applied in considering the Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress and, even more, to the delivery of reduced costs for parents and guardians across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Mason: The amendments are about ensuring that whatever guidance, when we finally get to see it, comes out of the Bill is not only written but enforced and monitored. I will speak briefly in support of amendment Nos 1, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12. I will not support the Minister's amendment No 10.

Amendment No 1 would ensure that the Department reviews the guidelines:

Uniform costs continue to spiral. In recent years, inflation, paired with the actions of some schools and suppliers, has increased costs for families. Regular inspection of the cost of uniforms would give families the assurance that such interventions are not temporary.

Amendment No 4 would require guidelines to be brought before the Assembly, thus taking the decisions out of the hands of the Minister and his colleagues and putting them in those of the Assembly, thereby ensuring full transparency for families.

Amendment No 8 would make it a requirement for the Department to publish a report:

to review the cost of school uniforms and to consider the introduction of a price cap. A clear explanation from the Minister when no cap is applied would also be required. That is the transparency that families need and the test that is required.

Amendment No 9 would give the Department the ability to intervene if schools breach uniform guidelines or if pupils are being unfairly punished for not following uniform rules. As my party colleague Pat Sheehan stated, amendment No 11 would remove any ambiguity, while amendment No 12 would require directions to schools to be published. Parents need to be informed when a school is being directed to change its approach.

We will not support the Minister's amendment No 10, as it seeks to undermine any limited protections that the Bill may offer to children and young people. As my party colleague explained, adding the word "undue" risks allowing pupils still to be punished for uniform breaches. That means that a girl who is on her period cannot wear trousers; that a child who is standing outside in the freezing cold cannot wear their coat; and that a child who has sensory needs must go on feeling uncomfortable and distressed. Further amendments could have addressed such situations, but their selection was at the Speaker's discretion.

Although I support most of the amendments in group 1, I note a missed opportunity. I drafted a private Member's Bill that would have introduced stronger proposals to ensure that we drive down the cost of school uniforms. We are in this position today because the Minister's Bill takes precedence over private Members' Bills. Instead, my Sinn Féin colleagues and I therefore worked alongside other parties on the Committee to table amendments on children's rights; on giving girls the option to wear trousers, although it is unbelievable that we are even discussing that in this day and age; on making reasonable accommodation for pupils with additional needs; and on introducing uniform reuse schemes. All were left out of today's debate. Perhaps, as Pat Sheehan said, we will, in due course, be offered an explanation as to why that happened.

We are now in the peculiar position of discussing a Bill on uniforms when neither the DUP Education Minister nor his Department has produced the draft guidelines that will accompany it. That is unacceptable. If we are to be serious about ensuring that school uniform policy is fit for purpose, the Minister should take the opportunity today to clarify when we can expect the guidance to be produced.

We wanted a Bill that would truly make uniforms affordable for everyone, make them inclusive and promote equality. Unfortunately, I now need to be convinced that that is what we have in front of us in what remains in the Bill after it has been stripped of genuine interventions.

Mrs Guy: It is good to have legislation before us today. Delivering and scrutinising legislation is what we are here for, and I appreciate the opportunity to debate the selected proposed amendments to the School Uniforms Bill. I thank the Committee for its careful work on scrutinising the Bill in a very compressed time frame, and I also thank the Bill Office, which provided diligent and invaluable support to Members.

The Alliance Party has long campaigned for action on the cost of school uniforms, so we welcome the fact that at least some progress has been made after years of inaction. It is a shame, however, that the Bill lacks ambition and scope. For example, I got up today and thought about what I would wear for "comfort and practicality", which is the language of the Bill, and I opted for trousers, yet girls across Northern Ireland do not necessarily have that choice, and the Bill will do nothing to address that. Let me be clear that our concern is that the Bill's main achievement risks being that the Minister can say that he did something: a neat box ticked for an election leaflet rather than genuine relief for families. We all understand the importance of tradition in schools, but policies must never exclude. Schools that are funded by public money should not create barriers for children from families on low or modest incomes.

The amendments in group 1 are on monitoring and enforcement. Legislation has value only if it changes practice. That means having real monitoring, real enforcement and real accountability. Families cannot afford another round of warm words and glossy guidance; they need affordable uniforms for their children, and the Assembly should accept nothing less. The amendments in this group are essential, because, without good enforcement, those schools that already demonstrate best practice in affordability will continue to do so, while those that do not will simply be able to carry on without consequence.

Amendment No 1 is important to ensure that the Department regularly reviews the statutory guidelines. We imagine that the Minister will want to do that more regularly initially anyway in order to ensure that the guidelines have the impact of making school uniforms more cost-effective. The Department's report on the consultation made it clear that there was widespread support for that regular review, with 77% of respondents agreeing:

and 79% agreeing with "monitoring and evaluation proposals". It therefore makes complete sense that the Department should have to review statutory guidance and that it should not be left as a "from time to time" approach.

Amendment No 4 simply requires the Department to lay the guidelines before the Assembly, which is the minimum standard of transparency and democratic oversight for them.

I am glad to say that amendment No 8 passed unanimously at Committee Stage. That amendment is a response to the fact that the Department was not able to present details on how a price cap could work or provide a preferred option. We know that the Department will consult specifically on the price cap, and I hope that the Minister can speak to when that will be and to his confidence that it will become a reality. We know that there is support for a price cap. The consultation report notes that 88% of respondents supported a "cost control measure being introduced". When I spoke to families about the legislation, that was the element that they told me that they would like to see. That is what people believe will bring costs down. I fully understand why they believe that, especially given that we have not seen any draft guidance. In the absence of draft statutory guidance from the Minister on the proposals for a price cap, Alliance tabled this amendment. It holds the Department to account on a price cap, stating that it must report:

on the:

on the effect of a cap, if introduced — or, if no cap has been introduced, why not — and on "subsequent plans" for guidance on the cap. Amendment No 8 is, essentially, a scrutiny amendment.

Amendment No 9 is concerned with directions on adherence to guidelines. Essentially, it is about how the Department will ensure that there is compliance with its statutory guidance. We could not understand why the Department would not give directions to schools that failed to adhere to guidelines. That is especially the case when there is an allowance or transitional guidance in place in the Bill. As outlined in clause 7(1)(a), the Department will be assured, through its investigation, about whether a school is "failing to adhere ... to guidelines". When we are talking about directions to the school manager, we see that those are clearly outlined in clause 7(5). I truly do not understand why that amendment would not be supported. The Department gave little assurance or clarity on the issue; therefore, the Committee felt that it was important to ensure that the Department will do its job, although I hope that it will not be necessary.

Amendment No 11 is about simplifying the process of how the Department issues directions. Again, the majority of the Committee could not understand why, after having conversations with a school on potential breaches of the guidance — that is, of course, the right approach — the Department would then go back to consult the school manager on their proposals for directions.

Amendment No 12 is not about naming and shaming schools. There is a considerable road to travel for engagement with schools before a direction would be given. Publicly funded schools should not have policies that breach statutory guidelines. There should be transparency on that.

Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak at this stage — my colleague and I have separated out the groups — but I thought that I would pick up on a couple of things that have been said so far. The Member for West Tyrone Mr McCrossan is not in his seat. He said that the success of the Bill will be judged by the pounds and pennies that are saved and not by its "technical drafting". To a degree, I agree with him in that the outworking and policy intent of the Bill will be judged by the amount that parents actually save. To achieve that policy intent, legislation has to be right, and that is what we are about at fourth stage today.

I want to pick up my feeling so far in the debate from some other parties. Obviously, Members are on the Committee with me. I am a bit disappointed in the negativity around the debate. We have before us a Bill — Members can have different views on this — that will, in my view and in the expert opinion of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), reduce uniform costs for parents in Northern Ireland.

Mr Baker: Thank you to the Member for giving way. Will he not share my frustration and disappointment that the majority of the amendments put forward by the Committee have not made it today for debate? Will he not question why, given that they are well within the scope of the Bill yet are not there?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Belfast for his question. I will point out a few things to him. Clearly, the Speaker makes those decisions, and he is completely independent. Secondly, on numerous occasions during Committee Stage, I and my colleague pointed out that there were some things in the amendments that I felt — that is just my opinion — were outside the Bill's scope.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. I was due to say a few words before we break for Question Time and resume the debate at 3.30 pm. I will elaborate later on some of the substantive points that Members have made, but I will make one point now. The Bill was not introduced by me alone but was approved by the Executive. Every Member who has spoken and raised concerns is from a party that has Executive members. I engaged with the Alliance leader on the Bill before we went through the Executive, and I engaged with Sinn Féin. The Bill is a product of the Northern Ireland Executive, on which your parties have representatives. That is the legislation. There was opportunity to seek change to the legislation and to have that change included in the Bill by your parties' members of the Executive.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Givan: Therefore, I say to Members —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister.

Mr Givan: — that that is worth bearing in mind when you are criticising the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister. Order, please. Can we return to the substance of the amendments rather than focusing on issues that, either regrettably or successfully, were not selected? If you continue to do this —.

Mr Givan: We are not.

A Member: We are not.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, I will decide that. If you all continue to do this, we are going to have a very different debate this afternoon. I am just letting you know.

Sorry to cut you short. Question Time begins at 2.00 pm. After that you can continue your apparently very small point that so far has lasted five and a half minutes. We will continue the rest of your points after Question Time. Members, please take your ease.

Mr Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I am most exercised by the fact that, for far too long, patients have faced unequal access to timely breast cancer assessments. In one geographic part of the country, we were consistently meeting the 14-day target, while, in others, fewer than 10% of patients were seen within that time frame. The regional system was designed to eliminate disparities by pooling referrals into a single waiting list and offering patients the earliest available appointment, regardless of their home trust. We have taken a deliberate step towards fairness and consistency, and therefore the system is delivering on the promise of equalised access but is not delivering on the challenge of meeting the 14-day target. The current average wait is simply not acceptable. I have told officials that it is not acceptable to me and that I expect to see improvements.

We have allocated £5 million in recurrent funding through the elective care framework. That will support additional waiting list initiatives and the expanded use of the independent sector, while we work to increase clinical capacity in the trusts. A comprehensive review of breast services, meanwhile, is under way. I want to ensure sustainability and resilience in the years to come.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for the answer. I am sure that he will be aware that this causes great distress not just to the women involved but to their families. What reassurances does the Minister plan to give women across Northern Ireland that they will, indeed, be seen within the target time for red-flag breast cancer referrals? The Minister said that he had made it clear to officials that the waiting times were not acceptable to him, but he did not outline the plan or direction given to officials to fix and resolve the issue for those women across Northern Ireland.

Mr Nesbitt: As I said to the Member, £5 million has been allocated through the elective care framework implementation plan. That will strengthen long-term resilience and reduce reliance on temporary measures. We must get rid of temporary measures and install resilience. On my actions to deal with the immediate pressures, the trusts have been instructed to prioritise red-flag referrals in the existing core capacity to ensure timely access for the most clinically urgent cases. The strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) is working with trusts on a plan to provide regular additional waiting list initiative clinics and mega-clinics. The independent sector will also supplement capacity in the short term.

Mrs Dillon: The original question was about the plan to reduce waiting times. The target time for red-flag breast services is 14 days, and some women have waited for eight, nine, 10 and 11 weeks. It might be that, across the board, everybody has to wait, but that is no comfort to those women or their families. Some of the women have a family history of aggressive cancers that can deteriorate in a matter of days or weeks. What is the plan?

Mr Nesbitt: An eight-, nine-, 10- or 11-week wait is not acceptable to me, patients or their families: I get it. However, the postcode lottery that was in place before I introduced the regional booking service was equally unacceptable. You could have been living a mile away from a trust that was seeing all or nearly all its patients within the 14-day target, while your trust satisfied only 10% of the demand. That was clearly inequitable and unfair, and we have successfully moved to do away with the postcode lottery. We now have to drive down the waiting times and meet the 14-day target. It is a big ask but one that those patients deserve to see delivered.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the fact that action has now been taken to end the sheer inequity and postcode lottery for patients with suspected breast cancer. Does the Minister agree that, in a region as small as Northern Ireland, with a population of fewer than two million people, there should be no tolerance of such varying patient experiences not just of services for suspected breast cancer but of other specialities?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely agree with the Member. He will be aware that, during my time as Minister of Health, one of my objectives is to ensure that, whatever the condition or process or entry point for a patient or service user into our Health and Social Care (HSC) system anywhere in Northern Ireland, the patient receives a standardised, regionalised service. That is the ambition across the board.

Mr McGlone: Minister, it appears that, since the centralisation of services — that is what it has been — there has, in fact, been a deterioration of those services for many women who are deeply concerned about their health. What additional resources are being allocated to trusts and health services in order that people who are deeply concerned about their health can be seen as soon as possible?

Mr Nesbitt: The answer to your question is, as I outlined, the £5 million of additional moneys through the elective care framework implementation plan. I acknowledge that there are explanations — not excuses — for what happened. For example, it was over the summer, and the workforce was challenged because people need their summer holidays. A number of factors play into it. I stress this: explanations and excuses are different things. That is only an explanation; it does not make it right.

Mr Nesbitt: Evidence suggests that men are disproportionately affected by certain conditions, such as some types of heart disease, and smoking; indeed, more men than women die by suicide. The inequalities in men's health are stark. On average, those in more deprived areas are much more likely to die early than those in the least deprived areas. The gap in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy at birth between men and women increases in line with greater levels of deprivation.

The Public Health Agency (PHA) supports a wide range of men's health initiatives. While there is no current plan to develop a men's health strategy or action plan for Northern Ireland, given the existing resource constraints, I want to ensure that, in the development of health-promoting strategies and plans, relevant actions target men and are included where there is a difference in behaviours or outcomes between the genders.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. The question comes on the back of some positive collaborative work being done in my constituency by a group of men's social and health groups in our community that come together through the East Belfast Community Development Agency (EBCDA).

In light of the concerns that the Minister has raised about the higher rates of preventable illness, mental health challenges and premature mortality among men, will he outline what actions his Department is taking to address health inequalities among men?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question, because it takes me to my Live Better initiative. When I took up post, one of the most shocking reports that I saw was on health inequalities. This year's health inequalities report is out. It confirms that the difference in healthy life expectancy between people living in the areas of most deprivation and those in the areas of least deprivation can be as much as 14 years. I find that shocking, given that we are a quarter of the way into the 21st century and in a First-World country, and I do not understand why we have tolerated it for so long. Live Better bundles together services that already exist, takes them into areas of deprivation and tries to get them as close to people's front door as possible, because all the empirical evidence suggests that, if you do that, uptake goes up.

Mr Blair: Will the Minister provide an update on the prostate cancer screening evidence review undertaken by the UK National Screening Committee and outline any preparation that his officials have undertaken ahead of the recommendations from that review?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of that research, and my Department has been looking at it. However, I will have to write to the Member with the detail because I do not have that off the top of my head.

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister provide an overview of some of the most pressing issues affecting men's health at this time in Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to welcome him onto the Floor of the Chamber.

My number one for men's health is suicide. It is a major risk factor for men. Suicide is a major cause of death, particularly for men under the age of 50. Cardiovascular disease is also a contributory factor to poor men's health. Many conditions, such as heart disease, are preventable, as I know from my experience. There is the potential to do more on male cancers with early detection through the screening of testicular and prostate cancers. Men are also disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes. Those are all critical areas where, as Minister, I want to put a focus.

Mr Nesbitt: In a recent response to a question for written answer from the Member on the same topic, I welcomed the report by the UK Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee on women's reproductive health conditions. It highlighted the fact that women often find that their pain is normalised or dismissed when they seek medical help from the NHS in England. I am aware, through qualitative feedback received by my Department, that some women in Northern Ireland have had similar experiences. Others have reported having a positive experience when discussing issues with their healthcare provider. I fully acknowledge the range of experiences. However, to the question of whether an impact assessment has been made, unfortunately you cannot readily assess something that is not well defined and measurable. However, I recognise the importance of clinical education and the need to listen to women in this area and ensure that appropriate referrals are made and treatment decisions are taken that best meet the needs of those individuals.

Mr Carroll: Minister, it would be remiss of me not to mention that this month is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, but thank you for your answer.

Over the last few months, my office has engaged with quite a lot of women who have been failed by a broken medical system. They know what medical misogyny is. They have a problem not only with waiting lists but with dismissal of their health concerns. Have the Minister and his officials looked at Portugal, which seems to lead the way in providing extra days of leave and putting in place other support systems for women who experience particular healthcare issues?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of whether we have looked at the model in Portugal, but I assure Mr Carroll that we will certainly take that away. It may be of interest, as a bit of a tangent, that I was at a four-nations ministerial meeting on substance use last week, and the question of whether Portugal was leading the way in permissiveness in the use of drugs came up. The answer was that it was, but, because it is no longer putting resources into helping people who are taking drugs, those problems are re-emerging. I find that interesting.

Mrs Dodds: Few factors impact on women's healthcare more than having a maternity and children's hospital that is unsafe for women and babies and that patients and staff are not allowed into. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Belfast Trust and his Department will continue to explore the issue of financial liability for that scandalous situation — I understand that the cost could be in the region of £9 million — and that there will be no compromise on the issue? Will the Minister also indicate why the review of who is to blame for the debacle over the handover of the maternity hospital has been discontinued?

Mr Nesbitt: On the first point, absolutely we want to get to the bottom of it and understand what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. However, I am not going to jump the gun. I assure the Member that, when we find out who is responsible, we will take the appropriate action.

As to the second part of the Member's question, it is my understanding — I await a formal briefing on it — that a couple of the workforce in the Belfast Trust were perhaps not as forthcoming as we might have expected them to be in their engagement in that review process. I await a formal briefing, and then I will make my decision. I assure the Member that it is not acceptable to me if a member of the workforce of the Belfast Trust or, indeed, of the Department of Health is not fully engaging in any review or investigation into what has gone wrong. It has cost an awful lot from the public purse and, more important, has delayed the opening of that maternity hospital, which is badly needed for the women of this country.

Mr Nesbitt: I am acutely aware of the workforce challenges in consultant psychiatry in the Western Trust and, indeed, across the region. A number of actions are being progressed. In response to action 32 of the mental health strategy, a mental health workforce review report was published in July 2023 that set out 18 recommendations to address workforce challenges across statutory mental health services. Work is currently being progressed to deliver a number of key recommendations on costing the proposed future workforce profile and on the development of a future recruitment and training plan.

In parallel, my Department has established a psychiatric workforce task and finish group to identify a range of actions to help alleviate the pressures in the psychiatry workforce in the short to medium term. As part of a significant package of training expansions, I announced in May an additional 26 new medical specialty training posts, including six in core psychiatry.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Earlier, he mentioned health inequalities. Although poor mental health does not discriminate, it is much more prevalent in areas of high deprivation. Does the Minister recognise the dire need for the Western Trust, where there are the fewest psychiatrists, to receive funding to employ more psychiatrists in order to ensure that the people there get the service and support that they require? He referred to some of the recommendations that are being implemented. Can he be specific about which of them will boost the workforce in Derry?

Mr Nesbitt: Given the focus that I have had, since being elected in 2011, on mental health and well-being and, since I took up post as Minister, on health inequalities, I will try to be a bit more specific about a range of actions that, at low or no additional cost, will potentially help alleviate pressures in the psychiatric workforce. We are doing an analysis of sick absence rates, an analysis of locum use, an assessment of the impact of existing and emerging workforce challenges, an assessment of the impact of reinstating mental health officers and an assessment of how best to promote Northern Ireland as a region in which to work. That is what we are doing as regards the workforce.

The issues that people face in the Member's constituency, particularly in areas of deprivation, are well known, and those things overlap. I am very much of the opinion that tackling health inequalities is not just for the Department of Health to tackle. Socio-economic issues are also involved, so the Department for the Economy is involved. It is about the environment and people's behaviour. Equally, we can look at educational underperformance and not just look to the Minister of Education to do something about that. We know that healthier children do better in school, so that is down to me. If we look at our shocking rates of economic inactivity, with 27% of people of working age neither in work nor seeking work, once again, when we look at the contributing factors, we see that it is not just about affordable and accessible healthcare but about poor mental and physical health. All those things need a whole-system, all-Executive approach.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, I met the North's Royal College of Psychologists (RCPsych) here last week, and we had a very useful discussion about some of the problems, such as retention, recruitment and the lack of a permanent increase in the number of psychiatry training places here since 2007, all of which lead to unsafe staffing levels, workforce problems, problems with service provision and problems with the implementation of our mental health strategy. The Royal College of Psychologists detailed the use of locums, as the Minister has mentioned. Has he done any analysis of the additional cost of using locums to fill gaps in the workforce?

Mr Nesbitt: Absolutely. I will not quote figures to the Member, but we started with nursing and have reduced our reliance on agency nurses. Actually, we have cut it out. The focus now is on locums, who are very expensive, as the Member will be aware. We have asked one of the chief executives of the five geographic health and social care trusts to lead an investigation into ways in which to deliver a plan for doing the same with locums as we did with agency nurses.

Mr Middleton: Mental health must be prioritised. Will you outline the impact that the shortage of psychiatrists in the Western Trust has on patients? How does that compare with other trusts across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, if you need psychiatric help and it is not there for you, that can have a potentially devastating impact on your health. The number of psychiatrists in each trust will be determined by the population in the trust area and assessment of need, but the Member may find it very interesting to hear the number of vacancies across the five trusts. As of 30 June, there were 33 consultant psychiatrist vacancies across Northern Ireland. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust had the highest level of psychiatrist vacancies with 14, but the Western Trust was right behind with 13. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust had four vacancies, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust had two, and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust had none. There is another massive postcode lottery.

Ms D Armstrong: You outlined the steps that the Department is taking, which are commendable. Can you provide an update on the specific steps that the Western Trust is taking to address the challenges of consultant psychiatry pressures?

Mr Nesbitt: Following a formal application from the Western Trust, in August 2024, the Department approved a 10% recruitment and retention premium as an incentive in consultant psychiatry posts. Despite ongoing recruitment campaigns, no appointments, I regret to say, have been made to date.

In response, the trust submitted a further application seeking an enhanced rate of up to 20% for a mental health liaison team, crisis mental health services, including for inpatients, psychiatry of learning disability and community recovery teams. The Department approved that application on 22 August last. That agreed rate is up to 20% of a consultant's starting salary as a recruitment incentive, and, as I say the trust requested it.

We in the Department remain committed to supporting equitable access to mental health services, and we continue to assess and respond to workforce pressures in collaboration with the trusts and our other stakeholders.

Mr Nesbitt: Earlier this year, under the leadership of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer, we brought together senior leaders from across the health and social care system to learn from last winter and plan for winter 2025-26. I was clear that I wanted a blank sheet and a whole-system approach to look at what could be achieved in advance of the winter and in the longer term.

That process identified the need for a particular focus on interventions to improve the care of older people who are living with frailty, who have been identified as some of the most vulnerable to the risks that are associated with the winter period. Seven improvement projects have been established. They focus on reducing hospital demand by supporting older people to stay well and receive appropriate care in the community. That includes improving the use of advance clinical care planning and enhancing pathways for patients, ensuring that the right care is delivered in the right place the first time.

I hope to publish my winter preparedness plan in the next couple of weeks and, as in previous years, will again call on the public to do everything that is possible to help protect our system, including utilising community services where available and getting vaccinated if eligible.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for the update. I welcome the seven improvement projects. However, as of last Wednesday, 133 people were waiting for treatment in Altnagelvin Hospital's A&E department, and 49 were awaiting admission. What can you say to reassure the people who are seeking emergency care and to our staff who are working in A&E in Altnagelvin that things will change for the better?

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot say to anybody that things will be perfect, but I believe that the four sessions that we had — we called them the "big conversation" — which will lead to the plan for winter preparedness for 2025-26, will help. The urgent care offer at Altnagelvin has helped, and the respiratory offer has helped — we are increasing the availability and accessibility to the respiratory offer. Those things mean that you have pathways by which you can avoid having to go to ED.

I visited EDs last January. Of the seven that I visited, it is the visit to Altnagelvin that sticks. It is the oldest of the type 1 EDs in Northern Ireland, and you can tell that it is, but things are being done. The trust is doing things, even with seating accommodation, to try to ease the pressures. However, until you get a new ED, which is several years away, nothing is going to be perfect. We are only going to be doing continuous improvement.

Mr Donnelly: Last November, the chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine called the Minister's winter preparedness plan "too little, too late". Will the Minister give a timeline for the release of this year's winter preparedness plan and outline the lessons learned? How will it improve the ability of A&E departments and our hospitals to cope with the predictable annual increase in pressures across the health service and reassure patients and staff that this winter will be better?

Mr Nesbitt: As stated, I hope to be publishing that winter preparedness plan in the next two to three weeks. Certainly, the four sessions are over. I was very pleased with how the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer went about their business. I was extremely pleased with the appetite among stakeholders to attend those briefings; in fact, there were waiting lists for some of those sessions. I will not list the seven areas, but top was identifying elderly people with frailty issues. Clearly, if we can keep them out of an emergency department, we should be doing that. The Member is a nurse: he will know the pressures and how difficult it is. There are also vulnerable people for whom the noise and lighting in the EDs are not suitable. I visited those seven EDs in January and talked to people who were in the same chair, waiting for treatment, for four days. Please do not think that making steps towards making things better is anything but a real area of focus for me.

Mr Clarke: I hear what the Minister says about keeping people out of EDs, but we are all alive to the fact that the EDs are full today, have been for some time and are under pressure now. What confidence does the Minister have that the plan will make things any better come the winter? In the Minister's response to the original question, he talked about keeping the elderly population well. One thing that he did not touch on in his answer is access to GPs. They cannot get to their GP, so they are turning up at A&Es.

Mr Nesbitt: On that point, when I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital, more than one person in the urgent care unit — it is on the first floor, from memory — had a flask and packed lunch with them. I asked if they had been sent by their GP, and they said, "No, we didn't bother trying to phone our GP. We came straight here". They knew that they would be there for a number of hours, so they brought their food, drink and podcast and were happy to wait for a while.

These issues have been growing for a very, very long time. I absolutely agree with the Member that it is not about just winter pressures. In fact, going through last winter, I said to colleagues in the Department, "Please stop talking about winter pressures. We should be talking about additional winter pressures, because, sadly, the pressures on our emergency departments are 365". That has been very obvious, even over the summer. Here we are in mid-September. I have no doubt that, if we took ourselves to Derry/Londonderry and visited the ED at Altnagelvin, we would see a very unbecoming sight.

Mr Nesbitt: Health and social care trusts are responsible for staffing. The regional recruitment of newly qualified nurses is therefore led by the trusts, in partnership with the Business Services Organisation (BSO). It takes place twice per annum. The most recent regional recruitment exercise for newly qualified nurses received more than 700 applications for band 5 posts across the five geographical trusts. Those applications are ongoing. The availability of posts during any one exercise is based on current vacancies and anticipated staff turnover. That can change almost daily.

It is also important to recognise that not every job offer made to recent graduates will be accepted by them. Individuals may choose to refuse the offer of a post based on a number of factors, including location, working pattern and the clinical environment.

Mr Speaker: We do not have time for a supplementary, so we will move on to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: No.

Mr McGrath: I am told that the Finance Minister has washed his hands of the issue by telling health unions simply to contact the Health Minister, while the Executive Office will not even reply to correspondence from the health trade unions or me requesting a meeting. Does that not show that, whilst the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are more than willing to stand beside nurses on pickets, they are unwilling to stand up for them where it counts, namely in the Executive, and pay them what they are owed?

Mr Nesbitt: I will diverge from the Member's assessment and analysis of where we are. I understand that, as a spokesman for the Opposition, he comes at it from that angle. I do not see a fix for this outside the Executive working collaboratively, so I am not in the business of pointing a finger at any other Minister. I have made the point repeatedly that I understand that every Minister and every Department is suffering huge financial pressures. I believe that the pressures on Health are absolutely unprecedented: we are talking about a funding gap of around £614 million, and there is a question about whether is it unmanageable. Of that amount, £200 million is for nurses' pay.

After the last Executive meeting, I happened to have a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing. Its chief executive, Nicola Ranger, had flown in from London, and she made it very clear that nurses had had enough. She also made it clear that they felt that they were too soft the last time that they went on strike, and that their message did not land properly. The Royal College is balloting its members on strike action — not industrial action but strike action specifically — and have said that, if nurses go out on strike again, there will be no derogations and no mitigations this time. I am afraid that, unless something changes, we have to anticipate nurses on the streets by mid-November. For the waiting-list initiative in the Programme for Government and the delivery of health and social care, that is just massive.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand that the Member is geographically wedded to the South Eastern Trust. My focus, of course, has to more broad and on the whole of Northern Ireland. Yes, we are absolutely looking at ambulance waiting times. One of the other things that we are doing though — I am doing it with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, across the three Departments — is looking at alternative ways of getting non-emergency patients to and from hospital, such as by community transport.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for that answer, which leads in to my second question. What assurances can he give that the Department is investigating ways to improve hospital transport provision for less urgent and outpatient appointments?

Mr Nesbitt: As I said, we are trying to drive down the waiting times and handover times for all ambulances going to acute hospitals. For some time, there has been a cross-departmental working group that involves the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and my Department. We escalated it to a ministerial meeting just a few weeks ago because I certainly — I think that my colleagues agreed with me — felt that we were, perhaps, not getting the sort of outputs that we were looking for. We therefore asked them to refocus on their work, and we expect them to do just that and get back to us in short order with some actual proposals for how we can use community transport and other initiatives to improve delivery.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, the Member might be confusing me for a walking encyclopedia. Those are statistics that I do not have to hand. There are many statistics on health and social care. Those are important ones, and all I can say to the Member is that I will find that out and write to him.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat.

I appreciate that. I understood, when asking the question, that that would be the likely response.

Minister, what steps are you taking to improve the terms and conditions for staff in Health and Social Care? How will the strategy specifically reduce the service's reliance on agency staff?

Mr Nesbitt: As I said, we are at the point where we can say that we do not use agency nurses. We are now addressing locums, because using them is a very expensive way to do business. That is not to say that locums do not have their place — of course they do — but we have become over-reliant on locums and are not using them for the original purpose for which they were intended.

When it comes to what I am trying to do to make the nursing role more attractive, the first thing was to give them the 3·6% pay rise that was recommended by the independent body that made the recommendation for Agenda for Change staff, which includes nurses. However, I acknowledge that nurses would, perhaps, like to negotiate separately from the other Agenda for Change categories. We need to look particularly at promotion from band 5 to bands 6 and 7, because you can qualify as a band 5 nurse, have a long and very successful career and retire as a band 5 nurse. We have to look at ways of promoting nurses from band 5 through to bands 6 and 7. There is a whole basket of issues beyond money. It is about job satisfaction.

Mr Nesbitt: In an ideal world, absolutely. In the current world, with a £614 million gap in funding, it is simply not possible. I have had to stop going to my permanent secretary and saying, "What do you think about reopening this or putting a bit more into that?", because the answer is, "I am the permanent secretary and the accounting officer. If you tell me to do that, I will have to write back to you and say that we cannot make any argument under 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland', which is the keynote strategy, to justify that". I have to live with the cloth that I have been cut, I am afraid.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. I know that that will be disappointing to people. Given that the number of people who benefit from the independent living fund in Northern Ireland is reducing, will the Minister commit to keeping the same number of places open and open them to new applicants?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I can commit to saying that we will not cut the budget. I do not wish to cut that budget, but one of the frustrations is that, every week — maybe not every day but certainly multiple times a week — people come to me and make the argument, "If you invest a bit of money in this, you will get a great saving", like the one that the Member has detailed regarding the independent living fund. However, the money to pump-prime it does not exist. As an Executive, we have to sit down and think about this a bit more, because if we do not take those steps to save the money — there are big savings and better outcomes to be derived for patients and service users — we will continue to be in a financially challenging position and will not take the logical steps to get ourselves out of the mess.

Mr Nesbitt: It is partly to do with the environment in which people are working. Two of the seven emergency departments that I visited — the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald and the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast — were very modern. When I go to a really busy ED where the waits are measured in days rather than hours, I notice that nurses, doctors, clinicians and healthcare professionals know the right thing to do for a patient, but they end up having to decide on the least worst option so that they can move on to look after the next person. It is partly the environment and partly the demand. It is a cocktail of reasons. Again, that is to explain it without justifying it. I want to see it fixed.

Mr Delargy: We are aware of your longer-term plans to invest in and, hopefully, build a new emergency department at Altnagelvin, but people need to see immediate action today. You talked about the fact that we are coming into additional winter pressures, and I appreciate that that has been acknowledged, but what immediate action are you taking to ensure that the waiting times, which are already twice as long as those across the rest of the North, are not repeated and do not worsen this winter?

Mr Nesbitt: I say gently to the Member that it is not me who takes steps; the Western Health and Social Care Trust has to take steps. The trust is very aware, as are the other trusts, of my opinion on how we need to leave no stone unturned in trying to address waiting lists in those EDs. That is well understood. In the short term, the scope is limited by geography and budget, but that is not to say that we do not do everything that we can. To my mind, it is not just about the patients. While that is critical, it is also about the nurses and doctors and the moral injury that they feel because they are not permitted to make the best decisions that they know they can make.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that we are going to have a booster programme this winter. It will be linked in with the influenza vaccination offer as normal. I am not across the detail, so I will have to write to the Member.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister. Will he also detail the steps that his Department is taking to address public concerns about vaccines?

Mr Nesbitt: We are aware that there is vaccine hesitancy. I am not sure that the research suggests that it is quite as embedded in the societal psyche as some people think. We are not currently spending money on paid-for advertising such as TV promotions, but we will work with the primary care sector to encourage people to take up the boosters. Certainly, I get a message every year from my GP surgery, encouraging me to come along and book a session for the two jabs, which I get on the same day.

Mr Nesbitt: Those public transport arrangements are a matter for the Department for Infrastructure. As I have said, Minister Kimmins, Minister Muir and I discussed community transport and how we might better realign it to get the sort of outcomes that we are looking for. At this stage, with the resource and financial constraints that are upon me, I cannot commit to doing it, because if I were to do that for the Member's constituents, I would have to do it right across Northern Ireland. There certainly is not the budget or the resource available to do that.

Mr Martin: As the Minister will be aware, a decision was taken to close minor injury units (MIU) in Bangor and Newtownards, albeit quite recently, and to relocate them to the Ulster Hospital. Does the Minister agree that, for people who have no car and have to rely on a taxi to get to the ED at the Ulster Hospital, it is an expensive trip?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely acknowledge the challenge that it creates for people who do not have ready access to their own transport or to transport laid on by relatives or friends. We have to live in the real world, however. The minor injury unit at the Ards Community Hospital was closed and the service moved to the Ulster Hospital, 4·6 miles away on a dual carriageway. I do not think that that was a particular issue for the majority of people. That delivered better outcomes, because the MIU was then situated beside the ED, X-ray machines, CT scanners etc. I accept, however, that, for a minority of potential patients, a distance of 4·6 miles is an issue. I continue to look at it with Executive colleagues.

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

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I can advise that the most recent assessment for a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Cambrai Street and Flax Street was carried out on 11 October 2022. The assessment placed that location sixteenth on eastern division's prioritised list of potential sites that have been surveyed and assessed for a controlled crossing. One of my party colleagues, namely Gerry Kelly, has also raised the issue. As the Member will be aware, the Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for many years. While there are many locations across the North that would benefit from investment in enhanced pedestrian measures, such as controlled crossings, owing to the limited budget, schemes are taken forward through the prioritisation of those deemed most in need of intervention. The prioritised lists for pedestrian schemes are live lists and are kept under review.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her answer. She may be aware that there have been a number of developments since 2022, with the reopening of Flax Street, the filling of retail units at Hillview Retail Park, the new Eurospar at Edenderry garage and busy bus stops on both sides of the Crumlin Road. There is cross-community support for the pedestrian crossing. Will the Minister ask her officials to reassess that potential new crossing's priority? It should be moving up the list.

Ms Kimmins: I will take on board what the Member has said. Generally, officials revisit a location like that one only if there has been a major infrastructure development in the area or if considerable time has passed since the initial survey. There are no current plans to carry out a review. I will, however, go back to officials and discuss with them whether there is any potential for a review, given some of the enhancements to the area that the Member has mentioned.

Miss Hargey: Can the Minister provide an update on the Knockbreda Road crossing in South Belfast?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, I recently met her and some of her council colleagues. I can advise that my officials continue to progress the development of the Knockbreda Road crossing following receipt of representations from a further consultation carried out by Belfast City Council. Work on the design of the scheme remains ongoing.

Ms Kimmins: First, I extend my sympathies to the family of the young girl, Jaidyn Rice, who tragically lost her life at the junction of West Circular Road and Clandeboye Road on 8 July. My thoughts are with her family. What they have been going through in the aftermath is unimaginable.

I understand that the PSNI is leading an investigation of the collision. On completion of that investigation, my officials will liaise with the police to obtain further information relating to that collision and others in which injuries were sustained. At that point, officials will consider any emerging road safety factors that are relevant to my Department. As I have said, although there have been a number of injury collisions along the route, the majority were at the signal-controlled junctions, and no common causation factor has yet been identified that could be improved by additional safety measures. However, officials routinely review injury collision cluster sites from the data provided by the PSNI, and, if appropriate, an assessment is undertaken. What comes out of the investigation will be critical in informing our approach and next steps.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your words of condolence for Jaidyn's family. Her loss was absolutely horrendous and tragic for her family. Will you give a commitment to Jaidyn's family and the community in Bangor that their voices will be heard, that the incident will be taken seriously in your Department and that you will do everything in your power to ensure that we do not lose another life there?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. When any tragic incident such as that occurs, we have to take a step back and look at it to understand how and why it happened and at what we can do collectively to ensure that no other family goes through that. I have met lots of families who have been through similar incidents, so I would welcome that opportunity. I have spoken to a DUP Member about a potential meeting with the family. I am keen to have that meeting, and I am willing to hear from everyone.

Mr Chambers: Minister, my supplementary question goes a little beyond the A2 West Circular Road and back towards Belfast. A number of years ago, your Department introduced speed cameras on that road that measured average speed being driven between them. There was a public perception that the cameras were a bluff and did not work, but they had and still have a perceptible impact on speed on that road.

Another problem on that road that I have seen recently — it is endemic — is motorists jumping red lights. I am not sure whether your Department has access to any detection mechanism that would deter that practice, because it is only a matter of time —

Mr Speaker: Right. We have got the question, Mr Chambers.

Mr Chambers: — before there is a serious collision because of that.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for pointing that out. It chimes well with what the Department has been saying about the onus being on all of us to tackle driver behaviour. That is the main cause of all collisions, regardless of whether they result in a fatality. We constantly look at what we can do to improve road safety. I attended the road safety roadshow hosted by Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade just over a week ago. Most important in all such cases is that the onus is on each one of us. We are all road users, be that as a driver, pedestrian, cyclist or whatever we may be, and we have our part to play. It is about doing anything that we can to increase awareness and help people to think differently and be safer on our roads. That protects everyone. To quote one of our campaigns:

Whilst we all think that we are great drivers, to somebody else, you could be the reason why there is a collision.

I will take that on board. It is probably more of a policing issue, because it is about enforcement, but I can ask officials to see whether there is anything that we can do.

When I was on the road this morning, given the conditions that we were driving in, some of the driver behaviour that I witnessed as I was coming to Stormont was absolutely horrendous. There is something in that for us all to take away as we try to make a difference.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, I know that, along with my party colleague Councillor Ian Milne, you met a lady in my constituency, Stella McGinn, whose daughter, Caitlin-Rose, tragically lost her life getting off a school bus. I thank you for doing that. Will you outline the steps that you are taking to improve road safety, particularly for children?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that, and I pay tribute to Stella for her efforts after what can only be described as an absolutely horrendous incident with the loss of her beautiful young daughter. She has used that to focus on how she can protect other children getting to and from school in particular. I have met Stella twice now, and I have so much respect and admiration for her and what she is trying to do.

As the Member and the Assembly will know, road safety is a high priority for my Department, and I am committed to working proactively to make our roads safer for everyone. I am acutely aware that children and young people are among the most vulnerable groups using our roads. As Members may be aware, I recently announced an extensive package of road safety measures aimed at safeguarding schoolchildren, particularly when they travel to and from school, including on overtaking school buses. Officials have provided advice on that, and I am considering the best options to take forward.

Recently, I met the Education Minister, and we agreed to collaborate on an initiative aimed at increasing awareness of school bus safety. I look forward to seeing how that will progress. Again, it goes back to education and awareness and thinking about all those factors. Whilst we are still in the early stages, our shared goal is that we work directly with schools to ensure that pupils, staff and parents are better informed about the risks and responsibilities associated with school transport. We are exploring the most effective ways to engage with schools and the broader community, whether through targeted campaigns, educational materials or pilot programmes. The bus-rear and on-street school bus safety advertising is currently running: it was reinstated at the start of September in order to align with the start of the school term. Additionally, the road safety teaching-aid calendars have been electronically issued to over 760 primary schools for the new school year.

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. Minister, you were asked about the Knockbreda Road crossing: that is hugely critical to the community in Rosetta, which has been waiting for it for years. It is also critical for school safety. There are half a dozen primary schools and three post-primary schools in that area. You said that that would happen in due course: can you be more specific? When will the Knockbreda Road crossing, which will open the back entrance to Cherryvale park, finally be completed?

Ms Kimmins: I recognise the importance of that, and I know that it is a huge issue for the area. I was pleased to be able to say that that project will be taken forward. As I said to my colleague in my previous answer, we are going through the design stage at this point, so, when that concludes, we will have a better sense of a time frame for its implementation.

Ms Kimmins: Section 22 of the Climate Change Act 2022 states that my Department:

My Department has not changed what it considers to be active travel, which is travelling by physically active means, such as walking, wheeling or cycling. What has changed is that, for the first time, there is a need to capture and report the overall spend on active travel funded from overall transport budgets across my Department in line with section 22 of the Act, rather than just reporting the new active travel projects being delivered and the spend on those fantastic projects, such as the cycling proficiency scheme and the Active School Travel programme.

As, I am sure, Members will agree, active travel is not single, discrete activity in my Department. Many different sections routinely carry out work that greatly benefits pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the provisional out-turn for 2024-25 shows that almost £12 million has been spent on maintaining existing assets, whether that is fixing trip hazards, cutting back vegetation or resurfacing old, uneven footways, all of which play a part in ensuring that we have accessible and usable active travel routes.

Similarly, while I recognise the role that street lighting plays in road safety for motorists, its primary purpose is as a safety amenity for pedestrians. The majority of street lights are in built-up areas, and they clearly play a significant role in making people feel more comfortable and secure if they are walking or cycling at night. That being the case, we have attributed 50% of the overall cost of street lighting towards our calculation of active travel spend.

Let us not forget, however, about investment in new infrastructure for active travel. I want more people to feel comfortable and safe when walking, wheeling or cycling, and that is why I am increasing capital investment to develop our active travel networks. I want to emphasise that active travel is not as straightforward as building a new footpath or cycle lane. We have to ensure that they are safe and accessible for everyone, and that forms part of that overall spend.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer, but there seems to be a redefinition of what constitutes active travel. It is rather disappointing that fixing street lights is included as showing a commitment to active travel when we know that in some constituencies — in my North Belfast constituency, in particular — we really lack new active travel infrastructure. What impact does the new definition or new way of thinking have on the overall spend on active travel in comparison with the previously used understanding of active travel?

Ms Kimmins: I reiterate that it is not a change to the definition. I am now required to calculate that overall spend and report how it is made up. That is all that has changed. I am required to do that. We cannot say that we are spending x, y and z on active travel while excluding the maintenance of the new infrastructure elements or the existing infrastructure that is important in allowing an active travel route to be used. I need to be clear about that. We are not fixing street lights and saying that that is active travel; we are doing that on specific active travel routes to ensure that we capture the facts and what is required.

If we do not ensure that those routes are up to standard, people will not be able use them in the way that they were designed to be used. We talk about ending violence against women and girls. There is no point putting footpaths and other infrastructure in place if women do not feel safe to use them.

There may be a little bit of a grey area here in that it is not a change in the definition; it is just what I am required to do given my responsibility to outline what is included in that spend. That is part of active travel infrastructure. If you are developing any piece of infrastructure, that spend would be included for the new road or whatever it may be.

Mr McHugh: Minister, can you provide an update on the active travel delivery plan?

Ms Kimmins: Public consultation on the draft active travel delivery plan closed on 28 February this year. I am pleased with the level of engagement on the plan, with over 330 responses having been received. My officials are reviewing all the responses and preparing a final plan, which they aim to present to me for consideration in the coming months. I hope to be in a position to publish the final plan before the end of this year. Once complete, the active travel delivery plan will complement the Belfast cycling network delivery plan and the strategic plan for greenways to provide a firm basis for the prioritisation and delivery of active travel infrastructure for the next 10 years and beyond.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, active travel schemes are obviously to be welcomed. How will you get the balance with new schemes and keeping existing footpaths clear? There are loads of footpaths in my constituency that people cannot even walk on, yet I see new ones being built to nowhere — literally nowhere. How will you get that balance right?

Ms Kimmins: We had this conversation in Committee as well. We have to recognise the importance of adequately maintaining our existing network. That means looking at the overall budget and how we allocate it. There will always be difficult decisions to be made around prioritisation. Like I have said in response to other questions here today, including the question that your colleague asked regarding pedestrian crossings, decisions are made based on the prioritisation of those schemes. That question could apply to any aspect of the work that I do in my Department or that the Health or Education Ministers do in theirs. We have to prioritise things on how adequate they are and the needs that they present. The same applies to existing infrastructure and how we ensure that the worst issues are dealt with and worked through as soon as possible.

Mr Stewart: Minister, out of this year's active travel budget, over half a million pounds of taxpayers' money has been squandered on a six-foot fence along the Loughshore and Whiteabbey promenade, one of the lovely coastal views that we have in East Antrim. Nobody wants it. It is totally excessive. I have raised the matter with you and your officials. Will you undertake to review that and try to sort it out for the local residents?

Ms Kimmins: As I said before, we have reviewed it, as the Member is aware. The bottom line is that there is a standard that we have to meet. The Alliance MLA for the area has also met me on the matter. I have a responsibility to meet the standards that are set — not by me but for me. The alternative that we offered was to remove part of the fencing: that was as far as we could go given those standards. I accept that it is not what people want, but, at the same time, if someone is hurt or injured as a result of our not meeting the policy, that falls to me. We were keen to find a balance so that we addressed our responsibilities and took into account the views of the local community.

Ms Kimmins: Allocations for road maintenance activities are made to my Department’s four Roads divisions on the basis of need, using a range of weighted indicators tailored to the particular repair or improvement intervention. In distributing the resources available for structural maintenance activities, such as resurfacing and surface dressing, those indicators take into consideration criteria such as carriageway area, traffic and road condition. For essential maintenance activities, such as patching and grass cutting, the factors taken into consideration in distributing the available funding include defect information, areas of grass and numbers of gullies.

The capacity of our internal contractor is also a factor in the allocation of funding. Where our internal capacity cannot fully deliver the current requirements, my Department’s divisions or section offices must engage the services of external contractors. That cost will differ across council areas depending on relevant capacity and external contract rates. My Department’s four Roads divisions broadly use the indicators that I have mentioned when apportioning their allocation across council areas to ensure, as far as possible, that there is an equitable distribution of funds. However, it is important to say that the exact combination of indicators and metrics used in each Roads division will vary and be tailored to the individual needs and circumstances in that division at that time. Yearly allocations vary to reflect funding pressures in section office areas and are influenced by specific allocations for high-priority works such as trunk road resurfacing schemes and structural stability schemes, including coastal defence repairs. On that basis, it can be assumed that no section office or council area will receive a fixed percentage of the available allocation each year.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that I would like to see more money go to North Down for road maintenance and footpath repairs. My office has done a lot of work in that area. Over the summer, I certainly saw examples of pavements that are, frankly, dangerous for the elderly in areas where lots of elderly people live. My understanding is that there is no money. Will the Minister commit to sending some of her senior officials to North Down to meet me and the section engineer there to look at specific areas and to see whether something can be done?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. If road surfaces, footpaths or any types of infrastructure pose a risk to the health and safety of anyone in our community, they need to be looked at. If the Member writes to me, we can ensure that a site visit is arranged.

Mr McGlone: Minister, how have you responded to concerns that were tabled by the Mineral Products Association's highway maintenance and construction group in a series of meetings with you in June this year on the 2025-26 road maintenance budget, which, potentially, will put 500 jobs at risk and leave roads in the North in an even worse condition?

Ms Kimmins: I share the Mineral Products Association's concerns, and I have outlined that clearly. The reality is that the budget is nowhere near enough for me to do everything that needs to be done. In fact, as I communicated to the representatives when I met them, the reason that my budget took so long to agree is that I was trying to squeeze money from wherever I could to ensure that we could put more into structural maintenance. It is just not possible at this point. That is unfortunate, but it is the result of over a decade of underfunding through Tory austerity. Everyone in the House knows that and agrees, because we all agreed that we did not get the Budget or the funding that we needed.

The Member's colleague can make comments in the background, but I am sure that his colleague who was previously the Infrastructure Minister would agree with me, because she faced the same challenge. Let me tell you this: I will do everything that I can to ensure that we get fair allocations for our roads, particularly rural roads, which are in the worst state that we have ever seen. Take this as a strong commitment from me: I will continue to fight for more money to look after our roads and bring them up to the standard that is acceptable to all.

Ms Kimmins: As I have said in previous answers, road safety is a priority for me, which is why I have increased the road safety advertising budget by over £1·5 million to £2·4 million. With that, I will reinstate a programme of campaigns addressing the main causes of road traffic collisions. I have prioritised the reinstatement of pedestrian and motorcyclist safety campaigns, as both are vulnerable road user groups — those will go live as soon as possible — and I will commission a new anti-drug-driving campaign to address the increase in drug-driving, which is a key area that needs to be looked at.

The Member will be aware that I am looking at a number of things as part of that programme. We constantly review whether we are doing enough and whether we can close the gaps. I mentioned earlier the campaigns about school buses; I have also done campaigns on fitness to drive and awareness of medical declarations and similar issues. I am working with officials across my Department and the Department of Health to look at how we can further widen that work to protect more people — some suggestions have even come up during Question Time. It goes back to the point about the need to address driver behaviour in everything that I look at. I have increased the budget because I recognise that, if we can get that message into people's minds, we could make a real difference.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I understand that you want to speak directly to the Member, but it will be helpful if you direct your comments to the mics so that Hansard can pick them up.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

She has probably answered the supplementary question that I was going to ask, but I thank her for taking up the issue of the Crumlin Road crossing. To add to what Brian Kingston said, it is a very fast road. There is a huge retail park there now, and lots of people have to cross to it from the other side of the Crumlin Road.

Mr T Buchanan: Can the Minister inform the House how much of this money, if any, will be spent on implementing fresh road safety measures on the A5 to prevent further loss of life?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, we are in the process of appealing the ruling on the A5. At present, that is my focus and that of my officials. As I said, however, all improvements to existing road safety infrastructure remain under review. We will continue to do that, but I do not have a figure for any of that at this time.

Ms Kimmins: The public consultation exercise for the Newry southern relief road concluded on 4 March 2025. I have received a comprehensive report from my officials covering the many detailed representations that were received as part of the process and am giving careful consideration to its contents. My Department’s major project portfolio is complex, with a range of projects at various stages of development and delivery. Every project will have its own specific considerations. In common with all Departments, I am mindful of the impact of the judgement on the A5 project, which was extremely disappointing and against which, as Members know, I have lodged an appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the judgement while the appeal is live, but, as my officials work hard to prepare for the appeal hearing, I will take the necessary time to carefully consider the potential impact of the judgement on other projects, including the southern relief road, as they move through the next stages of delivery.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, it is reassuring that you are on the record as saying that there should be a lifting bridge to accommodate tall ships coming into the Albert Basin in Newry.

On the consultation, will you confirm and reassure residents from around the Flagstaff Road, Barracric and Ellisholding that their views on the environment around Benson's Glen and the tie-in points with Ellisholding Road at the A1 will be listened to?

Ms Kimmins: My position on the road is absolutely on the record, and I will never move from that position. As a Minister, I have to consider all the responses to the consultation and be impartial. My officials are working through that. The voices of everyone who has made a representation will be heard and the issues that they have raised will be considered as part of that process.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, you have set out your position on this and the depth of feeling in the area. How many representations were received and what was the nature of those representations?

Ms Kimmins: A total of 214 responses to the consultation were received, which shows the depth of feeling in the area and that people want to be a part of the process. That consultation was held between 21 January and 4 March 2025. Of those representations, 154 were objections, 55% of which cited the inclusion of the fixed bridge as the reason for their objection. There were 15 responses supporting the proposed scheme, 24 general comments and 21 responses that were not applicable to the scheme.

Mr Irwin: What is the expenditure to date on the southern relief road?

Ms Kimmins: I do not have that figure to hand. I can give an idea of the overall cost, and, if the Member wishes to write to me, I will be able to provide a more up-to-date figure for the costs incurred so far. There is already a shortfall of approximately £22 million funding for the scheme overall, and a lot of work is still to happen. I can come back to the Member with the figure as it stands.

Ms Kimmins: I fully recognise the importance of the road network and the vital role that it plays in connecting our people and communities as well as in supporting the wider economy. As I have said, my Department has operated within a constrained maintenance budget for many years. That has resulted in underinvestment in our infrastructure and deterioration in the condition of our roads. That is why my officials have been working on the development of a new road maintenance strategy and a new approach to dealing with road maintenance.

That approach will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly, ensuring a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene. It will be data-driven and supported by sound engineering judgement and address the problem in a more meaningful and sustainable manner. Officials are finalising work on a draft road maintenance strategy that I will then be able to share more widely. As Members know, public finances are limited, and we have a lot to do to make up for the years of austerity and underfunding, but I am committed to ensuring that people are at the heart of funding decisions and that we do all that we can to be efficient and effective in delivering public services.

Mr Speaker: You do not have time for a supplementary question, Mr Dunne. We now move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: Let me be clear: the A5 has been an issue for many years, as the Member rightly pointed out. I will not say that that is because of the incompetence of officials, because I know that they have been working extremely hard. Many of them live in or are from the area and are passionate about the scheme. The Member's colleague can shake his head all that he wants, but have respect for the people who have put their heart and soul into delivering the scheme.

The reality is that we are into new territory with the Climate Change Act. Despite what people have said, I work closely with my colleague in DAERA. Prior to my involvement, officials had been meeting him frequently and dealing with the scheme as comprehensively and robustly as possible. My focus now is on delivering for those families, on delivering for the communities in and around the A5 and on working with counterparts in the South. I have met representatives from across the island who all have a passion for the project and want to see it delivered. That is what my focus is on, and it is what I continue to work towards. I will not be distracted by petty party politics. A number of Ministers have been involved with the scheme, not just those from Sinn Féin.

Mr McCrossan: Mainly from Sinn Féin.

Ms Kimmins: I am not too sure what role your Minister played, but I will not get into that. The priority for me is to deliver the scheme. Let us work together. Let us work collaboratively and get it over the line. That is what I am determined to do.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you are the responsible for delivering the project. With respect, you have not answered the question. Families do not want more excuses; they want accountability. Who is responsible for the failure? When will you finally guarantee delivery of the A5, without further mess-ups from you and your Department?

Ms Kimmins: If the Member can point to the mess, I will happily look into it. The judge's comments were very clear. He recognised that every effort had been made to get the scheme delivered. It is an issue that we have to look at, and that is why I am going through the appeal process. I am telling the Member now that I am determined that we will deliver the scheme.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, I am taking legislation on flood management through the House. Maybe we can have a discussion as part of that process. At present, as the Member knows, we have a scheme in place for homeowners. I am happy to have a conversation to see whether one for commercial properties is something that we can do in the Department and whether Departments can work together. As the Member also knows, the Department for the Economy has stepped in previously to assist in the aftermath of flooding, so there is definitely a conversation to be had. Through my Department, there are flood alleviation schemes in place for town and city centres to try to address the issue. I will, however, consider anything more specific that is brought to me.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that. I assure her that I would welcome such a conversation, having previously raised, on a number of occasions, flooding in Antrim town and the flood risk on all stretches of the Sixmilewater river, for example, which affects residential properties and, indeed, commercial properties. Is the delivery of the flood alleviation plans in a timely way any closer than it was the last time I asked?

Ms Kimmins: Having had similar issues in my constituency, I know how important that is, particularly as we move into autumn. We have seen how heavy the rain has been over the past few days. It is anticipated that the feasibility study for the scheme will be completed by summer 2026. If you write to the Department, I will be happy to provide further details about the scheme and the next steps.

Ms Kimmins: As I said, that is evidently a key issue not just for me as the Minister but for everyone involved. It is no surprise that the outcome of the ruling was extremely disappointing — that is probably an understatement — not just for me and the Department but for everyone involved, including the local representatives who have long supported the project.

As you know, we lodged the appeal, which is now due to be heard in December. That is necessary in order to resolve the important points of law that will affect all the concerned parties. While my immediate priority is the preparation of the most robust appeal that we can submit, as I have said previously, my ultimate aim remains the delivery of the A5. I am fully committed to doing all that I can to ensure that we get to that point as quickly as possible. At present, we are working through the appeal and the legal case, and it would be remiss of me to say more than that at this stage.

Mr McAleer: Minister, given the huge importance of the project for the north-west of Ireland, for no one more than the families who have tragically lost loved ones along the route, will the Minister agree that it is important that we all work together to make sure that the scheme comes to fruition?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. We all want to see the same thing and get there as quickly as possible. Any more time without the new road means a risk of more lives being lost. The judge said that lives would be lost if we did not get the scheme delivered as soon as possible. I have engaged with groups such as the Enough is Enough campaign and have worked closely with representatives from the area, because I recognise that, if we work collaboratively, we can achieve exactly what we want to achieve.

Ms Kimmins: I mentioned the school bus legislation, and I indicated earlier this year that I am keen to introduce legislation on overtaking school buses. We are working through that, and I am being provided with advice on the best way forward. We are looking at areas such as the use of mobile phones when driving and drug-driving and drink-driving penalties, to name a few. If the Member wants more detail on that, I am happy for him to write to me on anything that I have missed.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. I have been recently updated on the graduated licence scheme, strengthening drink-driving legislation and drug-driving legislation, both of which you have just mentioned, and an increase in fines for speeding. Minister, will you say in response now or maybe in writing — that is totally fine — where we are with each of those measures and whether they will be introduced by the end of the mandate?

Ms Kimmins: It is certainly my intention to progress and get a conclusion as soon as possible. I am considering all the advice and information that officials have provided at this stage. We are working through that, and, as soon as updates are available, I will inform the House and the Committee.

Ms Kimmins: The Ulster canal project is being progressed in three phases. Phase 1 goes from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson, and phase 2 goes from Clones to Clonfad. Both are now complete and open for navigation. I was lucky enough to be in Clones over the summer to see the canal and to meet Waterways Ireland. Work on the third and final phase from Castle Saunderson to Clonfad is in progress, with Waterways Ireland progressing land acquisition, planning and detailed design elements. I am fully committed to supporting the completion of the project. It is a very ambitious project that will be transformational for the communities and businesses in that region.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Ulster canal project is widely welcomed by my constituents; it is literally up the road from me. Will the Minister agree that the project will be a great boost to the all-island economy?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The restoration of the Ulster canal will offer a very attractive cross-border holiday destination for visitors not only from across Ireland but from abroad. When completed, it will form part of an all-Ireland inland water system, allowing visitors to travel from Clones in the South to Enniskillen in the North, as well as the rest of the Erne and Shannon water systems. As I said, I have seen for myself increased visitor numbers and the opportunities that phase 2 has brought to Clones. The remainder of the project raises the possibility of increased economic activity through tourism and hospitality along that route.

Ms Kimmins: In response to earlier questions, I said that a number of factors are taken into consideration when allocating funds. As part of that, section offices will put forward their increasing needs or what is required in their area, the major demands and the critical issues. A lot of methodology goes into that. Essentially, that is what helps to ensure that the allocations are fair and that funding is delivered equitably across the North.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is there anything built in to ensure that areas such as my constituency of South Down that do not have rail links or solid, reliable, regular public transport on higher-quality buses, get more priority when it comes to road maintenance, given that we have lower-quality roads that are our only way in and out of the constituency?

Ms Kimmins: It is fair to say that a lot of areas, including mine, would be able to make the same argument. It is about looking at it as a whole. On prioritisation, the list of works that are needed is put forward through the divisions and then to the Department. I do not decide who gets what, unfortunately. However, I take into account what the Member says and the frustration that can be felt. All I can say at this point is that I am trying to ensure that we get acceptable levels of funding into structural maintenance to ensure that we deliver a service across the North that people can see and feel and that will make a real impact in all our communities.

Ms Kimmins: When you compare the allocation for the road safety budget with the structural maintenance budget, you see that they are very different figures: £2·4 million and £68 million. As I said in response to other Members, I fully recognise that the budget for structural maintenance is far from what it needs to be, and I will continue to work to ensure that we get adequate funding and investment to meet the needs. I recognise that it is important not just to ensure that our roads are in a fit state but for health and safety. It is important that roads that are in an unacceptably poor condition and pose a real health and safety risk are reported. I know that the Member will do that. I am acutely aware of the issue, and I am keen to see how I can make an impact. I know that I will not solve it all — I have to be realistic: my whole budget at this point probably could not solve what needs to be done — but I am determined to increase investment and do what needs to be done. That is what I am trying to do through the road maintenance strategy.

Mr Clarke: I do not want to lead on to the topic that we will debate later, but I feel that I have to. On the one hand, we report potholes — I am sure that all elected representatives do the same — and the repairs that are required to our roads, but, on the other hand, we need to report the same roads six to eight weeks later, because of the substandard nature of the repairs. When will the Department get value for money for the repairs, and when will it follow up with contractors to make sure that they have done the job that they were paid to do so that our roads do not have to be fixed so frequently?

Ms Kimmins: The draft road maintenance strategy that I have articulated should help to address the issues that you have outlined. We have had numerous conversations about how we can fix one hole in a road because it meets the criteria but bypass three or four other holes. That is the type of work that we will try to tackle as part of the strategy and that we are not seeing. It will, in my humble view, have an impact. I am sure that your colleague in North Down, where it has been trialled, has seen the impact and what it can do. Again, it will not solve all our problems, but my intention is to increase the resilience and sustainability of our road network.

Miss McIlveen: With work progressing on greenways in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, will the Minister publish the timetable for the DFI works to connect the Comber greenway to the Bangor greenway and confirm that a budget has been allocated to those works?

Mr Speaker: Minister, briefly.

Ms Kimmins: I will come back to the Member in writing, if she is happy enough for me to do that, so that I can give accurate timings and budget. I attended the recent opening of the greenway at the Newtownards end. We are keen to see that progress.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We resume debate on the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. Peter —

Mrs Mason: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Further to your point just before Question Time about Members speaking within the scope of the Bill, were you or any of the other Deputy Speakers privy to the rationale that the Speaker used for not selecting the other amendments?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I was not privy to the advice given to the Speaker's Office on the amendments. I do not believe that any of the other Deputy Speakers were either. However, I will refer the matter to the Speaker's Office for accuracy and come back to you: OK?

We are definitely going to Peter Martin now. Thank you, Peter.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. An hour and a half ago, I pointed out that I was slightly disappointed in the tenor of the debate. Yes, this is a political debating Chamber and, yes, political points are scored at times. However, the Bill is designed to reduce, and will deliver on reducing, the cost of school uniforms for parents across Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed. I would have been surprised had the other parties stood up and said, "This is a great Bill. This is what it is going to do", because it was introduced by my colleague the Minister. It is a manifesto commitment by our party, and we are delivering on it. I would have liked there to be a little more warmth in the Chamber towards the Bill. The Bill is not political. It will not help just one small subsection of the community, one religious background or one political affiliation; it will help every single parent in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Yes.

Mrs Guy: Have you seen the guidance? You are very confident that the Bill will deliver for parents. Our concern is that we have not seen the guidance, so we do not have the same level of confidence that you do.

Mr Martin: I have no gift of prophecy. I certainly have not seen the guidance, but I have confidence in our Minister. He said that he would bring the Bill forward, and he has done so. I am confident because he has got it to the fourth stage and through the Committee. My thoughts were not always in line with everyone else's, but I welcomed the debate at Committee Stage and our chance to scrutinise the Bill. I say to the Member for Lagan Valley that I have confidence that the Bill will deliver what it is supposed to. Its scope is about bringing down the costs of school uniform for all parents across Northern Ireland. The Bill will do that, and I look forward to seeing it, hopefully, become legislation as quickly as possible. That is the best way to deliver for every parent in Northern Ireland when it comes to buying school uniforms.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I have finished my remarks. Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is up to you as to whether you give way to the Member, even though you have said that you are finished.

Mr Martin: Oh, sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are all right, Peter. I place no restriction on the debate, even if it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr Martin: I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Committee Chair.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Apologies: I did not realise that you were bringing your remarks to a close.

You made a statement that the scope of the Bill is to bring down costs, but the Bill also refers to other issues, particularly comfort and practicality. I would like to hear why you feel that that the Bill is only about cost, despite its text also covering those other issues.

Mr Martin: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee. There is a range of clauses in the Bill, and we have looked at some of them about reporting procedures and what the scope of the legislation will be. If you actually were to ask someone what the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill is designed to do, or if you had watched media on it or had spoken to anyone who is interested and has followed the progress of it, I believe that they would say, "Is that the one that is supposed to do something about sports kits?" I have spoken to lots of parents about it. People who have, perhaps, been watching the Assembly debates have even come up to me and said, "I hope that that Bill is going to reduce the cost of our sports kits". Whilst there are clearly other clauses, and there should be, in my view, the core is about bringing down costs, and I hope that that is exactly what it will do.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nick, I just want to let you know that I am finding it really difficult to hear you.

Mr Mathison: Apologies.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maybe Mr Martin did not see you wanting to come in at the end, but I am finding it difficult to hear you.

Mr Burrows: We are enthusiastic about the Bill. It is positive that we will see honest endeavours made to reduce the cost of school uniform. It is worth stating for the record that we genuinely believe that no pupil should ever feel stigmatised or excluded by reason of the affordability of school uniform. Something that puts affordability at the very centre of discussions on school uniform is to be welcomed. There is a balance, of course, and we want to ensure that schools have a degree of discretion, autonomy, flexibility and, indeed, that we do not do anything that devalues the role that the uniform can play in a school. It brings a sense of collegiality, identity and pride. It also promotes good behaviour, especially when pupils are outside the school grounds. Having your school uniform on makes you identifiable, and that can be very useful for promoting good behaviour. Getting the balance right is critical.

There are a number of amendments, and we will not commit to them all, but we will make some comments. On amendment No 1, there is no real issue with publishing every three years. That is a wise amendment. Likewise, amendment No 4, because it is in the best interests of transparency to have guidance published. It provides clarity, certainty and transparency.

The one that I want to focus on is amendment No 10, with the word "undue". I will support the Minister's amendment to put the word "undue" in because we want to make sure that, although we are aiming to bring down the cost of school uniforms and are aiming to make sure that we do not have exclusion on the basis of uniform, we do not want to be very prescriptive on schools. The intention has to be that no one should be excluded from sports, excluded from school or disciplined because they cannot afford an item of clothing. However, at the same time, it is vital that schools can say that there are some uniform requirements and some policies that have to be enforced.

There was a case on the news this week about the wearing of an earring, which is a good example. I was asked a question on the hoof on 'The Nolan Show', and my instinct was to say that I am not going to arbitrate for the school. I do not know the ins and outs of whether that pupil was asked to remain out of school, but the school has to be able to apply some rules. However, it would be entirely wrong for any pupil to be disadvantaged or excluded because they cannot afford something. That is why I —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: I know that you are new to the Committee, Jon, but the Committee took evidence from one young girl in particular who attends a well-known school in Belfast, and her family is quite economically challenged. They cannot afford the school overcoat, so when she is 100 metres from the school, she takes her own overcoat off and carries it into school, but she still has 100 metres to go, whether it is raining, snowing, freezing or whatever. It is not just a matter of children being excluded from school, albeit there are children who are effectively excluded from schools because their parents know that they would never be able to afford the uniform. In some cases, it is 600 or 800 quid. I understand that you want to support the Minister's amendment, but I do not think that your rationale for doing so has been very convincing here today. Thanks for letting me in.

Mr Burrows: It is not a matter of supporting the Minister's amendment. As I said, my instinct when asked a question about a live case was that that school should have the autonomy to make its own rules, and that we need to be careful in this place that we do not de-legislate the ability of schools to make reasonable rules.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I agree with the Member's concern for the autonomy of our schools. I listened to the schoolchild who came in to speak to us. She spoke very well, and I shared some of Pat's concerns that day that perhaps that particular school was overzealous around some aspects of the uniform, and I expressed those concerns, particularly because it seemed to be influencing the child's decisions around what choices she could make. I hope that the Department will have an opportunity in future to engage with that school. Does the Member agree that there are provisions and teeth in the Bill that the Minister, whoever it might be at that time, can enact to engage with those schools to bring sanctions if he or she decides to do so?

Mr Burrows: I am happy to support that. I restate that I and my party will support what is right and oppose what is wrong, and it is not because it is a unionist Minister. There is a certain irony, in that the direction of travel for many people in the Chamber is to tighten up some things around school uniform and tie the schools' hands, but the same people are adamantly opposed to requiring schools to protect inspection. That seems to me to be a completely irreconcilable position.

On amendment No 12, I have read the Minister's letter, and we are not convinced entirely about the name and shame. We remain non-committal about it, because there is a deterrent value to being named and shamed. I want to hear a bit more about the rationale for not going down that line, as is being done in other areas of government policy, particularly around social security benefits. We are still undecided about what is the appropriate balance there. There should be clarity about the number of schools and why they are not complying with things. Naming them goes to a principle. I heard many times in the Education Committee about not naming schools.

It is a red line. If we cross it, we must be careful. We are not ruling out doing so, however. Naming and shaming would have a deterrent value. I want to hear a little more about why it would not be appropriate. By the way, I do not particularly like the phrase "naming and shaming". Without it, we would have a court system sitting in closed session to which nobody would turn up and on which the media could not report. We therefore want to tease out the issue a little more.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the Bill contains quite a lead-in process before the Department would be in the space of issuing a direction, that there is capacity to engage with the school manager on the issue and that one would have to ask a question if, despite that engagement, the school were to dig its heels in and still refuse to comply with the guidelines?

Mr Burrows: That is a fair point. This is a seminal moment, however. If we are to go down the route of naming and shaming schools, which is something that I am not sure has been done before, it is a big line to cross. When lines are crossed, there are unintended consequences. The responsible thing to do is therefore not to say, "Yes, that sounds good. Stiffen this up, but name and shame" or, "No, we're going to protect our schools". There is a perception — it is real — that we tend to protect the reputation of schools that have the most or that are in better-off areas rather than worrying about schools in socially disadvantaged areas. We are alive to both sides of the argument and remain to be convinced. That is a healthy position to be in. We see a divergence between naming and shaming here and doing so for the likes of benefit fraud and other things in the criminal justice system. Naming and shaming can have a deterrent value. It is transparent and is about accountability. We want a little more convincing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister about why, he believes, the naming of schools would be a negative step and what consequences it might lead to if we went down that line.

We should be enthused. There is an opportunity here to get to an end point at which schools put affordability at the centre of everything that they do. That would be in the best interests of children, parents and schools. I was not on the Education Committee when it was discussing the Bill, so there is a time for me to read in in order to understand the nuances of people's positions. We want to make sure that we get the balance right and that schools do not lose the ability to make sensible decisions, because that could have a real impact. If that simple thing could not be enforced, it could quickly create a chaotic situation that would be difficult for parents and teachers to manage.

There is a balance to be struck in all of this. We want to support the legislation, but we are yet to be convinced about naming and shaming. There is an opportunity to make school uniforms more affordable and particularly to make sure that no pupil is ever, in any circumstance, excluded from sport or disciplined at school because their mum, dad or carer cannot afford something. That is a clear red line and should be the legislation's purpose. That is the key protection that the legislation must achieve, and it is the thrust that we will look for in the Bill. We will support some things while looking for more convincing on others, and we will scrutinise as we go along.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Jon. I call the Minister of Education as the penultimate contributor on the first group of amendments.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important legislation. We are, first and foremost, Members of a legislative Assembly. Some have cast a view and made comments that sounded more like what would be said at Second Stage than what would be said in a debate on the detail of law and wording. I am not going to go into that, because, as a Minister, I have a duty to focus on discharging what the Assembly is meant to do, which is legislate and be careful about the wording of law, rather than engaging in broader commentary about what could have been and what should have been. It is our job to legislate.

Some have tried to lay a trap. Some want to bait me and get me riled. I am not going to do it. It is Monday. I had a good weekend, so we are not going to go into that mode today. This is too serious for us to engage in that. I want to focus on legislation, because, when the Bill is passed, it is what schools and others will be held accountable to. If someone wants to go to court, this is what they will base that on, so we have a real responsibility. Legislation has been passed by the Assembly that has been flawed and has not been correct, so we need to do our job and do it really carefully.

In my role as Education Minister, I want to make a difference to the everyday lives of real people. More affordable school uniforms will make a real difference to people across Northern Ireland. That is why I introduced the Bill, which every party on the Executive supported. I am delighted that we have reached Consideration Stage, and I hope that the Bill will be on the statute book later this year.

Let us remember that making school uniforms more affordable is why I introduced the Bill in the first place. I want to recognise the effort that the Education Committee has made to submit its report in line with the revised Committee Stage time frame. Some Members were not happy that the lengthy proposed Committee Stage was brought back from December to August, but that was an important decision by Members, as it prevented a delay of an entire school year before parents could feel any benefit from the legislation. I am aware that some Members have questioned whether the amended timescale will make any difference to the time when parents will feel the benefit of the legislation: let me assure the House that it will.

Because we are at Consideration Stage now instead of later in the year or even next year, once the Bill passes Final Stage — assuming that it does, which is, of course, a matter for Members to determine — schools will know in sufficient time what legal requirements will be in operation before the 2026-27 school year. My Department will advise schools of the matters that are expected to be in the guidelines once the Bill reaches its final form. Work continues on clarifying draft guidelines and communications to schools so that they will be ready to issue after Final Stage. The conclusion of Committee Stage by the end of August means that that is achievable and that schools must adhere to statutory guidelines for the 2026-27 school year. Parents will benefit.

I recognise that the Committee reported at the beginning of July. Timing-wise, that was admirable. However, important legislative details are missing from some of the amendments that the Committee has tabled, and I will talk to those as we reach the relevant amendment.

I am happy to give way to the Chairman.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just before you move on to the amendments, Minister, I want to go back to the point about the process and the timelines and the fact that you are confident of the fact that, once the Bill passes all its stages, schools will be clear on their responsibilities. Do you have a view on what you will do with schools that have been outliers and continued to pursue having extremely expensive uniforms? We will almost certainly be in a scenario where Royal Assent will not have been granted when those guidelines are landing. What will you, as Minister, do to ensure that those schools will live up to the expectations that we all have in this place that they will do something about costs?

Mr Givan: The message has been getting out to schools through what I, the Executive and the Committee have been doing through the process. I have been in schools recently, and the principal in one school indicated to me — this was a school where a blazer in sixth form was based on various honours — that it is changing its policy before we even pass the legislation. He said that the school had engaged with its student council, listened to the feedback and is changing its policy. That school is working through that. We are already making an impact on the schools that are outliers. I agree with the Chairman that the vast majority of schools do the right thing, but there are still some that have been required to go through this process now to give statutory force to the guidelines in order to make the change. I know from meeting schools — certainly one school at least — that they are making changes.

The comments that I will make about the deficient nature of the amendments are not Paul Givan's view — I am not a legal expert — but are based on legal advice from senior legal advisers. I thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for the detailed work that they have undertaken, the advice that they have provided and the pace at which they have done so.

I am also aware that the Committee wishes to see draft guidelines. Some Members referred to that in their contributions, but such guidelines must follow the Bill. I am focused on getting the guidelines right for schools.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: That is how we will make a difference for parents, and part of it requires legal advice. Members have asked for guidelines, but guidelines follow the law. I will be able to provide those guidelines. That work is already under way, and I will certainly be developing the guidelines. I have been doing so. That is in line with the law. The law must come first.

I am happy to give way to Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: That being the case, why was the Committee promised that it would be given sight of the guidelines as far back as March and April?

Mr Givan: I cannot comment on why that was said. As Minister, I was clear that guidelines follow the law. There are amendments that may or may not get voted through today. Guidance is, of course, being developed, but it would be premature to produce guidance until we know the basis on which that guidance has to be framed, and it is the law that does that. That is why the Committee did not get sight of the guidance in advance of us doing our job to pass the legislation. I have outlined the reason. Members may not agree with that, but the reason is that guidance follows the law.

I am not prepared to rush through or share drafts of guidelines that have not had the benefit of due legal consideration. That is the stage that my officials are at, and it will result in clearer guidelines. The engagement and drafting will be ongoing until the final provisions of the Bill are determined in the Assembly, so I make no apology for doing things properly. It is not for my benefit but for the benefit of schools and parents. Legislation is there to make a specific provision in law. It is meant to bring about a legal state of affairs that would not otherwise exist. The Bill will operate in the context of existing law, and that includes all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes to fairness, dignity and equality. To be clear, that is expert opinion from legal advice. I invite the House to bear this in mind as we go through the debate: how the Department is allowed to go about preparing guidelines is necessarily informed by wider considerations that do not need to be expressly provided for in the Bill. We all know that words matter. In the Chamber, they are a matter of public record. In legislation, they are critical.

I will turn to the amendments. Group 1 is about monitoring and enforcement of what will be statutory guidelines. Monitoring is extremely important. It is important that we ensure that the Bill delivers what it is intended to do: making school uniforms more affordable for parents. It is also important that we do not lose sight of the fact that I introduced the Bill for that fundamental reason. To achieve that, we need the Bill to support guidelines that work for schools in order to benefit parents and pupils.

I will start with the group 1 amendments that are not of material impact, namely amendment Nos 1 and 4. Those amendments require the Department to review the guidelines at least every three years and lay them before the Assembly. Amendment No 4, in particular, seems unnecessary, given that the guidelines will always be published on the departmental website. However, amendment No 1 is not necessary either, since regular review is already required. Therefore, I invite the relevant Member not to press either amendment No 1 or amendment No 4.

While I can appreciate the intention behind amendment No 8, my position is that it represents over-elaborate drafting in how it seems intended to operate in practice. It risks placing bureaucracy above a straightforward requirement to report on the impact of the Bill, which would be more logical; indeed, I assure Members that that would happen without any amendment on that point.

A straightforward requirement could be drafted in such a way that requires all the provisions of the Bill, including any cap, to be covered in a report.

The amendment before us is also not clear about what "mean" or "median costs" relate to. That is the wording in the Committee amendment: "mean" or "median costs". It ignores any potential differences between primary and post-primary uniforms, and we know that there can be significant price differences between those two. It is unnecessary in its prescription. Parts of the amendment that relate to the Department —

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think that any Member would object were the Department to take the sensible approach of disaggregating primary and post-primary costs in any report that it brought to the Assembly. I do not think that the amendment precludes the Department from doing that. Is there an issue? You have referenced "mean costs" and "median costs". Some of our concern might be that the Department is in fact reluctant to do that data collection work to establish the costs and set benchmarks on how much a school uniform costs across Northern Ireland. The Committee's appetite was for us to get that baseline data, which would then be regularly reviewed.

Mr Givan: It is not that the Department has any reluctance about trying to capture data on that. The Chairman makes the point for me: the Committee is using an amendment to try to achieve an outcome to do with data collection. That seems to be one of the underlying reasons. Determining whether or not the Department is serious about having an ability to capture data is not what the primary legislation should be designed to do. We have to use primary legislation for the right purposes and understand the intent behind it. That comment reveals to me that a cause for concern that I have about the Bill is justified.

The part of the amendment that relates to the Department reporting on its plans to review and amend the guidelines is rendered unnecessary. Indeed, in legal terms, it potentially clashes with amendment No 1, which requires that the guidelines are reviewed:

That all illustrates, again, the importance of getting the provisions exactly right for the sake of legislative accuracy and the real-life effects. As my position is that the amendment will need to be redrafted if it proceeds, I offer an alternative way forward. I will, subject to Executive agreement, table a more straightforward but equally effective reporting amendment at Further Consideration Stage that will result in all the relevant provisions, impact and outworkings of the Bill being reported on, with the first report to happen within three years of Royal Assent's being received. That improved amendment will sit alongside and work with the other amendments and provisions in the Bill. I offer the House that alternative as a pragmatic means of delivering what, I believe, the Education Committee seeks but without the problems that I identified with amendment No 8. I therefore ask that the House votes against amendment No 8 or that the Committee Chair does not move amendment No 8. That will enable me to table a better amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

Pressing on with amendment No 8 and then seeking me to provide at Further Consideration Stage an amendment that tidies it up is not the normal democratic process. I fear that we are at risk of losing our parliamentary protocols in this. When a Member of Parliament — albeit we are not at Westminster — or a Committee pushes an amendment and a Minister gets up and says, "I agree with what the Committee or Member is trying to achieve, but there is a better way to do it and to frame the legislation", the normal convention is for that to be accepted. I fear, however, that Members are more determined to prove a point than to get the right point in legislation. If Members wish to follow that process, that would be a cause for concern.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will the Minister help us to understand why they have waited until 15 September, the day of the debate, to highlight those specific concerns, given that the Committee reported on the Bill at the beginning of July? There would have been ample opportunity at that stage. I appreciate that there was no Marshalled List at that stage, but surely, with the benefit of time on our side, that would have been the appropriate time to have those engagements.

Mr Givan: There are two points. The Chairman has made one of them for me: we did not have a Marshalled List until decisions were taken in respect of which amendments were deemed admissible by the Speaker. That is the first point. The second point is that my officials made clear to the Committee our concern in respect of that. I have not only served as a Minister in a number of Departments; I have been Chairman of a Committee and served alongside other Members on that Committee. I can speak only to my experience of being a Chairman. A Bill Clerk would have advised the Committee. Often, the Bill Clerk would have said to me, "I am not the expert. We will engage the Department, which has the resources of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Departmental Solicitor's Office". I cannot speak for how the Committee has been advised on tabling Committee amendments and how it would engage with the Department, but my officials did raise our concerns with the Committee as it considered its amendments.

Clearly, there is still an opportunity before Members vote. I have put it on the record: I will deliver what the Committee wants on the content of amendment No 8. However, there is a better way to do that, and I will bring it forward, subject to the Executive's approval, at Further Consideration Stage. That will allow the amendment and its content to be sequenced properly in the Bill, as opposed to where it is currently proposed to be.

On amendment No 9, clause 7 is permissive, just as is the general power of direction in article 101 of the 1986 Order. The use of "may" in that sort of context is precedented in a similar context, and, in each context, enables a robust, but reasonable, system for giving directions. Adopting the mandatory "must" instead risks an overly rigid system where directions are required in every case where the power to issue them is triggered, whereas, in my view, they should be used as a last resort in the appropriate cases. Leaving some degree of flexibility by keeping "may" is therefore important so that intervention by way of directions occurs only where that is clearly the right choice for the Department when assessing things reasonably. In addition, making a distinction whereby "the Department must" give a non-adherence direction but "may" give a pupil disciplinary direction seems to me to be inconsistent without providing material benefit. The conditions for the Department to assess whether a direction is needed must be fulfilled in either circumstance.

That leads me to amendment No 10, which I present having reflected on the balance to be achieved in clause 7. Amendment No 10 provides a proportionate parameter in clause 7(1)(b) by including the word "undue" with regard to any directions about undue pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage. I have already mentioned the issue of consistency. Amendment No 10 ensures that there is consistency with the parameter that is already included in clause 7(1)(a) with regard to directions about material school non-adherence to the statutory guidelines. Taken together, the result is that the Department is not forced to consider resorting to directions, except in the right cases or circumstances that relate to each of the disciplinary measures and participatory disadvantages. That allows schools to operate their discipline policies but protects pupils from being excluded in unjust circumstances where uniform items are not affordable for their families. I ask that the House supports that minor, but important, amendment.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He has been very generous by giving way on numerous occasions. I want to clarify a couple of points on amendment Nos 9 and 10. The distinction that was made about the use of "must" in clause 7(1)(a) was drawn because, as a Committee, we felt that, if a school was, in a material respect, failing to adhere to the guidelines, which, we have heard clearly — everyone is agreed — should be principally about dealing with that issue of cost — that view has been highlighted — and failing in a material way to bring down the cost of school uniforms as it is legally required to do, and that, further to engagement with the Department, it continued on that course of action, it was entirely appropriate that the Department must direct it. The "may" provision that was tabled as clause 7(1)(a) was simply to try to navigate the risk, which Mr Burrows alluded to, of getting embroiled in the minutiae of schools' disciplinary policies and interactions with individual pupils, which was why we struck that balance. Given that, does the Minister concede that the scenarios of a school failing to materially adhere to the guidelines — digging its heels in and refusing to comply with what the Department is asking — and an issue potentially arising with how a school's disciplinary policy is applied are different and may require different approaches?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give way, because, on legislation, we have to get it right, and it is through discourse that, I trust, people engage, listen, reflect and potentially change position. I include myself in that: if I am wrong, I am open to being persuaded. The problem that I have with "must" and "may" is that it entirely removes the ability of the Department to deviate from "must": we have to do it. Some Members indicated that one of the reasons why they wanted this in primary legislation is that one does not know what approach any Minister may take. A Minister may wish to give a bye ball and decide that they will not go down that route. Members would, rightly, challenge any Minister of the Department where there was such a breach of the statutory guidance that got us into the areas covered by the amendments. That is where you would apply pressure on the Minister and the Department by saying, "You have the power to enforce this". The amendment, when it comes to "may" and "must", would remove that ability. I have highlighted that the terminology is inconsistent with other parts of the Bill.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Will you take your seat for a moment? Giving way is all part of the democratic process, but, with respect, could you be mindful when intervening that an intervention is an intervention and not an opportunity to make another speech?

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is noted. I will come directly to a question to the Minister on that point.

Do you not accept that, in an engagement with a school about a failure in a material respect to adhere to the guidelines, it is a different conversation if the school knows that the Department will direct it if it does not engage — if it chooses not to, there is still a chance that the school will be able to continue on the same course of action — and that the amendment creates a more robust power?

Mr Givan: The Chairman outlines part of the rationale when it comes to "must": it would certainly give the leverage to force a school. Before the point at which you have to have the "must", however, why would a Minister or the departmental official responsible not have exercised the authority that will exist because the Department "may" be able to do it? There is a point at which you would remove any ability to have the power of flexibility. Circumstances that we do not know may apply in that situation. The amendment, if passed, will say "must". Amendment No 9 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 10, and I have indicated, that, if you do not move amendment No 9, what I am proposing in amendment No 10 provides consistency. The issue of "may" and "must" is a matter for Members to reach a view on, but I seek to address that in amendment No 10. If amendment No 9 is passed — I am sure that the Speaker will outline this — amendment No 10 will not be called, and we will not be able to address that matter, so we will need to look at doing so at Further Consideration Stage, if that is possible.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Considering the fact that what we say here, as recorded in Hansard, is used as an aid to construction — anyone who has studied law at university will know about Pepper v Hart and all those things — by the courts to determine the intention of the law, can the Minister explicitly confirm, to help us with amendment No 10, that the absolute intention at the core of the legislation is to ensure that no pupil will ever be excluded from school or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of equipment or uniform?

Mr Givan: I am aware — given his experience, the Member also knows this — from precedent in court settings that the courts will seek to understand, by reviewing debate in the Assembly and in Committee, what was meant, if they need to analyse it because the wording is not clear. It will be left to a judge to figure out what the intent behind it was. Members really need to take cognisance of that when they make decisions on the precise wording in legislation.

The Bill's purpose is affordability. I have said repeatedly that we do not want a scenario in which any child, whether they are applying to a school or, indeed, are already at a school, is excluded on the grounds of affordability. Placing the guidelines on a statutory footing will help drive the change that is needed in the small number of schools in which it is a real problem.

I want to make some progress on amendment No 11, which would remove the requirement for the Department to consult schools on draft directions before it issues them. Including that requirement in the Bill was, again, based on consistency with the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 but also on best practice. If the Committee's argument for tabling amendment No 11 is that it would shorten the time taken to issue a direction, I can say only that cutting the school voice out of that part of the process is unlikely to be helpful and would reduce the opportunity for a quicker resolution without the need for direction. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 11 and will seek to divide the House and ask it to vote against the amendment.

I also question the rationale behind amendment No 12. I am clear that I want to work with schools. I respect our schools and those who work so hard in them to support our young people. I do not wish to name and shame any school for which a school uniform direction has been issued, because I appreciate the risk of reputational damage. The amendment would do just that. I caution that we need to consider what actual and identifiable benefit there would be from publishing that information.

Members will also wish to reflect on the potential precedent that such an approach could represent, and Mr Burrows referred to that. If a direction is issued, it is legally enforceable through court proceedings, if needs be. Publishing information about the number of directions issued and the matters about which the direction was issued seems much more reasonable to me, yet that is not what amendment No 12 would achieve: the entire direction must be published, and that will naturally include the school's name. I will not support that, and I urge Members to think about the schools in their constituency when they vote.

If Members find it helpful, I can include the requirement to report on the numbers of and the reasons for directions in the alternative amendment that I am offering to prepare for Further Consideration Stage. It comes back to the significant importance of each word in legislation. We can achieve the intention more effectively through taking a slightly different approach. I ask that the House support me and our schools in taking that different approach and not to vote amendment No 12 through today. I ask the House to pause before voting and to consider whether the amendment in question would lead to meaningful monitoring and enforcement. Would it assist schools to adhere to the statutory guidelines or risk embarrassing them?

I commend amendment No 10 to the House. I ask that Members do not vote through amendment Nos 8 and 12. I give a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that I will table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that delivers the intent behind those amendments in a reasonable and workable way. I ask that the House carefully consider the reasons why I will not vote for amendment Nos 9 and 11 and that Members pay due attention to the legal advice on which those amendments are based. I ask that Members take a sensible and measured approach, with parents, pupils and schools at the forefront of their thinking.

I know that everyone in the Chamber wishes to make school uniforms more affordable for parents and to enable the Department to provide clear guidelines that are workable for schools. Let us make good legislation, and, in doing so, let us make a real difference for parents.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Before I call the Chairperson to make a winding-up speech, let me be clear: my understanding is that the Office of the Legislative Counsel advises the Minister; it does not make policy. That is down to the Minister and the Department, so I just want to get that clear.

Without further ado, I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Nick Mathison, to wind.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Although Peter Martin may have been disappointed that the tone of the debate was a bit more negative than he would have liked, it has been clear that everybody in the Chamber is on the same page on at least one issue, which is that we need to do something about the cost of school uniforms. The question in this group of amendments is whether the Bill will ensure that the monitoring and enforcement of the guidelines to deliver on that intended outcome will be effective.

A lot of the contributions that were made today when we discussed the content of those guidelines probably strayed substantially into group 2. We will get into that in more detail when we come to the next group of amendments. However, the issue before us is the monitoring and enforcement in group 1. I feel that amendment Nos 1 and 4 should really not cause anybody any undue concern. The idea that the Department would at least once every three years check in on the guidelines and look at them again to see whether they are effective seems to be fairly routine. It was the phrase "from time to time" being left in the Bill that caused Committee members concern. It was felt that there was a bit of a hands-off approach being taken: "From time to time, we might look at it, or we might not". If I say that I enjoy an activity "from time to time", that gives the sense that it happens once in a blue moon for me. That is how I read that, and we would want to look at it much more frequently than once in a blue moon or "from time to time". It should be clearly laid down, and I hope that Members take on board the Committee's considerations on that point.

I cannot see that the Department should have anything to fear from laying the guidelines in the Assembly as proposed in amendment No 4. It is another layer of ensuring that the guidelines are clearly out in the public domain. No doubt the guidelines will be published, and it would seem unusual to force a Division on an issue of that nature.

The Minister set it out clearly that he has a particular view on and concerns about amendment No 8. From the Committee's perspective, there was a clear acknowledgement that, other than the review happening "from time to time", there is no other accountability measure in the Bill. I do not want to rehearse the comments that I made earlier on that in any great detail. I am not particularly speaking for the Committee here, but, from our discussions, this point is probably broadly reflective of what other Members discussed in Committee. My concern is that, if we left it to the Department to mark its own homework on accountability, there would be a risk that the provisions would be diluted. I appreciate that the Minister highlighted his concerns on the specific wording. I trust that, if there were something that caused a serious technical problem for the Department, it would certainly be within its capabilities to address it and tidy it up at Further Consideration Stage. In the Committee's discussions, we were clear that we want that reporting mechanism to be made clear in the Bill. From my perspective, I will not change my position on that amendment.

The debate on amendment Nos 9, 10, 11 and 12 has been helpful. It reflected the discussion that we had in Committee, which had a fair degree of back and forth on what an appropriate balance to strike on enforcement should be. However, nothing that I heard in the debate convinced me that what the Committee introduced is anything other than necessary and appropriate.

We will come to this in the next group, but guidelines are only as good as what is in them. They are also only as good as the extent to which they can be meaningfully enforced. My sense from —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will indeed.

Mr Sheehan: You mentioned the guidelines, and the Minister was clear today that the guidelines follow the legislation. That is contrary to what we were told in Committee; in fact, officials told us in a private meeting with the party that we would be reassured, when we saw the guidelines, that there would be no need for amendments. I wonder whether my memory of the discussion on guidelines is similar to yours.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Deputy Chair for his intervention. My memory is the same as his: in the Committee, we were given very clear assurances that the guidelines would be provided in draft form to the Committee. That would have been helpful. I was open to being reassured. As I said in my opening remarks, I never approached the process with the desire of messing with the Minister's Bill. I will be really clear: the issue is too important to get into that space. I have no desire to put prescriptive measures in the Bill just to score a point or be able to say that they were something that I did or that the Committee achieved. We did not see the guidelines, so we did not get the reassurance. To a large extent, that is why we are where we are with the process.

From the Department's evidence to the Committee on the enforcement of the guidelines, it seemed that officials really thought — they were at pains to emphasise this — that the guidelines would be so clear and robust that it was highly unlikely that any school would have the wriggle room to diverge from them. They did not see any scenario in which it was likely that the Department would be involved in directing a school. If that is the case, I am not sure where the concerns about the change to a "must" provision on publication come from. If the Minister is confident that the Bill will deliver a regime that will work for parents and deliver reduced costs and that schools will have to comply, the concerns that are being raised do not carry much weight.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Yes.

Mr Burrows: We have said that we are — certainly, I am — open-minded on the "name and shame" aspect, but, if directions were given and not followed, a school would inevitably be named in open court through a legal process. I am trying to tease out the benefit of naming a school in the first instance, simply to say, "We have found that you were not in compliance", rather than waiting to see it named in a court process if the school refuses to comply.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I re-emphasise that it was clear from the Department's evidence to the Committee that officials did not envisage any scenario in which it would get anywhere near a courtroom. I hope that that would be the case: I hope that schools would have the good sense to comply with the guidelines. Although I do not like the "name and shame" element, its benefit is the sense that the school's name will be put into the public domain. It comes down to the phrase about failure:

If a school is failing in one or more material — "material" meaning substantial or significant — respects to comply with the guidelines that are there to bring costs down, why is that school in that space? If it has reached a place in which it still refuses to engage with the Department when the Department has highlighted its concerns and if the school is of that mindset, there may need to be a robust mechanism so that it is assured and clear that there will be a consequence for that action. The phrase "material respects" means that we are not talking about an inconsequential matter, where a school may not have used the right form of words to reflect the guidelines accurately or may not have been clear enough in one element of its uniform policy. It is about failing in a material respect, which means a serious breach, and the enforcement regime that flows from that should reflect its seriousness. That is my view on the amendments on enforceability.

I will pick up a couple of other points from the debate. The Minister particularly emphasised the Bill's status as an Executive Bill. Yes, of course it is: any Bill that comes through the Department has passed through the Executive. However, nobody here would say that that means that every member of the Executive has rubber-stamped it and said, "The Bill is the finished article, requires no attention or amendment and entirely delivers everything that we want it to". If that were the case, we would not have a Committee Stage; there would be no such thing. Committees across the Assembly are engaging in the scrutiny of Executive Bills, suggesting improvements and enhancements when the scrutiny stage kicks in. That is entirely appropriate. To suggest that we should leave the Bill alone because it is an Executive Bill does not reflect the reality of how this place operates.

Where do we go from here? I hope that Members consider carefully how they vote on these amendments so that we can be assured that the Bill that comes out the other side of this process, through the group 1 amendments, delivers on enforcement and is effective. We will come to whether or not the content of the Bill and what it is going to do is appropriate. If we are serious about tackling costs, however — everybody has said today that they are — we have to be serious about monitoring the impact of the Bill and ensuring that it is enforced.

I will be clear on this for the record: the vast majority of schools are trying to do the right thing. They are there to serve their communities. However, we cannot ignore the fact that, for whatever reason to do with their history, their tradition, the perceived demographic of the students that they seek to attract or whatever else it may be, there are outliers that do not seem to have an appetite to take seriously the issue of costs and of ensuring that their school is open to absolutely everybody regardless of economic background. Knowing that to be the case, and knowing that there are schools that will maintain such a position, it is important that there is accountability.

I commend the Committee's amendments to the House, because I believe that they add the appropriate level of enforcement and monitoring that is required to ensure, as far as is possible — notwithstanding the debate on which amendments were selected and which were not, and the fact that many of us would have liked to see other things on the Floor for debate — that the Bill that is effective and that it delivers. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We move to the second group of amendments for debate, which are on the content of guidelines and commencement. With amendment No 2, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13. If that is clear, I will call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mr Nick Mathison, to move amendment No 2 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Mathison: I promise Members that I will not rehearse all the comments about the Committee Stage. I am sure that no one wants to hear those repeated, so I will move straight to speaking directly to the group 2 amendments.

With this group of amendments, we are really looking at the content of the guidelines — what they contain — and at whether we are satisfied that they will deliver on the Bill's intentions. Throughout the Committee Stage, there was much discussion on how many provisions of the Bill were framed in terms of what "may" be included in the guidelines rather than what "must" be included. That was a recurring theme in probably every Committee meeting on the issue. Although not all parties agreed on all aspects of the discussions on that point — I am sure that Members will address that in their remarks — there was a feeling that, as the guidelines will actively dictate what schools actually have to do to reduce costs and what schools would find to be a new requirement, it would be appropriate for the Bill to prescribe the content of some of the key aspects of those guidelines.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 sit together. If they are passed, they will stipulate that the guidelines "must" inform schools who is to be consulted on their uniform policy, although doing so would not limit who can be consulted, should schools choose to consult more widely. Following on from that, they will stipulate that the consultees "must" include parents and guardians and the pupils of the school. The fact that that was not mandated in the Bill as drafted seems like a significant oversight. Members from the DUP did not take this position, and I am sure that they will address that, but there was a strong feeling among the Committee members from other parties that that needs to be corrected. It seemed clear that parents and pupils who are associated with the school should have to be consulted if the level of engagement with the school community on a school uniform policy is going to be meaningful and to ensure that a policy is fit for purpose for the school.

It may well be the case — I suspect that it is — that, if draft guidelines were before us now, those requirements might be provided, but we could not get those assurances from the Department. It may be that the amendment was not necessary, but, in the absence of that clarity, the Committee felt this to be an important aspect for inclusion in the Bill. It was very clear from the evidence that we heard, particularly from young people, that they felt, in some contexts, completely ignored in relation to school uniform policy in their school. They felt that it was just something that was imposed upon them and that their views were not relevant. Also, parents felt that they might sign their child up for a school at a given point in the year only to find that the uniform policy hid a whole range of costs that they had not been aware of or understood. It seems critical that both of those groups are required to be consulted by a school when it is drafting its policy.

I turn to amendment No 5. The Committee proposed a number of amendments relating to clause 2(2)(a) on a whole range of areas. Those were around issues of comfort and practicality of school uniforms and issues relating to gender, menstruation, special educational needs and religious observance. However, based on the amendments selected, we are debating only a single proposed change to clause 2(2)(a), and that is around requiring schools to consider the practicality of uniforms in facilitating access to play-based curricula and outdoor learning.

Particular care was taken when considering that amendment to ensure that there was a specific reference to the Foundation Stage, although the amendment is not limited to that cohort of children. I was pleased to propose that amendment to the Committee, and I am glad that it received support because my experience is that children moving from preschool into their primary education often experience a very sudden and marked change in their uniform, finding that it becomes more formal, more restrictive and less practical. It is not uncommon for schools to adopt uniform policies for their P1 children that mandate buttoned shirts, dresses, tights and ties. If we are serious about a play-based curriculum being important in the Foundation Stage, we must consider that those things inevitably restrict children's ability to access that curriculum. It sometimes raises questions about whether we really do deliver a play-based curriculum or whether we are moving children to sit at a desk and to learn in a different way. I think that amendment No 5 would send a very clear message that uniform policies should reflect the value that is placed on the Foundation Stage play-based curriculum and ensure its accessibility for all children. The Committee, with the exception of members from the DUP, supported that change, and I hope that it is given support today when we come to voting after the Consideration Stage debate.

I move to amendment Nos 6 and 7. The Committee heard from parents and children that the cost of uniforms differed widely depending on the arrangements and contracts that schools had with suppliers and on the insistence on certain expensive, branded uniform items as part of those arrangements. Particular attention was given to the issue of branded PE kit. These amendments, together, seek to bring a degree of accountability around supplier contracts for school uniforms. We heard very helpful evidence from school uniform suppliers that supply arrangements can have a role in delivering good value and that, if schools have a positive relationship and engage with local suppliers, they can be part of the solution to delivering value. However, the Committee was keen to balance that relationship with transparency so that arrangements around supplier deals were clear to parents when purchasing uniforms.

There was a very strong appetite among members to ensure that practices such as sportswear manufacturers exclusively supplying expensive PE kits to schools, with perks then being offered around the provision of equipment or kits for staff, for example, as part of those deals, should be brought into the open. Amendment Nos 6 and 7, in my view, still permit single-supplier deals to be retained but only when a very clearly articulated cost rationale is supplied to support their continuation. The Committee felt that that was an appropriate balance to strike in that space. We did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the Committee was of the view that, if a sensible arrangement with a supplier delivers good value for money, the amendments will allow that to continue.

Amendment No 13 generated substantial discussion at the Committee because it concerns the commencement of one of the enabling powers in the Bill. Members will be aware that the Bill as drafted gives the Minister some enabling powers to limit or restrict items of uniform and introduce a cap on uniform costs at some point in the future. This particular amendment relates to section 3 of the Bill, which gives the Minister the enabling power to restrict specific items of uniform. In common parlance around the debate, they are often referred to as "branded items", but, from my perspective, I urge caution on the use of that phrase because the Committee quickly found out that "branded" meant different things to different people in almost every context.

The Committee submitted an amendment that would have made the restriction on these uniform items a "must" provision. It would have created a duty on the Minister to bring in restrictions on uniform items with a view to bringing down the costs, and it would have kicked in immediately after Royal Assent if the amendment had passed. However, as that amendment was not selected — again, I note that it is a matter for the judgment of the Speaker — amendment No 13 is rendered largely inconsequential, because giving immediate effect to a power that the Department "may" utilise rather than "must" does not change anything. As it remains a "may" power, its commencement is of no great consequence.

I see no issue with amendment No 13 going forward either way, as it would be good to see at least some impetus behind this in the Bill so that, if it is given effect immediately after Royal Assent, at least those powers become available to the Minister straight away.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way.

I am very fortunate to be a parent who no longer has to suffer the costs of uniforms because my daughter is up and away. I have found that the price of girls' skirts, in comparison with boys' trousers, is ridiculous, and I hope the Minister will take that into account after the Bill gets Royal Assent. It may not be a branded item or have a school badge, but the school may tell you that it has to be a certain colour of skirt that can only be bought in one shop, and it may have to have a certain number of pleats in it and this, that and the other thing. It means that boy's black trousers can be bought in a supermarket for a few pounds, whereas a girl's skirt can cost anything up to £40. I hope that considerations like that are made in the future to ensure that cost is taken into account by all schools.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for her intervention. The gendered aspect of the cost was one of the repeated themes that came through to the Committee. The evidence received indicated that girls' uniforms are often more expensive than boys' uniforms. Therefore, providing some choice in that space would have had a cost impact as well as an equality impact, but that amendment is not available to us for debate today.

The change to bring this aspect of the Bill into effect at Royal Assent remains a "may" provision, I hope that, at the very least, it focuses the Minister and the Department's mind on the appetite for something to be done in the space of restricting items of uniform. PE is the one that came up repeatedly. We had the gender imbalance issue because girls' items are often more expensive, but the Committee also heard substantial evidence on PE kits, and barely a session went by where that issue was not discussed — certainly the parental evidence that we heard, and the evidence from young people. Indeed, many of the uniform suppliers said that they had stepped away from the PE kit market because the manufacturers, not the local school uniform shops, are making the money in many cases. There is a real sense that doing something around restricting branded items could have an impact.

I add that the real area where the Committee heard evidence that people had a serious appetite for something to be done was a cost cap, but we know that there are layers of complication to that. The Committee heard evidence that it was not a straightforward intervention. However, I put on record that we hope it does not just gather dust. The cost cap provision is a crucial part of the Bill, and I hope there will be serious action to introduce that provision.

That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair on this group of amendments.

With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will briefly conclude my contribution by making some remarks as an Alliance MLA. This group of amendments is concerned with what needs to be included in the guidelines on school uniforms that will be created and that, subsequently, must be adhered to at school level. It remains a significant frustration that a clear decision was taken not to provide either the Committee or MLAs more widely with sight of the guidelines that the Bill will create. I appreciate that they would have been only in draft form, but we remain largely in the dark about the Bill's practical outworkings. I have no doubt that the Minister, as a constituency MLA, wants to be able to say to parents that he has brought down costs, but the practical outworkings are not clear. When I walk a parent through the Bill, there is often a "What does it do?" moment. I hope, for the sake of parents, that the guidelines that the Bill creates —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise — I am sure that he does — that that reflects some of the complexities that were put to us in Committee? Sometimes, things sound simple to the general public and may make for a good social media post for all Members in the Chamber, including me, in which we say, "This is what we have done. This is what we have achieved", but that is often not the way in which legislation works. There are complexities that are hard to explain in a sound bite but that we necessarily have to face to make sure that we do the right thing.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, we are dealing with legislation here, not creating a slogan that is easy for parents to understand. That is not what the legislative process is about. I agree with him on that point, but we remain unclear about what the guidelines will do. That is the impact of the legislation: it is about what the guidelines will do. I remain unclear as to what they will look like. I hope that they will be clear and robust and have a decisive impact on uniform costs. It is encouraging to hear that schools are already making changes in that space.

Given how few of the amendments that the Committee or private Members tabled were selected for debate, we are inevitably left with a Bill that is very much the Minister's Bill. I know that the Minister is unhappy with some of the amendments that the Committee has tabled and that have made it to the Chamber for debate today. To my mind, however, the Bill, even after this amending stage, will be largely unchanged from what was presented to us. There may be some points on which there is disagreement, but the general principle that the Bill will not prescribe to any great extent what will be in the guidelines, which is clearly what the Minister and the Department wanted from the Bill, has been preserved. I hope that that approach to the legislation delivers, because parents and families need it to make a difference to the unaffordable costs that so many of them face when purchasing school uniforms.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. On the broad principle that he is trying to outline about wanting the legislation to be very prescriptive, does he believe that the detail on how schools operate their uniform policy should be in primary legislation or in statutory guidance that can be updated with much greater ease than taking primary legislation through the Assembly? Primary legislation is the foundation on which we can do what follows. That is why we have secondary legislation and why we vote on regulations. They are much easier to update, as the guidance will be. If I follow the argument from the Member and others, they want to specify the guidance in primary legislation, which would mean that, should the circumstance arise that we got it wrong, we would need to introduce primary legislation. That, to me, does not seem to be the best way in which to utilise the Assembly. I am determined to deliver on the guidance, and Members will see that in due course. The culmination of the process, however, will be more easily attained through what I have outlined than through what the Chairman seems to be indicating on behalf of the Committee.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his intervention. That was an issue. He will know that the Committee discussed at length what an appropriate level of prescription in primary legislation is. The Committee ultimately landed on the position that, while it is not the job of primary legislation to write the guidelines, such an imbalance had been created in the system on certain things, such inconsistency existed in the system on cost, comfort and practicality, which are referred to in the Bill, and there was so much divergence, the appetite was clearly there from parents and young people to introduce a degree of consistency and certainty, and we felt that a level of prescription was required to deliver that. As things have panned out, however, we do not have a huge set of prescriptive amendments on the content of the guidelines. Ultimately, what has been selected is fairly limited in that space. The Minister's approach is ultimately the one that we will see working through the legislation. I emphasise again that I sincerely hope that it delivers for parents and families, because they need it to do so.

I confirm that, from here on, I am also committed to holding the Minister and Department to account on the impact and delivery of the Bill. Whether the lack of prescription will be the issue that, I am concerned, it may present or whether the guidelines will show us something that we will all have confidence in and that will deliver, whatever way it lands, I am certainly committed to holding the Minister to account on the outworking of the Bill.

Mr McGrath: I am pleased to follow on from my colleague's earlier remarks. In the interests of this relating to school, I have had some extra homework to do by having to carry off these remarks on the Bill today, as my colleague who sits on the Education Committee is lounging on a beach on her honeymoon. I am sure that, if there is an excuse for being away from this place, that is certainly an acceptable one.

I will comment quickly on the second group of amendments. The first group focused on accountability and enforcement, and this group goes to the heart of what the guidelines should contain and how parents and pupils will experience them. To begin, I will set out the principles that have guided the SDLP's approach to the Bill. We in the SDLP believe that education should be a great equaliser; it should not be a source of inequality. Every child, regardless of their background, should arrive at school with the same chance to learn, thrive and succeed. However, that principle is undermined when the cost of a school uniform becomes a barrier to attendance or when a child is made to feel lesser because their family cannot afford a specific item of clothing. Throughout the Committee scrutiny, I understand, the Committee heard the same themes from parents, pupils and stakeholders, which were that the costs are spiralling, families feel locked into exclusive supply arrangements and uniforms often prioritise appearance over practicality. The amendments are a direct response to that evidence.

Amendment No 2 represents a seemingly small change but would make a big difference. Parents told the Committee that they are tired of warm words and promises that change might happen. They want certainty and a guarantee that guidelines will be issued and will not be left to departmental discretion and that there will be a duty to compel action.

Amendment No 3 requires that pupils and parents be explicitly consulted. Again, that was something that, I understand, the Committee consistently heard. Families feel that decisions are being made about them and without them. The Minister has said that he intended to consult anyway, but parents should not have to rely on good intentions. Writing that into the Bill ensures that their voices are guaranteed a place in that process.

Amendment No 5 addresses the practicality of uniforms, especially for children in Foundation Stage. Teachers' unions and parents all said that uniforms must support play-based learning and outdoor activity. A uniform that looks smart but prevents a child climbing, running or joining in with messy play is not, therefore, fit for purpose. That amendment reflects what was consistently heard, which was that clothing must support learning, not restrict it.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 tackle exclusive supply contracts. Time and again, parents expressed frustration at the fact that they are tied to a single supplier and forced to pay inflated prices for basic items. Stakeholder groups echoed that, pointing out that such contracts eliminate competition and ultimately remove choice. Amendment No 6 requires at least one open retail option unless the school can show that its contract truly delivers value for money. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish their contracts annually. The Committee heard repeatedly that transparency is the best safeguard against unfair costs, and the amendments make that transparency a legal requirement.

Finally, amendment No 13, while less high-profile than the others, still matters, because clarity about when provisions come into effect is essential. Parents need to know when that change will arrive.

The Minister has suggested that some of the amendments are unnecessary or overly prescriptive, but that is not what was heard at the Committee. Voiced consistently was that families want certainty. They want clarity and affordability built into the system. They do not want to be told that something might be covered in some future guidelines. Time and again, the Committee heard about the stress caused by costs. Families told us about spending £100 on a blazer, £40 on a jumper and £15 on a tie, often when cheaper, perfectly adequate alternatives were available elsewhere. Parents told the Education Committee that they felt trapped by school supply arrangements that drive up prices. That is what the amendments address. Yes, many community groups are stepping in with pre-loved uniform schemes, and the Committee heard about some inspiring projects during its Committee Stage, but those schemes exist because families have been left with no alternative. Community goodwill should not have to fill the gaps that are left by substandard legislation.

The amendments would significantly strengthen the Bill. They make sure that the Department has a duty, not a choice, to act. They guarantee parents and pupils a voice and ensure that uniforms are practical for learning. They shine a light on exclusive supplier contracts and provide clarity on when action will start. That is what was consistently heard at the Committee. It is what the parents have asked for, and that is why the SDLP is pleased to support group 2 and urges other Members to do so as well.

Mr Sheehan: First, I want to touch on an issue that the Education Minister raised during his contribution. He said that the Assembly had passed flawed legislation. That may well be true, but it is also true of every other legislature in the world. Nothing will always be perfect. We will do our best to make sure that it is. Sometimes, the Assembly might fail. It has not failed often.

The Minister also said that he was not a legal expert; nor are members of the Committee. We took advice. All of us approached this on the basis that we wanted to do something to help hard-pressed families and parents who, sometimes, spend exorbitant amounts of money on school uniforms; not for every school but for some schools. We set about trying to shape the legislation by producing amendments that mean that the legislation would do exactly what we want it to do. In that sense, we were prescriptive, but it was not the Committee on its own. I am not a legal expert, and I do not think that the Chair is either, but we brought in legal experts to advise us, and they were not just from the Assembly. The commissioner from the Human Rights Commission came in and gave us legal advice. We took legal advice from them and from drafters in the Bill Office. We are not making it up. We did not wake up one morning and say, "I have a great idea. Let's use this formula of words". It was all done with advice. On occasions when we were not exactly sure that the advice was right, we asked the Bill Clerk to look at it again. On some occasions, that happened. We came at this in the right frame of mind. We know what we want, and we know what we want the legislation to achieve.

The difficulty is that, even today, the Minister appears to be disingenuous on a number of issues, including the guidelines. Officials in the Department were working on guidelines from as far back as when the Bill was first introduced, yet the Minister says that the guidelines follow the proposed legislation. Officials were working away on them. They told us that they would be ready within a week. They told us, "Do not worry about amendments. As soon as you see the guidelines, you will know that there is no need for an amendment". So, what were the officials doing? By the way, I am not blaming the officials. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were instructed from above to say that — no doubt whatsoever.

The Minister was also disingenuous today when he said that it is an Executive Bill, as if it is not his Bill. The Minister has been around this place long enough to know that the procedure is that the Executive give approval for Bills to go ahead but that, to coin a phrase, the Executive are not across every jot and tittle of Bills that come through. If you were true to your word, you would never amend any Bill that comes through the Executive because, as far as you are concerned, "That's it. The Executive have approved it".

My difficulty is that you are sitting here being disingenuous about aspects of the process to bring forward legislation. That is a fact.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member giving way. I also appreciate that we have not spoken about any of the amendments, but that is a matter for those chairing proceedings.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, if you do not mind, will you take your seat?

Mr Givan: I will indeed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not need to be reminded, but thank you for doing that. I would like Members to return to the substance of the group 2 amendments. I have been extremely patient and inclusive, but the constant longwinded interventions are starting to wear my patience. The Minister will make his intervention. I ask the Member and other Members who speak to return to the group 2 amendments, which are amendment Nos 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13, if you do not mind.

Mr Givan: I am happy with your ruling that we stick to the amendments, and I will speak on them in due course.

Mr Sheehan: Sinn Féin will support all the amendments in the group. I will take the opportunity to speak briefly to amendment Nos 2, 3, 6 and 7.

Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". Without that, the Department could dodge issuing guidelines altogether. With it, the Department will have a duty and families cannot be left in limbo. This is an opportunity for us, as MLAs, whatever we think about the legislation, to say clearly that, at the very least, guidelines will be issued. Whether they are good enough guidelines is another matter.

Amendment No 3 requires consultation with:

That is common sense. Pupils wear the uniforms, and parents pay for them: it is only right that they should have a voice in those matters and, more importantly, that their voices be heard.

Amendment No 6 is one of the strongest affordability measures. It ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer, breaking the monopoly of school-appointed suppliers. We all know that some schools have sweetheart deals with suppliers and get a kickback from those. That is one of the things that the Committee focused on. We wanted to end that practice because, while the school may benefit from a sweetheart deal, the people who suffer are the parents who have to pay for it. We did not rule out schools being able to keep contracts if they can prove value for money. It was raised with us that there might be only one supplier in some rural areas but the contract that a school has with that supplier might provide value for money. If that is the case, and the school can prove that there is value for money, there is no obstacle to it.

Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency will shine a light on sweetheart deals and monopolies. If a deal is genuinely value for money, no one should have anything to fear.

Amendment No 13 tidies up commencement provisions. It is minor but necessary for clarity.

As my colleague Cathy Mason said in relation to the previous group of amendments, we need to look at the wider context. We are being asked to debate the Bill without having seen the draft guidelines, which, we are being told, will make this work. Perhaps, at some stage in the future, we will get clarity on whether the guidelines follow the legislation, or whether they were being worked on and, for some reason, a decision was made not to show them to the Committee. We were promised sight of them months ago. I voted in favour of shortening the Committee scrutiny stage when the Minister asked us to, but I was wrong to do so. I think that the Minister was trying to rush things through, without giving due consideration to all the issues. He was concerned about getting this through as quickly as possible. At that time, we accepted his bona fides in all that, but I am not so sure that we would accept them now. Asking people to blindly trust the Minister and his Department is no longer going to work. Frankly, families cannot afford to trust the Minister on this issue. That is why we worked with others to try to table amendments that were prescriptive and would ensure that affordability, equality, comfort and practicality were built into the legislation. We have missed an opportunity. We could have had proposals that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, allowed generic clothing, permitted the use of sew-on crests and so on.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You have made a ruling that we should speak on only the amendments that have been tabled. The Member is diverting from that. Will you make a ruling on that?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am listening, David. We are talking about the content of the guidance and commencement. I am not across every aspect of the Bill, because I am not on the Committee. I am trying my best to listen and to ensure that what Members are saying is in keeping with what is in the lever arch folder that I have in front of me. I will refer your comments to the Speaker. Again — I am not doing it gently now — I ask Members to return to the substance of the group 2 amendments. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Pat.

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

Of course

I am dealing with

the amendments that were discussed in —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, can you leave the mic alone, if you don't mind? You are going to break it. [Laughter.]

Mr Sheehan: I am trying to get it out of my way. I will reiterate my point. There were proposals in the amendments that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, which is an issue of equality; allowed parents to buy generic clothing; permitted the use of sew-on crests; and guaranteed adjustments for pupils with disabilities. Unfortunately, none of those amendments was accepted. In my view, that was to the detriment of the Bill, but we will support the group 2 amendments.

Mr Martin: I start by picking up on a few things that have been talked about so far. I did not make an intervention because I did not want to slow things down any more. I will pick up on the Committee Chair's comments on the cost cap and the impetus to have said cost cap. That was debated at length at the Committee, and it was a useful discussion. We looked at the cost cap and took evidence from, for example, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Some members were keen to have one, and we tried to say what the figure would be. I suggest that, if everyone in the Chamber was asked to write down what they thought that the cost-cap figure for school uniforms should be, we would have a lot of different numbers, and that is the problem. It becomes more of a problem when a figure is put into primary legislation, because it cannot be changed.

Just as an example, a cost cap of £250 was talked about at one point at the Committee. Some post-primary schools might think, "Well, we're going to struggle to bring our entire school uniform in at £250". Other schools, we know, are doing it for less even as we speak. In fact, I spoke to a principal about two weeks ago who was in that situation. I more or less gave him that example, and he said to me, "If you put that figure in, do you not think that schools that are under that might raise the cost of their uniforms to hit that cost cap? If that's the amount you're allowed, can you raise it?" That is called an inverse incentive or a perverse incentive to try to meet a criterion. Not only do I think that it is not a good idea to put numbers into primary legislation because, for example, it does not take account of inflation as the years go on, but not having a figure is a good idea because it allows the guidelines to reflect that and to take evidence around it.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that he was keen to make a wee bit of progress in the debate. As a point of clarity, though, does the Member accept that it was never proposed at Committee that a number would be put into primary legislation, but simply the principle of whether it must be done or not? That is an important point of clarity.

Mr Martin: I thank the Chair for that intervention. I hope that I did not suggest that a cost-cap number was ever talked about, but that number was chatted about, as was the concept of a cost cap. It was actually reflected in both speeches. If you have a cost cap, usually you need a number associated with that, and that would be difficult.

I must say that the Member for South Down Mr McGrath has admirably stepped in for his colleague who is apparently sunning herself somewhere. I found myself nodding along with him on several occasions during his speech, because I completely agree that the purpose of the legislation is to make sure that no child is prohibited from being sent, and no parent or family feels prohibited from sending their child, to any given school due to cost. I recall one young lady coming to the Committee. I think that this has been talked about, but it is interesting how we all remember these things, and I remember something slightly different in the evidence that she gave. She said that she would like to play more sports in sixth form. I think that she had moved school. She was moving into what we would maybe call lower sixth. I am sure that there is a number for that these days, but, in old money, it was lower sixth. She was very sporty, and she was just chatting away. What I loved about her was the openness. She shared what she thought. She said, "I would love to play more sport, but my family simply can't afford the range of sports gear and kit that I would require to do the things that I want to do in lower sixth". I know that that impacted on the Committee and on some Members in the Chamber. It is probably the single most important thing that stuck with me during the entire Committee Stage. That is what I believe that the Bill will address. I say to the Member for South Down, "Have faith", because when the Bill gets legislative status and the guidelines are there, it will help children in that sort of situation avoid being faced with the choice that that girl had.

Members, there was significant debate in Committee on the Bill.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to the Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: That may well turn out to be the case, but I do not know why the Member is so confident that it will be. If the amendments from the Committee had been selected, there would have been absolute clarity for that family and that young girl. By the way, that is the same young girl who used to take off her overcoat 100 metres from the school. That is how bad the situation is. She also said that, because her family could not afford the uniform, she was not going to do sport. There would have been clarity in those amendments: there is no clarity now. I do not know why the Member is so confident that there will be, because nobody else is.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that we have already debated amendment No 8, which is the new clause titled:

We now need to focus on amendment Nos 6 and 7 and the rest of the amendments in group 2. I bring that to your attention, Peter, and I remind everybody else as well.

Mr Martin: That is great. Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

If it is possible, I will make one more remark and then move on to amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, because Members who spoke previously brought up the scrutiny phase. I felt that there was an impetus to get the Bill through. Parents who are watching the debate will be keen to see the legislation in place. It should not be bad legislation but good legislation that makes a difference. The Member who spoke previously mentioned that.

I will outline our party's position on the group 2 amendments. Amendment No 2, taken in conjunction with amendment No 3, is likely to widen the number of consultees. We do not plan to oppose those amendments.

I will talk generally and then specifically about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7. We have some general concerns about their drafting. During the debate on the group 1 amendments, the Minister mentioned advice from the OLC, and, during his speech, the SDLP Member for West Tyrone talked about how the success of the Bill will be judged by pounds and pennies saved, not by technical drafting. I say, however, looking at amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, that technical drafting is important, as it sets out the policymakers' legal intent. We have to be mindful of that.

On amendment No 5, we consider the phrases "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" not to have been defined in primary legislation. We recognise the intent of the amendment but feel that, on balance, that intent is already covered in clause 2 and will be, I am sure, further clarified in the guidelines. We will therefore oppose amendment No 5.

It is our understanding that amendment No 6 could have some unintended consequences. The Member who spoke previously talked about the impact that having a monopoly or one supplier can have, but we also heard evidence in Committee that there are very small schools, some post-primary but mostly primary, in rural Northern Ireland — perhaps in south Down, south Armagh and west Tyrone — that are not near large towns and therefore may have arrangements with a local supplier. That arrangement may be particularly valuable to parents, because buying from that supplier, although it may be the only supplier of that primary school's uniform, may be incredibly cost-effective. A really positive arrangement may be in place. I realise that that is not the case with every school in Northern Ireland, as did the Committee during Committee Stage, but there are outliers. I am sure that nobody here would want to lose small, independent retailers from our towns. On that basis and because of its drafting, we will oppose amendment No 6.

We think that clause 2 is probably the wrong place for amendment No 7 and that it should be to clause 6. That is a technical flaw. As with amendment No 6, amendment No 7 would add the term "provider", and, given that "retailer" is already mentioned, we think that that is unnecessary and erroneous. Therefore, we will oppose amendment No 7.

We do not view amendment No 13 as being particularly problematic and will not force a Division on it.

Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you for your time and your indulgence. I will finish my remarks on the group 2 amendments by saying again that the Bill will make a difference for parents who buy school uniforms. I am one of those parents, as are many people in the room. The Bill will make a really positive impact as we look forward to the new school year, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Burrows: This is a good day, because we are dealing with legislation. I feel somewhat spoilt. I have only just arrived, and I am right at the heart of dealing with legislation. That is positive.

When it comes to the amendments, I see the whole Bill as being like a stick of rock. The slogan that goes through it is "affordability", and its wrapper says, "No child should ever be excluded, disciplined or disadvantaged because their mum and dad or carers do not have the money that someone else's might have". It is really important to capture that principle every time we deal with a group of amendments.

On group 2, "Trust but verify" is a dictum that I like, so I have no issue with amendment No 2 and putting in the word "must". That is sensible.

Amendment No 3 provides greater clarity and certainty about who the consultees are, so I have no issue with that.

I am interested in some of the legal advice that the Minister received on how there may drafting problems with some amendments. Of course, the Minister does not have to reveal any legal advice, but, if he did, the only impact would be that he would lose his privilege. He can decide to release legal advice. At times, it would be useful to see legal advice, especially with legislation such as this, when we really want to understand the reasoning behind things. What are the risks? What are the unintended consequences of words, which can really make a huge difference and stymie the intent of legislation?

To my mind, it is sensible to have the requirement that there be more than one provider of school uniforms. That encourages competition and drives down prices. Having that safeguard is entirely sensible, particularly for rural schools — they are mostly schools in constituencies west of the Bann that are often represented by those on the other side of the Chamber — that may be impacted by the inability to have more than one provider of school uniforms. It is sensible to have a safeguard that means that the school manager can say where the school has deviated from that practice because there is only a single supplier.

In essence, that is our position on the group 2 amendments. I am conscious of the advice that the Minister received on the drafting. I want to see the detail of that in order to understand the main concerns. I agree that amendment No 13 is not contentious. We are largely content with those group 2 amendments, but I want to explore and be reassured about the Minister's concerns about the impact that they might have on the legislation.

Mr Baker: I suppose that, the whole way through this, we have been blind because we did not get the guidelines. I completely understand why the Minister had a good weekend and something to be cheerful about, because, when the Marshalled List came through on Friday afternoon, all the hard work that we had done in the Committee had been very much thrown in the bin, if I am being brutally honest. It was disappointing. We are being asked to trust the Minister and to have faith in him, if I remember correctly. Trust is earned. I have been here long enough to have heard it shouted across the Chamber that the Education Committee needs to work harder and to have heard derogatory comments about work that we have partaken in such as the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry. I bring up the RSE inquiry because, in the evidence, young people told us how important it would be in tackling violence against women and girls. It also included upskirting.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Mr Baker is talking about the RSE inquiry. As far as I am aware, you indicated that you were keen to keep the debate to the group 2 amendments on the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As you will have observed, Peter, I am letting Members have leeway in and then I will bring them back to the amendments. If Members cannot or will not come back to the subject of the debate, I will move on to the next person to speak. Is that clear to everyone?

Danny, please come back to the group 2 amendments, which are amendment Nos 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13.

Mr Baker: I had not really moved away from the amendments. I was dealing with amendment No 3 when I was talking about the rights of the child. It all fits into it, as does the evidence that is taken in Committee. That is the whole point of a Committee. When we saw the Marshalled List come through on Friday, I asked whether there was any point to the Committee when the Minister just wants the Bill to be as is. We have not seen the guidelines. That is the principal point of it. I will go back to the amendments.

Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". That places a duty on the Department to issue guidelines, which means that families will have more clarity on the school uniform policy. Amendment No 3 requires consultation with pupils and parents or guardians. That is a step in the right direction, making school uniform policy more compliant with children's rights, including articles 2, 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Amendment No 6 ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer. Schools can keep contracts if they offer value for money; otherwise, parents must have choice. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency is essential. That is the whole ethos of what we have been trying to say.

All the amendments that were well researched and based on evidence. They were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in that field. The amendments complemented each other as we went through the Bill. I am confident that all amendments were relevant, competent and entirely within the scope of the Bill. I would be keen to see the advice that the Speaker received in the process that led to the amendments' exclusion from the debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, can you take your seat? There is a point of order.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Member's speech is largely about amendments that, he is annoyed, were not selected. It is completely outside the scope of what we are supposed to be talking about, on which you want to be consistent.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Everybody is keen to tell me how to do my job. That is your prerogative. When a Member throws in the numbers of the amendments, I assume that they are speaking to group 2. You have that knowledge on the Education Committee. I am not telling you how to do your job.

People are starting to get tetchy. I ask people not to talk about amendments that cannot be made because they were not selected. You can talk about why, you think, certain issues are important in group 2. Is that clear?

Go ahead. Thank you, Danny.

Mr Baker: That is exactly what I was doing. I was pointing out that the amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in the field. Other Members commented that amendments were not within the scope of the Bill: how would they know? I suppose that it drives it back to that. That is why I was doing that.

I want a child-centred approach to education. That includes the uniforms Bill. The Bill has the potential to be good for parents and young people.

At the minute, it falls way short. Looking at Members across the Chamber and thinking about what happened in Committee, I see that they do not get the child-centred part of the legislation. The Minister has to prove, by his actions, that we can trust him. As it stands, based on my experience in the Chamber, I do not have that trust. That is why we needed the amendments that did not come through; that is the reality.

Mrs Guy: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will make your life easy by speaking to the amendments in group 2 on the content of guidelines and commencement. The selected amendments in the group are about strengthening the Bill to give it the best chance to deliver real change for families. Each amendment addresses specific weaknesses by ensuring consultation with those directly affected, making uniform policies consistent with the play-based curriculum, tackling costs through supplier choice and transparency, and making sure that key provisions take effect without unnecessary delay. Taken together, they make the legislation stronger, fairer and more effective.

I restate that, as a Committee, we took legal advice and drafting advice from the Bill Office on all the amendments that we submitted. There is an opportunity to tidy things up at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendments Nos 2 and 3 focus on consultation by schools and are straightforward. The vast majority of schools constantly speak to parents and children and receive feedback on many things, including uniform. The amendments ensure that the Department has to make provision in the guidance for who schools must consult and that parents, guardians and pupils are included in that consultation.

Amendment No 5 concerns the play-based curriculum. My colleague Nick Mathison has been particularly passionate about that, and I fully support him on it. We speak of how crucial a play-based curriculum is for children in the early stages of their education, yet we continue to permit schools not to reflect that in their uniform. The amendment, if passed, will ensure that the play-based curriculum is appropriately considered in uniform policies. I often note that the only people who leave my house in the morning wearing a tie are my kids as they go to school, when their dad works in an office. The amendment is about young kids at Foundation Stage. Their uniform should reflect the stage of their education journey, so it is a common-sense amendment, and I hope that Members will support it.

Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are about single-supplier contracts. Amendment No 6 refers to availability for purchase. That is essential — it is unfortunate that it is essential — and the amendment ensures that guidance to schools includes strong provisions to ensure that items required for a uniform:

That ensures choice for parents, and we hope that, in the interim, until the Minister proceeds with a cost cap, it will have an impact on cost.

The second part of the amendment adds nuance. The Committee heard feedback on some cases in which schools could openly explain how they were able to negotiate lower prices through a supplier or series of suppliers. Transparency is essential. The theme of transparency is in the amendment. We have heard disappointing stories of schools opting for a supplier, for example, to deliver PE and sports kit, after the decision-making process was influenced by staff having received free kit. That is a minority example, but no school or organisation should be afraid of transparency, and the amendment ensures that when it comes to formal or informal agreements with suppliers.

Amendment No 13 ensures that clause 3 would come into operation on Royal Assent and not simply when the Department wants it to. That clause focuses the guidance on limiting items of clothing or sets of clothing, which is, as we know, essential in making an impact on the cost of uniforms. We understand that the Department needs more time to work on a cost cap design, but we have allowed for that in the amendment.

Miss McAllister: I am not a member of the Education Committee, but I will contribute to the debate on the amendments in group 2 and, perhaps, ask a few questions that the Minister might be able to answer.

First, with regard to all the amendments in this group and the first group, I want to reflect on what a school uniform is. We know that it is different for every school. I am very lucky that my children's schools are very flexible about their uniforms, which are formal yet informal, so that children feel comfortable. There are many kids, however, some as young as four, who go to school looking as though they are about to be interviewed for their first job, which is a rather bizarre situation. Some kids have to tie their own ties when they cannot tie their own shoelaces. Such uniform policies are bizarre.

We have all, ourselves and our kids at home, had experiences of what a uniform may look like. I am disappointed, however, by how far some of the amendments in this group go. I do not want to speak too much, going by previous contributors' remarks, about the amendments that were not selected.

I want to highlight amendment No 5, which was tabled by my colleague Nick Mathison, concerning the practicality of play-based uniforms. We all respect that schools need flexibility in order to ensure that the kids can feel comfortable but also take a pride in their school and in representing it. That can be done, however, by wearing a jumper with the school logo on it with basic tracksuit bottoms or joggers, so that they are still representing their school.

The idea of a play-based uniform goes beyond the Foundation Stage. We know the importance of physical activity throughout the school day. One of the issues that concerns me is how children with sensory needs are considered. Young people are put around a desk for six hours. They get breaks at recess and lunchtime and can play outside, but we all know that no child can sit and work throughout the day without standing up, walking around and getting their jitters out: anything to be able to loosen up. Some of that goes to the point around play-based uniforms. We know that all kids want to have fun in the playground, and some of them, my child included, in the classroom itself. The uniform does not always lend itself to that.

My question for the Minister concerns the guidance that he will publish. Is there an opportunity in that guidance to reflect on the idea of all kids being able to be comfortable and to be themselves, so that they can learn best in that play-based environment and beyond? We know that school is also in the playground, and kids like to run and mess about as much as possible.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that valid point, which allows me to address some other points that the Members have made. Cathy Mason made a point earlier and gave some examples that, erroneously, suggested that those children could not be catered for. Clause 2(2) states:

That is partly why Mr Mathison's Committee amendment on curricula, which I will come to, is, in my view, unnecessary. That is a very wide provision in the legislation. The guidance that has to be implemented by schools must take into account:

I trust that that will give the Member some assurance that that is an issue that schools will be able to consider. Certainly, when I publish the guidance, people will see that.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Will he include in the guidance the options for girls to wear trousers as a matter of comfort? Is that something that he will seek to include in the guidance? That is an issue: I hated wearing a pinafore for the entire 14 years or more that I was at school, so that should be an option. There are, however, kids who have sensory needs. I think of my household and its struggles. Just because the school has guidance to be flexible, and the uniform can be cheap, some items can only be found in certain stores, and that does not always make it easy. We can only get my son's uniform in one place, because he cannot have belts, buckles, zips or buttons. It is rather difficult. In that sense, it is better to simply wear joggers. I am lucky that I have a school that is flexible, but we have many constituents who come to us who have schools that are not flexible, and we are talking about kids who do have sensory needs and children with special educational needs. I hope that those children in particular are provided for in the guidance.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in answer to her question around the issue of skirts and trousers, yes, schools do have the freedom and liberty to put in place a policy that would make provision for that. I have attended schools and visits where I can see it: it is obvious that there are trousers and skirts being worn. That is a choice that is made available to them. Under that approach, I am seeking to compel schools to engage with their pupils and parents, have that consultation, devise policy and, if the school chooses to have that provision — again, that is the difference: I am not advocating a prescriptive approach — I say clearly that it will have my support in making that provision. Ultimately, it is a decision that a school will have to take, but that will have to be informed through the consultation process, listening to pupils and giving them a real, meaningful voice. That may well lead to change in some of those schools that currently do not make that provision.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister, but —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I will in a second, yes.

Thank you for the clarity, Minister. I am not on the Education Committee, so I cannot be across the detail of every single line in the Bill. However, what you have just said raises the question, "What if the school still says no?" There are schools out there that do say no. We need representation on behalf of pupils, in particular girls who want to wear trousers, for example. I can give way now.

Mr Sheehan: You have sort of made the point that I was going to make: there are schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers, but there are schools where they are not. The issue here is whether girls should have the right to wear trousers or not, not whether it is at the whim of some principal of the school or the board of governors or whatever.

Miss McAllister: I agree. They should also be entitled to wear trousers, just because of weather aspects. I remember having to wear skirts and tights and being absolutely freezing going to school. Then there are schools that prescribe only particular coats and jackets. I look forward to seeing the guidance, but you can understand our perspective, when we have constituents who come to us who are not allowed to wear trousers. That is just one example. Our preference is not to leave it up to just guidance for a school to then consult and for the school to have the final say. It is really important that the child's voice be heard first and foremost.

I support all the amendments in group 2, and I look forward to seeing any changes that the Department feels that it has to make at Further Consideration Stage. I thank the Minister for answering questions and allowing me to participate in the debate.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 11.30 pm this evening if necessary. I am just saying.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, the Floor is yours.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have debated seven amendments in group 1, and now we have turned to the group 2 amendments, which focus on the content of guidelines and the commencement. For the most part, I do not take particular issue with the policy intent of most of the amendments in group 2. Rather, my primary concern is for the integrity of the statute book and to ensure that what the Assembly seeks to do is clear.

Mr Sheehan said that we sometimes get it wrong but that so do legislators all over the world. The fact that others have got legislation wrong in the past and do things incorrectly is not a reason for us to continue to get it wrong. He talked about a mere Executive process, but I have been around the Executive long enough to know that it is not a mere tick-box exercise to get Sinn Féin's approval in order to get a Bill through. If that is Sinn Féin's approach, I look forward to other Bills that I want to introduce but that are being held up in the Executive being released.

A Member: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: No, because I am straying, as Members did, beyond what I am meant to be debating. I am just responding to the points that were raised. I will then get to the substance of what we need to do.

Mr Sheehan also suggested that I was being disingenuous or insincere. This is the first Bill that I introduced as Minister of Education. On day 1, I announced that we would introduce a Bill to tackle the affordability of school uniforms. I am preparing legislation on a series of issues, but I introduced the Bill in order to facilitate Members. I introduced it not just because my party wanted to but because the issue was one that other Members had a real desire to address. People can question the motives behind my introducing it, but I did so because it was the right thing to do. Others will judge the intention behind the rationale for my introducing it. I only wish that Sinn Féin Ministers would introduce their Bills. I introduced one, and I have others in the system. With the greatest respect, where is the output from some of my Executive colleagues?

It is not mere pedantry for me to talk about getting the legislation right. In evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, our former Attorney General John Larkin KC set out why that is the case. He wrote, of a period before the precision of modern legislation was in vogue:

What I have heard today suggests that we have learnt nothing about passing effective legislation. I do not doubt the sincerity of Members who seek to do the right thing on affordability, but it is about not just doing something but doing the right thing. Members have decisions to take, but my position is clear when it comes to outlining why there was a better way in which to draft the Bill.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I ask this in the genuine spirit of sincerity. The Minister has earned some plaudits for forcing stuff through, even if I and others in the Chamber really disagree with it, and often perhaps without Executive discussion. He now asks others in the Chamber to bear with him, think rationally and, in effect, trust him. Does he accept that the trade-off for pushing through his stuff and his being, shall we say, somewhat abrasive at times in the Chamber about his agenda is that Members are a little less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt on such matters? That is just a thought.

Mr Givan: I said that it is not me who holds that viewpoint. I relayed the professional opinion of experts on legislation. I recounted my experience, having previously been Chair of a Committee, of how to seek to engage the honesty of those who, with their best endeavour, seek to advise Committees. When I was Chair of a Committee, it was recognised that the professional expertise lay with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I have shared that view, but it is for Members to decide whether they wish to take my word for it. I do not ask them to do so on trust, but, ultimately, they have to preside over the decisions that they will take in the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take your seat for a minute.

I appreciate that some Members, during their contributions, say things to which you probably feel that you need to respond, but I am conscious that we are now straying into the area of using legal advice that Members have not seen and will not see, because it is privileged. Furthermore, officials will be challenged. I just need to remind you of that. With that, I ask you to continue.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I trust that the Assembly will not lead us back down the path that I articulated in my concerns.

We start the grouped amendments with some amendments — amendment Nos 2 and 3 — that, in my view, are unnecessary, although they are not damaging to the Bill. In the existing non-statutory guidance, schools are advised to consult their parents and pupils. That formed part of the policy consultation on uniforms. It is a matter of public record that, at Second Stage, I talked to the need for schools to consult parents and pupils. Such a requirement was always going to be in the guidelines. The amendments are likely to require guidelines to specify other consultees, and, while I am broadly content not to oppose the amendments, I query whether that was the intention.

Good intentions do not automatically equate to good legislation. I caution Members that every unclear provision in the legislation will ultimately leave our schools open to legal challenge. Schools have so much work to do in teaching and nurturing our children and young people. That is their key purpose. Uniforms have a role in supporting ethos and school identity. Uniforms need to be comfortable and practical in order to support children in their learning, but let us not confuse what needs to be in legislation about guidelines that address the affordability of school uniforms with what may seem to be a good idea outside the legal framework.

I am concerned about amendment No 5, which risks making statutory guidelines difficult or unworkable for schools. In addition, I am afraid that it does not make logical sense. Terms such as "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are used in the amendment in reference to the 2006 Order but are not used in that legislation or in any Northern Ireland education legislation. Foundation Stage is defined in the 2006 Order in relation to the age of pupils in that stage and as covering two school years. All the necessary powers to differentiate guidelines between Key Stages are already in clause 5. It is not legally clear what the amendment means. I am aware of no reference in Northern Ireland education law to "curricula" of any type. The curriculum is defined in the 2006 Order in terms of, for example, the:

and as equipping pupils with the "knowledge, understanding and skills" that are needed for life — not clothing.

As I have said, the terms "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are not used in law. I presume that they are intended to relate to the pedagogy of the curriculum at Foundation Stage, but that is intentionally not set out in law. That is a matter of professional teacher training, development and ever-evolving best practice. The amendment overcomplicates what is already covered in the requirement in clause 2 for "comfort and practicality". I referenced clause 2 in response to Nuala McAllister when she raised a number of questions on some issues.

Are "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" to be interpreted by the Department, and is that interpretation to then be included in guidelines about school uniforms that are meant to address affordability? Taken logically, the amendment runs the risk of requiring parents to pay for a different uniform at Foundation Stage. That risk has been highlighted by legal advice. Every time a school takes its pupils from year 1 to year 14 outside to help them to be active, is that outdoor learning and would it therefore require a specific uniform instruction in the guidelines? The amendment is unclear and is simply not necessary.

The underpinning point is for uniforms to be affordable. Under the Bill, they must also be comfortable and practical within that context of affordability. Therefore, the amendment does not add to what is already covered in the Bill; indeed, it serves only to confuse matters with no associated benefits for parents or pupils, however well intentioned it may be. I have no reason to question the intention behind it. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 5, and I urge the House not to vote for it.

Again, amendment Nos 6 and 7 are not necessary. The Bill requires that the Department address "unfair costs aspects" in the guidelines and defines "unfair costs aspects" as including:

that could "raise questions" about:

uniforms can be purchased. Amendment No 6 uses different terms. For example, who are "providers"? I remind the House of the importance of words in legislation. The amendment is not clear. It is, therefore, not suitable for being adopted into the Bill.

Amendment No 7 relates to the publication of information, and it does not really belong in clause 2. Clause 2 deals with particular matters for inclusion in guidelines of broadly similar types relating to unfair costs and practicality and sets of clothing. Even if amendment No 7 were in the right place, the amendment is not clear in its language. Again, it is simply not needed. Under clause 6, a manager of a school must publish whatever associated or additional explanation or information the guidelines require under clause 1, so, as the concern giving rise to amendment No 7 is already fully addressed by the Bill, it adds nothing except overlap. Let us not populate the Bill with unnecessary provisions based on misunderstanding of what matters are already covered. I urge the House not to vote for amendment Nos 6 or 7.

Finally, on amendment No 13, the reason why clause 3 and clause 4 were drafted to come into operation via commencement order is to ensure that any cap, whether that is on the number of branded items or cost or, indeed, a combination, was properly thought through and workable; that unintended consequences were mitigated as far as is possible and that the cap can be invoked only where truly necessary and effective. My officials are working on a consultation about what a cap should be, how it should operate and who is best placed to develop, maintain, monitor and adapt it as necessary. That should come first. It will inform how any cap can be most effective and whether it should be deployed. That will support a measured, informed approach that will be consulted on and will be focused on addressing affordability for parents in the most effective way. As with all primary legislation subject to commencement order, clauses 3 and 4 are for commencing in due course in light of the sorts of factors that I have mentioned. However, the amendment is not of such materiality that I intend to oppose it.

In closing, I bring the House back to the key underpinning reason for introducing the legislation: to help families who are struggling with costs associated with school uniforms. I repeat what I said in the group 1 debate: words matter. Wording in legislation is critical. I urge the House to consider what I have highlighted about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, and I ask that Members also vote against those amendments. Let us make good legislation. Today, let our votes be for legislative provisions that will make a positive difference for families who are struggling. Let us do that without exposing our schools to unnecessarily complex guidelines that leave them more open to legal challenge because unclear and unnecessary provisions have been placed in the Bill. I will put families first and considering workability for schools as I vote. I trust that other Members will too, and, if we get this right, we can make a real and a positive difference with the legislation. I thank each Member for their engagement.

Mr Speaker: I call the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mathison, to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. There has been a lot of openness to take interventions and to go through the issues in considerable detail. That has helped the debate and the considerations that are now before us.

First, I want to highlight the phrase that the Minister used in response to my colleague Nuala McAllister: "if the school so chooses". That is a telling phrase when we are looking at amendments that are concerned with the content of the guidelines. It has always been the Committee's concern that guidelines will come forward, particularly in the space around comfort and practicality, that may give schools permission to do certain things. We have talked about girls being able to wear trousers, and we have talked about play-based learning. There is a range of things, and the Minister suggested that permission would be given for schools to take those kinds of steps and decisions. The phrase "if the school so chooses" does not, to me, give enough comfort that the guidelines will require the schools to make interventions in those spaces. When we are thinking about the content, I would like to move beyond "if the school so chooses" and into the space of guidelines that really create a clear direction of travel in areas that the school needs to follow and must follow. That is where there is maybe some divergence around this group of amendments.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. It is not that long ago that, while there was guidance that allowed female police officers to wear trousers, they had to ask permission to wear them between September and April and their senior office could refuse permission. That is not a place where we want girls to be in our schools. The world did not fall down around us because female officers were allowed to wear trousers of their own volition.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. Absolutely. When we give permission to do certain things that are right and appropriate, that still leaves others who may not be afforded that right, if the school chooses not to exercise that permission. That is not an acceptable scenario.

The Minister also said that there is a concern about:

and not just being seen to do something: I absolutely take his point on that. We are all concerned that the outworking of the legislation does the right thing. The right thing is that it brings down the cost of school uniforms, and the right thing should also be that it improves the comfort and practicality of uniforms for children. I am struggling a little in that I am not quite sure what the Bill will do, other than create the guidelines, because we just do not know what the Minister will ask schools to do. He used the phrase "unfair costs", which is the language of the Bill. We all want to see unfair costs tackled, but I go back to my point that it is not clear how that will be done.

The Committee's interest in bringing that degree of prescription was to ensure that we were doing the right thing and not just doing something. However, in fact, what we have before us today, in terms of the amendments selected, is not a huge suite of prescriptive interventions. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, when we look at the group 2 amendments and the content of the guidelines, we see that the Bill is still largely as it was when the Minister brought it to us, with some changes that should not keep anybody awake at night. I will add that there is the option of Further Consideration Stage. The Minister referenced concerns about language, ordering and sequencing. There is every opportunity for those issues to be ironed out at Further Consideration Stage, and I am sure that Members will engage in that process.

The debate has made it clear where we have landed. We have, on the one hand, the Minister and the Department, who want a Bill that does not prescribe and relies entirely on the guidelines, and, on the other, Members who are keen on certain areas to ensure that the Bill is clear about what it will ask schools to deliver and the interventions that will be required in school uniform policies. I remain on the side that would like clarity about what schools will be asked to do, because it is that clarity that will give us assurances that the costs will come down.

I will finish on a point about the Minister's sense that Members are, perhaps, behaving irresponsibly or weighing in to do something that will cause some sort of crisis in our school system. If everybody is on the same page in wanting to deal with costs and if schools want to work with the Department, I have no doubt that, if there is a little bit of prescription in the Bill that gives the Department pause for thought to ensure that the guidance includes additional things that it had perhaps not considered, to move beyond permission and into requiring schools to do certain things, the system will step up and engage with that guidance. Nobody here is trying to act or vote irresponsibly. Every Member in the Chamber wants to see the costs brought down.

I commend the group 2 amendments to the House as positive interventions on affordability — we are all clear that some of the single-supplier arrangements need to be dealt with — and comfort and practicality.

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Members should note that amendment Nos 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 9 is made, I will therefore not call amendment No 10.

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

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 10 as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 9, which has been made.

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

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

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I inform Members that the Speaker has been notified by the nominating officer for the DUP that Peter Martin has replaced Deborah Erskine as the Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure and that Paul Frew has replaced Joanne Bunting as the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice with immediate effect. I also advise Members that the Speaker has been notified by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they have appointed Ms Joanne Bunting as a junior Minister in the Executive Office today, Monday 15 September. Ms Bunting accepted the nomination and also affirmed the Pledge of Office in the presence of the Speaker and that of the Clerk/Chief Executive today. The Speaker is satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to update the Assembly on the Northern Ireland Football Fund and, in particular, the performance programme strand of the fund.

When I took office, I made it clear that one of my priorities would be to push forward the long-standing commitment to invest in our local footballing infrastructure. Last May, I gave approval for the Northern Ireland Football Fund to go ahead and set my officials the task of designing a rolling programme of investment. I opened the first call for applications from performance clubs at the start of the year. Last week, I was delighted to announce the outcome of the competition and the first cohort of projects that will move forward to the next stage.

I made my intention clear that the programme would be delivered in phases because it would not be possible to fund and deliver all the projects at once. Therefore, to determine the order in which projects would be taken forward, I committed to using a fair and transparent open competition approach to assess clubs' individual needs, proposals and ability to deliver sustainable benefits. I was determined that all applicants would have an equal opportunity to make their case. My officials worked with stakeholders and listened when they asked for clubs' previous investment in capital work to be taken into account. We listened when clubs said that no individual club should have special treatment and asked for all clubs to have the chance to make their case on a level playing field.

I knew that it would be unfair, when the fund had been delayed for so long, to expect all clubs to have kept planning permissions in place and to have fully developed designs, so I allowed applications to be made for projects that have not yet been fully developed. Applicants were required to have a strong understanding of their needs, to have worked closely with their local communities to understand and be able to clearly set out the benefits that their projects could deliver and to have a plan in place to fund part of their projects themselves.

Members will appreciate that the process had to be unequivocally fair and defensible. People have waited so long. It was clear that applicants whose projects were not taken forward in the first cohort would feel disappointed, so the application, criteria and approach to scoring were thoroughly tested in advance. Testing was completed internally with our economists, accountants and other business partners. Everything was also tested externally with other independent funding bodies. Legal advice was sought to confirm fairness. That was all before the application documents were published in January.

Support was offered to clubs in advance of them submitting applications. My officials provided information sessions across the country to take everyone through the application process, and comprehensive guidance and scoring information was shared with all eligible applicants and made available online. The feedback from clubs and other stakeholders on the application process was overwhelmingly positive, with many welcoming the chance to make their case on an even playing field. They understood that the process had no pre-commitments to any particular clubs, areas or individual circumstances.

Applicants were first asked to estimate their overall project cost and to self-select one of three tiers within their application that would be scored. It was for applicants themselves to carefully consider their needs. The only guidance that my Department offered was that clubs should make sure that the projects proposed were proportionate to their needs and the benefits that they could deliver for their club and communities. The tiers meant that projects were assessed and ranked against others of a similar size. For example, a proposal for a replacement carpet on an existing pitch for a rural club, which might cost around £1 million, would not be in direct competition with a major demolition-and-rebuild project costing upwards of £10 million. What that means in practice is that scores are not comparable across tiers.

The people of Northern Ireland are at the heart of everything that my Department does, and the objectives of the programme reflect that. The programme was developed in partnership with key stakeholders, including governing bodies and clubs themselves. We listened to the football family and delivered a programme based on what the clubs wanted: a chance to make their case on the basis of need, to secure enough funding to really make a difference and to set out their ambitions and the benefits that their club could deliver for fans and communities.

The performance programme is focused on modernising footballing infrastructure and improving the financial sustainability of clubs. It is also designed to maximise the impact that public funding can bring to people within and beyond clubs, particularly those who have traditionally been under-represented. That means that applications to the programme were assessed not solely on the state of disrepair of facilities but on the strength of the case that clubs could make about their ability to deliver benefits to the wider community.

The competition opened in January and closed in March this year. My Department received a total of 37 applications. The applicants submitted projects requiring in excess of £160 million of financial support. That clearly demonstrates the huge underlying need for the programme, but it also greatly exceeds the current ring-fenced budget of £36·2 million. I knew that demand would outstrip the current budget, which was set in 2015 and so, naturally, has devalued significantly and is long out of date for current needs.

Football has changed in the past 10 years. The budget set then did not predict the central role that clubs play in their communities today, nor did it anticipate the rise of the women's game and the facilities needs that have grown out of that. Over the past few months, my officials have worked diligently, carefully assessing every application against the criteria set out in the scoring matrix and guidance notes. The scoring matrix, which was made available to all eligible clubs when they were invited to apply and is still available on my Department's website, lists the expectations and the scores achievable against each of the questions relating to need, benefits and finance. Six experienced officials undertook the task of scoring. Two were assigned to each tier. Those two officials scored all applications in their tier individually and then came together in their pair to agree scores. Those scores were moderated internally by three more officials, one for each tier. Finally, all 37 applications were independently moderated by an external moderator.

That scoring, double-checking and triple-checking approach was adopted to ensure consistency of scoring and a robustly defensible rank order for each tier. I was not involved in scoring applications or determining their merit order. My role in the process was to approve the overarching policy approach and to decide how many projects would be taken forward to the next stage. I did not see any of the applications, and I did not influence or seek to influence the merit order of any of the tiers. I understand how long people have been waiting for this money, so I am not prepared to do anything that could bring the process into question.

When considering how many projects to take forward from each tier, I considered a range of options presented by my officials. I opted to take forward a range of small, medium and large projects with a total value higher than the current available budget to ensure that the budget can be spent and to avoid any further erosion of its value. Members will be aware that the prioritised cohort of 20 projects to be taken forward to the next stage of the programme are, in alphabetical order: in tier 1, Armagh City Football Club, Ballymacash Sports Academy, Lisburn Distillery Football Club, Queen's University Association Football Club and Rathfriland Rangers Football Club; in tier 2, Ballinamallard United Football Club, Ballymena United Football Club, Banbridge Town Football Club, Bangor Football Club, Carrick Rangers Football Club, Dergview Football Club, Dungannon Swifts Football Club, Glenavon Football Club, Larne Football Club, Lisburn Rangers Football Club, Loughgall Football Club, Newry City Athletic Football Club and Oxford Sunnyside Football Club; and, in tier 3, Cliftonville Football Club and Glentoran Football Club.

I know that, despite the rigorous process, many feel disappointed that some projects, particularly those in the north-west, are not being taken forward in the first prioritised cohort. However, each applicant had the same opportunity to make their case. Each applicant was scored solely on the information provided in their application against the published criteria. The total score determined the applicant's rank order within their respective tier.

I have visited many of our performance club grounds, so I know that there are no bad projects out there. The need is clear. However, applications varied in quality. Some applications included irrelevant information. Some included inaccurate information. Some applicants cut and pasted, giving the same answer to two different questions. Some just did not provide enough information to secure a higher score. Assessors considered how well an applicant demonstrated that they met or had the potential to meet the expectations linked to each question and scored the answer accordingly. Limited responses in meeting the expectations listed received a lower score, while excellent responses in meeting expectations received a higher score. I repeat that the scoring matrix and guidance documents are still available on my Department's web page for all to see.

We must now move forward at pace to deliver this long-awaited commitment. It will be the beginning of an ongoing process to provide much-needed funding and raise the standard of the entire sector. My intention is that more projects will be brought forward if more funding becomes available. It is important to note that individual projects have not yet been fully costed or market-tested. That was a deliberate decision on my part so that all eligible clubs could apply to the performance programme, not just those who were able to produce detailed designs. It is therefore currently impossible to predict precisely the final quantum of government funding that will be required. Nevertheless, taking the figures as presented in the individual applications, the total departmental requirement to complete all 20 of the projects is just over £82 million against estimated total project costs of £98 million.

As I said, I am not committing to any spend at this point. It is also important for me to point out that the money will not be spent overnight but, rather, over some years. There is never a guarantee that a capital project will reach completion. Building is a complicated endeavour, with multiple milestones and approvals not just from DFC but from other statutory bodies. Challenges in the design and construction phases will inevitably be faced, and they can never be predicted from the outset. Large capital projects of this nature take time. While their development is ongoing, I intend to make the case for more money to allow me to meet the needs of the entire sector.

Clubs also have a responsibility to ensure that their projects deliver the highest standards and maximise benefits. The first projects to be delivered must be trailblazers that can help to demonstrate the huge potential that football has to transform communities.

Since taking office, I have visited many of the clubs. I have seen the need to improve their infrastructure and the benefits that they provide to the local community, despite the infrastructure challenges that they face. I have seen at first hand what the clubs are capable of and have listened to their understandable frustrations with the previous stalling of the programme.

With that in mind, I am delighted to take the step towards helping them to realise their goals of improving on and off the pitch. I have demonstrated that I am a Minister who is getting things done, and today, I am committing to do all that I can to progress the programme for all clubs to ensure that their needs are met because of the transformational impact that we can have on the lives of people across Northern Ireland.

It is important to note that all clubs are still further along than they ever have been. We have made progress, and we are going to make more, so let us keep at it. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your statement. The first question is from the official Opposition.

Mr Durkan: As a seasoned ticket holder, I am very disappointed for Derry City. As a Foyle MLA and a football fan, I am devastated for Institute. Will the Minister publish in full the options and all advice and recommendations that he received from his officials before he made the decision about how many projects to take forward in each tier? It is a decision that ensured the exclusion of Derry City, which scored fourth highest overall and has a shovel-ready project. Other clubs scoring much lower and nowhere near ready have been funded. How does that balance with his claim that he chose this way forward to ensure that the budget can be spent and to avoid further erosion of its value, let alone show anything but blatant disregard for regional balance?

Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, the Member has got a number of things wrong. First of all, he is conflating — [Interruption.]

Well, he has. He clearly does not know the process that was in place, even though I have just outlined that process. If he had listened to the statement that I have just made, he would realise that it is not appropriate to compare different tiers. That is what he is doing in the example that he gave.

The Member is trying to put some blame on my shoulders and to say that, in some way, I engineered an outcome. The Member beside him is nodding. That is what he is trying to do. I stand robustly over the work of my — [Interruption.]

I stand robustly over the work of my officials, and the Member is denigrating not only the work of my officials but other clubs that have applied. In his online commentary over the weekend, he sought to pit club against club.

Mr Durkan: That is not true.

Mr Lyons: It is true. Unfortunately, he has been disparaging about tier 2 clubs. He commented on whether they would be able to deliver, and he commented on their capacity, which was inappropriate

— which was inappropriate for him to do. He had a blanket response. Yes, I outlined some of the challenges that were there, but he gave a blanket response, and that was wrong and inappropriate.

The difference between me and him is that I want to see all of our clubs progress. I am not pitting them against each other. I have ensured that we are at least moving forward in the process. I will take advice on what I can and cannot publish. Some of that might be appropriate for us to do, and some of it may not, because of what we have done in the past with regard to such applications. I will say this: I have heard nothing from the Member about how the process was held up for 14 years. Where was his criticism of the others who held it up for so long? I am a Minister who has got something done. I have got on with it; I have delivered. I will do everything that I can to help make sure that those who have not got through at this stage can move through. I am not going to take him disparaging other clubs, and I certainly will not take him disparaging the hard work and dedication of my officials that has allowed us to get to this stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, I ask for respectful questioning, less background noise and consideration that there is a long list of Members to ask questions. The more time taken in questions and answers the more we could limit the chances of colleagues having their say.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. Following the Minister's announcement last Thursday, there were certainly clubs, including Ballinamallard United and Dungannon Swifts in my constituency, that will have been overjoyed. However, many other clubs were left frustrated, disappointed and, potentially, angry. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I look forward to further detailed scrutiny in relation to the programme. However, for now, can the Minister tell us who was responsible for determining the scoring criteria and ensuring their fairness? What role did external stakeholders or independent bodies play in validating the process?

Mr Lyons: I completely understand the concern that has been expressed and the fact that many will have been pleased at the announcement. However, it is important to note that it has been a robust process. I am more than happy to make sure that officials are available to brief the Committee so that any outstanding questions can be answered. I would like to think that, during my remarks, I set out how that has been robust. To begin with, officials checked, then officials came together to score, and then those were checked again by an internal moderator and an external moderator. Before that, when the process was being put in place, we made sure that it was robustly designed. As I set out in my statement, we engaged with colleagues in the Department who have expertise in such issues. We also went outside the Department and used someone who was the head of a large, independent organisation and has funding experience in such matters, and legal advice was received multiple times throughout the process. Therefore I am sure of its robustness and fairness, but I want to see more people go through. That is what I will seek to do. I am more than happy to assist the Committee in any way, because it is right that people have confidence in the process.

Miss McIlveen: I pay tribute to chairman Warren Patton and all of the team at Ards Football Club who have worked so hard throughout the process. They, along with supporters, are disappointed and angry. Ards has been homeless for over two decades and has demonstrated need. Will the Minister meet the club to discuss next steps? What support will be made available to clubs such as Ards and Institute who are homeless?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I have offered officials to meet all of those clubs — successful and otherwise. If clubs would like to meet me as well on that, I will be happy to do that, because it is important not only that they have confidence in the robustness of the application process but that we can help with next steps. I have repeated this time and time again, but I want this to be a rolling programme. Just as the footballing fund in England has been going for 25 years, I would love to see a constant rolling programme to make sure that we eventually get funding to those who need it. I hope that that will give some confidence that this is not the end of the process for anybody. I am happy to meet if that will help to assuage any concerns.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the progression of the programme for Lisburn Rangers, Ballymacash Rangers and Lisburn Distillery in Lagan Valley. I have worked with all three. They are brilliant clubs, and I look forward to seeing their projects delivered. Minister, you talked about going above the £36 million and taking forward projects valued at £82 million, with applications totalling almost £100 million approved. First, have you created expectations on which you cannot deliver? Secondly, what discussions have you have with the Minister of Finance about having the budget for the roll-out over the years that you talked about to deliver on all the projects?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his points and congratulate the clubs that were successful.

For me, the most important thing is that we get as much as possible of that money spent in order to make the improvements that we can make to footballing infrastructure across Northern Ireland. That is why, as we often do in government, we over-plan. We took forward more applications than there is the budget for. I think that I could write the Member's question for him if, in two years' time, we were to come to this place, and I had allocated only £30 million to projects, and one or two bigger ones had fallen by the wayside because of planning or some other issue. We therefore did over-plan, given that we know that issues may arise along the way. My priority was to make sure that we spent as much of that money as we could.

Of course, I want to see more funding for sport in Northern Ireland. I want to see more funding for the football fund in particular because of the impact that it can have across Northern Ireland, and not just on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon but on the community. I will therefore be meeting the Minister of Finance to talk about the need that exists. I will also be looking at alternative sources of funding, and I believe that, through the process, clubs will also do that, and that is another reason for over-planning. Remember that government is always the last resort for funding, and if there are other options for clubs to raise private finance or borrow or for us to use financial transactions capital (FTC), all those options should be considered as well, and that is what I will be doing.

Mr Allen: I congratulate all the clubs that were successful in this phase, and I recognise the frustration of many others. Moreover, it would be remiss of me not to commend the Minister for finally progressing that much-needed fund.

Minister, it has been said that the total estimated cost of the funding for projects will be £98 million. If, given the challenging budgetary landscape, you are unsuccessful in finding additional finances, notwithstanding what you highlighted about finding additional resource, what is the next phase of the process to look at taking forward those 20 projects? Not all of them can succeed out of the £36·2 million.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's question and agree with him that it is a good thing that the fund is finally being progressed after years of no action. I recognise his concern about the overcommitment, but it is important to note a number of things. Even if all programmes were to be successful, as I said to the Member who spoke previously, other funding opportunities might become available, and some of those would have to be delivered in phases as well. I am therefore hopeful that we can get additional resource or that clubs can find additional resource. If, however, we get to that stage and none of that materialises, and all the clubs are successful in getting through due diligence and business cases, we can then look at alternative arrangements for how we make decisions.

Mr Delargy: Minister, there are 20 successful projects totalling £82 million, of which £36 million has been allocated. There is obviously a significant shortfall there. You addressed some of that in previous answers, but I would appreciate your elaborating on how that shortfall will be met and on how realistic it is that the projects will be delivered in this mandate.

Mr Lyons: I want to make sure that I move the projects forward as much as I can within the budget that is available. I want to make sure that we are in a position to spend what is there now. That is one of the reasons for my reference to over-planning in reply to Mr Honeyford when he spoke about raising expectations. I have been clear that the fund is moving to the next stage. At no stage have I ever said that there is a guarantee of clubs receiving funding. In fact, I made that very clear in my speech last week, in my speech today and in public commentary. I reiterate that I would not want to be in the position in which I had allocated only £30 million and a number of those projects were to fall away, because the House would rightly want to hold me to account for getting to that stage at the end of another mandate with the money again not having been spent.

So, yes, I decided to bring in more projects than I should have, given the amount of funding that is available, but I think that that is the right decision. I also believe that there is work for clubs to do to make sure that they have maximised the amount of income that they can bring in. I will say this again: government should always and only be a funder of last resort. Clubs will need to demonstrate that they do not have access to the capital or the borrowing that would allow them to do that work themselves. I am hopeful that more will come in that way.

I also want to look at financial transactions capital, because many of the clubs will do things that align with the objectives of the Executive, so financial transactions capital is possible. That could be done on quite a large scale, and I am actively exploring it. I have seen the projects, including those that were in the prioritised cohort and those that have not been successful at this point. I want to see all of them go ahead, and I will look at all available options to try to get that money together.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I am personally saddened that the three applicants from my constituency did not progress in this phase, but I thank you for progressing the fund 14 years after it should have commenced. Minister, what lessons has the Department learned from this round of funding, and how will that inform changes in future grant programmes in order to ensure that there is regional balance?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his words about moving the programme forward. Believe me, I understand the disappointment that many people feel. I have met many of the individuals who are involved, and I see the work that they put in. Remember that nearly everyone whom we are talking about gives their own time and makes that effort because they are passionate about the work that they do. They have applied to the fund because, in many cases, no other options are available to them. I understand that, and I get that frustration, but I was determined to move this forward. I will use the sessions with the clubs to get their feedback.

I believe that I have set out today a very robust and entirely tight and defensible case for why we did what we did. However, we will always be open to feedback to see what can be done in the future, because, believe me, it is my intention to do everything that I can to make sure that footballing need is met right across Northern Ireland. I want all these projects to progress.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you for coming to the House, Minister. Like others, I am glad to see some investment and funding, especially given that Ballymena United Football Club is in my constituency. You emphasised fairness and transparency. How will progress be monitored? What accountability measures will be put in place if projects fail to deliver some of those community benefits? Will you commit to publishing updates on delivery, including timelines and spending, so that we can scrutinise and track progress to see how that money is being spent?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is why it is so important that we go through this process over the next number of months. There will be an initial period of work that I hope will be very short. By the way, with all these timelines, which I am happy to publish when we have them, we want to go forward as quickly as possible. I do not want the Department to be a burden or to hold things back in any way, so I will allocate additional staff to make sure that clubs have the help that they need to progress. However, there will be that stage when due diligence and checks will need to be done. We will make sure that we look at other potential sources of funding, and then we can start to issue the initial funding for a grant so that help can be given with business cases. Finally, we will move on to construction.

This is public money, so it needs to be handled in the right way. There needs to be propriety in how this is all done, and I will make sure that we keep the Assembly, Executive and Committee updated.

Ms Ennis: I want to relay the disappointment and frustration that is felt by Warrenpoint Town Football Club, Minister. You said that, when it comes to those clubs that were not successful, it is not "No" but rather "not yet". What exactly does that mean, and how do you intend to address the identified £200 million need across soccer in the North? Clubs such as Warrenpoint Town Football Club, which is the epitome of a community club and has done so much to promote the women's game, deserve help, support and, most of all, investment.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That goes not only for the clubs that got through and missed out but for those grassroots clubs that we need to support. That is what I want to do. There is opportunity for us to look at financial transactions capital. That can help in some of the projects, which will, hopefully, take some of the pressure off the funding. We can look at other sources of funding. I will certainly look at my Department's capital budget. I hope that the Executive will see the need to continue to invest in sport as well, but that has to be balanced against many of the other pressures that we face. That said, investment in sport is also an investment in health and education. I hope that my Executive colleagues realise and understand that.

I am fully aware of the size and scale of the challenge that we face. There is a huge financial ask. We have a limited budget, but I want people to know that I will try everything that I can to make sure that we get that funding together so that the need is met, because it impacts on real people. For years, I have seen at first hand the change and difference that it can make in people's lives. Many of the football clubs that we are talking about are not just there on Friday evenings and Saturday afternoons. They are not just for the senior teams. Many people benefit from them, and I want to help everybody right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: Glentoran Football Club in my constituency is very thankful to progress, thanks to the opportunity that the Minister's programme offers. I see that Michelle O'Neill now has a new-found interest in more investment in local football. How is it that the Minister has succeeded in bringing forward that investment where Sinn Féin's successive Ministers failed?

Mr Lyons: The simple answer is that I never held the money to ransom. That is exactly what happened in the past. For 14 years, we had no movement on the Northern Ireland Football Fund or the subregional programme, as it was back then. I did something about that. I know that there are clubs that are disappointed; I get that. I understand that there are those that have not moved forward, but the programme has moved forward overall more than it has ever moved in the past, because I was determined to get it done. How it was held up was absolutely shameful.

I was in the Chamber in 2015, and, in one of my first questions for oral answer, I asked when the programme would move forward. I was told that money could start to be drawn down by clubs the next year, which would have been spring 2016. Here we are in 2025, and none of that has been drawn down yet. I was determined to do something about that. I am glad that we are getting to this stage. That should be welcomed by everybody, because everybody is on the travelator. Some are now moving on to the prioritised cohort, but everybody is moving in the right direction, because we are moving it forward. That should be welcomed.

Ms Ferguson: Like many others in the north-west, I am bitterly disappointed about Derry City Football Club, Coleraine Football Club and Institute Football Club. Minister, you mentioned that officials presented a range of options for you to consider. I am sure that, if your club had been third on the list in tier 3 or sixteenth on the list in tier 2, you would want to understand the options that were discussed and forwarded, so that you could clearly see how you were dropped off the list when it came to the allocation. Will you give us a bit more detail on that? What can you do to ensure that the north-west is not left behind in the next round of funding?

Mr Lyons: Different options were presented to me. It is fair to say that I wanted to get as many of those moving forward as possible. That is why we have such an extensive list. My role in the process was to make sure that as many clubs were available as possible. I understand the concern that exists around the fact that so many projects in tiers 1 and 2 seem to have been taken forward compared with those in tier 3. That is because of the value of those projects. Some of them are much smaller in value, and it will be easier for us to take them forward. We wanted to make sure that we had that balance. My officials and I are more than happy to meet those who are concerned and to make sure that they understand the next steps.

Mr Middleton: Thank you for your statement, Minister. It will come as no surprise that I am deeply disappointed that Institute Football Club has not progressed at this stage. Having worked with the club for the past 10 years, I see its passion, dedication and clear need. Minister, you visited the site in 2017 and saw at first hand the devastation that the flooding caused. That having been said, the people involved do not want the political point-scoring that we have seen over the weekend, particularly from those who have done absolutely nothing to progress football over the past 14 years. What else can be done to ensure that clubs like Institute Football Club, which has a 120-year history, can not only survive but thrive into the future?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his approach to the issue, because I know that there is bitter disappointment about what has happened. I know the work that he has put in. Last year, he invited me up to meet the club. I saw that for myself. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to ensure that there was a level playing field and that the same number of points were available to clubs that have their own home as to those that do not. I wanted to ensure balance there. I am more than happy to sit down with him, chat through the scoring process and provide my assurance that we will do everything that we can to move this forward for everybody. I believe that options are available to enable us to progress more clubs and ensure that those that are in that cohort can progress as well. I will certainly do everything that I can on that. I share the disappointment, believe you me. I know the impact that this can have on people, clubs and communities. I will do everything that I can to work with him to ensure that we deliver for Institute and other clubs that were unsuccessful, just like we are delivering for clubs that were successful.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. While it is great to see Rathfriland Rangers on the list, there is disappointment from the very north-west to Warrenpoint Town Football Club in the very south-east. The Minister has said that all clubs will progress but "Not yet" to the 17 that were rejected, and that much money will be spent over the years. What funding requests will the Minister make for the clubs that have been rejected, given that they all passed the assessed need test? How long will clubs and communities have to continue waiting?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry that I am unable to give the Member some of those timelines at present. We will need to see how things progress and how quickly we get through this cohort before we can decide whether more clubs can move up. We also need to explore issues around borrowing to see what other clubs are able to put in. If some of the clubs that have been successful can reduce what is there, that might open up more opportunities for other clubs. As I have said, I will leave no stone unturned because I see the value of this and the benefits that it brings. I want to work alongside those clubs. I want to work alongside Members as well. I want to see that progress. There is a way forward for us. I hope that others will join me in doing everything that we can to ensure that that happens.

Mr McNulty: I believe passionately in the power of sport and support any efforts to elevate and enhance clubs' reach, impact and competitiveness. I am delighted that the ball is in play for Newry City, Armagh City and Loughgall. Minister, your statement refers to a "level playing field", but, after your announcement, you must know that some clubs feel strongly that some pitches are more level than others. Does the scheme mirror or simulate endeavours in other Departments or jurisdictions, or is your Department in virgin territory? Has your legal advice given assurances on governance, criteria and the potential for challenge?

Mr Lyons: As I have outlined a number of times, I believe that we have had a very robust process. As regards the scoring — the matrix — that was used, the fact that clubs were in favour and support of the criteria that were put in place, in the first instance, means that we have something that is very robust. Look: I get the disappointment and frustration that exists. Unfortunately, that was inevitable. Unless I was in the position where I could take everybody forward, there were always going to be those who were disappointed. I am pledging to work with all clubs, Members and Executive colleagues to ensure that we do everything that we can to meet that need.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Can he describe the mechanisms that he will put in place to ensure that the selected projects deliver on the wider community benefits of inclusivity and financial sustainability, as set out in the criteria?

Mr Lyons: It is important to note that selection was not based on footballing need alone. That was part of the criteria, but it was also based on finance and community benefits. There will be mechanisms in place to make sure of those as part of the due diligence checks and the other parts that come along, because, of course, we still have to go through business cases, and all that will be taken into consideration then.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for bringing the fund forward, in contrast to 14 years of delay and stalling by previous Ministers. He is to be congratulated. Did the criteria for the fund change after the closing date for applications?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely not. Nothing has been changed since the launch of the applications on 30 January 2025. The scoring matrix and guidance notes are still available on the Department's web page for anyone who wishes to see exactly what the criteria were for applicants and how their applications would be scored.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I congratulate all the clubs that have been successful at this stage. You have recognised that there are unhappy clubs. Miss McIlveen mentioned Ards FC, and I will come back to that. As a club without its own ground, it feels penalised by the way in which the scoring system was worked out. For instance, it could not have scored in the current benefits and previous capital investment sections because it has no ground, so there were about 30 points that it was unable to achieve. That was acknowledged by one of the assessors, who said that it was unfair on the clubs that did not have a ground. For clubs that do not have their own grounds and could not score or achieve a high score in those areas, will you review that?

Mr Lyons: I understand the strength of feeling out there, and it is important to note first that there was a facility for those clubs to demonstrate footballing need, with separate scoring for those that had a ground and those that did not. There was an opportunity, which many clubs took up, to talk about their potential and say, "If we had our own ground, here is what we could do and what we would be able to achieve". That was taken into consideration in the scoring. That is why it is important that we meet the clubs, hear their concerns and make sure that we all work together to make sure that the need is met. I get that for Ards; I get that for Institute and others. You have, in me, a Minister who is willing to work with whoever I need to work with to make sure that we get this done. That is my assurance today.

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

I welcome the fact that Dergview, a club in my home town, is included in the second tier. What is the next step for successful clubs, and when will they be notified of the total grant that they will receive? What is the next step for the clubs that have not been successful?

Mr Lyons: I hope that I have set out the approach that I intend to take to the clubs that were not successful. For those that were successful, it is impossible for me to say when funding will be released. First, that will be done in stages. There will be an opportunity for clubs to draw down funding to help with business cases, for example, and other work that might be needed. The exact quantum of that and of what would be needed for construction cannot be identified at this stage, because, as I outlined in my statement, we need to go through the business case and make sure that it shows value for money and that there are no other sources of funding that could be available to the club. All those things need to be taken into consideration.

Another reason why I over-planned is that we do not know whether the amount that the clubs have said that they need will ultimately be the amount that they need or will be able to spend on their project. We do not know exactly when some of the match funding — partnership funding — will become available. However, I am committed to making sure that we move this forward as quickly as possible. We have waited far too long for this, and I want to make sure that there is no hold up as far as the Department is concerned.

Mr Brett: This party will take no lectures on discrimination from parties that forced the withdrawal of the British Army from a jobs fair in the north-west because they did not want a Brit about the place. Minister, how many additional clubs could have been included had other parties not held up this project for so long? In my constituency of North Belfast, Crusaders Football Club is rightly disappointed by the outcome. Will you commit to meeting Crusaders with me and my colleague Brian Kingston in order to ensure that the club gets the funding that it deserves?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I am more than happy to meet the Member and his constituency colleague, Mr Kingston, along with Crusaders. He asked a very pertinent question about how many more projects could be taken forward. That is hard to quantify, because it would depend exactly on the sums involved. If we look at the estimates, however, based on construction inflation over the past 14 years, I believe that the fund has probably lost about half of its value. That is absolutely shameful. It is a shame that that has happened. How many more projects would we have been able to take forward had that not been the case? More than that, think of the projects that would already have been in place and the benefits that they would already be delivering in their communities. Fourteen years — Mr Durkan is shaking his head, but it is the case that the funding was held up for 14 years. I am in post, and, in 14 months, I have taken it — [Interruption.]

He does not seem to like that, so I will say it again. In 14 months, I have taken this further forward than it has been at any stage over the past 14 years. I am getting on with it. I am delivering on my promise. Just think what we would have been able to do had the funding been in place from 2011.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Derry City football fans are disappointed but not surprised, given that, two days before the announcement was made, your party leader actually suggested or threatened that projects in Derry should be withheld. The correlation has been made by your colleague Phillip Brett. In your statement, you said that you considered a range of options presented to you by your officials, and you said that you opted to take forward a range of small, medium and large projects. When did you decide that? Was it after your party leader spoke or was it before that? On what day of last week did you decide not to fund Derry City Football Club? That is what we need to hear. Get that clarity and that transparency right out in front. [Interruption.]

Get it out there, Minister.

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

Mr Lyons: My goodness. Is the Member actually implying that, with two days to go before the announcement, everything was completely changed in order for that to be the outcome? [Interruption.]

Well, let me give you the clarity. I do not have the date on which the decision was made, but it was long before [Interruption.]

It was long before last week. It was long before the SDLP decided [Interruption.]

It was long before the SDLP decided that it did not want the British Army nearby. That is what we saw last week [Interruption.]

That is what we saw. We saw —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Members ask questions uninterrupted, and the Minister will answer questions uninterrupted. Again, I ask that questions and replies be focused on the statement and not on other matters.

Mr Lyons: I hope that I have made it clear how the process worked and part of the timeline. It was certainly [Interruption.]

It was certainly long before the discrimination and bigotry of the SDLP was clear for everybody to see. I have said that in the House. Decisions on this matter were made long before last week, long before the bigotry and discrimination by SDLP and Sinn Féin members of the council were clear for everybody to see.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I comment on the respectful way in which most Members across the House have engaged with me today?

It is right that people take time to consider what has happened and that they take up the offer to engage with us. The SDLP, however, has shown its true colours today through what its Members are saying. I am here to support all clubs. I want to see all clubs progress. It is clear that the SDLP is interested only in trying to score points and to win votes out of all of this. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members —.

Mr Lyons: I have done what nobody else has managed to do before and progressed the programme. The SDLP Members are a disgrace.

Mr Harvey: I start by thanking the Minister for all the work that he has put into the Northern Ireland Football Fund.

Minister, you will appreciate the immense disappointment felt by the clubs whose applications were not successful. Ards Football Club in my constituency of Strangford was one. Where do we go from here to ensure that clubs such as Ards FC, which does so much for the local community, receive the investment that they so desperately need and deserve?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I thank him for realising that we have progressed the fund and moved it on for everybody. He is not like others in the Chamber who have sought to disparage other clubs. He is not like others in the Chamber who have tried to denigrate the work of officials in my Department. Instead, he looks for practical things that we can do, the ways in which we can move things forward and the options that are available to us so that we can make sure that we meet footballing need. [Interruption.]

They cannot help themselves, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear what we are doing.

I am interested in moving the programme forward for everybody. I am not pitting people against one other, as Mr Durkan wrote in his online commentary at the weekend. I will be here. I will make myself available to sit down and work with colleagues to see what can be done, to explain to them the process that was in place and to make sure that we can move forward. What all the clubs want to see now is how everybody can move to the next stage.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the inclusion of Ballymena United among the tier 2 applications that are being progressed. Taking inflation into account, the ring-fenced £36·2 million Northern Ireland Football Fund commitment announced on Friday is worth just 69% of what was promised in 2011. Can the Minister give the House a commitment that the same approach will be applied to Casement Park and that not one penny more will be added to the overgenerous sum promised in 2011 to that tainted project?

Mr Lyons: We may be using a slightly different calculator. From looking at construction inflation figures, I think that we got almost twice the benefit that we could have got. Regardless, we could have done so much more had we had that money in place then. Right now, I am delivering what I can out of what I have. I hope that more funding will become available from different sources, whether those be funding from my Department, financial transactions capital or money that clubs can raise themselves. I will, however, make sure that, whatever happens, the programme will proceed on the basis of fairness. I hope that that provides an assurance to the Member and everyone else in the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr Dunne: I beg to move

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

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her attendance this evening; the debate is slightly later than expected. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on delivering a new road maintenance strategy, which is a very important issue to us all around the Chamber and across Northern Ireland. Few issues unite our constituents more than their frustration at the poor and sometimes shocking state of the roads across our country.

Our roads are broken. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that. Day after day, people drive on our crumbling roads, walk on dangerous broken footpaths and try to see past restricted sight lines because of overgrown grass at busy junctions. There are blocked gullies and little or no weed control, and we can see damaged road signage and our footpaths blocked by overgrown vegetation. Road safety has been compromised significantly, and we have seen a decline in that important issue in the past number of years.

Our road network is of significant economic and social importance, and it affects everybody's life daily in so many ways. We are more dependent on road-based transport for industry, commerce and social purposes than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the past 10 years and counting, we have seen a limited service in road maintenance, and some would say that we have seen a very limited service. Now is the time to change that. The Minister has now been in position for some time, and there is an opportunity to really get to grips with our poor road maintenance.

Almost all our freight is transported by road compared with 76% in GB. Our public transport system also relies heavily on our roads network. We are not as fortunate as other countries that have a more diverse public transport system, so our roads are a crucial part of our daily living in so many ways.

The Minister presides over a Department that has seen its maintenance backlog triple in the past five years. Shockingly, the cost of that now sits at a staggering £3 billion. The longer the problem goes on, the bigger it will become. Action is needed now to start to ensure that the backlog is reduced not just through sticking plasters but through a sustainable vision for dealing with the root causes of the problem. I fear that road maintenance does not seem to be a priority for the Infrastructure Minister and does not seem to be the priority that it should be. Sinn Féin holds the Infrastructure and the Finance Ministries. It holds the purse and the portfolio, yet, after almost two years, there is still no strategy and no delivery or action on getting to grips with our roads.

In March, the Minister told me that a new roads maintenance strategy would be presented to her in the coming weeks. It is now well through September. Weeks have become months, and I fear that they will become years before we see any further action. Dither has become delay, and people are still waiting. Sinn Féin cannot hide behind the Tories any more: they are gone. The previous Minister often repeated that line, but it is no longer the case. Sinn Féin holds the power over the roads. It runs the Department for Infrastructure, and it is in charge of the purse strings. I fear that this is its failure, but there is an opportunity to do better and to deliver more than excuses.

In the previous financial year, just one year, 107,000 potholes were recorded. That is not maintenance but decay and decline. The number of injury and damage claims has more than doubled from 1,400 five years ago to over 3,800 last year. In that same five-year period, over £32 million of public money has been spent on payouts for vehicle damage and personal injury liability claims. Every pound spent on claims is a pound not spent on tar, stone and repair solutions. It is a false economy wherein we pay twice: once in taxes and again in repairs. In 2023-24 alone, 93,600 defects were patched, yet the roads are worse, not better. It proves that patchwork is not a plan. You can patch a hole, but you cannot patch a network.

Over 2,500 potholes were reported in my constituency of North Down and in the Ards and North Down council area last year. Of those, 1,800 were acted on, but 1,000 were dismissed as having no action. That is 1,000 defects that my constituents have to attempt to drive, cycle and walk over. In the Ards and North Down area alone, 3,800 potholes were reported. That is the highest number in any council in years, yet that area often receives the lowest funding allocation. On a number of occasions, the Minister specifically referenced Ards and North Down as running a successful pilot. While our section office does its best, I assure the Minister that much more is needed. My constituents say clearly, "No more dither, no more delay: end the road decay".

The A5 is a failed project under a Sinn Féin Ministry. It has been tied up in that party's support for the unrealistic targets of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, leaving landowners in a state of continued confusion. That confusion continues today, while the road remains a major safety concern. Compensation claims on our roads are soaring year after year, because repairs are not being completed, and it is important to note that millions of pounds are being wasted. There are also major challenges with staff, recruitment and resources, and the backlog of £3 billion has left section office trying to manage on limited resources and low staffing levels. Recently, as was mentioned earlier, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) warned of the dire consequences for our roads.

The role of utilities is an important issue that needs to be raised as well. There is an opportunity to do better. Utilities sometimes come in a short time after roads have been resurfaced by the Department, following many years of campaigning, and dig up those recently resurfaced roads. That happened in my area in recent months. There is an opportunity for closer working with utility companies to avoid that. There is also a role for partnerships with councils. We have 11 councils, and we often have 11 different models of working, including in councils' relationships with the Department for Infrastructure. There is room for a more joined-up, strategic approach that would ultimately deliver more effective and efficient ways of managing our roads. For example, the relationship between the Department and councils could be improved where councils have responsibility for cleaning channels.

I would also like the Minister to comment on the role of technology. We have seen how technology has changed our world across many Departments. To the onlooker, however, it does not appear that modern technology is used to the extent that it could be in dealing with and improving our road network. Active travel has an important role to play — we all know the value of walking and cycling, which have so many benefits — but it is simply not possible to enjoy active travel when many of our footpaths and roads are in a dangerous condition, with broken surfaces, overgrown verges and much more. My colleague Keith Buchanan consistently raises that issue in the Committee and the Chamber, and he will no doubt raise it again today.

After two years, Sinn Féin is running out of excuses for not getting on top of our roads. It holds Infrastructure and Finance — the purse and the power — but, to date, has failed to deliver. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that progress can be made on delivering the long-awaited road maintenance strategy. Our people cannot drive on promises; we need a clear plan and repairs that last. We also need fairness across Northern Ireland, west and east of the Bann, where people pay taxes and rightly expect a reasonable level of service.

Minister, the excuses are over. We ask you to stop the decay on our roads and to, now, deliver the strategy and action that is so greatly needed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Dunne, for moving the motion.

Mr Boylan: I speak as Sinn Féin's transport spokesperson. I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I am sure that none of us around the Chamber, as constituency MLAs, are any different when it comes to the volume of roads-related casework that comes through our offices. There is no denying that some roads across the North are in very poor condition. However, I acknowledge recent progress in my area, including a £590,000 resurfacing scheme on the Armagh to Keady road. Investment in rural roads such as that one shows the Minister's commitment to improving the road network, which is vital for connecting our businesses and our communities.

I agree with the motion and believe that we need a different approach to road maintenance to that which we have seen in recent decades. We have to ensure that we use every method available to us so that road maintenance is timely, efficient and sustainable. The introduction of new technologies, AI in particular, could enable a more targeted approach where roads are deteriorating and show what the best method of maintenance is. I would welcome any information that the Minister can provide on the role of new technologies in road maintenance.

We cannot avoid the biggest issue when it comes to this matter: funding. After decades of British government austerity decimating public services here, we have to recognise that it is imperative that we are funded at our level of need to ensure that investment is possible. As I said in the Chamber last week, the ongoing duplication of public services on this island due to partition does not help the matter.

When we engage with local section and divisional offices, we often hear about staff shortages. I welcome the initiatives taken by former Minister O'Dowd and Minister Kimmins to increase the number of people joining DFI. In January of this year, 29 newly qualified trainee civil engineering assistants started at DFI. That positive initiative creates opportunities for people while helping to address the workforce shortages that the Department has experienced.

I support the motion. I support the Minister in her bid to improve our roads. I will continue to work with her to deliver investment in our local road network, particularly in Newry and Armagh.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her attendance. The poor state of our roads is no secret, and I can hardly disagree with the motion's sentiment. Less than a year ago, I spoke in an Adjournment debate on the road repairs required in South Down. At that time, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area had the highest number of surface defects in Northern Ireland by a substantial margin. It also had the worst ratio of potholes to road length and the highest number of compensation claims. The Minister and I, in previous roles, served together as councillors in Newry, Mourne and Down for a number of years, so I know that she is familiar, maybe overly familiar, with many of the roads in South Down.

Unfortunately, the situation continues to get worse, and many constituents in South Down feel left behind. The situation has come about from years of underinvestment, and both cause and outcome remain fundamentally unchanged. If anything, things are getting worse. In the Alliance Party, we want to see less reliance on private cars and a greater emphasis on public transport and active travel. I try to practise what I preach and sometimes take the bus and bike to get to this place from Downpatrick and Castlewellan. However, that cannot take away from the fact that the road network will always be an essential piece of infrastructure, especially in rural areas.

The reality is that the Minister has huge and costly challenges across her portfolio. Her budget is very constrained, and the recent June monitoring round brought zero additional funding for road maintenance. Earlier today, at Question Time, the Minister confirmed that she hopes to finalise a draft road maintenance strategy soon that will make better use of her limited budget. However, the question remains about the strategy that she envisages to make her limited resources go even further. Everything in the Minister's portfolio is severely underfunded. NI Water sucks up huge amounts of resources, and it is getting nowhere in reducing sewage pollution. The state of our roads is another symptom of the fact that we are failing to manage our resources sustainably. Resolving that problem is, in part, a job for the Finance Minister, and multi-year Budgets will help greatly by giving certainty of funding and facilitating better planning.

My colleague, Peter McReynolds, cannot be here tonight. He wants to thank Martyn Boyd of the Motorcycle Action Group UK (MAG-UK), who presented to the Committee last year on the impact of potholes on his motorbike. He also thanks North Down Advanced Motorists (NDAM) and the Ards and North Down Cycle Campaign group for engaging with him in advance of today about the significant and positive impact road maintenance has on active travel and cycling.

We need to spend our money more efficiently and avoid waste across the board. We routinely see colossal overspends on major capital projects, and day-to-day business could also be done more efficiently. That needs to be tackled to ensure that more money is available to fund the various priorities in the Department, including road maintenance. I welcome the Department's finalisation of work on a draft maintenance strategy, and I hope that the Minister will bring that forward in the near future. We have been assured that the new strategy will help the Department make better use of its road maintenance budget, but, given the severe budgetary constraints, I am keen to hear from the Minister about whether she is confident that the new strategy can be delivered.

Mr Butler: I support the motion and thank the Member for bringing it to the House. I begin by recognising the absolute frustration that people across Northern Ireland feel about the shocking decline in the state of our roads and pavements. Every Member so far, including the Member from the Minister's party, has outlined that we spend a lot of time, on behalf of constituents across the country, responding to queries about pavements and paths that need resurfacing or the potholes. I pay tribute to a councillor from my party, Alan Martin, who seems to spend most of his time cutting grass for DFI or pointing out potholes to the Lisburn division of DFI Roads. We all work collectively and collegially to improve the state of our paths and roads.

In my constituency of Lagan Valley, the situation is, frankly, a disgrace. The roads, both rural and urban, that were once fit for purpose are now riddled with potholes, uneven surfaces and crumbling verges. When I am out, residents stop me — as they stop many MLAs when they are out shopping — to talk about those issues and point them out, and, often, to ask you to go and look at the state of a road that they have to deal with.

I pay tribute to the Department for Infrastructure staff who are on the ground. I find the Lisburn office very responsive, and it has an ambition to see improvements made. There is no problem communicating with those people, but they would do better with more resources. We have to be clear that it is not the workforce who are failing us; it is the systemic underinvestment that has left us unable to keep up with the demand.

Earlier, I wanted to ask the Member a question because it was alluded to that technology might be a way of dealing with the problem; it has also been alluded to that we could travel differently, but we do not always have to go forward. Sometimes, we can look back to find a fix. I remember, in the days of the Department of the Environment, there were teams that could respond and fill the potholes. We did not need engineers to go out and mark the holes and go out the following month and the month after that to see whether the hole was getting bigger. We had people with buckets of tar who could go out and fill the potholes. I am not sure if that is a solution, but sometimes we do not need to look forward to improve the situation. Sometimes, we can and should look back and assess whether it was a better idea.

I do not sit on the Infrastructure Committee, and I am blindsided by some of the detail that might have been discussed. However, why would we not have an agency in the Department that is ready to respond and go out and fill the blinking holes in, instead of assessing and measuring them and wasting councillors' and MLAs' time? Some 107,000 potholes were recorded in 2004, and Councillor Martin, in Lisburn, is probably responsible for recording a lot of them.

I want to make a point as chair of the all-party group on disability. We know that this affects drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, but one of the groups most impacted is those with disabilities: those who use wheelchairs or the elderly who are on rollators. For them, these hazards and uneven surfaces pose even greater trip hazards to navigate. That needs to be spoken on.

Maybe the Minister can clarify this. I have down here in my research that around £25 million was paid out in compensation to drivers of cars that had been damaged by the failing road network. I hope that we can get some clarity on that. Another thing that I would like to get clarity on is that, often, when we report a pothole we are told that it has been referred to another utility provider. Sometimes that is a bit of a hump in the road — pardon the pun — to getting a quick remedy. Some of the other utility providers for the fixes maybe respond more quickly when DFI gets onto their back. However, whether you are driving to work, cycling to school or simply walking to the shops, we are agreed that you are entitled to a safe journey. Businesses, sadly, can sometimes be impacted by how people choose to travel.

I am rapidly running out of time, but I have more questions for you here, Minister. I will wrap this up, if that is all right. Lagan Valley residents and residents across Northern Ireland are tired of excuses, swerving round potholes, waiting for months for repairs and seeing their rates and taxes disappear into the compensation piece. That is key to this. I support the motion wholeheartedly. I urge the Minister to take it seriously, and I think that she will. Let us see a strategy brought forward that matches the scale of the challenge.

Mr McNulty: Once again, we find ourselves debating a motion in the Assembly about the state of our roads, but this time the irony is impossible to ignore. The motion tabled by the DUP highlights the serious issues with road maintenance across the North that have been mounting for years, and yet here are the DUP: talking about urging action when it is a leading party in the Government with the power to deliver change. It is baffling that the DUP, a party that sits at the Executive table, uses the Assembly to propose non-binding motions, instead of taking real, decisive action to address the issues. The DUP has had years to fix the deteriorating road network, yet, on its watch, nearly 107,000 potholes were recorded last year alone. How many more times do we need to call for action before the DUP stops playing games and starts to take responsibility? If the DUP was truly serious about fixing our roads, it would not be grandstanding with motions like this. It members would be at the Executive table with their Sinn Féin, UUP and Alliance Executive colleagues, working to deliver a comprehensive and effective road maintenance strategy in collaboration with industry. People deserve better than this tomfoolery. It is time for the DUP to stop wasting time and get on with the job of governing. Enough of the motions and rhetoric: let us see some real action for once.

On 30 July, the Minister asked the industry what it would need to keep operating in the short term. She was told that it needed a £15 million to £20 million stopgap and further funding before Christmas. The Mineral Products Association, the representative body for the roads industry, met the DFI on Friday past, and the feedback that I have received is that it was just another talking shop. The roads industry explained the dire situation that it faced in the coming months. The view of the industry was that the Department just sympathised. It said that it hoped to get some funding in the October monitoring round but that depended on the Finance Minister. It thought that there should be moneys drawn in from the A5 project, but that that would go to the Finance Minister, who would decide where those moneys were to be allocated. The Department hoped to canvass for moneys from the A5 to stay in Infrastructure. It is sad and alarming that both the industry and the Department recognised that moneys intended for the construction of the A5 will not now be spent on it and are presently lobbying to have that money spent on road improvements elsewhere.

The roads industry has capacity at the moment to spend much more than the stated £15 million to £20 million, but time is running out fast. The motion generalises the problems of road maintenance funding but does not recognise or identify the urgency and importance of funding for the safeguarding of the 500-plus jobs that are at risk and, of course, safety on our roads and pavements, which are used by everyone in the North of Ireland. The roads network services all other public and private sector authorities and businesses, and it is in a critical state of disrepair.

The Department for Infrastructure's human resource issues are also critical, and the industry was told at the meeting on Friday that the Department hoped to see those resolved in the next two to three years due to new apprentices coming on board.

Is that rationale not naive, however, as surely it will not cure the problem, especially when it is anticipated that another 40% of its staff will be lost in the next few years through natural retirement? At that same meeting, the Mineral Products Association informed the DFI team that the morale of its staff on the ground is at rock bottom, with the dire ongoing uncertainty equating to a working environment in which many highly qualified, experienced and hard-working staff cannot wait to jump ship. Who could blame them? A few of them expressed to a leading contractor that they will get out as soon as possible.

On where the industry resource is at at present, there is capacity to spend much more than it expects to be allocated, but that will soon change dramatically, as tough business sustainability decisions have to taken in the next month or so. People will be let go. One of the main quarry and road contractors has 80 fewer staff than it had this time last year. How does that impact on road maintenance and on the state of disrepair? The Minister has to realise that the industry cannot turn the tap off and on every six months or so. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect it to be on board and ramp up its staffing complement on the whim of the Department for Infrastructure.

The industry simply cannot continue to subsidise apprentices, who are crucial for the industry's sustainability, and they will certainly not receive any worthwhile learning. Yes, we support the motion, but we also support backing a motion declaring that the sky is blue. We know what the problem is. The question is this: what are you going to do about it?

Miss Brogan: Beidh mé ag caint i nGaeilge agus as Béarla. Duine ar bith a chaith níos mó ná dornán bomaití ag taisteal ar bhóthar ar bith in Éirinn nach príomhbhóthar é, ba dhoiligh leis easaontú le brí an rúin seo. Tá ár mbóithre, dála cuidmhór dár mbonneagar bunaidh, tá sin faoi chrann smola go fóill ag an tearc-infheistíocht agus an neamhshuim a rinne Rialtas na Breataine ann ar feadh na mblianta fada. Lena chois sin, dar le sean-réimeas Chnoc an Anfa nach raibh a leithéid de áit ann agus taobh thiar den Bhanna. Anois féin, agus Airí de chuid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin comhaimseartha ag iarraidh an neamart sin a thabhairt isteach, fuair siad go bhfuil Westminster de shíor ag gearradh siar na mbuiséad atá acu leis an obair a dhéanamh.

I commend our current Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, for maintaining her commitment to road maintenance and safety, despite working within a budget that has been stripped to the bone. Every one of us can name roads that need repairs, but she has been working tirelessly to ensure that maintenance teams have the materials that they need. She has spearheaded initiatives to bridge recruitment gaps. Her Department is working diligently on a road maintenance strategy, and she has gone to great efforts to make sure that rural roads and roads west of the Bann are not forgotten.

I also commend the Minister's continued efforts to ensure that the vital A5 road upgrade is delivered. We are all aware of the importance of that road project and of how it will encourage economic development in the west, reduce journey times and, most importantly, save lives. Once again, on behalf of the people of West Tyrone, I encourage everyone to work together to make sure that the A5 is upgraded with no further delays. A modern, reliable and well-maintained road network is not only vital for ensuring safe and swift travel but crucial for economic development, particularly in rural areas, as well as for increasing tourism, improving public transport, tackling social isolation, reducing liability costs and meeting our climate targets.

I commend the motion to the House, and I have no doubt that the Minister is well on her way to fulfilling it.

Mr Martin: I was not really planning to speak this evening, but I will pick up on a few points that other Members have made. First, I pay tribute to Mr Boylan, who managed to squeeze a call for a united Ireland into a roads debate. That takes some doing, but well done nonetheless. Mr McNulty started, I think, by attacking us for tabling the motion. He is nodding at me, so I will take that as a fair summary. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I simply say to him that I think that that is our job.

It is a legislative Chamber. We do not have that Ministry, so we have to hold the Minister to account. I will further point out to him that, in my constituency of North Down, this is probably the most talked about issue. Everyone has a view on our roads. The Member for Lagan Valley reflected that, and I might come back to it in a minute. It is right that we are having the debate, and I pay tribute to my colleagues who tabled the motion.

I have a few comments to make and a few questions for the Minister. I will start with the really easy ones. Andrew McMurray mentioned Martyn Boyd from MAG-UK and referenced the fact that his colleague is not here. Martyn is a campaigner for better road safety, and, to be fair to the Minister, she recently met Martyn and me. We had a constructive meeting, and she will take on board some of the issues that came from that meeting, which is right and proper.

Some figures that were quoted included £33 million in public liability claims over the past five years. That was a figure that I certainly heard. I imagine that much of that money covered damage from potholes and some was for damage from slips, trips and falls. I want to pick up on the point that the Member for Lagan Valley made. I have serious concerns about the state of some of our pavements in North Down. Over the summer, I was canvassing in a quiet residential area, and, as I knocked on doors, I realised that most of the people were elderly. The state of the pavements was appalling, and people were saying to me, "Peter, can you not do something about this? There are two people in wheelchairs, and somebody else is on a rollator". The Member mentioned that. Those people said, "This is a real issue. It is actually dangerous for us to go out of our house". I thank the Minister for agreeing to send some DFI officials down to meet me. We will pick up on some of those issues at some point in the near future.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Butler: I will just point out that we cannot fail to deal with it now, as we have an ageing population, and, with that, we have people with managed conditions. Therefore, the reality is that we are likely to have more people at home in wheelchairs and on rollators, and, therefore, the need will be even greater and will increase.

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

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for that intervention. I agree completely. It is a real issue. I do not think that the Minister has a magic wand. If she does, she could get it out, which would be great, but I do not think that she has one.

That brings me on to my next point, which is a question for the Minister. We have a finite budget, and the Member on the other side who spoke previously mentioned the fact that a lot of the issue has to do with the finite budget and the British Government not giving us enough money. However, I will point out that the baseline has been lifted — it used to be £1·2 billion and is now £1·24 billion — so there is more money than has recently been apportioned. However, the question to the Minister is this: given that there is a finite budget and that I do not believe that she has a magic wand, where does she envisage the efficiency savings and what can she do with them? That is absolutely key, unless more money is coming. It is about what you can do more efficiently and effectively in the Department with a finite pot of money to make it go further.

I will pick up on the famous yellow squares or circles around our potholes. Sometimes, I have witnessed three potholes, one of which has a yellow circle around it, while two do not. The one with the yellow circle is filled, but the other two, which were all of one and a half feet away, is not. I do not really get that. There may be a reason for it, but I do not see it. Part of the issue is the economy of scale that you would get from filling the three potholes, not just the one with the yellow marking around it. Again, that is probably a question that, I am sure, the Minister will pick up on.

Some Members have reflected on this, but I can also say that I have an excellent relationship with the officials in our North Down section office. They work really hard. We are all MLAs, and the Minister is an MLA who has the same issues as we have and are talking about in the Chamber. That is not the issue: the issue is how we can do things a little better and more efficiently. Clearly, I have several issues from a local North Down perspective, and I will continue to raise those.

They relate to a pattern. How do we do things better? How do we make the money go further? What can we do differently that will increase the output for, more or less, the same input?

Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as Sinn Féin's spokesperson for rural communities. There is no doubt that the condition of our road network is a matter of real concern. I am sure that the constituency offices of most of us, if not all of us, have been inundated daily with roads issues and queries. In rural areas such as mine, the road network is a lifeline. It connects families to schools, workplaces and local businesses. Many rural households have no alternative to driving, so the condition of our roads is an important aspect of the economic and social life of our rural constituencies.

The motion makes reference to the need for a long-term plan for the maintenance of our road network — one that focuses on effective, high-quality repairs; improves planning and efficiency; addresses workforce pressures; and ensures fairness between urban and rural areas. A proper road maintenance strategy must be preventative, not just reactive. It must address drainage and resurfacing and ensure that rural roads are not left to deteriorate to a dangerous level. Poor roads do not just damage vehicles. They discourage investment and tourism and create a real risk for the emergency services that need to respond quickly and safely.

I welcome the efforts that have been made already by the Minister to achieve improvements. There has been new technology to better identify and respond to defects; ongoing pilot projects that look at innovative materials and repair methods; and attempts to target the limited funding where it can make the greatest impact. A properly funded maintenance strategy will deliver smoother, safer roads for all our constituents but especially for those in rural areas who have to rely on them to access all of life's necessities.

Mr Carroll: Between January and June of this year, some 1,800 surface defects were reported in my constituency: that is one constituency. That gives a sense of the scale of the problem. This summer, I spent a lot of time talking directly to residents about their concerns, a lot of which amounted to road safety issues. One thing that united people in Andersonstown, Dunmurry, Mount Eagles — right across the west — as is the case in Members' constituencies, as they have said, was the state of the roads, footpaths and pavements. There are about 100 houses in the Lake Glen estate in the Andersonstown area — I have already contacted the Minister about this — and I counted at least 72 large potholes. That is almost a pothole for every house. That is pretty shocking, because it is a small enough estate. That should not be normalised; it needs to be addressed urgently. The situation has been ongoing for years. I have written to the Minister, and I urge a speedy resolution to the issue for residents in Lake Glen.

The crumbling infrastructure is the visual manifestation of a state in terminal decline. Every pothole on our roads that sits unfilled is a daily reminder of the impact of more than a decade of austerity and underinvestment from Westminster and the Stormont Executive over the years. It is working-class people who pay the price for expensive repairs through injuries and through lost income when they have to wait at the roadside after a tyre has burst on a car, bike or whatever else. Roads that are riddled with potholes and other defects not only damage cars but are a safety risk for pedestrians and everyone who wheels. That is not emphasised enough. Earlier this year, a constituent of mine was taking her young child to school and, because of haphazard and dangerous parking outside the school, was forced to walk on the road, where she tripped on a deep pothole and fell in the street. She was injured, though not seriously so, but, obviously, that is a risk that she took.

Due to the lack of cycling infrastructure, cyclists are also forced on to unsafe roads. Potholes cause serious damage to bikes but also to cyclists for whom there is a risk of serious injury or death. I do not know whether the Member for South Down feels the same, but there have been many times when, travelling up to the Building, I and other cyclists have had to navigate, try to spot potholes on the road and then try to dodge them. The journey is hairy enough as it is, but you risk getting hit by a car if you take a wrong turn or move too quickly. It is very dangerous for everybody, but particularly for cyclists and others who wheel.

I pay tribute to the workers who are responsible for maintaining the roads in the face of increasing pressure and inadequate budgets. Two years ago, DFI Roads workers went on strike over pay, and I was proud to stand with them on picket lines. To this day, they remain undervalued. I have been told, Minister, that some teams in your Department are operating at a 50% vacancy rate, which is shocking. For people whose job is to repair roads and respond to other road traffic requests, that is a shocking statistic and probably why there is such a delay and backlog in roads being maintained and repaired. Those people should not be replaced with agency staff; they should have proper terms and conditions and proper contracts.

All the problems are connected. Overstretched workers, a lack of cycling infrastructure, bad parking and poor street design force vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists on to unsafe roads. However, even if the road maintenance budget were increased tenfold, with resurfacing schemes rolled out for every single road, potholes and road surface defects would keep coming back, because our roads network simply was not built to handle this volume of traffic and the weight and size of modern cars. I do not blame drivers; I blame the marketing companies, especially those that tell people to buy big SUVs and other heavy vehicles, which leads to the further disintegration of the roads. The Minister needs to look at and address that.

We discovered the solution around 200 years ago. We already know that the best and safest way to transport large numbers of people from one place to another is by public transport, especially rail. It is much safer and cleaner for the environment. We need to focus on public transport and active travel rather than on roads, and relook at our relationship with cars.

It is absurd that we are having a discussion here at 9.00 pm and the last bus leaves the estate at, I think, 6.20 pm. I implored the previous Infrastructure Minister to look at that, and I urge this Minister to ensure that there are late-night buses not just for MLAs but for the other people who work in the Building, so that they can leave their car at home.

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

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

I thank the Members for tabling this important motion on the condition of the road network in the North, specifically the high number of potholes recorded and the increase in expenditure on public liability claims in the past five years. I note the concerns about the longer-term impact of the Department's limited service for road maintenance, which we have seen for a number of years now. I listened intently to the comments of, and issues raised by, Members across the Chamber. I heard their concerns loud and clear, because I agree that maintenance of the road network is crucial for the safety of all road users, and that investing in the maintenance of roads is critical to the movement of goods and, indeed, the growth of our economy.

You would be forgiven for thinking that the roads issue has come about in just the past seven months, and that it is as a result of a decision not to fund the maintenance of our roads, when quite the opposite is true. My Department, like other Departments, as I am sure colleagues from many parties will be aware, has been operating in an extremely difficult financial environment for a number of years. I thank the Member for North Down, who is not in the Chamber now, for recognising that that is as a result of a number of years of underfunding and austerity by the British Government. Whilst I take on board the comments that that Government have now changed and that people want to hear about the root cause of the problem, I say this: I know what the root cause is; it is a lack of funding for many years.

Some statements that we heard are contradictory. We heard about a maintenance backlog of over five years and what that has cost. I think that the figure that was quoted was £1 billion. That is as a result of years and years of underinvestment and Tory austerity: that is a fact. We are now trying to address that backlog while doing what we should be doing daily anyway. I think that we can square that circle at some stage if we get the money. That underinvestment creates significant challenges for our ability to maintain the road network in a safe condition, and that has been the predominant issue in the discussion this evening. I share the frustrations and, at times, see the inconvenience that this matter causes for all our constituents. We are all road users, as has been articulated this evening. People in our communities rely on the road network to do business, go to work, go to school and, most importantly, connect with each other.

My officials have worked very hard. I noted the comments from across the House this evening about the hard work of officials in each of the areas that we represent. They have worked extremely hard to maintain the road network but have, nonetheless, been forced to concentrate on only the highest priority road repairs and to introduce a limited service approach to road maintenance, as each of you mentioned. As a result of that, we have seen continued deterioration of our infrastructure over the past 10 years, with large numbers of potholes — the number continues to increase — and other defects developing right across the road network, particularly after periods of colder and wetter weather, which are becoming more frequent.

It is important to point out that the shortfall in funding and the estimated gap between what was needed to maintain the network and what was actually available to spend between 2014 and 2024 was approximately £1 billion. It is not just a matter of saying, "We will take money out of something else and stick it into road maintenance". These are huge figures, and we have been continually operating with that shortfall. It is apparent that, given that significant shortfall, a difference in quality should be expected when it comes to that maintenance spend.

The Executive agreed the 2025-26 Budget, and best use has been made of that funding to target road resurfacing. I said in response to questions at Question Time today that, for that reason, it has taken me significant time to agree my own budget. I disagree with comments that I have not prioritised or taken on board the comments of the Mineral Products Association. I have met that body, and I share its concerns, particularly in relation to the pipeline of work that is required to sustain the workforce, which is critical. I am very conscious of that, as well as being conscious of fulfilling our duty to maintain our road network.

Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will finish this point and then give way.

The reality is that, tomorrow, I will get questions about how much I am investing in the waste water infrastructure, which is also a priority for everybody in the House. I will then get more questions about how much investment I am putting into our public transport, which is also a priority for the House. I hope that I am painting a picture of the significant challenges in relation to capital spend and, in particular, in trying to deliver on all those key areas. Those are just three areas. The overall capital budget available to me this year was around £917 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but we have to factor in all the major road projects that we want to see delivered. We also want to see active travel infrastructure delivered. We also want to deliver on our public transport, our waste water infrastructure, our road network etc. Every one of those areas has a high cost, and I have to prioritise and make difficult decisions.

I will give way.

Mr Clarke: You used the analogy of painting a picture, and I was thinking of the yellow can in your hand and you actually painting the roads.

You have recognised what the MPA said about new projects coming forward, and you are quite right about underfunding, but some of the new roads — I can think of one in my constituency — have been in place for just over a year and are already failing, so something has to be done about the quality of the workmanship in some of the contracts. Some of that has to be scrutinised. I do not believe that we are getting value for money. I do not know whether the Minister will agree or disagree.

Ms Kimmins: It is difficult for me to have an opinion on that without knowing the detail, but, if you want to feed that into the Department, we can look at specific examples.

The motion is about a road maintenance strategy. I have asked officials to bring forward a new strategy for all the reasons that have been outlined here this evening. We need to look at whether we can do things differently and get better value for money. I talk about getting more bang for our buck. We do not get it from the overall Budget that we are allocated by the British Government, so we have to make decisions that will ensure that we are getting the best impact. That has been my approach to everything that I have been doing since coming into this role.

I will go back to some of the comments about my overall budget and how that has been allocated. As I said, the DFI budget this year is particularly challenging. However, as always, I will, where I can, continue to push for in-year funding. My colleague from Newry and Armagh referenced that we are waiting for money to be returned from the A5 project. We are working on an appeal regarding the A5. That is my priority, and I continue to work on it. I do not think that, at this stage, anybody can make a call on where that money will or will not be spent. We will continue to work on the basis of the budget that we have. If I can get money through monitoring rounds, so be it.

Whilst it is very difficult, much of the work that is required for the structural maintenance of, and improvements to, our road network can be turned around quite quickly. It is not ideal, but it is also important to recognise that a multi-year budget would be transformational when it comes to being able to plan ahead for our roads and how we deliver maintenance. Over the past three years of budgets, £310 million was invested in our structural maintenance budget. If you look at the issue over a number of years, you see where the money has been spent. That work does not have to be done over and over again. I take on board the Member's points about the quality of the maintenance work that is done.

Another issue that comes up quite frequently is the number of public liability claims that are received and the cost of settling those claims. Undoubtedly, claims have increased over the past five years in particular. Some of the reasons for that are beyond our control. I have mentioned severe weather conditions. We have a high and increasing number of vehicles using the road network, and more people now know that they can claim compensation. Through my constituency office work over the years and during my time as a councillor, I directed people to that process. It is more accessible now that it is online. There are a number of reasons for that increase. However, there is no doubt that the historical underinvestment in the road network is the key factor in relation to those increasing claim numbers as well.

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will, yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Just a quick point on that, Minister. I read from my notes that, in the previous financial year, approximately £8 million was paid out for 4,615 claims due to potholes. Have you any way of looking at it and saying, "Right, if we do x, we will save on that to a degree"? Is there any way of reducing that? Are you looking at getting the payout figure down by spending more on the network? I appreciate that it will take spending a lot of money on the network, but how are you going to get the payout figure down?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Essentially, the work that we do all the time is to ensure that we avoid the need for people to get their cars fixed as a result of the road network. That is the focus. If we can put more money into fixing the roads and maintaining the network, that will undoubtedly be the outcome. That is the overall rationale for that.

That leads me to the maintenance strategy itself. Members have mentioned a number of examples that they have seen in their work. In particular, Peter Martin raised a point about fixing one pothole but bypassing others. I have continually raised that issue. The maintenance strategy looks to take a different approach and develop other ways of focusing on improving the network's overall condition whilst making the best use of that limited funding and resource in a way that balances safety and value for money. It should be data-driven and supported by sound engineering judgement. It should address the problem in a meaningful and sustainable way. I am keen to see that. We talked about efficiency. It is about being efficient and using money in the best way that we can. For me, the measure of that will be seeing how resilient and sustainable our road surfaces are in the future.

As Members are aware, officials have been working on that new strategy. It will be considered in detail. The proposer of the motion mentioned that I had said earlier in the year that the strategy would come in a few weeks. We are closer to that. We are now finalising the development of the action plan. It is very important that an action plan goes with any strategy so that we say not only what we would like to do but how we will set out to do it. I hope that gives some reassurance that we are almost there.

The main objectives of the strategy are to improve the overall condition of the road network, enhance safety and quality, and deliver a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment. That will require better use of technology and intelligence to ensure that we make smarter decisions — that ties in with what others have said — through digitally supported procedures to inspect and repair roads and inform decision-making. We probably have not been able to use modern technology to its full potential in previous years. That will help us to direct investment to where it is most needed, ensuring smarter maintenance decisions and future-proofing our roads, which I am keen for us to work to achieve. We have to recognise the changing needs of our society as well, including in relation to active travel. Gerry Carroll referenced that in his remarks. We also have to reduce the carbon footprint of our operations and ensure that the network is resilient after those adverse weather events, which we have been seeing more and more.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Obviously, symbols and leading by example are important. Will the Minister commit to looking at installing late-night buses from the Building, not just for me — I will declare an interest — but for other Members who, I know, use public transport? The last bus out of the Stormont estate is at 6.12 pm. Obviously, we are here after 9.00 pm, and there will be more legislation to come in the next year and a half or so, so there is a need for Stormont to lead by example. Will you commit to looking at that?

Ms Kimmins: Obviously, that would be an operational decision for Translink, but I am happy to take that forward. With other services that we are hoping to enhance, I have been in conversations with Translink. However, as with the conversation that we are having tonight, Translink's budget is also limited. However, reflecting on that, I am happy to take that back to see what we can do.

Some of my colleagues referred to rural roads. My colleague in South Down talked about the roads in Newry, Mourne and Down — in particular, south Down. I am acutely aware of all those issues. I see them daily. As I have said time and time again, aside from my role as Minister, I am a constituency MLA. I probably get more roads issues through my constituency office now for that reason. We can all see that. We all feel it. It affects everybody's daily lives. Therefore, it is probably the biggest frustration that most people have. I do not want to take away from that. I acknowledge that we need to get to grips with it. However, it is a huge and costly challenge. There is no doubt about that. I am committed to ensuring that I can get as much investment as I can into the Department and that area of work so that we can maintain our roads to a higher standard.

I have been up and down roads all over the country, North and South, over the past number of months, and consciously thinking about and comparing what we have in the North with what is in the South. The same challenges exist everywhere. The size of the network can, in itself, be an issue. It is not an easy fix, but I want to make good headway on that and see how we can do it. The strategy will help. We will see the benefits of it, as the pilot in the Ards and North Down area has shown.

I thank the Members who brought the motion to the House and everyone for their contributions to the debate. It is important to recognise that, whilst we can try to blame each other and all the rest, the issue probably unites every one of us, as does health. Long-term underinvestment in our roads has impacted on the integrity and deterioration of the network. That is not what the public, my Department or I want to see. I am committed to continuing to develop that new road maintenance strategy —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will the Minister bring her remarks to a close?

Ms Kimmins: — and to deliver on that. Hopefully, I can work with Executive colleagues to continue to find ways forward for investment and to deliver for everyone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for responding. I call Keith Buchanan to make the winding-up speech on the motion and to conclude the debate. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take all that time. I will briefly run through some of the comments that Members have made, and put in my own bits and pieces during that.

First, Stephen touched on road safety's being compromised by different issues, such as potholes etc. He talked about road freight's being transported on Northern Ireland roads, and said that, over the past five years, £32 million has been paid out due to damaged roads. He also talked about active travel. I have a bit of a bugbear with active travel, although not with the concept of it. Over the weekend, I went through Coleraine. There is a great active travel scheme in Coleraine, but its active travel footpaths are wider and in better shape than most of the roads in rural Tyrone. It is fine to have that, but active travel needs to be balanced — we touched on that earlier during Question Time with the Minister — between new footpaths and cycleways and maintaining what we have. That is a bugbear of mine because in Tobermore, Desertmartin, Moneymore and Cookstown — we can all name such areas — you cannot actually walk on the rural footpaths. Then, you go through Coleraine and there is a highway beside the road. I am not suggesting that anybody drives on the footpath, but there is a contradiction. It is like building a new extension to your house when you are not using the rooms that you have. That just does not make sense.

My colleague to the left is a big advocate of active travel. That is fine, but he needs to take a wee run over to rural Tyrone on his bicycle some time when he is free and see what we are dealing with. The issue was covered well. Active travel is something that we can look at, going forward, to see how we can maintain what we have and get the correct balance.

Cathal Boylan referred to the constituency casework workload. He referred to recent schemes in his area. I must take a run down there, Cathal, to see how good they are and to get a bit of experience of a quality road. Andrew McMurray touched on road conditions in his area and referred to cycling and motorcycling organisations with which his colleague had liaised.

Robbie Butler talked about the decline of our pavements and paths. There is no doubt that that applies across NI; it is a broad theme. Any points that colleagues covered could broadly be made about anywhere. He talked about Lagan Valley road conditions and — Peter talked about this as well — instead of marking potholes, filling them as you as go. I think that you talked about getting your own bucket, Robbie, and starting to fill potholes and the risks associated with that.

You are welcome on the Committee, Justin McNulty, but I thought that you would have done a wee bit of research. Roads are not my portfolio — they are in Sinn Féin's portfolio — but I will give you a bye ball because you have just joined the Committee. You are certainly not a motivator of DFI Roads staff. With your comments, I would not get you to do any campaigns for them. For clarity, roads are not the DUP's portfolio but Sinn Fein's, and the sky is certainly blue.

Nicola Brogan commented on road conditions west of the Bann. She is a bit like me with the issues that she has there. She referred to making sure that rural roads are not forgotten, which is a valid point. A lot of money goes on the main roads that carry the most people but not on the rural roads, and the Minister is from that sort of area.

Peter Martin talked about slips, trips and falls because of pavement conditions. He talked about efficiencies. My colleague Trevor Clarke talked about efficiencies on the road. I see that daily when a utility company does a repair that is not of the standard that it should be. That is no reflection on engineers in the area, to be fair to them. They can maintain and inspect only so much, but there has to be some way of holding to account those utility companies that come to a road that is perfectly good job and track it but do not do it well enough, so that is where it cracks. That has to be looked at. Again, Peter Martin talked about how potholes are marked instead of being fixed at the time.

Áine Murphy talked about her office being inundated with people talking about road issues. No doubt it is; I hear about a lot of road issues too. She talked about a preventative rather than a reactive road safety strategy.

Gerry Carroll talked about the number of issues that have been reported to his office. I missed the number, Gerry. It was in the hundreds, I think you said. Maybe you should not answer me.

Mr Carroll: It was 1,800.

Mr K Buchanan: Then there was the number of potholes in the area. You talked about there being one per house and about damage to cars. We could all write those points, but they are all valid. Unfortunately, you have missed your bus. I can never get a bus home from here. I do not know when I would get home; it might be Thursday. [Laughter.]

We will have to leave it there. Maybe that is something that the Minister can —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr K Buchanan: Go ahead.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that there used to be an excellent train line across his constituency — it went to Antrim, Coleraine and elsewhere — and that it was the dividing and partition of this country that ruined it. I am sure that the Member already knows that.

Mr K Buchanan: You are misinterpreting my age, Gerry. I am not old enough to remember that. I cannot recall the noise of the steam trains in Mid Ulster, to be honest. I know that they were there, but that was some time back.

Members have broadly covered a lot of similar points. They are the same: rural roads need money, and there is a need to look at active travel. I am not a fan of that, but I want the Minister to look at an active travel scheme that got the green light in Mid Ulster. I do not want to get parochial, but I am. They are building a footpath to nowhere — out to Loughry campus. The only reason why that got over the line was that there was, unfortunately, a fatality on the other footpath. I know that there is never a reason, but there was a reason why that happened. We are getting that footpath to Loughry campus, which, technically, goes nowhere, but we cannot get one to go to Dunman Creamery, where dozens of workers walk out every day on the hard shoulder. I do not have a problem with active travel; it is about how it is scored. There is one footpath going ahead to Loughry campus when there is a perfectly good footpath on the other route, which is actually shorter, yet they are building a new one out one way when we cannot get one going to Dunman, where all the workers walk out of the factory. There is an issue with how that is done. It is done that way because it is quick and easy: there is no land to vest; and you can spend big money quickly. You can ask anybody walking in Cookstown today whether we need a footpath to Loughry campus or Dunman Creamery, and I know what they will tell you. It is about how we get that scoring right. There is something wrong there. I have pushed and pushed, but there is an issue there. It is a box-ticking exercise to spend active travel money quickly so that people can say, "We've spent this amount of money", but it is not spent on the cleverest projects. You can ask the people locally which are the ones to do. I know that everybody has their parochial issues, but, broadly speaking, there is an issue there. It is a box-ticker in order to spend money quickly.

It has been a good debate. We have covered a lot of things, and there is no point in me rehearsing them all. We talked about the amount of money that is being spent on potholes. Unless we invest, that will not be reduced. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your time.