Official Report: Tuesday 16 September 2025

Mrs Mason: The introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme was, indeed, a welcome first step towards making childcare more affordable for some families. The high cost of childcare, however, remains a significant and real pressure for many families. It is clear that the early learning and childcare strategy is long overdue. Parents are under pressure, providers are struggling and our children deserve the very best start in life.

The Education Minister must set out a long-term plan that reduces costs for families and properly supports childcare providers. High-quality, affordable childcare plays a vital role in a child's early learning and development, but it also supports families who are balancing the demands of work and home life. The strategy must meet the needs of all children. It must have specific provisions for children with special educational needs, those with physical disabilities and those who learn through the medium of Irish or do not use English as their first language. The strategy must also support the wide range of caregivers in the childcare sector, including the vital community and voluntary childcare and early-years sector, the Irish-medium sector, the early-years preschool sector and childminders and approved home childminders alike.

The Education Minister must urgently come forward with a long-term plan to reduce bills for parents, support struggling providers and give our children the very best start in life, which they deserve.

Mr Middleton: Last week, I raised in the Chamber the disgraceful decision taken by councillors in Londonderry and Strabane council. They decided that the army and the armed forces were not welcome at the Foyle Arena for a jobs fair at the council premises. That, of course, was blatant discrimination and bigotry: a shameful act towards those who wanted to apply for jobs and to engage with representatives from those sectors. People from across the community of all political persuasions have reached out to my office to share in the frustration and disappointment at the position taken by the council.

Of course, matters could only be made worse by the self-styled "First Minister for all". After concerns were raised by the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, the First Minister for all told him to "butt out". The First Minister for all telling the leader of the largest unionist party to "butt out" will be a surprise to some, but, sadly, it is not a surprise to people on these Benches. When we hear the words "butt out", many know that it also means "Brits out" because of the actions of Sinn Féin and their SDLP colleagues across our local government — no respect, no understanding and, indeed, no thought for their unionist neighbours.

We see not only the rewriting of history but the rewriting of the present. That is what we have now come to expect from the First Minister for all: offended by everything, ashamed of nothing; happy to attend the commemoration and glorification of republican terrorists but unwilling to allow their unionist neighbours to seek job opportunities in the armed forces; happy to go after our armed forces and those who sought to protect our communities but telling us that there was "no alternative" to IRA violence; a First Minister who seeks to make the rules but is happy not to apply them to herself; happy to meet those who share her political outlook but unwilling to meet the president of the United States; a First Minister who talks about equality but belongs to a party that seeks to "break the b—s" through it.

That is a First Minister who is fooling absolutely no one. There is always an alternative. It is time to show leadership, accept that the idea of a new Ireland is in absolute tatters. Unionism is not butting out; unionism is not going away.

Miss McAllister: Today, I talk about the inequalities facing women when they try to access healthcare in Northern Ireland. I am sure that many of you, as with my office in North Belfast, are inundated with calls and emails. Women are reaching out over social media, desperate for people to listen. Many suffer in silence, and those who do not just hope that one clinician will take them seriously.

Northern Ireland has the longest wait in all of the UK for an endometriosis diagnosis: nine years and five months on average. All the while, the women experience symptoms such as tiredness, severe pain and bleeding. I pay tribute to local journalist Sarah McCann, who, earlier this year, began an awareness campaign, Endo the Battle, after she had to wait 20 years for a diagnosis of endometriosis — a diagnosis that she actually got in England. It cannot go on.

I welcome the £3·5 million investment in gynaecology as part of the waiting list initiative from May this year. We need to see firm evidence of how that will help the Minister reach the target of a 90% reduction in gynae waiting times by March 2029. It is an ambitious target, but we must get there.

I highlight again something that I have brought up in the Chamber before: the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust has access to state-of-the-art technology that enables robotic-assisted surgery. It is being used with great success to treat urology patients, particularly those with prostate cancer. In response to a question for written answer in January of this year, the Minister confirmed that 513 men had, rightly, been treated using that technology since 2019. However, in that same period, just 89 women have received robotic-assisted surgery. That is despite clinical specialists telling me that the technology is often used elsewhere to perform hysterectomies and other gynaecological surgeries and to treat endometriosis.

This is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month. When we have the tools to treat cancer early, we must use them. Despite clinicians begging for access to the technology, they simply do not get it. The Minister could not tell me whether gynaecology was originally considered an area where the technology could be used, but I have had clinicians tell me that it is: they are trained, and they can do it.

That is just one area where we are failing women in healthcare. Where is the women's action plan for health? What will the outcomes be of the £3·5 million waiting list initiative? We need answers now.

Mr McCrossan: Over the past week, we have seen the First Minister and deputy First Minister run to the cameras to pontificate about their great record of delivery. That has actually shown, instead, that they are, jointly, completely out of touch with the needs and challenges of our people. They really need to wake up. On their watch, health waiting lists are still among the worst in Europe, and there is no credible plan to fix them: fail. When it comes to GP access, patients cannot get appointments, and services are collapsing in rural areas: fail. On hospital reform, there is endless talk but no delivery, and decisions are constantly delayed for political convenience: fail. Social care is underfunded, overstretched and dependent on families to pick up the slack: fail. On mental health services, there is strategy after strategy, yet services remain underfunded and in crisis, and addiction services are non-existent: fail.

On childcare, families still pay the highest costs in the UK and Ireland, with no comprehensive scheme in place: fail. On special educational needs, which we will talk about later, thousands of children are left waiting for assessments and support years into the crisis: fail. On school budgets, schools are cutting staff and services while the Minister fights political battles instead of fixing the basics: fail. There is no sustainable university funding model, and students face higher fees and fewer opportunities than previously: fail. Teachers' pay and morale are at an all-time low, there have been years of disputes, and unresolved staffing shortages continue to worsen: fail.

Affordable housing targets in their own Programme for Government are missed, and waiting lists are getting longer, while all we hear is excuses: fail. When it comes to homelessness, emergency accommodation is stretched to breaking point: fail. Planning delays, developers facing years of backlog, choking investment in our communities: fail. The waste water infrastructure system is broken, blocking new housing and development across our towns: fail. In the rates system, small businesses are being crippled while multinationals get off lightly: fail. Police officer numbers are at crisis point, and communities are being left vulnerable and exposed to serious challenges: fail. In the justice system, court backlogs stretch into years, and victims wait too long for cases to be heard: fail. Public transport services are cut, buses and trains are cancelled, and rural areas are abandoned: fail. Roads are in a terrible state, the A5 project is stalled, and Casement Park is not built: fail. The anti-poverty strategy exists on paper only, with no funding, no targets and no impact: fail. On climate action, there are big promises and plenty of ambition, but projects are blocked by political infighting and there is weak enforcement: fail. Lough Neagh pollution is an absolute disaster with no credible rescue plan: fail. Northern Ireland is stuck at the bottom of the UK league tables: fail. On economic growth, there is no long-term strategy or joined-up thinking, and SMEs are ignored.

It is a disastrous Executive. It is an Executive not of delivery but of catastrophic failure.

Mr Kelly: A Cheann Comhairle, as you will know, it was reported in the media yesterday that MI5 conceded that it had obtained information from well-known journalist Vincent Kearney's phone. It was also said that that was an unprecedented admission, and that is true: I cannot remember MI5 ever admitting anything. While the admission was unprecedented, from its foundation MI5 has been doing that all along. It is part of its raison d'être. The question is this: who else? Are there other journalists whose phones or laptops are being tapped? Is it politicians? Is it lawyers talking to their clients or even judges? In case that sounds a bit out of kilter, remember that it is not so long ago that the PSNI was checking journalists' phones every six months. All of this emerged from the sterling work done by two other journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, on the Loughinisland massacre. Instead of being lauded for what they had done to bring out the truth about what happened there, they were pursued by the PSNI.

MI5 is not an accountable organisation, but it needs to be made accountable. Freedom of the press is, of course, critical to a democratic society and democratic governance. The issues with the PSNI and MI5 have been raised a number of times with the Chief Constable and at the Policing Board. Where there are accountability mechanisms for the PSNI, at least we have the ability to use them. Where is the ability to stop the surveillance, interference and illegality by MI5?

Mrs Dodds: I want to recognise in the House a truly remarkable milestone. This month, Shankill parish church in Lurgan celebrates its 300th anniversary. That house of worship has stood on the same location for three centuries. The original church on the site was consecrated in 1725 by Bishop Ralph Lambert. It was built in response to the growth of Lurgan, the congregation's faith and the needs of a vibrant community. The church, despite the Troubles and the decimation that it suffered through terrorist attacks, is a testament to the resilience and devotion of its congregation.

The current formation was completed in 1863 and reflects the architectural grandeur and ambition of the era. It was designed then to accommodate 2,000 worshippers and was reputed to be the largest church in Ireland. Over the centuries, Shankill parish church has played a central role not just in the spiritual life but in the civic fabric of Lurgan and the wider Down and Dromore community. It is a place where generations of families have attended together. Leading up to this significant anniversary, the parish has embarked on an inspiring initiative called "Reimagining Shankill". That visionary strategy seeks to transform the church's surroundings, create level access, reimagine boundary walls and create a welcoming landscape and more open facade, with a view to making that historic church more accessible and inviting for all.

Last weekend, the congregation met to give thanks and praise. On Saturday, there was another day of celebration of the unique milestone. As we look forward, we wish the church's leadership and membership well and pray that its doors remain open for generations to come. I pay tribute to the parishioners, rectors and volunteers who have faithfully served.

Miss Brogan: It gives me no pleasure to be back here after the summer recess once again to raise the issue of delays to the upgrade of the A5 road, but it remains one of the number-one concerns in my constituency. First, I greatly appreciate the efforts of Ministers John O'Dowd and Liz Kimmins, who have worked tirelessly to push forward the A5 project. Minister Kimmins continues in her efforts to get it over the line. As a representative for West Tyrone, I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that a small number of people with vested interests continue to make every effort to ruin a road development project: a project that would be of great benefit not only to the people of my constituency but to the entire island.

It is frustrating for many of us who are interested in protecting our environment to know that the Climate Change Act 2022, which was intended to safeguard our children's futures, has been misused in such a cynical and selfish manner by some. I remind those who, for their own reasons, are opposed to the A5 scheme that it is not just a major infrastructure development with the potential to open up the north-west to more investment, increased trade, faster commuting, more tourism and more jobs but, first and foremost, a safety upgrade. It is literally a matter of life and death. Fifty-seven people have lost their lives on the road since 2006. That is 57 neighbours, 57 friends, 57 members of our communities and 57 grieving families. The upgrade of the A5 road can bring that dreadful toll to a halt and ensure that we do not see another 57 names added over the next 20 years. The proof of that is in the upgrade of the A4.

Every day that the A5 project is delayed is another day in which lives are needlessly put at risk. We have had 18 years of consultation, discussion and development, and every concern has been addressed. Is leor é sin.

Let us work together to get the A5 scheme delivered.

Mr Brooks: In line with what my colleague Steve Aiken said on the issue yesterday, I give my party's welcome to President Trump as he comes to the United Kingdom for a state visit. The United States is not just another partner but our closest ally and greatest friend. It is right that we honour that relationship. In Northern Ireland, we have seen the benefits of that friendship. Recently, we heard the announcements from Citibank, which is based in my constituency, and from Bank of America about new jobs and fresh investment. Those are good jobs, and that is work for our young people. It is security for families, and it means confidence for our economy. It is what engagement with the United States delivers.

I pay tribute to our deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. She will be there representing Northern Ireland with dignity and purpose. She shows leadership, seriousness and professionalism, and she understands what really matters to our people. By contrast, it is deeply regrettable, though completely unsurprising, that the First Minister has, once again, chosen to stay away. Boycotts do nothing for jobs, investment or the reputation of this place. Sinn Féin means empty seats at Westminster and empty seats on the international stage. I am glad that someone in the Executive Office is working for all the people of Northern Ireland.

We look forward to the remarkable opportunity that we have. As we know, America will soon mark 250 years of independence. The America250 celebrations will shine a light on our shared story, especially on the Ulster Scots who helped to shape the founding of America. That history is not just something in the past; it opens new doors for us in trade, culture, investment and partnership now. The visit is more than a ceremony; it is about strengthening ties that will put food on our families' tables and pride in our communities, and Northern Ireland must seize the moment with the rest of the UK.

Ms K Armstrong: Since each of us was elected to the House in 2022, we have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of people in Northern Ireland who are living in hunger. In 2022, 370,000 people were living with food insecurity, and, in the Trussell Trust report that came out today, 'Hunger in the UK 2025', we see that the figure for Northern Ireland has risen to 520,000. On our watch, more people are hungry in Northern Ireland. We are heading in the wrong direction, and it is escalating. That is important to me.

It is not just those who are out of work. One in three people referred to food banks in Northern Ireland come from households where someone is in employment. They are bus drivers, factory workers, hospitality staff and nurses. The people who keep our society and economy moving are finding that paid work is no longer enough to protect them from hunger. Work should be a safeguard against poverty, and, too often now, it is not. Of the 520,000 people who are living with food insecurity, 130,000 are children. Some 130,000 children in Northern Ireland today are hungry.

The human stories behind the figures are sobering. A nurse who was hurt in a car accident told of how disability had pushed her into hunger. Single-parent families, which make up just 4% of households here, account for 22% of food bank referrals. Three quarters of the disabled people who are referred to food banks cannot afford the essentials. Carers, those from minority communities, LGBTQIA+ people and those who grew up in care are also reported to be disproportionately at risk. It is not a fringe issue; it is structural. When one in five households go hungry, we are looking at a system that is not working.

Members, we are all responsible for that system. We know that Westminster has a role to play. Ending the cruel two-child cap would certainly help people; operating the local housing allowance to reflect real rents would certainly help people; and an essentials guarantee in universal credit could help people. However, we cannot just look to London. The Northern Ireland Executive have a central role to play. We cannot hide behind the excuse of reserved powers. We have to be brave enough to return to the drawing board on the draft anti-poverty strategy. We need to be ambitious and set targets. We need to look to our people to stop them being hungry.

I am ashamed today to be an elected representative who is sitting over a growing number of people in Northern Ireland who are hungry. That is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to make people's lives better.

Mr Carroll: The escalating housing crisis took a dark turn over the summer months, and it needs to be challenged and called out. We saw the Housing Executive and the PSNI step up their authoritarian response to the housing crisis in an attempt to evict people from family homes in my constituency. We should be clear that nobody should be evicted from their home, especially when no alternative housing or accommodation is provided. It is even more cruel that it is being done by the very organisation that is supposed to prevent homelessness and to help people when they are homeless: the Housing Executive.

In one situation, we had the police show up outside the home of a constituent of mine, just off the Falls Road, to evict him. At least six police officers showed up at 7.00 am to physically and aggressively remove that young man from his home against his will. That is really dark and dangerous stuff. Not too far up the road from his house, we saw the Housing Executive and the police try to evict a grandmother from her family home just off the Springfield Road. The police showed up with the intention of removing and evicting that person and her family but were met with peaceful community resistance against that form of police violence and intimidation.

It says a lot about the priorities of the state and the PSNI that, when we have racist, far right pogroms, fascists threatening to burn out asylum seekers from hotels and fascists roaming the streets and threatening migrants and anybody of colour, who faces the repression from the state? It is the people who are trying to fight and stand against homelessness. I commend all the housing activists in west Belfast, in particular, and beyond who stand against that intimidation and that form of state violence. I commend the Community Action Tenants Union (CATU), Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) and every other organisation, my party colleagues and other community activists, who continue to stand against homelessness and people being forcibly evicted.

The obvious question is this: where are the Executive parties? Where is the First Minister on the question? I hear nothing from her. Where is the Justice Minister on this? Where is the Communities Minister, with his terrible approach to housing? He says nothing while people are being evicted forcibly from their homes. Where are the Opposition? They have been silent on the question as well.

The state should be building homes and reducing and cutting rents. I say, "Shame on those who have evicted tenants. Shame on the people in the Housing Executive who are carrying out that strategy". I call for it to end.

Ms Sugden: This month is World Alzheimer's Month, and it gives us a moment to reflect on how Northern Ireland responds to dementia. Unsurprisingly, we are not responding well. More than 22,000 people in Northern Ireland live with dementia today, and, by 2040, in less than a generation, that number will almost double. One third of those affected do not even have a diagnosis. Families are left in limbo and struggling, while their loved one declines before their eyes. That is a daily reality in households across this region. In my constituency, people wait for 15 months or longer — years in many cases — for a memory clinic appointment. That delay not only robs people of treatment but robs a family of their loved one and their dignity in their later years.

The pandemic should have taught us a painful lesson. During COVID, people with dementia were among the most isolated. Day centres closed, families were cut off and the engagement and stimulation that help to slow decline disappeared overnight. We saw the effects: conditions worsened, decline accelerated and carers were left to cope alone. That experience should have shocked us into action, but here we are, years later, still failing to provide consistent meaningful support. That failure affects more people than those living directly with dementia. When we do not diagnose early or support carers and ignore our ageing population, we create a chain reaction of pressure across the entire health and social care system. It is the child waiting for an assessment and the woman whose gynaecological issues are left untreated: every time we ignore one part of the system, it is carried by another.

The Executive cannot continue to firefight their way through the problems. We have been doing that for far too long; trying to keep the lid on issues that have spilled over long ago. We are not even managing that any more. We are struggling, and the people of Northern Ireland know it. Patients know it when they are waiting in pain in A&E for 72 hours. Carers know it when they are exhausted but have no choice but to keep going on their own. Families know it when they lose their loved ones to dementia. Yes, our dementia strategy is far out of date, but the deeper point is that our whole approach in the Executive and Assembly is out of date. We are still reacting instead of planning; we are still patching instead of fixing.

Dementia exposes the price of short-term thinking — people suffering at the end of their lives. For the life that they have given us, we owe them more, and, at the very least, we owe them dignity.

Ms Finnegan: Ending violence against women and girls is one of the most urgent challenges facing our society today. It is a challenge that knows no boundaries. It affects women of every age, background and community. It demands action from every part of government, from every agency and from every one of us. We all know the statistics, but behind every number is a woman with a name, a family and a future that should never have been taken from her.

Violence against women and girls is not inevitable. It is the result of choices, attitudes and a culture that all too often excuses or minimises harm. That is why, as public representatives, we have a responsibility to create the conditions for real change in workplaces, schools, homes and, yes, here in the Chamber. The truth is this: the culture that allows violence to persist starts not with physical acts but with words, attitudes and the behaviours that tell women that their voices matter less, that their place in public life is conditional and that their right to respect is up for debate. If we in the Assembly cannot set the highest standards of respect and inclusion, how can we expect society to follow?

When the public sees harmful behaviours going unchallenged, it sends a message that, even in the highest political office, women can still be belittled, sidelined or silenced. Every day, strong women enter the Chamber, which, in itself, takes courage, consideration and compromise, but courage should not be the entry fee for political participation. This space should be safe, respectful and inclusive, not because that is in the rule book but because it is the right thing to do. Ending violence against women and girls is not about what we oppose; it is about the example that we set. The way we conduct ourselves here must reflect the society that we are trying to build, one where dignity is upheld, differences are debated without demeaning and leadership is shown through respect, not control.

The best leaders lead with respect, integrity and fairness. If we want our words on ending violence against women and girls to mean anything beyond these walls, we must live them in the Chamber every day.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Last week, I wrote to ministerial colleagues to ask them to support detailed proposals for ring-fenced special educational needs (SEN) capital funding of around £1·7 billion, separate from the main Education capital budget. Today, I appeal to Members of the Assembly to back me in that call. Over the past 18 months, I have set a clear and determined strategic direction to address one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system: the urgent requirement for special educational needs placements and the long-term transformation of SEN provision across Northern Ireland.

It is not a challenge for one Department alone; it is a challenge for the Executive as a whole. As a Government, we are united in our commitment, as outlined in the Programme for Government (PFG), to work together to better support children and young people with special educational needs. We have pledged to transform our education system to deliver high-quality, efficient and sustainable services for every child with SEN. Today, I seek the Assembly's support for an Executive-led and funded SEN capital investment programme, one that will revolutionise the facilities available to our children and young people.

The choice facing the Executive is stark. Without decisive action across government, the system risks failing the very children whom it is meant to protect. Our special schools have reached capacity. Many are housed in outdated and deteriorating buildings, spaces that lack adequate therapy rooms and fall short of the standards required to deliver modern, holistic care. All straightforward special school solutions have been exhausted. The vast majority of special schools have no physical internal or external space for further development, and new special schools and dual-campus sites of existing schools are therefore required across Northern Ireland. That is alongside the continued provision of specialist classes in our mainstream schools. Those small, dedicated classes provide higher levels of support, a modified curriculum and reduced class size compared with a standard mainstream class. That infrastructure is stretched to its limits, while demand for specialist facilities continues to surge. We are at a pivotal moment, a fork in the road. Working closely with my Department, the Education Authority (EA) has today published comprehensive plans to expand, modernise and transform our special schools estate. However, that vision can be realised only with significant dedicated capital investment. Without an Executive-funded programme, we will remain trapped in a cycle of emergency planning, unable to provide the specialist facilities that every child deserves.

The facts are stark and urgent. Over 70,000 pupils in Northern Ireland are registered as having special educational needs: that is 20% of our children. The number of pupils with a statement of SEN has risen by an unprecedented 85% in 10 years to almost 30,000 pupils. With regard to specialist places, the number of pupils attending special schools has increased by 47% in the same period, and the number of children in specialist provision classes in mainstream schools by no less than 169%. To meet that need, my Department has invested £110 million in the past two years to provide 242 new specialist provision classes and 98 additional classrooms across the special schools estate. That is a huge achievement, but make no mistake: this is not the peak. Those numbers are set to increase year-on-year for the next decade. The scale of demand is staggering. Almost 6,000 additional special school places and over 5,000 additional specialist provision places will be needed. However, this is not just about numbers, it is about need, and the complexity of those needs is deepening. Our children require more tailored and innovative solutions. School staff need the right environments and resources to deliver the high-quality education that every child deserves.

Let me be clear: I cannot plan, build or deliver the facilities that children need without additional annual earmarked capital funding from the Executive. It is not a marginal issue; it is a central challenge facing our education system and our society. We must act now. The pattern of increased need and investment requirements is not unique to Northern Ireland; it is a challenge echoed across the British Isles. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, no fewer than 16 new special schools have opened since 2019 to cope with the significant growth in pupils requiring a special school placement. There is also an annual requirement of around 400 additional special provision classes as the need for SEN placements there has doubled in five years. That is a clear signal of the scale and seriousness of the issue. Those figures reflect a broader truth: the rise in special educational needs is not a temporary spike. It is a sustained and accelerating trend, and it demands a strategic, well-funded response.

Northern Ireland must not be left behind. We must match that momentum with our own commitment to investment, innovation and transformation. The Education Authority, in close partnership with my Department, has developed comprehensive and forward-looking plans to expand the special school estate and increase SEN places in mainstream education. Those plans are not aspirational; they are actionable, but they require more than departmental will. They require Executive endorsement and support as a flagship investment programme. Only through such a funded programme will we move from a reactive emergency approach to a sustainable position and fulfil our Programme for Government commitments.

Last year, I tasked the Education Authority with developing detailed plans of action for each of our 40 special schools. Today, those plans have been published. They represent a blueprint for transformation that will revolutionise our special schools estate and reshape how we deliver placements for children with special educational needs. The plans set out the short-, medium- and long-term capital works that are essential to meet the increasing need for special school places.

As I noted earlier, over 6,000 additional places are required over the next decade. The plans therefore include the expansion, enhancement and restructuring of the special school estate. They also aim to ensure that the necessary specialist accommodation and equipment are in place to enable pupils to develop the vital skills required to enhance their life beyond education and to provide opportunities for them to access the workplace. The SEN-related capital works currently in planning have a present-day value of £430 million. They include new builds for Sperrinview Special School and Knockevin Special School; a second campus for Ardnashee School and College; two Belfast special school campuses; and 10 extension and refurbishment projects for special schools through the school enhancement programme.

To deliver on our Programme for Government commitments, we must also urgently proceed with the projects outlined in the plans of action, as well as with the expansion of specialist provision classes. The next phase of the SEN capital investment programme will deliver 400 additional special school places through the expansion of five existing projects; new investment at 12 special schools to create over 2,000 places; three additional multi-school campuses in Belfast delivering over 1,000 places; three new campuses across Northern Ireland providing 700 places; and over 500 new specialist provision places in mainstream classes.

I have submitted detailed proposals to the Executive for ring-fenced funding that is separate from the main Department of Education capital budget. In total, the SEN capital investment programme has a £1·7 billion investment need over the next 10 years. The urgency, however, is not just for the long term but immediate. We face a capital funding crisis next year that must be addressed without delay. The stark reality is that I cannot do this alone. The current education capital budget simply cannot absorb the level of investment required. A single new 500-pupil special school costs around £90 million. That is one third of my Department's annual capital budget, which is already stretched to its limits. It is fully utilised to ensure that schools across the estate remain open and safe, as well as to fund the ICT infrastructure and transport fleet that enable access to education for thousands of children. Those are not discretionary spends; they are essential to the daily operation of our education system. It is simply not possible to suspend all capital works across the school estate for a decade in order to redirect funding towards SEN infrastructure. That would jeopardise the integrity of the entire education system. The conventional education capital budget cannot carry the weight of modernising and expanding SEN provision over the next 10 years.

Alongside the urgent need for SEN placements, I am faced with an ageing estate. Many schools built in the mid-20th century are now reaching the end of their useful lifespan and are no longer fit for purpose. Maintenance and minor works are currently restricted to emergency and statutory interventions only. As a result, we have a 15-year backlog of planned maintenance that is estimated to cost in the region of £800 million. Of the 74 major capital projects for schools, 21 are paused owing to the restricted capital budget position. Of the 72 school enhancement projects that have been announced since 2017, only eight have proceeded to construction. The capital need outside specialist SEN provision is significant and pressing, yet the pressure for SEN placements continues to escalate. The cost of emergency SEN placement provision has risen from £9 million in 2019 to a projected £85 million next year, which is an 850% increase in just six years.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Department of Education budget cannot sustain that trajectory. If we do not act, the school estate will continue to deteriorate. We will face significant disruption to children's education, and, inevitably, schools will close and children will be unplaced. That is why I am calling for a dedicated Executive-led SEN capital investment programme, not as a luxury but as a necessity. We must invest in the future of our children, and we must protect the integrity of our education system.

I fully recognise that the Executive face difficult decisions. Every Department has capital needs. Every sector is under pressure, and the capital budget, as we all know, is finite. However, meeting the needs of children with special educational needs is not just another departmental priority; it is a cross-government priority and responsibility. It is a moral and societal imperative that transcends portfolios and party lines. Those children are not abstract statistics; they are individuals with potential, promise and the right to an education that meets their needs and nurtures their strengths. That is why I have submitted proposals to the Executive for the establishment of a new Executive-led and funded SEN capital investment programme that will be a strategic long-term commitment over the next 10 years. It is the only viable path forward. Without that dedicated programme, I cannot progress to the next phase of our SEN capital investment strategy and we will remain trapped in a cycle of emergency planning and reacting to crises rather than building for the future.

To conclude, I ask Members this: what is more important than meeting the needs of our most vulnerable children and young people? It is not merely an educational concern but a societal obligation. Members have rightly expressed their concerns at the emergency planning approach to SEN placements. I ask all political parties to support me in the Assembly. This is not an issue for the fractures of our politics. I ask Members to support that ring-fenced capital investment. Let us choose not division and delay but delivery and determination. As an Executive, let us demonstrate our commitment to equity, inclusion and social justice and to building a better and fairer Northern Ireland.

The transformation of SEN planning requires dedicated, earmarked funding. It cannot be resourced from a budget that is struggling to keep open a crumbling and ageing school estate. Let us resource the specialist facilities that will equip and empower our children so that no child is left behind, no dream deferred and no future forsaken. Alternatively, if we fail to invest adequately in specialist facilities, educational inequality will deepen and remain for another generation. We must move from patchwork solutions to purposeful transformation. We must invest not only in buildings but in hope, opportunity and the dignity of every child who relies on us to get it right. Let us be bold and united. Let us deliver the future that our children deserve.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. A focus in the Chamber on special educational needs is always welcome. Should money flow for that ambitious capital plan, which notes 500 new specialist provision classes as part of its ambition, how will the Minister ensure that those classes can be delivered, given the challenges that we have had in seeing them established when the EA and his Department reached out to schools? Will he therefore respond to the call from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) for urgent talks now to get on to a planned strategic footing at this stage in the year, rather than leaving it till later?

Mr Givan: The Chairman makes an important point, but, before you can get to that engagement and to making sure that things work, the Executive need to take a decision in principle. All parties, including the Member's party, Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party, are on the Executive. The Executive need to take a decision in principle to endorse the paper that I have submitted with the strategic plan. My approach to providing the long-term strategic plan that Members have rightly called for and that I have commissioned needs to be endorsed and supported by every political party on the Executive. That is the only viable pathway forward. It absolutely needs to have the confidence of our school principals for us to make the provision, but we need to take that decision. I have engaged with the NAHT on it, and I welcome its intervention and willingness to engage at this early stage rather than having to respond in May or June. The union has taken a welcome step, and I commend the union for that approach. Of course, I will work with it as we seek to build that confidence, but, first, that decision needs to be taken in principle by all Executive parties around the table.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister will be aware that the Audit Office previously reported that, despite hundreds of millions being spent on SEN, neither his Department nor the EA could demonstrate value for money. What assurances has the Minister given his Executive colleagues that, this time, it will be different and that any expenditure that goes into it will go to maximising support for pupils with special needs?

Mr Givan: I do not accept that characterisation of the Audit Office report on the value-for-money assessment. That is a side issue.

I met the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, only a number of weeks ago. I explained the critical nature of the budget not just for resource but for capital and highlighted to Minister O'Dowd the need for the Executive paper that I have now taken forward. I welcome the Finance Minister's engagement with me. He welcomed the approach that I am taking and gave a commitment that he would engage positively in looking at the request that I make in the Executive paper. However, what we now need is not just words or sentiment but tangible decisions and actions on that costed plan. We have master planned every special school. This morning, I have corresponded with every principal. We have provided details of the plans that we have for their schools. The plans for Members' constituencies are available for them to look at. We know what we need to do. I know what the Executive need to do. I trust that the other political parties around the Executive table know what they need to do.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the challenge and the vision that he has laid out. Many people in my constituency are thankful for his repurposing of Elmgrove Primary School for special needs and for the future plans that there are for Orangefield Primary School. When is the first special school in Belfast likely to be completed?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, details are now available for Members to look at. I will resist the temptation to go into detail on every individual school in their constituencies that Members may want to raise, because that presupposes that a decision will be taken first of all on the principle of the Executive-led scheme that we need to take forward. We can get into the granular detail of what we will do in every constituency only on the basis that we have secured the support of the Executive.

Work is obviously being taken forward on the basis of decisions that I had previously taken in respect of schools. I can advise the Member that the business case in respect of the first Belfast special school has now been submitted to my Department and is going through the approvals process, so any potential dates will be subject to receipt of business case approval as well as the necessary statutory approvals. However, the current delivery programme indicates that construction would commence in 2029 with provisional completion of the whole project in 2032.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his statement. My party warmly welcomes his proposal for a £1·7 billion investment dedicated to children with special educational needs, because we hear so often that children wait too long for statements, travel too far to school and wait too long to hear what school they are going to. We will support what is right in the same way as we will oppose anything that is wrong and scrutinise along the way.

Does the Minister agree that such investment, while it is the right thing to do for children, is an example of "spend to save", in the sense that, if we invest and show our belief in children with special educational needs, in the future, they will make an even greater contribution to our society, economy —.

Mr Speaker: I think that we are getting into a statement, Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Do you agree with me, Minister?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his welcome and endorsement of the approach that I have outlined. It is commendable that we have people who are prepared to step up and give support when they know that it is the right thing to do. Thank you for that.

It is not just about investing to save; it is about investing in our special children. That is critical and is what drives the approach that I have taken. I have been in countless special schools, as have Members, some of whom have been with me. Every time I go into a special school, I walk out of it asking myself what more I can do to support it. More than any other part of our education system, we need to support that sector. As Members often say in the House, we are measured by how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. We will measure the decisions that are taken by Executive parties by their decision on this Executive paper.

It is about investing to save — I agree — given our current spend, which was about £110 million in the past two years. I mentioned that, in 2019, we spent about £9 million on emergency approaches. Next year, we will have to spend in the region of £85 million on emergency responses. We all know that, when you have to respond in that emergency environment, there will be questions about value for money and why we have had to respond in that way. We need properly planned construction work to ensure that we spend the money effectively. Ultimately, however, it is about investing in our special children.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you cite a staggering rise in demand for SEN provision. The current statistics and the projected need are eye-watering. The fact that there are children and families behind those statistics is heartbreaking. Why has your Department — I am not blaming you — been caught in a cycle of emergency planning, rather than anticipating and preparing for that growth years ago?

Mr Givan: We can look at the past, which people have legitimate questions about, but we need to deliver for the future. When I came into office, we reorganised our capital expenditure and provided clear visibility on the SEN capital programme — we separated that within our departmental structures — and we took a SEN-first approach. I am now asking Executive parties to take a SEN-first approach to all capital spend in Northern Ireland.

I commissioned the Education Authority to carry out the detailed master plan work, which it has now completed. That work was undertaken with my officials and, importantly, school principals. They have very much been part of the process. What we have today is a culmination of that engagement with our special school leadership. If implemented, the plan will allow us to put in place measures to meet the long-term strategic need. If we do not do that, as I have made clear and will do again, schools will close. Children will be unplaced if we do not move forward with the approach that I have outlined.

Members will rightly challenge me on what I am doing to plan for and meet children's needs. I have been getting on with coming up with a plan. We have published that plan, and I seek the support of the Executive to take it forward. It is the only viable way of addressing the issue; otherwise, we will be trapped in a cycle of emergency responses, which means failing our children.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you and I have discussed Knockevin School. I raise that because you specifically mentioned it in your statement. You have visited the school, and you know how vital it is for families in South Down. It provides incredible care despite the removal of its nurse and its being split over three sites that are bursting at the seams. Can you indicate where Knockevin is in your priorities and when we can expect to see a new build for its children?

Mr Givan: I will come to back to the Member on the specific detail, but she is right that Knockevin is one of the schools that we have been moving forward, and work on that continues. The Member rightly highlights a cause for concern that I have mentioned before: the withdrawal of a nurse and of allied health professionals. That is why I said that this is not just a departmental responsibility but a cross-departmental responsibility. As we move forward with my plan, as I hope and trust that we will, other Departments need to align with it.

For children and young people in special schools. that is where they are best placed to receive all the other medical support that they need. That is where we need the work of the Department of Health in order to assist me and those principals. Their job, fundamentally, is to be educators, but they can only do that, in an environment where there are increasing medical complexities, with the right support from our medical practitioners. That is why I welcome the review that was commissioned by the Chief Nursing Officer. A report is there and is being looked at. We need to see the outworkings of that review, and then we need to see the support being aligned to what I am trying to do and what the special school principals have been calling for.

Mr Martin: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement. I know that the Education Committee has been very keen to see progress on the issue. This morning, you have outlined a plan, provided the costings for it and are clearly championing it. It will be up to the other Executive parties as to whether they are going to support it. Will spaces in mainstream schools that were previously repurposed in order to establish specialist provision be restored as part of the capital plan that you have outlined?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. He highlights the repurposing of mainstream school spaces for specialist provision. Let me first express my deep gratitude to schools that have very much stepped up and accommodated specialist provision at the expense of existing support and the limited classroom space that they have. I am deeply appreciative of those schools, principals and boards of governors who have gone above and beyond in order to help us address the challenges that we face.

I can confirm that works to restore any required space utilised in the establishment of specialist provision are on the minor works programme for delivery. Despite the work that has been carried out over the past two years, demand for SEN places continues to outstrip availability. All resources remain focused on the delivery of additional accommodation in order to meet the demand for 2026 and 2027, and works to restore lost accommodation will follow.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Everybody here recognises the need to invest in our special educational needs provision. We also recognise how pressed and tight the Executive's resources are. They are particularly finite in our circumstances here. It is reasonable to ask how much money the Education Minister has requested to be cut from other Executive Ministers' budgets. He mentioned some detailed proposals; has he suggested where other budget might be cut? For example, how much will the Communities Minister or the Health Minister cut from their budgets?

Mr Givan: I am asking my Executive colleagues to deliver the Programme for Government commitment. That is the document that the Member's party agreed to, as did my party. One of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government, which I referenced in my speech, is around special educational needs. The logic, therefore, is that Executive expenditure will align with the Programme for Government. In my engagement with the Minister of Finance, I outlined a 10-year plan. The year 1 call to deliver on the plan amounts to £93 million. It builds, and, by the midway point, it will rise to almost £400 million in one year alone. This is a 10-year plan: the Minister of Finance is engaged in a three-year programme of identifying where the priorities should be, and the Executive will engage in that.

I expect, and we will articulate, that the Programme for Government will be honoured in respect of the approach to the comprehensive spending review process and that the funding will align to the PFG. Therefore, that will follow what the Member and others have called for, which is a SEN-first approach. That has to be reflected not just in my Department, which it is, but by the Executive as a whole. I trust that I can count on the Member's support for putting children with special educational needs first.

Mr Baker: We need more than words, and we want you to prioritise special educational needs. That is not just about capital: it is about how we treat young people when it comes to placements. You are asking for Executive endorsement for a flagship investment programme. Can we expect a sea change in how collaborative work happens between Departments? What work has gone on with the Minister of Health, for example? I ask that because it is about more than just buildings. We need allied health professionals to be involved from the very beginning.

Mr Givan: The Member is right: it is about more than just buildings. Again, however, I emphasise the point that we need buildings. I cannot emphasise enough that schools will close otherwise. If we do not step up to the plate, schools will close. Right across the school estate, we are funding emergency responses to keep schools open and safe. If we do not provide funding for special educational needs through the ring-fenced Executive flagship project that I have outlined, we will not be able to keep schools open and safe, and they will therefore close.

I agree with the Member that we need collaborative working. We need the Department of Health to work with us. We need the Department for Infrastructure to work with us on road safety to help us improve roads outside our schools. Many aspects of cross-departmental work are required for our education system, but this is an absolute priority, and I am ringing the alarm bells as loudly as I can to say to Members and to all political parties that this is the only viable path. I have been challenged, and rightly so. I have been asked where the plan is. I have developed a plan. It is not just aspirational or a strategy. Rather, it is a detailed, worked-out master plan for every single special school and for everywhere that we need specialist provision. We are now at the moment of decision for all Executive parties on whether they step up and endorse that approach. It is the only way forward.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the capital investment that he has already made, not least in Ardnashee School and College in my constituency. I welcome his call for the Executive-led SEN capital investment programme, but he has also outlined a number of challenges to ensuring capacity and specialist provision across the board. Is the Minister considering directing schools to establish specialist provision?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question and commend him for his work in Foyle. I have been to Ardnashee. I know what is taking place there and commend the school for the excellent work that it is doing. He asks an important question, and it is one that has generated some discussion on the powers that exist for direction. The EA was asking the Department to consider directing schools back in June. If, at the point of exhausting all possible options, there had been a viable option for doing so in the view of the EA, it was seeking a view on whether we would go down the route of direction. Ultimately, we did not need to do that. We avoided having to go down that particular route. For Members' benefit, I will say that it is a power that has been utilised in a neighbouring jurisdiction, so it is not unique. Such a power has been enacted elsewhere.

Our schools rose to the challenge last year, and they have risen to the challenge this year. Going forward, I want to take the approach that schools engage with the Education Authority, which is why I welcome the intervention by the NAHT: that trade union in particular. It wants to have that engagement, so that, across all localities, we can have adequate and excellent provision for all our children as close to their home as possible. Of course, I want schools to believe that, whenever support is offered by the Education Authority to set up specialist provision, they can have confidence that that support will be there. It would be wrong of me to deny that that is a genuine concern for principals, because they lack confidence that they will get the right support. I have, however, been reassured by some principals, who have said to me that they are pleased with the support provided. They are pleased with how specialist provision has been implemented and the positive impact that it has had on the whole school community, so there are good examples of that.

I believe that principals will continue to step forward, because it is in their very DNA to want to help, so, as we build confidence, we need to make sure that the Executive provide that support. We need to provide the buildings that will be required to meet that need. I have outlined very clearly the path that we need to follow and the plan that we need to implement to do that.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your statement and very much welcome the works that are being undertaken at Sperrinview Special School in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am very concerned, however, at the continuing escalating cost of emergency SEN placement provision, which has seen an 850% increase in just six years, although I fully appreciate the work that you have to do there. How will your Department and the EA provide equitable access across SEN schools in rural areas?

Mr Givan: The Member highlighted Sperrinview. That is one of the schools that we are seeking to take forward. There have been some challenges there in recent weeks, but some progress has been made on identifying a suitable site for that school, which we now need to test to ensure that it is the most appropriate place.

The exercise that I commissioned from the EA last year was to look at all the special schools, identify the areas of need across Northern Ireland and see where we need new schools to be created. That work has been completed. The plan is now available for Members so that they can ensure that we are meeting pupils' needs. I want — of course, we all want — children to be able to get the educational support that they require in their local community. We have some children who travel long distances to be given the educational support that they need. I do not find that position acceptable, nor do I believe that any Member finds it acceptable. That is why we need to endorse the plan and allow my Department to get on with the work of putting it into action.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for the statement. I definitely welcome it, particularly for East Antrim, where we have a fantastic set of special schools.

Minister, in your statement, you noted the need to provide "specialist accommodation and equipment" and the "vital skills" that enhance children's lives before they leave school. A number of parents have told me that they have significant worries about ensuring that their child receives the proper support before they leave school. As a parent, I understand that. What will the investment mean for children before they leave school? What will that investment be?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question and for the work that she does in East Antrim.

The statement is very much about the capital needs of the school estate. It is about a 10-year plan to make sure that we expand the physical capacity of special schools. It is about establishing new schools and looking at making greater use of campuses by bringing together existing special schools on a campus-type model. All that has been worked through and given a master plan. The benefit of having an effective school estate is that we will then be able to enhance the educational output from those schools. If we fail to do that and to provide the right environment in which our young people can learn and be supported, at the point at which they leave school, they will not be equipped with the skills that they require to continue in life. We have a limited window of opportunity to make a meaningful impact on those young people's lives when they are in school settings. That is why we have to implement the plan.

Of course, the Department continues to work with other Departments on pathways for young people to transition to life beyond special school settings. The Department for the Economy and its Minister have brought work to the Executive on how they will be able to provide greater support in those pathway provisions.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, this is a critical issue. It is clearly hugely important, but you are outsourcing responsibility for the budget to other parties, having insourced all the most controversial things that you have done gleefully over the past year and a half.

I will ask you something directly about outsourcing specifically, and I would like a direct answer. Parents and pupils are grappling with the use of AI. It is fairly clear — we checked, using an online tool — that a large proportion of your speech was written by AI. Will you confirm that?

Mr Givan: What an example of a useless Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: Answer the question.

Mr Givan: What an example of a useless Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: Answer the question.

Mr Givan: We come to the Chamber to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society and to talk about children who have complex medical needs and who need to have our support and a clear plan for how we can come up with that support, and the leader of the Opposition, the alternative to the Executive, fires a cheap shot around the use of artificial intelligence.

Mr O'Toole: That is a yes.

Mr Givan: I have to say that those who are listening to the contribution —

Mr O'Toole: Teachers and pupils.

Mr Givan: — of the leader of the Opposition will come to their own conclusion —

Mr O'Toole: That the Minister of Education is using AI.

Mr Givan: — about the utter lack of capacity —

Mr McCrossan: Test failed.

Mr Givan: — that he has just outlined. I am not going to allow the Member to detract from children with special educational needs —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: — and it is utterly shameful that the SDLP's leader has used this opportunity —.

Mr O'Toole: You are the Minister of Education, and you are using ChatGPT.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard, please.

Mr Givan: I think of the principals and the parents who have listened in to the last 60 seconds of unedifying contribution from Matthew O'Toole as leader of the Opposition. He will not apologise to me. I do not expect him to.

Mr O'Toole: I am not going to.

Mr Givan: He should apologise to the special schools and to the families for his shameful contribution.

Mr O'Toole: You should be admitting to using AI.

Mr McGrath: Computer says no.

Mr McNulty: Minister, worryingly for children, parents and teachers, you state that the system risks failing the very children who it is meant to protect. Is that not a startlingly sad admission that your Department and your Executive are failing children, families, parents and schools?

Mr Givan: I have outlined the plan to make sure that we can meet the needs of those children and young people.

Mr Brett: He is walking out. He does not want to hear it.

Mr Givan: Yes, the leader of the Opposition, having made his cheap shot, leaves the Chamber. It really shows the absolute insincerity of that last contribution from the leader of the SDLP.

I say to Mr McNulty that this is the plan to ensure that we do not fail our children. This is the plan to make sure that we actually can provide for them so that they can succeed in life. I ask for the support for this plan, because we will be able to deliver for them. That is the obligation on our society. I appeal to Members that this should cross party lines. This should cross all departmental responsibilities. I appeal to the Opposition to join us in the endeavours that we are seeking in order to meet the needs of our children and young people.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement speaks to the dysfunctional nature of the Executive that you have had to come to the Chamber to attempt to lever this much-needed money into your Department rather than having Executive agreement prior to making your statement. You have invested £110 million in the past two years, which includes funding for 98 additional classrooms. Currently, we are using 39 modular buildings in the special needs estate. If successful in your ask, will it be more temporary modular buildings or can you assure us today that we will see actual building work to create permanent, fit-for-purpose, blocks-and-mortar classrooms?

Mr Givan: I thought that the Member would have welcomed transparency and openness. He seems to be suggesting that he did not want to have transparency and openness and that these discussions would happen behind closed doors. That is an interesting departure from the TUV's position on transparency. I have brought a statement to the House for Assembly Members to be able to hold me to account. I assumed that Members of the legislative Assembly wanted that opportunity, but Mr Gaston outlines a different approach.

On the key issue, Mr Gaston brought me to some schools in his constituency —

Mr Gaston: Yes, and that is why I am asking the question.

Mr Givan: He brought me to some schools in his constituency —

Mr Gaston: —

Mr Givan: He brought me to some schools in his constituency —

Mr Gaston: — and Castle Tower School. I am glad that you remember. What are you going to do about them?

Mr Givan: I do.

Mr Gaston: building —

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have had your opportunity. The Minister is trying to answer your question, if you will let him.

Mr Givan: Having brought me to a number of schools, the Member, rightly, challenged me about what I am doing to support those schools. What I have done is develop this plan. I encourage the Member to look at the master plan for the schools in his constituency. He will see the detailed work that has now been completed. He will see the pathway to deliver for those children and young people who he, rightly, asked me to visit, and he has my support for what he is trying to do in his constituency. We need to rise above the idea of challenge just because it is the party political thing to do. We need to, on occasion, rise above that. I get that there will be a degree of knockabout. This should not be a knockabout issue in the Assembly Chamber.

The plan will deliver purpose-built, brand new schools — not modular but new schools — the enhancement of existing schools and physical construction. Of course, there will continue to be specialist provision that we need to meet. Next year, we will need to put in place modular buildings. I say to Members, however, that new modular buildings are very different from the mobile classrooms in the school that I went to. There are still some schools where the mobile classrooms are appalling, but brand new modular buildings are very good and of a high standard. Yes, there will be a mix of physical, bricks-and-mortar new builds and extension works, and modular units will also be provided to meet the need. However, this is the plan to achieve the objectives that I believe, at heart, everyone wants us to achieve. Let us get behind it and support those who need it most.

Ms Sugden: Minister, the substance of what you are asking for is 100%. No one would disagree with more investment — capital and resource funding — in special educational needs. I am, however, curious about how you are asking for the money. You have the great privilege of sitting at the Executive table, where you can ask the Executive parties directly for the funding. Minister, by applying public pressure in the Chamber, are you telling us that those parties have said no to you?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined to Mr Sheehan, I have already met the Finance Minister. We went through the financial pressures in the Department, and I highlighted my plan for special schools. This is not a shock. It is not that I have come to the Assembly without already going to my Executive colleagues. I have gone to my Executive colleagues. Every Minister in the Executive has received the paper, which is there. I hope that the paper will be placed on the agenda and that we can agree and approve the plan. The paper is there, but it is right for me, as the Minister of Education, to assure the public, principals and pupils that I am in their corner. I am fighting for them. I will be their champion, as I promised, when it comes to getting the financial support that the Department of Education needs. The funding cannot be met — I have repeated that ad nauseam — from within the normal conventional spend of the Department of Education. This initiative has to be a dedicated, ring-fenced, Executive, flagship, priority project, and that will then align with the demand for a SEN-first approach, not just in my Department but in the Executive.

Mr McCrossan: The Minister must be living in a parallel universe filled with rainbows and sunshine. He seems to forget that his party has presided over the Education Department for almost 10 years and has been a lead partner in government with Sinn Féin for 18 years. This crisis is of your making. You and your party caused the crisis. Emergency SEN placement costs have exploded from £9 million in 2019 to £85 million next year — an 850% increase. Minister, that is a direct result of you, your party, the Executive and your Department's chronic failure to plan ahead, and it is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on sticking plasters instead of providing proper long-term provision for our most vulnerable children.

Mr Givan: We can engage in the blame game or we can get on with a plan that is going to make an impact.

Due to advances in medicine, children are being born now, thankfully, with much greater and higher levels of complexity of need. Thank the Lord that they are living longer than they would have done otherwise. However, the facilities have not kept pace with the complexities that exist. We have more children presenting with issues around autism, ADHD and various issues who need to get support. I do not know what the causation factors are as to why we have higher numbers of children with additional need. I do not know what has caused that. However, we have had an exponential growth in the number of children with SEN over the past five years, never mind 10 years, and long before other Ministers were in this Department.

We can go down the route that the Member wants to go down. He provides no solution, no plan as to what he would do. I have not heard the SDLP articulate its plan. I have outlined a plan through detailed work, through the EA engaging with educationalists and school principals, and they have come up with a plan. Given the amount of work that has gone into this, particularly from those within the profession, it merits a higher level of contribution than the Member has just articulated and the SDLP has advocated.

Mr Gildernew: I apologise to the Minister for having missed the start of his statement, but I was listening with interest as I made my way here, given the subject of it. This is a capital announcement and, by coincidence, in the past two weeks, I have spoken to two schools in my constituency, both of which have approached the Department offering to provide special education. In both cases they were refused: in one case, the school had even to follow up in order to get an acknowledgement. Is there potentially a mismatch between the need for places, the desire by great schools — those schools would be brilliant settings for any child — and the system that is used to bring those schools forward into providing special education?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It is an issue that I had experience of soon after taking up office. A school in my constituency said that it would provide specialist provision, and that was turned down. Subsequent to getting involved in that one, they looked at it again and said, "Yes, we will provide specialist provision". I believe that, this year, they have taken a second unit at the school. I will be very interested to look into the detail of those particular schools.

At times, there can be some policies that the EA will look at around sustainable schools: what is the enrolment level and, most importantly, where is the level of need? It is more acute in some particular areas. I do not know the particular circumstances of the schools that the Member highlighted. It may be that although some schools have said that they will provide a place, the provision may not be needed in that locality. I do not know, genuinely, whether that is the case. In other areas, where we have an acute need and where we have not been able to provide specialist provision, we have sought to engage with schools to see whether we can meet the need. If a school wants to offer specialist provision, I very much want to see that accommodated, unless there are really good reasons why it is not appropriate. I am happy to engage with the Member on the particular schools that he referred to.

Mr McGrath: A plan that has no money behind it to deliver it is fundamentally not worth the paper that it is written on. It is unable to help those who need help. You are the DUP Education Minister, and we have had some plans before from your colleagues. We have a Sinn Féin Finance Minister who has obviously, in a conversation, told you that the money is not available, otherwise you would not be here trying to get support from the whole House. We have had allied health professionals removed by the Health Minister. Does that not prove that, when it comes to the entire sector, the whole Executive are letting down people and families?

Mr Givan: At no point did the Finance Minister say to me that the money was not there. He welcomed the work that had been undertaken and the engagement that I have had with him. He indicated that he is looking at a three-year plan for what we are doing around capital expenditure. I appeal to Members of the House to get behind the plan. Let us support this. I am seeking the support of Members. You all have the ability to influence those who take decisions within your parties.

I agree with the Member on one thing. I know that this is a genuine concern for him. He has brought me to visit schools and he has a real interest in making provision for the schools in his constituency. He has had me there, I have seen it, and he engages with me outside the Chamber. I get the politics at times in here, but I pay tribute to the Member for his genuine interest in this.

He is right, however: without resources, the plan will not deliver what we need. It needs to be resourced. I will not make any apology for seeking the support of all MLAs for the plan. I have engaged with principals. I hope, trust and know that those principals will engage with every MLA in their constituency and advocate for the approach that I have outlined. I trust that to be the case, so I will not make an apology for seeking to get the plan supported at the Executive, because it is the only way in which we will meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table before the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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 their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Over to you, Minister.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement to provide the Assembly with information about my Department's Olympic legacy fund. Elite athletes inspire us all. They show us that, through talent, hard work and determination, it is possible to reach the very highest levels of achievement. In Northern Ireland, our athletes once again proved that on the world stage at the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Their success inspired pride across every community in Northern Ireland, and I want us to harness that pride, determination and sense of possibility in order to help the next generation of athletes flourish. The Olympic legacy fund is about doing just that. It will create a lasting legacy for sport in Northern Ireland, building on the successes of our Olympians at Paris 2024 and strengthening the infrastructure and resources available to our clubs.

Last October, I was immensely proud to host a celebration reception at the SSE Arena to honour all our athletes, coaches and support staff who represented Northern Ireland in Paris. We applauded not only our six medallists but every athlete who had the honour of competing. That evening confirmed for me the depth of pride and inspiration that our athletes make people feel and the responsibility that we have to ensure that their success leads to lasting benefits for sport in our communities. Our Olympic story stretches back through the decades, from the golden triumph of Lady Mary Peters in Munich in 1972 to the brilliance that we witnessed in Paris. It is a legacy that we must nurture and extend to future generations. With that in mind, I committed £100,000 to recognise our six Olympic medallists through the Olympic medallist fund, which was announced at the celebration event. Each medallist nominated a grassroots club or project to benefit from the fund, thus ensuring that their success directly inspired investment in communities across Northern Ireland. For example, swimmer Daniel Wiffen, who brought home both gold and bronze medals, directed £25,000 to St Patrick's Grammar School in Armagh, his former school, where it will help establish a new gym facility. That is precisely the kind of practical local benefit that I want to see come from our athletes' success.

I wanted to go further, however, and ensure that the momentum is not a one-off but, rather, the beginning of something enduring. That is why I secured £1 million of capital investment in the June 2025 budget for the creation of the Olympic legacy fund, which I officially launched yesterday at the Pavilion in the Stormont estate. The fund will be delivered by Sport NI in partnership with Crowdfunder UK, which is the leading online rewards-based crowdfunding platform in the UK. It will support sports clubs and community groups in modernising facilities, purchasing essential equipment and strengthening the infrastructure that is needed to increase participation and performance. Applicants must be not-for-profit sports clubs, community groups or charities and must deliver activity that is affiliated to a sport that is recognised by Sport NI. They must be based in Northern Ireland and deliver benefits to people here. Awards will range from £1,000 to £50,000, and each successful project will receive 65% of its funding as a grant from the Department via Sport NI, with the applicant raising the remaining 35% through community crowdfunding. That crowdfunding element is an innovative aspect of the fund. It allows local communities to show their support for projects, builds wider engagement and ownership and leverages additional investment into grassroots sport. Crowdfunder UK's platform makes that process straightforward and accessible for communities across Northern Ireland. Applications are now open, and Sport NI will oversee the process, providing guidance and support to ensure that clubs of all sizes and capacities can benefit. I expect the first awards to be made later this financial year, with projects beginning to deliver benefits for communities very soon thereafter.

The Olympic legacy fund is about far more than bricks, mortar and equipment. It is about harnessing the inspiration of our athletes and investing it directly back into our communities. It is about giving everybody opportunity, whether to pursue their goal of standing on an Olympic or Paralympic podium, competing at a local club or simply enjoying the lifelong benefits of sport. The achievements of our medal winners, along with all the Olympians and Paralympians who competed in Paris, will be remembered for many years. However, I want their true legacy to be measured in the opportunities that we now create, in the clubs that grow stronger, in the facilities that are modernised and in the communities that come together through sport. The fund represents a significant investment in that future, and I look forward to seeing it deliver for communities across Northern Ireland.

I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. We welcome any and all investment in sport. The fund should inspire and empower aspiring sportspersons to realise their potential and dreams and help to create a new generation of Olympic heroes and elite performers. Even more importantly, it should increase and maximise participation across a range of sports, with all the benefits that that brings. What steps will be taken to disseminate information, encourage applications and ensure a fair geographical spread of the funding?

Mr Lyons: First, it is important to note that all eligible clubs and groups across Northern Ireland, regardless of geography or sport, will be able to apply. It is certainly my intention to make sure that we see a wide spread geographically and across different sports and all communities. I have been in this position a long time now, and people come to me and ask, "Is there any funding available for my club?", and I have to say that there is nothing available at this time or that there are no funding opportunities available through Sport NI. That is why I have introduced the fund and what I am trying to change.

The fund will be monitored as we go. It will be a rolling programme, and I will certainly not be opposed to intervening to make sure that, if we are not seeing the interest that we would like from certain sports or categories or if there is a geographical imbalance, I look at resources that can be put in place so that people are aware of the funding opportunities that I am now making available.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I welcome the Minister's statement. It is fantastic to see investment going into sport across all levels. I attended the event in the Odyssey. I would have been delighted to attend yesterday's event. I am starting to worry about the Minister hiding his light under a bushel. He did not let any of us know that it was going on. I am sure that lots of Committee members would have loved to be there. I should declare an interest and say that I attended St Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh, so I am delighted to see investment going there, although I have obviously not been as successful as Daniel on the sporting field.

Minister, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability of the £1 million investment, given that the Committee has not had any oversight of it up to this point? Why was a decision taken to proceed with launching the fund without prior scrutiny by the Committee despite the fund's cross-cutting significance for communities and sport? It is welcome that it is cross-cutting, but we would have loved to see it.

Mr Lyons: First, I assure the Member that I will never hide my light under a bushel. I will always be forward in telling people what I am doing. I am here today, without any media statements having been released about it beforehand, because I wanted to come to the House first, because I am answerable to the House. The statement was not released beforehand, and I took the opportunity to come here first, because I wanted to hear from Members. I am more than happy to make sure that all Members are aware of what I am able to deliver on behalf of communities right across Northern Ireland.

The criteria for the fund are very simple. Applicants need to be operating in Northern Ireland, and it needs to benefit people in Northern Ireland. Applicants need to be not-for-profit groups, whether that is a sports club or a charity, and they need to ensure that they are delivering a sporting element in sports that are recognised by Sport NI. It is very simple and straightforward, and I will be more than happy to ensure that, if necessary, officials are made available to brief the Committee further. However, it is a very simple and straightforward process.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, before I call the next Member, I say this: most people will be trying to name their favourite sports clubs and organisations — I want to add Larne Swimming Club — but can we focus on questions, please?

Ms Forsythe: Minister, the Olympic legacy fund is very welcome. I was at the SSE Arena with you, and it was brilliant to join in the celebration of our local sports heroes. This fund is the first time that we are able to support all the smaller sports clubs that so often miss out on the ability to avail themselves of public money. Minister, what protections are in place to make sure that one sport does not dominate the fund and that the smaller clubs and organisations get a fair chance to participate?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I appreciate the Member raising that issue, because it is important that everyone is aware of the fund and that all clubs feel that they have the ability to apply on an equal basis. There will certainly be monitoring of the fund and the applicants to make sure that there is a fair spread. I have said before that many people contact me asking what funds are available but nothing is there. A lot of clubs make a huge difference to the lives of people in their local community. That will be monitored. We look at that at the minute. We are testing the process and allowing people to apply, but if changes need to be made, I will make sure that they are made.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, getting money out to grassroots sports clubs is always welcome, so thank you very much for that. I want to clarify something. You said that the Crowdfunder platform is being used. If a group were to apply for £50,000, the amount that that group would have to raise itself — the 35% — would be £17,500. However, if the group uses the Crowdfunder platform, the fees would deduct £1,120. Do groups have to use Crowdfunder, or can they use something else? As someone who has been involved with fundraising for decades, I know that Crowdfunder is quite expensive.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for that question. Crowdfunder is the platform that we are using. We will look into any issues that exist in relation to fees, but I hope that she can understand the need for us to ensure that a contribution is made. As I said in my previous answer, this fund is something new. We have not done this sort of thing before. I am willing to try these things out, to test them to see what works and does not work and to bring in additional requirements or additional flexibilities if required. All that can be kept under consideration and, if necessary, reviewed.

Mr Allen: As someone who knows the importance of sport and has had the honour of competing on an international stage, I welcome the fund. It will be welcomed by many grassroots clubs and organisations. Minister, how did the Department arrive at the determination to split the funding between government funding and the 35% required to be raised through Crowdfunder? Do you feel that that will potentially be a barrier for smaller clubs?

Mr Lyons: No, I hope that it will not be a barrier and that many people in the area will get behind it. It will depend on the overall funding that is required for the club. In setting the amount that needs to be brought in by crowdfunding, we tried to find that balance to make sure that clubs had a stake in it and a contribution to make. At the same time, we tried to make sure that it was not out of reach for some people. We believe that where that has landed is fair.

Again, I decided to go ahead, test it and try it out, because I saw an issue and a problem in that a lot of clubs were not getting the support that they required. I am bringing the fund forward. It is new, and, as I said, I will keep it under review.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Will the Minister outline what he and his Department will do to make sure that the fund is promoted so that all sports clubs and community groups are able to access it?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I hope that I have reiterated that. In my statement, I outlined the fact that I want to make sure that everybody knows about the fund and is aware of it. We will certainly promote it through departmental and Sport NI channels. I hope that all Members take the opportunity to encourage people to apply.

Ms Brownlee: I, too, welcome the statement. Any investment in sport is absolutely fantastic.

Minister, in our constituency, we have a fantastic wrestling club, the Barbarians Wrestling Club NI. It is in dire need of equipment, but it requires the like of a specialist mat. Can that be acquired under the fund?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue. I have been to the Barbarians Wrestling Club. I did not take part on that night, because it was mostly seven- to 10-year-olds who were there. I fancied my chances, but I did not take part.

That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to help clubs that are in need. That is the type of equipment that that club needs, although I know that it has other challenges as well when it comes to some of its space. We are trying to make sure that such clubs have equipment. I do not want young people to be turned away from taking part in a sport in which they may do really well and go really far simply because of a lack of equipment. That is why we are bringing the fund in. It will absolutely be able to help clubs such as Barbarians and others.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Given the qualification of the Ireland men's hockey team in 2016 and 2024 and the women's hockey team in 2020, with all three teams having been captained by local players, it is clear that we are producing Olympians in that sport. Minister, you will be aware of Ulster Hockey's recent report, which looked at the state of each hockey pitch and identified what is needed at each site. Will you commit to engaging with Ulster Hockey to see how hockey clubs across Northern Ireland can be facilitated in applying to the fund?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to do that. I have heard about the need that exists in hockey, as, unfortunately, it does in a lot of other sports. Certainly, hockey clubs will be able to apply, because what the Member mentioned certainly meets the criteria. I look forward to being able to deliver for hockey, as well as many other sports, and, hopefully, getting to the position where we are able to add to the fund as time goes on, so that all that need can be met.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister. How will community benefit and objective need be scored as part of the scoring criteria?

Mr Lyons: We will not have scoring criteria; it is a rolling application. Essentially, projects will come forward, and we will then allocate money. If the criteria and the crowdfunding requirements are met, those projects will go forward.

Mr Brett: As the statement makes clear, athletes inspire us all. With that, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to congratulate my constituent Kyle, who made his professional debut at Windsor Park at the weekend and won. I invite you, Minister, to his second professional fight at Mossley Mill in November.

Minister, will the fund include clubs that focus on those with disabilities to ensure that they receive the support and funding that they need? I recently had you out at Antrim and Newtownabbey Disability Football Club, which is the only all-ability football team in our borough. Will that team be able to apply to the fund?

Mr Lyons: I congratulate the Member's constituent, and I look forward to being invited to that event. I was delighted to join the Member a few months ago, and it was an excellent and inspiring visit. Huge credit has to go to those who give up their time to ensure that that is organised. They are under a lot of pressure with facilities and all the other requirements that are on them. Huge congratulations to them and to all those who are involved in sport throughout Northern Ireland and give up their time.

The Member is absolutely right to ask that question. I can confirm that the fund will be open to all groups that are affiliated with sport. I look forward to seeing those applications coming in and, hopefully, that being taken forward, because sport is for everybody.

Mr McHugh: Cuirim fáilte roimh a ráiteas anseo inniu.

A great welcome to your statement, Minister. The use of online crowdfunding platforms as a fundraising tool, which you have already referred to, will be second nature to many clubs. Will other clubs that prefer a different means of fundraising still be included in the scheme?

Mr Lyons: We will use the crowdfunding platform. I know that that might be new to some people, which is why Sport NI will be on hand to offer guidance and advice to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his statement, which shows that he is interested not just in celebrating our Olympic athletes but in investing in future ones. On that basis, does he plan the scheme to be a one-off or to sustain the Olympic legacy investment into future years?

Mr Lyons: That is certainly my intention. I want to see it go forward, because this funding allocation alone will not meet all the need that exists or the future need. It is certainly my intention, as long as I am in post, to ensure that it can continue. We can tweak it, improve it and look at what might need to change. I see the demand, and I want to meet it. Let us see how far it can go. Certainly, my intention is to keep it going.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his statement. As others have said, every penny invested in sport is really welcome. I associate myself with the Minister's comments about our athletes and their success. Half of the South's Olympic medals came from our incredible athletes from the North. The context is that £1 million is spent here and £230 million is being spent in the South. Have you had any engagement with any Minister in the Southern Government on the Shared Island Fund to look at increasing the money that is available here to ensure that, in the future, our athletes have the facility in the longer term for more money to be invested in them and to harness sport for reconciliation?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I have engaged with Southern counterparts around possibilities for the Shared Island Fund to be used for sport. The Member will be aware, I hope, that, in the next few weeks, further announcements could be made about opportunities for Northern Ireland that have a cross-border element. He will have to wait and see. I will, of course, bring it to the House so that there can be proper scrutiny of that announcement.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I warmly welcome your statement, investment in sport and nourishment of the dreams and ambitions of young athletes, encouraging them to reach for the stars when it comes to sporting achievement: "Citius, altius, fortius", or "Higher, faster, stronger". I see the potential of this island and the North to become a hotbed of sporting endeavour, excellence, participation and achievement. Minister, can you become the driving force behind a new paradigm of sporting excellence, endeavour and participation, not just at the Olympic and elite level but at grassroots levels, from toddlers through to grandmas and grandpas, across sporting platforms across the island?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin, we enjoyed your speech. Thank you very much indeed.

Minister, over to you.

Mr Lyons: My goodness, we have a positive Mr McNulty today. He is in good form. That is great to see. Of course, is it any wonder that he is in good form? We have a good announcement and a Minister who is driving forward investment in sport and looking at new and innovative ways to ensure that sport is funded in a way that makes a difference to communities across Northern Ireland.

Yes, I will be — oh, there we have it: typical negativity from Mr Durkan, who is shaking his head. I am very positive about what we are able to do. We will get on and deliver it. Mr McNulty is absolutely right to say that this should be for supporting people of all ages and from all backgrounds across all sports. I look forward to doing that.

Mr McMurray: I note that, last week, Mary Peters was at the 5k and that, this week, we have the World Athletics Championships, so it great to see sport at all levels, which is always to be welcomed.

Has a full equality impact assessment been done of the requirement for smaller, less affluent clubs to raise money? Is there a risk that larger clubs will be able to access more funding for similar-sized projects? As has been said, everyone wants to see clubs of all sizes benefit, and there are many small clubs in rural constituencies.

Mr Lyons: The fund is open to everybody, and everybody can apply for funding on an equal basis. Any issues that arise will be considered as part of the monitoring process, which can be reviewed if necessary. The fund is, however, open to everybody on an equal basis to apply for funding at levels from £1,000 to £50,000. I am confident in the requirements, but any changes that are needed will, of course, be made.

Mr Gaston: I join in with the warm words of welcome from Members for the Minister's statement.

Minister, I want to know what you are doing to address the scandal in sports such as swimming, cycling, rowing and boxing, where barriers are placed in the way of young athletes who want to represent the UK at the Olympics, with the default position being that they have to compete under the foreign tricolour. Surely, in 2025, the Sport NI policy of recognising only one governing body for a sport in Northern Ireland urgently needs to be changed.

Mr Lyons: First, I welcome the Member's comments welcoming the fund.

Mr Gaston makes a fair point. Under the arrangements that followed on from the Good Friday Agreement, people have the right to identify with whichever country they want to represent. [Interruption.]

There was sniggering and shaking of heads on the other side of the Chamber. I am fed up with those who talk most about the need to show respect not themselves showing respect. Everybody should be free to have the opportunity to represent Ireland or Team GB and NI. We should not snigger at the fact that some people want to have that choice. Unfortunately, some people do not have that choice, as barriers are sometimes put in the way. The issues are not straightforward — there are complexities — but I am working on issues in a number of sports to make sure that we can find a way through. Some of it, because of the way in which governing bodies work, has to be worked out at an international level, but people absolutely should be able to represent, play for and compete for whichever team they want, and that choice should be respected.

Ms Sugden: The fund is welcome. As constituency MLAs, we are asked about that type of funding, which has not seemed to exist until now. My only criticism is that there is probably not enough of it. Maybe the Minister can speak to his Executive colleagues about the need to invest in the fund.

I am interested in the partnership with Crowdfunder, and I am keen to understand how it came about. It is innovative and interesting. Is the partnership a formal one, and how are we taking it forward, given that it is a partnership with government?

Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member recognises that it is new and innovative. We are trying to get more out of the money that we have. We went with Crowdfunder UK so that we could do that and because of its experience. I am confident that the partnership will enable us to get more for the money that we put into it. If the Member has specific concerns to raise, I am happy to take them on board.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister, as others have done, for creating the Olympic Legacy Fund, which builds on the success of the Olympic Medallist Fund. For clarity, is it a rolling fund with no fixed deadline so that groups can apply to it and have their applications assessed straight away?

Mr Lyons: I welcome the Member's welcome for the work to improve investment in sport in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that there is no closing date. It is a rolling programme, so it will be up to clubs to make sure that they put in place the extra support that is required for the funding to be issued. We know the difference that funding can make to clubs that often feel that they do not have avenues for funding. I want to change that, and today is the start of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. Thank you very much indeed, Minister.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill.

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

The Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which I am bringing to Second Stage today, is an important step in meeting the challenges that my Department and NI Water face in continuing to deliver high-quality water services, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to put the Bill before you today.

The Bill is a key part of my three-pronged approach to addressing the challenges with our waste water infrastructure: to secure more funding from my Executive colleagues; to legislate for sustainable urban drainage to slow the flow of storm water, which is overwhelming the system; and to explore developer contributions. Following June monitoring, I allocated £11 million to NI Water to unlock 3,000 houses in the Derry area. Since my predecessor, John O'Dowd, and I came into office, we have provided ring-fenced allocations to enable the unlocking of waste water capacity for over 5,000 properties across the North. That is already greater than the 4,300 properties that NI Water had originally planned to connect, if fully funded, by the end of the current price control (PC) period in 2028, and it is only 2025. In total, my capital budget allocation to NI Water for this year is 90% of what, it identified, it could spend this year.

Our consultation on developer contributions has now closed, and officials are preparing options for my consideration. I have consistently said that innovative thinking and working in partnership hold the key to unlocking our waste water constraints. The recent announcement of the connection of 400 properties in my area in Newry shows what can be achieved when we challenge traditional thinking and focus on smarter, more sustainable solutions. That lies at the heart of my three-pronged approach, as does the Bill.

First, I wish to set out the context of the policies that the Bill will allow us to pursue once it is enacted. I am eager to hear Members' thoughts on the proposals, and I am happy to answer any questions that they may have. In March 2022, my Department launched a 12-week consultation on a range of policy proposals to update our existing legislation for the future provision of water, sustainable drainage and flood management services. The policy proposals were intended to enable improvements to NI Water's processes and to enable new and improved ways of reducing and mitigating flood risk. They will strengthen resilience during extreme weather events such as drought and help to facilitate more environmentally friendly solutions to managing water.

The effects of a changing climate are evident the world over, and it would be naive of us to assume that we are in any way immune to that. In recent years, we have seen warmer and drier summers and sporadic, unpredictable weather conditions. It is therefore vital that we have legislation in place to allow us to meet the challenges in how we manage, use and treat our water resources, future-proof the system and get on a path to integrating natural drainage systems into our waste water infrastructure more.

My Department originally consulted the public and stakeholders on a range of policy areas that included powers for NI Water to implement wider water shortage measures; arrangements to encourage developers to use sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) as the preferred drainage solution in new developments; and allowing NI Water to adopt certain privately owned drainage infrastructure constructed prior to 1 October 1973. They also included enhancing powers for NI Water to deal with drain and sewer miscommunications; allowing NI Water to register article 161 agreements in the Statutory Charges Register; and giving homeowner flood protection measures a statutory basis. Also included were enabling future amendment of the drainage environmental impact assessments and floods directive regulations as required; providing NI Water with a new power of entry to enable it to carry out works beyond the laying of pipes, including the construction of SuDS; and compensation arrangements with landowners in exchange for their land in order to facilitate the storage of floodwaters.

Whilst the responses to the policy proposals were overwhelmingly positive, I have noted some concerns about the proposals to provide NI Water with a new power of entry to enable it to carry out works beyond the laying of pipes, which I have already mentioned as regards including the construction of SuDS and the proposal on compensation arrangements with landowners in exchange for their lands facilitating storage of floodwaters. I have given those concerns due consideration and decided that both proposals will be revisited at a later date. I will not therefore seek to take those two policy proposals forward in the context of the Bill.

The consultation received 30 responses and closed on 3 June 2022. I publicly acknowledge the contribution of the individuals and organisations who took the time to inform our policy development. Consultees were widely supportive of the seven remaining policy proposals. The first proposal will allow for the expansion of the list of activities that NI Water may prohibit or restrict as part of a temporary hosepipe ban or temporary use ban. That will make available to NI Water a comprehensive list of water-conserving measures from which it may select to prohibit all or any, as necessity dictates. The powers that will be made available to NI Water under the proposed legislation are comparable to those in other jurisdictions. Approval of that policy proposal among respondents was high, although concerns were voiced regarding the welfare of fish and animals if the filling of domestic ponds were to be included in the proposed measures. Given those concerns, I have decided that the filling of domestic ponds should not be included in the proposed list of prohibited activities to be included under that proposal.

It was also proposed that my Department should be given the power to issue future arrangements and guidance on the design, approval and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems to make SuDS the preferred means of dealing with surface water. Again, that was met with overall support. I will therefore provide my Department with the powers to make regulations in relation to the design, approval, operation and maintenance of SuDS. In tandem with the Bill, I will launch a public consultation on nature-based SuDS in new housing developments on Monday 22 September 2025. The consultation will seek views on the development and implementation of new policies and regulatory arrangements to ensure that nature-based SuDS, such as grass swales, rain gardens and detention ponds, are provided in new housing developments.

Another proposal is to allow NI Water to adopt and maintain sections of privately owned drainage infrastructure constructed prior to 1 October 1973, where such sections are critical to the effective operation of its network. Fixing and adopting old drainage infrastructure where it is critical to the operation of NI Water's network would ensure that failing drainage no longer caused damage to the environment or harm biodiversity, and I am therefore providing NI Water with the power to adopt pre-1973, private drainage infrastructure that is critical to the effective operation of the sewerage network.

The next proposal will provide NI Water with the power to enter premises to fix drainage miscommunications and recover the cost from the landowner in instances where the landowner refuses entry and refuses to repair the miscommunication themselves. It is not currently possible for NI Water to register article 161 agreements on the Statutory Charges Register. Those are agreements between a developer and NI Water for the adoption of certain infrastructure. I will therefore provide NI Water with the power to register article 161 adoption agreements and bonds in the Statutory Charges Register. That will enable solicitors and conveyancers to access the records of any ongoing obligations that lie with a piece of land at a single point. Following discussions with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the registrar of titles, I am confident that allowing that power is the optimum solution to providing a more streamlined and transparent process to assist the conveyancing process in the North.

Responses to the proposal to enable the Department to introduce powers for a substantive homeowner flood protection grant scheme to residents whose properties are susceptible to flooding were very positive. My predecessor, John O'Dowd, specifically instructed officials to ensure that applicants are not prevented from availing themselves of the homeowner flood protection grants if there are plans for a future flood alleviation scheme. I intend to carry that important policy forward. I recognise the importance of helping people to protect their homes from flooding. Whilst we cannot prevent all flooding, we can reduce the impacts with appropriate improvements and development. That is exactly why, in July, I announced an increase in the threshold for the homeowner flood protection grant scheme from £10,000 to £13,700 to take into account inflationary increases. The eligibility criteria will also be improved to streamline the application process. I will therefore provide my Department with the power to develop a substantive scheme so that the current pilot scheme will have a sound legislative basis. Further consultation and new regulations will be required for a new scheme.

My final proposal is to provide powers for my Department to amend, update or revoke the Drainage (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 and the Water Environment (Floods Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. The powers are being taken to replace the powers that my Department had before the UK left the EU. I am not planning any such amendments at present; rather, the powers will be used as and when necessity dictates and will follow the normal consultation process. Any future regulations will be made by draft affirmative resolution, which will allow for full scrutiny by the Assembly.

The majority of the Bill's provisions require commencement orders to introduce them, following Royal Assent.

I will be happy to address any questions that Members may have.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Before I call the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome Peter to his position. We pass on our regards to Deborah Erskine.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will indulge me for a moment so that I may take the opportunity to record the Committee's gratitude and mine for Deborah's work. She is stepping back from political duties. As most people are aware, she is expecting a baby and is in the last stage of her pregnancy. Hopefully, she is doing something more interesting and relaxing than watching the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill today. I certainly hope that she is, but I suspect that she is not; she is probably watching us. That gives me a great opportunity to pass on my best wishes to her. I hope to see her later in the week. It is an incredibly exciting time for her and Robert. I will also say to her that this lectern is hers: I am just trying to fill her shoes for a period.

I will speak on the Bill in my role as Committee Chair and may then make some short comments in my role as a DUP MLA.

Now that the Bill has been formally introduced, the Committee will conduct a more detailed examination of its provisions, should it pass Second Stage. As we have heard, the Bill will amend and enhance existing legislation to introduce measures to decrease pollution in watercourses; to enhance our ability to withstand extreme weather events, particularly flooding and drought, which the Minister mentioned, through strengthened flood resilience; to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems, known as "SuDS" — an incredibly apt acronym for such a drainage defence — to manage surface water; and to improve water resource management through the introduction of a more environmentally friendly solution .

The Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny of the outline proposals when it received oral evidence from departmental officials at its meeting in April last year. Following that session, the Committee received further evidence from representatives of Northern Ireland Water, which, as we all know, will be a key stakeholder throughout the Bill's passage. I record our thanks to the Department and to Northern Ireland Water for making themselves available to provide that evidence, which allowed the Committee to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the key aspects of the Bill.

In the course of the Department's oral evidence, the Committee noted that the Bill will include measures in seven policy areas. Understandably, the Committee will be keen to examine the scope of such measures, including activities that would be prohibited during a hosepipe ban to better manage water supplies during drought.

In addition, powers to introduce guidance and arrangements for the use of sustainable drainage systems, known as SuDS, will play an important role in supporting the legislation's implementation across Northern Ireland, should the Bill be enacted.

The Bill also contains provisions to enable Northern Ireland Water to adopt private drainage infrastructure that was built — the Minister just reflected on this — before 1973, which will be of obvious and critical benefit to the overall network. The Committee will undoubtedly be interested to examine the particular circumstances envisaged that could be constituted to benefit the network to mitigate flood or environmental damage. Furthermore, provisions to enhance the powers to deal with misconnections to the network, which, as we all know, can be a source of water pollution, will also undoubtedly be of interest to the Committee's scrutiny processes.

As every Member will know, Northern Ireland Water has been operating from a very constrained financial position, and therefore I am sure that that will be an ongoing consideration. The Committee will be keen to examine Northern Ireland Water's assessment of its financial requirements to deliver the intended policy and legislative outcomes using these powers. That is particularly critical given the underinvestment in our water network, which, as we have all seen, is having a severe impact on our ability to build new homes and to facilitate economic growth due to a lack of capacity in the overall system. Whilst those funding constraints form part of a much wider issue that will not be solely resolved through the Bill, the additional powers in it can seek to deliver the much-needed incremental improvements to our network.

During the pre-legislative evidence, the Committee expressed some concern over the uncertainty of the funding available. Therefore, I am sure that the Committee will wish to explore that in more detail, now that the Bill is before us. These provisions have the potential to make a very positive impact and deliver intended policy objectives. However, without sustained and sufficient funding, they may simply be a power that cannot be effectively used. It is therefore important that the Committee seeks to examine all the provisions to ensure that the powers can be fully utilised to deliver against the Bill's legislative aims.

I turn to another key aspect of the Bill. Our ability to respond and manage our flood response has been tested over recent years due to the increasing trend of extreme weather events. Such events have an impact not only on infrastructure but on people's homes, as well as businesses. It is therefore critical that we seek to advance all possible preventative measures to minimise the risks and devastating impacts that floods can have and to more widely build capacity in our flood forecasting infrastructure to generate the much-needed, real-time data to provide a much swifter flood response. Undoubtedly, the Committee will seek to examine the key issues arising from such extreme flooding events and the support that is available to those who have been affected. Of particular interest to the Committee will undoubtedly be the provision that will put the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory basis. In its scrutiny, it may examine historical information around the uptake of the scheme and the forecasted funding requirements to ensure that the eligible homeowners can access the available support to make preventative improvements that minimise the devastating impacts caused by flooding.

Assuming that the Bill completes its Second Stage today, the Committee will take all the necessary time to consider its scrutiny and to develop a plan of whom it might wish to call to give evidence. I very much look forward to the continuance of the constructive engagement by both the Department and Northern Ireland Water that we have seen during the Committee's preliminary scrutiny to ensure that important issues contained in the Bill get the attention that they deserve. I assure the Minister that I and the Committee will work alongside her and her Department to ensure that we get the best and most effective legislation that we can.

If it is OK, I will make some short comments as a DUP MLA. I am encouraged that the Bill is at Second Stage. I also see the real and meaningful impact that effective legislation can have for everyone in Northern Ireland, businesses and homeowners. When I looked through the Bill last night and studied some of the clauses, I noted that some of them will make a real and meaningful impact in certain areas, and I referred to them in my speech as Committee Chair. I will pick up on one or two of them. How do we ensure that we have less pollution in watercourses? Obviously, there are the well-documented issues in Lough Neagh, but also in other watercourses. I am a fisherman, and when I read about fish kills in rivers, it breaks my heart, because the rivers take years to recover, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It just happens, and that is it. We will undoubtedly have a look at that in the course of this.

On my own experience of the impact that the legislation could have as it progresses, in my constituency, we are trying to build a play park. The money is there for it, and everything is in order to take it forward, but it is stuck in planning because of a disagreement between Northern Ireland Water and the planners. Northern Ireland Water has simply said, "Where is the offset drainage?" The children cannot have a play park because of some of the things that we are going to be looking at in the Bill. I share that real-world impact because some of those watching the debate may think that a Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill is not very thrilling, but it has a real-world impact.

The Committee, alongside the Department and the Minister, recognises that the Bill could elicit really positive changes for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to scrutinising its progress through the Infrastructure Committee.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak as the SDLP spokesperson on infrastructure and also as a member of the Infrastructure Committee. I welcome the comments from the Minister; it is long after time. The Minister is very good at sharing the blame when things go wrong in her Department. She needs to share some credit here: this process was initiated by my former colleague Nichola Mallon. Obviously, it hit a brick wall along the way as the Assembly was down because Sinn Féin and the DUP walked away from this place for five years.

Minister, your three-pronged approach deals with SuDS and with seeking funding from your Executive colleagues. Good luck with that one. Maybe you can speak to your predecessor, John O'Dowd, who probably knows about the funding crisis in NI Water and the Department, and you might be able to curry favour. You are also exploring developer contributions, and, obviously, that will mean higher house prices. That is something to recognise. I am interested to know whether AECOM and Arup have been consulted.

I will go through the clauses one by one, and I have a few notes about them. Clause 1 is about temporary hosepipe bans, and that makes sense. It is probably about education more than enforcement, and it is a little bit of treating the symptom and not the problem.

Will clause 2 show flexibility and imagination in relation to the incorporation of new technologies and offering SuDS? Is NI Water on board with the SuDS offer? Has it agreed to all the proposals? Is it about separation, reed beds or attenuation? Are oversized pipes and manholes the answer to SuDS, as is now? Some 25 years ago, I worked in an engineering practice in Dublin, Moylan Consulting Engineers. I will give a shout-out to Patrick Obdebeck, Paul O'Connell, Darragh Aiken, Lars Schneider, Hunter Jenkins, Niamh Ennis and Paul O'Callaghan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to get back to the point.

Mr McNulty: I am almost there. Those colleagues and that company taught me a lot about engineering. They taught me about the standards of professionalism, about writing, about project management and about building relationships with clients, planners, statutory authorities, councils and contractors. I say that because in Dublin, 25 years ago, we were designing SuDS schemes. What has taken us so long here? What the hell is going on? SuDS are not an optional bolt-on but a design necessity for planning and development.

Clause 3 is about issuing guidance. It is probably more about education than it is about enforcement. By the by, I support clause 5 absolutely. It is about reducing storm water volumes and — I cannot read my own writing — slowing down flows. That makes sense and is long overdue.

Clause 6 is about flood protection grants. Are those not already in place? I thought that grants were already going to flood protection, but, yes, I support the clause absolutely. Clause 7 is titled "Flood risk: assessment and management". Really, are we not already doing that?

Clause 8 is titled "Drainage works: environmental impact assessment". Really, are we not already doing that? Clause 9 is titled "Scope of regulations under sections 7 and 8". It is OK. Clause 10 is OK.

Clause 11 is titled "Unlawful sewer communication: remedies". Where does the culpability lie? Who pays? If I am a developer who purchases a site, and it has issues historically, who is responsible? With whom does the liability rest?

Clause 12 is titled "Adoption by sewerage undertaker: removal of restrictions". It is OK. Clause 13 is titled "Supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional provision etc.". It is OK. Clause 14 is OK. Clause 15 is OK. I think that clause 15 is the Minister's favourite clause.

If Members will bear with me, I have a few other pointers. NI Water has to be flexible in its approach to SuDS and adopt new technologies. Those need to be approved via the planning approval process prior to the article 161 application stage. Are the Department, NI Water and planning services on the same page? NI Water's 'Sewers for Adoption' needs updated, as it was last revised in 2010.

I am supportive of the Bill's proposals, so get a move on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Cathal Boylan.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Pre-release testing is a vital part of public protection and the prisoner rehabilitation work that is undertaken in our prisons. Most prisoners go through the various stages of pre-release testing successfully and reintegrate into the community. However, a small number continually fail or abuse the process by going unlawfully at large. I have met victims of crime and political representatives, and I share their concerns about the small number of prisoners who do not take the opportunities afforded to them and the impact that their behaviour has on victims and their families.

I have asked the Northern Ireland Prison Service to review what further steps can be taken to manage individuals who raise serious concerns during pre-release testing. That includes what can be done to strengthen the risk management of those individuals and the sanctions that they will face if they go unlawfully at large. That work is in progress, and I can provide further information once it has been completed.

Mr Brooks: Minister, it is not enough just to implore others to do more. It is clear that we now have serial absconding from our prisons that is causing confidence issues for the general public and hurt for victims. What are you doing to ensure that it does not happen on a regular basis?

Mrs Long: Well, I did not ask others to do more. I instructed one of my officials — a senior official, the director general of the Prison Service — to undertake a review in order to look at how we can better balance resources. Pre-release testing is critical in ensuring that, when people are released into the community, they are released into the community safely. Most prisoners are released during the part of the testing that leads up to consideration by the Parole Commissioners in order to facilitate their proper assessment of the risks attendant on that person. I have set out what I, as Minister, intend to do. As I said, I will inform the House once that review has been completed.

Ms Egan: Will the Minister please outline the role that pre-release testing plays in the rehabilitation of offenders?

Mrs Long: As I said, pre-release testing is a vital part of rehabilitation work. It tests an individual in a structured, measured and risk-assessed manner prior to consideration by the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. It provides additional evidence for the Parole Commissioners to enable them to apply their statutory tests, and it helps them to decide whether to direct the release of a prisoner on licence. Prisoners are initially tested under the supervision of prison staff, progressing to short periods of unaccompanied release before potentially progressing to living and working in the community. At every stage of the process, the level of risk that they present is kept under constant review. The reality is that, by the very nature of testing, some people will fail the test by not progressing through any stage, even the early stages, or by being returned to prison, while others will progress successfully into the community. It is also the case that, if we do not test, the Parole Commissioners may not have the evidence that they need to make a properly informed decision about the final release of an individual on licence, and we could be challenged through a legal review.

Mr Beattie: The Minister is absolutely right: pre-release testing is incredibly important. I have no issue with that; it just needs to be tightened up. However, I have to say that, when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong, as we have seen with Jim McFadden's family, who have been treated absolutely appallingly and who have been kept in the dark for the past 10 months about their dad's murderer, James Meehan. Given the fiasco around that, would it not be fair for the Minister to meet the family, listen to their anguish and their story and apologise to them in person for the absolutely chaotic way that we have dealt with that?

Mrs Long: I do not accept the Member's characterisation of the situation, but I accept that, by going unlawfully at large, James Meehan has caused further distress and anguish to the McFadden family. I have apologised publicly to the McFadden family for how it has been handled. I have offered a meeting with the McFadden family. I am more than happy to meet them and listen directly, as I am with all victims.

A review was undertaken in Magilligan immediately following James Meehan's absconding. Additional safeguards have been implemented as a result. The lessons learned from that short-term review have also been shared with our other establishments.

Pre-release testing is an important part of rehabilitation and resettlement into the community. It is worth remembering that around 4,000 prisoners leave our system each year. Of those, we are dealing with a tiny number who do not pass their pre-release testing regime for successful rehabilitation. That does not diminish, however, the impact that this situation has on individual families or the pain that they express.

While prisons do not get everything right — I will be the first to say that — our prison staff are committed professionals who are trying their best every day to support and challenge prisoners to change and to make Northern Ireland safer.

Mrs Long: The past few years have seen an exponential rise in the proliferation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, which research shows are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and are yet another form of sexual abuse and exploitation. Those images perpetuate, promote and normalise misogyny and the sexualisation of women. They dehumanise and objectify them. The harm that they cause is incalculable. My aim is to address that growing threat and the harm that it causes. That is why, earlier this year, I announced in the Assembly my intention to table an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to provide for Northern Ireland-specific deepfake offences in order to ensure that all aspects of offending in that area are captured. In July, I launched a public consultation on legislative proposals on that. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, I intend to ensure that all aspects of that despicable behaviour are captured. Specifically, I am seeking views on proposals on criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images, requesting their creation and sharing and threatening to share such an image. I believe that those proposed offences would cover the full range of the abhorrent behaviours that are associated with such images.

I am also seeking views on the inclusion of specific motivations that will include situations in which a person is carrying out the behaviour to humiliate, alarm or distress the person who is depicted in the image or for the purpose of sexual gratification. That distinction is important to identify those who pose a risk of future sexual harm. Where sexual gratification is proven, risk management measures, such as the requirement to notify police, would be applied. The proposed offences would provide further protections and add significantly to the suite of measures that are already in place to protect people from intolerable sexually motivated behaviours and to eradicate violence against women and girls.

The consultation closes on 6 October, and I encourage Members and the public to respond.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Will she outline how those proposals fit within the wider work that she is undertaking to protect people from sexually motivated behaviours and the work on the eradication of violence against women and girls?

Mrs Long: Members will know that I have been committed to strengthening the law where possible to try to stop those blights on our society. In the previous Assembly mandate, I introduced a new domestic abuse offence that marked a step change by capturing controlling coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional or financial abuse. I also introduced new offences of stalking, upskirting, downblousing, cyberflashing and four new offences to tackle adults who pretend to be a child with a view to sexual grooming. I also created a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation to provide greater protection against behaviour that is often abused by abusers to exert control and create fear, serving as a precursor for further violence and closely linked to domestic homicide.

I believe that those offences have added real, tangible and valuable protections against sexual abuse and violence. However, I do not believe that we can stand still on those issues, so the law is being further strengthened by a number of provisions in the UK Crime and Policing Bill, which is making its way through Westminster. The Assembly agreed the first of two intended legislative consent motions (LCMs) on that on 23 June.

I also want to look at the provision that amends the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual. That provision is in section 79 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and extends to Northern Ireland. A new provision of the possession of, advice on or guidance about creating sexual abuse images will also plug a gap by bringing AI-generated images within the scope of the offence. There are a number of other things that I hope to do, but time will not allow me to do them all.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answers and for her work in the area. As someone who was a victim of a deepfake some three and a half years ago, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister on a number of round-table discussions to take things forward on that. As I said, that happened three and a half years ago. It is hard to believe that it is so long ago, but it opened my eyes to how much the PSNI's hands are tied by the limitations in the law on making prosecutions on electronic offences, and it made me particularly concerned for my children and other children when thinking about the safeguards that will be in place when fake images go into mass circulation. What is the Minister's view on how we can keep the law up to date in the digital age?

Mrs Long: There are a number of elements to that. First and foremost, there was a significant delay when the Assembly was not here, and that created problems. The deepfake image offence was originally to be brought forward as part of the Crime and Policing Bill that is going through Westminster — we would have simply piggybacked on those offences — but, unfortunately, it was moved as an amendment to a different Bill earlier in the mandate, and, because it was an amendment, we were unable to avail ourselves of it. That is why the Committee graciously said that we could take a further amendment through at Consideration Stage.

The law is one part of it, but the removal of the material is the other part. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, there is a requirement on hosts of sites on which images and other material have been posted to remove it quickly. It does not provide a definition of "quickly". As the Member will know, that is Westminster legislation, because it relates to communication offences, but Ofcom is working on defining what speedy removal is and how it should be undertaken. That should help with protection.

Undoubtedly, there is a genuine fear about the increase in the sophistication of the images. They are not what they used to be, with the rather sad cut-and-paste things that you could identify by eye. Most of the images are almost unidentifiable from a real image by the naked eye. There are also issues around AI-generated child pornography, for example, which have raised concerns. Thankfully, those are already covered in legislation, because they do not need to be images of real sexual abuse in order to qualify as images of sexual abuse. However, there is a need for us to refresh the law, constantly. There is also an issue of resource, because, as things become more complex, the amount of time that it takes to research and investigate those crimes becomes more complex. My recent visit to the cybercrime centre showed how there have been developments in that space that are allowing the police to speed up their investigations.

Mr McNulty: The Minister may have answered some of my question. There is an expectation of regulation, enforcement and adherence to reasonable standards from social media companies, in particular. What discussions has the Minister had with the technology firms, particularly international firms, about improving their inadequate response to the posting of explicit deepfake images on social media?

Mrs Long: The issues that the Member refers to fall into the reserved space rather than the devolved space. However, I have, obviously, had contact with Ofcom, which is responsible for implementing the Online Safety Act and carrying out oversight of it. I have been engaging directly with Ofcom about our concerns, and I am briefed regularly by it on the work that it is doing to develop codes of practice and guidance for those bodies. I have also raised my concerns with the Home Office directly, because, if there is to be any further tightening of that legislation, which, I know, some of us certainly believe that there could be, particularly around anonymity, it would be for them to take it forward rather than us, because it is a reserved matter. It is something that I am engaged with regularly.

Mrs Long: Proposals to extend the use of penalty notices, which were provided for in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, are a significant element of the out-of-court disposals work stream of the speeding up justice programme. That programme seeks to minimise avoidable delay in the criminal justice system, will be a key tool in reducing demand on the formal system from lower-level offending and will help to redirect scarce resources to more serious offences, such as serious sexual offences. That work is part of my Department's wider Programme for Government commitments to explore options for expanding out of-court disposals.

The Criminal Justice Board, on which I, as Justice Minister, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions sit, along with other senior justice leaders, agreed to consult on proposals to secure views to inform policy development. The Police Service of Northern Ireland presently has the power to issue a penalty notice for a number of public-order-related offences, such as indecent behaviour, criminal damage, disorderly behaviour, and resisting, obstructing or impeding police.

A working group led by the PSNI, with representatives from my Department, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the NI Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS), identified a number of offences that may be suitable to be included within the penalty notice arrangements, insofar as the specific offending in each case is of a suitably low level. Those proposals are being taken forward through a departmental consultation exercise, as is normal process.

Penalty notices will not be suitable for all cases involving those offences on which the Department is consulting. Most cases, due to their nature, will continue to be prosecuted at court, and it is my intention to increase the maximum sentence available for some of the offences at the more serious end of the spectrum. However, for cases at the very lowest end of the offending spectrum, penalty notices offer a flexible alternative to prosecution and help to resolve cases more quickly, thus reducing pressure on police, prosecutors and the courts, which would allow more serious offending to be targeted.

The consultation on the expansion of out-of-court disposals is due to run until 28 September. I will carefully consider responses before bringing forward any firm proposals.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I appreciate that we are at an early stage, but there is a danger in that it seems as though we are not going hard after those who commit offences. We read about attacks on police officers. Universally across the Chamber, we have been supportive of all of our blue-light services, and we should continue to be. We should in no way minimise attacks on officers or anyone in the blue-light services. Minister, I ask you to reflect on your thoughts and rationale because, while it sounds good to minimise delays in the justice service, that should not be at the expense of justice.

Mrs Long: It certainly will not be at the expense of justice. As the Member knows, in the sentencing Bill that is due to be introduced later this year, we will increase the penalty for attacks on anyone providing a public service or engaged in public duties, including police officers. It will raise the sentence available in the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. This proposal is to deal with the level of offending that currently would either not be prosecuted or would not reach the threshold for prosecution in the Crown Court. We are talking about stuff at the lower end of the spectrum that might fall foul of not being prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court.

The proposal was brought forward by the PSNI because it was keen to have a quick response to low-level offending. The experience is that having a quick response to low-level offending, whether that is a financial penalty or some other out-of-court disposal, means that people are less likely to reoffend and less likely to come to the attention of the police again. To be clear, however, if they reoffend within, for example, 12 months of having a penalty notice given to them, they cannot get a second penalty notice; they will then face prosecution.

You are right: we will not lose sight of justice in all of that, but we have to think about whether justice delayed serves the public. We need to ensure that there is a proportionate use of resources so that the most serious offenders are dealt with expeditiously, as well as low-level offending.

Mr O'Toole: Further to the previous question, Minister, there is clearly a strong argument for using out-of-court disposals and even increasing their use to free up court time and prosecutor time for other things. If they are going to be used for riotous behaviour and that riotous behaviour is aggravated by sectarian or race hate, should that not be an aggravating factor, and will it be in the sentencing Bill, which, I hope, we will see sooner rather than later?

Mrs Long: As it stands, the proposal is that offences that are aggravated by hate and motivated by a hate incident or are domestic would not be dealt with through one of the notices or orders.

Mr Dickson: Minister, along with out-of-court disposals, will you outline the wider work being undertaken in the speeding up justice programme?

Mrs Long: The programme is looking at the handling of cases and trying to get the most serious cases to court more quickly, because that, ultimately, is how we ensure the best protection of the public. It also allows us the best opportunity to work with offenders and deal with their behaviours. In addition, it is best for victims because they will have a much shorter wait for their case to be dealt with.

We are looking at five work streams: existing work on committal reform; existing and emerging work in the digital arena; and exploring other areas, including early engagement, court remits and, as I have said, out-of-court disposals. As you will know, the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill passed through the Assembly in October 2022. We are now working with justice partners on the next phase to allow cases to be transferred directly from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court.

Early engagement is looking at how police, the PPS and defence can work better together to expedite cases, ensuring that cases are in a good state of readiness when they come before the court. That should reduce the number of adjournments and ensure that there is no nugatory work being undertaken by prosecutors and police where there is already agreement on certain facts of the case. I am also looking at how we can better use technology to improve efficiency and support victims and witnesses through the process. We are looking at those issues seriously. Although we are currently focused on out-of-court disposals, they are only one element of the overall work that we are doing.

The latest departmental statistics indicate that the average time taken for a case to be dealt with from the date on which the offence is reported to the police is 189 days. That is a 16% improvement over the past three years. It is a key measure of how the system is performing overall, a sign that efforts to speed up the justice system are having an impact and an indication that we need to continue down that road and keep the pressure on.

Mr Burrows: The Minister said that the proposal to extend penalty notices applies only to lower-level offences. Will the Minister explain why one of the offences included is assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH), which includes breaking someone's nose, smashing someone's teeth out or rendering someone unconscious? Does she consider that AOABH can ever be a serious crime? If not, why is it in the proposal?

Mrs Long: As I explained, it is in the proposal because Mr Burrows's former colleagues in the PSNI suggested that it was one of the offences on which we should consult. Given that they were leading on that aspect of speeding up justice, I believed that it was important to consult on that. We will look at that, but there are lower levels of offending, as well as circumstances around offending that the police will consider.

If we go to out-of-court disposals, we will effectively widen the range of tools available to the PSNI in how they respond to offending. If a police officer has their nose broken, the person who did it will not simply get an out-of-court disposal; they may well face prosecution in the High Court for such an offence. However, there are lower levels of offending where it will be appropriate for an out-of-court disposal to be used. That is what we are trying to do. We are widening the PSNI's toolkit in terms of the resource that it has to put into investigating and prosecuting such issues, to ensure that it is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. This gives them the discretion to do that.

Mrs Long: Being able to voice and share an opinion is vital in any democratic society, and people should be able to do that freely. I note that the UK Government have responded to the report in question, highlighting the fact that free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including here in the UK, and I echo that view.

The right to freedom of expression is protected in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Freedom of speech is, however, a qualified right; it is not an absolute right and may therefore be subject to restrictions in certain circumstances. For example, boundaries exist when speech becomes hateful or is used to incite criminal or reckless conduct, and people behind such speech should feel the full force of the law in line with our international obligations.

My Department recognises the importance of and challenges around freedom of expression, including the need to balance the protection of human rights under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her comment on responsibility around freedom of speech and while I defend her right to have said it, does she regret calling a past Chairperson of the Justice Committee "male, stale and pale"? Will she apologise to the House? Is the Minister considering anything that would erode freedom of expression and speech in any of her proposed Bills?

Mrs Long: No, I do not regret it; indeed, the issue was looked at and dismissed, because it is so trivial. I am disappointed that the Member, who has just taken over the chairmanship of the Committee, has chosen this issue with which to open his engagement with me as Minister.

I assure the Member that I have no intention of bringing forward anything that would diminish people's right to free speech. It is interesting that those who cry most about the curtailment of their right to free speech are the first to take offence when other people exercise theirs.

Mr McGrath: Does the Minister agree that the proscription of Palestine Action, with 89 arrests in London recently as well as arrests in Northern Ireland, all for democratic and peaceful protest, is an affront and should be reviewed and reversed?

Mrs Long: The issue of which organisations are proscribed as terrorist organisations is for the UK Home Office. It would be inappropriate for me, as Northern Ireland Justice Minister, to opine on the responsibilities of the UK Government in excepted matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. I sought and received a briefing from the Home Office on its evidence base and rationale for the proscription. Given that live cases are involved, it would be inappropriate for me to express an opinion either way at this time, but I encourage the Member to raise it with the Home Office, should he wish to do so.

Mr Carroll: The Minister mentioned that it was a qualified right and talked about reckless conduct. I do not know the Minister's view, but I certainly was worried when I saw 100,000 people marching in London, maybe for different reasons but led by well-known fascist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson. I am concerned about any impact that that may have here.

Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression should exist for people who organise anti-racist and anti-fascist activities, including the organising of counterprotests to far right and fascist activities? How will she ensure that that right is protected?

Mrs Long: It is incredibly important that everyone have a right to their opinion, but, in a civilised society, those are qualified rights. The manner in which people express their opinion and the means by which they choose to do so are often regulated for the good order of society and to protect the rights of others with whom they share this space. It is therefore important that people be free to express and expound their views, but it is also important that they can do so safely and be properly protected.

I have no role to play in what Tommy Robinson does in London. It is well outside my jurisdiction. In this jurisdiction, however, we already have a well-established Parades Commission and well-established laws around public assembly. We need to respect the law, cooperate with the law and work via the law in order to make our opinions heard.

Miss Hargey: The Minister rightly touched on the fact that there are ongoing legal proceedings to challenge the British Government on proscribing Palestine Action. Will she join those proceedings as a third party?

Mrs Long: It would not be appropriate for me to join as a third party, and I know that the Member has tabled a question for written answer on the matter. It would not be an appropriate use of my Department's scarce resources for me to join as a third party in a case that is an excepted matter over which my Department has no responsibility or control. On that basis, I will therefore not be joining. The Member asked about issues to do with human rights and about other organisations that may wish to raise cause. They can, of course, apply to the court to be considered as a third party, but it would not be appropriate for the Department of Justice to do so, given its vires.

Mrs Long: All victims of domestic and sexual abuse face challenges that can have a significant impact on them. I recognise, however, that many victims in the LGBTQIA+ community face additional challenges around reporting, confidence and stigma. I recently opened an event to launch a report on the prevalence, nature and impact of domestic abuse as experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community in Northern Ireland. The research was carried out by HERe NI and was funded by my Department out of the victims of crime fund.

The report identified specific vulnerabilities and challenges experienced when a domestic abuse victim is a member of that community, including the fact that abusers will often use their victim's sexual orientation or gender identity to abuse them psychologically. The report also identified instances of prejudice or a lack of understanding from responding professionals, as well as the lack of tailored support to meet the specific needs of LGBTQIA+ victims, all of which the report noted can act as barriers to accessing justice and support. I have asked my officials to explore how we can address the gaps and break down the barriers that LGBTQIA+ victims face in coming forward and seeking help when subjected to domestic abuse.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. Following the report, how will the Minister ensure that LGBT+ victims are considered in the development of any new policy, legislation or services?

Mrs Long: We have already started on the journey of ensuring that we are as inclusive as possible of victims of domestic abuse and that they are recognised and supported. We still have further to go, and the report demonstrated that. Last year, along with the Health Minister, I jointly published a new domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which explicitly recognised that anyone can experience domestic abuse and that we need to tailor our responses to the needs of victims, particularly where they have additional vulnerabilities or challenges.

In re-procuring advocacy support services, we have made it a requirement that staff providing those services be trained to meet the needs of different groups of victims, including those who are LGBTQIA+, who may encounter additional barriers to accessing help or engaging with the criminal justice system. We have ensured that the support services that we fund must promote the fact that they are available to all victims and that they particularly reach out to more excluded or vulnerable groups. We have also recognised the need for an inclusive approach to be taken to awareness of social media. For example, our Still Abuse campaign included a range of scenarios and relationships, including abuse within a same-sex relationship and inter-familial abuse.

Ms Brownlee: Minister, I have worked, and continue to work, with a number of male victims of domestic abuse. They often raise with me the challenges that they face with accessing safe spaces and support, as well as with the associated stigma. That is particularly the case for males. What have the Minister and her Department done to increase support for male victims of domestic abuse?

Mrs Long: I very much welcome the opportunity to update Members on that. The first year of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy has seen a deliberate and focused exercise, of which the most recent report was one part, to build an evidence base in order to ensure that future interventions are effective, targeted and sustainable. That approach reflects our commitment to delivering meaningful change, not quick fixes, and ensures that the voices and experiences of all victims shape the way in which services are delivered and that the key gaps are identified. The coming years will be dedicated to addressing those gaps. The recent research on male victims that the Commissioner for Victims of Crime undertook, and the HERe NI report that I just referenced, will be vital drivers of that work in identifying the gaps. They provide valuable insight into the experience of victims, and will help us to decide how we prioritise our resources to give the best support that we can to every victim of domestic abuse.

I am already on record, however, about the real financial pressures that the justice system faces. We need to be properly funded and resourced to be able to meet what are largely unmet needs across society. We have the law in place, and we have the goodwill and practice, but we need the resource to ensure that it is sustainable and accessible for every single victim, and that we work as a society to challenge some of the cultural norms and expectations that are often a barrier, particularly to men, in reporting that kind of abuse.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: I meet the Chief Constable on a regular and ongoing basis, usually at least every month and often every fortnight. We have raised the issues of hate crime, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment and violence, and wider prejudice at pretty much every one of those meetings. It is a priority for me. I am incredibly concerned about it. It is a cancer in our society. It is destroying the fabric of our society. It is doing no one, neither the people who live in those communities traditionally nor the people who come to Northern Ireland to make it their home, any favours whatsoever.

It is important that there is a proper policing and criminal justice response. However, if Members are looking to me or the Chief Constable to police out the attitudes on which those incidents flourish, I have to say that that is not possible. That requires a whole-society approach, which is why I am working with colleagues in the Executive Office, the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy to look at how we can better support those who are vulnerable, and better invest in communities to tackle the underlying issues and challenge the narratives — false narratives in many cases — that are being exploited by those who simply seek to divide.

Mr McGlone: I agree absolutely with you, Minister. The issue is for political leadership, but involved in that will be the extra resource that the police and others require to tackle the issue. What ask has the Chief Constable made in that regard? How have you been able to facilitate that ask?

Mrs Long: The Chief Constable has made a number of asks, but the first and most important one was made during the period of riots when we needed to rely on mutual aid. We were able to get an additional £5 million for his budget to cover that. You will know that I am on record on saying that, whilst that was absolutely necessary and had to happen, it was, in many ways, another classic example of bad behaviour absorbing resources that could otherwise have been invested where they might have done some good.

The Chief Constable and I have been working together to develop a five-year plan: the first three years would be to regrow PSNI numbers to around the 7,000 that we have as a target, and the further two years would be to sustain that. We have first call on the resources for that to happen, which will, I think, have a big impact on neighbourhood policing. I am also hopeful that, in this round, when we are setting up a CSR period for three years, there will be the opportunity to secure the remaining funding that the PSNI needs so that we can grow police numbers. We cannot get through this without good neighbourhood policing and the work on the ground that allows communities to have confidence in the PSNI and allows the PSNI to respond in an appropriate manner when challenges arise.

I reiterate, however, that we cannot look only to policing when it comes to issues around hate. The crime is one thing, and, by then, people will already have been harmed, but the hate will have to be tackled by us all, not just by policing and justice.

Mrs Long: I absolutely will, not only as Justice Minister but as a Member of the legislative Assembly for East Belfast. There is absolutely no place in our society for the hate, racism and intimidation that we have witnessed on our streets not just in recent weeks but in recent months. I urge people not to get involved in that despicable behaviour and not to allow their frustrations with services in their neighbourhood to be displaced into targeting those who are similarly disadvantaged. I urge them to instead focus on working with their elected representatives to articulate their concerns and to work productively and, crucially, lawfully to address those concerns with those of us who are serious about wanting to see those communities improved and who will not tolerate sectarianism, hatred, violence or racism on our streets.

It is also important that I pay tribute to the Member who asked the question, because I know that he has spent quite a lot of time liaising with the PSNI locally on its response to those issues and on its information sharing with local MLAs. I thank him for his hard work on that.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for your kind words. Thank you also for your response. I certainly share your views on the abhorrent scenes that we are seeing from East Belfast on social media. Racism and so-called vigilantism have no place in Northern Ireland's future. Minister, what is your assessment of the importance of a cross-departmental and whole-society approach to tackling hate crime?

Mrs Long: It is essential. Ultimately, people would not be behaving in this way were there not those who are perpetually on social media, on mainstream media, in the press and in other places perpetuating falsehoods on immigration and false narratives about the level of immigration in Northern Ireland and the impact that it is having on our society. In turn, that is exploited by those who have serious issues with their own white supremacist, racist and other agendas. We need to be aware that that right-wing threat is serious not just here in Northern Ireland but right across the UK and beyond, and we need to treat it seriously. As an Executive and as politicians in the Chamber, we need to ensure that we are accurate in our information, we correct misinformation, we are temperate in the remarks that we make in the discussions that we have on those issues and that we redouble our efforts to ensure that those who wish to exploit local communities in that way are not given any airtime or opportunity to do so. It is really important that we do that collectively and consistently and not just at times of crisis.

Mrs Long: Powers are already available under the current disclosure regime. There is the power to ask, so if someone in the community has a concern about an individual and their interactions, they can ask the PSNI. There is also a power to tell, and the PSNI can use that when it believes that an individual's behaviour has come to its attention or when it has concerns about that person's engagements.

There are significant problems with wider disclosure. The first is that many of those whose information would be disclosed would then go to ground and their supervision under our supervision and notification rules would become more complex. The second problem is vigilantism in our communities, which we just talked about. There was quite a serious incident involving such vigilantism this summer, and we need to be very cognisant of that risk. Thirdly, and most importantly, if we provided a list of convicted paedophiles, it could create a false sense of security that there are only 200 paedophiles living in North Belfast and that we know where they are. The truth is that we do not know how many paedophiles are living in your constituency. Many will be undetected and will not have been convicted, and many are living amongst us. We best protect our society by using our right to tell and our right to ask, by treating anyone who is engaging with a child as a potential risk to that child and by taking those responsibilities seriously.

Mr Brett: Minister, we know that there are 200 people in North Belfast who have been convicted of sex crimes, but the right to disclose puts the burden on those who want to protect their local community. Why do you not believe that we should go further and ensure that that right is promoted across society? What work have you done as Justice Minister to encourage people's understanding of the fact that they have the right to apply for that information?

Mrs Long: I have raised that issue on a number of occasions in response to Members' questions in the Chamber and when questioned publicly about it. The right to ask the question is only one element. As I said, there is also a right to tell. We have very good public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland. We should not dismiss them or the work that is done by the Probation Board, police and others on those supervision requirements. It is important that we do that in a way that focuses on the protection of the child. The best way that we can protect children is to ensure that the rights to tell and ask are well known and that people can exercise them proportionately.

As I said, child protection is also about creating an awareness in society. The majority of children who are subject to sexual abuse and misconduct are victims of people who are known to them or are members of their family or immediate circle. That is the reality. The "stranger danger" that was all the rage when I was growing up is not the reality of child sexual abuse. We need a fit-for-purpose service and protection mechanism for these times. That also relies heavily on having proper, age-appropriate education so that children understand what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct and that, should anything happen to them, they have the confidence to tell someone and know that they have not done anything wrong.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for the question. The BBC 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' investigations highlighted that threat, but it also highlighted some of the successes in tackling and disrupting those routes, including work with the National Crime Agency (NCA). Border security and international relations is a reserved matter, so it falls outside my area of responsibility as Justice Minister, but I am concerned about the resource and societal implications that arise from the increasing use of Northern Ireland as a trafficking corridor that goes through these islands and onwards to Europe.

I wrote to the Home Secretary and drew her attention to the programme and asked that she urgently engage with her Irish counterpart to seek their cooperation and assurance that consideration is being given to whether additional measures are needed to address the issue for the protection of us all. I await her response, but it is important that, at a local level, we continue to work closely with operational partners to keep those harmful, illicit substances off our streets through the organised crime task force (OCTF) structures and that we work through those to ensure that people, particularly those in Northern Ireland, are protected.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, will you outline to the House what cross-border mechanisms, beyond those outlined in your previous answer, are open to you in tackling organised crime?

Mrs Long: I want people to be assured that robust mechanisms are in place for law enforcement agencies to work collaboratively and on a cross-border basis to tackle the threat posed by drugs through the joint agency task force (JATF). The cross-border policing strategy also acts as an overarching delivery strategy for the JATF's work, and one of its six priority areas focuses on drugs. I get six-monthly updates on the work of the task force through the intergovernmental agreement arrangements, and I then provide a statement to the Assembly on the relevant matters in that. Tackling harm caused by organised crime is also one of my key priorities. I continue to work closely with partners through the OCTF and JATF not only to manage the threat from drug-related crime, including on a cross-border basis, but to target those in the gangs and the supply routes that are used.

Separately from corresponding with the Home Secretary, I recently attended a UK-wide drugs ministerial meeting with the Health Minister. It provided an opportunity for us to shine a light on the Northern Ireland position, including those concerns, as we discussed things such as drug enforcement and prevention. I want to collaborate with our colleagues in these islands to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become a major route for drug trafficking through the islands and onwards to Europe.

Mrs Long: Matters to do with the family courts and scheduling of business more generally are largely judicial issues, but I referenced earlier in Question Time the work that is being done to speed up justice.

The options that we are looking at include out-of-court disposals, addressing, for example, the jurisdiction of some of the courts and looking at where there are alternative means of dealing with crimes.

We are working in the family courts space to promote alternative dispute resolution and mediation. We would very much like to see that, because we know that it is preferable to having to go through the courts. That is not always possible. Ultimately, however, the management of cases and the time that they take falls to the judiciary. Whilst we can try to streamline the processes and procedures that it has to follow, it is for the judiciary to do the scheduling.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, during questions to the Finance Minister, he responded to a question from me by stating as fact that there had been no £50 million underspend in what is called "financial transactions capital". In fact, as per his ministerial statement, earlier this year, on the out-turn for 2024-25, there was, as it says in black and white, a £50 million underspend in financial transactions capital. That may have been human error. Can the Speaker's Office advise on how we could seek a correction of the record?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising that. If he wants to put that in writing, we will look at it.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the new Chairperson to the Committee. I look forward to working with him. I also welcome Mr McNulty — he is not here — to the Committee. I extend my best wishes to Deborah and her family. Hopefully, she is watching, so I will give her a wee thumbs up.

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. I begin by thanking the Minister for bringing this important legislation to the Assembly. It is an important aspect of the Minister's three-pronged approach to address the issues around waste water infrastructure and how we live with water in the future. I know that the Minister is committed to doing everything that she can to find and implement solutions.

Addressing the challenge in waste water infrastructure is much more than an issue for the Infrastructure Minister; it is an issue that affects every aspect of public services from building new homes to hospitals to schools. The Bill aims to go some way towards making progress.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that face our waste water infrastructure and, by extension, NIW. I know that the Minister's intention for the Bill is, in part, to improve processes for NIW and allow for new ways to mitigate flood risk while supporting those who are impacted or potentially impacted by flooding occurrences. Collecting and storing rainwater in new and innovative ways by integrating natural drainage systems into our waste water infrastructure as the preferred drainage solution in new developments will enable water to be stored and released gradually into the network. That has the potential to help to address waste water overflows. Moreover, using more natural and sustainable drainage methods as a tool for living with water will ensure that we do not always use a concrete solution and instead integrate ponds and other drainage into new developments.

Other issues are covered in the Bill, such as the extension of the hosepipe ban. It is clear that those measures are to be used only in limited and prescribed situations. The Bill is another example of how the Minister is keen to meet the needs of a growing population and a stretched waste water network alongside an ever-changing weather pattern as a result of climate change.

I also welcome the provisions that enable the Department to provide grants for measures to protect domestic buildings from flooding. We must do all that we can to protect residents from the worst impacts of flooding. Where that requires us to invest in flood protection measures alongside improved drainage and other such measures, we must do so.

In reality, we need to learn to live with extreme weather events, including drought and flooding alike. The Bill would assist in that. I look forward to further scrutinising the "SuDS and floods" Bill further in Committee and working with all members, officials and the Minister to make sure that we make progress on this important issue.

Mr McMurray: I am OK for time, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be chastised for straying too far from the subject of the debate, but I want to make a few brief remarks.

I associate myself with the remarks directed to Mrs Erskine. While her presence on the Committee and in the Chamber will be missed, we wish her all the best. Tóg go bog é.

See you when you get back. I welcome the new Chair, Mr Martin, to his role. Mr McNulty is not here. It would have been good if Mr McNulty and Mr Martin had introduced themselves to the Committee, but they covered that in the debate on road maintenance last night, so that is all good. I am glad that Mr Boylan got in to speak before me; otherwise, some of the old hands on the Committee might have taken umbrage at those who have served least time getting in ahead of them, so it is good to see a bit of balance restored.

Anyway, on to the matter in hand. I welcome the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, and I support its principles and intent. This important legislation will, hopefully, strengthen resilience in the face of heavy rain and drought, both of which we see more of these days as a result of climate change. We are also told that it will help reduce pollution in watercourses and facilitate more environmentally friendly solutions in managing water resources. Those are all important goals that the Alliance Party has championed for a long time, so we naturally welcome the fact that the Minister has presented the Bill, and we would like to see it progress.

I support the proposal to expand temporary hosepipe bans to allow restrictions on a wider range of non-essential uses in times of drought. At the moment, watering gardens and washing cars are the only activities that can be restricted. Hosepipe bans have not often been necessary here, thankfully, but climate change is changing that, as we see more extreme weather events, wet and dry. Only last week, the Republic of Ireland extended hosepipe bans in parts of Counties Meath, Westmeath and Donegal that are set to remain in place until October. It is sobering to think that droughts are becoming an issue on the island of Ireland, even in the autumn. We are right to prepare for that. The Bill includes powers to ban some additional non-essential uses of water, such as filling or maintaining domestic pools. We need to keep it in mind that the aim of a hosepipe ban is to ensure that the supply of drinking water to the public is not put at risk. Wasteful use of water is hard to justify in times of drought, so I welcome that aspect of the Bill.

I also welcome the proposal to put the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing. The pilot in my constituency has been important, especially in Newcastle, where domestic properties in the Marguerite and Donard Park areas have been repeatedly flooded. It is accepted that the pilot has had its imperfections: delivery has been slow at times, and there have been issues with eligibility requirements and so on. The Minister has made improvements in the past year that have been welcomed on the ground. Irrespective of its imperfections, it has been an important pilot scheme, and I am glad that the Bill will, in principle, allow it to continue.

Flooding can also have a severe impact on our local economies. We have seen that in Downpatrick, where Market Street was severely hit by the 2023 flood. Not all businesses have been able to recover from that event, even with the financial support offered by the Minister for the Economy, which shows how devastating flooding incidents can be. I know that DFI is planning bigger flood alleviation measures in the town. Putting those in place will take years, and there are worries that they might never materialise. I am concerned that local businesses will be unable to protect themselves from flooding in the meantime or to recover if they are hit again. A scheme like the homeowner flood protection grant but for commercial premises would be hugely welcome in Downpatrick. I urge the Minister to consider including in the Bill a power to make similar grants to protect commercial properties. Including such a power would not oblige her to introduce such a scheme but would at least give her the ability to do so.

I will comment on the sustainable drainage system (SuDS) element of the Bill, which proposes to allow the Department to issue guidance on the design, maintenance and adoption of sustainable drainage systems. We will still be a long way from the guidance being in place, but the proposed powers will help us to get there. I had the opportunity to attend a DFI event on SuDS some weeks ago where I learned a lot about the benefits as well as the pitfalls. It opened my eyes to the complexity of the matter, and it is important that the guidance be put in place. There can be no doubt for me that SuDS must form an important part of managing water in the years to come. There is no silver bullet, but SuDS can certainly make an important contribution to solving many serious issues that we face, from flooding to sewer capacity and thus water pollution and its effects on places such as Lough Neagh. I very much welcome and support that aspect of the Bill as well. That said, we face a severe waste water crisis, and the legislation will largely impact on new developments. It will mitigate the extent to which new developments make things worse, but it will not make much of a difference to the enormous problem that is already there.

We have heard a lot about the Minister's three-pronged approach, of which the Bill is an important part. The second part is the consultation on developer contributions. We do not yet know the outcome of that, but, having spoken to many stakeholders over the past few years, I remain to be convinced that developer contributions will bring about significant improvements.

Finally, there is the commitment to working with Executive colleagues to find more money where, frankly, there is not much going spare. I remain very concerned about the Minister's overall approach to addressing the waste water crisis. Her party voted to do whatever it takes to save Lough Neagh, so I call on the Minister to deliver on that commitment and to face the fact that the way in which Northern Ireland Water is currently financed is not working.

There are other aspects to the Bill, such as the powers for NI Water to adopt pre-1973 drainage infrastructure, to fix drainage misconnections on private land and recover the cost from the landowner, and to register adoption agreements in the Statutory Charges Register. I have yet to develop a detailed understanding of those issues, so I look forward to scrutinising them at Committee Stage. From what we have heard and researched about them so far, they appear to be sensible. The Alliance Party was broadly supportive of those and other aspects of the Bill at the time of the consultation, and I have no immediate objections at this stage.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which will put in place the conditions to allow us to tackle several important issues in the future. Will the legislation be enough? No. We still need to do the heavy lifting to tackle the issues, and that includes making some difficult decisions. The Bill will, however, open a number of doors. I wholeheartedly support its principles.

Mr Stewart: Before I make my remarks, I will echo the comments of the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I send my best wishes to Deborah and her husband and wish her all the very best. I look forward to seeing her back in her position on the Committee. [Laughter.]

In the meantime, I look forward to working with the new Chair, Mr Peter Martin. I do not mean to be dismissive at all, Peter. I have no doubt that you will bring a lot to the Committee, and I look forward to working with you as we scrutinise the Bill and do much of the other work that the Committee needs to do.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. At the outset, let me say that my party and I support the principles of the Bill. It is clear that our water and drainage infrastructure is under severe and growing pressure, and it is right that we update the legislative framework to reflect the challenges of today. As Committee colleagues have already said, the Bill sets out to do a number of important things, including reducing pollution in our watercourses; strengthening our resilience against flooding and drought; promoting sustainable drainage and the preferred way of managing surface water; and improving the overall management of our water resources through environmentally friendly solutions.

Those are not abstract concepts; they go to the heart of the challenges that our communities face, whether those be the devastating floods that we have witnessed in recent years that have destroyed homes and businesses or the real constraints that underinvestment in our water network has placed on housing and economic growth. The consequences of inaction have been clear over many years. As Infrastructure Committee colleagues will know, we heard last year from departmental officials and from Northern Ireland Water, which will be a key driver in delivering many of the reforms that the Minister wants to bring in. As others have done, I thank the departmental officials for their assistance to date and to Northern Ireland Water for its engagement. I also thank everyone who contributed to the consultation and who contacted me about it in order to raise their concerns. I know that they will continue to do so as the Bill makes its way through the House.

There are several provisions in the Bill that deserve particular emphasis. I do not want to go into too much detail at this stage, because we are discussing the principles of the Bill, but it is important to discuss a few of them. The first is the encouragement of the use of sustainable drainage systems, which will be critical in managing surface water in a way that reduces flood risk and supports environmental protection. Again, we see increasing numbers of examples of the devastating impact of floods in recent years, as well as the impact on pollution.

Secondly, the Bill provides for Northern Ireland Water to adopt private drainage infrastructure that was built before 1973 where it benefits the wider network. That has long been campaigned for and is a welcome addition to the legislation. It has the potential to improve resilience and tackle some long-standing legacy issues, though the scrutiny needs to be looked at to see how the benefit-to-the-network test could be applied. I will go back to that in my comments when I go through the Bill clause by clause.

Thirdly, strengthening powers to address miscommunications in the system is a positive and necessary step. As we know, miscommunications are a major source of water pollution. It is right that the Department has stronger tools to tackle that problem, although, again, I have concerns about enforcement and the ability or willingness to carry that work out and the costs that go with it. That may be for Northern Ireland Water to address. We know the difficulties that we have with the lack of adoption of roads and the long-standing costs associated with bringing those into the network. I am very interested to hear whether there will be the money and resource to ensure that the work happens in those critical instances.

The Bill places the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory basis. That is a welcome development. We all know families who have faced the trauma of flooding. Giving them greater certainty and support to invest in preventative measures is an important part of building community resilience. I am keen to hear how the assessment criteria will be worked out and what will be done to ensure that the roll-out can be worked through with local councils and with cross-departmental overlap. I am keen to hear more about the criteria. I echo the points made by my colleague from the Alliance Party, who talked about the potential to extend that to commercial premises, because we all know the devastating impact that recent floods have had on commercial property. All that is important, as we know, because sadly, those events are becoming more and more regular.

An issue that underpins all of this discussion is funding. As we know, Northern Ireland Water continues to operate under a constrained financial model. We have seen how chronic underinvestment, in our freshwater and waste water systems, has led to developments being stalled, homes not being built and businesses not being able to expand. That is, quite simply, unsustainable and unacceptable. The Bill alone will not fix that wider funding crisis, but it provides useful additional powers that, if backed by resource, can deliver incremental improvements and build resilience into the system. However, without sustained and sufficient investment, there is a real risk that those powers will remain underused. Other Members have flagged that up, and we will be keen to get into that in the Committee Stage.

The Ulster Unionist Party and I support the principles of the Bill. We see merits in every aspect of it. I do not want to get into too much detail. Mr Boylan will be saying, "It is only the principles now. We are not getting into the nitty-gritty today". Cathal, I promise not to do that, but I would like to flag up a couple of points on which it would be useful to get answers from the Minister, whether today, in writing or as the Committee brings them up.

The Minister, in her remarks, referred to the extension of the hosepipe ban. We all understand that. It is rare that we have a hosepipe ban in Northern Ireland. Some quite like the novel idea of it coming in, because it would mean that we have had four or five days of sunshine, which is a rarity, but it will become more and more of a thing here. I want clarity on how it could be ensured that it would not affect commercial operators, Minister. I know that it applies to homes, but say that a commercial operator is carrying out work and has to tap into the tap in a home: how would that work?

I welcome Mr McNulty to the Committee. He made a point about education, which is critical. We heard from Northern Ireland Water officials when they came to Committee that, invariably, enforcement powers and fines never have to be used because, more often than not, when they come in, people play by the rules. How will awareness of the temporary ban and the ban itself be raised among the public? One often sees that when it comes to planning issues. Under clause 1, article 116B(2) would refer to sharing information on a temporary ban "in at least two newspapers" and on the website. We all know that, sadly, readership of local newspapers is on the slide. If a hosepipe ban comes in on a Monday, the notice about it will probably have been lost in translation by the time that anyone picks up a newspaper on Thursday. There could be a new way to assess how best we can communicate those short-term, punchy notices that we want to get through to the public quickly — social media is probably the obvious one to utilise — but I do not think that specifying "two newspapers" in legislation will work, given their decline. It is good that the notices will be in newspapers, but the Minister could at least acknowledge that we could do something to get the information out to the public at bit more quickly in order to raise awareness.

The second element of the Bill is the sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS, regulations. This is where I may start to ramble, Mr Deputy Speaker, so feel free to tell me to shush if needs be. I get that the regulations are intended to make us future-proofed, but I would be interested to know whether the Department and the Minister are looking at other places around the world, which I am sure that they are, where sustainable drainage is being done really effectively in order that we can learn from best practice. That is an important aspect of the Bill.

I will not go through whether I agree with each clause, because that has been done, but I will go back to the point on clause 6 that I made earlier. It would be advantageous to have something in statute on support not only for domestic properties but for commercial premises. That would give some security. It would also be helpful if the Minister could comment in her remarks on what the assessment criteria will look like and on the anticipated funding over the years, given that flooding will probably, and sadly, increase as we see more and more turbulent weather.

With regard to clause 11, I commented earlier on the difficulties that are associated with cost recovery. I raised that with NI Water officials when they came in. I get that when NI Water has to go in to occupy a site, if the person who owns the land cannot pay the price, the work may get stuck or logjammed because the money cannot be claimed back or because there is a reluctance. I want to get my head around how that works.

Will the adoption of the pre-1973 sewerage systems under clause 12 be so cost-prohibitive that Northern Ireland Water might not be in a position to do it, given the fact that we know how big the backlog in road adoption is and that a lot of that is due to sewerage problems? Where will the funding, resource and supports be to ensure that, while Northern Ireland Water has the power to take those systems back on, there is not a massive reluctance to do so, given that it will only add a financial burden, year-on-year, to a network that is already under pressure?

I think that that concludes my ramblings for now. I thank the Minister for moving the Bill's Second Stage. I look forward to working with Committee colleagues to take the Bill through the next stage and to table any potential amendments that we may have.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for your ramblings.

Miss Brogan: I join other Members in welcoming Peter Martin as the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I am sure that we will continue to work constructively together as a Committee. I also send my very best wishes to Deborah and her family as they embark on a whole new adventure.

While the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill might not sound exciting, it is crucial to the development and maintenance of vital infrastructure and will have numerous cross-cutting benefits. It is further proof of the Minister's commitment to improve protections for citizens while maintaining crucial services here despite the British Government's repeated assaults on the already stretched Budget.

The Bill's key component is the introduction of the flood protection grants for domestic buildings, which will help provide peace of mind and practical support for people who are living in high-flood-risk areas. Helping people to protect their home is one of the most fundamental duties of government, and it is very welcome that the Minister has made that the centrepiece of her Bill.

The introduction of sustainable drainage systems is a creative addition that will provide low-maintenance, sustainable and practical support for dealing with excess waste water and is one that can be blended into the surroundings without causing an eyesore.

Finally, the introduction of temporary hosepipe bans comes with specific criteria and measures for informing the public and ensuring that bans are employed only in the most serious circumstances.

A chairde,

while the Bill will have a positive effect on our ability to deal with waste water and flooding, I will take a moment to address some of the other, broader cross-cutting effects that it will have. Reducing the strain on our existing waste water infrastructure will free up capacity for expanding the water network, allowing for more connections and, therefore, the building of more badly needed homes. Sustainable drainage systems will help to reduce waste water going into the system after flooding or heavy rains, which often result in the discharge of excess waste water into waterways such as Lough Neagh. Yesterday, the House debated the need for improved road maintenance. Excess flooding and poor drainage are among the primary causes of erosion and the deterioration of our road network, particularly our rural roads. The introduction of grants for measures to protect domestic buildings against flooding may even help to reduce the cost of insurance in flood-prone areas.

This is a sensible Bill, providing real, tangible protections for our waste water system, our environment and our people as well as providing numerous other knock-on cross-cutting benefits. I am happy to support the Bill, and I hope that other Members will do so too.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill at its Second Stage as a member of the Infrastructure Committee. As others have said, the principle of the Bill, as outlined by the Minister, is, ultimately, to improve water management and flood resilience in Northern Ireland — I think that we can all buy into that — through legislative reform and introducing new processes and powers for Northern Ireland Water. We have seen in recent years the impact of storms and the often milder, wetter winters. That highlights the importance of having fit-for-purpose legislation that allows NI Water and other key stakeholders to be agile and resilient to meet the ever-changing needs of today.

The Minister has described the Bill as part of her three-pronged approach to dealing with waste water infrastructure and the crisis that that sector is in. From looking at the Bill's content, I believe that it is a step in the right direction, particularly when we look at the issues around sustainable drainage. The Minister spoke last week at an event marking 80 years of the Institute of Water and of the Construction Employers Federation, which I also attended. That was a very productive event that highlighted the expertise, innovation and experience that was present in a very well-filled room of attendees. The experience of the waste water and water sector has a key role to play, and the sector has the ability to focus on solutions and to play its part. This legislation, as I said, is a step forward in addressing the challenges that we have, and I am sure that the Minister is committed to working with that sector and the people who were in that room and knows the contribution that they have to make to make progress on this important matter.

Clause 1 refers to what is commonly known as the hosepipe ban. Such a ban last took place in 2018, and that demonstrates that it is only ever used in exceptional circumstances. That last time exposed a number of issues with the current powers and some issues that were not covered, and the clause gives the opportunity to widen out the criteria. We received confirmation at the Committee recently that those new powers will not impact on the operations of commercial businesses, and that is an important point. Notification in websites and newspapers has been talked about, and I echo the points made about the use of social media. Obviously, that has a key role to play going forward. I think that NI Water utilises it already, but maybe there is room to have it in black and white going forward. The role of education is also very important.

Sustainable drainage systems certainly can be a useful tool in reducing surface water run-off and improving water quality. They can come in many forms, with hard and soft measures. It is worth noting the comments from the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, which has welcomed the proposal to promote SuDS and, indeed, has highlighted the fact that those have been in use for many years. On the future direction of travel of the SuDS policy, lessons can definitely be learnt from across the UK and beyond. In Wales, for example, making SuDS mandatory for certain new developments has led to issues with application processing, maintenance problems and enforcement powers. There is an opportunity for lessons to be learned. Local authorities feel that they are not currently resourced to best administer and be held responsible for SuDS, so I think that there are definitely lessons that we can learn on that. It is also vital that any changes in policy do not lead, ultimately, to excess cost being passed on to the consumers.

We have discussed the risk of developer contributions being passed on ultimately to consumers. The Department and the Minister will have failed if two out of the three prongs of her approach to waste water issues add to the ever-rising costs for those struggling to get onto the property ladder.

Clause 6 is about flood protection and provides the Department with powers to introduce grants to assist homeowners in high-risk flood areas to protect their homes. As an MLA for the North Down constituency, which includes a number of areas at risk of flooding, the clause is particularly welcome. Putting those powers on a statutory footing could make a meaningful difference in protecting our communities and our environment. Like my colleagues, I remain broadly supportive of the principle of the Bill at Second Stage, and we look forward to it coming to the Committee, where we will look at it in more detail.

We know the devastation that flooding can cause to businesses, homes and families, and there is an urgent need to develop our infrastructure, particularly our water and waste water infrastructure. The Bill provides some of the legislative tools to respond more effectively to some of those challenges. I am happy to support the Bill's moving to the next stage.

Ms Finnegan: I am pleased to speak in support of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill that the Minister has introduced. It is practical and much-needed legislation that tackles a range of issues from flooding and drainage to sustainable development. The Bill does so in a way that benefits people and the environment. We are all aware of the need to upgrade our drainage infrastructure, and the Bill is a step in the right direction.

The reality is that climate change is already impacting on communities here. More frequent and heavier rainfall has increased the risk of flooding across the North, and many households live with that worry throughout the year. That is exactly why the introduction of flood protection grants is such a welcome step. It allows people to take action to protect their homes with direct support from the Government and helps reduce the long-term damage and disruption caused by repeated flooding.

A key part of the Bill is the introduction of sustainable drainage systems into our water and planning infrastructure. They are low-maintenance, nature-based solutions that help manage surface water more effectively, reduce the pressure on our existing sewerage network and help prevent the kind of pollution events that we have seen in Lough Neagh and other waterways. They also deliver real environmental benefits from supporting local biodiversity and improving water quality to making our towns and cities greener, healthier places to live.

As well as the environmental impact, the Bill supports other Executive priorities. It will help to unlock stalled housing developments by easing the pressure on our water infrastructure and supporting the delivery of more homes, which, we know, are an urgent need.

The Bill is another example of how we can make real progress to protect communities, support sustainable development and respond to the climate crisis, even in the face of the serious financial challenges that have been imposed on the Executive. The Minister has shown that determined leadership can deliver, and I acknowledge her commitment to delivering for workers, families and the environment.

Mr K Buchanan: My comments will be short. First, I congratulate my colleague, Peter, who is taking up the Committee Chair. Deborah is probably watching. I do not know which camera to wave at — normally, we get an indication — but I wish her well, and I wish Peter well.

I have only two brief comments. A lot of the issues have been covered, and I am not going to get into the depths of the Bill. First, on the clause on the hosepipe ban, I have a query about how the domestic allowance will be covered on farms. Maybe the Minister will cover that issue. What thought has been put into the domestic allowance? Also, the Minister mentioned that the flood protection grants would move from £10,000 to £13,000. I have always queried the flood protection grants because they protect the building, for example, the house or the garage of a standard dwelling, but it does not protect the property. There were a few incidents where, if the property had been protected, it would have been cheaper than protecting the physical house. It depends how you look at that.

I appreciate that we can get into the nuts and bolts of this — it is probably not the day for that — but those are two things that jump out at me immediately. There are other things that we can go through in more detail, but this is not the day to do it. If the Bill passes, we will have further communication tomorrow from officials and research papers that can go through the issues and go into them in more depth. However, those are two things to look at: the farm aspect of the 20% relief and how we protect the property and not only the domestic building as such, which is the way that this is worded.

There are a few other wee lines — I will not go into them — about cleaning a private motor. There are terms that use the word "hosepipe" and terms that do not. We can argue about that all day. There are wee terms that need to be tweaked, but this is not the day. I will not talk all day on this, you will be glad to hear. I look forward to the meeting tomorrow and working with my colleagues across the House on this — all of them. [Laughter.]

Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Just before I call the Minister, I think that, with the Infrastructure Committee Chair, you have the only one that seems to do peace, love and harmony. That is amazing: it is the only one we have got here.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I thank and welcome the new Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure. I hope that we can work together as well as I did with Deborah Erskine. To echo other Members' comments, I too wish Deborah and her husband all the very best in what, I hope, is a very exciting time for them both. I look forward to hearing her news in the not so distant future.

I thank all the Members for their contributions and their optimism, because this will have an impact of a positive nature on our overall waste water systems and how we deal with drainage and flood management. Quite a number of queries and issues have been raised in the debate. I will do my best to address as many of those as possible.

First, I go to the comments from the Committee Chair, Peter Martin. Others also raised the funding query. The Bill is broadly cost-neutral for NI Water, apart from some small administrative costs in terms of miscommunication. Hopefully, that will be welcome. The Bill will also allow NI Water to recoup costs for any repairs that are associated with miscommunications. Some cost may be associated with bringing private drainage infrastructure up to an adoptive standard, and that may be a shared cost with the original owner. Hopefully, that will be minimal as well. In relation to SuDS, there will be additional costs in putting in place the regulatory framework. However, as has been outlined in the debate today, there are already some examples of hard SuDS for that.

The other queries were in relation to the expenditure on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme that already exists. As of May this year, 165 homes had been provided with grant funding at a total of £1·5 million, which includes consultants' fees and support fees. Approximately 20 homes per year have received an average grant of £7,850.

On the subject of the flood protection grant scheme, others raised some queries. I will address Keith Buchanan's query on what the criteria are regarding the property itself. I think he meant the boundary of the property. I had an example of this in my constituency in the recent flooding. That is a challenge, and there will be an opportunity through engagement with the Committee and the consultation to look at some of the issues again and see where we can help. It is something that I am keen to explore as well, because I know that, where floodwater may not have come into the house itself, it can cause significant damage to the external part of the property. It is still very costly to deal with. We can look at that.

John Stewart raised the issue of the criteria for the flood protection scheme. As I have said, that will require the making of regulations. As part of that process, those criteria will be legislated for as well.

I welcome Justin McNulty to the Committee and look forward to engaging with him in the time ahead, when I am with the Committee and in debates in the House. He has questions around the SuDS proposals and why it has taken so long to progress SuDS here. I should say that, yes, there are already SuDS happening and in place. I know that the construction industry has also raised this. Those are more in relation to hard SuDS systems. That, as the Member said, is more in relation to bigger pipes and tanks and things like that. The focus of the regulations will be on nature-based SuDS solutions such as swales and detention basins. It will be on those types of natural drainage that align themselves with a natural approach, which is what should be happening in the environment anyway. If we can enable those solutions in a much more managed way, we will see a real impact.

As I have said, next week, I will launch the public consultation on SuDS for new housing developments. The consultation will be another opportunity for the Committee and the wider public to engage, to raise any issues, concerns or queries that they may have and to make suggestions. Soft SuDS, unlike hard SuDS, have the potential to treat surface water by removing potential pollutants, which will be a positive in our efforts to tackle pollution in our waterways in particular.

Justin asked whether we are already doing some of what is set out in the clauses. Yes, in some cases, we are. The clauses simply allow for future amendments to existing regulations, should they be required as new developments emerge or new technologies emerge, so that we are not hamstrung by what we have in place already. We therefore have an opportunity to continually modernise through making amendments in order to help us move with the times and respond effectively and efficiently.

Members raised queries about the hosepipe ban. On the issue of communication, social media and other methods that are already being used for communication purposes — NI Water uses them well — will absolutely continue to be used in that way and as widely as possible. My understanding of the legislation is that notice must be given in a minimum of two newspapers. That requirement is probably a minimum one, but most of us know that we will use all communication channels and methods available to us. They are already used extensively.

There was a query about the domestic allowance. To get clarity from the Member, is that about the hosepipe ban?

Mr K Buchanan: Yes. It is related to farms. Farms have a metered supply, and they are allowed to offset a percentage of their costs against their domestic usage. How will you square the circle of somebody having a domestic house on a farm? How do you define the hosepipe ban there? Ultimately, they are paying for water but have a domestic allowance.

Ms Kimmins: At this point, my understanding is that, for anything that relates to a private business — a window cleaner is another example — people can use a tap to fill a bucket or a private water tank to enable them to carry out their duties but, if they were to use a hosepipe to clean windows, that would be a contravention of the legislation. Hopefully, that explains the provision a bit better. Again, we can get into Members' queries in a bit more detail at Committee Stage.

I think that I have responded on the majority of the issues that were raised. Members have been largely positive about where this is going, and I welcome their comments.

I will return to what my South Down colleague Andrew McMurray said about some of the flood management issues that, I know, affect his constituency. As part of work that is external to the legislation, we have received confirmation from NI Water that it is doing modelling to find a permanent solution to the Newcastle issue. I met Sheila Maginn and others from the Newcastle Regional Community Resilience Group (RCRG), which does really good work there to find solutions. They are aware of the modelling, and a permanent solution will hopefully be found to the issue. That will provide confidence and reassurance, which is the crux of what we are doing through the legislation.

I trust that today's debate has provided Members with an overview of the policy intent behind the Bill. As I said, if there are any points that I have not covered, I will endeavour to address them in correspondence, if Members wish to write to me in more detail to get further clarification. For me, the debate has been a valuable opportunity to hear Members' views. I am pleased that the consensus has been positive and supportive on the principles of the Bill.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Apologies for intervening in the middle of your winding-up speech. I have just vacated my seat on the Committee. I will, however, retain a keen interest in this area of work. I welcome the legislation.

The changes to the homeowner flood protection grant scheme are welcome, as are the changes to the criteria to make it more accessible to people. An issue, however, that I have heard raised on numerous occasions — I anticipate that this has been replicated across constituencies — is whether the changes will apply just to private homeowners. What about social housing landlords? Will there be scope for the likes of the Housing Executive and housing associations to apply to DFI for assistance to put measures in place to protect their tenants?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to some of the queries raised in relation to the grant, there will be an opportunity to look at the criteria when we are laying the regulations. That issue may arise, but, predominantly, the existing criteria support homeowners who have responsibility for their property and are dealing with the cost of that. We can look at that during Committee Stage and later to see whether anything can be done. I am happy to consider that further.

I believe that the Bill will, should it become an Act, play a significant role in empowering my Department and NI Water to continue to provide a high-quality service to meet the needs of all the people in the North. Those powers are vital in the face of the unique challenges that we all see in the 21st century. I thank Members for their support, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Infrastructure. Please take your ease while we handover at the top Table.

Mr Gildernew: 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 wish to speak will have five minutes. Mr Gildernew, please open the debate on the motion.

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

A chairde,

every summer, the issue of offensive and dangerous bonfires rears its head, and, this year, was, unfortunately, no different. From the outset, it is important to say that I recognise the importance of bonfires to unionist culture. The motion should not be seen as an attack on the practice of burning bonfires. Bonfires, when organised in a safe and inclusive manner, can be a positive vehicle for people from the unionist community who want to celebrate their Protestant heritage. The motion, however, is about what are known as "problem bonfires". Unfortunately, every year, a small number of bonfires become symbols of hate and division and display sectarian and racist messages. I am sure that Members will have seen images from July this year of a bonfire in Moygashel in my constituency that displayed an effigy of refugees in a boat along with a disgusting racist message. That raised fear and anxiety among many people across my constituency and way beyond. It is also important to say that offensive bonfires are not confined solely to the unionist community, as there are also a small number of bonfires in nationalist areas of Derry during the month of August.

Each year, a small number of bonfires cause significant health and safety concerns. In the past, we have seen young people seriously injure themselves by falling off bonfires during the building process. A small number of bonfires are made from materials such as tyres, which, when burned, are harmful to the health of the people who are gathered and to the environment. We all saw the unacceptable behaviour earlier this year when a bonfire in Belfast was burned in an area that had been confirmed as containing asbestos but the organisers refused to consider the health and safety of the attendees or the local residents.

We cannot continue to deal with the same problem year after year. It is long past time that we found a common-sense solution, and it is important that we start to discuss that now in advance of next year. The FICT report into flags, emblems and bonfires looked at the issue in great detail and made some recommendations on how to tackle problem bonfires. Unfortunately, none of those recommendations has been implemented. We have to ask ourselves why that is. All the unionist political parties have so far failed to show any of the political leadership that would create the space for a mature and constructive conversation about the best way forward. Finding a solution that meets the needs of all communities is in the best interests of everyone, and it is well past time that political unionism came to that realisation.

Mr Brooks: Once again, we find ourselves debating culture, tradition and identity, and, once again, Sinn Féin comes forward not with proposals to celebrate diversity but to regulate and restrict the traditions of the unionist community. The motion raises the small number of instances in which regrettable and unacceptable messages have been placed on bonfires. While we work with communities to see such things removed, we have seen no such motions from Sinn Féin when there is routine glorification of terrorism at republican events and festivals and no reflection on the hurt that is caused by IRA commemorations and displays. Sinn Féin insists that those are sacrosanct — untouchable. However, when it comes to unionist traditions, suddenly we are told that they must be tightly controlled, monitored and curtailed.

Loyalist communities have no intention of going cap in hand to republicans to seek permission to celebrate their long-practised traditions. Let us be very clear: bonfires are not a new phenomenon. They are a centuries-old expression of culture, remembrance and celebration in the unionist community. Some of my best childhood memories are of spending the weeks before the 11 July collecting wood from around my hometown of Comber for our annual bonfire at the barley field. It is a tradition that means a lot to me, and I have always been passionate about the fact that, while beacons and similar have their place, they should never replace traditional bonfires. Bonfires are part of our heritage and are passed down from generation to generation. For Sinn Féin to treat those traditions as though they are nuisances that are to be managed or stamped out is an affront to cultural respect and parity of esteem. Let me tell that party this here and now: they are not going anywhere.

Nobody denies that responsibilities come with tradition. Communities have worked hard in recent years to promote safer practices, reduce tensions and, in the main, keep bonfires positive and family-orientated events, notwithstanding the fact that there have been some poor examples. I understand that. However, that progress has come not from top-down regulation that has been imposed by those who have no sympathy for our culture but from engagement, dialogue and local initiatives. Groups such as Legacy Network in my constituency have worked closely with young people from loyalist working-class communities, and we have seen vast improvements at some of the bonfire sites at which there had previously been issues. We will improve things not through nationalist-imposed diktat, which will never run, but through re-engaging with our history and traditions, building and understanding confidence in who we are, learning not just what we do but why, and investing in the work of re-injecting our cultural festivals with a common history and understanding it. An adversarial approach will provoke a similar response, but I often believe that that is what Sinn Féin seeks to do regularly here and in City Hall in particular.

The work that has been undertaken with local communities has seen less problematic behaviour. I hope that, in time, we will see bonfires moving away from burning a flag to something more historical or linked to the Twelfth, in a similar way that we have with Guy Fawkes or other fire festivals internationally. However, let us remember that the Members who tabled the motion are not the voice of reason but, rather, the reason that the tricolour has been found on bonfires over the years. It was their comrades who sat in front of the flag, reading statements to justify their latest sectarian bombing or murder for 30 years. They talk about concern over hate, but, for years, Féile an Phobail has hosted the Wolfe Tones's "up the 'RA" bigot-fests at Falls Park, glorifying terrorism. The truth is that Sinn Féin's proposals are not about health and safety but about control. They are about trying to bring a Parades Commission model to other parts of unionist culture. They are about using bureaucracy to chip away at the cultural confidence of the unionist people. I say this to Sinn Féin: if you were genuinely interested in building respect and reconciliation, you would seek to support communities.

Our message is simple: hands off our culture. We will continue to work with communities to promote safe and respectful celebrations. Very many people are engaged in that work already, not only themselves but through engagement with public agencies and emergency services. However, we will not stand over Sinn Féin's attempts to dictate terms over unionist traditions. Regulation imposed by those who reject our British identity is not the way forward. It absolutely must have community buy-in. Respect is a two-way street, and it must start with recognising that bonfires are a legitimate and valued part of Northern Ireland's cultural landscape.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. Every summer, we witness the same problems and see flags, effigies, political posters and other racist and sectarian symbols placed on bonfires. That is not a reflection of unionist celebration or culture; nor should it be portrayed as such. Those who place such items on bonfires do a disservice to the wider loyalist and unionist community.

Every summer, we also hear reports of bonfires being built on land close to houses, play parks, electricity substations for public services, and so on. Over the years, I have been contacted by landowners — for the record, I have never been contacted by the Meridi Street landowner — desperate to find a way to prevent the collection of bonfire material taking place on their land. That desperation is not borne out of any negativity towards the tradition per se; it is out of fear that something will happen to one of the bonfire builders on a site for which they are not covered by insurance.

It is important to be clear: many bonfires are for celebration and commemoration and are considerate of everyone in the nearby neighbourhood. They go ahead without contention and are enjoyed by local communities. It is that positivity that we must focus on. The bottom line is that bonfires must be lawful, safe and respectful. Anything else is a threat, in the immediate term, to good relations and, in the longer term, to the ability of that community to regenerate and attract inward investment.

This year alone during the Eleventh night celebrations, there were 72 bonfire-related incidents reported out of a total of 194 incidents dealt with by firefighters. On the night of 11 July, the Fire and Rescue Service received 277 emergency calls, which was more than double the number received the previous year. That tells us that the problem seems to be escalating, potentially in isolated and repeat locations, but there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. In recent years, we have seen countless injuries, a death and even firefighters attacked while carrying out their duties. We all have to ask ourselves how long we should allow that to continue and at what point we should finally say that enough is enough.

As I have said many times in relation to my private Member's Bill on the display of flags and emblems — I repeat the same sentiment here today — it is not about removing tradition nor policing culture; it is about respect, safety and building communities in which celebration does not come at the expense of others.

That is why I call for support for the implementation of the FICT recommendations.

I suggest that the motion would have been more successful had it, instead, called for leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the establishment of a cross-departmental programme board with oversight from the Executive Office, because this is not a problem for one Minister or one Department — they cannot resolve it in isolation. Rather, a united approach is needed across government. The problem requires collaboration between the Environment Agency, the Housing Executive, the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Department for Infrastructure, councils and, most importantly, local communities. It also requires that the wider questions of landownership and responsibility be addressed. Too many sites that are used for bonfires sit in the grey area that I mentioned earlier, where landlords are either absent or unwilling or unable to secure their property. If celebrations take place on contaminated or unsecured land, the issue presented is not cultural: it becomes an environmental crime and a threat to public safety. We need coordination, clarity, accountability and robust —.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that, when a bonfire such as the one that she referred to in Meridi Street occurs, community leaders — those who hold position and respect in the community — have a duty and responsibility not to encourage people to enjoy the bonfire but to take responsible action and say, "We need to sort this out"?

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I agree with Mr Brooks that there are successful community bonfires across Belfast city and beyond, but we need our community leaders to step up whenever there is a serious —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will. Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise that there is an issue, although I am not saying that this is unreasonable, with developments being built on traditional bonfire sites, creating a problem in those areas where no traditional bonfire site remains? Quite often — some people want this — there may then be a return to smaller bonfires, which will often be built on roads, as they were historically. That would cause problems also. There is a problem with how we allow unionist communities to celebrate their history and heritage in a responsible way. The number of sites is reducing.

Ms Bradshaw: As someone who comes from a background of urban regeneration, I like to see brownfield sites in our inner-city areas being regenerated. There are alternatives, such as beacons, and there are other ways in which we can make bonfires safer and reduce the threat to the public. I take the Member's point that we need to respect tradition, but we have to do so in a way that is safe.

I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am running out of time. Whilst legislation and regulations, the need for which were identified by the FICT commission, are in place, they are not properly overseen. We need a refresh so that we can look at how to implement the recommendations of the FICT report. We need leadership, cooperation, action and those regulations. Our communities deserve safe celebrations, free from hate and harm.

Mr Beattie: I have the dubious honour of having been on the FICT commission for three years. It was a good commission. It had good people on it, from across the political spectrum and across the divide, who came up with some really good ideas. Yes, many of those ideas have not been implemented, but they have been spoken about.

The FICT commission covered an awful lot more than flags and bonfires, by the way. Sometimes, I think that we ignore other things that it covered because they do not work for us. It covered culture, identity, bonfires, flags on public buildings and street furniture, media, sport, language, arts in public spaces, murals, memorialisation and commemoration. Some political parties dodged that question pretty quickly.

Let us look at bonfires, however. It has been said — this is true, and the situation has improved over the years — that the vast majority of bonfires in Northern Ireland pass off safely and are well-run community events. The commission has highlighted that on multiple occasions, and yet — here comes a stark truth — every bonfire in Northern Ireland is unlawful. It does not matter how long they have been happening for and, as we have said, some of them have been going for an awfully long time. Every single one of them is unlawful. The Fire and Rescue Service cannot engage directly with bonfire builders because they would be engaging directly with something unlawful. It is important to understand that.

What is Sinn Féin actually —?

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he concur that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service also says that there are no safe bonfires and that it cannot stand over uncontrolled fires?

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

Mr Beattie: Absolutely. An unguarded fire anywhere, whether a bonfire or a campfire, is exactly that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member also recognise that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service does engage with bonfire sites and gives advice on what is safe and what is not, even if that is not official?

Mr Beattie: It absolutely does, and my colleague will raise that later on, if that is OK.

I am trying to get to the point of what Sinn Féin is actually calling for. Is it calling for legal authority for all bonfires? If so, that is what FICT recommends. FICT recommends that every bonfire be given legal authority. That is the starting point. If Sinn Féin is saying that it will give this legal authority, it is up to the AERA Minister to change the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 to allow bonfires to be lawful. If that is what we do, the first thing that I will do is press the AERA Minister about when he is will do it to make it lawful. If Sinn Féin is calling for article 10 of the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to be extended to other landowners — that is what it says in the recommendations — so that other landowners can identify land for people to build bonfires on, I will go to the First Minister to ask when that will happen.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I have not got time, mate. Honestly, I just stopped a minute ago, and I have only got a couple of minutes.

Will Sinn Féin be calling on the Northern Ireland Executive to develop a new funded, civic-accredited arts and heritage, education, training and exhibition initiative in dedicated spaces for bonfires, as per the FICT recommendations? If it does, I will go to the Finance Minister to ask when he will provide the money for that. I hope that, in summing up, Sinn Féin can clarify what it is actually trying to achieve with the motion.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Just a moment.

If it is recommending legal authority for bonfires as a starting position, there are a number of criteria, as per the FICT recommendations, that each bonfire will have to adhere to, including the height and distance ratio of 1:5. That is when the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service will engage to check whether there is a ratio of 1:5. What if there is a ratio of 1:4? What if it does not adhere to the criteria? Who is responsible? Is it the police, DAERA or the Executive? We need to know, because that is who we will be going to. Or is it a criminal justice issue? If it is, I will go to the Justice Minister to find out what she is going to do.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: A couple of Members have asked me to give way. I will give way if you are brief.

Mr Gildernew: To be very brief, what Sinn Féin is asking for is the space for a mature and constructive conversation about the best way forward. It is as simple as that.

Mr Beattie: I think that I am giving a mature view. I am giving the practicalities of where we are on this.

I was a bonfire builder in my youth. I do not support flags being burnt on bonfires. I do not support images or posters being burnt on bonfires. I do not support effigies, apart from historical, traditional effigies, being burnt on bonfires. That is a fact. In most cases, bonfires and bonfire builders have addressed that, but the solution is not top-down legislation and regulation. It is bottom-up, community-level activism. Believe it or not, that is working, and you can go back and look at the statistics and see that it is working. If we pass this motion, an awful lot of Ministers will have an awful lot of work to do, because I will make sure that they are held to this. I will be honest: the motion is as vague as I have ever seen. It really is, because it has not gone into any details apart from the FICT Commission. If you look at the recommendations from the FICT Commission, you will see that there is an awful lot to it. The first is to make them all legal, and that is legal authority. It is difficult to support such a vague motion. I believe in a conversation, but let us make sure that it is from the ground up, from the communities to us, and not just us dictating.

Mr Durkan: A decade ago, during my time as Environment Minister, I tried hard to bring forward licensing proposals to deal with bonfires. It was about striking a balance, protecting communities from the very real dangers of these fires while respecting the cultural significance that they still obviously hold. I stand over that principle, but culture must never be a shield for lawlessness or a licence for hate. The political will was not there 10 years ago, and I fear — it is obvious — that this place has gone backwards since. What we witnessed this summer in many areas was not culture but an orgy of hate, of racist and sectarian displays and of despicable personal threats. I offer my support and solidarity to those whose names or images appeared on bonfires. I have been there myself, so I know that it is not pleasant. Such displays hold no place in our society. Homes and hospitals were put at risk. The environment was choked with toxic fumes. That cannot be defended. It is neither tradition nor something to be celebrated.

Part of the problem — the elephant in the room — is that our leadership parties continue to peddle division. They stoke hatred when and because it suits them. They thrive on tribal tension, while ordinary people are left to live with the consequences of intimidation, fear and violence on their doorstep. Culture is not something to be feared, nor is it something to be weaponised. It is something that should be shared and respected.

The motion rightly notes that FICT set out a framework to deal with the issues, but the point to make is that there is still no implementation plan. When we — the SDLP in opposition — sought to amend the motion to include what, I believe, was a very practical call for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to bring forward a full FICT implementation plan, the amendment was not accepted. What we are left with is a motion that calls on no one to do anything. Mr Beattie referred to its vagueness. That absolves Ministers of responsibility. Paula Bradshaw rightly identified the collective nature of that responsibility.

I fear that debates such as this do not do anything to tackle sectarianism. Rather, they serve only to stir the tribal pot.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. Another issue is that of legal authority. We are giving legal authority to burn bonfires. I wonder how that plays with the new Climate Change Act. We have moved on since FICT, and that is a reality.

Mr Durkan: Absolutely. Any implementation plan would therefore have to take the new legislative requirements into consideration.

In the meantime, good, decent people, who just want to celebrate their traditions, however they do so, are being let down by a lack of leadership.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I will not. I have only an extra minute, Pádraig.

Residents who want only to live in peace and safety are forced, year after year, to contend with bonfires that put lives at risk. The SDLP would prefer to see more alternatives, and fair play to those communities that offer so much in that regard. Ultimately, and I make no bones about it, we would like to see an end to bonfires. Clearly, we are nowhere near there yet. I do, however, recognise their significance, particularly in some of our most deprived areas. They are bound up with identity, a sense of belonging and community pride, as odd as it sounds, but let us not dismiss that pride, especially among young men who spend weeks and months designing and building those structures that, before they are marred with grotesque images and flags, are pretty impressive. That takes skill and graft. For them, the bonfire is a project: a claim to belonging in communities where opportunities are scarce.

Let us therefore eradicate the harmful elements of bonfires: the pollution; the damage to the environment; the damage to community relations; and the race to the bottom. Rather than condemn all those young people, harness their skills. Create apprenticeships and employment opportunities. Give them purpose, pride and a stake in their future, because, let us be real, that cohort of young people has been let down time and time again, and they continue to be by this Executive, leaving them ripe for exploitation by unsavoury criminal elements.

Today cannot be just about what has not been delivered. It also has to be about what we are going to do, although the motion does not set out what exactly that should entail. We want a society in which culture is celebrated with respect, not weaponised with hate. Culture should bring people together, not drive them apart. That requires action and real political will across the Chamber.

We might think that no one watches what happens here, but what happens here filters out and across our communities, so I say this to the leadership parties: stop hiding behind non-binding motions and excuses, and start leading.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed — this is a general comment and is not related to the Member who spoke last or to any other Member — I remind you, as we move through the debate, that references to amendments that were not accepted are not in order, nor is it in order to challenge the decision to not accept such amendments.

Mr Delargy: Each summer, we see bonfires across our communities. We know that, too often, they take place in unsafe and unsuitable locations: close to hospitals, schools and other people's homes and/or on contaminated land. That is not just a question of property damage but a real risk to families, children and residents. Alongside the safety concerns, there are environmental issues such as the burning of waste materials, which creates pollution and damages our health outcomes and the fabric of our communities. The clean-up costs fall back on already stretched public services, and that is money that could and should be spent on youth provision, housing and community development.

This debate should not just be about problems; it should be about solutions. In Derry, we have seen the power of community when it is supported and invested in. The planned transformation of Meenan Square is an example of regeneration that is making a real difference and creating space for positive activity in the heart of the Bogside. The Bogside has a proud history — one of resilience and one in which the campaign for civil rights was born. Civil rights and the movement that our community fought for was about building our community up and securing proper investment in housing, infrastructure and, most important, people. It was also about showing that our community had just as much right as any other community to first-class services. Meenan Square is the embodiment of a new vision for a new generation. The redevelopment of Meenan Square includes eight social homes, youth and community services, office space and a new shop for the area. That is a positive, progressive vision for our community, and it is what the people of the Bogside want to see on that site.

This summer alone, Féile ran 150 events across the Bogside, Creggan, Bishop Street, Brandywell and Fountain areas, with audiences of more than 20,000 people and over 2,000 participants. We have incredibly brave community groups — good community groups — that work not just in the summer months but throughout the year, with Féile being the key delivery partner, to ensure that everyone has access to community events that celebrate our community and all that it has to offer through delivering festivals, youth programmes, family fun days and cultural events.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Delargy, will you return to the subject of the motion, which is bonfire regulation?

Mr Delargy: Yes, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am trying to provide examples of that alternative and the positive political leadership that we can offer in our communities.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Delargy: Of course.

Ms Ferguson: Does the Member agree that we have a collective duty to realise the Good Friday Agreement commitment for citizens to live free from sectarian harassment? That must mean enshrining effective legal sanctions on bonfires that promote offensive, racist and sectarian material and threaten the health and well-being of residents in all our communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind the Member, for when he continues, that this is not a wider discussion on previous or current agreements. The terms of the motion are clearly laid out in the Order Paper.

Mr Delargy: I absolutely agree with the Member. Political leadership has been touched on today, and I was going to ask about that if I had been allowed an intervention earlier. I very much welcome Mr Durkan's comments today.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Delargy: I will finish this point.

I very much welcome Mr Durkan's comments today, but I ask this: why, over the two weeks of the bonfire being built in Derry, was there no public comment from our SDLP MP? There was nothing for two weeks.

I am more than happy to give way.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I cannot comment on the lack of comment from anyone else. However, the Member will be aware — his councillor colleagues who sit on the council's bonfire working group certainly will be — that there had been an agreement in place not to make any public comment on the bonfire in the Bogside. That was initially broken by Gary Middleton, and Sinn Féin responded. There was subsequently public condemnation and criticism from me and my colleagues.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will Members resume their seats? I will make something clear that I would expect every Member to know. Members of Parliament are not here to answer any queries about their performance, and nobody should seek to answer on their behalf. In the past two or three minutes alone, I have asked a number of times that Members return to the subject that is clearly laid out in the motion.

I will move on to the next contributor, who is Phillip Brett.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As someone who proudly attends 11 July celebrations, I can confidently and clearly say, as my party has consistently said, that the burning of flags, election posters or other offensive material is wrong, it always has been wrong, and it will never have my party's support. My community and I are proud enough of our traditions that we do not need to denigrate anyone else's to raise ours up. However, I fear that the motion is a blanket attempt to class all community celebrations across Northern Ireland as sectarian hate fests that the Members who tabled it want to eradicate. They want to eradicate and erode the proud unionist and loyalist traditions across Northern Ireland.

There is no mention in the motion of the hundreds of bonfires that take place across Northern Ireland and pass off without incident. There is not one mention of the hundreds of people who engage in positive outlets throughout the year to ensure that our young people can be involved in that proud and historic practice. In my constituency of North Belfast, the transformation of bonfires in recent years has been commendable. We have young people who are being led by those who want to see a positive outlet for their future. In Rathcoole, we have the amazing RATH Community Group that shows our young people that we celebrate our culture and do not demean that of others. Work takes place throughout the length and breadth of North Belfast, but there is no reference to that in the motion. The cat was let out of the bag by the Opposition spokesperson: they do not want to see bonfires taking place — full stop.

There is a clear message from these Benches, and, if we are the only party to say it, we will do so happily. There will always be bonfires in Northern Ireland, and my party will continue to support them.

Does Ms Armstrong want to intervene, or is she just pulling a face at my comments?

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: Yes, of course.

Ms K Armstrong: I do not know why the Member thinks that I am pulling a face, to be honest. I love the fact that a number of beacons, not bonfires, in my local area are lit regularly. Cultural celebration is nothing to be feared. What is to be feared is the hate fest that comes with it, and I have borne the brunt of several sectarian comments. Does the Member then agree that that needs to stop and be taken away from a cultural expression event?

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

Mr Brett: If the Member had listened to the first 45 seconds of my remarks, she would know that I made it clear that attacks on any person are reprehensible. I have always stood against attacks on democracy. Unfortunately, others in the Chamber do not have the same record; indeed, they campaigned for terrorists to be released from prison.

I turn back to the motion. Actions speak louder than words. We can have all the warm and woolly comments from the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin or the SDLP saying that they support the legitimate expression of culture, but let us look at their actions. In my constituency of North Belfast, Sinn Féin and the SDLP together acted illegally to have the Adam Street bonfire in Tiger's Bay removed because they did not want that small unionist community to be able to celebrate its culture and identity. Their actions were struck down by the High Court. Those were their actions, not their words.

In Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, where we support bonfires that do not have flags or emblems, those parties, along with the Alliance Party, vote every year to remove the funding. Look at actions, not words. In South Belfast, we had great interest in the working-class community of the Village. Of course, there had been no commentary for years from those elected representatives about the lack of social housing in that constituency, which my party has fought for. However, when it comes to bonfires, they all appear, because they want to denigrate the unionist community.

The motion tries to nitpick parts of the FICT report in order to denigrate the unionist community. Of course, there is no reference to the FICT study on the removal of illegal monuments, because other parties are happy to support the terrorist shrines across this country, which have a negative impact on community relations. Other Members mentioned the Féile an Phobail organisation but made no comment about its work on bonfires celebrating the IRA or about celebrating the Bayardo bombers and the 50th anniversary of those murders.

My party will take no lectures whatever on te legitimate expression of culture and identity from any political party represented in the Chamber. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party want to use every opportunity in the Chamber to do down unionism. My party will not stand by quietly and allow that to happen.

Mr Dickson: Perhaps, I can paint a slightly different picture of where the Alliance Party is coming from in respect of the matters. The Alliance Party has been clear: we recognise the wish of those who want to celebrate their culture with bonfires. At best, bonfires can be a genuine celebration of culture, history and community spirit. They can be opportunities for people to come together to mark that tradition and enjoy an event. However, celebration should never come at the expense of respect, safety or the law. The Alliance Party believes that all bonfires across Northern Ireland must meet those three clear principles: all bonfires must be respectful, safe and lawful. That is a reasonable ask of anyone.

First, bonfires need to be respectful. Sadly, this summer, too many were anything but that. We saw sickening displays of effigies of political leaders, election posters of me, my party colleagues and many others in the Chamber and even grotesque racist imagery. In July, a bonfire in Moygashel was used to display and burn an effigy of a migrant boat complete with life-sized, dark-skinned mannequins in life jackets. That was not a celebration of culture; it was a blatant act of racism and hatred. Such displays have no place in any society, let alone a shared one.

Secondly, bonfires must be safe. I cannot stress that enough. That is not just about fire safety, although that is critical; it is about protecting nearby homes, businesses, electricity substations and even hospitals. Just this summer, a bonfire in south Belfast that was built alarmingly close to an electricity substation put the supply to two major hospitals under threat. I was a patient in Belfast City Hospital on the day of that fire, and my outpatient appointment had to be transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital because the City Hospital was under threat as a result of concerns about that substation. That is not just reckless; it is indefensible. We must remember the tragic loss of John Steele, who fell 50 ft to his death from a bonfire in Larne. The safest way forward is to replace the traditional bonfire structure with a prepared beacon, a purpose-built structure that would be safely —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: Yes, I will.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise that the culture of traditional bonfires is not simply in the lighting of them but about children and young people who, in the weeks before the bonfire is lit, collect material around their communities, bring it to the site and take pride in looking at the event that they have put on for their community, as I did? That is the culture. That is what means so much to many of us. A beacon, while it has its place, replaces all that and takes it away.

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

Mr Dickson: I recognise that children and young people get involved in the collection of wood. That includes vandalising trees and pulling apart pallets and things like that.

Mr Brooks: Shame.

Mr Dickson: When that includes vandalising trees, pulling apart pallets and doing things like that, then I do not agree with you. Where I do agree with you —.

Mr Brooks: Shame.

Mr Dickson: Stop shouting "Shame" at me. I agree with you that it is appropriate for young people to collect bonfire material, but let us try and move on to beacons.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member —?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks.

Mr Dickson: We are also faced with the problem of toxic fumes from unregulated collected material. Contaminants, even including asbestos, from material such as tyres and plastic often find their way into bonfires, releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Yes, the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition has been clear on this: bonfire materials should be "wood only" or beacon-style. That is what we need.

Bonfires need to be lawful. Permission from the landowner needs to be granted. Far too many bonfires are erected each year without the consent of the landowner. In my constituency of East Antrim, some bonfires are regarded as being traditional because of their location, but, in reality, permission has never been sought or granted. That not only undermines the rule of law but places the landowner at risk of legal liability. Bonfire organisers who are genuinely proud of demonstrating their culture and who want to produce a responsible bonfire should show respect for the rights of others and ensure that they operate within the law.

Let me be clear: bonfires should never be platforms for sectarianism, racism or intimidation. They should not be used to threaten neighbours, mark territory or spread hate. If the organisers seek recognition of their culture, they must respect the rights and dignity of others. The Alliance Party wants bonfires to be genuine cultural celebrations that are lawful, safe and respectful. Until they reach that standard, they will continue to divide and to pose danger and risk to public health and the environment. In a society that is still healing from conflict, we cannot tolerate that.

The Alliance Party and I do not wish to do anything other than provide for respectful, safe and lawful bonfires, regardless of community or tradition. This is a cross-departmental issue that all Departments need to engage in. The motion is just a starting point. We need to move —

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

Mr Dickson: — from where we are now —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time.

Mr Clarke: I did not intend to put my name down to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the rhetoric that came from across the Chamber. The motion is not a serious attempt — it is merely sabre-rattling. When I look at my constituency of South Antrim and, indeed, at Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council — you will be aware of this, Mr Deputy Speaker — I see that, at one point, Antrim led the way in changing how bonfires were built. It removed the tyres. That was community-led. We did not need a dictatorship from the Benches opposite to tell our communities how to do it. They had the wisdom to do it, and they led and did it themselves. I remember that, many years ago, I came into Randalstown one night and saw that the river had changed colour because of the amount of tyres. The community decided to change that. They did not need people, some of them hypocrites, from the Benches opposite, to tell them how to do that. That is the difficulty with the motion.

The motion goes on to talk about flags. The Sinn Féin MLA for South Antrim raised an issue around the Twelfth about flags. With his rose-tinted glasses, he saw only flags of one colour. He did not see the offensive flags that were painted on walls and infrastructure in Crumlin — or he ignored them. He was interested only in the flag that represents my community. He raised tensions unnecessarily, when, with the PSNI, we could have had community resolution, which we got previously, but, of course, Sinn Féin was not really interested in resolving those things. It wanted to raise the temperature in the constituency.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I come back to the comments from Mr Beattie, who was on the commission, that the FICT report did not make recommendations only on bonfires and flags but covered memorials and murals. Does the Member agree that we need to look at all the recommendations of the FICT report so that we can tackle all the issues together?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): A reminder that the motion refers to bonfires. I cannot believe that I am reminding Members of that again. I give the Member an extra minute.

Mr Clarke: I hate to say it, but the motion refers to the commission on flags — unless you were speaking to your party colleague — which is why I bring flags into the debate.

The Member for East Antrim referred to cost and the environmental toxicity of some of these things. That is the whole, sole reason why the council — credit to the then chief executive — led the effort to do away with the tyres, the clean-up costs and the environmental impact on our constituency. Again, I point out that that was community-led and not done by a dictatorship from the Benches opposite.

There is a danger that the motion will stoke up tension. It is merely a response to the bonfire in the Bogside. It is interesting that the Member did not make any reference to some of the stuff that was on the bonfire in his constituency. Whilst they may have attacked him personally, they attacked many others as well. We will oppose the motion, because we see it for what it is. It is a sabre-rattling attempt to stoke up tensions and increase them so soon after the marching season and, indeed, the bonfire season.

Mr Butler: Like Mr Clarke, I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I am passionate about bonfires. I am possibly one of the most experienced people in the room to talk about them because, as a young person, I built bonfires. That is part of my backstory, my heritage and my culture, and it was something that I thoroughly enjoyed. There was a little bit of debate between Stewart Dickson and Trevor Clarke about young people. I was one of those young people who enjoyed the whole bonfire experience.

There are things in the motion that I can agree with. Like Mr Brett, I want to see good bonfires as something that can be celebrated as part of our wider culture. I would go as far as to say that they do not just belong to the Protestant, unionist and loyalist (PUL) community. Whilst perhaps they are more important to that community, they tell a part of our collective story, like it or lump it. That is our background here, guys: we have to share our history.

I also wear the hat of having served for 16 years in the Fire and Rescue Service, and I love to hear it being talked about in here. I attended bonfire sites on many nights, whether that was for an inspection or for a response.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Clarke: I put on record the work that was done by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council with the Fire and Rescue Service and the Housing Executive around site selection, safety and all the other things. I hope that the Member agrees with me on that. We do not need a motion in order to address that. We need members of the community to address it themselves. I commend the work that those services did with the community to get those resolutions.

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

Mr Butler: I agree with everything that the Member has said.

There are around 300 bonfires across Northern Ireland in and around 11 July. Today, while there has not been specific, detailed mention of bonfires, I did a rough count of about four examples — I will say that they were bad examples. I hate to see it, but I have been at bonfires where I have asked and persuaded and stayed for hours to see posters and flags taken off bonfires, because they do not reflect what I believe to be a cherished part of my tradition. That is something that we should all be involved in and not shy away from.

I agree with those who have said that, in order to see real success, this has to be bottom-up and not top-down. Why is that? It is because the delivery of the motion by the Sinn Féin Member did not reflect the words in the motion. The Member said that this was about opening up a dialogue, but it is not, because the motion says that it is about implementing part of the FICT report. There was no collective agreement around FICT at the end, because some of those matters proved too difficult for some of the parties.

I want to go back to one of the bonfires that was mentioned.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Butler: Yes, if you are brief.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that it is all very well for all of us who do not have to live beside these bonfire sites to talk about them from an abstract point of view? I dealt with an elderly lady living on her own in Dungannon who, for a number of years, begged the people who were building a bonfire beside her home to stop it. For two weeks every summer, her windows were boarded up. That is how she lived: in a house with wooden boards on her windows. The tiles were melted off her bathroom walls, and the Housing Executive had to come back every year to fix it. That was a ridiculous situation.

Mr Butler: Thank you for the intervention. I have no issue if a bonfire is too close to a building. I say that I have no issue: what I mean is that they should be in places where they are at a distance. I did my fire safety engineering exams, and I understand that they should be in places where they are not too close to properties and where nobody is in danger. I would like to see a series of bonfires on the Eleventh night to which tourists can come and at which we can tell our story in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, the motion does not address that, and it also leaves out very important parts of the FICT report that matter to me, as a former prison officer. The motion talks about personal safety, but, unfortunately, there are things in the FICT report about memorials to terrorists that apply to me, given what happened to 32 members of the prison workforce. I would like to see that recommendation in the FICT report brought forward and implemented. Perhaps a motion will be tabled about that at some stage.

What we have learnt today from some of the commentary is that we lose sight of all the good that has been done. There is still more to do. I am not speaking as its Chair, but I chair the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Part of the Committee's role is to look after the environment. Through what we are doing, I would like to see young people educated on how we can repair the environment.

Unless people are serious about having a conversation about how we cherish that part of our culture and save it, rather than, as some Members have said, and, disappointingly, I heard this from someone whom I respect daily, eradicate it in totality, we cannot be part of that conversation.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome today's motion and thank the Members who tabled it for debate. I have been involved in politics since 2013 and elected in some capacity since 2017. A phrase that I first heard when I was Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast was how we in Northern Ireland had "normalised the abnormal" across society here, and I fear that we are hearing some of that in today's debate.

Every year, without fail, the same problems arise with illegally erected flags on lamp posts demarcating territory and worrying residents, because no one knows who put them up or why, for how long they will be up or when they will be coming down. The same happens with some bonfires in Northern Ireland that appear on land without permission, contain harmful materials or are too close to residential properties, creating the lunacy of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service having to hose down buildings, as we have just heard from Mrs Dillon.

Bonfires can be positive. They can be a cultural celebration that welcomes all. They can be inclusive. Earlier in the month, the Chief Constable opened his statement to the Northern Ireland Policing Board by praising the effort, commitment and flexibility of his officers as they policed over 300 bonfires across Northern Ireland, with, sadly, 16 causing significant concern. We have seen the positives from adapting Eleventh night celebrations into environmentally and family-friendly events through the beacon programme. My constituency of East Belfast received seven beacons through funding from Belfast City Council.

As I said, bonfires can be inclusive, safe cultural celebrations, but, without regulation, very real dangers are becoming more and more prevalent. Only three years ago, we saw a young father fall to his death from a bonfire. This year, in East Belfast, we saw a man sustaining severe and life-changing burns during the lighting of a bonfire. Regulations on health and safety, cultural expression and protecting the environment should not be demonised because of a lack of political leadership, which ignores the society that we should all want to create here and turns a blind eye to illegality.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: Two seconds. Sadly, we are seeing it at the moment. We hear condemnation of vigilantes one minute and about legitimate concerns, which are based on misinformation, the next. We need to see political leadership driving change so that everyone celebrates tradition without putting themselves and, crucially, others in danger. There is so much potential for bonfires to be part of safe, family-friendly cultural events, but, without regulation, we limit that potential. Money could be spent on enhancing regulated events and driving tourism. Instead, it is needed for repairs and for the use of public services' time to respond to emergencies created by unregulated events. I say that not to erode culture but to ensure safety when celebrating culture. I support today's motion and its call for bonfire regulations to be introduced to ensure safe celebrations for all.

Mr O'Toole: I am listening to the debate and trying to channel the average person watching it with their head in their hands, thinking, "Will we ever make progress in this society?" I say that because the quality of the debate and some of what has been said has been absolutely depressing, it has to be said. [Interruption.]

I will happily engage with my DUP colleagues across the Chamber and respond to some of the points that they have made, although that will be in a few minutes.

I come on to why the motion is hugely important. Clearly, it speaks to the divisions that we have in our society and to our need to express culture. It is, however, also inevitably a manifestation of the fact that we are still a divided society.

It is important to say that the motion does not call on any specific Minister to do anything, despite the fact that the party that tabled the motion is the largest party in the Chamber and the Executive. That is disappointing and speaks to an absence of real leadership. Were there to be a full-blown implementation of FICT, that would have to be led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. There is no other way for it to happen.

We have seen today what the two big parties make of these kinds of divisions. It is a joint determination not to move on and show leadership together but to use the issues to divide, to yell across the Chamber and, ultimately, to find political and electoral benefit from the division in this society. That is what it is all about.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second, when you can peddle some more division.

That, ultimately, is what it is all about. It is not about culture or protecting safety; it is about peddling division, important as the issue is.

I will give way, because I am sure that Mr Brooks will have something mature and enlightening to say.

Mr Brooks: Well, I am not here to peddle division. What I was going to say to you and the Member who spoke before you is that, in my constituency, I have worked with bonfire builders in Clonduff, Orangefield and Cregagh, where we faced some of those issues and worked with the Legacy Network and the EastSide Partnership.

Mr McReynolds did not take an intervention to be asked this question, but I will ask you it: how many of those communities or similar ones in your community do you work with, have you engaged with or have you talked to?

Mr O'Toole: Let me answer that point. That drivel is thrown at parties such as mine all the time, including by Members — [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Hang on one second. Mr Clarke is shouting across the Chamber at me.

Earlier this summer, there was a bonfire in Meridi Street off the Donegall Road. It was mentioned earlier. Next to it were tons upon tons of asbestos. You are shaking your head: do you deny that there were tons of asbestos lying off the Donegall Road? Is that valid? [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Oh, you are not allowed to talk about fact. I corresponded —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Comments will be made through the Chair, and Members who are speaking will be heard.

Mr O'Toole: I corresponded —

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way, because I gave way to your colleague. I have a very short time. I have already let your colleague in.

I corresponded on behalf of my constituents on the Donegall Road, and, to answer your question, I have engaged with community groups across my constituency, including those from a loyalist background. When I say that that is a priority for me, I could not be more serious. I care about that tradition, I care about that community, and I want the best for them. That is why I did not want a bonfire to be built next to a big pile of asbestos. I did not want them to get asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and all the carcinogenic complications. I find it astonishing that I was called some kind of angry, bitter, republican activist because I did not want my constituents to breathe in that stuff. It is a tragedy for unionism that it finds itself in that position: a tragedy. That bonfire should not have gone on.

I have to address a point that was made. I engaged with the Environment Minister.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way, because I have a very short time.

The Environment Minister did not speak about the bonfire until 48 or even 24 hours before it was built. With the greatest respect to him, that would not have happened were it not for my party standing up and talking about the issue. That was the SDLP using our role to speak on behalf of people in that community. Let me tell you this: my office had calls from people in the Village — working-class people who live in that loyalist community — who said, "Thank you for speaking up about this", in part because other people did not.

On the broader point about bonfire regulation, I want people to enjoy bonfires safely. I will not be going to them every day of the week, but I want my constituents and others across the region to enjoy them. People enjoy them: I respect that, but that cannot legitimate hate. What was displayed at Moygashel was the most disgusting, revolting hate and racism. By the way, it is a disgraceful slur on ordinary working-class unionists and working-class communities in general to say that that behaviour is some kind of legitimate expression of culture.

The answer to all that is, yes, implementing the findings of the FICT Commission. That will involve joined-up work by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their parties, not slurs across the Chamber, and a genuine commitment to see one another and one another's culture and to empathise with one another. Sinn Féin's Chief Whip is laughing at me; apparently, it is a bad idea to call for working together.

I agree with some of the motion's intent. I wish that there were a specific call, I wish that there were a specific action, and I wish that the debate were somewhat more mature. I genuinely wonder what some of the people watching it, particularly young people, whether they are loyalist young people who want to build a bonfire on the eleventh night and enjoy themselves or young people from any other background, will think. Perhaps young people who are thinking about going to university across the water are listening to the debate and wondering, "Will I ever come back to this place?". They will think, "Do you know what? Maybe I will not". Honestly, we should think about the future and about how we move forward so that loyalist communities and all communities respect one another rather than constantly digging at one another. The quality of the debate has been absolutely depressing, but I hope that we can move on at some point.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, if, when speaking, another Member makes it clear that they are not about to give way, you should not persist in asking. There have been examples of that across the Chamber. It is for each Member to decide whether they will take an intervention. If it is perfectly clear that a Member is not going to take an intervention, those who are asking should desist.

Mr Burrows: I agree that the quality of the debate has mostly been substandard. First, I commend the Alliance Party for its strapline. It sums up the issues in one simple four-word phrase: "lawful, safe and respectful". I am delighted that Alliance has borrowed that phrase from me. I used it in an interview with its deputy leader during the summer, and I then started to see it in press releases. I am glad to help the Alliance Party on justice.

Getting back to the substance of the motion, I can 100% say, through lived experience, that bottom-up approaches to dealing with bonfires are best. Civic society — I mean those who have elected jobs of leadership, those who are getting paid in councils and, sometimes, those in my old organisation and the 999 services — tends to want to abrogate responsibility to someone else: creating a quango or a commissioner and asking them to deal with it. Generally speaking, they just get paid for not dealing with it. The reality is that things can be done better if everyone rolls their sleeves up.

Instead of waiting until the point in the cycle when you are virtually into June, people should plan early and sit down and work with working-class communities, which is often where the issues are, and ask them, "What sites are you planning to use this year?". Let us have a subcommittee of the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP), bring in the Fire and Rescue Service at that stage, before anything is actually built, and then bring in the Police Service and the relevant council. We then need to start agreeing collectively that there are certain things that we will not have. We will have no posters and no hate crime, and we will make sure that the bonfire is a safe distance from houses and that it is of a safe size. We will have an appointed person to set light to it, we will engage with the Fire Service, and we will make sure that there is no sectarian chanting and nothing on it that is a danger to the environment. None of that needs a quango, a commission or a legal framework. That is just the leadership that we never see. Everyone just wants to score points and blame the unionists.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. In Belfast, we have the bonfire management scheme, and council officials inspect the bonfires right up to the last day. A lot of the political posters and so on are put on in the couple of hours before the bonfires are to be lit. How would you deal with those instances?

Mr Burrows: Thank you. Hopefully, with the right leadership, that does not happen, but there are criminal investigations that can be carried out if something crosses the line. That is why, for example — this happens on both sides — when, this summer, a poster of my former colleague Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell was put up on a bonfire in the Bogside, I was working to get it down, although we could not get it down. That was disgraceful, just as it would be disgraceful if a poster of the Member were put on a bonfire. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been consistent that both are wrong, but, in my view, this is an attack on culture. It is absolutely an attack on culture.

There is something that poisons these debates for the people who are listening, and this point is directly linked to that. There are people who will say, as Members from Sinn Féin said, "Oh, it is a disgrace" when something happens such as the Moygashel bonfire. Yes, it is a disgrace, but it is also a disgrace when people shout, "Ooh, ahh, up the 'RA" and you cannot say that that is wrong. You described the Moygashel bonfire as something that causes fear and anxiety: I agree with you. I hope that those people are arrested, charged and taken to court, but you will sit and justify people saying that burning people in a hotel with a firebomb was necessary. When bonfires are things that we should regulate and burning a hotel is something that we should celebrate, you simply have moral myopia. That poisons the whole debate. I want to look forward, but how can we do that when people immediately get their backs up because they see an agenda? That is the reality. You have no authority or legitimacy when you speak.

The Alliance Party, I am afraid to say, while it has a great strapline, tends to be more vocal about issues concerning unionism than those concerning republicanism. I never hear its members on 'Talkback' or 'The Nolan Show', banging the door down to call for investigations when "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" is chanted at the féile. Why can you not show leadership as the party that used to represent the middle ground? You have abdicated that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, can we return to the motion?

Mr Burrows: We can. I will say this—.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Address the Chair.

Mr Burrows: Address the Chair. Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will always respect the office of the Chair. I apologise for that profusely.

The essence is that a little respect in our language towards people who have been badly traumatised and hurt in the past would allow us to have a better and more rational conversation. The way to deal with it is through leadership and from the bottom up.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way in one second.

We should not come in with an arbitrary commission or anything else that will just be another quango. That would be to delegate all our responsibilities to someone else.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. Feel free, any day, to give that leadership. When people burn bonfires in my town, I am standing in the road, gathering tyres and asking the police and the council to come to collect them. That is showing leadership, and it prevents our young people from putting themselves and the people who live beside the bonfires in danger. That is leadership. Give it an attempt any day you feel like it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Unfortunately, the intervention has taken up all the time allocated to the Member.

Mr Gaston: Here we go again: another day, another lecture from Sinn Féin, aided and abetted by its little helpers in the Alliance Party in taking a swipe and looking down their noses at unionism and, in particular, loyalism. No one believes for one minute that Sinn Féin cares about dangerous bonfires in unionist areas. It is the party that tells us that there was no alternative to La Mon, where 12 innocent people were burned alive. Yet, it suddenly pretends to care about a bonfire in the same constituency as La Mon at which no one was injured, never mind killed.

The leader of the Opposition represents the Donegall Road, but the only time that I have heard the words "Sandy Row" cross his lips in this place was last December, when he gave off to me for daring to raise the plight of unionist businesses cut off by Grand Central station. The only time the lofty establishment in South Belfast gets exercised about loyalist areas is when people dare to stand up and celebrate their culture.

During the summer, many people rightly asked me this obvious question: why do those people get interested in asbestos only in early July? Why was Boron Developments — coincidently, it lists the wife of the Armagh GAA captain and manager — which owns the site, not forced to clear the site months or years before? As for the outrage about what is burned on bonfires that we have heard today, the hypocrisy absolutely stinks. They are the people who gave artistic licence to Kneecap, who unveiled the mural of a PSNI Land Rover on fire.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, not for the first time this afternoon, I ask the Member to return to the terms of the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your wisdom and guidance.

In England, burning effigies on bonfire night is accepted as a cultural expression. In Lewes, it is even promoted as a tourist attraction. However, when unionists do it, suddenly it is treated as a hate crime.

The truth is that the lectures are predictable. The lectures are condescending and are rightly ignored by a community that sees through the hypocrisy of a political class that despises them.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. As you all know, I represent Strangford, and my office is in Newtownards. I will say clearly that Alliance is made up of unionists, nationalists and people who do not have a constitutional preference.

When I am in Newtownards, I serve everyone. The majority of people who come to my office are unionists. This week we spent time going around each of the estates, so I ask the Member to please be careful with his language.

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

Mr Gaston: Careful about my language? Will any unionist who is in the Alliance Party please step forward? I certainly do not see too many in this Chamber.

The motion says nothing about the cultural importance of bonfires to the unionist community. It does not admit that only 18% of unionists support a regulatory commission for bonfires and flags. Without community support, such a system is doomed to failure from the start, and unionists do not need to guess how regulation works: we have already seen it in action. Let us look at the Parades Commission, and at North Antrim in particular. Dunloy Accordion Band can go to the Belfast Tattoo, be rightfully praised by the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor, but it cannot play a hymn, something as simple as 'Jesus Loves Me', while walking up Dunloy Main Street. That exposes the contradiction at the heart of the motion. Republicans believe that unionist culture should be policed by the state, while their culture should be promoted by it. Support of just 15% is enough for Irish language street signs. An Irish Language Commissioner is to be appointed. Meanwhile the Parades Commission bans hymns being played by an accordion band.

Now the Assembly, in its wisdom — my goodness, nobody knows better than the Assembly — calls for yet another part of unionist culture to be policed. My culture does not need Sinn Féin's permission. My community sees through the hypocrisy of the nationalist/republican agenda, which flows from the House. We will not be lectured by those who excuse firebombs while they condemn pallets being burnt on a bonfire.

Mr Carroll: The victim mentality of the unionist parties has gone to a different level in the debate, and not for the first time this evening. Illegal and unregulated —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I have just started. Maybe if you wait a second.

Illegal and unregulated bonfires are annual reminders that the threat of loyalist violence and intimidation is still, unfortunately, with us. Every summer, like clockwork, sectarian tensions are heightened. For all the talk about peace and reconciliation, loyalist paramilitaries clearly hold a tight grip on communities. I blame the paramilitaries and not the ordinary working-class Protestant people for the scourge of dangerous and threatening bonfires.

The summer saga at the Donegall Road bonfire was a clear example of the absurdity of politics in the North. That bonfire is at an interface site, smack bang in the middle of neighbourhoods blighted by poverty, alienation and decades of sectarian division: something that I talk about all the time. We witnessed a toxic mix of asbestos, a health and safety nightmare, fused with sectarianism. I live a stone's throw away from that bonfire. None of the Members to my right lives near it, and I was concerned, then as I am now, about the impact that that bonfire being burnt at a site covered with asbestos will have on my family and my neighbours, and on my neighbours in a different constituency across the way.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure, I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Since the Member lives so close to the bonfire site, when did he first start to raise concerns about it? Now that 12 July has passed, do those concerns still exist? What has he done about it since then?

Mr Carroll: I have been raising concerns about asbestos in that general area for quite some time. If he checks the 'The Irish News', he will see that I spoke about asbestos at the Broadway Tower site earlier this year, before July. You cannot pick and choose. That was a terrible attempt at deflection but, anyway, I proceed.

That bonfire should not have been lit, but the obvious question is why was it allowed to be erected in the first place? I imagine that unionists like Mr Gaston and others would be aghast if attempts were made to prevent it from even being built. The NIEA has launched a criminal investigation into the presence of asbestos on that site, and I sincerely hope that all the asbestos has been removed, and the Executive should confirm whether that is the case. I am happy to give way to anybody on that issue.

I fear, however, that the damage has already been done and, as we have heard, sustained exposure to asbestos particles in the air damages lungs and causes cancer. That is well documented. I fear that more working-class people will be consigned to that fate, and because it is the health of working-class people, it is seen to be OK, justified and justifiable, which is sickening. I have written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister demanding that a task force be set up to assess the health impacts of that toxic bonfire. It is not just about what happened in July but about what happens after July. Before the next attempt to erect a bonfire, there needs to be some kind of investigation into the health impacts on working-class people, not just from the Iveagh and St James's areas but from the Village, Sandy Row and elsewhere, who are affected by the fumes and the presence of a bonfire on an asbestos site. Bonkers indeed. It should also involve engagement with clinicians, who are the best-placed people to understand and treat any long-term health impacts on working-class communities who already suffer from, as I say, unacceptable health inequalities.

It would be foolish not to mention the role played by politicians in the community and Stormont in courting, funding and protecting loyalist paramilitaries, in particular, for many decades. Those figures should have been shunned; instead, the red carpet and funding were rolled out to them. Over the summer, we also witnessed the disgraceful and despicable burning of effigies of migrants and asylum seekers. That is not legitimate political or cultural expression; it is disgusting hatred that needs to be condemned. Yet, year after year, political leaders give the green light to hatred and division of that kind. The deprivation ushered in by both Westminster and Stormont has created the conditions for racism and sectarianism to thrive. Normal politics at Stormont, Westminster and the Dáil has failed people right across the island. We should all be angry about poverty, the housing crisis, violence against women and many other issues that are faced by deprived communities. Unfortunately, far right agitators and paramilitaries want to control the narrative around the problems that are faced by our communities. They weaponise genuine feelings of despair and frustration for their own gain to scapegoat migrants and marginalised people for their own failings. Unique —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Member paints himself and his party's members as spokespeople for the working class on both sides of the community, yet he seems to be denigrating people. Large crowds attend those bonfires, but they all seem to be being painted as paramilitaries. As someone who paints himself in that regard, do you engage with those communities? Have you talked to the communities in Sandy Row, particularly about the bonfire? Do you not think that the majority want that bonfire?

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that my constituency takes in a large part of the Shankill Road. I let the Member know that my party, alongside trade unions, organised a significant march in 2019 of trade unionists and workers from the Shankill Leisure Centre, up through Lanark Way and down the Falls Road, against the privatisation of leisure. I invite the Member to give me one example of his party uniting working-class people of any stripe for any occasion across east Belfast, west Belfast or south Belfast. He is unable to. [Interruption.]

On that point, I will emphasis that unity and the working-class struggle is the key to overcoming the division that the Member is happy to stoke.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I now call Deirdre Hargey to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much.

Thank you to everybody who spoke on today's motion. I listened intently, even to those with whom I may not directly agree. We will have differing opinions and views. Do you know what? That is OK. That is what a political Chamber is for.

Once the summer months are over, we often forget about and move on from the issue of bonfires and the matters that pertain to them. By "we", I mean not just politicians but the agencies, which, I am sure, give a sigh of relief once July and August are over and the bonfires are forgotten about. However, the residents and those impacted on do not forget about them. They probably live in fear as they anticipate more going up the following year. It is important that we do not leave it until May and June of next year and that we try to engage on and look at the issues. It is in that context that we tabled the motion. It is important that we have a unified voice, and I still have hope that we can have a unified voice on the motion. I do not believe that it is a contentious motion or an attack on culture. Nowhere in the motion have we said that we do not want to see bonfires.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, go on ahead.

Mr Burrows: The Member asked for a unified voice. There has been a unified voice from this side of the Chamber that the Moygashel bonfire, with migrants in a dinghy, was wrong, should not have happened and should be condemned. Will she join that unified voice and say that shouting "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" at republican festivals is wrong and should be condemned?

Miss Hargey: We are here to talk about the motion on the regulation of bonfires. [Interruption.]

If you want to talk about other issues, I am happy to engage on those issues. Mr Gaston is laughing, but he does not even talk to any of us in the corridor or wish to engage, so how can we overcome contentious issues if he will not even sit down with other people who are elected to the House and have conversations and engage with them? I am willing to do that. The question is this: is he? I am willing to look at that.

I do not believe that the motion is an attack on culture. I believe that it is a logical and common-sense approach that focuses on public safety, of life and property, and on limiting the impact on environmental damage. It focuses on an end to sectarian and racist displays. I do not care whether that is a bonfire in a loyalist community or one in a republican/nationalist community. Such displays are disgraceful. They should not happen, and we should all work to ensure that they are removed.

The motion is also about the location of bonfires. Some are deliberately built in interface areas. The Adam Street bonfire was mentioned earlier, and there was criticism of it. If, however, Members look at the judgement from Justice Horner pertaining to the clear ground rules that need to be in place for bonfires, particularly where their location is contentious, they will see that he said, in summary, that there should be clear ground rules for their construction, size and, importantly, location. I believe that bonfires or any such structures should not be built at interface or flashpoint areas, because their being built there is about trying to create contention, and that is what has happened in places such as Adam Street. I therefore stand over the action that has been taken on those issues.

Our focus is not on every bonfire. It is on some bonfires at which such issues have manifested themselves. As I said, those issues include bonfires being built at particular locations and at interfaces, health and safety concerns, environmental damage and displays of hate.

It is, however, important to praise good work as well, and we have done so in the past. I have praised the good work that has been done in the Woodvale area. I have praised the good work that has been done by Féile na hAbhann in my constituency of South Belfast, which translates as the "Festival of the River". In that community, the work is to replace unwanted bonfires, but the Woodvale bonfire is about how that community wants to celebrate its culture. Indeed, Belfast City Council has supported both programmes and got broad party support for them. They are models of good practice, and it is important to speak about those models of good practice.

Our motion calls for people to act within the confines of existing laws and for regulation to oversee bonfires. I believe that, with community engagement and participation, regulation can work. Regulation can also give communities clarity. That is important. If they believe that bonfires are an important part of their culture, and they want to continue to have them, they will see that regulation is not a dictatorship. It can give clarity to those communities on how they can keep within the confines of the law and enjoy their day by doing so.

I come from a working-class community. I still live in the community in which I was born and bred. My background is in community organising, and I do not believe for one minute that any type of regulation, whether it is on bonfires or children's safety at summer schemes, or anything else, is top-down. It can be bottom-up, and, as such, it can provide clarity.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: I will give way in a moment. I want to move on a bit.

The issues have been highlighted, and many Members have talked about FICT report that was published a number of years ago. I agree that we need to see the establishment of the working group. Its remit is to implement the FICT report's recommendations. I agree with the parties that are calling for that to happen, but the reality is that there is a party in the Executive that is blocking it, and it is not Sinn Féin. We want the working group to be established. We want it to take forward the recommendations laid out in the FICT report, and if there are concerns or contentious issues, we have to get around the table and discuss them. If we do not establish the working group, how are we ever going to move the issues forward? There was also the Tom Frawley report, which was commissioned by Belfast City Council in 2017. That was a comprehensive report. If you have not read it, I recommend that you do. Both those reports outline the legal and legislative frameworks that we are working under, and which pertain to bonfires and how they take place, set within a regulatory framework. We also need agencies to take more action in adherence to the laws that are already in place.

I have engaged with the PSNI on the issue of asbestos and toxic materials at the Donegall Road site — I know that the issue has gone to the AERA Minister. It is a disgrace — there is no point in saying anything different — that those materials have been allowed to stay there for over 10 years. It is a disgrace on the agencies and others who have allowed that to happen. I say, again, that we need to see those materials removed without further delay. It is not just about the bonfire. I am still concerned about the impact that those toxic materials — asbestos and others — have on the residents who live adjacent to the site and in the broader community. It is unacceptable. We have seen unacceptable racist and sectarian displays of hate. They also need to be challenged robustly.

I want people to enjoy their cultural festivities, and to go out and have a good day. I heard what Phillip said. We do not follow each other on Facebook, but he appeared on my Facebook feed on 12 July. He was out having good fun. It looked like a good family fun day. It is like what we run in my community in August. However, I want to make sure that we do it in a safe way, and that we are not breaking laws that are already in place — be that by trespassing on property for which you do not have permission or by burning displays of hate.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, of course.

Mrs Dodds: Aw.

Miss Hargey: Sorry, Diane.

Mr Brooks: Sorry, Diane.

Does the Member recognise that any sort of regulation on this — I do not think that it is workable — has to have the support of the communities? Does she understand that the experience of working-class unionist communities, in particular, of the Parades Commission means that they do not have confidence that regulation that is imposed by this place will be fair or level-minded?

Miss Hargey: With the establishment of the working group that was set out in the FICT report, we could start to bring forward those issues and see what a regulatory framework would look like. From a working-class point of view, that would help to give clarity, because it would clearly set out the ground rules for those who want to have the structures, and ensure that that is done safely. That would take the contention out of it. Tom Frawley said that. The FICT report said that, and Justice Horner said that in his summing up on the Adam Street bonfire.

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

Miss Hargey: We can find a unified voice on these issues and give clarity. I commend the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for concluding the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before the next item of business.

Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move

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

Ms K Armstrong: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to propose this very serious motion. I urge every Member present to consider not just what is said in the Chamber but what it means outside this place, in the homes, on the streets and in the lives of people who feel unsafe simply because of who they are or where they live. I ask everyone in the Chamber today to support the motion and to vote for it, because we must act, we must act together and we must act now. I am very grateful for the statement that came out of the Executive confirming that all Executive parties have condemned all racially motivated violence. I am sure that the Opposition, although they are not in the Executive, concur with that, as do People Before Profit, our independent Member and the TUV.

What has happened this year across Northern Ireland has been disgusting. No one should fear that they are going to be attacked simply because of the colour of their skin. No one should be left wondering whether it is safe for them to walk through their community. As an Assembly, we cannot just condemn what has happened and move on. We need to see politicians taking leadership, making brave decisions and actually tackling the root causes of what has happened across Northern Ireland. In recent months, particularly in places such as Ballymena, Belfast and other towns and cities, there have been multiple reports of sectarian and racist intimidation and attacks on individuals and homes — windows smashed, threats made and people terrified in their own neighbourhoods. Some have had to flee their homes, and some are left wondering at what point their identity, their accent or who they are might be enough to make them a target. Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of deeper tensions and of the absence, in places, of a strategy to protect people, promote shared understanding and confront hatred.

As elected representatives, we must speak clearly and unequivocally on behalf of all those victims. It is not enough to say that we condemn without naming what we condemn: sectarianism, racism, hate, intimidation and violence in all its forms. People in our community need to know that we, their political representatives, see them and not just the criminals; that we mean what we say; that we will follow our words with action; and that, when someone's home is attacked because of who they are, be it because of their race, religion or ethnicity, politicians will not equivocate. We must take responsibility for the language that we use, and we must call out behaviour that seeks to divide, intimidate or threaten. Targeting anyone with violence is wrong, full stop.

I am a bit disappointed that the Executive Office is taking so long to bring forward its refreshed good relations strategy. It is a successor to Together: Building a United Community, which was itself intended to tackle sectarianism and racism through adopting a whole-community approach. While our community faces division, violence and tension, we are still waiting for the new strategy. We need it now more than ever. Without it, we have no cohesive strategic framework that is grounded in clear actions, measurable targets and accountability. Without it, we are fighting individual fires rather than preventing them. Without it, we will not identify programmes to be funded throughout the upcoming multi-year Budget. The delay is not simply a bureaucratic failing. It is a failure, and, sadly, it comes with a human cost.

As the Minister will know, we are in the grip of a housing crisis. Families need safe, affordable homes that are secure and that are in communities in which they can stay. They need homes that are not just a roof over their head but a refuge from fear. Poor housing, a shortage of social and affordable housing and barriers to building more new houses are not just infrastructure issues but matters of safety, community cohesion and equality. When people are pushed into overcrowded, substandard housing or into areas with tensions, when waiting lists stretch and when affordability is out of reach, that heightens resentment and anxiety and can even feed into hate and misinformation. It provides the far right antagonists with an audience that turns on people in the community instead of pointing fingers at us, the politicians, who are failing to meet housing and other needs.

The motion calls on the Minister for Communities:

I read with much interest the departmental business plan for 2025-26, and an objective in it highlights the fact that there will be action taken to:

I am slightly disappointed, however, when it comes to the activities that are mentioned under that heading. It talks about things that we all agree are important, such as fuel poverty, the disability strategy and actions to progress sign language, but, to be honest, if we are going to talk about social value, we need a clear plan, with a funding timeline and accountability for the new good relations strategy and with tangible actions that address sectarianism and racism. That is not for the Minister to deliver on his own, because it is an Executive strategy.

We need stronger use of the community safety framework to identify risk zones, to support those who are targeted and to ensure that police and community safety agencies act swiftly to prevent escalation. We need specific housing interventions. Social houses need to be built, and we need to make housing-for-all developments the standard. Rented properties need to be affordable. Homelessness needs to be mitigated, and barriers to planning, finance and funding need to be removed, as does bureaucracy. Those are all things what we can do to support the Minister for Communities. There should be cross-departmental coordination to help communities, the environment, social development and justice. All Departments must play their part. Crucially, if he is funded to do so, the Minister for Communities has the opportunity to step up and meet the objective in the business plan that will allow him to deliver community programmes that help bring about a more inclusive and welcoming society.

That means investing in grassroots initiatives, shared spaces and youth and cultural programmes that bring people together rather than dividing them. If we want people to feel safe in their homes, we must also ensure that they feel safe in their neighbourhood, in their community and in the daily fabric of life.

Making Northern Ireland work is as much about building a society where we are all respected and included as it is about developing the economy. There is no place in our community for hate, xenophobia, racism or Islamophobia. That has to stop. Certainly, my thoughts are with all those who have been impacted by the targeted violence and intimidation. The House stands with you.

The motion is not about scoring political points. I am confident that all Members will agree with me when I say that we are all opposed to the violence that we have seen reported in our newspapers, on TV and on social media. It is about protecting people and publicly recognising that the fear that many people live with is real. It is about demonstrating leadership, not waiting for things to get worse. To be clear, the tensions that we see in our community are not caused by the people who have come to live there; they exist because our community needs more resources and help. They are about people not having housing or access to enough money to pay for food, as we have heard from the Trussell Trust, which has released its 'Hunger in the UK' report. In Northern Ireland, 130,000 children are going hungry, and 520,000 are in food insecurity.

I ask everyone to come together in the Assembly to vote in favour of the motion, because we all must condemn sectarian and racist attacks not just in words but with commitment and because we recognise that elected representatives must be clear, unequivocal and consistent in their language, especially in the aftermath of attacks. Communities need a refreshed good relations strategy with tangible actions now, because there is a housing crisis that demands urgent cross-departmental interventions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what is happening on that.

Minister, I appreciate that you have responsibility for housing, but you also have a responsibility to help to build a truly inclusive and welcoming society. I hope to hear today the specific actions that you and your Department are delivering to stop the spread of hate and disinformation and the breakdown of community cohesion.

Let us show that the Assembly can act. Let us show compassion, leadership and moral clarity. Let us vote for the motion for the safety, dignity and future of every person in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Kellie. I call Colm Gildernew. Colm, I remind you that you have five minutes.

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

I thank the Members who tabled the motion on such an important issue.

In June this year, racist intimidation took place on the streets of Ballymena, Larne and other places in some of the worst racially motivated riots that the North has ever seen. In the months since, there have been concerning sectarian and racist attacks in Belfast and other places that have left whole communities living in fear and driven some families from their homes. Let me be very clear: those attacks are unacceptable and disgraceful, and they must stop. We must be unequivocal in our condemnation of those attacks and do all that we can to support the families who were targeted. Racism and sectarianism have no place in our society, and we all have a duty to face down the individuals and organisations responsible for sowing the seeds of hatred and division.

A chairde,

figures released by the PSNI last month show that the number of recorded race hate crimes is at an all-time high, with 1,329 recorded incidents. That is an increase of 48% on the previous year. As someone who lives in a constituency with an ethnically diverse population, I know all too well the positive contribution and value that people from different backgrounds make to our communities every day. Many of our businesses benefit from the skills, experience, energy and commitment that people from overseas bring with them, and the same can be said of our health service. I also know that they and their children bring huge dynamism and energy to our schools, sports clubs and wider communities. We value all of that.

I condemn the appalling ongoing situation in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast, where sectarian and racist attacks have been carried out on the homes of Catholic and ethnic minority families, forcing them to flee the area. My thoughts are with all those who have been affected. It is widely believed that loyalist paramilitaries are coordinating those attacks. It is clear that those responsible see Catholics and ethnic minorities as legitimate targets for attack. We have seen windows smashed and cars damaged, and, unfortunately, death threats have been made against young families with children. That robs families and young children not only of their home but of the sense of safety, security and sanctuary that we all expect to experience and, indeed, take for granted.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way, and I join in his condemnation of the disgraceful events in north Belfast and elsewhere. Does he agree that those unfortunate and disgraceful attacks and intimidation should focus the Minister's mind on his disgraceful decision to remove intimidation points from people who are on the housing waiting list?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Colm, you have an extra minute.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you. I would be keen to hear the Minister talk about a review of that decision, how its implementation is playing out and his thoughts on it.

We also need to see the PSNI step up its action and bring those responsible before the courts. The motion calls for political leaders to use their platforms to call out the attacks. It is disappointing that the Minister for Communities has not been overly vocal in condemning them. After what happened in Ballymena and Larne, the Minister should reflect —.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I will.

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely disgraceful to imply in any way that I have not condemned all the violence that has taken place. I have done that on multiple occasions in the House and in the media. It is outrageous for the Member to say what he just said. At a time when we should come together and take the opportunity to unite as an Assembly and Executive to send a clear message, he has failed to do so. Outrageous stuff.

Mr Gildernew: I have to say, Minister, that I think that, at the time of the riots — the incidents in Larne in particular — you failed to speak out strongly and clearly in a way. Many people believe that. The Minister should reflect on the responsibility that he carries for communities and how his words matter.

The Minister also has responsibility for housing and therefore has a duty to support victims of intimidation in securing accommodation. Perhaps he can give us an update on any involvement or contact that he has had since with the victims of the recent intimidation and, importantly, tell us what he will do to ensure that those who seek to create a fully segregated housing system do not succeed.

Mr Frew: I thank Kellie Armstrong, the Member from Alliance who moved the motion. I listened intently to her speech. I must say that I agreed with the vast majority of it. I thank her for the tone in which she opened the debate, because this is an opportunity for us to unite as an Assembly to condemn violence, specifically the sectarian and racist attacks on individuals and their homes.

My constituency has also borne the brunt of some really atrocious attacks in the past number of months. At that time, I felt that, when people talked in generalisms, it did a great disservice to working-class areas and our host communities on the underlying issues that they face. I felt aggrieved about the generalisation of some of the concerns that people were intimating to the media and to me at that time. It is a complicated and multifaceted issue. That is why it has been put in the Programme for Government, one priority of which is "Safer Communities". Because it is in the Programme for Government, there is no doubt that dealing with it is a multi-agency and multi-departmental issue.

I will be critical of the motion, because the Alliance Party had a big opportunity with it, given the role that the Justice Department has to play in the community safety framework. The motion refers to the community safety framework. It asks the Minister for Communities:

I have no doubt that the Minister for Communities will be able to do so and provide that assurance to the House and to the mover of the motion, but there has been a missed opportunity. The motion could have called on the Executive to work better together through the community safety framework. Typing "community safety framework" in a search takes you to two Departments: the Department for Communities and the Department of Justice. There, you can clearly see that the purpose of the community safety framework is:

The bodies that make up the membership of the community safety strategic delivery board include the Department of Justice, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Youth Justice Agency, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Executive Office, the Department for Communities, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Health and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).

I will make the point that I have been echoing since the violence erupted in Northern Ireland in the summer. One real, tangible way of delivering for our people and host communities and for newcomers is to put together a multi-agency task force in each area that includes not only all the Departments in the Executive that have a role to play and all the local government agencies that have a role on the ground but the NIO and the Home Office, which is responsible for immigration. That is our only way of being able to put support and resource on the ground to ensure that the violence that we experienced will never happen again.

Mr Allen: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. At the heart of it lies an unacceptable reality: in 2025, people in Northern Ireland are still being intimidated and targeted in their homes. Whether the attacks are sectarian or racist, they are criminal acts and a direct assault on the values of respect, tolerance and peace that so many worked hard to build. They are often carried out by self-appointed brigadiers and their henchmen to intimidate and control. That is shameful and must be condemned without hesitation, but words alone will never be enough. That is why anyone with information must come forward. The police cannot act on whispers; they need facts and evidence.

If we are serious about stopping the unacceptable behaviour, communities must be supported to play their part in bringing perpetrators to account. Here lies a deeper problem: too often, victims feel that the justice system is not on their side. Cases drag on, resources are stretched, and confidence in the system is low. We need a justice system that is not only visible and quick to respond but sends a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Condemnation must be matched with action. A refreshed good relations strategy is long overdue, and, while it is welcome that the Executive Office is committed to bringing it forward, it cannot stand alone. We need a strong and properly resourced multi-agency approach, as the Member who spoke previously highlighted. Policing, housing, community safety and good relations overlap. When individuals and families are forced from their homes by intimidation, it is not just a housing matter but a justice matter.

We cannot ignore the wider housing crisis, which the latter part of the motion highlights. As we have often heard in debate, individuals and families across Northern Ireland wait far too long for a secure and affordable home. I see that daily in my constituency office, as, I am sure, do other Members. That shortage creates pressure that others exploit, as I have already set out. The Minister has taken some positive steps, which are welcome, but no one would pretend that they are enough. I look forward to hearing what further action the Minister plans to take to deliver more homes.

This is not simply about housing or community relations in isolation. It is about how we, as an Assembly, send a clear and united message that sectarian and racist attacks will not be tolerated and that the perpetrators will face robust justice.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to debate the motion, and I hope that, unlike in the previous debate, we can maintain some degree of equanimity. I do not think that equanimity needs to mean perfect agreement or, necessarily, that calmness or consensus is always evidence of progress. There are issues where we need to be respectful but also challenging.

It has been often said to me in TV studios and, sometimes, online or in person, that people like me, who are very robust when it comes to their anti-racism and anti-sectarianism, are somehow delegitimising the views of "ordinary decent people" who simply have concerns about, for example, migration. Let me say again that no topic of public policy, whether it is the health service, education or, indeed, migration, is a taboo subject. People can talk about it, but what we have seen in Ballymena or on the streets of Belfast, including, last summer, my constituency, is not people having legitimate concerns that they want to debate. Those people went out to loot, riot, do damage to property and injure other human beings. The person in Connswater who tried to lift a person of colour out of their car and the mob who tried to lynch a black man who was trying to deliver food were not, I presume, on their way to a policy discussion. They were not going to a university debating society or a community centre to have a debate only for someone to stop them from airing their legitimate concerns; they were going to express hate. That is what they were doing.

We have to be wary about conflating legitimate concerns that people can have about any subject with other matters. The availability of housing is a legitimate concern, specifically when we are, it appears, already failing on our social housing targets. In many of these areas, by the way, housing waiting lists exist, but, in other areas, there is availability of housing that has been bought up and turned into houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). All of those are things that people can debate and talk about, but, whenever that strays into hate mobs and lynching, which we saw in east Belfast, or a virtual attempted pogrom, which we saw in Ballymena, it ceases to be something about which we can say, "Well, there is a legitimate debate to be had". As public representatives, we have to be direct and call it out.

When it comes to the Executive Office and T:BUC, by all means, let us hear it see it and debate it. There are two quick points to make. Number one, I am the leader of the Opposition. We are in opposition, and it is our job to be robust and direct. I welcome the fact that there was, at least, the appearance of consistency of response, but it is also important to say that the public do not elect politicians just to engage in rhetoric. People accuse me of engaging in rhetoric sometimes, and that is fair enough. It is my job as leader of the Opposition to challenge and to use rhetoric. The people who are in the Executive and have power are expected to use it. When we came back after the summer, after an attempted pogrom in Ballymena, more sectarian and racist violence in north Belfast and what happened in Connswater and elsewhere, people would have expected a coherent, joined-up response. They simply got a press conference with some platitudes.

Those platitudes were better than nothing, but the coherent reaction should have been, number one, what is called for in the motion, which is an updated good relations strategy. That should specifically also have had to look at the activities of loyalist paramilitaries — not just loyalist paramilitaries, if other paramilitaries are involved, but it appears to be a specific issue with loyalist paramilitaries. That brings me back to the point about north Belfast, where there is clearly an issue that the UDA appear to see themselves as some kind of pseudo- or quasi-housing association. I welcome the fact that Andy Allen was direct in calling out the brigadiers who appear to see themselves as commandants of the area and are able to say who does or does not live in a housing estate. We have to be direct about that: people from all parties need to call that out and confront it. We need to see the tackling paramilitarism programme updated so that we can understand how that is happening. I would also like to see the Communities Minister and Housing Executive work with that to get to the heart of what is happening in the communities where loyalist paramilitaries are trying to exert that control.

Lastly, it has to be said that, in addition to the Executive Office and the Communities Department, the Justice Minister has a role.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that part of the strategy will be for the judiciary, so that those found guilty of some of the worst, most obnoxious hate crimes and racist crimes are given increased sentences? That is a key part of all of that to send out a clear message from society.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, you have an extra minute.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I acknowledge my colleague for intervening with that pertinent point.

It is important to say that there is a critical justice component here, so I want to hear from the Justice Minister not just condemnation but clarity on when we will get the sentencing Bill with, apparently, actions on hate crime. That has to be the three-pronged action. Number one: what is happening on good relations and tackling paramilitarism and, by the way, a beefed-up racial strategy? Number two is in relation to housing. Clearly, there are people in those "stakeholder organisations" who are gatekeepers. We all know that those gatekeepers exist. The police engage with them; others engage with them. What action is being taken in relation to housing? Lastly, there is the justice intervention. All those things need to happen. There is more in the motion, but we are content to support the motion as it is, because this is one of the most pressing issues that our society faces right now.

Mr McGuigan: Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht, mo dhlúthpháirtíocht agus mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na teaghlaigh agus na daoine sin a thaistil go hÉirinn chun cur lenár sochaí agus iadsan a chuireann fúthu anseo. Níl an ciníochas ná an seicteachas inleithscéil agus níl aon chúis leo inár sochaí. Leithscéal ná cúis ar bith.

The debate gives me the opportunity to condemn again the racist riots in my constituency in Ballymena in June; the disgraceful attacks on the cars of foreign workers in the town a few weeks ago; and any ongoing scaremongering and intimidation of people in the town or across the constituency and across the North because of the colour of their skin. Those events are a stain on our common humanity and do nothing to help the reputation of Ballymena. The targeting not just of property but of people whose only fault is that they were born elsewhere or look different or speak with unfamiliar accents is abhorrent.

On an issue like racism or sectarianism, the leadership given and the tone and nature of public commentary, particularly from political representatives, is vital. Facts are also important. It is a simple fact that immigration to the North brings with it a positive impact on our economy to the tune of many hundreds of millions of pounds. Foreign workers bring many skills and fill many gaps in our labour market. Without them, folks, our economic prosperity would decline, and so would our creaking public services.

I bhfeidhm urlabhraí Sláinte Shinn Féin, b'éigean dom ionsaithe agus bagairtí ciníocha ar chuid dár n-oibrithe cúram sláinte a cháineadh le déanaí agus is bocht an scéal é. Tá sé de cheart ag gach duine a bheith sábháilte ina áit oibre, saor ó imní roimh fhoréigean agus imeaglú.

I am not speaking as Chair of the Health Committee, but, because I have had to condemn racist attacks on our healthcare workers recently, it is important that, during the debate, I record my thanks and appreciation to all who come here to provide treatment, care and compassion through the work that they do in our health service and social care service. Their contribution is invaluable. Without foreign doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and ancillary staff, our healthcare system would collapse.

If our public services are stretched — they are — immigration is not the reason. A big part — maybe not the whole part but a big part — is because of our connection to Britain and being tied to 15 years of British Government austerity policies. Attacking the PSNI or Fire and Rescue Service, which are there to protect vulnerable people, is not a valid argument if you are concerned about public services. Burning the houses of innocent families with women and children inside will not solve a housing crisis. Refusing the offer of £96,000 of government funding designed to support asylum seekers in the area, as Mid and East Antrim Borough Council did with the support of some who are not in the Chamber but were elected to it, will not help local ratepayers.

We must reject the scapegoating and dehumanising of people who come here to make this place their home. Is fearrde don Tuaisceart an éagsúlacht. Cuireann na daoine sin a thig ó náisiúin éile, cuireann siad leis an Tuaisceart; bíonn siad ag obair go crua, agus déanann siad tairbhe dúinn. Ba chóir don iomlán againn, mar sin, fearadh na fáilte a chur rompu.

Mr Kingston: The violent incidents that created victims this summer were disgraceful. Where they occurred in my constituency, I spent many hours door-knocking, speaking to victims, speaking to other residents and engaging with community groups, the PSNI, the Housing Executive, housing associations, other elected reps, local clergy, council officers and any others who wished to help calm the situation. Where possible, I have done that away from the glare of publicity, but, when necessary, I have spoken publicly to condemn violence and intimidation as wrong, as harmful to the entire community as well as to the victims and as not representing the views of the vast majority of people living in the area. That is my idea of a whole-community approach: meeting and working with people on the ground, being present in the area, engaging with people and monitoring tension, not just preaching from afar through the megaphone of the media.

It is clear to me that there is a small, intolerant element that seeks to play on public concerns and grievances in order to increase tension and the potential for intimidation and attacks. For short periods, such people can intimidate others into silence, but it is important that they are not allowed to set the agenda for the whole community.

It also does not help when some elected reps are totally dismissive of community concerns, such as concerns about incidents of inappropriate behaviour that have occurred, including indecent exposure and sexual attacks that must be thoroughly investigated, and about the difficulty of securing houses. Those are legitimate concerns. Areas that have suffered from sectarian attacks over many years see the irony and hypocrisy of Sinn Féin and others suddenly having plenty to say about the place when they were silent before. Indeed, Sinn Féin was notable for its silence throughout the summer in response to the issue of groups such as Kneecap and Bob Vylan using platforms to promote intolerance, hatred and incitement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Brian, please keep to the motion.

Mr Kingston: I am keeping to the motion, sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You do not have to call me "sir". You can call me "Deputy Speaker", but do keep to the motion.

Mr Kingston: My comments are relevant.

Self-appointed patrols, which can be well-meaning, risk raising tensions and can be intimidating for others.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will briefly.

Ms K Armstrong: I will not take up too much of your time. Does the Member agree that the actions of vigilantes who are going out and asking people for paperwork to prove where they are from are wrong? I do not know anybody who carries paperwork to prove where they are from. Does the Member agree that that has to stop?

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

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming on to that. I recognise that, in some areas, people are well-meaning and wish to prevent crime, but that can be intimidating for others. Some unvetted patrols risk falling on the wrong side of the law when they are not constituted, AccessNI-checked, properly trained or insured yet want to challenge people on the streets, as you said. Indeed, some vigilante patrols have been nothing short of a cover for thuggery and criminal attacks. Policing is the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as the lawful and accountable authority. There is and was always an alternative to violence. It is a pity that not all parties here recognise that fact.

The DUP is aware of the massive positive contributions that foreign nationals working and living here make to healthcare, agri-food, business and, indeed, every sector of our society. Notwithstanding our views on the need to deal with the source of illegal immigration, including on a UK-wide basis, there is absolutely no contradiction in our position that the people who are currently in our communities ought to be welcomed and supported whilst also being subject to the rule of law. The needs of people who have lived in an area for generations must continue to be met. However, we are unequivocal that the answer to concerns around community cohesion and the traditional residential character of our communities as a result of illegal immigration is not to attack persons rather than policy. The Democratic Unionist Party remains committed to building a safe and inclusive society in Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: We tabled the motion, as my colleague Kellie Armstrong outlined, because no one in this place should ever be attacked in their home because of who they are or things that they cannot control. Sadly, we have seen too many racist and sectarian attacks in recent months. In my constituency, I have worked with pregnant women and their families who had been forced out, children who were left frightened and people who were living in fear, and that is simply unacceptable. As political leaders, we have a duty to stand clearly with victims and to never give cover to the perpetrators.

Words matter, but words alone are not enough. We call in the motion for a refreshed good relations strategy to tackle sectarianism and racism, but that needs to be targeted, realistic, resourced and delivered across all Departments, because, as people do not exist in silos, we should not design social policy in silos. As we face the housing crisis, we know that too many people have waited far too long for a safe, affordable home. The attacks that we saw over the summer have only made the situation worse. Conducting hate crimes and intimidating people out of their homes will not solve the housing crisis. Our motion calls for urgent action to protect the people who are targeted but also to deliver housing for all.

A comment was made about legitimate concerns and how, when we talk about this, we diminish the concerns that communities feel. I want to be really clear that that is not what this is about. We can talk about the concerns that communities have without ever going down the route that those attacks were legitimate. There is nothing legitimate about targeting a house specifically and solely because of the nationality, race or religious background of the occupant. It is OK for us to say that.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that a person's community background, ethnicity or race is absolutely irrelevant to their inappropriate behaviour or whether they are a perpetrator of sexual violence?

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you.

Absolutely. Another issue that I want to be very clear on, regarding those who commit crimes in our community, is that we have a justice system for a reason. The vigilantes and the attacks that we saw in my constituency under the guise of protection do nothing to protect our communities; they just perpetuate more trauma and more harm.

The motion is about community safety. It is about investing in our communities. It is about having the kind of society where everyone, regardless of skin colour, background or whatever, feels safe, welcome and at home. In my constituency, the impact of the attacks is not just abstract. Children walk past burnt-out cars. People walk to school or work the next morning past horrendous graffiti. People walk past doors that have flags or little posters that denote the nationality of the people living inside, who hope that that will protect their property. The Education Minister confirmed to me that, in the aftermath, 84 pupils at one primary school did not return. That was not just absence; that was trauma. The legacy of those nights is not just wrecked buildings but wrecked childhoods. Unless we break that cycle, another generation will carry that trauma, not to mention those who are being encouraged to get involved in the violence that will then end up wrecking their childhood. I was a youth worker in east Belfast during the flag protests of 2012, and I will never forget a young person saying:

That is exactly what is happening again.

We are looking, in the broader housing crisis, at nearly 50,000 households that are on a waiting list and nearly 37,000 people who are in housing stress. That was not created by newcomers or immigrant families; it is a direct result of inaction and a lack of investment not just in housing but in our infrastructure and our waste water management. It is also a result of the years during which the Assembly was collapsed, and we have to admit that. When there is no leadership to push change forward, the result is what we are now seeing. That neglect has left us with a broken housing system. The price of delay is always higher than the price of action, whether that be for policing costs, NHS care or the schools that have to invest in more counselling for traumatised children. We are seeing the long-term damage in fractured communities.

Supporting the motion is not just a partisan choice; it is a moral necessity. No other mother should have to hide in an attic to save her children from a lynch mob. No other neighbour should be driven out under the cover of darkness because they are really frightened that their car was the first thing to be set on fire but are now afraid that it will be their house. Sectarianism and racism have scarred this place for long enough, and the vast majority of people, including those who contacted me, just want to live and let live in peace and respect. It is time for those voices to prevail. Social media makes it very easy for us to think that the louder voices dominate our society. I know that, in North Antrim, that is absolutely not the case, and that is the society that we should be building together.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, I am exercising a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the number of Members who wish to speak. A grace period of 15 minutes has been added to the session.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. We have seen a stark increase in the number of racist and sectarian attacks on homes and families over the past year. The past year saw the highest number of racially motivated attacks since records on the issue began 21 years ago, so that puts it in context. Last week, North Belfast MLA Carál Ní Chuilín highlighted the ongoing campaign against Catholics and ethnic minorities who live in the lower Oldpark area. I saw attacks in my constituency last year and, indeed, this year, as well as in Ballymena over the summer.

The normalisation of that behaviour and the rise of the far right should be an immediate concern for all of us in the Chamber. We know that loyalist paramilitaries have repeatedly been linked to involvement in attacks on ethnic minorities and have a long history of attacks on nationalist residents. The PSNI confirmed that the UDA is behind attempts to intimidate Catholics out of a shared housing site in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast. A Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) report from May this year mapped out far right online activity and found that loyalist paramilitary elements are directly orchestrating racist violence and intimidation against migrants.

It is also important to recognise the growth of misinformation and disinformation about asylum seekers. In August this year, the DUP MLA for South Belfast falsely claimed that Belfast has the second highest number of asylum seekers of any city in the UK. FactCheckNI fact-checked and debunked that claim. In fact, per capita, Belfast —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Deirdre, can you bring the debate back to the motion, please? We are straying off it just a wee bit.

Miss Hargey: Yes. Belfast houses the thirty-second highest number of asylum seekers in the UK. The point is important because, when you legitimise concerns, as it is called, they become war cries, and we see attacks on the streets. That serves only to inflame tensions. Indeed, when that statement was made, a house was attacked within a couple of days in that same area. The attacks are real, so I call on all elected Members to be accurate with the information that we put out, be it in a video or in the Chamber. We have a responsibility. When you look at last year's racist attacks, you see that almost half of those involved were themselves reported for domestic abuse, yet there is no focus on that or talk about it at all.

In my constituency, racist graffiti — "Locals Only" — appeared on a new housing scheme. I, along with local residents and the community organisation, was out within half an hour of that graffiti being reported, and we painted over it. That is the proactive leadership that we need from politicians, community activists and other agencies.

We also need to challenge the misinformation that leads to displays of hate. We need to focus people so that, if there are issues around housing — in my community, there are issues — rather than blaming them on somebody else and punching down, we organise those communities into housing campaigns for everybody. The Minister's housing supply strategy talks about safe, affordable housing for everyone. It does not define it as being for this or that section of the community: it is supposed to be for everyone.

We see consistent efforts being made to attach the growing right-wing attention on immigration to the housing crisis that we face. While the Labour Party, the Tories and Reform in Britain compete to out do each other on hard-line tactics and rhetoric around immigration and human beings seeking shelter, our primary concern here needs to be for housing for all communities; theirs is a continuing programme of austerity, cutting public services and punching down on minority communities.

Today, once again, presents us with an opportunity to call out sectarianism and racism in all its forms and to speak to those families in our communities who are not sleeping, are scared to cross the doorstep and are terrified in their homes because their homes have been attacked. There is no room for equivocation, no ifs and buts. Sectarianism and racism is not complicated: it is wrong.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I associate myself with the remarks made by the proposer of the motion. Ms Armstrong eloquently articulated the views and concerns of Members right across the House that sectarianism, racism, Islamophobia and — I add this as a North Belfast representative — antisemitism have no place in our society. However, we do ourselves and the House a disservice when Members make scripted remarks and are selective in the condemnation of sectarian or racist attacks. My constituency has been mentioned in a number of contributions by Members, and factually inaccurate information has been put out. I make it very clear that the people of North Belfast, of all traditions and none, are not a sectarian people. They are not a racist people. Despite facing the worst brunt of the Troubles, they have a remarkable resilience about how they want to make North Belfast a better place for everyone.

I wish that the condemnation by Members of sectarian attacks had some consistency. In my constituency, the Felden development of over 100 homes was an Executive flagship project under Together: Building a United Community. As soon as that development started, no Protestants were allowed. Irish tricolours were erected, and the name of the housing officer who was allocating those houses was sprayed on a wall. Unfortunately, there was no cross-party condemnation of those attacks. No cross-party, multi-agency meetings were called under the glare of the media. There were no self-appointed do-gooders going to the media, making up stories about loyalist paramilitaries, to try to electrify one particular community. Therefore, we do ourselves a disservice when we selectively call out sectarianism or racism. We need to be clear in the House that sectarianism in all its forms needs to be called out, not just when it suits our political agenda.

As the debate has gone on, we have, unfortunately, strayed back into the difficult position where anyone who dares raise any issues about immigration is automatically labelled as an extremist or a member of the far right. Let me be very clear: anyone who engages in any form of violence or any form of attack on a minority is absolutely disgraceful. However, if anyone whom I represent comes to me with concerns about a UK-wide immigration policy and wants to protect the borders of their country, I will not allow them to be labelled as a racist or a member of the far right. They have democratic legitimacy to raise their concerns with their elected representatives. It is our duty and moral obligation to articulate those in a democratic setting, and that is what I will continue to do.

My party recognises the difficulties that our housing system faces, and that is why my party stepped forward and selected the portfolio of —

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Miss Hargey: I am glad that you raised the issue of Felden, because that was a disgrace. At the time, Sinn Féin councillor Michael Goodman condemned it, and I know that Stewart Dickson also did so at the time. The one thing that we have called for is that housing be allocated on the basis of need and in an open and fair way. I hope that the Member agrees with that.

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

Mr Brett: I will always say that housing should be allocated on the basis of need. Unfortunately, the two members of your party who represent the area, Mr Kelly and Ms Ní Chuilín, did not make comment, but a councillor from a different district was wheeled out to make those comments.

I will return to the remarks that I was making about why we selected the Communities portfolio. It was because we recognise the vital importance of ensuring that there is affordable and accessible housing for all members of our community. That is why our Communities Minister has taken action by publishing a housing supply strategy, when other Ministers failed to do so. That is why our Minister has taken action on the allocations policy and, rightly, removed intimidation points, which have been abused right across North Belfast, with problem tenants moving from one part to another. That is why our Minister is championing the reclassification of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive so that it can build houses once again to ensure that land that has lain derelict in my constituency of North Belfast can be used to house those who need it and that houses are allocated on the basis of need.

I look forward to those parties in the Executive that have stepped forward here today to say that they support the Minister in meeting those housing targets following through on that by ensuring that, when a budget allocation is made, the Minister is given the funding that he needs, because he has shown that, when he gets his funding, he can deliver.

Mr Burrows: It is good to support the motion, and it is good to hear unequivocal support for it from across the Chamber. Any conversation on the issue should begin with unequivocal and unreserved condemnation of violence. I will use a phrase that the Members for Foyle will be familiar with, because we used to use it when I worked with them up in Londonderry/Derry, whatever you want to call it, and that is: "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us". That is a really good phrase that unified our response to any attacks, because no matter who you are, violence against you is wrong. That is a red line that we should all agree with.

Of course, condemning such attacks is not enough in itself. The word that jumps out at me in the motion is "strategy". People up and down the country grimace when they hear that dreaded word, "strategy", because there are so many strategies, but they are never delivered on. What I will say about the strategy and the words about bringing people to justice is that the people in the Chamber are responsible for running down our Police Service. Today, I typed an email to the police about a victim of hate crime in Ballymena. There was no result from the investigation. It was conducted by a response constable who does 24/7 response policing — they get in their car and drive to the next incident. I can guarantee you that the level of investigation into that hate crime was far inferior to what was done 10 years ago when, for example, I was the area commander in Derry. I would have had a detective dealing with that, but we do not have detectives any more to deal with such crimes, so we do not solve them. All the really advanced investigative work that you can do is not done, because cuts have consequences. The fact that we have demoralised and not funded our Police Service has a —

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way. Going forward, I hope that we will never have to use the police for hate crimes because we will not have hate crimes. I agree with you. It is a pity that the Justice Minister does not receive enough money to appropriately fund our police. We heard earlier today from another Minister asking for extra money for special educational needs capital expenditure. We know that the Minister for Communities will be looking for more money for housing. There are pressures on our system. I wish that there was enough money to go around, but let us get behind prevention.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows, you have an extra minute.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that. It sounds lovely to say, "I wish that there was never any hate crime". I wish that there was no crime whatsoever, because we would not need our Police Service. We could close down the prisons. We could close down half the hospitals because I have wished that there be no disease. It is a meaningless statement.

Ms K Armstrong: It is a strategy.

Mr Burrows: It is not; it is a distraction.

Ms K Armstrong: I did not say "a distraction".

Mr Burrows: The reality is that there will always be a level of crime. There is always crime.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows, can I bring you back to the motion?

Mr Burrows: Yes, you can.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will use the opportunity to bring everybody back to the motion.

Mr Burrows: Thank you. We need to invest in our Police Service.

I also fear that we are going to undermine attempts to bring cohesion in how the justice system deals with those who commit hate crimes. We are walking ourselves into a two-tier policing scenario, and I will tell you why. It is because the Justice Minister is bringing in extra penalties for hate crime — that is a strategy that I welcome — but, at the same time, is decreasing the penalties for ordinary crime. The difficulty with that is —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: OK. I will come back.

Let me move on to our language about immigration. When we do not articulate things, we vacate the space that is then occupied by the far right. We need to show the language of leadership and discuss the issues that people have. One thing is to value legal immigration. I keep repeating it, but, in the last years of her life, my granny was cared for by Filipino nurses. We rely on them. People in north Antrim who love their meat would be vegan if it were not for foreign nationals. We rely on them, and we should value them. That is a key part of the strategy.

The next point is that illegal immigration is a law-and-order issue. If we do not articulate the problems with asylum — the fact that the system is so slow, and the fact that there is an affront to the rule of law with people getting off a dinghy and coming into the United Kingdom — those things cause the toxification of relationships that feeds the far right. When we do not talk about those issues, we give the space to the likes of Tommy Robinson, who can send a tweet and get tens of thousands of people to support him. In our language, we need to occupy and elevate the space of talking about public policy issues, while starting that by saying that violence is always wrong. I call for the police to release images, but, in this motion, we talk a lot about sectarian and racist violence. I released images of people engaged in sectarian crimes, and I had condemnation from parties in the House, so we need to be consistent. That is my take on it.

I fully support the motion. Let us have honest conversations, and let us stand by and build up our justice system so that we can bring people to justice and start preventing things.

Miss McAllister: It is with anger and frustration that I stand to speak to the motion today. There have been a lot of comments around the racist attacks that have been ongoing over the past few months and the ones that we saw last summer. However, I will focus this evening on the attacks that have taken place in my constituency of North Belfast. First of all, I will comment on some reflections from another Member from North Belfast who has spoken. I reiterate that the Alliance Party is consistent. We condemn all and any sectarian attacks, no matter what so-called side of a community you come from. The last month saw more sectarian attacks in the lower Oldpark area of North Belfast, with families feeling that they had no other option than to leave and flee the area. This comes after similar attacks in the area back in May.

In preparing for today's debate, I went over media reports and coverage of the incidents in May. They could be laid side by side, because the reports were so similar. They talk of families being intimidated out of their home; politicians speaking and condemning; and a multi-agency meeting being held to discuss how best to address the issue. All the actions and the voices were copied and pasted. That is not to downplay the importance of all political representatives calling out the actions or of all political representatives engaging with families, but it is frustrating this has happened twice in the past few months. Representatives from all parties were at the multi-agency meeting and also met residents on the ground. That is important, because we need to show leadership. We can show leadership in many ways.

My office has been in touch with residents and community groups. I thank the Cliftonville Community Regeneration Forum and the Lower Oldpark Community Association, because they have done work in the area with residents over the past few years, and in particular this year, to bring together hundreds of residents in a celebration of the area. It is therefore not all of North Belfast or all of Northern Ireland involved, but the attacks still happen, and they need to be called out. We are almost 30 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and the fact that this is still happening speaks volumes. The behaviour is not limited to Northern Ireland, however. Dangerous, inflammatory language on social issues is a global trend. It is something that we all have to tackle every day. We see it on our screens when we wake up in the morning and when we check our phone before we go to bed. The way in which misinformation can spread is very dangerous, as is how hatred can spread, and we have been all too prepared to witness how that can be weaponised.

We are also seeing the Labour Government completely engage in a race to the bottom and not tackle the issues. They have failed. All of that has real-world consequences for members of our community, not only in my constituency but across Northern Ireland. Tackling attitudes that lead to such attacks will require a full-society approach, but it must begin at the top. The Executive Office urgently needs to bring in a T:BUC successor that will bring together the entire community to address sectarianism and racism. There must also be an acknowledgement that there is a housing crisis and that we need to get it solved. Housing must always be based on need. We must ensure that we work together and that we temper our language. Alliance is committed to doing that. We are committed to working across all sections of the community to ensure that everyone is welcome and feels safe in their own home.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the signatories to the motion for tabling it. Like many across the Chamber have done, I have witnessed with horror the rise of sectarian and racist attacks, not just here but across these islands. We are witnessing a very disturbing trend. Anti-immigrant rhetoric and parties that amplify it — once thought to be confined to other parts of Europe — have now taken root in the UK and in Ireland. We see that in the rise of Reform in England, and, sometimes, we hear echoes of it in the Chamber.

Language matters. Words that are spoken here carry weight and have consequences. Framing inflammatory comments as legitimate concerns does nothing to absolve responsibility. When elected representatives normalise anti-immigrant sentiment, it should come as no surprise that attacks on migrants rise. That rhetoric is also a symptom of much deeper problems. It reflects a society in which too many people struggle with poverty, poor housing, insecure work and overstretched services. When people feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to those offering an opportunity to find a scapegoat instead of solutions. Unless we tackle those underlying issues, division will persist.

We all saw the horrifying images from Ballymena: mobs targeting immigrant families, flags placed in windows and stickers put on doors to mark homes by identity. That is not the mark of a shared society. Rather, it is intimidation, yet, too often, political leaders respond with silence or, at best, quiet condemnation.

That is not leadership.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr Durkan: The Member is correct: we often hear that condemnation, which, of course, is to be welcomed, but we need to move beyond condemnation. We need to see action. What actions does the Member think that we need to see taken?

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

I agree: condemnation is not enough. Others have said that here in the House. We need a good relations strategy that is not outdated and that is fit for purpose, unlike what we currently have.

There is no credibility in holding press conferences about tackling racist and sectarian attacks while failing to deliver the strategies and resources that could make a difference. The First Minister and deputy First Minister must set out a clear timeline for a refreshed good relations strategy that is properly funded, is shaped by the voices of victims and front-line workers, and has measurable outcomes. Publishing a document is not enough — that is not delivery; we must see delivery on the ground. T:BUC has not delivered the transformation that was promised. The Urban Villages initiative, which was designed to improve good relations, has too often failed to tackle the root causes. Do not get me started about Communities in Transition. It aimed to help areas to break free from paramilitary control, including in east Belfast and Derry. It has not met its ambition. Too many people remain under the shadow of coercion and intimidation. Communities deserve more than short-term schemes; they deserve lasting investment in safety, opportunity and hope.

Meanwhile, we continue to see the consequences of failure. In north Belfast, Catholic families have been targeted in sectarian attacks. In east Belfast, vigilantes have been patrolling streets and schools. It is unreal. In south Belfast and Ballymena, young people have attacked migrants. In my city, there have been sectarian clashes in Gobnascale and the Fountain. Is that the society in which we want to raise the next generation? It is not what I want for my family. It is not what I want for my grandchild. It is not what the majority of people across the North want. This is not only about tackling hate on our streets; it is about addressing the conditions that allow division to fester.

At the heart of that, Minister, is housing. Too many families wait for years for a home. Some live in unsafe conditions, and others face intimidation because of their identity. That is unacceptable. Minister Lyons, you must set out what action is being taken to deliver more social and affordable housing, and how the community safety framework will protect people who are targeted in their homes. Putting up paramilitary flags and marking territory is intimidation. People do not want it. Homes are being devalued. There are homes in my constituency that are so badly devalued because of paramilitary flags that families have been left in negative equity. That is absolutely disgraceful, and it is devastating for the young families who live in those homes.

A safe, secure home is not a luxury; it is a basic right. However, if we are to build more homes, our broken waste water system must also be fixed. That is why we need a joined-up approach. No Minister can solve the issue alone. As my colleague said, we need a collective vision of hope from the Executive Office, the Communities Minister and the Justice Minister, not a vacuum. Real change requires leadership from the very top; from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, working together. Without that, the housing crisis will deepen, and communities —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms McLaughlin: — will continue to suffer. Deputy Speaker —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms McLaughlin: — leadership is about more than words; it is about responsibility, direction —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms McLaughlin: — and delivery.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, we have two more Members to get in, and time is tight. I ask that there be no interventions during the next two speeches. You will both have your full five minutes. Danny Donnelly.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out, because I was not a migrant. Members may be aware of the famous poem 'First They Came' by Martin Niemöller. Although I changed the group, the point stands. Niemöller was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany who originally sympathised with right-wing movements but later became a fierce critic of Nazi interference in the Protestant Church, spending years in prisons and concentration camps for his acts of resistance. His warning was clear: when prejudice and persecution go unchallenged, they spread. What begins as attacks on one group rarely ends there. The circle will always widen until you are no longer outside it.

People are being fed lies, and their frustrations are being preyed on by those who are seeking to further their own agendas. It is not migrants who decide the number of homes that are built. It is not asylum seekers who set your wages. It is not the families who are newly arriving here who choose whether hospitals get funding. Northern Ireland has been underfunded for years. We live in the shadow of our past, with an unstable stop-start Government, and that has a real and lasting impact on our lives and on the quality of living here. Instead of focusing on the need to reform our institutions so that they actually work for the people of this country, people are being told to turn on each other while those who are truly responsible watch it happen.

There are clearly those who want you to believe that all the problems in your life lie at the feet of migrants, but they are just the current scapegoat. Do we really think that it will stop with migrants? I have seen racist violence with my own eyes. I was in Larne leisure centre on the night in June when it was attacked and burned by a racist mob. Those who attacked the police with bricks, burned part of my community and threatened the lives of those inside the leisure centre were not satisfied with the destruction that they had caused and went hunting for foreigners who were housed in the town. Thankfully, they were not successful, largely due to the actions of the police. Those events were a disaster for the town, and it is a miracle that there was no loss of life. Those people do not represent the vast majority of people in the town who have contacted me in their droves, disgusted by what happened.

The reputation of our town took a real hit. I will take a minute to commend those council staff who were in Larne leisure centre that night who stayed to the very end to ensure that everybody who was there was safe. That included very young children, who were escorted out of the building under fire from bricks, mortar and whatever else.

I am sick of hearing the same vicious rhetoric about foreigners taking homes or jobs or being a threat to our families. People say that foreigners are taking social housing from those who are most in need, yet a family in my constituency was forced out of a home that they owned and into social housing because of racist attacks. People say that they are taking our jobs, yet our health service, which is already on its knees, would collapse overnight without the migrants in our workforce. Many workers in the health service and elsewhere across Northern Ireland, along with their families, are now living in fear in our constituencies. That is unacceptable. People talk about protecting families and keeping women and children safe, yet Northern Ireland is the most dangerous place in Europe in which to be a woman. Almost all the 28 women who have been killed here since 2020 were killed by a man whom they knew.

You do not commit crimes or cause harm because of the colour of your skin. Those who choose to call this country their home are ordinary people like you and me. They are like the friend's daughter who moved to Australia, the son working in America, the cousin in Canada, the uncle in England or the neighbour who retired to Spain. They are all immigrants too.

Let us be honest with ourselves. It is not foreigners who are pushing families into hardship but underinvestment in public services, housing shortages and low wages. It is not migrants who make women unsafe but abusers and a system that has, historically, looked the other way. It is not immigrants who burn leisure centres but people who believe lies and prey on others' frustrations in order to spread their own agenda. People who come to live and work here should be able to do so in safety and without any threat. I hope that we do not allow history to repeat itself. If we do, when they come for you or me, there will be no one left to speak for us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for extending the time. I thank the Members for tabling this important motion. We have heard a lot about honest conversations and legitimate concerns, but honest conversations about migration do not always happen, especially with some of the politicians who are further to the right than me. Those conversations do not often happen in good faith. Quite often, myths and misinformation are spread, fuelling hate and fear.

We need to challenge the role that the Communities Minister played, particularly in relation to Larne leisure centre around the time of the violence during the summer. We also need to challenge his decision to remove intimidation points earlier in the year. That was reckless. The Member for North Belfast had a terrible and risible defence for that. The removal of the intimidation points had a devastating impact on those individuals and marginalised groups that are in the temporary accommodation sector, which is under extreme pressure, and on the wider housing system, particularly in North Belfast, which has been mentioned, but elsewhere as well. If he changed that decision and reintroduced those points — made that one move — it would send a signal to people who are under threat and intimidation that he gets it, he understands it, and he has their back, but it looks as though he is not for budging any time soon, which is shameful.

The Minister should have reformed and improved intimidation points and extended them to survivors of domestic abuse. Instead, he levelled the playing field downwards and removed them for everyone. People who have now been intimidated and subjected to sectarian or racist attacks will lose out on the points that they could have received to help them to get a new and permanent home in a place of safety. Instead, they will be forced to stay in a home where they are subjected to violence or intimidation or to uproot their life and move into temporary accommodation or be stuck on the sofa of a friend or relative. It is completely unacceptable.

The stats show that, unfortunately, in the past year, there were 2,049 racist incidents in the North and 1,300 race hate crimes. Those are the highest levels since records began. We have a problem with racism in the North; let us not sugar-coat it. We know that thousands more incidents have gone unrecorded, because, quite simply, victims do not trust the PSNI. They feel over-policed and under-protected, especially in minority ethnic communities; they have felt that way for decades.

To challenge another myth, I say that Ireland is not full. The country is not full. The number of people who are seeking asylum in the North is 2,535. That is 0·13% of the population. Compare that with other countries across the world: Turkey takes in millions of asylum seekers; Lebanon takes in millions of asylum seekers; and Germany did so a few years ago. Challenge the narrative every step of the way. There are 246 people who are seeking asylum and are living in emergency hotel accommodation, but those whom I have talked to — quite a few over the years — do not want to be in hotels. They are not luxurious, and they are not a wonderful set-up. Quite often, they are like prisons for most of those people. They want a home, and they should be entitled to one. I urge the Minister to get on with it —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Briefly, because my time is limited.

Ms K Armstrong: I agree with the Member. As he will know, some of that temporary accommodation in hotels has no access to kitchens and has shared bathrooms, so there is a security issue for those people as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you do not get any extra time.

Mr Carroll: Yes, and there are other problems that I do not have time to elaborate on, but I thank the Member for that.

I also have to say that launching attacks on migrants and asylum seekers — political or violent attacks — is distraction politics at its finest. It is a distraction from the fact that we have inaction, from this Minister and from other Ministers and the Executive, on empty homes. There are at least 21,000 empty homes in the North, if not as many as 50,000, depending on what figures you read from different Departments, but there are zero empty home officers. The Minister could move at speed with that, but he has not. Attacking migrants is a distraction from property hoarding by landlords and investors. It is a distraction from the Executive's refusal to crack down on Airbnbs, and it is a distraction from soaring rents, which we are trying to challenge, but the Minister has not stopped yet. Rent in Belfast has increased by more than 11% in the past year alone, driven up not by migrants or asylum seekers but by landlords.

On a final point, a dangerous narrative is developing, and it is from the playbook of the far right, which is that, if a man of colour is in a park, in a shopping centre or on a street corner, he is putting children at risk. That is racist scapegoating, and it needs to be challenged. Unfortunately, children are at risk from abuse and neglect, but it is usually from a family member —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Mr Carroll: — and usually, statistically, a white person. We need to be careful about that narrative, especially the Member for North Belfast, because his comments were quite dangerously giving approval to some of those dangerous actions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I welcome the opportunity to speak to it and to unequivocally condemn the sectarian and racist intimidation of individuals and attacks on their homes. I have said, and I will repeat it today, that the attacks on individuals and on their homes must stop. I recently joined my Executive colleagues in publicly condemning all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards individuals, whatever their background. We have been united in our messaging that all acts of violence and intimidation are abhorrent and have no place in our society whatsoever. It is wrong, and it needs to be condemned.

That is why I have to take issue with the comments that Mr Gildernew made today. The Member said:

those attacks and

That is an untruth.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: Mr Deputy Speaker, I consider that a slur against me, and the Member has crossed a line. There are many, many examples, because I have been in front of the —

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: No, I will not, because I have heard enough from him already. Unless he is prepared to apologise, and I do not think that he is, I do not want to hear any more of what he has to say.

I was very clear in June, over the summer and in September in condemning the violence. Before it happened, I said that it was never acceptable. Afterwards, I said that it was never acceptable. I will always condemn violence. I do not care where it happens. I do not care who it happens to. I do not care what the source is. I will always condemn it because I believe that violence is always wrong. I believe that violence should never be seen as acceptable in any way, shape or form.

That is what sets me apart from the Member; that is what sets me apart from his leader in this place; and that is what sets me apart from his party. They have some cheek to come to this place and talk about condemnation of violence when they have continued for years to justify violence that took place against people right across our society, so I will not take it.

Let me be very clear to the House, and, importantly, let me say to everybody out there, especially those who have been affected by violence and those disgraceful scenes that we have seen over the past number of months, that I condemn that completely and unequivocally, and I wish that everybody in the House had always taken that approach to violence.

More than that, we should not be condemning it with just our words. We need to take action to make sure that it does not happen again. In the Executive statement on racist and sectarian attacks, on 4 September, we pledged to continue to work in partnership with the PSNI, civic leaders, community organisations and statutory bodies to ensure that our streets, neighbourhoods and communities reflect the values of equality and respect. That is certainly what I am doing in the Department for Communities and with my responsibility for housing. I would just say, at this point, that there are actions that we can take, and are taking, that do not always happen in the full glare of the cameras, because sometimes that is not right. Sometimes, it is better for us to take a different approach, but that does not mean that we are not taking action. I commend my colleagues who have been working, sometimes quietly behind the scenes, bringing people together, allowing opportunity for dialogue and making sure that relations can be improved. I want to thank Members who have taken that approach, and I will continue to work with them on that.

The issue of housing has been raised. I have said on many occasions that I am working closely with all partners to improve housing supply generally and to remove barriers to building more social and affordable homes. I am pleased to say that that is reflected in the Programme for Government as a key Executive priority. I continue to press for the budget to build the homes that we so badly need. However, we also need to have confidence that people and their homes will not be threatened or targeted. I would welcome further funding from the successor programme to T:BUC for the Department's Housing for All shared housing programme. It now supports 12 housing associations working across 85 developments, totalling 2,925 homes delivered or in development. That programme makes a substantial contribution to building good relations in our society through building shared communities.

I visited an on-site Housing for All development in Cushendall last week and visited the children in two local primary schools in the community. The local areas will benefit not only from that additional shared housing supply but from the support of a community-led good relations plan.

I also visited the housing development in Alloa Street in north Belfast just before Christmas last year, and it was evident to me that those new homes changed the lives of residents and created a place for them to put down roots in the local community. We were all horrified to hear that residents in that development were being threatened and that their homes, which have received significant public investment, have been damaged. The recent news that that has surfaced again is, of course, extremely concerning. I condemn those attacks, and I can assure the House that my officials continue to keep in contact with Clanmil, the landlord for those properties, and the relevant statutory partners, including the Housing Executive. I understand that the local PSNI community team is also engaged, and I am grateful for the work that Clanmil is doing to support its tenants and to ensure that they have a safe place to call home.

As an Executive, our Departments are working closely on these issues. My officials participate in the Department of Justice's community safety network, and that is an element of the community safety framework, so there is ongoing and proactive engagement on how we can work together more effectively to keep people safe from appalling intimidation. I am also keen to introduce legislation to more effectively tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. The proposal for changes to legislation was part of a joint consultation with the Department of Justice, so there is also active collaboration and engagement in this policy area. I will continue to call for more investment in new social and affordable homes, including community work to build relations between our communities, and it is vital that funding be prioritised by the Executive to support that work. I will continue to take action alongside Executive colleagues and with other partners to address those issues and ensure that, in line with our PFG commitment, everyone has access to affordable, sustainable and quality houses that meet their needs within thriving and inclusive communities.

There has been a significant debate this evening, with wide-ranging views expressed. Some of those views I agree with and some of them I take issue with, but I hope that the one message that can go out this evening is that we are committed to tackling the scourge of violence and intimidation and that we can also air our views on these issues. I hope that we have the freedom to do so, because, in trying to shut down debate and limit conversation about these issues, we are only contributing to some of the issues that we are facing. A lack of information out there can lead to some of the problems that we have seen. Being open, honest and forthright with people will help us as we seek to deal with some of these issues. Trying to shut down conversation and limit people from having their say is never a good approach. Therefore, I welcome some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues on this issue. However, I hope that we can unite on the need to condemn all the sectarian and racist attacks and work together to make sure that we improve the outlook for the future.

Mr Dickson: A sincere word of thanks to my colleague Kellie Armstrong for proposing the motion, and, indeed, to all the Members in the Chamber tonight who spoke on this very difficult subject. I thank them for the fact that I can genuinely say that we have coalesced around all the discussions and areas. As the Minister has just said, we are not going to agree on everything, but there is a commonality of thought and process in the Assembly this evening with regard to all of this.

I do not propose to go through all those who have spoken, but I will maybe remind one or two people about things that they said. A whole-Executive response is required when it comes to the issues that have been set out for us this evening. Therefore, I say to those Members who felt that the motion was perhaps directed at one Department rather than another that, in reality, this is a whole-Executive debate. I also remind Members that the Justice Minister will be dealing with all the issues through her sentencing Bill, which will introduce a statutory aggravation model for hate crimes.

Other Members made a clear and valid point this evening. Long before we get to the justice system — the police, the courts, the prisons or whatever — we need to roll everything back and look at where we are at with education and healthcare and at how we build proper and safe communities. Doing that will not save us from the need of the police and the courts to deal with those who break the law. Of course it will not. We should, however, be doing a great deal more — a massive amount — right from day 1 of people's lives to ensure that they have the best start, through having the best of education, the best of healthcare and the best of support in communities. We should then be able to deal with many of the issues that sadly arise in many communities because of the broken society and world in which we live.

It is saddening that we are discussing recent attacks on individuals in our communities. This past summer, we witnessed some horrific scenes not only in North Antrim but in my constituency of East Antrim. Reference was made to the terrible attack on Larne leisure centre. There were very serious threats to life, and we must condemn those threats. We have heard words of condemnation in the Chamber this evening. We need to realise, however, that we have to go beyond words of condemnation towards the practical realities of what will help us take Northern Ireland forward. It is up to the Executive Office to bring forward a refreshed good relations strategy as a successor to Together: Building a United Community. The Executive Office needs to step up, because we cannot allow the scenes that we witnessed this summer to continue. The words of Ministers, who have the privilege of holding office, are important, and we value the words that they said at the time of and following the incidents. It is, however, not just about words. We need them to turn their words into actions.

In my constituency of East Antrim this summer, I met people and listened to their stories about what had happened to them. I dealt with people who had been driven out of their home. One family had lived in my town for many years. They owned their home and worked in the health service, yet they were driven out by a group of thugs in the middle of the night. Despite protests about migrants coming here and taking our homes, that family ended up in social housing. Hopefully, they will be able to return to their property and restore it. Another lady and her family had come from a war zone, where they had been caught up in a terrible conflict. They also came here looking for safety, and, sadly, the community was not in a position to give them that safety. That is wrong. It will take a multi-departmental approach to fix those societal issues. I have called, and I continue to call, on the Executive Office to do more, but I also call on all Departments to do what they have to do in order to build a better community for all in Northern Ireland to live in.

I will touch on an issue that other Members raised this evening. Recently, there has been so much misinformation out there. I spoke to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister when they came to the Committee for the Executive Office last week, and I commended them for their words about those incidents in the summer. I also said to them that, when they hear misinformation, they have a duty, as do the rest of the Government — Ministers in all Departments — to counter it with the truth. It is important that Departments come together and put up notices in every public building in Northern Ireland, be it our libraries, health centres or wherever, that say, "No, you do not get a laptop, a mobile phone and hundreds of pounds paid to you when you come to Northern Ireland as a migrant or an asylum seeker".

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: I want Ministers and others to state clearly what people do get. In particular, I want the Minister for Communities to do that, because he is responsible for many of the benefits that are given to people, or at least for the agencies that issue those benefits. I will give way to the Minister, who wanted to speak.

Mr Lyons: I agree with that, but does the Member agree that, at the same time, we need to be honest about the impact that immigration is having? I agree that we need to tackle misinformation, as I said in my closing remarks. Does the Member agree, however, that, when people claim that immigration and the actions of Mears, for example, have no impact on areas, that also causes problems? Often, when people seek to deny that a problem exists when it does exist, that increases the frustration that is felt by many people who have concerns. They are not driven to take violent action, but they have concerns that need to be understood.

Mr Dickson: I hear what the Minister says. We need to get a sense of proportion. The numbers in Northern Ireland are tiny, and the impact on systems here is small in comparison, perhaps, with the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to set out the facts and explain who the small number of people are and where they have come from. The reality is that most people who come to Northern Ireland come here to work, do other jobs and contribute to society.

Let me just tell you briefly about the contribution that those people make to our society and community. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who happens to come from Pakistan. He teaches in one of our universities. His wife and two children are here. They are contributing. They pay tax and National Insurance. He has to earn an income above the threshold to work in the United Kingdom. In addition to that, he has had to fork out over £23,000 for the right to remain in the United Kingdom while he is employed here. Most if not all of that money goes towards his healthcare, because he does not get free healthcare. We need to debunk the myths and explain to people the pressures that that puts on families and others who are here. That is not to suggest that we should not work from the ground up in the communities that I have worked and served in for the past 50-odd years, helping people in poverty to get food, helping people to raise their families and helping to deliver a fair and good education for them.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: Yes, I will.

Miss Hargey: It is concerning that, again, there have been ifs and buts in some of the comments that have been made tonight. Words matter, because actions follow, and actions are misguided when there is misinformation. There is no focus on or anger with bankers, despite how they have fleeced people. Over £20 billion is still owed —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Deirdre, you are winding down the clock. The Member has no more time.

Miss Hargey: There is no focus on people who have been charged with sexual offences and were involved in racist attacks last year..

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am sorry, Stewart. You have no more time. You had 10 minutes, and that is it.

Miss Hargey: Sorry.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Members, for listening to the debate. Very finally, as elected representatives, we have a duty to debunk the lies and untruths. We have a duty to give leadership and clarity. Sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for the general tone of the debate. It was particularly appropriate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members may take their ease while we get ready for the Adjournment debate.

Mr Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, I have given John Blair leave to raise the matter of the reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to Belfast International Airport. Mr Blair, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly in an Adjournment debate on an issue that is of great significance to my constituency of South Antrim and, indeed, to Northern Ireland. I am also grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to respond.

There has been long-standing support for reinstating the Knockmore rail line since it closed in 2003. It would reconnect the towns of Crumlin, Glenavy and Ballinderry and extend the service to Belfast International Airport. There could also be significant beneficial impact on accessibility and in increased public transport options in places such as Templepatrick and Ballyclare and other towns and villages throughout the area.

I have spoken in the Chamber many times about how our rural communities across Northern Ireland remain chronically underserved and neglected by transportation infrastructure. Residents face significant and often overwhelming barriers to accessing essential services, stable employment and social amenities, primarily due to unreliable, infrequent or altogether absent public transport. That is especially difficult to accept when a transport line is built only to be prematurely closed, even more so when much of the rail infrastructure around it remains in place, seemingly ready for public use and being used by the operator for training and diversion purposes but not as part of the public network.

Conversations that I have had with constituents, local businesses and organisations such as Antrim Chamber of Commerce have echoed one message: connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. A reliable rail service is invaluable for commuters, families, young people seeking opportunity and older citizens wanting to stay connected.

Beyond the everyday advantages, reinstating the Knockmore line and extending it to Belfast International Airport would unlock enormous potential. Improved access would benefit domestic and international tourists, stimulate sustainable economic growth and help meet commitments on decarbonisation and balanced regional development. Progress, however, has been slow and, frankly, frustrating. It has been over two years since Translink committed to a feasibility study. We recently learned that that report is complete and with the Department for Infrastructure. That is an important milestone, but it is just one step on a long path.

While I acknowledge the Department's deliberation, I urge it to give us clarity and a path forward as soon as possible. Our communities need a timeline, a budget and, most important, a commitment to develop this essential project. Of course, financial constraints are real — I understand the pressure that each Department is under — and, of course, Ministers must make difficult decisions to safeguard vital public services. However, reducing investment in public transport has a major ripple effect on our economy. Every pound spent on sustainable connectivity yields significant returns in opportunity, much of which I have outlined.

I thank my Alliance colleague David Honeyford for persistently pressing the issue with the Infrastructure Minister and other Ministers. I express my gratitude to our colleagues on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and on Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council for their efforts. The Alliance Party, I have to make clear, remains committed to ensuring that the Knockmore line reopens.

Since the closure of the line in 2003, Northern Ireland's communities and economy have changed significantly. In many ways, the case for reopening is stronger than ever. For example, Glenavy's population has doubled since 2003. Ballyclare and Templepatrick, which I mentioned, have also witnessed significant population growth. Our region has grown, but our infrastructure has not kept pace. Demand for public transport has soared with the increase in population, not just among commuters but among students who depend on reliable and affordable transport to universities, workplaces and social events. Sustainability is now a central priority, with more people seeking greener and more affordable travel options.

In addition to that, Belfast International Airport use has grown substantially, with more residents, students and tourists travelling than ever before. Significant tourism investment has put Northern Ireland on the global stage, and international visitors reasonably expect seamless transport, as is standard in many countries. Unfortunately, many leave here disappointed with our limited public transport, undermining our efforts to showcase Northern Ireland's best. With so much growth and potential, securing modern, sustainable connectivity for all is more urgent than ever.

It would be remiss of me in bringing forward this Adjournment debate not to use the opportunity to offer recognition and thanks to the individuals and groups who have worked hard in the community space to keep the Knockmore line issue in the public domain. The Circle Line Belfast and FundtheNINE's active campaigns to do better on our rail infrastructure have caught public and media attention, as well as promoting the real benefits of offering rail services to residents, commuters, businesses and tourists in the greater Belfast, south Antrim, east Antrim and Lagan valley areas and, indeed, well beyond. The public profile and levels of engagement of those campaigns not only demonstrates the commitment of those involved but shows that there is significant public interest in sustainable public transport solutions.

Members and the Minister will be aware of the plans announced today, which include a new rail halt as part of Belfast City Airport's 2040 extension master plan. That sends a strong signal of the recognition that our region's growth relies increasingly on integrated and sustainable links and aligns with my calls for a renewed commitment to projects such as the reinstatement of the Knockmore line and improved airport access.

As I draw to a conclusion, I again urge the Infrastructure Minister to make decisions on the Knockmore line at pace. Accessible, efficient and reliable public transport is vital for enhancing citizens' quality of life, regardless of their location. Achieving that requires increased public investment and improved connectivity between rural and urban areas. There may also be real action required with the public and private sectors working innovatively together to deliver. My colleagues in the Alliance Party and I remain dedicated to addressing the ongoing shortcomings in our rural public transport system. We aim for an inclusive, efficient and responsive network that serves all our constituents and meets our society's growing needs. The economic, environmental and social benefits of reinstating the Knockmore line and utilising the close proximity to a vastly improved and expanding Belfast International Airport must be prioritised. We now need the delivery of that vital transport link.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney, you have five minutes.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tréaslaím do John an díospóireacht Atrátha a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Tí anocht.

Over the past 40 years, South Antrim has experienced an absolutely huge surge in population. It is particularly pronounced in the population centres of Crumlin, Glenavy and Ballinderry. Today, the population of Crumlin village — others will call it a town — exceeds 5,000. I remember the early 1980s, when the population of Crumlin did not exceed 500. The resulting pressures on infrastructure and services as a direct consequence of that exponential growth in population are self-evident.

That is not a challenge unique to South Antrim. It is a characteristic of rural town expansion throughout the North. However, the parts of South Antrim that I mention fall within the commuter belt of Belfast city, so the daily commute to Belfast for employment, school or college has now become huge. That reality is a major factor driving the real public demand for restoration of the Knockmore line, currently mothballed but once an important section of the Antrim and Lisburn rail infrastructure. Significantly, that section of track continues to be maintained to a standard appropriate for use as an emergency alternative operational route. Restoration of the line is widely and correctly, in my view, viewed as a key to mitigating the transport pressures that are experienced by local people between Antrim and Lisburn and then, in terms of connectivity, towards Belfast.

The loss of that key section of regional rail network has also adversely impacted on the economic potential of South Antrim and, indeed, the overall region. The case has been made that reinstatement would extend to rail connectivity to Belfast International Airport for customers and staff. That contention holds water. This is at a time when the airport is seeking to strategically position itself to attract increased airlines and flight routes, with the knock-on effect, which the airport management has correctly assessed, of attracting increased investment, tourism and the associated generation of employment in the constituency. In short, the Knockmore line and its reinstatement is about much more than the reinstatement of rail track. It can and must be seen as a strategic asset to enhance infrastructure and transport services, as well as being a net contributor to economic growth and complementary to the expansion of our regional airport.

I am pleased that submissions from me and others ensured the inclusion of the Knockmore line in the all-island strategic rail review. All-island investment in rail infrastructure and services will be essential in helping to grow the all-Ireland economy. I trust that all of those considerations will have been reflected in the feasibility study submitted by Translink to the Department for Infrastructure. It is important that we unlock all areas of opportunity for our regional economy. The restoration of the Knockmore line is just such an opportunity, with its potential to help drive job creation, increased tourism and increased investment. Realising those opportunities will require ambition and, of course, the necessary capital investment, but delivery on that strategic vision will be to the benefit not only of the people of South Antrim but of the entire region.

Mr Clarke: I thank my colleague from South Antrim for securing the debate tonight. I will look at the clock and wish that we could go back in time because I will go back in time. I came here in 2007, and this matter has been debated and debated. One of my colleagues said to me today, when we were talking about this, that the Member who secured the debate tonight took the motion to council about 10 years ago, where it commanded the support of the council at that time. Indeed, when Dr McCrea, Paul Girvan and many others were here, there was cross-party support for many years. I did a search today, and I could detect questions going back to 2009 on this, so it goes without saying that everyone, universally, has historically supported this. However, there has never been action, which is disappointing. I will not blame the current Minister, but I will call on her to stop the delay by others and bring this to a success story.

I listened to the previous Member who spoke about some aspects, and much was made of the benefits. One of the benefits that struck me when I was listening to him — I do not want to repeat a lot of what has been said, so I am trying to pick out new stuff — is that, historically, the airport has had an issue with its workforce because of its location. There is no doubt that, if we had a reasonable connection between the airport and Lisburn, Glenavy, Crumlin and Antrim — all of those areas — it would open up interest in jobs at the airport and would make for a viable way of transport for the people in any of those areas where there are jobs waiting for them. I have heard that, historically, even in north Belfast, there has been an issue with getting workers because of the logistical problem of getting them to and from work. As has been said, the train line is there; we are all aware of it, and we are aware of the cost of maintaining it; indeed, some of my constituents have expressed concern about some of the dangerous elements of the train line, and that has always been adhered to. When you drive up the Dublin Road to the airport, therefore, it seems strange to see the disused railway.

It goes without saying that the benefit to the airport is greater than jobs. Someone referenced the connection with the rail links to the City Airport: we have not got that, and we are the worse for it. Unlike many others in the Chamber, I do not travel much, but, no matter where you go to on the mainland, there are good connections to the towns and cities from each airport, whether by buses, trains or, indeed, trams in some cases. We are badly served with all those, so there is a real opportunity. There was a bit of blue-sky thinking at one point when Ballymartin was opened. Ballymartin was a real necessity. You can see its success when you look at the numbers of people who use it daily, but we failed to connect the railway to it. We have the park-and-ride, but people use it to commute when they could be commuting on a train rather than depending on a bus.

There is an essential need for the Minister, the Department and the whole Executive, because it will take a bit of collective responsibility to drive this forward. I am not laying it all at your feet, Minister, but there would be a real benefit to South Antrim and more widely to Lisburn and other areas. If the vision and will were there, the line could be delivered. I am not sure how many of us will be here in the next mandate, but I will tell you one thing that is for sure: it is depressing that we have been talking about this for so long. As I heard in yesterday's debate, we are creating roads and footpaths to unnecessary destinations, but one thing is for sure: the International Airport is necessary. It is the largest airport that we have in Northern Ireland. It can cope with the larger flights and could cope with much more, but we do not have the connectivity.

While I am on my feet, Minister, I will add a comment that has been made in previous conversations. The other thing that we have not got from that airport — I am here to talk about the rail link — is decent road infrastructure to connect it to the M2. If we want to look at the whole picture, it is the rail link and a connection between Belfast International Airport and the M2. I commend John for securing the debate.

Dr Aiken: I thank John for securing the debate, and I apologise now, Minister, because I will be a bit "spotterish" about this. I talk quite a lot with the railway community and Translink, and I am a great supporter of the all-Ireland rail strategy, because, in my previous existences, I worked closely with the then Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) on various links to the rail network there.

The circle line makes abundant sense when you step back to look at it, but it requires considerable investment in signalling; in ballast, which is what we need to make sure that the track does not fall off; and in upgrading bridges and the roads that are connected to those bridges, in order to make sure that they are capable of doing it. That is the downside. The upside is that all of that will have to be done anyhow. If that is going to be done, we need to take a strategic view of it. We will have to improve the ballast and the track bed between Antrim and Lisburn if we are to keep the line open for any reason. We will have to improve all the signalling, because the railway authority and the Railway Inspectorate will make us do so. We therefore have a good opportunity here.

Minister, you will have heard many times about the circle line and the opportunities there. I thank Trevor for talking about Ballymartin, which is a classic example. Part of its car park was designed to be straight, because, originally, there was going to be a railway platform there. The difficulty there was that the platform would not have been not long enough, so it would have had to be extended for longer trains.

Translink is actually a bit of a success when it comes to railways. We have full trains. That is a good thing.

Normally, when the trains are full and there is successful infrastructure, one invests in it. For some bizarre reason, we are not investing, but we need to be able to do so. Bearing in mind that we are going to have to spend the money anyhow, it is appropriate that we now take a really strategic view on what we are going to do. Ballymartin can become a transport hub for the growing and important centres of Ballyclare, which I declare that I live quite close to, and I know that my friend does as well, as can Templepatrick. That, as an interim measure, could work quite well to improve bus links to the International Airport.

Belfast International Airport is a growth centre. It is probably one of the greatest opportunities that we have, not just in South Antrim but across Northern Ireland. It could be a major logistics hub. There are only two reasons preventing it from becoming one. The first is that we do not have enough skilled labour to go and work there. I go and talk to the airport very regularly — every fortnight or so — and I always ask what its biggest problem is. Every time, I am told that it is that it does not have enough skilled people, because it cannot get them. It is bussing in people from all across Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland because there are not enough skilled people. The second reason is abundantly obvious, and it has already been pointed out by my friends. We need a decent road that connects to the motorway network so that we can use the airport as a major logistics hub. Doing that would be a win-win.

If we are therefore to look at this strategically, given that we are going to have spend a lot of the money anyhow, there is a great opportunity here, Minister. I would be delighted if you were to join us MLAs — I am sure that Declan can arrange that — to go out and walk the patch so that you can see how little would be required. By being strategic about it, we could achieve quite a lot for the area. The single most important thing that we want to see is for the facilities that we have to be used. Bearing in mind that we have already invested significantly, we should add that extra bit of investment, which, as I keep saying, we are going to have to spend anyhow. Earlier today in the Chamber, somebody said that we need to spend to save and get value for money. Both things that I have suggested would achieve that.

Minister, can you take the opportunity to talk with us about what we can do at Belfast International Airport, particularly to improve the road network? There are solutions out there. Indeed, if the airport, much like Belfast City Airport, is willing to pay most of the costs, there are opportunities. Through a partnership agreement between the great Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, your Department and the airport, we could demonstrate that we can get stuff done.

Mr Speaker, I did not even make any Thomas the Tank Engine allusions. There is real opportunity here, and, Minister, there is a good opportunity for you to make a difference without having to spend a fortune.

Mrs Cameron: I also welcome the opportunity to speak. I thank my constituency colleague John Blair for securing the Adjournment debate. As my colleague Trevor Clarke said, we have had this conversation many times in the House. Nevertheless, it is an issue that remains a vital topic. My colleague Steve Aiken also spoke so well.

The topic is a matter of great importance, and it would be a wonderful achievement to see some really ambitious plans come forward. It is not just about trains and train lines but about connectivity, growth and the future of not only South Antrim but the entire region. It is therefore vital. For too long, our transport network has struggled to keep pace with the demands of a modern society. We know that, and the Knockmore line represents a potential solution that can enhance our public transport system, making it more efficient and accessible and potentially linking our towns and cities directly to Belfast International Airport. As has already been said, the airport holds numerous job fairs far and wide. It is continually trying to get qualified people in as staff members for all the various roles and the great job opportunities that there are, yet it struggles to retain people. A lot of that is down to the fact that people physically struggle to get from A to B to fill those roles.

The links are very important. It is about investing in our economy and the well-being of our citizens. We know that passenger figures at the airport continue to grow. We want to maximise the tourism potential not just in South Antrim but across Northern Ireland. We want to see more provision for South Antrim. The growth in the number of houses has been mentioned. I am one of those who has recently moved to Ballyclare. We have the relief road, which is terrific. A lot of people, including members of my family, have come from places well outside South Antrim to live in the area. It is a very attractive area, and it is easy to commute to Belfast from there.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will, indeed.

Dr Aiken: What the Member has said is obvious because it is God's own country. Don't we all agree? Excellent.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you. I could not agree more.

We want to see that provision. There are enough people, and there is enough extra usage, to justify the link. We need to consider all options to improve the connectivity. A link from Ballymartin park-and-ride to the rail network is another potential opportunity. Ballymartin park-and-ride has been a great success, and we want to see more creative and ambitious planning. We know that the projects are very costly and take time to deliver. I am glad that the Minister is here to listen to the debate, and I appreciate her time this evening. I would welcome an update from the Minister on future provision, which is badly needed.

The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line aligns with the commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of public transport as a viable alternative to car travel. We are all aware that it is not that easy to just ditch the car and commit to public transport — I wish that I could do that, because I love the train and the bus — as the availability and frequency of services are often an issue when trying to get from A to B. Even the taxi industry struggles to cope with the amount of traffic that we have today.

We are aware of the controversial environmental targets that the Assembly set itself. Some of us would argue that those goals are not achievable or realistic. However, it is important that we do what we can in that regard when opportunities arise, while fostering economic growth. There is a great opportunity here to make environmental improvements too.

We have to consider the social benefits that enhanced public transport access will provide. It is about greater mobility for all. It is about accessibility for those who struggle with disabilities and who need accessible transport. That is another huge challenge. We have a large number of people with disability and accessibility needs. Those needs must be met so that everyone in Northern Ireland is accommodated. At this point, I will give a shout-out to South Antrim Community Transport in praise of the fantastic work that it does. That invaluable service plugs a gap in getting people from A to B for appointments and social occasions. The value for money that it provides for Northern Ireland and the Government is fantastic. A lot of people rely on that service. I would like to see more community transport across Northern Ireland.

The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to Belfast International Airport would not just be a transport project; it would be an investment in our future. I, for one, would dearly like to see it come to fruition.

Mr Honeyford: I thank John for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House and for all his work on the issue. When he was a councillor, David Ford was in the Assembly, and the Knockmore line was being put forward then.

I bring a Lagan Valley, rather than South Antrim, perspective to the debate. We will fight about where the line goes. Reopening the Knockmore line is about connecting people to jobs. It is about linking the airport to the rail network and building a economy. It is about our community.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, of course.

Mr Clarke: You touched on Lisburn. I just want to remind you that most of the constituency that Lisburn is in has been given up at that end to South Antrim. We have Glenavy, Stoneyford and so on. You have given it up, but that is fine.

Mr Honeyford: I remind the Member that it was not us who closed the line in the first place or who reduced the service. That part of Lagan Valley has not changed. The area between Ballinderry and Glenavy remain the same.

We have waited too long for progress on this matter. It is two years since Translink's feasibility study came out, and that is too long. If this place is to start being seen as a place that delivers for people, this is exactly the kind of project that we can deliver and change that we can make for people's lives. It is about connecting communities and the benefits that that can bring to the villages right across the area that every Member here has named.

One of the problems that we have had in Lagan Valley is that we have two or three main villages. We have overdeveloped Hillsborough and Moira to the point of absolute saturation such that you cannot move in either village at any point in time and the traffic is completely crazy. However, we have Ballinderry, or Ballinderry Upper, which we have not developed, and there is a train line there and main road infrastructure. Developing that area could ease the pressure on planning for housing, especially as we all need housing. However, if this railway line were to reopen, we would have the infrastructure in place before we started to develop housing, rather than putting the housing in place before matching it with infrastructure. That would start to ease the pressure on the M1, which mainly becomes a car park as you come into Belfast, and on the A26 to Antrim. If we created those other connections, we could start to offer sustainable transport and ways to deliver it.

The benefit to the wider area would be substantial. The economic growth at the airport has been mentioned, and, as Trevor, John and Declan said, jobs would be needed there and must be filled, and people must be moved so that that can happen. That is key. The connectivity piece is really critical for tourism and to allow the business community to get inward investment and local companies to get their business out so that investment in this place can grow. It is part of the all-island rail review. I agree with Steve on that. That has to start to be delivered, and this is one of the low-hanging fruits, especially as the track is already there.

If you look at other plans, you can see that, the week before last, Dublin launched plans for the Metro. Those are ambitious plans for an underground system that would connect Dublin Airport to the city. Belfast City Airport today announced its 2040 strategy, but my first question is this: why do we have to wait to 2040? Can we not bring that forward, do it much earlier and start delivering quickly for people?

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Sure.

Dr Aiken: You talked about the all-island rail strategy. One of the big issues has to be that most of the rail link for Iarnród Éireann will have to be replaced anyhow. Considerable investment has to go into the ballast and all the bits and pieces that one puts the tracks on. The tracks will have to be improved to make them high-speed tracks. I say to the Minister that there is an opportunity to do that on an all-island basis, which we will have to in order to upgrade it all at the same time, rather than faff around.

Mr Honeyford: That is a new word: "ballast".

Dr Aiken: I could give an entire lecture on it.

Mr Honeyford: I completely agree that we need to look at this on an all-island basis. I talk all the time in here about a shared island and at looking at stuff strategically not as a political vision but as development that will help people. We cannot afford to be left behind with this, and it needs to be built into such strategies. I agree completely that the line should be upgraded and seen in its totality rather than as an individual part of the system. Net zero should also be considered, with fewer cars and lower emissions.

The other element is the way that it will be used. The midnight train from Belfast to Lisburn never happened. We called for that for years. We were told that it could never happen and that it was too expensive and would never run. However, it was put on at Christmas and has continued to today. That happened because once people find that a service is good, reliable and connects them, they use it. That is the important part. We need a timeline from the Minister of where we go from here so that we can look at delivery. If we had a timeline, we could start to deliver. I appreciate that the Minister is here tonight, and I appreciate her work on it. She has been engaging on it over the past while since she has been in post. It is about that timeline for delivery of what we can do and when we can see it happening for people.

Mr Butler: I want the Minister to be aware of the skulduggery that is happening in the Chamber tonight. This is not about tourism nor connectivity; this is about the people from South Antrim wanting to get into Lagan Valley. [Interruption.]

That is what this is about. Let us be absolutely clear. I nearly fell out with my party colleague over it. Lagan Valley is the premier. It is the big brother.

Mr Clarke: You have given bits up.

Mr Butler: In reality, everybody here tonight has made the case for the delivery of the Knockmore line to include Belfast International Airport. It is simply unquestionable. If we are serious about growing our economy, which is why we are here, boosting tourism, which is why we are here, and putting Northern Ireland on the international stage, the case has well and truly been made, and we must finally connect our main airport to our rail network.

I was doing a bit of research today, because I was in London last week, and I wondered when the London underground was built. It was built 162 years ago, and you think about that and how they did that, how they afforded it and who did it, yet we are looking at a rail link that actually exists. We have the line, we are not commissioning land, and we are not vesting land. As has already been pointed out, we genuinely could meet our climate credentials because it is a win-win. It would fulfil the active travel ambition, but there would be tangible benefits from it. I am sure that, 162 years ago, they were not quantifying all that into what they delivered. The longest line on that is 46 miles. Can you imagine if we had an underground tube from Belfast International Airport?

We are looking to put trains on a track that already exists. I know that it is not just as simple as that, but, in 2025, we have people — not necessarily in this Building — who complicate it, and maybe we could deliver it a lot more easily than we think.

Right now, Belfast International Airport is one of the only international airports in Europe that does not have a rail link. That is a significant disadvantage for business and for tourism. The Knockmore line gives us a ready-made solution by reinstating the line through the Lagan valley corridor, with the potential for increased pick-ups at Knockmore — we know that there is work ongoing with regard to that wider Knockmore piece — and Ballinderry, and then better linking the jewel in the crown, which is Lisburn, by the way. We can transform connectivity for local communities while creating the crucial spine that links our International Airport directly with the rest of Northern Ireland.

As has already been pointed out, probably much better by other Members here, particularly the Member for South Antrim John Blair — I thank you, John, for bringing the debate tonight — is that circle line ambition. When you look at the links through to the City Airport, you will see that the opportunities there are probably better than anywhere else in the world, which I will get to in a second.

This is not just about convenience; it is about competitiveness. By attracting and embedding new transatlantic routes from Belfast International Airport, we have the opportunity to rival Dublin Airport in attracting long-haul visitors and global investment. Nobody in the Chamber will need to be reminded that, when we came back in 2022, one of the UK Government commitments was to look at pre-clearance for US flights. It is not for the Minister to look at that, but the Executive Office could revisit that, because it is really important to shine the light on the ambition that we have for Northern Ireland and put it truly on the map. Tourists arriving from the United States or Canada would be able to step off a plane and get straight on to a train to Lisburn, Belfast, Londonderry, Antrim, Ballymartin or beyond. That is the seamless connectivity that international travellers expect in 2025. The Knockmore line is the first step in delivering the wider circle line, which is a project that would maximise value by linking our towns, capital and airports in one coherent transport network.

I had the pleasure of living within about 500 yards of the track that is the Knockmore line, and the Member for Lagan Valley will agree that it is a beautiful line for the people who would commute on it from South Antrim into Lagan Valley. They could see our three- and four-storey buildings. They are skyscrapers, Trevor. It really is a nice journey. It would be very good.

Since becoming an MLA in 2016, I have repeatedly highlighted the Knockmore line's potential to unlock growth right across Northern Ireland, but, as Trevor pointed out, it was going on for maybe 10 years before I was here, when John was a mere boy and a councillor, which is some time ago.

I thank Robin Swann MP, who attends Westminster religiously. He is probably one of the most attentive MPs. He is passionate about this and speaks on this —.

Mr Clarke: come on, now.

Mr Butler: He is giving your Jim a run for his money.

Mr Clarke: Things were level up until that point. [Laughter.]

Mr Butler: We can be humorous about this, but Trevor hit the nail on the head: do we want the next cohort of MLAs who come back in two years' time to be repeating the lines that we are trotting out tonight and that have been trotted out by Members before us? The time for delay has long passed. Minister, if we are to compete, we should complete, and if we are truly going to level up our transport system, we must deliver the Knockmore line, because it is the track that leads directly to the circle line, to prosperity and to Northern Ireland's rightful place on the global tourism map.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I call on you now. You have 10 minutes.

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

I genuinely thank everyone for their contributions tonight. It has been a demonstration of what we can achieve if we are on the same page and think collaboratively about what we would like to see. It has been very different from some of the debates and discussions that I have been part of in the Chamber over the past 24 hours. It is a welcome discussion. I thank John Blair for securing the debate, because I recognise that this is a very important issue. The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to the International Airport is, as many have said tonight, not just an investment; it is of strategic importance to the economy, for tourism and for the whole area to reach its full potential.

As Members will be aware, my Department has published a new draft transport strategy — it is out for consultation — covering the period up to 2035. The strategy is the beginning of a necessary journey to ensure that our transportation system meets the demands of tomorrow while reflecting the values and priorities of our community today. Tonight's debate reflects that and what the Department wants to achieve. It sets out a comprehensive vision that is actionable — I think that is the word that one of the Members used this evening — and adaptable and addresses urban and rural connectivity, creates a cleaner and greener foundation for growth and recognises my commitment to improving regional balance. The strategy is an important first step to help shape a transport system that works for all and safeguards the environment for future generations.

I welcome Pam's comments on access and how important that is. She reflected on South Antrim Community Transport, something that I see as being of huge importance. That is why I wanted to ensure that I was able to provide full funding for community transport in my budget. It plays a vital role in plugging the gaps and tackling the health inequalities, social isolation and all of those rural inequalities that the existing public transport system simply cannot address at this time. Hopefully, however, we can move towards that.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will indeed.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister. You mentioned the magic word: budget. As you will be aware, you are looking for three-year Budgets and looking at future developments. There is a difference between city deals and the all-union interconnectivity deal — I think that that is what it is called — which is one of the things that they are working on in the UK at the moment. It is looking at investment, and it is going out to 100 years potentially. Therefore, going for a long-term investment bond to do this is a very low-cost way of gobbling up financial transactions capital (FTC) in a way that will deliver something other than just a new university building. This would build something that would be useful to everybody across Northern Ireland. That would be a worthy conversation to have with the Finance Minister, particularly, and officials.

Ms Kimmins: I am going to come on to budget, so I will come to a wee bit around that.

The transport plan sets out the potential interventions that I propose to bring forward to address many of my priorities in the strategy. The regional strategic transport network transport plan (RSTNTP) will detail proposed changes to the railway network for the period up to 2035. I recognise that we talked about the 2040 Belfast City Airport master plan. I had the pleasure of meeting Belfast City Airport representatives last week in advance of the launch today, as I knew that I would not be able to attend. It is exciting and ambitious, but it recognises that major infrastructure projects take time and investment, as well as collaboration, something that I look forward to see coming to fruition.

Our own RSTNTP will consider the work undertaken from the feasibility study of the Knockmore line and appraise that scheme against all of the competing priorities, as Members will be aware. In parallel with the strategy and plans, we are taking steps to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. The Climate Change Act 2022 places clear responsibilities on all Departments to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. To enable that, my Department must reduce emissions from the transport sector so that they are almost net zero by 2050. We cannot overestimate the challenge that net zero represents, especially in relation to transport.

Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will in a wee second.

Most of us rely on some form of transport every day, mainly a car, bus or train, to go about our daily life. Rail is a really good way of ensuring that we reduce emissions and have that modal shift.

I will give way.

Mr Clarke: I will tag the Ballymartin stuff on to the debate. It is a different line, but that line is in action. You have just talked about achieving net zero. The line is there. It is the same distance as from here to your colleague away from the car park. The connection would be simple. It would be a simple indication from you, as Minister, about your commitment to achieving net zero and giving connectivity to people in Ballymartin to get to Belfast or Antrim.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that point. I am not overly familiar with Ballymartin, so I probably need to get a bit more information on that, but, ideally —.

Dr Aiken: We would be delighted to invite you, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: Feel free to write in.

In relation to all that we have discussed here this evening, I think that everyone here has commended the all-island strategic rail review and shown great support for it. It sought to provide a strategic vision for rail across Ireland. I welcome the comments from David Honeyford about what is happening in Dublin and having an all-island vision. It makes sense. Our railway lines do not stop at the border, in the same way as our roads and many other things do not. It makes sense for us to look at that holistically. Also, by mentioning some of the work that is happening in Dublin, you are feeding into my argument for Irish unity. Look at what the South can achieve with the budgets that it has access to in terms of having —.

Dr Aiken: You were doing so well, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: Well, if it is in front of my face, I cannot ignore it.

Mr Clarke: We cannot even get a train to Newry, and you want us to go to Dublin. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Ms Kimmins: In all seriousness, the investment piece is key to all of this, and it is an example of what can be achieved when we have access to healthier budgets and our own —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way on a serious point?

Ms Kimmins: Very quickly, because I will never get through this.

Dr Aiken: The issue in Dublin that has been mentioned is that the Dublin Area Rapid Transit (DART) takes priority over the North/South Belfast to Dublin line. We cannot increase the speed or flexibility on that line until we take the DART off it. Even though a lot of investment has been put into that, it is not the right investment for North/South connectivity. If you are talking to your cohort, please try to get us some access on that line; it would be very useful.

Ms Kimmins: We will not always agree on everything, but the point I am making is that, even when it comes to subsidising the public transport network, they can do so much more in the South because they are not hamstrung by some of the Budgets that we have in the North.

I have digressed a little from the all-island rail review, which was published in July last year. It set out 32 recommendations to improve inter-urban and regional rural rail systems for passengers and communities across the island up to 2050, which will not be long in coming in. It is important to say that, given that we talked about 2007 for the Knockmore line. It looks at aligning with net zero goals in the North and South of the island. The delivery of the recommendations is divided into three broad time horizons: short term to 2030; medium term between 2030 and 2040; and longer-term goals between 2040 and 2050. The proposal to reinstate the railway between Lisburn and Antrim, enabling Belfast International Airport to be connected, has been classified as a short-term intervention by the review. That will certainly be welcomed by Members, particularly given tonight's debate.

While the recommendations provide an evidence-based framework to inform future investment in railways across the island, more work is needed to test the feasibility and affordability — the latter will be key — of the recommendations and to secure the necessary funding to take projects forward, taking into consideration wider infrastructure priorities. As Members know, the feasibility studies were funded out of the Union connectivity fund. I continue to work with the Department for Transport, Translink, Irish Rail and the National Transport Authority to consider the recommendations. That work included the preparation of a project prioritisation strategy that identified the rail interventions that could be well advanced or delivered over the next decade, up until 2035. I hope to publish that project prioritisation strategy later in the year.

Mr Speaker: Minister, there have been a few interruptions, so do not worry if you need a wee bit of extra time.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

My officials are working closely with Translink. It undertook several feasibility studies, which were submitted to my Department in July. As I said, those additional studies were funded by the Union connectivity fund and include the Portadown to Armagh line, a new line from Portadown to Derry and the electrification of the line from Belfast to the border. As I said, I am considering Translink's recommendations, and I intend to publish a summary report later in the autumn.

Given the scale of interventions and the magnitude of the transformation that is involved — we have talked about the Knockmore line being relatively simple to do, which is why it is one of the proposed short-term interventions — there will be significant challenges with and pressure on the overall finances. We need to explore all funding avenues. I will continue to do that by seeking support from Executive colleagues and by working with other jurisdictions, whether through the Shared Island Fund, the Union connectivity fund or whatever else is available to us.

Members referred to the budgets that have been set. There is no doubt that Translink could do so much more if we were able to give it more budget. This year, I gave 33% of my overall capital budget to Translink, which is 86% of what it asked for. We are continually looking at how we can invest more. It is important to note that we have given Translink a capital budget of £1 billion over the past four years. While that may still not be enough, it is a significant part of my overall budget, and I hope that that shows my commitment to delivering and to working with Translink and others to do so. The other important thing that is relevant to the debate is that I have ring-fenced £1 million of my budget for this year to build on the momentum that was achieved in the feasibility studies for the all-island strategic rail review, which will include work on the Knockmore line. We have talked about the multi-year Budget. Future Budget decisions will be critical as we plan for bigger rail infrastructure projects.

As I said earlier, we are considering the feasibility study for the reopening of the Knockmore line. We hope to publish the main outcomes of the study in the autumn, so I will be able to provide Members with further updates then. I continue to look forward to working with everyone on this. I recognise the significant importance of the Knockmore line not just to the people who represent the area but for wider connectivity across our island to ensure that all our regions are well served by a fully functioning rail network. That would achieve everything that we have set out to do, be that meeting our climate change targets, supporting our communities or achieving economic growth.

I thank Members for the tone of the debate. Hopefully, we will see progress made in the near future.