Official Report: Monday 22 September 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we begin the first item of business, I have a few announcements to make. I inform Members that the Speaker is unwell, so he will not be in the Chamber today. He hopes to be back tomorrow.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 5.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Agriculture Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 6.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I advise Members that Diane Forsythe has been appointed Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee effective from Tuesday 16 September. Congratulations to Diane.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the British Government's recognition of the Palestinian state that fulfils the criteria that are set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for selecting this Matter of the Day, and I send my best wishes to the Speaker.

There is no doubt that the British Government's decision to recognise an independent Palestinian state is a significant and welcome move. We should not forget that the state that had chief responsibility for sponsoring and bringing Israel into existence as a state is Britain itself. Let us not forget that, for over 30 years, prior to the creation of Israel as a state, Britain sponsored the destruction of homes and villages, the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people and eventually the expansion and creation of the apartheid state, which refused to recognise Palestinians, except when trying to take their homes and land and expel them.

This is no doubt a welcome move. However, while symbols can be important in politics and life, Palestinians need a lot more than symbolism today and in the weeks ahead.

The former Israeli ambassador to France warned Emmanuel Macron recently:

That is what is in front of us. That is what is in front of and faces Palestinians.

Yesterday's announcement needs to be followed quite swiftly by action from the British Government. We cannot have a situation whereby we have a fractured, Bantustan-like Palestinian state starved of resources and support. Next door, meanwhile, we have Israel, one of the most heavily armed, militarised states in the world, and Israel being allowed still to exist as an apartheid state, practising ethnic cleansing, implementing genocide and wreaking havoc across the Middle East whilst having a nuclear armoury.

Recognition of a Palestine state cannot be seen as an attempt by the British Government or other Western Governments to absolve themselves from having backed Israel's war to the hilt, which they have done. They backed the efforts to starve Palestinians. They backed the efforts to bomb Palestinians to smithereens. Britain —— maybe this is some of Keir Starmer's thinking — has a legal duty to prevent genocide. The announcement yesterday, whilst important and welcome, will not protect Keir Starmer or others who have backed Israel to the hilt.

In the past 24 hours, there has been a lot of talk of rewarding terrorism and whether that decision is not about rewarding terrorism. Israel has been the key driver of terrorism since 1948 and before, wreaking havoc right across the Middle East. What we need to see now is action from the British Government and the Executive to refuse to give any public money to companies that are involved in making weapons for Israel, to implement sanctions against Israel —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — and to expel all diplomats from these islands.

Mr Sheehan: There was a Palestinian state in existence before the Balfour declaration and a Palestinian state there before the establishment of an Israeli state. In one sense, the Palestinian people do not need affirmation from the British Government that there is a legitimate Palestinian state. However, all we can hope is that that is a small step towards more concrete actions rather than the British Government attempting to cover their own back for complicity in the genocide that is currently taking place in Gaza and the West Bank.

The British Government should now stop all arms and weapons going to Israel. You cannot claim to be appalled by what is happening in Gaza and, at the same time, supply the bombs and missiles that are being used to blow women and children to pieces. It is time for all countries to come together now and isolate that rogue, genocidal state. We had the report from the UN Commission. We recently heard from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide. We had already heard that from B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation; Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Amnesty International; and Human Rights Watch. We did not need all that. Anyone who looks at the situation there and is honest will say that genocide is taking place.

We need now, all of us in the international community, to bring in a campaign of sanctions and boycott on Israel in the same way that the apartheid regime in South Africa was isolated internationally, and that, eventually, brought an end to that particular egregious regime. I say now to the British Government and the other states that have decided to recognise Palestine, "Don't stop at this point. Let's take action that will save lives. End the genocide. Free Palestine now."

Mr Martin: Over the weekend, the Prime Minister recognised a state of Palestine. Using the established criteria for the recognition of a state — the Montevideo convention — it failed most if not all of those criteria. It clearly lacks a Government who are capable of exercising authority over their territory; a defined territory; and a settled population. Recognition was supposed to be at a critical point for political negotiations for a long-term solution in the region, but we are nowhere near that, and the recognition will make no beneficial difference. It will not ease the suffering of anyone in Gaza or, on the admission of the Government, feed a single child. It is deeply imbalanced and, incredibly, requires nothing of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Most disgracefully, it does not even gain the release of the remaining hostages. It will now be banked by Hamas as justification for the 7 October massacre. It will not advance peace or a lasting solution.

Notwithstanding the political expeditiousness of the decision, as Thomas Hand, the father of one of the female Jewish hostages taken on October 7, said this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster', it could have been used for peace rather than for rewarding terror. The Prime Minister could have used it to gain the release of the remaining hostages, but, rather, the decision rewards terrorism. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an organisation that represents relatives of Jewish hostages with British ties, has also condemned the decision, calling it a:

That group said in a statement:

Thankfully, someone is happy: Mahmoud Mardawi, a senior Hamas official. He said that it is:

and would send a clear message to Israel.

In conclusion, I categorically state that the decision by the Labour Government is appalling, but I also reflect that this is a Labour Government to whom the TUV wants to hand complete power and authority in Northern Ireland for the next four years. A sensible move for unionists? Perhaps it is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you to Gerry for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber.

I rise to reflect on the UK's recognition of the Palestinian state, which was accompanied by recognition by Portugal. We expect France to follow today. I appreciate some of the concerns about recognising a state that does not have a functioning Administration. Nevertheless, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, on a recent visit to Stormont, correctly described a two-state solution as the only game in town.

Hamas, of course, rejects a two-state solution, and it is important that any recognition should be about promoting and supporting a two-state solution: a safe, democratic Palestine and a safe, democratic Israel. We also have to be clear that the Israeli Government, acting contrary to the wishes of the Israeli people, according to surveys going back many months and contrary to the expressed views of many Israeli military leaders, are continuing a war with the objective of ending any prospect of that outcome. It is our position that both Palestinians and Israelis have the right to self-determination, dignity and statehood; indeed, that should never have been conditional.

Recognition is fundamentally a symbolic act, of course. It is an important one but also one that needs to be followed with consistent resultant action. A two-state solution is also hindered by building illegal settlements, and we also need to see immediate access to humanitarian aid for Gaza, including via the border with Egypt, which is currently under Israeli control. Most of all, we must reflect on our common humanity. The endless cycle of war and violence, including crimes against humanity, will only breed suffering for the current generation and hatred in the next one. The route to peace, as ever, is through dialogue, not violence.

Dr Aiken: First of all, I wish the Speaker a speedy recovery, and I wish our many Jewish friends and colleagues a happy Rosh Hashana.

On 21 September, the Prime Minister announced the recognition of the Palestinian state. He did so without preconditions, and his remarks have been severely criticised, not least by our Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who stated that the British Government's recognition was:

However, the Prime Minister's remarks have been warmly welcomed by none other than Hamas and its fellow travellers, who said that the result was:

To say that the Prime Minister's decision is a historic error is an understatement. It was a cynical attempt by the leader of the Labour Party to shore up his ever-weakening electoral position. Doing that, whilst ignoring calls from the United States, Germany — it should know — and Italy, which have all stood firm against terrorism, is worse than expediency.

Mr Starmer has now secured his place in history for all the wrong reasons. There were at least 48 reasons to stand firm. Every one of those hostages who is still alive and the families of those who were murdered need to be on the Prime Minister's conscience. His approach is not leadership but appeasement. I had hoped that our Prime Ministers had learned from the hard lessons of history 87 years ago in Munich. The Prime Minister's approach has been recognised not just by Hamas but by every other terrorist group or dictatorship, as showing that, under his leadership, our nation has lost its moral compass.

Ms McLaughlin: The British Government's decision to recognise the state of Palestine was long overdue. After months of bombardment, the starvation of the entire population and the deliberate destruction of civilian life, the recognition is not a triumph; it is the bare minimum owed to a people whose very existence is under threat. The Palestinian people are not Hamas; they are families enduring famine, children buried under rubble and parents searching for food and safety. They are a nation, the rights of which have been denied for generations.

Keir Starmer admitted:

yet only now has he acted. He insists that the recognition is not a reward for terrorism and that all hostages must be released. Those are important points, but they cannot erase the fact that Britain has been painfully slow to respond while civilians have been starved and killed.

Israel's Prime Minister condemned the decision as "absurd" and as "a reward for terrorism", but the real absurdity is the fact that the international community has allowed the humanitarian catastrophe to continue, while warnings from United Nations experts that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide go unheeded, including by the UK Government. Recognition means nothing, if it is not followed by urgent action: an immediate and lasting ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid and accountability for those who violated international law. The world must insist on an end to the illegal occupation and on a future in which Palestinians and Israelis can live in dignity and security. It is not about political gestures; it is about saving lives now.

Mr Gaston: The Prime Minister's announcement on Sunday that the United Kingdom now recognises a Palestinian state was and is shameful. Let us remember the context. The genesis of that announcement lies in the events of 7 October 2023.

On that day, the Jewish people suffered the largest massacre since the Holocaust. Civilians were slaughtered. Men, women and children were butchered without regard for age or sex. What is the response of the Government? It is to reward that savagery and hand victory to Hamas.

That decision has nothing to do with peace in the Middle East and everything to do with Labour party politics. It opens the door to a Palestinian embassy in London, with all the privileges. What is most concerning is that it gives diplomatic immunity for officials. Think of the dangers that that brings. What has Hamas given in return? Absolutely nothing; not even the release of Israeli hostages who have now endured over 600 days in captivity — 600 days without even the most basic humanitarian concerns. Of course, that does not trouble the Member who brought the matter before the House. While women were being raped, families torn apart and civilians massacred, what was he doing? Mr Carroll was tweeting, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance".

Recognition of a Palestinian state is not a step towards peace; it is a betrayal of the only democracy in the Middle East and the people who are on the front line against Islamic extremism. It is a shameful act by a discredited Government whom the people of the UK are waiting eagerly to kick out of office.

Mr Brett: The move by Keir Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state does more damage to a lasting solution in the Middle East than he could ever dream of. His decision was not about finding a lasting solution in the Middle East but about placating the loony left-wing members of his party. It was about that age-old Labour Party tradition of rewarding terrorism and those who engage in violence. Let us be very clear: we have heard remarks in the Chamber about the greatness of recognising the Palestinian state, but no remarks from those very people about the horrendous acts of terrorism by Hamas on 7 October. The truth is that those Members do not want the state of Israel to exist. They do not want our Jewish community across the world to feel respected. My party will never placate or reward terrorists.

On Wednesday evening, I had the privilege of being at the Belfast synagogue, where hundreds of people joined together to raise funds to rebuild the kibbutzim that were bombed and shot at, and where people were raped and taken into captivity. I heard a message from one victim who lost her husband and children on that day. They know that the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland stand with them and not with the terrorists of Hamas.

The decision that the Prime Minister has taken will not advance the cause of finding peace, but will further embolden the terrorists of Hamas to continue to try to destroy the state of Israel. Let me be very clear: my party stands with Israel and its right to defend itself. We will not allow those who continue to justify terrorism to succeed.

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

Mr Sheehan: Sin na focail a chan cailín óg ó Gaza sa ghearrscannán ‘Soft Skin’. Bhí páistí scoile in Gaza ag caint sa scannán ar an nós atá anois ag máithreacha in Gaza. Scríobhfaidh na máithreacha ainm an pháiste ar lámh nó ar chos an pháiste sula bhfágann an páiste an teach.

"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza. Bhí an Lá Idirnáisiúnta chun an tOideachas a Chosaint ar an Ionsaí ann tá coicís ó shin. Bliain is an t-am seo, thug mé óráid uaim ar an ábhar chéanna. Thug mé staitisticí agus fíricí faoi líon na mac léinn, na múinteoirí agus na léachtóirí ar mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé cuntas ar na scoileanna agus na hollscoileanna ar scrios fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé le fios go raibh an scrios Iosraelach ar an oideachas chomh holc sin gur cheap na Náisiúin Aontaithe focal dó, mar a bhí: an léinn-díothú.

I ndiaidh dom bheith ag éisteacht le cuid de na hargóintí a rinneadh sa Teach seo le gairid, nuair a chuala mé cuid de na Comhaltaí go fóill ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael, ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as páistí a mharú agus iad ag iarraidh oideachas a fháil agus ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as mná a scaoileadh agus iad ag fanacht le bia a fháil, thuig mé faoi dheireadh go bhfuil cuid de na Comhaltaí ar nós cuma liom faoi fhíricí. Féadann Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch agus na Náisiúin Aontaithe, féadann siad uilig go léir uafáis Iosrael a chur ar a súile dóibh, agus tabharfaidh na Comhaltaí sin an chluas bhodhar do na fíricí.

Níl ann ach gairm in aghaidh gaoithe do dhuine ar bith a bheith ag trácht ar an 15,000 mac léinn atá anois marbh in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. Ní dhéanfaidh sé lá difir do na Comhaltaí sin. Déanfaidh siad leithscéal eile d’Iosrael, dá áiféisí.

Sin mar atá ag páistí scoile in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael.

"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ní in Gaza.

Mr Brett: The weekend brought yet another dark day for truth and justice in Northern Ireland. For decades, innocent victims have, time and time again, been promised fairness, only to be denied justice. The Belfast Agreement was sold as a new beginning, but, from the outset, justice was corrupted. Victims watched as the gates to prisons were thrown open and saw their pain ignored. Republicans on the run were handed secret letters of comfort from Tony Blair, while the families of their victims were left in torment.

We have seen the shameful spectacle of victim makers being celebrated and eulogised, with our "First Minister for all" telling us that there was no alternative to IRA violence. That is not justice but a betrayal of justice. When others turned their back on them, my party stood up for innocent victims and ensured that there would be a victims' pension for those harmed by terrorists during the Troubles.

Once again, however, victims are being betrayed. We see a new so-called legacy deal with the Irish Government. That is another political stitch-up that has been designed not to deliver truth but to rewrite history. For years, Dublin has failed to cooperate with Omagh bombing investigations and refused to come clean about its collusion with the Provisional IRA. That is a national disgrace. Now, instead of the Labour Party standing up to Dublin and standing with victims, it has outsourced legacy to the Irish Republic. Let me be clear: the Labour Party has no interest in victims. Its record is one of equating victims with victim makers, of announcing one-sided public inquiries and of bending to republican demands, yet some would happily hand over the future of Northern Ireland to that Government.

Let me say this with absolute clarity: the DUP will never support arrangements that bury the truth, elevate terrorists above their victims or condemn the victims of terrorism to the shadows. We will stand firmly with the innocent victims. Be it London, Dublin or anywhere else, this party will continue to call out the rank hypocrisy of those who do down the victims of our past.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Nuala McAllister, I ask Members to rise in their seat if they wish to make a statement.

Miss McAllister: Last week, there was a monumental occasion in Westminster with the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which most of us know as the "Hillsborough law". The legislation will introduce an individual duty of candour for all public officials and authorities that will ensure that there is a legal duty on everyone to be open and honest when mistakes are made. We all know that the Bill comes off the back of the campaigning by the Hillsborough families and the wider community, which saw the tragedy of 97 people losing their lives.

I thank Ian Byrne MP, with whom my colleague Sorcha Eastwood and I have worked closely over the past year to ensure that Northern Ireland's voices are not lost in the Hillsborough law. I also thank the campaigners who have fought so tirelessly over the years.

In Northern Ireland, we are all too familiar with institutional cover-ups. In recent years, we have learned of more scandals and cover-ups and a lack of truth and accountability. In my role as a member of the Health Committee and the Policing Board, I have engaged with victims and those with family members who were damaged, injured or lost their life. From Muckamore through to the cervical smear scandal and from the tragedy surrounding the murder of Katie Simpson to the families of Adam Strain, Raychel Ferguson, Claire Roberts and Conor Mitchell — the children who lost their lives due to hyponatraemia — those who have, unfortunately, lived through the consequences of a cover-up are united in their call for greater transparency and accountability from public officials, whether they be health workers, police officers or others.

An individual duty to be open and honest when mistakes are made has consistently been recommended after inquiries in Northern Ireland and the wider UK. I recognise that there is work to be done to get all of the workforce across the entire public sector on board, but we have to be honest about saying that this law does not mean punishment for making a mistake: it means that there should be no cover-ups.

To close, I thank every family that has been impacted by institutional cover-ups, whether it was the Hillsborough disaster, Muckamore or hyponatraemia or whether they were patients of Dr Watt. It has never been more important to work together. You will never walk alone.

Mr Burrows: I want to address, in very introductory terms, the legacy agreement reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So many people were murdered and maimed in our Troubles, and so many more, perhaps too many to quantify, have been affected by mental ill health and other suffering. We owe it to those victims to give any consideration serious and solemn reflection. That is what we in the Ulster Unionist Party will do, but we will have some guiding principles.

First, we will be informed mostly by the victims. Too often in our peace process, the needs of perpetrators have come first and those of victims have come second. Blind eyes were turned to violence for the greater good, if you define the "greater good" as ignoring violence. Blind eyes were turned to punishment shootings so that they did not upset the apple cart of negotiations. That cannot continue, so we will be guided by victims' needs and not by the needs of perpetrators.

Secondly, we will make sure that there is fair treatment for the vast majority of servicemen and police officers who put on a uniform and went out to serve our country with courage and distinction.

Before any proposals have our support, we will ensure that they recognise fairness for our veterans and police officers. Thirdly, we will ensure that history cannot be rewritten. It is the strategic intent of some people, including some in this place, to rewrite history. We will make sure that that does not happen. Fourthly, we will uphold the rule of law and justice in our country.

With those four principles, I will address just one aspect of the legacy agreement, and that is the belated commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to investigate Troubles-related crimes. Why has it taken until 2025 for them to make a commitment to investigate such crimes? How many people have died who were victims? How many suspects have died who were never brought to justice? How much evidence has been lost?

We will be asking serious questions about the Irish Government and the reported amnesty that was given to republican violence. Michael McDowell confirmed in 'The Irish Times' that he was asked to give that amnesty by leaders of Sinn Féin, and he gave it. We are very concerned that that amnesty may scupper any attempts to bring people to justice.

In relation to the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána, we will make sure that, if it goes ahead, there will be legal requirements for it to give unredacted intelligence to the UK bodies and that there will be independence in that unit too. The call is for independence in the investigatory bodies in Northern Ireland: we want to see independence in any Garda Síochána unit, with someone from Northern Ireland making sure that it is disclosing and cooperating and that the Irish Government are no longer trying —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Jon.

Mr Burrows: — to keep things secret.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have ever got a night bus home, and I am not sure whether that is even an appropriate question to ask the Chair. I do not know how, after a night out, people here get themselves home, whether they use taxis or walk, if they are lucky enough to live close enough to where they are going out. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you and I represent the great city of Belfast, along with others in the Chamber, but everybody in the region has an interest in it, because people from across the North travel into Belfast for nights out and weekends away. On Friday, we had the terrific and triumphant return of Culture Night Belfast to our streets. However, one thing that we have been lacking is safe, secure and reliable public transport home for all those revellers of all ages. There is a serious point, which is particularly about the safety of young people, especially young women. Having the confidence to travel safely is a critical part of being able to enjoy a night out safely. However, unlike other parts of these islands, we have failed historically to give proper options for public transport home for the people of all ages who are socialising in the centre of Belfast.

We now have a thriving nightlife. Mr Brett opposite has worked alongside me and others on building policy support for the brilliant offer that we have. I am pleased to say that Belfast City Council, in conjunction with the Department for Infrastructure, after campaigning by my party, including my colleague Councillor Séamas de Faoite, has moved to a pilot for night buses in Belfast. That is hugely welcome news for people who enjoy the centre of the city and our amazing offer, whether that is theatre, nightlife, pubs, restaurants or amazing one-off events such as Culture Night Belfast on Friday night.

We want people to come and enjoy our terrific city centre. We also want to restore derelict areas, including the Tribeca area. We will be debating that again in the not-too-distant future. Safe, reliable public transport is hugely important. The Belfast night tsar, Michael Stewart, has talked about that. It is a huge driver for our hospitality industry, which is struggling in many ways with additional costs. Unlocking public transport from the city will be really important. A pilot has been agreed in principle, but, now, we need the Infrastructure Minister to step up with the funding. I hope that the Economy Minister and, indeed, others in the Executive will see the huge potential that can arise from greater use of night buses and public transport in general coming out of the city. It is a huge opportunity for our terrific city.

Anybody who was in Belfast on Friday night will have seen the amazing range of things that we had during Culture Night Belfast. There was even wrestling at Grand Central station, which is the biggest transport hub in Ireland. There was all sorts in the train station. There was band music, choirs and an opera singer.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: The only thing that we are missing —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — is safe, secure night buses. We are going to keep fighting for those.

Ms Flynn: I will speak about an extremely important matter regarding women's health and some of the massive misconceptions that still exist among many, many women around smear tests and the detection of ovarian cancer.

The most recent stats show that almost half of the women — a staggering 46% — in the North of Ireland believe, wrongly, that a cervical smear test will detect ovarian cancer. It will not. As a woman who likes to think that she is across looking after her health, I can throw my hands up and admit that, until my first encounter with the Target Ovarian Cancer charity, I did not know that that was the case. I commend that charity for leading the way in creating awareness of the fact that smear tests will only screen for cervical cancer.

Many women have a false sense of reassurance that smear tests will pick up ovarian and cervical cancer. That is costing lives because many women still do not know that that is not the case. There is no routine screening test for ovarian cancer, as there is for cervical cancer. That makes the awareness of its symptoms absolutely critical. If women do not know what symptoms to look for and think that it will be picked up through the normal screening of the smear test, that is dangerous. Target Ovarian Cancer has repeatedly called on the Department of Health to update the public messaging around that. That needs to happen urgently.

In July, NHS England made it clear that cervical screening does not detect ovarian or other gynaecological cancers, and the Health Service Executive in the South is also running a public awareness campaign. Women in the North deserve the same clarity and support, but, up until now, the Department has failed to act.

Ovarian cancer is much more treatable when it is caught early, as is the case for many cancers. Right now, 31% of women in the North who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive for one year. That must change. We must ensure that women know the symptoms that they need to be looking out for: persistent bloating; abdominal pain; feeling full, quickly; and changes in bowel habits. Awareness saves lives, and early diagnosis will save lives. Too many women here are being diagnosed too late, when their treatment options are limited and outcomes poor. This is about our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends — real people who are facing this deadly disease. Often, diagnosis comes too late, because of the misconceptions around what a smear test can pick up.

Please, spread the message to the women in your family, any woman in your life with whom you are in contact and, particularly, your constituents.

Mr Frew: I heard what Nuala McAllister said earlier, and I echo her comments about the Hillsborough law. It was a good day when that law was published. However, I will not leave things to chance or to the Labour Government, or even our own Health Minister. That is why I take the opportunity to raise my consultation on an individual duty of candour that will not only bring openness and transparency to our healthcare settings but will set up a new reporting regime, with independent eyes and greater protection for whistle-blowers.

There is no doubt that the Executive are facing a number of challenges and issues that need to be resolved. Those challenges are extremely difficult, but that is what we are in politics for, is it not? It will be our people who will implement any and all of the Executive's initiatives that come forward now and in the future. If we truly want to make Northern Ireland work, and if we truly want to make it an attractive place to live and work, we have to do more to invest in our people. We have to do that by providing them with opportunities to grow businesses and have that entrepreneurial spirit but also by ensuring that those who go into professions — noble professions — and work for the state to provide services for us, are properly remunerated and valued.

We need to invest in all our people, be that our healthcare staff who look after our elderly and vulnerable, our teachers who encourage our children to learn or our police officers who keep us safe. That is why the DUP wants to see a fair and complementary pay award that is relative to the rest of the UK. Pay parity must be the goal.

I call on the Finance Minister to make that a main priority during his tenure. Let us show the people of Northern Ireland that we value and believe in them and that they are worth it.

What makes this country great is its people. Let us ensure that our people get the remuneration and conditions that they deserve. I ask and plead with the Finance Minister to look at the pay awards for this year. Let us get on with it. Let us remunerate our people for the valuable jobs that they do in providing for all our people, teaching our children, looking after our elderly and keeping us safe.

Ms Ferguson: Recently, the deputy leader of Britain's Reform party threatened not just the Good Friday Agreement but the democratic mandate of the people of the North of Ireland — how dare he — but it comes as no surprise. Time and again, British political parties have shown complete and utter disregard for the democratic will of the people. We live every day with the consequences of the last time that they ignored us, during the Brexit negotiations. The North did not have a fleeting chance. When the Tories talk about dragging Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights, they think that that means that they have the automatic right to drag the North with them. Now, Reform's Richard Tice has gone even further by openly declaring his willingness to support such a change, in the full knowledge of it being against the wishes of Irish nationalists.

Let me be crystal clear: any attempt by any British party to use the Good Friday Agreement as a bargaining chip will not fly, nor will threats that indulge a minority section of political unionism whilst holding the majority of our citizens to ransom. The truth is that Irish interests have never been served in Westminster and never will be. That is why more and more people are looking to the real alternative: Irish reunification. That alternative can grow the economy, protect our health service, guarantee rights and restore us automatically to the European Union.

Let me send a message straight back across the water. To those who dismiss our voices, gamble with our rights and ignore our mandate, hear this loud and clear: the Good Friday Agreement will not be undermined; the principle of consent is not up for negotiation; and the constitutional future of the North will be decided only by the people who live on this island. The people here will have their say. Their voice will be heard. That time is imminent.

Mr Gaston: This morning, I comment on the fact that the mere suggestion that the husband of Heather Humphreys, the Fine Gael candidate for president, had once been in the Orange Order merits front-page headlines, news reports and wall-to-wall commentary. What a telling insight into the Republic in the 21st century. It is often repeated that Sir James Craig described the old Stormont in Northern Ireland as a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. What is less often recalled is that he was responding to Éamon de Valera's saying that the Southern state would be a Catholic state for a Catholic people. One hundred years later, it is plain to see which of those spirits remains alive and well.

The modern Republic boasts of its tolerance. We are told that it is a land where diversity is celebrated and where a homosexual Taoiseach with Indian heritage can lead the country. I dare say that, if Heather Humphreys were black or Muslim, the press would have played that story positively, but a white Protestant with suspected links to the Orange Order? Oh, no, that is beyond the pale. The very fact that it is considered a story says an awful lot about what unionists can expect in a so-called new Ireland. It seems that, for many in the Republic, when it comes to one minority — the Protestant minority — it is all well and good so long as they know their place. Of those in the House who will claim that that is unrepresentative of the Republic I ask why unionism should believe you, when you do not tolerate an Orange march for five minutes a year in a majority nationalist area, yet demand that your culture, through the Irish language, be imposed where it is simply not wanted.

The idea of an agreed Ireland is nothing more than spin for political domination of the unionist community. We must resist the new-Ireland, mythical nonsense coming from Sinn Féin and their friends at every opportunity and expose it for what it is.

Mr Gildernew: I note the closure last Friday of the consultation period on the anti-poverty strategy. Poverty levels continue to rise, and poverty continues to be a real problem here. We are still addressing a lot of cost-of-living issues; we are coming off the back of many long years of Tory austerity; and we are still dealing with the impact and ramifications of partition and how that affects the economy on this island.

It has to be said that the Minister for Communities' draft strategy was met with dismay and rejected by many of the people who work in that sector and know what the problems and the solutions are. It is regrettable that the Minister disengaged from those with real expertise, who had engaged with the previous Minister, Deirdre Hargey, to draw up a substantive draft document.

Moving forward, it is key that the strategy contains the elements that the sector has identified as being necessary to make a real difference. It has to have robust targets; it has to have a clear line of governance, given that it will be a cross-governmental and cross-departmental strategy; and it has to be resourced in a way that will make a difference. The Minister must now listen to the responses that he will have got in that consultation process, which, I have no doubt, he will have heard loud and clear. He must come back with a strategy that will make a real difference. He must get on with drafting and bringing forward the other strategies that are interlinked and interdependent: a gender strategy and an LGBTQ strategy.

Mr Dunne: I pay tribute to one of Northern Ireland's greatest ever sportsmen, Jonathan Rea MBE, who recently announced his retirement from world superbike racing. Jonathan represented Northern Ireland on the world stage with incredible distinction, humility and professionalism, He had an incredible, glittering career that included six world superbike championships — a world record — a record 119 race wins and over 260 podium finishes. He firmly established himself as the most successful rider in world superbike history.

Jonathan comes from a proud motor sport background and has never forgotten his roots. His achievements have truly inspired young people across Northern Ireland and beyond. He has shown that someone from here can reach the very top of global sport. Motorcycle racing runs deep in the Rea family, as they supported and raced with the late, great Joey Dunlop, another of our greatest ever sportsmen. Jonathan has been a superb ambassador for Northern Ireland, promoting our country with pride around the world and always recognising his loyal fan base, his team and his family. He was rightly honoured with an MBE by the late Her Majesty the Queen in 2017.

Jonathan's contribution goes far beyond the racetrack. He has helped raise the profile of motor sport, tourism and much more here for many years. As he steps away from the world superbike track, we say, "Thank you, Jonathan Rea, for your dedication, for your excellence, for making us all proud and for giving us so many memories".

We have a proud track record of success in motor sport, and that must be matched with investment. That is why it was excellent to see the Communities Minister invest £187,000 recently to improve motor sport safety across the country, including at iconic events like the North West 200. We look forward to seeing further investment. Jonathan Rea MBE, thank you very much for your service, and congratulations on an incredible career.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, you have one minute.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Finances underpin public service delivery in Northern Ireland, and, more and more, we see the pressures on the Budget. It is time that the Finance Minister stepped up and took accountability for some of the issues with our rates system. Just last week, he replied to my question for written answer to say that £18 million of unpaid rates had been written off in the previous financial year. That brings the total of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million, while rolling arrears are in the region of £100 million.

The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and time again. As we continue to support the hard-pressed middle who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which the financial pressures can be met is by continuing to increase rates whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that are billed to them. It is time that we saw a change of attitude from the Finance Minister. It is time that he stepped up and recognised the hard-pressed working families —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Ms Forsythe: — who are doing their best to pay their rates bills.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. As usual, before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they need to be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long-winded introductions. I call the Minister.

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

I will update the Assembly on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. Members will recall that 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), which formed the basis for restoring the Executive in 2020, included a commitment to close the RHI and replace it with a more effective decarbonisation support scheme. Its closure was not progressed in the previous mandate, however, and, in its absence, over £100 million of funding for renewable heat has gone unutilised since 2020. The issue has assumed even greater urgency, as Ofgem will stop administering the scheme from April 2026.

In July of last year, the Executive affirmed their commitment to closure. Subsequently, my Department has been developing a business case that contains significant technical and legal detail. We also engaged constructively with stakeholders, including scheme participants, and I thank all who were involved. I can now confirm that the Department of Finance has approved the business case and that the Executive have agreed a way forward.

My Department will now move to publish a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation will run for eight weeks. At the earliest opportunity, my Department will introduce in the Assembly a Bill that will clarify the Department's powers to close the scheme. I then intend to bring a paper to the Executive in December 2025 to confirm the closure regulations. Subject to the Bill's passage through the Assembly, it is my intention that new regulations will take effect by April 2026.

In securing closure, we must ensure that participants who have acted in good faith receive the payment to which they are legally entitled, while protecting the taxpayer. The closure payment aims to strike that balance. The tariff rate used to calculate closure payments has been independently verified by Professor David Rooney and approved by the Department of Finance. With the scheme's closure and with Ofgem no longer administering it, meters will no longer be monitored for usage. Payments will therefore be based on usage between 2017 and 2019, which is the period that best reflects the heat demand for which installations were designed. Instead of a single, one-off payment, compensation will be staggered over a period of 10 years for a typical participant. That approach will free up my Department to engage with Treasury on a scheme that could utilise approximately £10 million per annum of annually managed expenditure (AME) funding for an alternative use. After the scheme is closed, I will update the Assembly on the progress of engagement with Treasury. That approach also means that payments can be stopped, if an installation is no longer in use.

There are, of course, pros and cons associated with all closure options, but the proposed approach is, I believe, the most reasonable in the circumstances. As we work towards closure, the Executive have also agreed to apply the tariff rate that will be used to calculate closure payments ahead of the coming winter period. If the Assembly agrees, that rate will come into effect in November 2025.

It is long past time that the RHI scheme was closed and the available funding put to better use. With Ofgem stepping away from the scheme's administration by April next year, time is running out. The launch of the consultation will represent a significant step forward. The closure of the RHI scheme will allow my Department to focus its efforts on developing alternative support measures.

We now have a clear path to fulfilling the NDNA commitment and delivering a solution that is fair to participants and taxpayers alike. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, you must agree that RHI has done untold damage to people and to businesses right across the North who entered into the scheme in good faith. The Assembly previously voted down a proposal from your predecessor to uplift RHI tariffs. Will you confirm what the new tariffs are and how much you intend to uprate for closure payments? When will they come into effect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I do not think that anybody would argue that RHI has been a success, and, particularly for the participants who signed up in good faith and genuinely, it would be understatement to say that the scheme has fallen short of their expectations.

I think that I have now circulated the proposed tariff rates. The best one to point to is the lower-medium biomass category, which is where most boiler installations are. The current tariff rate is 2·2p per kilowatt-hour, and it is supposed to be raised to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. There are a number of different categories, and the Member can see those for herself.

You asked about the timeline. As I indicated in my statement, I intend to introduce temporary regulations immediately so that we can get them set for participants for the coming winter period. That, of course, will require the Assembly's approval, and we will also be endeavouring to have the scheme closure arrangements in place by April next year, which is when Ofgem will cease to administer the scheme.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for her usual courtesy in providing me with an advance copy of her statement. Minister, I think that all Members are united in wanting to achieve a closure that represents value for the taxpayer and respects the participants who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, once your consultation has concluded, will you confirm that the proposals will come to the Executive for cross-party agreement?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is my intention that the tariff rates, once consulted on, will be brought back to the Executive for approval before being brought to the Assembly. We hope to have that completed by the end of November/early December, and, as I said to Sinéad, we hope to have the final closure arrangements in place by April next year.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, what engagement have you had with stakeholders about the closure process?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. There has been significant engagement between departmental officials and scheme participants, and others have been involved as well. As I said in my statement, I am grateful to all who are involved for their constructive engagement. We are in a better place than we have been previously with the arrangements that are proposed to be put in place. I am hopeful that the participants and those who represent them will welcome what is being proposed today. The consultation will take place over the next number of weeks, and that is an opportunity again for participants to share their views on what is being proposed on the way forward.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for providing it to us earlier. Minister, you talked about the uplift, and that is verified, but what is different today from what was in place last year? What has changed? Do you accept that RHI has been mismanaged by the Department and that trust has been damaged? What are you doing to repair the trust not only with those RHI participants who went into the scheme in good faith but with the MLAs who are on the Committee?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated to Sinéad, the proposed tariff rates have now been circulated to MLAs so that you can look at them and give them consideration. The proposed rates are higher than those proposed last year, and, as I indicated in my statement and other answers, there has been significant engagement with the participants. I believe that we are in a better place because of the constructive engagement that has taken place, and I am grateful that that is the case. For my part, I will endeavour to ensure that the Committee is furnished with what it requires and that we find a way forward on the closure of the scheme but also on all the important work that we have to do across the energy policy area. As the Member will be aware from his work on the Committee, a lot of things are happening in parallel, with energy being a priority area, and the engagement with the Committee is important.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

Minister, how much will be paid in compensation for the scheme?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The closure arrangements have been designed to stay within the AME budget, and the proposed tariff rates to be put in place and the payments to be made to participants will be roughly the same amount as in the current arrangements. Over the next 10 years, the scheme is expected to cost up to £196 million of AME, with up to £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit for the Department to manage the scheme. The amounts have been approved by the Department of Finance as part of the business case, but all of that will be confirmed when the consultation is completed and the tariff rates come to the Assembly.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the engagement that she says that she has had with the stakeholders. Minister, what confidence can you give to people who applied to the scheme and operated in good faith that, when the consultation is complete, their views will be very much listened to?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in other answers, the engagement with participants has been positive and constructive. We are in a better place with our understanding of the dual aim of being fair to participants and taxpayers. The consultation is the opportunity for people to air their views, and we will fully take on board what is shared through that. It is about a balancing act of being fair to participants but also taking into account the demands of our taxpayers.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, how will the installations be monitored?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As we move through the closure arrangements, the requirement for metering to be in place will no longer be there. Participants will be required to provide evidence annually that the installation remains in use. The Department will also introduce an audit and review procedure, which will include on-site protections. That is an opportunity to ensure that the installations continue to be used and that the payments are, therefore, being made genuinely.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for making the statement to the House today. I welcome her comments on engagement and its importance. It is important to remember that many people who are at the heart of the matter entered the scheme in good faith. Can the Minister give more detail about the level of engagement that there has been with those involved in the scheme and directly impacted on financially?

Dr Archibald: As I indicated, the Department has engaged with all key stakeholders, including the Renewable Heat Association and the Ulster Farmers' Union, which represents a fair number of installation owners. Obviously, the consultation is the opportunity for everybody to have their say on the proposals. We are in a much better place than previously because of the constructive engagement. Therefore, I encourage everybody to participate in the consultation once it is launched in the near future.

Mr Gaston: Minister, it is unfortunate that it has taken the Department so long to get to this point and learn the lessons from what was rejected this time last year. In order to allow farmers to plan cash flow, will you commit today to a date on which the uplift will be implemented? Will you give an assurance that future green schemes will have buy-in from industry and will be co-designed with it to ensure that we are not left with the faux pas that we have had with RHI?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated, it is my intention that the regulations to put in place the uplift for this winter will be approved by the Assembly by the end of November. Obviously, that depends on the Assembly's approving the regulations, which means that it is partly in Members' hands. It is important that, when we develop not just renewable energy projects but any projects, we work in partnership with those who will use them and deliver them. We very much ensure that the principle of partnership and co-design is in place for anything that we bring through the Department, including all the energy policy that I referred to when responding to Mr Honeyford. I am certainly happy to give that commitment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr McCrossan: 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. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr McCrossan, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First and foremost, we are thinking of all of those families who have lost loved ones on the A5 road since the scheme's announcement in 2007. They have suffered the worst possible consequences of that dangerous road: the loss of sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and friends and neighbours.

The debate is not abstract. It is not about lines on a map or figures on a balance sheet; it is about people in West Tyrone, Derry, Donegal and beyond who live every single day with the reality of a dangerous, crumbling A5 road. Over 50 lives have been lost on the A5 since the project was first announced. Dozens more people have been left with life-changing injuries. Behind every statistic is a family and community left in grief. That is why the A5 Enough is Enough campaign exists. Families who should never have had to beg for a safe road have carried their pain with courage and dignity, determined to ensure that no one else endures what they have had to endure.

The road unites us in frustration, anger and our shared demand for something better. No party, community or tradition is untouched by the grief that the road has caused. Every family travelling on the A5 knows of the anxiety, the dread and the near misses. We are united by the pain that it has inflicted and in our frustration at seeing promise after promise broken.

The A5 scheme is not just about safety but about fairness. The A5 is the main artery that connects Derry, Strabane, Omagh and Tyrone to Dublin and the wider island economy. It is the gateway for trade, investment and jobs. It is vital for agriculture, hauliers and businesses who are trying to get their goods to market. Without the scheme, the north-west is shackled, investment is deterred, businesses look elsewhere and our young people are forced to leave to find opportunity elsewhere. Every delay has been a lost opportunity and has led to further loss of life. Every collapse has been another signal that this shambles of an Executive treats our region as second-class. Let us be absolutely clear about where the responsibility lies. The project has collapsed not once, not twice but three times, and the trend is clear. Each collapse was avoidable. Each collapse was the result of ministerial failure. Every collapse has the fingerprints of Sinn Féin Ministers all over it.

The first failure was under Minister Conor Murphy, who failed to account for the requirements of the habitats directive, a fundamental oversight that left the project legally vulnerable. The second failure came when Sinn Féin collapsed the Assembly for a number of years. With no Minister in place, the permanent secretary lacked the authority necessary to proceed. The project was withdrawn, and years were lost because of Sinn Féin playing politics with people's lives. The third and most recent failure was under Minister John O'Dowd. The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) produced a detailed report with clear recommendations for making the scheme robust. The report sat on the Minister's desk for a year — a year of inaction, a year wasted. When the case returned to the court, the judge was furious at the Department's clear failures. That is not the only time that the judge criticised the Department for Infrastructure: recently, he described it as a "laughing stock". What does that say about how the Department is being run? In the middle of the legal process for one of the biggest projects facing our people, Sinn Féin even swapped out its Ministers, signalling chaos and instability at the very moment when our people were demanding stability. That is not misfortune or bad luck; it is absolute incompetence at the heart of government, and, shockingly, it is repeated over and over again.

While the dithering and bungling continues, the cost of the A5 has ballooned. When it began, the cost of the project was estimated at £800 million: it has now escalated to a shocking £2·1 billion. That escalation is due not just to inflation or delay but to mismanagement and a total failure to deliver. Families in the north-west are paying the price for Sinn Féin's incompetence in government in the North not only with their lives but with their money.
Let me say something about the present condition of the A5 and roads across Tyrone. While we wait endlessly for promises that never materialise, the road is falling apart and is not fit for purpose, with potholes, dangerous patchwork repairs and crumbling surfaces. Vehicles are being damaged every day. Families who are already battling with a cost-of-living crisis are being hit with repair bills for tyres, suspension and wheels, all because the Executive have failed to invest in the west. People pay twice: once through taxes and again through their repair bills. That is unfair, unsustainable and unacceptable.

Some in the House will be quick to point to former Minister Nichola Mallon. Let us be clear: when Minister Mallon held that office, she did her due diligence. She did not chase headlines prior to an election or rush decisions for political gain. She took the time to ensure that the scheme was legally robust and ready to proceed. She handed the project over in good faith, expecting her successors to see it through. Instead, what followed was years of incompetence, dithering and failure by Sinn Féin.

There is another contrast that is worth pointing out. I acknowledge the role of the Irish Government. Despite political instability in this place, the Irish Government have consistently reaffirmed their financial commitment to the A5 through the Shared Island Fund and previous North/South agreements. They have recognised the importance of the project for cross-border connectivity, road safety and economic growth on both sides of the border. Dublin has kept its promise. Sinn Féin is quick to criticise the Irish Government in Dáil Éireann, but, when it comes to Sinn Féin's incompetence here, its members pat each other on the back.

Let me deal with the three amendments before us. Sinn Féin's amendment is nothing short of a self-congratulation exercise: shock. It attempts to absolve Sinn Féin of all responsibility: shock. Sinn Féin pats itself on the back and attempts to rewrite history: shock. The truth is simple: Sinn Féin has ignored the Planning Appeal Commission's recommendations and left the scheme legally vulnerable. Sinn Féin bears responsibility for the project's failure. Sinn Féin's amendment is a whitewash, and we will not support it. Sinn Féin is keen to have all the power but never takes responsibility. Sinn Féin's hands are on the steering wheel, and it has destroyed the progress that is necessary on the project.

The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act 2022, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law; it is Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 would still have collapsed, because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Ministers in getting it right. Let me be clear: we absolutely believe that the people of the north-west can and must have safe, modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is another diversion.

The Ulster Unionists' amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgent need to have a safe road, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be, which is the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers, the Department and the Executive. For that reason, we will stick with our original motion.

The Opposition's position is clear: we support the A5 because it will save lives. We support it because it will unlock the economic potential of the west. However, support does not mean silence or giving a free pass for years of incompetence by the shambolic DUP/Sinn Féin Government. We welcome the recent intervention by Minister Muir in the appeal. At least someone in the Executive is showing willingness to act, but interventions are not enough. The Executive must guarantee today that construction will begin within this mandate. Families in Tyrone, Derry and Donegal cannot be told once again to wait a little longer.

To the Ministers who have failed I say this: every month that passes without progress, you are responsible for the risk that people face on that road. Every time another family is left grieving, the responsibility is not abstract; it lies with those who have had the power to act but have chosen not to. The A5 is no luxury; it is not an optional extra. It is essential. It is a matter of saving lives, restoring fairness and showing whether the Assembly is capable of delivering for the people we represent.

Fifty lives have been lost. The cost is £2·1 billion and rising. There have been three failed attempts and years upon years wasted. Families are grieving, communities are angry and businesses have been held back, all because Sinn Féin could not do its job. Enough is enough. The excuses must end; the delays must stop; the bungling must stop; and the Assembly must finally deliver. Do your job, and get the road built.

Miss Brogan: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will speak in support of the A5 and of the amendment that my party colleagues and I have tabled. I am really disappointed by the original motion and the obvious political intent behind it. Anyone here with any real understanding of the devastation that the road has brought to so many families and communities across West Tyrone and across Ireland will know that it is a really serious issue. The A5 is not a political football to be kicked around for cheap political point-scoring. To be honest, if certain Members really wanted to see the road progress, they would get behind the Minister's efforts in the appeal and all the efforts that we are making to ensure that the road is progressed, instead of drafting hollow motions, such as the one we see before us.

The A5 represents a £1·6 billion investment in a part of the country that has suffered from historical underinvestment and lack of critical infrastructure. By significantly reducing travel time to and from the capital, the A5 will open up the north-west for more investment, increased trade, faster commuting and more tourism; promote job creation and regional balance; and improve access to ports, airports and regional gateways.
As I have said in here many times, however, the most important reason for having the A5 scheme is that it will save lives. As someone from Omagh, which is right at the heart of the A5, and having witnessed the devastation that the road has caused to our communities, I am passionate about the issue. I have spoken multiple times in the Chamber about the need for the A5 to be upgraded. Last week, I spoke of the 57 lives that had been lost on the road since 2006. It is important to remember that that is not just a number or a statistic but 57 grieving families, 57 groups of friends, 57 sets of neighbours and 57 communities that have been torn apart by the loss of each loved one. I again pay tribute to the families who have been bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5. They have shown great dignity, strength and patience throughout the entire process despite the obvious hurt and pain that they are carrying. I also thank Tyrone GAA's A5 — Enough Is Enough campaign group for its tireless work and for its steadfast commitment to ensuring that the road is delivered.

It is important to remember that, with every objection and every delay and every time that the Assembly fails to get behind the Minister's efforts to push the project forward, more lives are put in danger. Minister Kimmins deserves recognition for her refusal to give up on the north-west and the A5. The appeal that she has lodged is further proof of her commitment to the project and of her determination to see it through. I also commend Minister Muir for his efforts in supporting the appeal and for demonstrating meaningful and tangible support for the project.

Every effort has been made to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme meets the most stringent requirements. All legitimate concerns have been heard, and every effort has been made to address them. I urge those who are leading the campaign of objection to the project to examine their conscience and ask themselves whether denying their family, friends and neighbours a major infrastructure, economic and safety investment is really the legacy that they want to leave. Enough time has been wasted and enough lives lost. Enough is enough. Let us work together to get the A5 built.

Mr Martin: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, like others, I extend my sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones along the A5. A total of 50 people have lost their lives since the upgrade of the 58-mile stretch of road between Aughnacloy and New Buildings was first scheduled to begin. None of us in the Chamber will ever be able to empathise with the pain that those families have gone through, but our thoughts remain with them.

The £1·7 billion project was given authorisation last October to proceed. It was then subject to judicial review. In June, a court found that the Minister's plans for the road did not comply with climate change targets. I intend to start with that judgement.

The outcome of the proceedings has caused a level of turmoil for those who wish to see the A5 upgrade proceed and a level of uncertainty for landowners and farmers whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. The A5 scheme, regardless of whether Members think that it should happen, is now completely stalled and not because of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. He applied the law, which is his role. He applied the strictures of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was, in fact, a compromise position instead of having even more stringent targets, which, at the time, were supported by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party.

It is worth highlighting aspects of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. At paragraph 200, he states:

Frankly, that is astounding. While it remains clear to me that the Minister for Infrastructure must take ultimate responsibility, it seems to me that, while that Minister was drowning, the AERA Minister took a life jacket out of the cupboard but did not throw it into the water.

That is, frankly, a baffling lack of coordination between those two Departments, and, if I have time, I will come back to that point.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for giving way. I just want to clarify your point. That happened in spite of the fact that, as has been clarified to me, DAERA and DFI met 13 times over that period to discuss the project.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not party to that information. However, the point that I made still stands in that the judge was scathing about the lack of coordination between those two Departments and especially about the AERA Minister because of the lack of support that DFI had.

Our amendment seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to amend net zero targets so that critical infrastructure can continue to be built in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it seeks to ensure that all landowners who are affected by the scheme are provided with appropriate compensation by the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that that stretch of road, notwithstanding whether the A5 is built — that is currently subject to appeal — is safe for road users and pedestrians alike. In the interim, while awaiting the appeal, the Infrastructure Minister must look at further road safety measures, such as average speed cameras and speed reduction measures. It is time for action on that, not delay. Work must be taken forward to prevent any further loss of life.

It is not for us to answer some of the questions about the matter. Rather, it is for the parties that, in 2022, put those extraordinary climate change targets on the House. I have outlined, and people might take a different view on this, the reasons why the A5 is not proceeding. We have heard two reasons already this afternoon in the Chamber. As I read through this information, it was completely clear to me that the reason why the A5 is not proceeding is because Mr Justice McAlinden said that it could not proceed in its current form. Take a step back from that and ask this: why? It is for two reasons. One is the real lack of coordination between DAERA and DFI, and the second is the climate change targets that we have set ourselves. Whether it is DFI or DAERA, those climate change targets are now a significant problem for the Executive and for Northern Ireland.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to point out a very important fact for the Member so that he understands. Whether the target was 82%, as suggested by the DUP, or 100% net zero by 2050, the legal duty to produce carbon budgets, sectoral plans and climate action plans still applies under the Act. To be clear, the Department's failure was not about hitting that target; it was about ignoring the process that was required to assess compliance with whatever target was set. That is where the failure was. It was nothing to do with the figure; it was about the failure of the process, as the judge pointed out.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Tyrone for his intervention. My understanding — I will take the Member at his word — was that there did not seem to be any offsetting or coordination between the two Departments on how the impact of the road's being built would be offset in terms of climate change. That is certainly my understanding.

Will those parties now agree that a more realistic and pragmatic approach is needed to balance real environmental challenges with economic realities? I will quote directly from Mr Justice McAlinden's High Court judgement. He said that the climate change action plan, which is the responsibility of the AERA Minister, does not make any reference whatsoever to:

I hope that that, in part, answers the Member's last question.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want the Member to understand this point, which I know that he will. The DUP is very quick to duck out of the 100% net zero target, but, regardless of whether the target was 100% or 82%, the failure still would have occurred because the process was not followed. To be clear, it is not about the target. That is a myth, and it needs to be busted.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. The Member and I will have to agree to disagree on that one, but I always welcome his comments.

In summary, the project seems to be in disarray politically, strategically and financially. As I said when opening my contribution, I do not believe, if I am honest, that it is by any stretch the sole responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. I criticised her and pointed out where the failings are, but others who placed on the Assembly the targets that will be so problematic to this project and further infrastructure projects must bear some responsibility for that.

Do I get another minute, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes.

Mr Martin: Just 10 minutes? I had better get my skates on.

The Infrastructure Minister stated:

Will she bear that statement in mind as she answers some of my questions this afternoon? Will she commit now to supporting revised climate change targets to ensure that that project and other future major infrastructure projects are not failed or stalled? Will she explain what the adding of DAERA to the appeal case seeks to achieve and what conversations she has had with the AERA Minister regarding that? If the appeal is lost, what is her plan B for ensuring safety on the A5? Finally, how will she compensate those landowners who continue to be in limbo regarding the scheme?

I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Butler: I beg to move amendment No 3:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment Nos 2 or 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will be put on amendment No 2, and, if it is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3.

Mr Butler, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 3 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 3.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the motion came out and the amendments went in, I thought that seeing three amendments that are mutually exclusive should send some message of comfort to the families in that area who have been bereaved. The fact that 50 people have lost their life on that stretch of road since 2007 is quite horrific, and it means something to us all. If nothing else comes out of the Chamber today, let us hope that there is a message of solidarity with the families and of how everybody, regardless of the arguments made, wants to see delivery.

Few debates in the Chamber at the moment command the same urgency and carry such moral weight as this one because of those deaths and their impact on families. The facts are stark and unarguable. Too many lives have been lost on that stretch of road. Too many families have been left shattered by preventable tragedies. Every one of us in the Chamber knows and has heard the calls from the A5 Enough is Enough campaigners and the grieving families who simply want a safer future for others. Saving lives must be the first and "absolute priority", and it is from that perspective that the Ulster Unionist Party tabled amendment No 3. It is the most balanced amendment. I ask the Opposition to reconsider whether they will support it.

The UUP amendment is grounded not in political one-upmanship or the temptation to point fingers, as is so often the case in the Chamber, but in the clear-eyed recognition of the fact that the Minister has a duty to deliver the project lawfully, competently and urgently. That means, yes, building the road but doing so in such a way that withstands scrutiny, respects those who are affected and aligns with the legislative framework that the Assembly put in law. We must be clear: the A5 will be built. It is a matter of seeing not just whether it will be built but how we will do so. In answering the "How?", it is impossible to ignore the repeated failures of multiple Departments to work together effectively, which speaks to Mr Martin's points. Long before the recent judicial intervention, it was evident that siloed thinking, poor communications and elective collective leadership were undermining delivery. Too often, Departments acted as though their obligations were in conflict with each other's rather than being capable of being reconciled through cooperation and planning. That is simply not good enough. Executive parties and Ministers need to be very aware of that, and we need to see more cross-departmental working.

The Assembly writes the laws of Northern Ireland and Departments are bound to apply them. It is therefore simply indefensible when Departments cannot evidence compliance with our own legislation. When they cannot demonstrate that due process has been followed, or when they treat legal obligations as an afterthought rather than as a foundation stone, that is not merely a technical failing: it is a failure of leadership and responsibility. It is precisely that gap that has brought us the repeated delays and the frustration of communities that have been promised so much for so long.

We can also not overlook the experience of landowners. Too many of them feel as though they have been left in the dark and treated as an inconvenience rather than as citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been directly impacted on. The UUP amendment puts it plainly: people must be treated "fairly and respectfully". That means having timely communication, honest promises and adequate compensation where there is loss. We cannot, on one hand, call for progress and, on the other, ignore those whose property is directly tied up in that progress. Trust must be rebuilt with landowners because, without it, the legitimacy of the project is undermined from the ground up.

The DUP amendment also acknowledges a further truth. If further delays occur, road safety measures cannot wait. Temporary improvements, enforcement and better public transport options for the north-west must be advanced in parallel. We cannot allow the tragic roll call of lives lost on the A5 to continue simply because the legal process takes time. Leadership means acting on every available front to save lives, not standing idly by until the ribbon is cut.

Here is where my party's amendment actually distinguishes itself. It grapples with the reality of carbon budgets. Colleagues, it was the Assembly that passed legally binding climate commitments. I accept that people come at that from different directions. However, whether one agrees or disagrees with their pace or ambition, those commitments are the law of the land. Major infrastructure cannot simply be waved through without regard to that framework. To do so would invite only further legal challenge and more years of delay. That is what it would consign it to.

We are demanding clarity from the Minister for Infrastructure on how the A5 project will stay within those limits; not as a box-ticking exercise but as a demonstration that the Government are capable of delivering complex projects in line with overlapping statutory obligations. That leadership has been lacking. That must change if the A5 is to proceed without further obstruction.

The families who have lost loved ones do not want to hear excuses. The farmers and landowners who see their fields and livelihoods directly impacted on do not want to be kept in the dark. The communities of the north-west do not want another round of promises without delivery. They want action, honesty and leadership. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment strikes the right balance. It insists that saving lives comes first. It insists on fairness for landowners. It insists that road safety measures cannot be paused if there are further delays. It insists on lawful, competent delivery that can withstand further challenge because it has respected the law at every stage.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Butler: I am nearly at the end of my remarks, but I will.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for that. Does he agree that it is astounding that a senior judge stated that, prior to DFI's making its decision, DAERA had provided it with no form of evidence or evidence-based assurance around that issue? I raise the matter with the Member because he is on the Agriculture Committee. Does he agree that that is, frankly, astounding when it relates to evidence as part of a High Court judgement?

Mr Butler: I absolutely do. Only for the fact that there is an ongoing legal process, I would say a lot more. I certainly do not want to impact on that, but it is quite astonishing. Given that the Climate Change Act was one of the top pieces of legislation — certainly, the highest profile one — that we passed, and that some parties beat the drum loudly on it, it is very disappointing that the evidence was not provided to the judge or for the assessment of need at that time. As I said, that is evidenced in my submission on the amendment. There is a dearth of cross-departmental working, particularly on what we would call "high-profile" aspects of delivery for the Executive.

We need to send out a clear message on the delivery of the A5 that public safety is of paramount importance to the Assembly but that adherence to our legislation also be respected. That is what the project deserves and what those who travel the A5 deserve, and that is what the Assembly should demand today.

Mr McReynolds: I speak today as an Alliance Party spokesperson on infrastructure, as chair of the all-party group on road safety and as someone with family members who use the A5 daily. Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have met a number of families who have, sadly, lost loved ones on our roads. Each family still carries the pain of that loss.

It is obvious that there were major failings in the Department's evidence to the High Court. That surprised me at the time, to be honest, given the delays that I was seeing across other DFI areas because, I was advised, all resources were being thrown at the A5 case to ensure a positive result. All the while, the question that colleagues and I have kept asking ourselves is this: since the announcement of the scheme 20-odd years ago, what major road safety improvements have there actually been along that stretch of road? To this day, sadly, we have lost over 50 lives, and I am not aware of any significant, tangible interim solutions having been introduced. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that point in her remarks later. Instead, we have waited on an upgrade that, 20 years later, has not happened. Just last week, during Question Time, I asked the Infrastructure about steps that her Department can take to improve road safety in general, but specific measures can also be taken along that particular road.

As the chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am acutely aware of the dangers of the road. We regularly meet Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, who consistently highlights the fact that no road is a safe road, but that does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to make the A5 safer. Speed cameras, speed limits and road signage can make road users more aware of their driving, with the goal being to reduce injuries and fatalities overall. Those things may not fix every issue or prevent every tragedy, but they can contribute to reducing their numbers. We need to address the dangers of the A5 now, not wait another decade for it to be completed.

Such a sensitive topic should not be used to unpick climate change legislation, given that, on two previous occasions, the A5 upgrade's being paused by a court ruling was not down to the Climate Change Act. Indeed, Judge McAlinden made clear in his judgement that the Climate Change Act does not prevent large infrastructure projects but requires evidence of their planning and coordination to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act. The way forward is not to go back on climate change law but to hold to account those who have not done their due diligence and ask why potential issues were not addressed in the first place.

Mr Dunne: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: I am just concluding. Sorry.

The families deserve more than finger-pointing and the blame game. They deserve real solutions as we work towards a safer A5 and the positives that can come from that.

Mr McAleer: I recognise the hardship and suffering of the families who have lost loved ones on the treacherous A5. I also acknowledge the Minister and her Executive colleagues for working to address the recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission's A5 inquiry. As an MLA for West Tyrone, I particularly welcome the Department for Infrastructure's decision to serve a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement. That action demonstrates that we are taking the matter seriously and moving to address it. Our focus remains clear: it is about delivering the A5 dual carriageway that our community so urgently needs. That has been reflected across the Chamber today.

I will keep my remarks relatively succinct, because I am conscious that this matter is part of an ongoing legal case, but I cannot stand here without acknowledging the terrible loss of life on the A5. I extend my deepest sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones and continue to endure unspeakable grief. Finally, I pay tribute to the Enough is Enough campaign. Its tireless work, determination and courage have ensured that the voices of families and communities are heard loud and clear. Its efforts remind us all of why this project is so important.

Mr Dunne: I speak in support of the amendment that we, as a party, have tabled to the motion on this very important issue. As others have said, we cannot lose sight of the human cost behind the debate. The A5 has been the scene of far too many tragedies. Families across Tyrone and Northern Ireland and beyond have been left truly devastated by the loss of lives, young and old, that were tragically cut short on this very dangerous section of road. Our thoughts and prayers must always remain with the people who have lost loved ones, bearing in mind the impact on those families and communities who live daily with the consequences of the real risks on that road. Having recently met a family in my constituency who lost a loved one in a road tragedy, I know that it is horrific and that the pain does not just go away. That should be first and foremost in all our minds.

The A5 upgrade has been promised for almost 20 years, having been first mooted in 2007, yet, time and time again, all we have seen is false dawns. There have been repeated delays, and, most recently, the High Court ruling has stalled progress once again. My colleague the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee highlighted how clear — black and white — the High Court verdict was. All that has been delivered by this Minister and her predecessor's Department to date is confusion and yet more uncertainty. That is simply not good enough.

The most recent High Court ruling has caused considerable distress and further uncertainty for landowners and farming families, whose livelihoods have been left in limbo for well over a decade. The Infrastructure Committee, in joint meetings with the AERA Committee, has heard that directly a number of times from landowners and groups such as the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has tried to support farmers and their families throughout what can only be described as the shambolic handling of the scheme by the Department, certainly in recent years. Land has been vested and then is not vested. Preparatory work has started, been halted and then started again. Significant disruption has occurred while legal proceedings have dragged on. Farmers have had their land dug up, with some of it rendered unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The impact of that has been nothing short of devastating, and lessons about the handling of the case should have been learned much earlier, given the impact that it has had on so many families.

Our amendment recognises a hard truth, which is that unless we address the barriers that have been created by the current legislative framework, major infrastructure projects will continue to be tied up in legal wrangling rather than being delivered on the ground. We have yet to hear from the Minister how the appeal will address Mr Justice McAlinden's clear reference in his ruling to climate targets that were supported by Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others. Some of those parties continue to live in denial about the impact of those climate targets on so many areas of life in Northern Ireland, not just in relation to the A5 but on a whole range of vital infrastructure projects and other key flagship projects.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: No, I will not.

That is why it is right to call on the AERA Minister to bring forward proposals to amend aspirational yet unachievable net zero targets. Targets must be realistic, affordable and balanced with the urgent need for investment in infrastructure that saves lives and strengthens our community and connectivity.

I mentioned the burden of uncertainty on landowners and farmers and the disruption that that has caused to businesses. Our amendment rightly calls on the Minister of Finance to look at fairly compensating those who have been impacted on, not only for the value of their land but for the ongoing loss of income and the cost of reinstatement amid the confusion. That is a matter of basic fairness and respect.

Given the very serious and ongoing road safety concerns, the High Court judgement has only added to the urgent need for action. As others have said, now is the time to seriously consider the necessary practical steps towards improving road safety. There are simple, practical steps that have been seen to work and be effective in other areas, including my constituency, such as better signage, better junction layouts, average speed cameras and targeted enforcement. Those measures could make a real difference and, ultimately, save lives in the short to medium term. Given the road safety concerns, there is a duty on the Minister for Infrastructure to deliver action urgently and not at some distant point in the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that she will take the opportunity to take action and that the clock will not be run down while she is in office.

I commend our amendment as a balanced and constructive way forward, and I ask the House to support it.

Mr McMurray: I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. As other Members have highlighted, the cost of the A5 project is staggering, from impeding economic growth in the north-west to causing long journey times and, tragically, preventable deaths. Nearly a decade on since the announcement, the road project has come to represent our failure to deliver critical infrastructure. People who use the road, along with those who have lost loved ones on it, are fully justified in their frustration at yet more delays following the court ruling. The setbacks are symptomatic of the instability that was caused by the collapse of our political institutions, first from 2017 to 2020 and again from 2022 to 2024. That stop-start governing has also delayed Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, which is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2022.

Although Minister Muir's swift move to consultation is welcome, there remains an obvious absence of a finalised plan, as was highlighted in the recent judgement. Mr Justice McAlinden was clear that a climate action plan that takes into account the emissions that the A5 will generate can help provide a pathway not only to delivering the project but to meeting our carbon reduction targets. It is therefore right that the Assembly express its regret that the Department for Infrastructure did not take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 scheme was not vulnerable to predictable legal challenges, especially regarding compliance with the Climate Change Act.

Let me be clear, however: the Climate Change Act is not an obstacle to the A5 scheme. The judgement unequivocally stated that major infrastructure projects can proceed if they are properly planned and are integrated with strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. As the ruling states, the Act does not prevent a major project proceeding but, rather, rules out construction in the absence of robust planning and coordination across Departments.

We should not retreat from the climate commitments that were unanimously adopted in 2022. Rather, we must balance our need for infrastructure upgrades with our imperative to protect the ecosystem, restore biodiversity and improve our water quality. The main lesson to learn from the High Court ruling is that major projects across all Departments must be designed, assessed and justified according to our statutory climate commitments. There can be no shortcuts taken. That must be the standard practice for all future schemes.

On amendment No 1, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his announcement that his Department intends to apply to the court to intervene in the appeal formally. Through its doing so, we can clarify the interpretation and enforcement of the Climate Change Act. That shows the Minister's commitment to his Department's climate change responsibilities.

We cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold. Striking the right balance involves supporting infrastructure while fully delivering on our climate commitments, which place binding duties on all Departments. Every Department must meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and protect our natural environment. The ruling also exposes the ongoing issue of government silos that can delay progress. Greater cross-departmental collaboration is crucial, especially as climate considerations increasingly inform decisions. An integrated approach is therefore needed to prevent the kinds of delays that we see today.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he have any insight into why the AERA Minister did not provide any evidence to the court when Mr Justice McAlinden was considering his A5 judgement? That is the Minister's responsibility.

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

Mr McMurray: That would be for the Minister to answer.

The journey ahead for each and every Department will not be easy, but we should recognise the significant opportunities that climate change action presents: green jobs; lower energy bills; vibrant public spaces; and better health.

The Alliance Party wants Northern Ireland to be a leader rather than a follower in the green industrial revolution. The ruling therefore ruling sets a clear precedent. Climate change legislation is not optional but, rather, a binding framework that impacts on every decision, including infrastructure development. How we respond to the A5 scheme will signal how seriously we take climate obligations and collaborative governance.

To conclude, amendment Nos 1 and 3 can be supported in principle. The Alliance Party cannot, however, support amendment No 2, as it directly contradicts the climate commitments that the House has enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. By doing so, the amendment seeks to shift the burden on to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs rather than place it on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with our climate legislation and achieve better outcomes for road users and our natural environment. Furthermore, it removes the commitment that is outlined in amendment No 1 for the A5 scheme to start construction by the end of the Assembly mandate, which is a delay that we cannot afford.

The Alliance Party remains open to constructive cooperation with other parties and Ministers in order to better protect our environment. I am confident that the Department for Infrastructure can now act with urgency, clarity and respect for the law, and, most importantly, for those affected, so that the A5 project can move forward in this mandate, thus setting the benchmark for responsible climate-conscious governance.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then to allow for changes to be made to the top Table. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called to speak will be Justin McNulty.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish Deborah Erskine well on the birth of her wee baby, Olivia. Deborah posted on social media yesterday and described her as her "wee heart warrior", so I am sure that everyone is mindful of her family at this time, and I wish them the best.

The Victims and Survivors Service supports victims and survivors of the Troubles/conflict, historical institutional abuse, mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Support and services are provided both directly by the VSS and through 47 community and voluntary sector partner organisations. Over the past five full years of delivery, VSS has supported an average of 7,000 individuals per year across three delivery areas. In addition, in partnership with its partner organisations, VSS has delivered health and well-being support and services to over 12,500 victims and survivors per year in local communities, with the vast majority of that support being provided to those who have been impacted by conflict here, which is more than 12,000 people. Alongside that, over the past five years, VSS and its community partners have also provided application support to over 7,000 individuals in relation to the victims' payments scheme.

Mr Allen: I echo the First Minister's comments in sending our best wishes to Deborah.

First Minister, thank you for your answer. Will you provide clarification on the number of people who have applied but not been successful in receiving support under VSS and say why they were not successful?

Mrs O'Neill: As of the week commencing 15 September, 11,853 applications had been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to all eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. With the scheme now set to close for new applications in August 2026, I take the opportunity to strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to get their application submitted before that deadline, and I will say again that support is available through a number of victims and survivors' representative groups for anyone who needs help with the application process.

The cases are complex and involve complex applications. Given the historical nature of many of the incidents, the applications present a challenge to those who assess them. However, the board remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible. It will also continue to work with the representative groups to ensure that feedback is taken on board about issues that are encountered. I do not have the number of applications that have been declined, but I will make sure that you get that in writing.

Mrs Dillon: I also offer my best wishes to Deborah and her family on the birth of their beautiful wee baby girl. I am delighted to see that everybody is safe and well.

First Minister, it is evident from your response that the Victims and Survivors Service is involved in a wide delivery of its portfolio. Do you agree that it is essential that VSS has a full board complement and that it is currently suboptimal, given that there has been a protracted delay in making board appointments to the service?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with that and fully recognise the vital role that the Victims and Survivors Service plays in supporting individuals across our society. I am grateful for the continued dedication of the current board. I certainly agree that it is suboptimal that a permanent chair and a full complement of board members are still not in place.

The Member raised the issue of the delay in making appointments. By way of explanation, which, I believe, I have given in the Chamber before, interviews for the post concluded on 11 March 2024, and, as per the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, we then received the unranked list of successful candidates on 26 March. On 19 June, we issued our list of preferred candidates, and, on 21 June, the candidates were informed by HR Connect that they had been successful. All pre-employment checks have been completed. We now need the public appointments to be made, and we need to make sure that the board has its full complement. I am determined to ensure that that is done without further delay.

Mr Kingston: Last week, the First Minister said:

Does she agree that former IRA members should come forward with their truth to the PSNI and the new truth recovery body?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will be aware that both Governments launched their joint framework last week. All the parties will take time to review that. Unfortunately, without having the legislative text, it is hard for us to pass proper judgement on what the framework will do and how it will deliver. Ultimately, it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to command the support of the victims and survivors — all victims and survivors. It also has to be human-rights-compliant. Until we see the legislation, we cannot properly assess that.

I would much prefer it if the Member, rather than looking back constantly over his shoulder and trying to score points, worked with me and others to find a way to build a brighter and better future and worked with everybody to make sure that we have a way of dealing with the past that is inclusive and for which we get maximum buy-in across society. That is my endeavour. I want us to deal with the past and unburden today's generation from yesterday. The only way that we can do that is by working together and by ensuring that the legislation is human-rights-compliant and, hopefully, commands maximum support from all victims and survivors. When I speak of "victims", I mean all victims.

Ms Bradshaw: I will pick up on the joint framework that was announced last week; I am not asking the First Minister to pass judgement on it yet. The First Minister's Department has responsibility for support for victims and survivors. Will she instruct a review of current programmes, with a view to better supporting victims and survivors under the new policy framework?

Mrs O'Neill: As I acknowledged, we are all trying to work out exactly what this means legislatively. The framework, when translated into legislation, could look completely different from what has been said in the framework document. I want us to understand that. I hope that they move to publish that legislation — I urge them to do so — so that we can all look at it.

We have a strategy for victims and survivors. We have just launched our new strategy, and we have opened the funding call for the 2026-28 victim support programme. That call will close on 6 November to ensure that any new programmes are in place by 1 April next year. That central activity is needed to implement many of the commitments in the strategy to ensure that our services are appropriate and meet the changing needs of victims and survivors. The strategy will ensure that the right to trauma-informed and victim-centred services is in place to empower and support victims and survivors and contribute to building a shared and peaceful future. It also sets out the specific issues affecting victims and survivors, with particular focus on their needs.

It is inevitable that the Victims and Survivors Service will have received an increased level of communication, particularly given the publication of the framework on Friday. That will continue. It is important that we have a service that supports all people to understand what the legislative text sets out regarding the bodies. We will have to keep that under review to make sure that we are fit for purpose. The strategy is the right strategy. If, in the aftermath of the framework, we can tweak it in respect of the needs of victims and survivors, that is what we should do.

Mr McNulty: What is the First Minister's assessment of the sad reality that many victims who suffered so-called punishment beatings and punishment attacks with cudgels with nails driven through them or baseball bats or punishment shootings by the IRA in their own homes — often in front of their wives and children — do not qualify for the scheme?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr McNulty: How can you explain that? How can that be?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, answer that whatever way you feel appropriate. It is not related to the original question.

Mrs O'Neill: All I can say is that our strategy for victims and survivors is to support all people who have been injured throughout the conflict. It is important that it is all-inclusive and that we close the door to nobody. I trust that the strategy that we have is the right strategy. I encourage new applications to come forward, as we opened our new applications process in August.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer the question.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The issues around cultural expression are some of the most challenging that we as a society face here. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) considered those issues and made a number of recommendations relating to bonfires. They have been considered as part of the review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy that we are actively working through with officials.

We recognise and understand the potential for bonfires to have environmental implications, alongside health and safety concerns, and we know that bonfires can be used to display offensive messages, flags, effigies and other materials that cause offence. We want to be very clear that there is no room for sectarian or racial intolerance towards individuals and acts of intimidation have no place in our society. We remain committed to building a peaceful and inclusive shared future for all.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as a freagra.

Minister, will you outline what work is happening to address illegal, unregulated bonfires?

Ms Reilly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a fhreagra.

The starting point for addressing illegal, unregulated and dangerous bonfires lies in the Chamber, and it demands political leadership. We need to be honest and say that the lack of regulation of bonfires just does not work. As political representatives, we cannot stay silent where there is a risk to health and safety and the environment, just as we cannot be silent when there are violent sectarian displays on bonfires.

Unfortunately, over the summer, we witnessed some bonfires that not only put public health and safety at risk and polluted our environment but were used to scapegoat migrants and promote hatred. A focus on safety and regulation in no way threatens or diminishes cultural celebration. If we are to continue to make progress towards a shared and better society, we need to learn lessons from the lack of regulation and look to regulation that places a focus on safety, public health and the environment.

Mr Carroll: I wrote to the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister a few weeks ago to request that a task force be set up to investigate the impact of the aftermath of the Donegall Road bonfire and its potential impact on people's health in the area. Can I get a reply to that request and, hopefully, some action on it?

Ms Reilly: I will refer that to the First Minister and deputy First Minister for a response. The land that you referred to in your question is in private ownership, and that has been a significant factor. We understand that, to mitigate the risk of asbestos-fibre release from the pile and protect members of the public, NIEA undertook a number of safety measures at the site. It is anticipated that the NIEA will shortly establish a multi-agency group to consider the asbestos issues at the Donegall Road site. In response to the question, I will refer your request to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Ms Brownlee: The junior Minister is keen to promote the success of T:BUC, a programme that brings together people from all our communities, yet the First Minister supported the decision of councillors in Londonderry to exclude our armed forces from a local jobs fair. How can the First Minister claim to be a "First Minister for all" when she supports and endorses no-go areas in Northern Ireland?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That question is not related to the original question.

Junior Minister, if you do not mind, take your seat. I will move on to the next supplementary question, which is from Mark Durkan.

Mr Durkan: The delay in the development of the Meenan Square site by TEO facilitated further bonfire activity on the site over the summer. Hopefully, we will see progress there in the near future. While that might address where the fires are, we also need to address what is on them. Will TEO finally act on the FICT recommendations and introduce a framework that safeguards public safety and prevents the cycle of hate and lawlessness every year?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for that question. The vast majority of people celebrate their culture safely and respectfully and work really closely with our communities to make sure that bonfires are family-friendly and are enjoyed by all. However, a small number of unregulated and illegal bonfires raise concerns about safety and the environmental impact and have effigies and racist and sectarian hate all over them, and they need to be challenged.

We need to prioritise our work on good relations, particularly through the Executive Office and other Departments. We have a real opportunity here through the T:BUC review, which includes FICT, and through the Urban Villages initiative, which is being reviewed by the Executive Office, to build on what actually works, tackle the remaining issues constructively and create conditions in which celebrations are safe, respectful and for everyone.

Mrs O'Neill: Engaging with leaders from across these islands and internationally is very important if we are to promote this place and deliver across the full range of our Programme for Government ambitions. Since the restoration of the institutions, ensuring that we represent our interests and optimise the opportunities to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy has been at the heart of everything that we have been doing. We have engaged with the Governments in London and Dublin to discuss how global developments, such as changes to international tariffs, could impact on our region and to ensure that our interests are understood and represented.

Over the past year, the deputy First Minister and I have met a range of leaders from the world’s largest economies, both at home and abroad. We have used meetings in the USA, China, Japan, Germany and France to promote our place and show that we are open to partnerships that support our economic growth. The deputy First Minister and I led a business delegation to North Carolina in March, supporting engagement by businesses and academia. This is a good example of how we can work in partnership with stakeholders here to deliver on our shared objectives and build lasting relationships that deliver benefits for all.

Mr Irwin: I thank the First Minister for her response. The United States is a critically important economic partner of the UK. Will the First Minister outline what she gained by not attending the state banquet for President Trump last week?

Mrs O'Neill: I value our Irish-American links very much. Indeed, successive American Administrations have been very much part of bringing about our peace process, but you are referring to a banquet in Windsor last week that I chose not to attend, and rightly so: I do not see how a benefit would be achieved from attending a state banquet at a time when the children of Gaza are being starved to death. I made my view on that issue known. I did not block the deputy First Minister from attending. She went to the thing, and that was absolutely her call. I am very comfortable with my decision.

Mr Sheehan: The First Minister will no doubt have seen the report that was issued through the UN Human Rights Council. It provides definitive confirmation that the Israeli state is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people. Does the First Minister agree that the international community must take a principled stand against the ongoing genocidal attacks and the aid blockade against the people of Gaza?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely agree, because anyone with an objective mind, seeing how the situation continues to deteriorate in Gaza, will see it as completely unconscionable, intolerable and absolutely inhumane. How did we arrive at a position where women and children are being murdered daily and the international community stands by and does nothing? How did we arrive at a point where a man-made famine has been unleashed on an innocent population in Gaza with no repercussions? How are leaders of a state that is carrying out genocide allowed to be openly and unapologetically welcomed around the world?

This is the biggest humanitarian disaster of our generation. It is unfolding right in front of our eyes, yet Israel continues to act, to be let off the hook and, even worse, encouraged in some quarters. This cannot be described as a war: it is genocide. It is genocide, ethnic cleansing and state-directed killing. We all need to do everything that we can to end the horror for the Palestinian people, but that can only come about when the international community stands together and says no. We need to see an immediate ceasefire; we need to see humanitarian aid; we need to see a release of all prisoners and hostages; and we need to see an immediate end to that man-made starvation. That is where the focus of the international community must be in order to bring it to an end.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I agree with your decision not to go to the banquet. It was the right thing to do. However, given the fact that there is, as you say, a genocide happening in Gaza and that democracy around the world, including, sadly, in North America and the United States, is under threat, what steps are you taking to ensure a broader, values-based international relations strategy for the Executive?

Mrs O'Neill: That is the reasonable approach to take in the drafting of our new international relations strategy. We look on, aghast, at how people, particularly in London, have decided to wine and dine the president of the United States whilst his actions are clearly facilitating what is happening in Gaza. You cannot sell your soul for a pound. Any of us who have a soul and a heart would look at what is happening in Gaza and understand why we should not engage with those who are responsible for inflicting that horror and pain on the Gazan people.

Mrs O'Neill: The investment in Ebrington aligns with the Executive's vision of building a strong, sustainable and regionally balanced economy. We are committed to investing in the north-west, and we are already seeing the positive outworkings of that commitment, including the expansion of Magee, the city deals and the projects that are being delivered as part of Urban Villages funding.

Specifically, since taking on the Ebrington site in 2016, the Executive Office has invested over £37 million to develop and regenerate it. The investment, along with £40 million of private finance, has been transformative for the site, attracting a variety of new businesses and creating more than 360 jobs. In March, we officially opened the new headquarters of software consultancy firm Alchemy Technology Services at the state-of-the-art Ebrington Plaza. A few months later, that was followed by Ernst & Young (EY) opening its new north-west regional office at the plaza. Even in the past week, there has been the Seagate announcement. The site has become a vibrant hub for creative, cultural, sporting, charitable and other community-led events. The Executive Office has also committed £3·3 million of funding towards the Derry North Atlantic Museum, which is a key part of the overall redevelopment of the square.

The junior Ministers are looking forward to visiting Ebrington later this week to see construction get under way on that important new regional visitor attraction. The Department will continue to work with tenants and stakeholders to showcase Ebrington, ensuring that it supports the region's rich creativity, innovation, talent and skills and plays its part in the site's future growth.

Mr Middleton: I thank the First Minister for her response, and I welcome the progress being made at Ebrington.

First Minister, where are discussions at with the council about the potential transfer of the Ebrington site to the council? What assurances has your office received that the site will remain a shared space? I have some concerns, given the track record of councillors, that that may not remain the case if it goes to the council.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member is a representative of the north-west, and it is important to make sure that we underline the sheer scale of investment that there has been in the north-west recently. We should all be buoyed by that positivity.

You mentioned the site's being transferred to the council. That process has been ongoing for a considerable period. Realising the Ebrington site's full potential for the whole city and the north-west generally is a shared priority across multiple stakeholders in the north-west. We are focused on delivering on those shared ambitions and on improving processes and partnerships to achieve them. Discussions are ongoing with the council to progress the site's transfer. We are told that the full transfer is complex and is taking time to complete, but I can tell you that it is all in train and is being actively worked on.

Mr Delargy: First Minister, I thank you and the deputy First Minister for your recent attendance at Seagate and at Foyle port. I also welcome the north-west leadership collective, members of which are in the Public Gallery today, and recognise its fantastic work in the area.

What impact has the fact that the Executive have agreed a regional balance strategy had on driving investment and making Derry and the broader north-west an even more attractive place in which to live, work and invest?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question. I did not know that we had visitors from the north-west: you are very welcome.

Putting regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy here was a deliberate approach to ensure that we unlock the north-west's full potential and that investment is shared across the board. I sometimes listen to a lot of negativity, but there is so much positivity around the north-west right now. So many things have been and will continue to be delivered, including, even in the past number of months, the Seagate and EY announcements. We were at the Foyle port last week; its plans are also amazing and will make the area an even more wonderful place in which to live, invest and study.

I am determined to continue to work with all Ministers around the Executive table to see how we can deliver even more in the north-west, but the fact is that we have placed regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy. We saw the headlines last week that there is a 21% increase in the number of people applying to Magee. There has been more investment in Magee in the past year than there has been in the past 10 years. There is the city deal, the job announcements that I talked about and the investment in City of Derry Airport. The north-west is thriving. It is a real economic hub and an engine on which to be built even further.

Ms McLaughlin: There is no regional balance for the north-west, and I do not know how to make that loud and clear. Last week in Belfast, a thousand jobs were announced, and we are getting the crumbs with the job announcements for Derry. That aside, you talked about the need for regional balance. Can you spell out exactly what that means in practice? What specific measures or indices have you built into strategies to ensure that there is real accountability to deliver regional balance and fairness in the North?

Mrs O'Neill: For the first time ever, right at the heart of the Executive's economic strategy, regional balance is writ large. It is an objective for Invest NI, and we can very much see that starting to be borne out. I therefore encourage you to be more positive about what is being achieved in the wider north-west. Regional balance is now at the heart of Executive strategy. We have seen the increase in the number of applicants to Magee and the increase in investment, which I just mentioned. You may want to wish those developments away, but they are positive ones, and we will continue to build on them even more in the time ahead. I look at EY's announcement of 120 jobs and the announcement from Seagate last week of a £115 million investment in the north-west. Those announcements have been underlined by the largest ever Invest NI contribution towards research. That is regional balance in action. It is us delivering and doing things. That does not mean that we rest on our laurels. Those advancements are great, but we have much more to do. I will work with all Ministers to ensure that more is delivered for the north-west.

Mr Burrows: Will the First Minister agree that, given that public money was invested in Ebrington Square, all lawful organisations, including the UK armed forces, should be welcome at events there?

Mrs O'Neill: It is not really related to the question, but I will say that I have made my position clear on the jobs fair. I think that the locally elected councillors made the right call.

Mrs O'Neill: Junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Ms Reilly: As of last week, 11,853 applications have been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. The Victims' Payments Board is progressing applications as efficiently as possible and continues to work closely with victims and survivors' groups to make sure that any issues are flagged and addressed. Following a recent review of operations, the board has established a business transformation team to improve the processes. That has already had an impact on the value of awards paid out, which is reflected in the year-on-year increase in payments. There is, however, more work to do. We are also aware of the issues with the length of time that can be taken to reach a determination, but we are confident that the board is doing all that it can to make sure that applications are considered as quickly as possible.

With the scheme set to close to new applications in August 2026, we strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to submit their application before that deadline. Support is available through a number of sectoral organisations, including WAVE Trauma Centre, the South East Fermanagh Foundation, Relatives for Justice, the Ely Centre and Ashton Community Trust, for anyone who needs help with the application process. I put on record our thanks to those groups, which offer tremendous support and advocacy for victims and survivors as they go through the process.

Mr McMurray: We are all dismayed at the recent reports of applicants having to wait for a long time for their application to be assessed. Will you please outline what additional resources will be allocated to try to speed up the processing of applications?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Junior Minister, you have less than a minute.

Ms Reilly: Thanks for that question. We completely understand the concerns that have been raised about the time that it is taking to process applications. Each application to the scheme is unique and comes with its own complexities, and the progress of applications can require additional or supporting information from external organisations. There are also some challenges with getting access to medical information, but our officials are working really closely with Department of Health colleagues to improve the process. Cases can also be adjourned in order to allow further information or evidence to be gathered to allow applicants or their representatives to comment on specific issues.

We are assured, however, that the board is keeping the processes under review in order to look for ways to improve the rate of flow of the cases. Also, on prioritising —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Reilly: Sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 2, 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that that is under the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is actively working through the matter. We all fought the election on the rules as they stand, and when we get to the point at which potential change is brought forward, under that Committee's remit, we can all make our choice about where we might go with it next.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you are First Minister. I asked for your opinion. I did not ask what the AERC is doing. I am on that Committee, so I know.

The differential between those titles was born out of unionist insecurity, to be blunt, in 1998. It was a continuation of the top-dog supremacy politics of the Orange state that you and I both want to move away from. Do you agree with me and with yourself, because in 2020, you called yourself the joint First Minister, and with your predecessor, Martin McGuinness, that it is time to abandon that kind of top-dog politics and move toward a joint title?

Mrs O'Neill: I have made my position very clear to the Member. You are on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and that is the forum in which we can discuss those issues. I am the First Minister, there is a deputy First Minister, and it is a joint office. I have never shied away from that. I also used the joint office title previously. Let the AERC do its work. You sit on the Committee, so you are familiar with it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that I have made my position on the matter clear. The democratically elected local councillors know best what is good in their own community. Given the history of the British Army in Derry, I stand over saying that I think that that was the right call for them to make about what happens at a jobs fair. If anybody wants to join any part of the British military, they can do so anywhere else. They can apply online or in whatever way they wish, but the sensitivities around Derry are not lost on people.

Mr Middleton: The First Minister has not answered the question. I asked whether that applies to all councils in Northern Ireland. First Minister, do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary commemorating the victim makers while being unwilling to allow citizens in my community to engage with the armed forces in their council area? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Mrs O'Neill: Do you not see the hypocrisy of going against the decision of the democratically elected local councillors? I back the councillors and their decision, because it was right and appropriate. You should also respect the council's decision, because it was taken in the best interest of the community.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: For God's sake. First Minister.

Mrs O'Neill: That is absolutely ridiculous, and you are making a show of yourself. You are fascinated with the definition of a woman, and I think that that says a lot about you.

Mr Gaston: At the weekend, the DUP leader rightly attacked those who refuse to accept biological reality, yet you head a Department alongside Mrs Little-Pengelly that retains its links with the discredited Stonewall organisation. Stonewall believes that a woman can have a penis. First Minister, once again, do you believe that?

Mrs O'Neill: I will have to help you out with a wee biology lesson. I was born a biological baby girl; I grew into a teenager; and I am now a fully fledged woman. There are also trans women in our community. If women can be supportive and inclusive of trans women, you should also. However, I fear, as the trans community fears, that all that you are interested in is stoking up fear, tensions and hurt. Have a bit of sensitivity and decency.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Topical questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: As I said earlier, the framework was published only on Friday, so we do not yet understand what the legislative text looks like. We need to understand that. There will, of course, be a role for the Victims and Survivors Service in supporting all victims and survivors. We cannot engage on what the remit of the body is until we see what the legislative text says, but we will do so in due course.

Mr Beattie: Thank you for the answer. I am slightly concerned now. I would have imagined that, given that you, the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office created the victims and survivors strategy 2024-2034, you would have had sight of what the legislation will state and, therefore, would have been able to say, "This whole process" — I am talking about process, not legislation — "is victim- and survivor-centred".

Mrs O'Neill: Being victim- and survivor-centred will be key to its success; I absolutely agree with you. However, the British Government chose to launch the framework jointly with the Irish Government last Friday. We see the framework, but there is then a period between that and seeing what the legislative text looks like in terms of the make-up and remit of the body and how it operates. We still have not had sight of that. I do not believe that anybody has. That is not good enough. They should have talked to us about it. I know that all parties would have engaged across the board, but the Executive Office should, of course, have been consulted. However, that falls at the feet of the British Government in terms of their approach.

Mrs O'Neill: Maith sibh.

It was really heartening to see the huge crowds in Dublin at the weekend. It shows the vibrancy of the Irish language community. Taking to the streets to march for equality and fairness across the board is a testament to the strength and the energetic revival of the Irish language here. Gaelic continues to thrive in communities across the island. However, as has been highlighted widely — this was the purpose of the large rally on Saturday — it needs much more investment North and South. It is also something to be celebrated. There can be no complacency or contempt from those in the Executive who have responsibility for its development. In that regard, I want to work with all parties and Executive colleagues to ensure that the Irish language is fully supported and allowed to flourish. We all have a clear duty to play a positive and proactive role in ensuring that the language grows for generations to come. We need to work together to make sure that we do that and to ensure that it is invested in.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin.

I think that the First Minister has already alluded to this, but will she do everything that she can to continue to commit to supporting the development of the Irish language? There is much more to do.

Mrs O'Neill: I totally agree that there is so much more to do in order to build on the huge strides forward and allow the language to grow. There are so many children being educated through the medium of Irish today. They want to see their language and to hear their language in the community in which they live. That ongoing revival and the vibrancy of the language and the culture is something to be celebrated. It creates huge opportunity as well for our society.

The appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner and the advancement of that role are imminent. The role that the commissioner will play in promoting the language and ensuring that it is protected across our public services in everyday life will be an important interjection to advance things. Belfast City Council is on the verge of adopting a transformative Irish language policy that will be the first of its kind in the North and will further improve the visibility of the language.

We can and must do more. We must keep working at it. We need to see an Irish language strategy being brought forward by the Communities Minister. Political will and genuine cooperation will be required to ensure that the language thrives for generations to come.

Mrs O'Neill: Dual market access is a prize that we need to grab together. The fact that we have access to both markets makes us the envy of many other places; in fact, there are companies that have, of late, pointed to dual market access contributing to their growth. That is positive. The Murphy report, which was published last week, states that we need to avail ourselves of and tap into that dual market access and to sell our wares. The heart of the economic strategy is very much the promotion of dual market access so that we continue to see its benefits in the time ahead. We need to work to support our industries across the board, and the Economy Minister is doing a great job in that regard.

Mr Brooks: At a vital time for that sector, the First Minister boycotted events on St Patrick's Day, boycotted the recent state banquet at Buckingham Palace and said that she was incredulous at the UK Government's recent investment in the sector. Does she think that that behaviour assists businesses to grow in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: It is important that we continue with all our business engagements. It is right and proper that we do so and that we have the message that we are open for business and that we are a great place in which to live, work and invest. That is our continued message when we engage with many. That is the appropriate approach from us, as an Executive Office, and from the Economy Minister.

I noted the engagement that we have had on investment with all international investors and with people who are big players from different countries. However, do not sell your soul for short-termism, going to banquets and sipping champagne whilst people in Gaza starve.

Mr Brooks: The answer is no, First Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me.

Mrs O'Neill: Our work on that is ongoing. The Committee for the Executive Office is working its way through the legislation. It is a huge area, and we want to get it right. We are determined to do everything that we can to support all victims and survivors. I am glad to say that we are making some progress on erecting a plaque in the Great Hall. We made a commitment to do that and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the autumn. That is another advancement in that area.

Mr Dunne: Is there any further update on the time frame for delivery for innocent victims across Northern Ireland through the redress scheme?

Mrs O'Neill: We are working our way through the legislative process at the moment. The unique aspect of the scheme is that there will be two payments: one upfront payment and a payment that will come at a later stage after the public inquiry. That is unique compared with any other scheme, because it includes that first payment. It is important that we get that payment to victims and survivors as quickly as possible. They have been waiting for far too long to get to this juncture. We are determined to get that payment made as quickly as possible once the legislation has gone through the Assembly. I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress on that fairly soon.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for topical questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Members should take their ease for a moment before we begin questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): My Department’s Trading Standards Service has received the following number of consumer complaints in each of the last five years: in 2020, 10,583; in 2021, 9,799; in 2022, 12,708; in 2023, 12,622; in 2024, 10,817; and, to date in 2025, 6,962.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for her response. A large volume of complaints are received each year by the Trading Standards Service. Will the Minister give her assessment of the effectiveness of the Trading Standards Service? How many of those complaints resulted in prosecution?

Dr Archibald: The Department's Trading Standards Service delivers consumer protection and enforcement on the ground. It delivers a front-line public protection function for the benefit of our consumers, businesses and the wider economy. That function comprises the twin aims of protecting consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, from illegal and unfair trading practices and providing support and guidance for businesses, particularly small businesses, so that they can effectively deal with regulation. As the Member referred to, it can also undertake investigations when it receives complaints. Given the large number of complaints received, the mandate that Trading Standards Service has and the resources that it has, it is not possible to investigate every complaint that it receives or pursue every issue. It prioritises its work and focuses resources on the areas that will result in the greatest benefit to the economy. I do not have the number of prosecutions in front of me, but, if the Member writes to me, I am happy to share those.

Mr Delargy: Minister, what laws are in place to protect consumers from unsatisfactory home improvement services?

Dr Archibald: Builders and those who provide home improvement services need to comply with a significant number of consumer protection laws. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumers who enter into a contract for goods and services can expect those to be supplied with reasonable care and skill. That applies to all traders, whether builders, plumbers, decorators, electricians or whatever. The Act also requires that any materials used by any of those professionals should be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for purpose. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 protects consumers from unfair trading practices by prohibiting misleading actions and omissions, aggressive sales tactics and other unfair practices that distort consumer decisions. Any breaches of criminal consumer protection legislation can result in a trader being subject to enforcement by Trading Standards, including prosecution, with the courts having the power to fine or imprison offenders.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Earlier today, I announced the proposed way forward on RHI, following Executive approval on 18 September. My Department will now act swiftly to launch a public consultation and introduce the necessary legislation and regulations to give participants a tariff uplift for the coming winter. Following a period of extensive engagement with stakeholders, the consultation will now bring forward the details of how the scheme will be closed in a manner that is fair to both the participants and the taxpayer.

Mr McGuigan: Obviously, my question was a wee bit outdated, given the Minister's statement this morning. Nonetheless, I welcome progress. Even though this may have been covered, Minister, when might a replacement scheme be in place, and how much annually managed expenditure (AME) funding will be available for it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my responses earlier, the scheme itself is expected to cost up to £196 million AME over the 10 years, and then there is a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) resource cost alongside. That frees up approximately £100 million AME that, once the scheme has been closed, will be able to be used over the period for a scheme that is designed to effectively cut carbon. Once we have completed the RHI closure, we will move to design and bring forward a replacement. We will engage with Treasury on that basis.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the Minister's statement earlier, what she has said in answering the question and last week's announcement about the new renewables scheme. However, it is all developer-led. I have repeatedly asked for a Department plan to link all of that together to give confidence that we will move forward in a way that gives best value for money. Is there a plan, and when will we see it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He makes an important point, because, as he will be well aware, a number of policy areas are being developed in tandem. That is being coordinated across the Department. We can ask officials to share something that points to what the Member wants to see.

Dr Archibald: The establishment of local economic partnerships is a new approach, bringing together my Department, Invest NI, councils and other key economic stakeholders in local areas. Overall, good progress has been made, and all 11 local economic partnerships have been established. There are varying levels of progress on the development of action plans. Four partnerships are very close to submitting action plans to the Department for approval, and others are holding workshops to develop ideas and proposals. We expect that progress on action plans will accelerate from this point.

The Member's local economic partnership at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council was the first to be established. The partnership has agreed an action plan, which is going through council approval processes and should be with the Department in the coming weeks for approval and issue of a letter of offer. I will be visiting Ards and North Down Borough Council on Thursday to hear more about its local economic partnership. I look forward to visiting more partnerships and seeing action plans progress. The Department and Invest NI will continue to work closely with the partnerships over the coming months to develop action plans that address local economic needs and ensure a collaborative approach.

Mr McGrath: It is good that the money will be pushed out across the North so that all areas can benefit. I asked your predecessor whether there were checks and balances in place in each council area to make sure that money is spread around across the council area. In my area, I want to see Downpatrick get its share rather than it simply going to Newry.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and he makes a fair point. It is the responsibility of councillors in an area and all who are represented on the partnerships to ensure that there is a fair distribution across an area and that they target where they need to target for economic development. I guess that the checks and balances are built into the business case process, as you would expect, when issuing the letters of offer. They are probably slightly different checks and balances to those that the Member refers to, but there is the opportunity for areas to design economic plans, and local accountability needs to be layered on top of that.

Mrs Dillon: A bit like the previous questioner, I am selfishly interested in my area of mid-Ulster. I would like a sense of what types of projects are likely to be in the action plans. I agree that councils are best suited to decide on what action plans are best for their area.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I will give her an update on mid-Ulster. I understand that the council has decided to appoint a consultant to lead on the development of its action plan and that they should be in place later in September. I encourage her to engage with the council on that.

Partnerships are bringing forward a good range of actions that, exactly as has been anticipated, address local economic needs. Proposals include business support and mentoring, workspace development and tourism initiatives, but it is very much up to the local areas to decide what initiatives are needed and what best fits their economic needs. I encourage people actively to engage with the partnerships in their area to help shape the proposals.

Mr Brett: Minister, your subregional economic plan was launched almost a year ago, and the local economic partnerships were meant to be at the heart of it. Some £45 million was allocated to them, but not a penny has been spent to date. Regional balance has got worse on your watch, Minister, and we have had a resignation from the board of Invest Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Brett: Does the Minister agree that her subregional economic plan is not worth the paper that it is written on?

Dr Archibald: I absolutely do not agree with the Member, and I do not expect that he expected me to. I am not sure what metric he is referring to when he talks about regional balance having got worse. The local economic partnerships initiative is very much about democratising economic development. It is not unexpected that the time taken for partnerships to establish themselves has differed across council areas, and, given the devolved nature of council responsibilities and that some were bringing together partnerships that may not have existed previously, councils were starting from different points.

The Department also had to seek approval of the business case for the fund, and that required taking a careful approach in order to ensure the type of flexibility that we want to see and to facilitate the partnerships to deliver. I am pleased that all 11 partnerships have now been established, and, as I indicated, we have well-developed action plans that have enabled officials to undertake financial forecasting. There will be reduced spend in the first year, but the funding is being allocated across the three years and will be profiled accordingly.

Dr Archibald: My Department regulates the minimum quality standards for visitor accommodation, commonly known as "short-term lets", across the North. It makes regulations to set standards in areas such as cleanliness, maintenance, essential facilities and comfort that operators must meet. Tourism NI ensures compliance by inspecting all new accommodation establishments under its statutory certification scheme before they begin operating and by re-inspecting existing businesses at least once every four years.

My Department and Tourism NI recently completed a review of the scheme's statutory criteria. We will soon launch a public consultation on proposed changes to obtain wider stakeholder and industry feedback. The proposals respond to recent market trends, such as the rise in the number of glamping pods and other alternative accommodations, and will update the minimum standards and amenities that visitors now expect.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will surely recognise that the proliferation of short-term lets is corrosive to the cohesion of our communities and to the availability and cost of family homes in those communities. Short-term lets also undermine our hospitality sector. Is there a recognition in the Executive that they need to do more on short-term lets than merely regulate their quality?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment that he expresses. I live in an area that has a big tourism sector and many tourist attractions, and the number of those types of short-term lets is increasing. It is important that we take a proper look at the issue.

The regulation of short-term lets is a complex area in which to deliver change, and there are different policy and operational responsibilities across Departments, councils and other agencies. My Department and Tourism NI have no statutory powers to limit, cap or control the number or spread of properties providing accommodation for visitors. We therefore have little or no statutory or regulatory role to play on how they impact on housing, to which the Member referred.

However, I am committed to supporting the delivery of the Executive's housing supply strategy, and I am sure that the Member is aware of the fact that a cross-departmental approach is being taken. My officials are working with the Department for Communities and the Department for Infrastructure, as DFC looks to soon commission research to gain a more informed assessment of the relative impact, if any, of short-term lets on local housing markets. The completion of that research will give us a better understanding of the types of policy interventions that could be required in the area.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you outline what the Department and Tourism NI are doing to enforce the regulatory compliance of Airbnbs and short-term lets?

Dr Archibald: Enforcement of the requirement for visitor accommodation to be certified is a matter for Tourism NI under the Tourism Order 1992. It includes taking enforcement action against accommodation establishments that have not been certified. Tourism NI regularly engages with representatives of the main online booking platforms, such as Airbnb, to encourage them to align the properties that are listed on their sites with the properties that Tourism NI has certified. I strongly encourage cooperation on that in order to continue growing the practice.

Tourism NI also routinely undertakes enforcement action against uncertified operators in accordance with its powers and statutory responsibilities. Upon completing the work of the upcoming public consultation, my Department and Tourism NI will review the overall design and function of the certification scheme, including whether enhanced enforcement powers are required for Tourism NI, for example, to be able to take action against online booking platforms to improve operator compliance. [Interruption.]

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I will let you get your voice back. Lots of people are dealing with a cough today. To be clear, a study involving Tourism NI is being done to see whether it is necessary to have further statutory powers, enforcement powers, both or one in order to get the other. I ask you to be specific about this: is it your intention to legislate to get more power to regulate short-term lets, specifically Airbnbs?

Dr Archibald: In case I have caused confusion, I confirm that a consultation is being undertaken on the powers that Tourism NI currently has in relation to accommodation. Upon completion of that consultation, we will look at whether any further enforcement powers are required. A broader piece of work is being undertaken across Departments to look at short-term lets and their impact on our housing supply.

Dr Archibald: I value the importance of tourism to the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, and I recognise the fact that Minister Muir's decision will have been disappointing for the region. However, our focus is now on finding an alternative use for the funding. While it will ultimately be for the Belfast region city deal partners to propose an alternative project, I am supportive of retaining the funding in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area.

My Department is actively working with stakeholders, including the council, to identify alternative projects. Indeed, officials from my Department, Invest NI and Tourism NI met council officials in Downpatrick last week to support the exploration of alternative options. I am fully committed to co-design and partnership working with the council on the development of a new proposal that will strengthen the local economy, support job creation and bring lasting value to the region.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Minister. Minister Muir's intervention not only jeopardises the much-needed city deal funding but, more worryingly, calls into question the long-standing memorandum of understanding between our council and his Department. Minister, you said that you are "actively working" with officials from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, and I welcome that. Will the Minister commit to sending her departmental officials to continue that exploration work with Warrenpoint, Burren and Rostrevor (WBR) Chamber of Commerce and others in order to find an alternative tourism or innovation project?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I understand that council officials recently met representatives from the WBR chamber to discuss alternative projects. I welcome the chamber's involvement, and I encourage the chamber and others to continue to engage with the council in order to support the identification of alternative projects, irrespective of whether they are in the tourism or innovation sectors. As I said, my focus is on supporting the council and the wider Belfast region city deal partners to develop the right project that will deliver sustained and inclusive economic growth for the region.

Dr Archibald: The reported increase in the number of young people here who are not in education, employment or training is of significant concern to me. It is a complex area that is not unique to here, involving a diverse range of young people aged between 16 and 24, with multiple factors at play. I have asked my officials to consider the factors that are associated with the increase; for example, whether the increasing incidence of poor mental health could be contributing to that worrying trend.

Many of my Department's programmes are aimed at supporting our young people to thrive in training or employment. Those include entry-level programmes such as Skills for Life and Work and Step Up, with FE colleges offering flexible delivery to accommodate diverse learner needs. The apprenticeship programme, with the recently launched apprenticeship action plan, is a key deliverable. I will soon be consulting on widening participation in higher education. The loss of European social funding continues to be a challenge when it comes to the interventions that we can offer.

Addressing the trend will require a holistic response from across the Executive. I am committed to working with my Executive colleagues to ensure that all our young people can fully participate and achieve their potential.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her response. In my constituency of North Belfast, many organisations do a lot of work with young people. One that focuses particularly on young girls, WOMEN'STEC, does fantastic work. Is the Department exploring typically male-dominated roles in order to encourage more young women, in particular, to get involved in them?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know WOMEN'STEC well. On Friday, I will actually visit its project launch in the north-west as part of the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund. The apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund supports projects to facilitate young people from backgrounds that traditionally face barriers. That includes women, because the numbers of girls who participate in apprenticeships are much lower than the numbers of young boys. We want to address that gap. I certainly want to support and encourage more young women and girls into those less traditional roles and to do anything that we can to support that. That includes the work that we are doing through the careers action plan, so that young people know about the variety of options that are available to them and the pathways to get there. A number of different pieces of work are going on. The trends that relate to those young people who are not in education, employment or training are concerning. We need to take a more focused look at that.

Ms Ferguson: Can the Minister expand on how she and the Department intend to support young people who are furthest removed from the labour market, particularly those who have disengaged and have low or no qualifications?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned in my previous answer, the Department delivers Skills for Life and Work, which is a vocational education and training programme that is focused primarily on entry level and level 1, providing a guaranteed training place for young people aged 16 and 17 who have left school with low or no qualifications. The programme supports those who have very low or no prior achievement on their journey towards further education, employment or an apprenticeship, and it serves a cohort of young people who face significant barriers to engagement in work and learning. My officials are also working with training providers to identify progression pathways for programmes to better support outcomes for young people. We also support the PEACE PLUS youth programme, which targets young people aged from 14 to 24 who are disadvantaged, marginalised or at risk of involvement with violent or paramilitary activity. Typically, those young people have disengaged from mainstream provision. Participants can develop their capabilities in areas such as good relations, personal development and employability, alongside a focus on identifying the next step of their journey.

Dr Archibald: Over the past three years, cruise liner visits have consistently contributed £20 million to £25 million per year to the local economy. That is dependent on the number of ships that visit, their passenger capacity and uptake of ticket sales. Over the past three years, annual cruise ship visits have increased from 141 ships in 2022, delivering £20 million to the economy, to a high of 158 in 2023, bringing £25 million of economic benefit. In 2024, we saw the number of visiting ships drop back to 143, with an estimated £20 million of economic benefit. By the end of the 2025 season, 147 ships are scheduled to have visited, delivering an estimated economic impact in excess of £23 million.

Those economic impact figures are from a recent report that was commissioned by Belfast Harbour and supported by Visit Belfast. The report estimates the direct spend by passengers and crew during their visits, as well as spending by the cruise lines, on things such as prearranged passenger tours, port services and locally supplied provisions.

Mr Chambers: Those figures undoubtedly prove that attracting cruise liners to Belfast has been a huge success story. Minister, the added value is in cruise passengers planning a return visit to explore more of what Northern Ireland has to offer. Has there been any research into the potential for that, and are we actively encouraging it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That is an important area to look at. In the summer, we experienced the Open representing a shop window, for want of a better term, to everything that we have to offer, and there is similar opportunity in that area. The work of Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland on marketing what we have to offer, with people then coming to experience it for themselves, encourages them to come back. The Member is welcome to write to me about research specifically in that area, and I will be happy to furnish him with anything that we have or to look at what we might need.

Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister provide an update on the new cruise tourism facilities that are being constructed as part of the Shared Island project?

Dr Archibald: Belfast Harbour recently commenced the construction of a new £90 million deepwater berth at the D3 site. That facility will initially provide dedicated cruise passenger facilities to replace the current cruise location at D1, which is expected to be required to handle offshore wind farm projects later in the decade. Belfast Harbour is funding the £90 million investment as part of its five-year strategy to advance regional prosperity and is not in receipt of Shared Island funding for that.

Belfast Harbour has identified a significant investment opportunity on the D3 site that would make it capable of further bolstering the harbour's ability to support the offshore wind supply chain. Such investment is beyond the funding that is currently available to Belfast Harbour. It has engaged with DFI and DFE on a joint proposal to the Shared Island Fund, alongside a bid from the Port of Cork, to further enhance the development of a dual-use solution for crews and offshore wind. [Interruption.]

Mr Kingston: I will give the Minister time to get a glass of water.

Those figures are encouraging. I remember the excitement when the first cruise ship came to Belfast in 1996, and we now see about 150 ships every year, so it is part of the success story of Belfast. Given the importance of the tourism sector to our economy, Minister, why have you imposed a real-terms cut on the Tourism Northern Ireland budget?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise that we are in a challenging budgetary environment, and all Departments have faced difficult decisions in the past couple of years. In our approach to our budget this year, in order to take forward the Department's priorities, we had to look across the rest of the Department to reduce costs. Some reduction was imposed on all divisions of the Department, and that has impacted on our arm's-length bodies.

We have uplifted Tourism Ireland's funding, which had fallen back over the past number of years. In order to ensure my tourism priorities, we published the tourism vision and action plan. We are working alongside all our arm's-length bodies to look towards the three-year budgeting process. We will try to ensure that we can maximise our potential within our budgetary constraints.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We will move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 8 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I regret that Kieran has resigned over an operational decision. My commitment to the north-west and to regional balance is evident. Announcements have been made recently about investment in the City of Derry Airport and the expansion of Magee College. Also, working alongside Invest NI, we have seen jobs announcements and R&D investment as recently as last week in Seagate, EY, Alchemy and FinTrU — those are all announcements that I have had the opportunity to attend over the weeks and months since I have been in post. There has been a shift in the commitment to deliver regional balance. That is something that I am absolutely committed to and it is one of the four priorities that make up the economic vision.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. The investment that you mentioned was made predominantly by the private sector. That was not good enough for Kieran Kennedy, a man who has dedicated himself to seeing economic fairness delivered for the north-west region. How do you expect that to be good enough for the people of Derry? Is it good enough for you?

Dr Archibald: As somebody who is from the north-west, I have a vested interest in making sure that it is invested in and that we absolutely deliver for the people whom we represent there. I know that the Member shares that. I am disappointed that Kieran felt that he had to take that decision. I understand his reasons for that, given the decision around the office in the north-west. I know that Invest NI is continuing to work to resolve that. As I have indicated, however, my commitment to delivering on regional balance is clear to see. The delivery that we have seen over recent weeks and months supports that, and I will ensure that that continues throughout my term in office.

Dr Archibald: I have not seen the CEO's comments, so I am not entirely sure what the Member is referring to, but I understand the gist of it. The Executive have made representations to the British Government about their decisions on the likes of employers' National Insurance contributions, and the Finance Minister continues to make our case in that regard. When it comes to Wrightbus, there are various supports available through Invest NI and the Department for skills development, R&D and innovation. We are happy to continue to work with Wrightbus on all those things.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Wrightbus is the largest employer in my constituency and is in the top 10 employers in Northern Ireland. It is ahead of its field in research and development by some margin. Will the Minister commit to applying pressure on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make sure that nothing in the UK unfairly disadvantages Wrightbus compared with its domestic competitors? If I write to the Minister, will she visit Wrightbus to hear first hand from the CEO?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. If you write to me, we will absolutely endeavour to fit that into the diary. I have no difficulty in engaging with the Secretary of State. As an Executive, we are united on some of the decisions that the British Government have taken since they have been in office and the impact that those decisions are having on local business. The Government claim to have an objective of economic growth. I do not think that the decisions that they have taken match that commitment.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have been fairly clear on the matter previously. The North/South interconnector is critical infrastructure for our renewable targets and ambitions and, most importantly, for cutting costs for consumers. I have been very clear about my party's position on the North/South interconnector. I have also been clear about the obligations that we have as a Department for taking that forward.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, I am not sure that you can disaggregate your party's position from your position as Minister. You claim that it is Sinn Féin's position that the pylons be undergrounded. How is that consistent with the position of your colleague the Infrastructure Minister who is fending off legal challenges from those who want the pylons to be undergrounded? To be clear, I want to see the project progress as currently designed.

Dr Archibald: The Member will be well aware that the project was approved by a previous Infrastructure Minister and that both Departments have obligations to deliver on what has been approved in respect of planning.

Dr Archibald: I am not aware of engagement with Invest NI on that piece of land specifically. If the Member wants to write to me about it, I will be happy to take on board what he is saying and to engage.

Mr Kingston: I will follow up on that in writing. I will also follow up on Glenbank industrial estate on the Crumlin Road in north Belfast where, again, significant land has lain empty for over 25 years.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Renewable energy consumption statistics have shown a slight reduction over the past year. The fluctuations that we see in our renewable energy consumption are for a variety of reasons, including the current constraint in our system, and do not necessarily reflect a reduction in renewable energy generation capacity.

On the offshore renewable energy action plan, consultation on the strategic environmental assessment and habitats regulations assessment has been completed, and work is ongoing on the next steps for delivering offshore. We recently saw a research report undertaken by InterTradeIreland that looked at the potential for offshore energy on the island of Ireland. We are significantly well placed in the types of sectors that are needed to support the supply chain. We therefore need to retain a focus on our renewable energy potential and on the natural assets that we clearly have.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, we have a target in the Climate Change Act to achieve 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. How important is offshore energy to our meeting that target? How likely is it that your Department will achieve it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. On Friday, we published the final scheme design for a renewable electricity price guarantee, which will be a significant lever for meeting the 80% target by 2030. It will encourage investment in renewables, which has very much dropped off since 2016, when the previous scheme ended. It will therefore be a significant player in helping us deliver on that target.

Work still needs to be done on offshore renewable energy, and, given the kinds of timelines that we are talking about, it is not really anticipated that it will play a big role in our meeting the 2030 target. It could be beyond 2030 before offshore renewable energy becomes a key part of what we are trying to deliver, which is why it was really important that we got the renewable energy price guarantee scheme published at the end of last week and why we will be pushing forward with the legislation to get that scheme established. The first auction to award contracts will be undertaken as soon as possible.

Dr Archibald: In June, following a comprehensive review, I outlined my proposals for a programme of reforms for school-leavers with special educational needs. Subject to appropriate investment, the changes will enhance the pathways and supports for school-leavers who want to access the Department's education, skills and training provision. Following my statement in the Assembly, I circulated a paper to Executive colleagues on a range of cross-cutting issues and on issues relating to other departmental remits. A collaborative approach is crucial to delivering on our Programme for Government commitment to all young people with special educational needs. My officials are working through the scoping exercises and planning for that significant reform programme and also making progress on early actions. We have led on the development of a joint bid to the transformation fund with the Department of Health, the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department for Infrastructure and have also prepared spending review bids.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Some parents are still very concerned that their young people will not be included and will therefore not be able to access post-19 SEN provision. Will you outline what conversations you are having with the Minister of Health specifically to ensure that young people can access provision and that they are getting sufficient help from the Department of Health as well as from your Department?

Dr Archibald: The Health Minister is sitting across the Chamber from me. He will confirm that we have engaged on the matter. My officials also have regular contact with the Department of Health on the review and on our proposals, as well as on the development of the joint bid to the transformation fund.

In June, I announced my intention to bring forward statutory assessment and support arrangements for learners with special educational needs accessing further education colleges. Officials are at the start of the process of developing detailed arrangements and will engage with Department of Health colleagues as part of the work. We understand the workforce and capacity challenges across our health and social care trusts, and that those can impact on the pace at which they agree and put in place arrangements for young people with care needs to access further education. The need to address capacity across the entire system is, however, one of the issues that I raised in my statement in June and on which I continue to engage with Executive colleagues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Very quickly, Peter.

Dr Archibald: The final two do not really fall to me. The Finance Minister has responsibility for rates. I have responsibility for businesses, and I will certainly engage with the Member on any proposals that he brings forward.

Obviously, I am aware of the programme of review, because I put it in place when I was Finance Minister. I spoke to one of the Member's colleagues earlier about National Insurance contributions. We continue to make representations to the British Government on the decisions that were taken and that have had a demonstrably damaging impact on local businesses in —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Sorry, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I did not get to answer the bit that —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know, but time has eluded us.

That ends questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Linda Dillon has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): In accordance with my written ministerial statement of 19 September, I reiterate that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust experienced an operational IT outage on the morning of 17 September. The issue was isolated to the Southern Trust, but, of course, it impacted across its sites. There is no suggestion that it was a cyber-related matter. The outage led to a loss of the computer network via two data centres, preventing access to key systems across the trust. The resultant impact necessitated the postponement of elective activity on 17 September and 18 September and the diversion of ambulances to other trust emergency departments (EDs) throughout 17 September. Community services were impacted to a lesser extent.

Both of the data centres impacted were restored by 5.00 pm on 17 September, providing access, in the first instance, to priority systems — that is the labs, emergency departments, intensive care units (ICUs) and night medicines — and Daisy Hill Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital then recommenced the receipt of ambulance arrivals at 9.00 pm and 10.30 pm respectively. The trust has commenced the rebooking of appointments in line with clinical prioritisation. My Department will support prompt rebooking via waiting list funding if required. Initial or verified data indicates that approximately 1,600 patients were impacted by postponements. It should be noted that there were no postponements beyond 17 and 18 September and that adult community clinics were not impacted during the major incident time frame. The major incident was formally stood down on the morning of 18 September. However, recovery efforts will continue for some time.

Of course, I empathise with and sincerely apologise to all who were affected.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for the written statement that we received, but, as with what we have heard today, that statement does not give us an understanding of why everything had to be cancelled on 18 September, given that the system was back up and running on 17 September by 5.00 pm. I appreciate that the Minister said that there will be a review, and that is important. Will the review give us some reassurances about the future resilience of the IT systems across our health service? Will we get detailed information on patients who were impacted beyond the 1,600 patients whom the Minister outlined? He said that work continues and that there will be an ongoing impact. How many more people do we not know about whose appointments, surgeries, red-flag referrals or diagnoses have been impacted? We need to understand how and when all those people will be accommodated. That means not only the 1,600 whom we know about but the knock-on effect that there will be for others. When will we get the detail on the time frame —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you.

Mrs Dillon: — of the review and all the detail that will come from that?

Mr Nesbitt: The incident lasted over two days because there had to be a great level of concern that rebooting the system, if I may use that phrase, too quickly could have led to a further collapse in the system. That is why it was brought on gradually with those priority areas, which, as I said, were the labs, emergency departments, ICUs and night-time medicines. There had to be caution about coming back on. As we stand, a few days on, we know what happened. A planned upgrade of software went wrong, but we do not know why it went wrong, so we need to know why. I am particularly interested to know why the two data centres malfunctioned. I am looking at it from the point of view of there being a primary system and a backup system. Clearly, if there is a backup system, that should not fall along with the primary one. Its exact existence is to be a backup when things start to go wrong.

As to the 1,600 people, what the trust will have to do now is look at the clinical priorities when rescheduling. It is inevitable and logical to assume that some people who have a date for a procedure will be asked to endure a postponement, because their condition is not as urgent as, perhaps, some of the 1,600 people whose appointments were postponed last week on 17 and 18 September. That bit of work will be ongoing over a number of days, if not a short number of weeks, because it is complex.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, the IT outage was hugely distressing for patients who have been waiting for, in some instances, a very long time and those who have been red-flagged for cancer and other issues. Will there be a coordinated regional response to the disruption? Will other trusts play any role in rescheduling the appointments that have been cancelled?

Mr Nesbitt: I should take the opportunity to say that it was stressful not just for patients and, to some extent, service users but for the staff who found that they could not perform as they had intended to. Some of those staff have built up personal and professional relationships with patients over a period. The fact that our waiting lists are far too long has probably compounded that, with professionals becoming much more accustomed to meeting and greeting and building those relationships with people.

I should also say that mutual aid was first-class in the early assessment. We are talking about, for example, emergency departments in other trusts receiving ambulances that otherwise would have gone to Daisy Hill or Craigavon Area Hospital. I was pleased with that. I thank all the staff involved and recognise the moral distress that that put them under.

As to whether that mutual aid will continue, with other trusts accepting some of the 1,600 patients for procedures, that is a clinical matter to be decided by the Southern Trust in liaison with the other four trusts. I am not aware of where that conversation has got to. I have spoken to my chief digital officer twice today about the time frame for figuring out why what went wrong went wrong. There will be other meetings today about how we prioritise those 1,600 people on the elective lists.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, it was a pretty catastrophic event, given that the main system and the backup system went wrong, with fairly difficult outworkings.

I have been approached by constituents who were in Craigavon Area Hospital on the night of Monday 8 September. They indicated that, on that night, there was also an IT system glitch and that patients saw staff running about and scrambling for pen, paper etc. First, is that accurate? Secondly, do we know the cause of the outage? I hope that the cause was not a computer system that was limping along and then just had a catastrophic failure on 17 September.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, is there a question?

Mrs Dodds: Thank you.

Mr Nesbitt: I will not endorse the Member's description that it was a "catastrophic event". It was certainly a very serious event, particularly for the 1,600 people whose elective procedures were cancelled. However, the hospital continued to function to some degree and emergencies were dealt with, so I will stick with a "very serious event" rather than a "catastrophic event".

As to the allegations that there was some sort of glitch on the evening of Monday 8 September, that is news to me. Believe me: there will be officials in the Department who are listening to and watching this, and they will be on the case, trying to verify or otherwise what happened.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I welcome the fact that it seems that the trust responded at pace and that it was able to draw on technical expertise from other corners of Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the trust should leave no opportunity unutilised in booking in patients as quickly as possible again, especially those requiring urgent and time-critical treatment?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I agree with the Member. As I indicated, clinical decisions will be made about the 1,600 who had their elective procedures postponed. That will have a knock-on effect for others who are on the list, waiting for procedures, because it will be done according to clinical priority.

I also commend the trust for the speed and effectiveness with which it instigated its business-continuity arrangements; in other words, how it dealt with that very serious incident. All staff are to be commended on their efforts during the incident and for restoring access within 24 hours of the outage. That was a lot quicker than any early estimate, so, once again, I commend the staff for that.

Mr McGrath: Many more people are getting a health service that relies on that key IT facility to help them to deliver it. When it collapses, it creates the difficulties and problems. There were suggestions that there were difficulties in another trust area, with people not being able to log on the week before. Is it not the case that the Executive are just not investing in the critical infrastructure required to deliver the services that we need and that we need to see more money being directed towards IT services so that everything can be delivered properly?

Mr Nesbitt: I concur with the Member: you can invest and invest in all sorts of areas of health and social care. I make the point again that there is a gap of many hundreds of millions of pounds in the current budget for health and social care. However, on IT, particularly encompass, I emphasise yet again that what happened was not a cyberattack, nor was it some sort of systemic failure in Epic, which is the engine that drives encompass. We still do not know why it went wrong. However, encompass is a world leader.

The Member will be aware that, when Labour came to power, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in London, Wes Streeting, said that he wanted to achieve three shifts, one of which was moving from an analogue to a digital healthcare system. We are ahead of the game. All of our health and social care trusts are on encompass, but it is like that old saying: when it works, it's great; when it doesn't work, you have a major problem — and I very much regret that.

Ms Forsythe: I agree with the comment made by my colleague Diane Dodds on the catastrophic element of the outage. As we move to digitisation of public services, things suffer difficulties. This is not just being unable to book your MOT; this is life and death and access to healthcare systems. When the incident happened, the communications from the constituents who contacted me showed a lot of stress. The Minister has addressed some of that in the Chamber today by saying, "It was not a cyberattack; your data has not been compromised". However, on reflection, will the communications that went out to the public be part of the review and —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your question.

Ms Forsythe: — the rate at which they come out in future?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Diane, thank you. Minister?

Mr Nesbitt: The trust did the best that it could in communicating in live time with patients, service users and the population more generally. Of course, that was compounded by the fact that the IT systems were down, because the IT systems are the primary means of communication. That will, of course, be part of the review.

Two processes in the review will follow what happened on 17 and 18 September. In the first instance, it will be a core review of why it went wrong. That review will be shared across the trusts in case there are learnings for the other trusts. The other review will be of how well the trust was able to employ its business-continuity arrangements — in other words, to continue to try to serve patients and service users. Once again, there may be learnings for all the trusts, because, as I said, a form of mutual aid was employed, not least with ambulances going to emergency departments in hospitals in other trusts.

The Member said that this was "catastrophic". I wonder what descriptor she would have used if somebody had actually died in an incident like this. There is not a lot left in the thesaurus above and beyond "catastrophic".

Mr McGuigan: Minister, you said that the issue arose when the trust was initiating an update to its IT system. I am not an IT expert, but I imagine that that might be a fairly regular occurrence, not just in the Southern Trust but across the trusts. You talked a wee bit about lessons to be learned by other trusts: is there concern that any of this might happen across other trusts when they do IT updates?

Mr Nesbitt: From a personal point of view, yes, there is concern. That concern will remain until I am satisfied that we know not just what happened but why. As the Member suggested, I imagine that updates to IT systems happen all the time. On my smartphone, apps seem to be updated hourly, or perhaps even more frequently. That is one of the issues on which my chief digital officer will report back to me. The core point is that, until we know why it happened, I will remain concerned, and I may be concerned once I know the reason.

Mr Robinson: Minister, can you give absolute confidence to the House that no patient data or staff information was compromised or lost as a result of the incident?

Mr Nesbitt: I believe that I am in that position. I certainly have not been made aware that there was any leakage of personal data or, indeed, any other data. As I understand it, the system simply stopped working, which means that it was not transmitting any information. If that is the case, that is the assurance for the Member.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from Colm Gildernew of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): First, I fully acknowledge that even one incident in which personal data is compromised is unacceptable and can have a serious impact on the individuals involved. In this case, investigations by my officials have determined that the breach was due to human error. It has been established that, in this instance, checks to verify that outgoing mail is directed to the correct address and that each envelope contains only the pertinent information for the designated customer were not completed fully. The data in question was retrieved promptly, a data protection incident was raised, and an early referral was made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) while the investigations were under way. My Department continues to work through its established data incident reporting process, and I can advise that, as part of the major incident reporting process, officials will contact the ICO to close the case with it, given that the information has been retrieved and that the information disclosed is not likely to present a high risk to the data subjects.

All PIP staff have been advised of the incident. There will be renewed focus on the control measures that are in place and on the importance of the security of personal customer information. In addition, in conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, a compliance audit will be initiated as a matter of urgency on the personal independence payment centre's document handling approach. It is expected that that will take four to six weeks to complete, after which learning will be shared across teams to identify areas where improvements to data handling processes can be made.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for that explanation and his reference to having taken steps to ensure that no further such occurrence might take place. The Minister has answered that part of the question. What communication have his officials had with people whose data was leaked, in order to reassure them?

Mr Lyons: We have not had any correspondence with the people whose correspondence and data was shared in error. It has been agreed not to do so as the information that was disclosed is not sensitive and that to advise the data subjects may cause unnecessary or disproportionate distress. That is line with the approach outlined in the ICO's guidance.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that this was a really distressing time, particularly for the people whose information was leaked. Official error overpayments on universal credit rose by 31% last year. Will you commit to publishing open, transparent error data, given that this was individual error?

Mr Lyons: First, it is important to note that that distress has not occurred because of what I outlined in response to the previous question. The information is not disclosed, but we understand the potential for distress, especially if what is considered to be sensitive information is leaked. We want to do everything that we can to make sure that this does not happen again.

The error here was not in payments made; rather, information was disclosed that should not have been. Of course, we will take all steps that we can to be as transparent about this as possible. That is why I am here today answering the questions and, hopefully, giving people confidence that we will learn from this and put measures in place so that it does not happen again.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister please outline what data protection training his staff have to avoid this type of data breach incident?

Mr Lyons: Yes, of course. Training and procedures are in place so that something like this should not happen. Unfortunately, it has happened, which is why we are going to put those extra steps in place. In conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, the compliance audit will be initiated as a matter of urgency. That will take a few weeks to complete, but it is important that we do that and share the learning not only within the individual team involved but with everybody.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister advise how many instances like this happen in a year? Can he help to contextualise it as regards the total correspondence that his Department sends by post?

Mr Lyons: The Department for Communities has over a million customers, some of whom receive correspondence monthly or even more often than that. That gives some indication of the millions of pieces of correspondence that we send out in a year. I have been informed that the number of major breaches in a year numbers under 20 and that referrals to the Information Commissioner's Office are required only once or twice a year. I am not sure what the exact maths is on that, but 20 breaches out of millions of documents sent out is a relatively small proportion. However, that does not mean that we are complacent. As I said in my opening response, one is too many, and we will take all the steps that we can to make sure that the process is more secure.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you have answered the question that I was going to ask, but, since you have been talking, I have become very concerned. You cannot say that somebody will not be harmed by an information leak if they do not know about it. From my understanding from the Information Commissioner's Office, the information that was shared is National Insurance numbers, addresses and names, and those are the very basics. Therefore, would it not be better, given the rise of identity theft, that those people are notified of the potential threat to them and their privacy?

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to take the Member's advice on these things, but we are also guided by the approach of and guidance given by the ICO. That is what we are following in this instance. I am more than happy to hear from her if she has any alternative views on that, but that is the information that I have been given, and that is the approach that we are following.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister expand on the specific measures that are in place in the Department to prevent such breaches?

Mr Lyons: As I outlined in my original answer, a process is in place that will mean that the sharing of such documents is not left to one person. There is meant to be a checking process in place. Unfortunately, due to human error, that did not take place in this instance, and that is why the mistake happened. I hope that it will not happen again. In conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, a compliance audit will be done to see what, if any, improvements can be made to our data-handling approach. As I said earlier, the learning from that will be shared across teams to see where improvements in data-handling can be made.

Mr Durkan: As the Minister outlined in his response to his colleague, that type of error is mercifully rare, or at least reports of that type of error are, but it clearly does happen. Will the incident perhaps inform a more lenient approach from the Department in instances in which people claim not to have received correspondence but the Department insists that they have?

Mr Lyons: I will certainly take those points on board. This incident was slightly different, however, in that extra information was provided. I will need to check the processes to make sure that those who were supposed to get the information that was sent elsewhere can get it. If the Member is hearing about individual issues, I am content to look at them. I would be surprised, however, if the Department were to take a heavy-handed approach to one piece of correspondence that has not come through. Often, people repeatedly say that they have not got letter after letter, which sometimes stretches credibility. Of course, if the Member knows of specific instances that he wants me to look at, I am more than happy to do so. We need to make sure that we have a system in place that does what it is meant to do, is accurate and in which people can have confidence, and that is what I want to achieve.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions on the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease while the top Table is changed.

Mr McNulty: Communities and families across the north-west have been told time and again that the A5 scheme will be delivered, that it will transform connectivity, that it will unlock economic potential and, crucially, that it will make a dangerous stretch of road safer for all who use it, yet here we are, years on, with not a sod having been turned and more families left to grieve loved ones whose lives have tragically been lost on that treacherous road. My heart goes out to every grieving family.

The truth is that communities in the north-west have waited far too long. They have faced delay after delay, legal challenge after legal challenge and excuse after excuse from Ministers and their Executive parties. The Public Accounts Committee warned years ago that the scheme needed to be legally watertight. Those warnings were ignored, and now, yet again, the project is stalled in the courts because Ministers failed to do the groundwork properly. That is unacceptable. It is about more than just bureaucratic incompetence; it has real, human consequences. Every delay risks more lives.

I pay tribute to the families who have lost loved ones along the road and to the A5 Enough is Enough campaign. Their determination, courage and dignity has kept the issue at the top of the political agenda. I say this to them: keep going. However, they should not have to beg for action year after year. Government should have delivered the project by now. Those people should not have had to bury more sons and daughters and mothers and fathers while Ministers passed the buck.

Sinn Féin's amendment is about themselves alone and about clapping themselves on the back, really. It attempts to absolve them of responsibility and to rewrite history. However, we know the truth: Sinn Féin ignored the Planning Appeals Commission's recommendation. They left the scheme legally vulnerable, and their responsibility for the scheme's collapse has been denied. The amendment is a whitewash, and, therefore, we oppose it.

The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law but Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design and procurement of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 project would still have collapsed because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Sinn Féin Ministers. Is it true that there was no accommodation or requirement in the tender process or tender documents for recycled materials to be included in the A5 construction project? Who is responsible for that oversight? The people of the north-west can and must be safe and have modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is a diversion, and we will oppose it.

The Ulster Unionist Party's amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgency of road safety, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be: the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers and their Executive. For that reason, we will oppose it as well.

We should not have been in this position in the first place. If Ministers had acted on the warnings that were given to them and ensured that the scheme was legally sound, we would not be here debating yet another delay. We in the Assembly have a duty to the people whom we represent. The Executive must finally make good on their long-overdue promises. Communities in the west deserve the same level of infrastructure investment as has been taken for granted elsewhere. The message today must be clear: no more excuses or prevarication. The A5 scheme must begin construction before the end of the mandate. Lives literally depend on it.

People in the north-west have waited too long. Families have endured too much heartache. Businesses have been disadvantaged for too many years. It is not just about a road; it is about fairness. It is about safety and delivering on commitments that should have been honoured long ago. It is time for the Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive to stop dithering and failing and to finally deliver the A5 western transport corridor (WTC). Enough is enough.

Mr Gaston: My thoughts are with the families and those who have lost loved ones. They continue to be let down by the political fallout from net zero, which now puts all future infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland at risk.

The A5 motion is a strange one for the "constructive Opposition" to table on its first Opposition day of the new term. The motion exposes the hypocrisy of the mad environmental zealots by delivering to them a good dose of reality. The SDLP has tabled a motion complaining about the fallout from the very climate change legislation that it so enthusiastically endorsed at every stage in the Assembly.

Let us roll the clock back a few years. The record shows that the SDLP repeatedly argued that there was urgent need for a climate change Bill. One Member even attacked others in the House by claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus supported the SDLP's position. Now, however, as the Climate Change Act drags the A5 project below the waterline, the SDLP is the first out of the traps to propose a non-binding motion to demand that construction begin before the end of the mandate.

Justice McAlinden did not invent section 52; the SDLP and its climate change mates made sure that it was enshrined in law. The High Court did not block the A5 for fun but enforced the very provisions that the SDLP supported. Where is the honesty from the SDLP and, indeed, Sinn Féin and Alliance? A few years ago, they were tripping over themselves to pass that legislation.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr McCrossan: The Member is living in a parallel universe. We explained clearly that it did not matter whether it had been an 82% reduction in carbon emissions or 100% net zero; the fact is that, typically, the Departments did not consult each other or follow due process. Does the Member even know where west of the Bann is? He does not reference it too often in a positive light.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr McCrossan. Yes, I know where west of the Bann is. Following the next election, hopefully, it will have better representation from this side of the Chamber from people who will actually stand up for the people there.

My goodness, the Member talks about net zero, and he mentioned figures. The problem is with net zero and the climate change fanatics. Let us look at it. Why did the project fail to withstand legal challenge? It failed because of section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. If one takes the time to read the judgement, one will see that Justice McAlinden reproduced that entire section in his decision. In contrast, the TUV has always been clear that the Climate Change Act's emissions targets are not practical. They are detrimental not just to Northern Ireland's infrastructure but, importantly, to its agriculture industry.

I will not support the motion, and I see no reason why the A5 project alone should be exempted from an Act that, as my party warned at the time, set the Province on the wrong path. It is the height of hypocrisy to cheer that into law and then to come here and complain when the very law that they championed rightly dispels the A5.

It is a product of the made-in-Stormont mess, and the SDLP cannot wash its hands of it. I ask myself when we will see that happen, as it inevitably will. First, we have the A5, and, next, the Act will begin to bite on farming. Will the SDLP come back to the House to look for special treatment for farmers, or is it only the A5, Mr McCrossan?

Mr McCrossan: It is the A5 all the way, Mr Gaston.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members.

Mr Gaston: I think not. Judging by the SDLP's support for the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals in the House a number of weeks ago, it wants to decimate the agriculture industry. Is it only when the West Tyrone farmers dare to use the SDLP's own legislation against it that it suddenly gets exercised about the A5?

The motion should not be about seeking special treatment for the A5. It should recognise the folly —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — of the Climate Change Act in relation to all future infrastructure projects —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — and the impact that it will have on farming. I am happy to give way.

Mr McCrossan: It is a bit insulting for the Member to suggest that the delivery of the A5 represents special treatment. What about the 57 people who have been killed on the road and those who travel on it daily to take their kids to school and to go to work? It is an absolute insult and spells out exactly why the Member's party will not grow or survive west of the Bann.

Mr Gaston: I am sorry, Mr McCrossan, but I started my contribution by saying that my heart goes out to the families of every victim of the A5. Let me tell you, Mr McCrossan, that this is not the only infrastructure safety upgrade that will fall because of your climate madness. You could not wait to get through the Lobbies and bring it into force, and now, when it has come back to bite you in your own backyard, you are saying, "We should set it aside for the A5." All lives matter, and the A5 should not be prioritised over other future upgrades —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, your time is up.

Mr Gaston: — that will ultimately fall because of your climate madness.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

I thank Members for speaking in the debate. I now call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

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

I express once again my extreme disappointment at the decision that we received from the High Court on Monday 23 June. It is important to say that it was hugely disappointing not just for me but, in particular, for all the families and campaigners, including the Enough is Enough campaign, which I have engaged with frequently, and for all who have been extremely diligent and steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that the road is built. My thoughts are always with the families who are living with the unimaginable grief of losing a loved one and with those who are living with injuries as a result of collisions along the road. That is at the forefront of my mind in everything that I do and will continue to drive me to get the road built.

As the House will know, the A5 is an Executive flagship project and, as such, cuts across the responsibilities of all Executive Ministers. Members will be aware that the A5 dualling has been in development since 2007 and has been the subject of successive public inquiries and legal challenges. It is important to clarify the timeline and who was involved and at what stage, because a very inaccurate timeline has been provided by the proposer of the motion. He insinuates that it was always Sinn Féin that held the brief when those decisions were taken or legal challenges were made. Despite his assurance that Conor Murphy failed to deliver the scheme, in fact, the first decision to proceed was made in 2012 by the Minister for what was then the Department for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, not Conor Murphy. His decision and the associated orders were subsequently quashed following a High Court challenge based on environmental grounds.

In 2016, the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, published new environmental information, which led to a second public inquiry later that year. That informed the second formal decision to proceed with the scheme in 2017 in the absence of Ministers, and that decision was subsequently quashed by the High Court in 2018. In 2019, the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) was appointed to hold a third public inquiry, and, in 2021, following receipt of an interim report from the Planning Appeals Commission, the then Minister, Minister Mallon, announced her decision to update and consult on further environmental information. That updated environmental information was subject to scrutiny at the subsequent public inquiry in 2023, leading to the final Planning Appeals Commission report and its recommendations in October 2023. Responding to those recommendations formed the substantial basis for the formal decision of Minister O'Dowd in October 2024. I disagree that it sat on his desk for a year. Members will find that he was very diligent in the work that led to his decision.

At the time of each decision to proceed, there was, as there will continue to be, new and emerging legislation, case laws and policy directives that must be considered by the decision maker in detail. Each decision is vulnerable to potential new legal challenges. For example, the judgement of 2012 related to the interpretation of the habitat regulations. That is now recognised case law and must be adhered to by all scheme promoters across Europe. With the latest challenge, the Climate Change Act has been under legal scrutiny for the first time.

Unfortunately — a point that has been lost in the debate — a small minority group of individuals is opposed to the scheme. Those individuals have used every means possible to frustrate the efforts of the Executive and subsequent Ministers to deliver the scheme; in fact, at the most recent judgement, their legal representative said that it was a result of an 18-year crusade. That tells me all we need to know.

Given the ongoing appeal and despite Members asking numerous questions about what the appeal will look like, I cannot get into the specifics. I do not know of too many court cases where you show your hand before you get into court. I can say that my Department worked extremely closely with experienced senior and junior counsel, one of whom is now a High Court judge.

The calibre of the people whom we have working on the case in itself demonstrates how seriously my predecessor and the Department have taken the case, particularly during the extensive development of my Department's detailed response to the PAC's recommendations, despite implications in the debate that they were ignored. They absolutely were not ignored. That advice was followed diligently by officials in my Department at all times. Officials also collaborated closely with other Departments in drafting those responses.

The barristers worked hand in hand with my officials in preparing the voluminous and complex documentation that was laid in front of my predecessor and all Ministers around the Executive table for consideration in taking the decision to proceed with the scheme in October 2024. That comprehensive documentation, thorough analysis and attention to detail involved in developing the project, including the environmental statement, reports to inform appropriate assessments and various other impact assessments, comprised many thousands of pages, exceeding by far the scope of any comparable scheme previously undertaken in the North. A number of SDLP speakers said that John O'Dowd ignored the PAC recommendations and that we did not take into consideration the use of other materials in the construction process to ensure that we reduced carbon emissions. If you had read the departmental statement of 2024, you would know that every one of those points was addressed. I ask Members to take the time to read it, because it is clear that it has not been read in full.

Following Executive agreement, Minister O'Dowd made his decision to proceed with the section between Strabane and Ballygawley in October last year. The Department was served with legal proceedings challenging that authorisation in November, and the case, as you know, was heard at the High Court during March and April this year. The judgement provided on 23 June was extremely detailed and complex, and I cannot emphasise those points enough. We cannot pick and choose a single line here and there out of a judgement and use them as the solution. That is not reality. The court upheld the Department's position on four of the seven grounds of challenge. In essence, though, the court did not accept that the Department had demonstrated sufficient certainty in fulfilling the duties under section 52 of the Climate Change Act, considering the human rights implications of the rejection of the PAC's recommendation that the order should be time-limited to reduce the impact of uncertainty on local people and ensuring that the methodology and calculated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of induced traffic were subject to consultation.

At the time of Minister O'Dowd's decision, uncertainty surrounded when the first three carbon budgets would be set, and the climate action plan was not at an advanced stage of development. Assumptions about the increased carbon emissions associated with the A5 WTC project had been shared with DAERA and the Department for the Economy as part of the engagement undertaken by my Department. In recognition of the absence of a cap, my Department provided the Executive with a suite of documents and information for their consideration in the summer of last year. That included hundreds of pages of scientific and environmental evidence of mitigations. It included assessments of the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the construction and operation of the A5 — the first time that that was done for any project of this nature in the North. The work was carried out on a cross-departmental basis with DAERA and Department for the Economy. That rationale was accepted by the Executive, and, on that basis, the Minister was assured that, in the absence of a cap, the Executive were aware that there would need to be carbon trade-offs to facilitate the building of this Executive flagship project and reach net zero by 2050. In light of all of that extensive engagement and discussion, the Minister made his decision to proceed, because he was willing to stand up and ensure that the project was delivered.

Following the court order to quash the decision and orders on 27 June, the ownership of vested lands reverted to the original landowners with effect from that date. Once the appeal was served on 6 August, officials wrote to all landowners identifying the proposed next steps in the treatment of their lands that had been the subject of vesting. My Department is offering a payment for landowners to enter into a licence agreement to hold the land in its current state. Landowners will also receive payment for use and occupation of their lands between the making of orders on 25 November 2024 and 27 June 2025, when ownership of vested lands reverted to them. Officials are actively engaging with landowners and their agents to arrange on-site meetings to discuss and agree the landowners' preference in relation to the options available. A total of 14 meetings were completed last week, and additional meetings are planned for this week. My Department is absolutely committed to keeping landowners informed and to working constructively with them and their agents and will arrange meetings with landowners to discuss the next steps. It is important to note that there are over 300 landowners involved in the scheme.

Members asked about the implementation of fresh road safety measures on the A5. The Department continually monitors safety across the road network, including the existing A5, to ensure that the current measures are appropriate. A review of additional potential safety improvements on the A5 is being carried out — it will include some of the issues that have been raised during the debate — to identify any further practical interventions that could ensure the safety of the road. In the last financial year, the Department undertook a series of targeted road safety enhancements along the existing A5 corridor aimed at improving visibility, driver awareness and surface performance, including refreshing white lines, replacing signs and catseyes and completing localised resurfacing. Further resurfacing work is programmed for this year.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. As part of that suite of improvements, will the Department consider a speed reduction on certain parts of the road?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, everything is being looked at to see whether we can improve the safety of the road. The most important point made by the court was the need for a new and safer A5 so that no name is added to the long list of people who have died on the existing road. That is my focus. Yes, we will look at everything in the interim, but that is my focus, because that is undeniably the solution to all of this. Despite the setback of the judgement, I am absolutely determined to find a way forward that sees the road built as soon as possible to ensure that we save lives and no more names are added to that list.

As Members will know, I have lodged an appeal against the recent judgement. If I agreed with the motion and amendment Nos 2 and 3, I would not have lodged that appeal — I may as well have just conceded that we should not bother — but I am absolutely determined that we can win that appeal. We will throw everything at the appeal to ensure that we get this over the line, because not only is that considered necessary to get the road built and to save lives, but it will seek to resolve the important points of law that will affect all parties concerned. We have heard Members speak to that as part of the debate and as part of other discussions and debates in the Chamber on all infrastructure and capital projects. Whilst my immediate priority remains the preparation of a robust appeal, the ultimate aim is to ensure delivery of this flagship project, and I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that that happens.

Over the past 18 years of the project, costs have risen substantially, but, more important, almost 60 people have lost their lives. That means 60 families have lost a loved one, and that is not even including those who have been left with life-changing injuries and long-term effects on their lives. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends, and some, I am sure, were friends and family members of my colleagues and other Members around the Chamber. That must never be forgotten, which is why I am determined to build the A5. I am not interested in sound bites; I am interested in solutions. I will join anybody across the House who wants to work with me and my officials to ensure that we see the A5 scheme delivered as soon as possible so that no more lives are lost.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your response. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may not use my five minutes. A lot has been said during the debate, and, as I laid out when I moved the amendment, having three mutually exclusive amendments shows the amount of thought that all parties have put into it. The debate has shown that we are all singularly on one track and that we want to see the A5 delivered as expediently as possible in order to, as the Minister rightly pointed out, save lives. I thank the Minister for being explicit that saving lives is her primary commitment and for recognising that the road runs through land pertaining to around 300 individuals and that that has made it complex.

I will turn to the amendments and demonstrate our voting intention. The Sinn Féin amendment probably does not go far enough. It acknowledges what Departments have done since the judgement, which is fine, although I am not sure that the whole House agrees on that, but that does not erase the fact that poor independent departmental working created the problem in the first place. It is fundamental that we learn from the mistakes not just of this Executive but of previous Governments here and of the silo mentality in Departments. That work is ongoing. Some Members, particularly those on the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, will understand that we are aware of that work and alive to it.

The Sinn Féin amendment also welcomes the appeal, but appeals take time. We know that lawyers — solicitors and law firms — make a lot of money out of elongating their arguments. They can make compelling arguments in litigation. Unfortunately, that will not lead to delivery of the A5. We do not have the luxury of waiting until the legal process has concluded before the road is improved. It would be good, particularly for the relevant constituency Members, to note the improvements that will be made even in the short term, Minister.

The DUP amendment veers off into reopening the debate on climate targets. Even if we were to accede to doing that — I know that many would want us to — the difficulty is that doing so would add possibly 10 years on to the delivery of the A5 scheme, because it would add a complex layer and a possible further barrier to delivering the road upgrade. It is a separate argument that may have merit, but it will not help deliver the scheme any sooner. The other thing is that, if we were to change the law every time that we come back here, we would never move forward. There is a time for reflection and a time for improvement.

I ask Members to consider a few points to do with our amendment. It does not duck the hard questions. It insists that the A5 be built but that that be done legally, safely and respectfully. We are genuinely not here to win headlines but to save lives, and that is exactly what our amendment's first priority is. I will say again, however, that respect for landowners is not an optional extra. Without it, trust collapses, delays mount and legal challenges multiply. The scheme has to be delivered with fairness at its core.

On a wider point, it is about public safety. Every week of delay is a week of increased risk. That is why we say, "Build the road, but, if there are delays, improve safety immediately, because families deserve nothing less". I will not critique or point out what Members have offered to the debate. Everybody has offered something of note, and I hope that, when we vote on the amendments and the motion, there is a collective response that the Ulster Unionist amendment offers the most clarity and certainty. I ask Members to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Gary Middleton to wind on amendment No 2. Gary, you also have up to five minutes.

Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been disappointing, particularly the opening contribution. Today's party political point-scoring has been no different from the SDLP posters that have appeared along the route. People see through that type of political posturing. People want to see progress and solutions. Anybody who believes that the motion that the Opposition has tabled will bring about solutions will be bitterly disappointed.

In fairness to Members across the Chamber, I acknowledge that a number of common themes have been raised. The first has been the issue of families and those who have been bereaved. I add my sympathies not only to those who have lost loved ones on the road but to those who have been seriously injured along the route. The outcome of the judgement and the A5 scheme delay has understandably caused great upset to those families and to the campaigners who have long championed the project in the name of road safety. That is deeply disappointing, and it was a difficult ruling for them. Of course, those of us who are involved with bereavement charities that support families who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic collisions hear from them daily, and the last thing that they want to hear is the sort of cheap, party political point-scoring that we have heard from some across the Chamber today.

Another theme was the benefits of the A5. We all recognise that there are economic benefits, including jobs and prosperity for the north-west region. That those benefits are valued goes without saying.

The judgement has also caused significant distress and uncertainty for landowners and farming families whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. They still seek clarity and guidance on their future. Farmers have had their land ripped up, and, in some cases, it will be unable to be farmed again. That has caused a lot of devastation. Local people are crying out for clarity on the future of the project and where it is going.

Once again, the project has been brought to a grinding halt. The judgement was based on climate legislation. My party warned against the kind of damaging consequences that could come out of that. We warned about the unrealistic targets that are in the legislation. It was pushed through by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. We warned that it would tie the Department's hands in the future. The very politicians who championed that legislation are now lamenting its impact. It is a stunning display of political virtue-signalling coming home to roost. Those politicians celebrated the passing of the climate change legislation believing that they could have not only their headline-grabbing climate change targets but their major infrastructure projects. Of course, they were proven wrong.

This is not just about the A5, as important as it is. The ruling also sets a dangerous precedent for other major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, not least phase 2 of the A6 project, which could be impacted on in the future. The time for empty rhetoric and point-scoring is over. We need clarity and leadership, particularly from the Department. In the interim, I ask that the Minister continue to look at road safety measures and at what we can do in the meantime to prevent further deaths and incidents on the road. We also have to send out the message that we need people to drive carefully on the roads and to be mindful of the fact that, when we are behind the wheel of a vehicle, we all have a responsibility to ensure safety.

In the main, this was a fairly productive debate, albeit some disappointing remarks came from the usual sidelines.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colm Gildernew to make the winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

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

I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. From the outset, I set out the fact that my thoughts and feelings are with all those, including clubmates and family friends of mine, who have lost loved ones on that road over so many years and at a very young age. Every single one of those tragedies is an individual disaster for those families, that community and their friends. That has been well endorsed by everyone in the Chamber and should be central to everything that we do.

I want to focus some of my remarks, however, on the fact that the lack of an adequate, modern road in that part of the country — I mean up through Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry, connecting to Donegal and Monaghan and right on down to Dublin — impacts completely on key economic, health, social and strategic imperatives. First, on the economy, our businesses in the mid-Ulster and south Tyrone area are world-leading in engineering, food production and other forms of manufacturing and innovation. They deserve good connectivity to the rest of the world. They contribute massively to the economy here. They deserve a road that is sufficient to get their goods, workers and customers in and out — all that. Our people in that part of the country deserve to have roads that are as good as they are anywhere else. At this point in time, we do not have them.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Given that Mid Ulster has the highest rate of GDP outside of Belfast city centre, does he agree that businesses there have been able to achieve that not because of but in spite of a lack of infrastructure and that that is another reason why that project is vital?

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

Mr Gildernew: Absolutely. Within 15 miles of where I live, there are businesses operating that are equivalent to five Bombardiers. They send materials all over the world, put in their own generators and build their own sheds. They do all that. They are entitled to have such a road.

Secondly, I want to touch on health. Do not doubt this for a second, but it will be impossible to deliver health transformation without delivering proper infrastructure. You simply cannot deliver health services to a rural geography without addressing the main way in which you move people around in an emergency and the timing of that. The A5 is critical for health transformation and access to health for all our people day and daily, and that includes emergency health and healthcare.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the social and community element. I thank the Minister, who came up to Aughnacloy over the summer months to look at the impact that the A5 is having on that town. Essentially, you cannot cross the main street in Aughnacloy at any time of the day or a large part of the night without the traffic on one of the main roads in Ireland having to stop in both directions to let you across. That is the impact. It cuts like a knife through the town of Aughnacloy and through Garvaghy and Glenchuil, dividing those communities. When the road was built, it served and was usable by the community. The traffic volumes that have built, with more strategic traffic on the road, are now a barrier to people crossing the road. Either they take the risk, literally risking their life, or simply put off their visit and do not bother.

That is why — I am touching on the UUP amendment and Robbie's remarks — it is important to remember that the community needs a decent road. The single carriageway road that exists now should be for community use. The road has two purposes: strategic traffic and local traffic. Both need to be facilitated, and they have different needs. Community traffic needs exits off the road all along the way, and the strategic traffic needs to be able to continue. The danger and the cause of a lot of the accidents on the A5 are in the fact that there are so many turn-offs, including roads, lanes and gates, in every one of which is a potential hazard and a potential fatal accident. That is why a new dual carriageway has to be built offline.

The road is also important in the day-to-day delivery of social healthcare. Rather than cross the road, agency staff sometimes travel miles just to use a roundabout in order to come back.

My fourth point is a strategic one.

May I check whether I have an extra minute for the intervention?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you. Not that I will need it — not half. [Laughter.]

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: Quickly, Robbie.

Mr Butler: I will be quick. I just caution that, even when the road is upgraded, there will be inherent dangers, as with any road, to do with things such as speed. It would be wrong to send a message that delivery of the road absolves anybody of the responsibility to drive appropriately.

Mr Gildernew: Absolutely. People's driving should be in keeping with the road conditions; that is another factor that we need to consider.

In strategic terms, we need to develop the western economic corridor into the equivalent of what runs from Dublin to Belfast to allow businesses not only west of the Bann, as we say, but in the west of Ireland the equal opportunity that they need to trade and thrive in the way that we all want to see. We will not develop or deliver regional balance in the North unless we crack that nut and provide good roads.

The A5 project rightly remains an Executive priority, and there is massive social licence for it, for all the reasons that we have talked about today. No one should put that in jeopardy by playing politics for perceived short-term gain. I am proud to have sat beside my colleague today as she set out the reality of the situation and what she is going to do about it through a series of solutions and actions. Let us understand that what we need are solutions and not sound bites. Sin é.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Patsy McGlone to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech. Mr McGlone, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. The theme throughout has been that those who have lost family members along the road are uppermost in our thoughts and prayers. That loss is deeply disturbing for them and an awful cross to carry through the rest of their lives. That should be uppermost in the debate.

The motion was proposed by my colleague Daniel McCrossan, who referred to delays and mismanagement, the growth in the cost of the project, the need to deal with the condition of the road at the moment and the significant role of the Irish Government. I listened carefully to Mr Gildernew's comments about the requirement for the road to help to develop the west. Helping to address the regional imbalance is key, and the role of the Irish Government in that is pivotal.

Nicola Brogan supported the Minister in her efforts on the scheme. Mr Martin referred to Mr Justice McAlinden's application of the law. I read one element of the judgement last night. It was a wee bit concerning that he said that the Department's approach could be construed as a case of, "Whatever you're having yourself". He referred, as many Members did, to additional measures for road safety along the route.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr McGlone: OK.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that it would be a good idea to read the entire judgement? He would then see everything in context.

Mr McGlone: I can tell you that, in fact, I actually did. We will come to that later on.

Criticism of climate change targets was a common theme among the issues that were raised, particularly by the DUP. Following on from that, I hope that those Members will not be climate change deniers. Climate change is happening all around us, and that would really not be the place to go.

Speaking to his amendment, Mr Butler mentioned the legislative framework, the losses of families and the conflict between Departments, which I will return to in a moment or two. Mr McReynolds referred to the road safety issues and to Mr Justice McAlinden's ruling. Declan McAleer highlighted the importance of the appeal. Stephen Dunne mentioned the human costs, the impacts on families and the tragedy of that. Over the past 18 years, we have been suffering because the Executive have been grappling with the terms for the road project. Whether we are talking about investment in infrastructure, practical steps to improve road safety or whatever way you choose to dress it up, it needs to be done.

Andrew McMurray spoke about the failure to deliver. He referred to the climate action plan and the need to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act. Justin McNulty talked about fairness, equality and people's safety. Timothy Gaston spoke about the issue as fallout from the Climate Change Act, but it was actually fallout from non-compliance with the law.

The Minister talked about the ongoing legal proceedings and defended the calibre of the officials who are working on the case. She went through the chronology of events, including on the issues relating to landowners' compensation. Gary Middleton spoke about point-scoring and about the climate change targets. Again, I hope and trust that the DUP is not going in the direction of denying the climate change that is all around us.

We tabled the motion because of the incompetent way in which the Executive have mishandled their approach to the necessary upgrade of the A5 western transport corridor. We share the justifiable concerns about the number of deaths that have occurred along the route. Communities along the route have waited too long and have faced delay after delay, while families continue to be devastated by serious and fatal accidents. We have also heard claims about why, in October 2024, the then Minister for Infrastructure announced that construction of the A5 upgrade would begin in early 2025. That was, to quote the then Minister:

The Planning Appeals Commission had warned of "large adverse impact" on climate from the A5 scheme. It found that there was reasonable scientific doubt that damage could be avoided to the legally protected Tully Bog from increased traffic on the A5. It highlighted the fact that the Department's assessment relied too heavily on modelling without robust ecological evidence.

Ms Kimmins: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Well, OK, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: I wanted to clarify the point about Tully Bog. The court found that we were compliant in relation to that. I reiterate the point that the then Minister took on board all those recommendations and addressed them.

Mr McGlone: I take that point, but all I am doing is quoting what the Planning Appeals Commission said. OK? Thank you.

In October 2023, the public inquiry recommended deferring any decision until carbon budgets and a climate action plan were in place. The then Minister for Infrastructure, who now sits at the Executive table as Finance Minister, chose to ignore those recommendations. His decision has delayed further any attempt to make the A5 safer. That flawed decision to proceed, which was subsequently found to be unlawful, was set up to fail at the first legal challenge. Furthermore, as the High Court found this year, the Department for Infrastructure could not provide a convincing explanation for the decision to ignore the recommendations.

It is now, unfortunately, the current Minister's problem to solve. Vesting orders for land have been quashed, and the Minister faces the prospect of further compensation payments to landowners. This is, however, also the Executive's problem. The A5 upgrade is, after all, an Executive flagship project. The project is intended to provide for critical infrastructure improvements, address regional imbalance, create jobs and benefit the economy, as well as, crucially, improve road safety. The Irish Government have contributed €600 million for the A5 western transport corridor through their Shared Island initiative. Failure to deliver the project will be another failure of the Executive.

Following the High Court ruling this year, I asked the AERA Minister for details on the numbers of occasions on which DFI officials sought advice from DAERA in relation to the A5 project. It took two attempts for the Minister to provide an up-to-date, accurate answer. Between 9 August 2022 and 27 June 2024, there were 13 meetings between officials from those Departments on the A5 project. Those meetings were to assist DFI in preparing its response to the recommendations made by the Planning Appeals Commission. The AERA Minister stated in a letter to me:

It is not clear whether the DAERA advice was wrong or whether DFI ignored it as well. I make a suggestion to the Minister — maybe she will respond — can the minutes of those meetings please be placed on the public record? I am sure that they will be, under disclosure at the courts, anyway. However, it would be extremely helpful to those of us who want to come to a balanced judgement around it that the minutes of what happened at those 13 meetings be placed on the public record.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for giving way. It is really important because, no matter how many times I say this, it does not seem to be landing. If the departmental statement that was published by my predecessor had been read in full, you would have seen that all the Planning Appeals Commission recommendations were indeed addressed and acknowledged as part of that ongoing work. Will the Member now agree with me that DAERA was consulted on that engagement, as happened throughout the process?

Mr McGlone: To be honest, like everyone else outside both Departments, I do not know what happened at those meetings. That is why I ask, Minister, that the minutes of the meetings be placed on the public record so that we can find out exactly what happened at them and whether the advice from DAERA was wrong or whether DFI chose to ignore it. I do not know.

Ms Kimmins: Just on that point, rather than seeming not to answer it, obviously a legal case is under way at present and, as part of that appeal, as much evidence as possible will be provided to show the work that has gone into it, especially now that DAERA has joined the case. That is an opportunity to look at all of that in the round.

Mr McGlone: I take it that that is a yes, and they will be placed on the public record so that the rest of us, who have a vested interest in the project, will be able to draw our own conclusions as to what did or did not happen.

I have to say that other parties in the Executive should be angry at the way that this has been incompetently managed. Executive parties took credit for the ambitions of the Climate Change Act in 2022. Now, some appear to be prepared to abandon those ambitions because of the work required to achieve them. They have the opportunity now to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme can withstand further legal challenge. It is within their ability to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate.

As Mr Justice McAlinden stated in the High Court ruling:

The shortcomings and shortcuts in the decision-making highlighted in this judgement are capable of being remedied. We urge the Executive to do the work required this time to make that happen. We cannot have the risk of more lives being lost as a consequence of unnecessary delays.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense —

Order, order — with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division.

Members, I am going to make an appeal that, as we move through this process, the word "order" is followed by silence. It does not mean that you continue the chat that you were having, all of you at once, while I am trying to go through the process in the hope that the rest of the Chamber will hear me. Order.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I ask you to take your ease while we make a change at the top Table, before we move on to the next item.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was a very important question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health earlier about an IT outage in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. I had an important question to ask the Minister, but I was not afforded the opportunity to do so. Will the Deputy Speaker give me clarity as to why that was the case?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. We will pass that on to the Speaker's Office for investigation. I am sure that, if you get in contact with the Health Minister, he will answer your question directly.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes be added to the total time for the debate.

Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In moving the second motion on the first Opposition day following the Assembly's return from summer recess, I am mindful of the victims of hate crime over the summer in Northern Ireland. I am mindful of all those who still live in fear because of the upsurge in hate that we have seen in our society. I want those people to be at the centre of the debate, because the truth is that, as we have set out in the motion, we have failed them.

Northern Ireland and, indeed, the island of Ireland are markedly more diverse places than they were when I was a younger man. When I was growing up, the region was overwhelmingly mono-ethnic. It was made up of people who were born in Northern Ireland itself, in Ireland or in Britain. Clearly, that has changed. Let me be the first to say that I welcome that change. It has brought huge benefits to our society. I say that as someone who represents what is not just the most diverse constituency in the North of Ireland but, I think, the most diverse constituency on the island of Ireland. My constituency office is situated on University Street and is open to the public in South Belfast, specifically the public in that area. They can seek my help with housing, healthcare or any other issue on which they may need assistance with statutory authorities. The area is very diverse. It has people from all over the world. Those people are not here simply — as some, including, I am afraid, some in the Chamber, would occasionally like to depict them — as a burden or as entrants to this society for their own benefit; they add extraordinary benefit to the community, the city and the whole region.

There are two extraordinary and, you might say, world-leading institutions on my constituency office doorstep, one of which is literally a stone's throw from its front door. They are Queen's University Belfast and the City Hospital. Neither of those institutions could function or thrive without the contribution of migrants. That is a fact. People from all over the world come to Queen's University and the City Hospital to study, educate, research and heal and to make our society better and healthier. I thank them for their contribution and pay tribute to everything that they offer us. I want our society to welcome more people like them. The problem is that, at this time, it is difficult to tell them with complete sincerity that they will receive as open a welcome as they should. That is because, this summer past and the previous summer, we have seen an unacceptable spike in hate.

Those are not isolated incidents. Hate crime has been rising in Northern Ireland in a shocking way; in fact, race hate crime now exceeds sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland. In many ways, our politics and our society have been defined by the historical division in religion or, if you prefer, constitutional preference in this place. Sadly, that division still exists, although it is, in some ways, getting better. Hate crime against people who are not from these shores, however, now outranks or exceeds sectarian hate crime.

Our motion is clear. There has been a significant upsurge in hate crime since the Executive returned last February. Since their return, the Executive have failed to deal with that hate crime as effectively and comprehensively as they should have.

Our motion is clear about the different ways in which they have failed and been inadequate.

On 4 September, before we all returned to this place after the summer break, the Executive had a meeting. The First Minister, the deputy First Minister and other Ministers outlined the actions that they would take as a result of that meeting. A statement was published on the Executive Office's website, and there was a press conference. The statement said that the Executive wanted to "move forward together" on hate crime and tackling hate. Those are the warmest of warm words, but they needed to be followed up with clear action. They were not, and they have not been thus far. The clarity from the Executive has, frankly, been lacking and pathetic. In recent weeks and since then, we have seen an attempted lynching on the streets of Belfast in the Justice Minister's own constituency. Have we seen a decisive response? I am afraid that, as yet, we have not.

What to do about it? There are several things that should be done. The first test is, in a sense, the easiest to pass, and it is that there be a clear, consistent and unified response from political leadership on the unacceptability and immorality of hate crime in all its forms. Have we seen that? We have to an extent, but, for too many people, their opposition to the hate that we have seen on the streets of Belfast, Ballymena, Larne and elsewhere has been caveated — qualified — with words to the effect of, "Ah, but we have to ensure that legitimate concerns are heard". There are, of course, legitimate concerns about any number of political issues. People are entitled to have a view about migration, for example, and about housing, but you instantly nullify the legitimacy of any political complaint when you engage in violence.

Secondly, we need to see clarity about an increase in resource for the parts of our criminal justice system that will, effectively, deal with and deter racist violence and lower-level hate crime on our streets. That involves, first, greater resources for the PSNI and an urgency in dealing with those issues. Secondly, it involves greater resources for the courts so that they can prioritise dealing with the issues. I hope that the Justice Minister will elaborate on some of that in her remarks.

There is also a longer-term challenge that we need to deal with. It has now been years since Judge Marrinan reported on hate crime legislation. We have yet to see the full implementation, or even the near-full implementation, of Judge Marrinan's recommendations. We know that we are not going to get stand-alone hate crime legislation. That is not good enough. I acknowledge that the Justice Minister will say, I am sure today, that she intends to bring forward legislation in a staged way. We are now getting very close to being in a situation where we will be up against it, as it were, in delivering legislation. We have a sentencing Bill that we expect to get in the next year.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mrs Long: The sentencing Bill will be with the Assembly by the end of the year and the victims and witnesses Bill in early spring. Will the Member clarify whether he would prefer that we had a stand-alone hate crime Bill or that we expedited those most impactful elements of the hate crime recommendations from Judge Marrinan? The stand-alone Bill would be introduced in the next mandate, and the bit that I am doing will be in this mandate.

Mr O'Toole: First, I am not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so if we can pass this legislation, yes, I welcome it. However, there are two things to consider. First, with regard to doing it expeditiously, we are now 18 months into this mandate — 18 months — and we have not seen a single word of hate crime provisions either in a stand-alone Bill or as part of another Bill. I would challenge the idea that it has been expedited. It is also worth saying that it was in the Alliance Party's manifesto that there would be a stand-alone hate crime Bill.

Secondly, there is the challenge of paramilitarism. We know that paramilitaries have played a part in a considerable number of the hate crime that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland. We know that paramilitary hate crime is barely even recorded by the PSNI in this jurisdiction. We know that, in some places, including parts of north Belfast, the UDA, for example, sees itself as some kind of de facto, quasi- or crypto housing association. Those people arrogate to themselves the right to say who does and does not live in an area. Therefore, while we need to see hate crime legislation and more resource for the PSNI, we need to be grown up in this society about acknowledging the fact that paramilitaries continue to wield a pernicious and unacceptable power. They want to be able to say who lives in a community and who does not. Clearly, when it suits them, they coordinate racist violence on our streets. Until we are willing to confront that, to mandate the police to confront it, to retool the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme and to change the criminal justice incentives to properly tackle that, we are not going to get anywhere.

In moving the motion, I urge all in the Chamber to finally get real about hate crime, to take our responsibilities seriously and not just to engage in warm words and rhetoric but to back that up with resourcing for the police and the criminal justice system, more broadly, with clarity on hate crime legislation and with every word and deed that is needed to tackle the upsurge of hate in our society.

Mr Frew: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We think that our amendment assists and strengthens the motion and places focus where it should be, which is on providing additional resources to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; the PSNI, which investigates and fights crime; and the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme that is meant to tackle the spectre and leftovers of the paramilitary world, which the leader of the Opposition just talked about. Those are the areas where, we believe, more resource should be placed in order to fight crime.

When it come to fighting crime, what is a crime? I have always had a discomfort with regard to the phrase "hate crime", because we know that a lot of the incidents that the police are obliged to report are not necessarily a crime. That blurs the lines for me — it really does — because I do not think that to hate something is actually a crime. I hate all sorts of things. I hate crime. I hate violence against women and girls. I hate terrorism. I hate the measures that were brought in during COVID that caused so much pain and suffering to our people. I hate all those things. That is not a crime, so "hate crime" in itself is a bit of a misnomer.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Tennyson: Does the Member not accept that it is completely unacceptable in our society to hate an individual because of the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexuality or their gender, and that surely all of us in the Assembly should be able to agree on at least that?

Mr Frew: Absolutely, and I thank the Member for raising that. As a party, we condemn all sectarian/racist attacks on individuals and their homes. There are absolutely no circumstances in which such actions and threats of violence or intimidation are justified. That also goes for race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age. It is all totally unacceptable. No one should be threatened or attacked for those issues. We have always been clear —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member being generous. I reassure him that the model that is proposed by Judge Marrinan and that will be taken forward by the Department is an aggravator to existing crime. It is not creating a whole new raft of crimes. If, for example, you hit somebody, and it is motivated by racism, sectarianism or whatever it is, an aggravator will be applied to the sentence, but it does not create new offences. If that gives the Member reassurance, that might be helpful.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention, because it actually does do that. We would not be on the same page as the leader of the Opposition on stand-alone hate crime legislation. That is why, I think, the Minister is taking a good route. My worry about the legislation that is coming forward is that it is rushed or botched. What do we have as an example? We have the Justice Bill, where the Minister brought only half a Bill, and, on the half that she did bring, she is now seeking amendments. Therefore, we worry that the sentencing Bill may well turn out the same way. I ask the Minister to make sure and to assure us that, in her bringing forward the sentencing Bill in haste, it is fully covered and all content and clauses are before the Assembly at First Reading and Second Reading. I hope that the Minister can give me that reassurance today.

I also have an issue —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: The Member stood in the Chamber and implored, I think, the Finance Minister, when that Minister was bringing legislation before the Chamber, to move it by amendment so that it could be introduced more effectively to the Committee. Therefore, why the difference when it comes to the Justice Bill and legislation from other Ministers?

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. There is a world of difference between an amendment to a Bill from the Department and the Minister bringing 50% of her Bill through amendments at Committee Stage to Further Consideration Stage and also amending all the previous text at Second Reading. That is really worrying when it comes to the Justice Bill.

There is also an issue with how we perceive an aggravated hate crime, even through the sentencing Bill, because the victim alone can perceive it to be a hate crime. There have been many instances of that. In fact, there was one that I had to deal with through constituency work where people threw eggs out of a car at three victims. The first victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. The second victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. Then a newcomer family was attacked, and they perceived it to be a hate crime. They thought that they were attacked because they were a newcomer family, but that was not the case. So, there are real worries about the only parameter being the perception of the victim. They could be misinformed, and so, then, could the police be, about the motives for criminal activity. That is vital.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking the intervention; I know that he has taken a number of interventions. As with anything that goes to court, you have to prove that there is an aggravator. You have to offer that proof. You could not just say, "I think that it is because of my sexuality or my race". You absolutely would have to prove that. If we were to go by that, we would just say, "We will not have any crime at all or not bother prosecuting anybody".

Mr Frew: I agree with the Member. That is why I think that we will be pushing for a more substantial burden of proof to be established in law that requires evidence of the existence of direct prejudice or hatred at the time of the offence and that that was the primary motive of the crime. I think that it is realistic and sensible to put that safeguard in the legislation.

Any new legal definition should not weaken the rights of those with deeply held legitimate religious views, or any other views for that matter, to express opinions that may be contrary to the views of those advocating for protected groups. What I mean by that and why I am worried and nervous about that is that we have seen Labour produce the Online Safety Act, which has resulted in people being incarcerated for tweets. Horrendous as they were, they were text. A lady was incarcerated. Others have incited violence on the streets, but, because they did not admit guilt, they were allowed to say things without any punishment. I really worry that we have a Labour Government in power who are bringing in laws that are quite draconian in nature. The SDLP is Labour's sister party, and maybe it could speak for Labour. Maybe the SDLP is as concerned as I am. At times, the Alliance Party, with its liberalism, can be quite intolerant of other people's views, and I really worry. I hope that the Minister will bring forward the sentencing Bill, and I hope that the measures in it will do the job of protecting people no matter their race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age, because that is critical.

I go back to the point that our law enforcement agencies and court system need to be fully resourced to combat all crime in this day and age. It is vital that the people who keep us safe have the money and means to do so and that justice is not delayed when a crime is committed and investigated and when it goes to the PPS and through our court system.

It is not fair that victims must sit for years before they have their day in court or at least see that the perpetrator who made them a victim has been through court and punished sufficiently. It is not fair that those people have to wait years for that.

I extend goodwill to the Minister in bringing forward her legislation. I want to see good legislation as much as she does, but my party will scrutinise every line, clause and measure in her Bills to ensure that the powers that we grant are appropriate and right to protect our people.

Ms Egan: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Connie, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Over to you, Connie.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. When we distil what our responsibilities in the Assembly are and go back to the basics, it is clear that our foundational responsibility as political representatives is to do everything that we can to protect vulnerable people across our society, no matter their race, sexuality, ability or faith, and to ensure that those whom we serve in our constituencies and across Northern Ireland more widely have trust in the Government to protect them and that every person is given the best chance possible to lead a safe, fulfilling and happy life.

As I speak on the motion on the Executive's approach to hate and propose the Alliance Party's amendment, I stand in disbelief and horror at the continuing hate incidents that people across our communities face. Those incidents are not just a statistic, but they are extraordinarily rising, despite probably still being under-reported. From June 2024 to June 2025, 646 more race incidents and 434 more race crimes were recorded than in the previous year. That is the highest level in a dataset that we have seen since 2004, 21 years ago. That same police data also suggests that, compared with previous years, fewer incidents of hate were committed in the name of sexual orientation, transgender identity, sectarianism and disability. However, I worry that that might be as a result of a potential decrease in those affected coming forward and having the confidence to even make that initial report of a crime.

I thank the leader of the Opposition and his SDLP colleagues for tabling the motion, as it is our responsibility as MLAs to seize every possible chance to raise the experiences of those victims. I hope that Members find our amendment constructive and an opportunity to strengthen and add to the content of the motion. I also hope that the debate is an opportunity to consolidate support across the Executive and the Assembly so that we can take real action to tackle the profound hate that we have seen in our community. It was positive to see joint statements from our Executive over the past year that called for calm and condemned all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards individuals of different backgrounds. However, without decisive action behind it and follow-through support from the representatives and political parties of every Minister, it is just that: a statement of words.

The Alliance Party amendment seeks to achieve a few different aims. First, it seeks to align support under the Justice Minister's current plan of action to introduce hate crime legislation in her upcoming Bills. More than that, it seeks to draw clear attention to the fact that the root causes of hate go beyond the parameters of our justice system alone. Ending hate is the responsibility of every Minister, Department, politician, agency and citizen in our society. There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber over the past year of the best way to introduce new and tougher hate crime legislation. The Justice Minister has always been committed to introducing legislation to tackle the unacceptable levels of hate in our society. The Minister and her Department are bringing that forward now, in the most efficient and effective way, through the upcoming sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses Bill. It is in that vein that I was gladdened to hear Judge Marrinan's words of fairness for the Department in the past month. He, of course, undertook the review of hate crime legislation five years ago. Judge Marrinan rightly highlighted his great disappointment at the delay that the legislation has faced, but drew attention to the fact that, given the Executive's collapse and statutory obligations for consultation, there was little more that Minister Long could have done legislatively by now other than what is being brought forward, and said that it will have "a profound impact".

Alliance is committed to bringing forward hate crime legislation in this mandate. We refuse to have our hands tied by the irresponsible stop-start government that is inflicted by other parties. We hope that everyone across the Chamber can support the upcoming measures so that we can build the safer communities that all members of our Executive promised in our Programme for Government. Legislation like that which we have described today is just one way in which to tackle hate. The remainder of our amendment affirms support for the statutory and community sector under the Executive's programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, and for addressing the resourcing challenges across our justice system. Those challenges are acute. Justice and law and order are the foundation upon which our society is built. Alliance therefore welcomes the seemingly cross-party support for the greater resourcing for justice agencies that the motion could bring about.

However, I challenge the amendment that has been tabled by DUP colleagues, which places the responsibility for that work and the onus to provide additional resources to justice-related agencies wholly on the Justice Minister. I agree that the funding for those organisations should increase, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Department has historically suffered from significant underfunding, particularly during the past decade, with resources continuing to be stretched thin. Nobody has highlighted that or argued that point more than the Minister herself. Stormont's block grant has increased by 66% in the 14 years to 2025-26, but, by comparison, the Department of Justice's budget has grown by just over 25% in that time. Monetary challenges do not disappear in one budgetary year; undoing that legacy will be a long-lasting challenge. While we can see that the Justice Minister has prioritised the stabilisation of police officer numbers, with the PSNI's receiving approximately 65% of her Department's budget, amongst other interventions, and that she is doing what she can with what she has, it must go further than being the responsibility of one Department.

I want to come back to those who are victims of hate. Behind each of those hate incidents and crimes — those that were reported and those that were not — are families and individuals who are scared. They are victims of horrendous intimidation. We were all appalled by the race-related rioting and intimidation that took place across Northern Ireland over the past few months. In my constituency of North Down, I was deeply saddened to see instances of hateful graffiti, target signs sprayed on doors and families intimidated in their homes. Imagine being the intended audience for that. It is not good enough. It does not represent the Northern Ireland or North Down that I know, which is my home and a welcoming place. I know that most of the citizens of Northern Ireland are disgusted and outraged by those incidents. I urge Members to vote for the Alliance amendment. Ultimately, let us make this a turning point for our Executive and Assembly, a day when we get on to the same page and commit to doing something together.

Ms Ferguson: I begin my remarks by stating clearly that there is absolutely no place for racism, sectarianism, intolerance, intimidation or violence in our society. Every representative in every political institution, local and national, across the island of Ireland has a duty to stand up and speak out against discrimination, inequality and hate. Unfortunately, there remain people who treat that more as an option than a duty. They do so in the knowledge that the impacts of hate crime are far-reaching, affecting individuals, families, workplaces, community settings and even society as a whole. To put the importance of that in context: as we all know, shamefully, the past year has seen the highest number of racially motivated attacks since records began on the issue 21 years ago.

Hate crime differs from other criminality in that it strikes at the very heart of a person's core identity. Understandably, therefore, hate crime has the potential to have particularly profound and enduring impacts on the victims and on the wider network of people affected by it. Research from the Sussex Hate Crime project shows that such crimes not only threaten the personal safety and security of those directly victimised but are likely to impact indirectly on those who are in the victim's identity group, by, for example, increasing their feelings of fear, anger and isolation.

Living as we do in the modern digital age, which is defined by widespread use of phones, computers, tablets and other digital technologies, we face additional challenges due to the growing presence of the internet in our professional, social and private lives.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Burrows: The Member talked about having a unified voice condemning all sectarianism and hatred. Will she condemn unreservedly the sectarian assassination of 10 people at Kingsmills?

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

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

No one should have to face hate crime in any sphere of their life. Recent research from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) that mapped far-right activity online here found that it also occurs in a wider context, with some loyalist paramilitaries directly orchestrating such terror. Meanwhile, across the water, British political parties compete to outdo one another with their dangerous rhetoric, which weaponises immigration and plays fast and loose with international human rights. Should we be surprised at the deflection tactics of those who govern when they are from a colonial state? In Irish society, however, those with significant experience of discrimination, inequality, poverty and injustice are not so quick to scapegoat. Credit to those who challenge themselves to look beyond that and critically evaluate the current state of play.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I will work closely with the Minister of Justice and my colleagues on the development of the hate crime provisions recommended in Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation through the upcoming sentencing Bill and the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. Let me state clearly, however, that legislative change in itself is insufficient. Challenging falsehoods and discriminatory or hateful narratives, including on immigration, gender identity and other identity issues, is fundamental. There is no room for equivocation, because misinformation and disinformation can and do manifest themselves in displays of hate.

On that point, while I welcome the fact that an additional £5 million was agreed by the Executive to cover mutual aid following the recent riots in Ballymena, that money could have been invested in positive, ambitious and proactive projects; instead, it was engulfed in reactive measures to deal with the intolerable behaviour.

Tackling hate is not an issue on which to point fingers but one on which all of us across the Chamber should reflect and recommit to walking the walk in our homes and in our communities.

Mr Beattie: One of the bravest and noblest men whom I have ever known was an Afghan Muslim whose name was Sher-Wali. He died fighting alongside me in Afghanistan. Why do I mention that? It is because I have been immersed in other cultures and religions. It is only when you do that that you get to understand better the people with whom you share this place. Racism and sectarianism is pure hate based on bigotry, prejudice and lack of understanding. It is hate due to someone's religion; hate due to someone's skin colour, culture or community; hate due to someone's opinion; or hate due to someone's job.

In Northern Ireland, we are not unique in dealing with hate crimes, nor are we unique in that on this island, in the British Isles or in wider Europe. It is a global issue that is increasing exponentially, and it will be dealt with. In many cases, hate is perpetuated by ideals that conflict with others'. That is not an issue. People hate me because of my background. They hate my colleague because of his background. That is not an issue. You are allowed to do that. It is, however, an issue when you stir up racial and religious tensions, when hate spills into violence and when hate is used as a platform to dehumanise, isolate and intimidate others.

Hate can lead to violence. Hate can lead to murder, and we have seen that. We need to deal with hate, and, on balance and in truth, the motion raises that point well. We do not have many issues with the motion.

We are good in Northern Ireland at creating strategies and frameworks. If creating strategies and frameworks were an Olympic sport, we would be gold medallists every time. We need a strategy, however, to look at this matter. I mentioned that personal piece at the start of my contribution because I was lucky enough to be immersed in other cultures and religions not just in conflict areas but elsewhere. Many people in Northern Ireland do not get a chance to do that, because we are divided and segregated.

I look forward to seeing the sentencing Bill in the autumn and the victims and witnesses Bill in spring next year. They will be incredibly important. In the meantime, we need to use what is available to us through the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to deal with hate crimes. That requires joined-up thinking, which, at times, we are lacking in. Our Criminal Justice Board, which is a high-level board, consists of the Minister, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Lady Chief Justice and many others. It is a high-level board, yet it has no shared vision and no strategic priorities. Hopefully, that will change in the next month or so. That is a big piece of work, and I hope that some of those strategic priorities will deal with hate crime and those who perpetuate it. However, right now, we are failing.

In many ways, I look at the issues facing the Minister and see that the Justice Department has been incredibly underfunded. It is a good and fair argument that the Minister makes about that, but we will have to deal with what we have now as we speak. It takes far too long to gather evidence and put individuals through the courts, and momentum is lost. We have seen that, in England and Wales, it can be done in weeks. Here we take months and years.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Of course.

Mrs Long: The Member is, of course, correct, and that is one of the reasons why, in speeding up justice, we are looking at the increased use of out-of-court disposals. However, his colleague consistently criticises the use of those out-of-court disposals, even those that the PSNI brought forward as recommendations. If we want to speed up access to the courts, we need to use those disposals, which are measures that are used throughout the rest of the UK, in a proportional way.

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

Mr Beattie: Thank you. If we were to sit here and go through sentencing criteria and out-of-court disposals, it would take an awful lot of time. It is complicated, and it cannot be done as a snapshot here. However, the point remains that it takes us far too long to get people through the courts at the other end. They do that quickly in England and Wales, and we take far too long here. Some of our sentences are pretty pitiful and do not act as a deterrent. We could deal with it if you sped it up, had momentum and had a sentence that matched the crime, and some of the crimes are awful and involve the most terrible violence. I support the call in the DUP's amendment for an:

I am in no doubt that the Minister will include that in the sentencing Bill.

The thrust of where I am is that I absolutely support the motion and think that the DUP's amendment adds a bit to it, because we have to look at where we are in the here and now. Yes, the Minister will introduce a sentencing Bill, and I look forward to seeing it. However, I have not seen the text. It is hard to support something until you see it, unfortunately. I would like to see it. We need to do something, and we need to do it now. We cannot sit on our hands and wait until the sentencing Bill is introduced. We need to start acting now, and that is why I will support the motion.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I want to address one of the points that the previous Member to speak made, which was on out-of-court disposals. We absolutely need to look at where they are appropriate and necessary and at where they will speed up justice and ensure that cases that we need to go to court get through the courts more quickly. We need to listen to the PSNI, because we cannot keep saying that we need more money and more resources when we are not making best use of the resources that we have. We have had presentations —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely.

Mr Burrows: I make no apology for opposing the Minister's proposal. No matter who was consulted, it is the Minister's proposal. It is clear: Ministers decide. The reason is clear. To give a ticket for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that includes knocking someone unconscious, smashing their teeth out, leaving them in need of stitches or breaking minor limbs such as fingers is not acceptable —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member take his seat? We are supposed to make interventions that are short, pithy and to the point. Even though that intervention was probably not an intervention, Mrs Dillon, I give you an extra minute. Over to you.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the intervention. I am not sure how much I agree with it. I have not agreed with a lot of what the Member has said over the airwaves before he came into the House. We will probably agree to disagree quite a bit, Mr Burrows. [Laughter.]

I appreciate the motion, and we will support it.

In June, we saw racist intimidation in Ballymena, Larne, other areas across the North and, indeed, in my locality, Dungannon. We witnessed continued sectarian and racist attacks, again across the North, forcing families to flee their homes. To me, that is heartbreaking. It is reflective of a sectarian state that once forced many families to flee their homes. It is unacceptable and needs to be called out for what it is. Attacking family homes and intimidating women and children is criminal thuggery. We had confirmation from the PSNI — it has been referred to by Members who have spoken previously — that, at a recent public session of the Policing Board, there was evidence of the involvement of loyalist paramilitaries, including the UDA, in north Belfast.

Figures from the PSNI last month showed that recorded race hate crime is at an all-time high, something that we should be absolutely ashamed of to our core. Asking for additional resources is one element — the Policing Board is on the record on a number of occasions as saying that policing needs greater resources — but we also need to look at how we use the resources that we have. I agree with my colleague that prevention will always be much more cost-effective than cure. Let us look at what prevention measures we can take. Let us work with those communities and all those people and learn what the challenges are for them. What, do they think, would make a difference in their lives? I look around the Chamber, and there is nobody who reflects, almost to a man and a woman, the people whom we are talking about. Let us be honest. We need to listen to what those people say; what their fears are; how, they think, we can best address them; and how, they think, we should work with them.

We have a responsibility. As political leaders, we are just that: we are leaders in our community, and it is our job to support and look after every member of our community regardless of race or ethnicity. That responsibility extends to social media. Too often, we see false claims and inflammatory language online that pour petrol on the fire. All of us, as public representatives and community leaders, must be careful with our words and avoid feeding narratives that target minorities from whatever background they come.

Families who are targeted must see that there are consequences for those who carry out the attacks. That means that there needs to be a PSNI response. The police need to step up their investigations, make arrests and bring charges more quickly, decisively and visibly. Visibility is important, and, in fairness, some good work has been done on that, but it is really important for people to know that they are being listened to and that somebody out there cares about what is happening to them.

We also know that policing alone cannot fix this. We need to ensure that we work with communities to build trust with them and to work alongside the local community and stakeholders to prevent hate crime, as well as detecting and charging those who perpetrate it.

It is important that we have adequate legislation to ensure that those who are perpetrators of hate crime or crime where hate is an aggravator are held fully accountable for their actions. We also need to acknowledge that, if we are serious about building safe, shared communities, we need to see societal change. It is for us in the Chamber to lead in our community and in everything that we say and do. We talk about victims a lot in the Chamber. These victims, like every other victim, must be prioritised. That means supporting families who are under attack, standing with them and ensuring that everybody knows that they are part of our community, that we support them all day, every day, and that we value them equally as part of our community, ensuring that they get the protection and support that they deserve.

It is not about dressing up hate and intimidation as a cultural expression or false claims of concern about the safety of women and girls.

I have attended events in the areas that had the worst race-hate incidents and crime over the summer. Those events were held by women to talk about violence against women and girls. The irony is that I did not see one man in the room, even though it was men who were out attacking homes and frightening the life out of women and children in their —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Linda, will your draw your remarks to a close, please?

Mrs Dillon: — own homes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. I call Jon Burrows. Jon, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I condemn, unequivocally, hate crime and all forms of crime. It is an evil act, and we should have no hesitation in condemning it; I have done that my whole life.

I value the role that lawful migrants play in society. That is an important part of tackling the intolerance that can lead to hate crime. If it was not for those migrants, we would not have enough people working in our hospitals and care homes; we would have fewer doctors; and we would not have enough people processing things in our factories. Those are important things that we need to value. Condemning things is easy, and passing new laws can be relatively easy in the sense that you pass a law, but we need a criminal justice system that deals with hate crime when it happens.

At the minute, our criminal justice system is slow and soft. That sends out a signal that people can act and commit hate crime with impunity. As politicians, we have, collectively, starved the PSNI of the resources that it needs. You can have all the laws that you want, but unless someone is enforcing them, what are we going to do? That is why Mr Frew's amendment is so important. We need to have a PSNI that is investigating crime, swiftly and robustly; able to prevent crime and be out on patrol; and able to be in schools, engaging with young people, and tackling the kind of behaviours that lead to hate crime. If we do not invest in our police service and criminal justice system, the new law simply goes unenforced. A good example of that is this: there is already an aggravating factor in Northern Ireland. In any offence that has been committed, the judge can take into account the fact that race or racism was a factor and a motivator, but they do not use that enough. Northern Ireland's system is too soft. We are spending too much time worrying about the perpetrators and not enough about victims. We need to speed up our criminal justice system, and we need to support our police service so that we show, swiftly and with certainty, that crime does not pay.

Why would we start to see increases in sentencing with new legislation — I would support new legislation, once I see the detail — if there is already an aggravating factor in our sentencing guidelines that judges are not using? We need to change the culture in our judiciary and entire criminal justice system. Our judges pass very soft sentences — day in, day out. That needs to be gripped. The impact on the victim needs to be put into the heart of everything that we are doing in the criminal justice system.

We also need to have hard conversations about prison capacity. Is the fact that we have insufficient prison capacity affecting the sentences that judges pass? I ask that because some of the sentences are inexplicable. If you keep having those soft sentences, you are not going to get outcomes. I studied criminology at master's level — I went into deterrent in crime, which is at the heart of the motion. Deterrence comes from two things, principally: one is the severity of the sentence, and the other is the likelihood that you are going to get caught. If you think that there is very little chance that you are going to get caught but that they might throw the book at you, you might still think, "I'll just do it". However, if you think that you are going to get caught, it changes your behaviour. That is why people stop committing crime and run away as soon as the police bring out an evidence-gathering truck, or why rioting stops as soon as the police publish images.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased that the Member gave way. Further to his comment about the psychology of deterrence, does he agree that there is a deterrent effect for the people who are committing hate crimes, or those who are reporting hate crimes, when they see that the people who are coordinating them, or who are connected to the people who are coordinating them, are the type of people who are the leading paramilitaries or the paramilitary stakeholder in that area? Does he agree that that has a deterrent effect on both the people who report and the people who commit such crimes?

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

Mr Burrows: I do think that that is a chill factor. I am very hawkish on paramilitaries. I have no difficulty in condemning outright every single member of a loyalist paramilitary group, because the fact is that none of them is in a pipe-and-slipper brigade. They are members of a criminal organisation. There is a chill factor, because some of the people involved in this are also paramilitaries. It gives them legitimacy and credence and creates a chill factor when making reports. I go back to this key point: if you believe that you will not get caught, you will carry on committing that kind of crime.

We have starved our Police Service of Northern Ireland. Here is a cultural thing, and it goes back to supporting the police, not just with money but with real support. I watched the PSNI become more and more risk-averse before my eyes. It is the most risk-averse police service in the United Kingdom. Let me give you an example. Mugshots go out from every other police service in the United Kingdom. If you are convicted of a race hate crime, your mugshot will go out. If you are convicted of domestic violence, your mugshot will go out. The public see that those actions have consequences and that crime does not pay. There is a very strong message. In Northern Ireland, we are frightened to do that. Why? It is because of the hyper-criticism and accountability that the police have faced, including from people in this very Chamber. We need a police service that is not frightened to be decisive. We are much slower traditionally at releasing unidentified images of suspects, yet that is what stops disorder. There are people who —

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

Mr Burrows: — go on about the human rights lobby.

We need to support our police, and we need to make sure that our judges do their job, uphold the rule of law and put criminals behind bars.

Mr McGrath: As the debate has progressed, we have started to go down rabbit holes and little culs-de-sac, rather than focusing on what should be front and centre in the overall debate, which is the suggestion that racism and sectarianism are a stain on our society, albeit elements of the motion are about what should happen within the criminal justice system once somebody has carried out such actions. We should collectively say that, if we have a person at that stage, we have failed. If people continue to go out and carry out such actions, it means that all our policies and the various strategies have not done their job.

We have lost sight of the fact that, when it comes to defining these things amongst ourselves, we all probably agree on about 95% of it. It is just that 5% at the end where we have our differences. It is a little bit frustrating that it is the 5% that we focus on, and, in some respects, it is that 5% that then gets amplified to the community, which then thinks that there is division on these things. There are quite a number of first principles that we all agree on, and that is what we should try to amplify.

I think about those who have fallen victim to abuse. It is important that we send out a message to them that we do not like that and that we want to stop it. We want to try to stop that type of behaviour in our community. We do not want to see people carrying out racist or sectarian abuse. However, we also know that, in order to stop a lot of that abuse, we need to see leadership. All of us need to stand up and say that what we can see in our community is wrong and that there needs to be no more of it. As a group of leaders in our community, we need to agree on that and spread it round our community.

What has been very frustrating over the summer and the past number of months is that, when there have been certain events, they have almost become weaponised and politicised, with different views on whether it should or should not have not happened, whether it was or was not right and what was or was not there beforehand. That has allowed a space where people feel that their behaviours are justified. They think that it is OK to carry out their actions in the community, because they think that even people like ourselves cannot agree on what is racist, what is sectarian, what is allowed, who is in control in our communities and who we permit to be in control in our communities. When we get elements of that wrong, we see what happens: the space opens, and in they go. It is filled up by people who bring that destruction into our communities. We see people go in and attack others, quite often simply for the colour of their skin. People who are working, contributing, paying taxes and giving back to our community are getting attacked because others think that they arrived on a boat. People think that those boats made it all the way across seas, up Belfast lough, down the M1 and on to the top of a bonfire, and that that is what delivered people into our community. We need to stand up and say, "That is wrong. That is the wrong message". The message is that 99·9% of the people who are here are here on legal and proper grounds. They contribute to our society and work hard, but we seem to lump everybody in with the small percentage who are considered to be illegal immigrants. We need to find other ways — legal ways — of addressing that. We need —

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that, regardless of whether a person is legal or illegal — there are ways to deal with somebody who is illegal, and that has to be done — we are talking today about race hate. It does not matter whether you are legal or illegal: anybody who attacks you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnicity is wrong and should be held to account.

Mr McGrath: Thank you for that. Yes, that was maybe just in the interpretation. I am suggesting that there is a sense in the community that we are completely overrun with people. It is that sheer perceived volume that people use to motivate their actions, but it is not rooted in reality, and that lack of reality allows people to increase —

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes. Go on ahead, very quickly, please.

Mr Burrows: Does the Member agree that, if responsible politicians do not articulate issues around illegal immigration and the delays in the asylum system, that cedes ground to the likes of Tommy Robinson, who then make the running on it and amplify hate?

Mr McGrath: The point is made. We need to get the facts out there. The problem is that, in here, some representatives amplify too much, and the noise that they make gets out, goes down the hill and gives people the justification for the actions that they display. If we stand here and say that the behaviour is wrong, the behaviour is wrong. We can all make sure that we get the facts, but it should not justify hate. Those facts, by the way, will come in various Executive policies and strategies, like the racial equality strategy, which we are only halfway through, and the tackling paramilitarism programme, which we need to see changes to. Those can all be used as a vehicle to try to address the behaviours that are out there in our community.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister, who has up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the leader of the Opposition for moving this important motion. In recent months, we have seen shameful acts of racist, sectarian, homophobic and transphobic intimidation and hate on our streets, targeting black and ethnic minorities, migrant workers, refugees, young families and vulnerable and defenceless individuals. I am clear that there can be no place for violence or the threat of violence, and that nor is there is any place for the rise in intimidating vigilantism and harassment that we have seen recently. Such hateful conduct not only damages the reputation of Northern Ireland as a welcoming and safe place to live, learn, work and visit, but the prejudice on which it is predicated is utterly corrosive to our ambition of building a truly shared, safe and inclusive future for all our people.

Clearly, my Department and I have a key role to play, alongside justice partners, in addressing those issues, which is why I offered to respond today. However, that alone is not enough, nor can it protect people from harm, as many Members have recognised. A wider response across Departments and society is required to tackle the root causes of hate and prejudice in our communities, and to proactively invest in and promote inclusive, shared and vibrant communities. My Department is engaged in a wide range of work to support effective responses to hate-motivated attacks and to strengthen support for all victims of hate crime and those who fear that they may be vulnerable to attack, whether in the workplace, at home, in school or in the local community.

In the previous mandate, I took forward the first stage of policy development and consultation to develop the legislative protections for victims of hate crime, with the intention of undertaking consultation on the remaining recommendations at the start of the new mandate, and bringing a consolidated hate crime Bill as the fourth Bill in this new mandate in 2026. That first stage covered the aggravation offence model and special measures for victims in court proceedings, as recommended by Judge Desmond Marrinan in his comprehensive review of hate crime legislation and his subsequent report, which was published in late 2020 and for which I remain very grateful. Like me, he has expressed disappointment at the pace of change, but he has recognised that the delay is not due to any lack of urgency on either my part or that of my Department but, rather, to the length of time that it takes to progress legislation through these institutions.

Contrast the time being taken by my Justice Bill, which has been with the Justice Committee for the past year, with the statutory 10 working days that MPs would have in Westminster for a similar Bill.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the important point that the Minister makes. Some Bills could be more concise. On that note, while we are here, does the Minister agree with my party that we need to shorten some of the business deadlines, including those for Opposition and non-Executive business? That is an important issue.

Mrs Long: It is a nice try, but I will respond to the Member in writing on that point. He has approached me on it in his role as party leader in the Assembly.

Judge Marrinan also noted that the provisions that I am progressing in this mandate:

Those were his words.

On my return to office, it was clear that we could not introduce four or five Bills, as I had hoped to do, in four or five years. The intended hate crime Bill would have fallen owing to legislative time constraints and would have had to start again in the following mandate. Recognising the urgency of the problem, however, I prioritised delivering the most impactful recommendations on hate crime. They are being progressed through the Department and legislative drafting process and will be introduced via a sentencing Bill and the victims and witnesses of crime Bill.

The statutory aggravator model, which will be included in the sentencing Bill, will become the core method of prosecuting hate crimes in Northern Ireland. It will allow all existing criminal offences to be aggravated by proven hostility based on membership or perceived membership of a protected group — race, religion, disability or sexual orientation — and will allow intersectionality to be recognised. It will also include a power to add further protected groups by way of secondary legislation, if the evidence shows that that is required. It is important to have that flexibility to respond.

Additional support for victims and witnesses will be included in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill, which will include provisions to allow automatic eligibility for consideration of special measures and protection from in-person cross-examination by the defendant in hate crime cases. That staged approach means that hate crime provisions should be in place sooner than might otherwise have been possible, with, of course, the cooperation of the Committee and the Assembly.

Strengthening hate crime legislation not only gives the police, the prosecution, the judiciary and others additional tools with which to ensure that the hate element of any crime is recognised and addressed in sentencing but, importantly, allows rehabilitation, whether by the probation service or by prisons, because, of course, not everyone will end up in prison, and the probation service does an excellent job. I keep hearing about people being behind bars, but maybe some people can be reformed without being put behind bars. It is therefore important that those services be able to address not only the signal offence but the underlying attitudes that were a driver for it. Perhaps equally powerfully, strengthening the legislation also sends a clear signal that hate crime is not tolerated by us as an Assembly. It supports an underlying commitment to valuing the diversity in all our communities across Northern Ireland, including newcomer and ethnic minority communities, LGBTQIA+ communities and people with disabilities.

When it comes to supporting victims of hate crime, direct support is already provided through the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, which is jointly funded by the PSNI and DOJ. That service supports victims of hate crime through the criminal justice process, signposts them to relevant support services and can assist with third-party reporting to the PSNI. A range of measures is also in place to protect vulnerable groups from intimidation. My Department, together with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, provides annual funding to policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), and they play a key role in the Department's operational response to community safety concerns, including addressing hate crime. Following the incidents in Belfast in the summer of 2024, that joint committee provided a small additional award to the Belfast PCSP. As a result of the additional funding, over 20 grants were awarded to groups across the city during 2024-25, with the range of projects being supported including community engagement events; resources to encourage the reporting of hate crime; youth diversionary and education sessions; and cultural awareness and celebration events.

Addressing the part of the motion that refers to tackling paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, I will say that my Department has committed to reviewing the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) in its entirety during 2026-27. That work is already in progress. The review will provide Ministers with an evidenced, fulsome assessment of the progress that has been made by the programme and of lessons learned. It will also help inform decision-making on the best method of systemically addressing the complex challenges of dealing with paramilitarism, organised crime and new and emerging threats in the longer term.

I am aware that the programme team has, on a number of occasions, offered to provide the SDLP representatives with a briefing on the programme but that that offer has not yet been taken up. If the leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would find it helpful, we are still happy to do that.

I also agree that it is vital to have an effective, responsive and visible criminal justice response to hate crime offences in Northern Ireland. Enhanced legislation is only one part of delivering that. However, I also recognise the importance of increasing resources across the criminal justice system to ensure a timely and effective response, which is crucial for building confidence. The matter is not solely for me but for the Executive as a whole to prioritise, and, while I agreed with much of the DUP's amendment, I was disappointed that, again, it is about the justice system funding itself. We have no means of doing so, and we need to get support from across the Executive. We have faced a squeeze that, by comparison, is disproportionate to that in other Departments, and it has impacted on every part of the system. I am focused on working with the Executive to redress the imbalance and to tackle some of the delays in the system through, for example, transformation funds, where my Department has been successful. I have continuously engaged with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues to advocate a better financial settlement for my Department, and I will continue to do so.

The Executive commitment to specifically increasing police numbers is reflected, first, in its inclusion as a commitment in the Programme for Government and in the approval by my Department and the Department of Finance of the PSNI's workforce recovery business case and the prioritisation of the bid for year 1 funding in the forthcoming monitoring rounds. However, I have also been clear with colleagues that the stabilisation plan requires the full £200 million to be made available and that, without it, the value of single-year commitments is extremely limited. It is, therefore, vital that, in subsequent years, the business cases are supported. There is a five-year business case with three years of stabilisation and two further years to ensure that it beds in. It is important that that happen as part of the forthcoming three-year Budget process.

During critical periods of unrest in August 2024 and June 2025, in response to the racist incidents and public disorder, DOJ activated established multi-agency strategic and operational mechanisms to address violence and racially motivated hate crimes and to offer support from the relevant agencies to members of the ethnic minority communities. Whilst there was an effective response to the initial disorder, I am clear that we now need a longer-term response to the ongoing emboldening of prejudiced attitudes and behaviours in wider society. The anti-migrant unrest and the attacks on black and minority ethnic people over the past year have impacted on families and communities in many ways. We have already reflected that the £5 million of resource that was diverted could have been better spent, frankly, on increasing police numbers or investing in communities. Healthcare workers have had their life disrupted, businesses have lost skilled staff who have returned to their home, people have been intimidated out of their home and children and adults are frightened to go to school or to work or to use public transport. Those are not acceptable behaviours, and I have been consistent in my advocacy of strengthening cross-departmental action to address racial inequality, prejudice and hate crime.

There is no shortcut to tackling these complex issues. The starting point is for us to show strong political and community leadership that not only condemns without equivocation the marginalisation, dehumanisation, targeting and threatening of people because of who they are, where they are from or the colour of their skin but actively rejects and challenges anti-migrant sentiment, which is so often predicated on false narratives. We need to use the platform that we have to discuss the issues in a measured and considered manner so that it does not fuel and amplify those who are, without doubt, committed to racism and racial inequality.

I also want to avoid the good immigrant/bad immigrant narrative: it is dangerous.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Sorry, I am short of time.

The violence and the sentiments have been whipped up in places such as online spaces, and a lot of the riots were organised and orchestrated events. The people who are orchestrating the violence want no migration, legal or otherwise. They want no immigration. In many cases, they are white supremacists and white nationalists who are inflaming the situation online. If you read some of the stuff — I have to say that it comes not just from the UK and Ireland — you will see that, across the board, there is a strong white nationalist sentiment, and we should be concerned about that. No level of immigration will be acceptable to those people.

That has also led to the affront of people who are here legitimately — I say "legitimately" because, if you are a refugee fleeing terror, you have a legitimate reason to be here, so it is not just those who have a visa but those who are applying for the regularisation of their position who are here legitimately — having to mark their home with their national flag to show which community they are from, sticking labels in their window that say, "I work in the NHS" or, "I'm employed in such-and-such a place". I drove through Ballymena. I know that you represent it and that you share my concern. It was biblical. It was like the Passover. People are marking their homes. People are afraid to go to the shops at the weekend without wearing their work clothes in case they are stopped and their papers are demanded, as though we are living in some Nazi state, by vigilantes who have no authority or right to harass those people. A lady who had just finished a 12-hour shift in a nursing home in my constituency was accosted on the Holywood Road and had her papers demanded by somebody who clearly had nothing better to do and was not in work themselves. We have to be clear, when we talk about legal and illegal migration, that it is for the Government to resolve. It is not for individuals on the street to take matters into their own hands by harassing people who have a right to be there.

We have to challenge all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards people from different backgrounds. I have been clear that that alone will not deliver change, but neither will Justice alone. A number of Departments have footprints in these issues, such as Communities for housing; Education for the integration of newcomers and school bullying; the Department of Health in ensuring that NHS workers are safe; and the Department for the Economy in encouraging employers and supporting them. All of those Departments and the Executive Office have a really significant role to play.

I recognise that a statement issued with well-meaning, warm words will not solve the problem, but it is a start, and I want to see more action built on that. The first step forward is for us to find a consistent vision of what we want society to look like. For me, it is not one that is marked by that kind of hatred and division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Paula Bradshaw to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Paula, you have up to five minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and thank the leader of the Opposition for bringing it to the House. It speaks to one of the largest societal challenges that we face in Northern Ireland today: the obstinate persistence of hate crime. Whether it takes the form of racism, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny or ableism, the impact is the same: individuals and families are made to feel targeted, less than and as though they do not belong in our communities. We do not need to look hard for examples. My party colleague Connie Egan provided some statistics from the PSNI on the level of racist and sectarian incidents. They remain among the highest categories of reported hate crime.

While the statistics are shocking and disturbing, they do not reflect the full gravity of the problem, because, as we know, a lot of victims do not come forward to report. All of the statistics, however, are more than a number: they represent a neighbour, a student or a family who have been told loud and clear by some that they are not welcome. Every Member will be aware of the summer that we have just experienced and the individual incidents that occurred in their constituency. My constituency colleague Matthew O'Toole outlined some of what we, as elected representatives, have been dealing with, including threats that were left on the windscreens of cars belonging to Irish language students; an attack on the Islamic centre, where people were gathered in prayer; and racially motivated attacks on homes, resulting in families fleeing through fear. Those are not isolated events, and those families and individuals hear words in the Chamber that are not followed up by deeds. That leaves them feeling very hollow and let down time and again. It is up to the whole Executive to turn that sorry situation around, as the Justice Minister has articulated. As Linda Dillon said, we were all elected to represent every member of our communities, not just the ones whom we relate to, the ones who reflect our voting base or those whose families look like us.

No, we were given a voice to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to act with the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland in mind.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that included in that is the fact that, in instances of families being put out of their homes, such as those that we see regularly due to security alerts or electrical outages, leisure centres and community facilities are opened up to vulnerable families, but the furthest we could go here was to confirm that that was not where those families were: "Those vulnerable people who have been put out of their homes are not in this leisure facility"? They should have been there. It should have been opened up to them.

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for raising that point. Whenever we see such incidents, it is the community and voluntary sector and front-line public-sector workers who step forward to provide shelter for families who are fleeing attacks.

That is why the Assembly and Executive must act together. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I place on record —

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Let me finish this point, please. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I put on record that we need to see a new racial equality strategy, the introduction of the new race relations order and an acceleration of the implementation of the refugee integration strategy.

I will give way to the Member.

Mr Burrows: Would the Member think it inappropriate for a simple penalty ticket to be given for a serious racially aggravated offence such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm that was racially aggravated?

Mrs Long: That could not happen. It is not possible.

Mr Burrows: I am just asking the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please. The question was directed at Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: I will move on. I was generous in giving the Member some of my time.

I commend my Alliance Party colleague the Justice Minister for her work with departmental officials on the forthcoming sentencing Bill with an aggravator model for hate crimes and on the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. I welcomed Mr Beattie's warm words and his warm attitude towards the introduction of the Bill, and I look forward to his being constructive after its First Reading. Both of those Bills will offer a real opportunity to put together protections in law, and we must make sure that the provisions on hate crime are supported by all when they come to the Chamber.

The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime needs continued support and scrutiny. I thank Mr Frew and Mr Burrows for supporting the call for more money for the PSNI, the PPS, the courts and so on. They need the resources to make sure that victims get timely investigations, strong prosecutions and that sentences reflect —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I do not have time. They need sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

In closing, I will reference a point that Linda Dillon raised about women in our communities who live in constant fear created by criminal organisations that masquerade as paramilitary organisations. That is exploitation in its highest form, and it must be challenged head-on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Brian Kingston. Brian, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We had an extensive debate on the topic last Tuesday on a motion condemning the racist and sectarian attacks and intimidation that occurred over the summer. That motion was agreed without opposition, so I do not need to repeat all that I said in that debate. Sadly, it has been necessary for me to visit homes and venues that were targeted over the summer to speak to those who were victims, support those who were affected and engage with community groups, statutory agencies and the police to prevent further attacks. Some of those meetings to move situations forward are ongoing.

The Democratic Unionist Party remains committed to building a safe and inclusive society in Northern Ireland. The DUP is absolutely clear that violence is wrong. It is wrong now as it was in the past. All of us who have been elected to the Assembly have a duty to promote peaceful, democratic and respectful means to address and manage the political and societal issues that arise. We in the DUP do not dismiss people's concerns or patronise them by saying that they have no legitimate concerns, as some parties have done. Equally, I recognise that there are intolerant elements in society that seek to set an agenda of intolerance of difference, and we have a responsibility to stand against that.

At times, incidents have occurred that have caused public outrage. Some have exploited that outrage to direct intolerance against entire ethnic minority communities unfairly. Everyone should be equally subject to the law and to the protections of the law. There should be zero tolerance for attacks and intimidation in our society. We support the police and all relevant authorities when it comes to tackling those issues. Perpetrators must feel the full force of our legal system and, in particular, there needs to be an effective multi-agency response from the criminal justice system to ensure that such offences are investigated swiftly and that punishment, including sentencing, fits the crime. There are Members who talk about the condemnation of hate and violence but have continued for years to justify violence that took place against people right across our society. We will always call out that hypocrisy, and I regret the Sinn Féin Member's failure to respond to the request to condemn the sectarian murder of 10 Protestant workmen at Kingsmills.

Paul Frew, in proposing our amendment, said that it strengthened the original motion. It does; it notes the Executive's statement, which committed to partnership working with all sectors, and it calls for action by the Justice Minister. He also highlighted the concerns that the definition of hate crime should not be based on the perception alone of the person who was the victim of a crime.

Colin McGrath from the SDLP, who is no longer in the Chamber, thought that there was about 95% agreement on everything before us. When I look at the wording of the two amendments and the motion, I see a lot of agreement. Unfortunately, the SDLP has framed its motion as a criticism of the Executive, rather than looking for solutions. The motion is about taking forward the debate from last week. As I said, my colleague Paul Frew noted the Executive commitment and highlighted actions for the Minister of Justice:

and

A programme that is mentioned in both amendments and the motion. I am not sure whether we will divide. In our view, the Justice Minister should take the lead on these matters. The Alliance amendment seems to say that it is up to the Executive as a whole to provide funding, and every Minister will say that — it is common — but I do not think that there is a need to divide on the matter. The Justice Minister should take the lead on the matters that are under her responsibility.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member should draw his remarks to a close. Thank you, Brian.

I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have up to 10 minutes. Over to you, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As many in the Chamber have said, there should be absolutely no place in our society for racism, sectarianism or intimidation, yet the rise in that type of behaviour is now commonplace. Language and rhetoric that we once thought to be confined to the darker corners of the internet are now being repeated by leading public figures across Europe and the world. Let us not beat about the bush: language carries weight and words have consequences. Divisions in the Chamber do not stay here; they trickle down into our communities. More than most societies, we know the cost of letting sectarian or hateful behaviour go unchallenged. That is why it is so disappointing that many in the Chamber are often slow to condemn such behaviour, refuse to condemn it at all, or make, as my party colleague Matthew O'Toole said, "condemnation with caveats." It is just not acceptable.

This has not happened in a vacuum. It is a crisis years in the making, fuelled by complacency and inaction. From my observation, the rise in violence and hate has in many ways been born out of Brexit, when extreme rhetoric and misinformation took hold. What followed was the normalisation of inflammatory language, lies and division. As use of anti-immigrant rhetoric rose, so, too, did hate crimes against minorities. People were promised that leaving the EU would mean —

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I will.

Mr Kingston: I listen to the Member saying that this is somehow all to do with Brexit. Is that the case across Europe, where there has been rising tension relating to immigration?

Ms McLaughlin: I did not say that it is all to do with Brexit. There was hate crime long before Brexit. I am just saying that I have seen a rise in the use of that rhetoric, including in this House; I do not think that anybody can deny that that is the case.

People were promised that leaving the EU would mean taking back control of their borders; that was never true. Brexit did not solve the root causes of division and discontent; it made them worse. The data on the rise of racism is testimony to that.

Communities who have been failed by those who were elected to represent them — people who have no access to affordable housing and have had years of economic decline and a feeling of being left behind — are easy targets to exploit. Figures like Nigel Farage thrive on deprivation and division. It is on us to ensure that we do not allow that politics of fear to take root here. A recent report from the Peace Research Institute Oslo makes it clear that far-right rhetoric often seeks to appeal to disaffected citizens. Deprivation fuels hate crime and can predict where violence is most likely to occur.

What is needed now is not more finger-pointing or complacency but an Executive-wide approach that recognises the scale of the problem and delivers decisive action. That is why our motion calls on the Executive to combat all forms of hate crime — and we are talking about all Executive Ministers. It is not the responsibility of one Department; it requires a collective response. The Minister of Health must tackle health inequalities; the Minister for Communities must tackle the housing crisis; the Minister for the Economy must go further and faster to tackle regional imbalance; and the Minister of Justice must urgently introduce hate crime legislation. Minister, I listened carefully to your response. I would welcome the time frame in which to introduce stand-alone hate legislation being closed. I do not think that we can stand still on that, given what is happening in the wider community. You have been the Minister of Justice for half a decade. I welcome your —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I want to get through this. I will come back to you, Paul.

I welcome your response on closing the gap and building on that, Minister, hopefully within this mandate. I welcome the progress that has been made, but it is frustrating that we may not see that stand-alone legislation in this mandate. The Minister points, rightly, to the collapse of these institutions as one reason for that, but that cannot be used to mask the fact that the wider Executive response has been sub-par at best. Even when the First Minister and deputy First Minister came together to jointly condemn the rise in sectarianism and hate crime, the very next day, they were at loggerheads over a jobs fair in Derry. Leadership really matters. It is not just about leadership in front of the cameras; it is about consistency in words and actions, in public and behind closed doors.

The Chamber has not been a nice environment for the past couple of weeks. It has been a toxic environment. I urge Members to be really careful. As I said before, that trickles down into our communities. We saw it on our streets over the weekend. It is playing out in our communities right now: families in north Belfast have been forced from their homes by intimidation; healthcare workers are fearful just to go home; and minority communities are boarding up their windows against attack. That is the reality of life for many people across our islands.

While the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme has been extended, and we are throwing more money at it, it is unclear whether it is even delivering the intended impact.

Paramilitaries still operate in our communities, and that is a fact. For many, particularly women, it is the coercive control and blackmail that cause the deepest harm. We must break the cycle of quiet condemnation followed by no serious action.

I am not ignorant of the difficult financial situation that we face. Resources are stretched. As Members across the House have said, we are told time and again that the PSNI is at breaking point and remains 1,000 officers short of what is sustainable. That is worrying. We cannot allow our streets to be controlled by those intent on stoking tension and division. The Minister of Finance must work with the Minister of Justice to ensure that the resources are there to recruit more officers and to give our courts the capacity to prosecute hate crimes properly.

Words are not enough. There must be accountability in the system, and, yes, we must take back control but not in the divisive way that was used to tear us apart. We must take back control of the narrative on immigration and its value to our society. As others across the House have said, our minority communities are indispensable to this region. Our health, hospitality and care sectors would collapse without the workers who keep them running. Our LGBTQ+ community brings joy, light and resilience to a society that is too often weighed down by division, yet there is disgusting language used that puts a foot on the neck of a very small trans community in our society. Today was no exception.

We will vote against the DUP amendment, which attempts to shift blame away from the Executive as a whole while failing to put forward solutions that are fit for purpose. Instead, the DUP amendment reinforces the status quo, which is clearly not working. This should be a moment to come together with a collective sense —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Will she agree that it would be wrong to target a young individual, male or female, from Derry who is a member of the armed forces?

Ms McLaughlin: On hate crime, I absolutely say that you should not target anybody. Hate is hate, no matter where it is.

This should be a moment to come together with a collective sense of purpose to ensure the safety and security of all our people, regardless of race, ethnicity or background. We may not always agree on everything in the Chamber, but we should agree that no one should fear for their safety in their home, no one should be afraid to walk down their street and no community should ever be scapegoated for the failures of those in power. Let us prove once and for all that hate has no home in the North.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we move to the next item of business, we will take our ease while we get ready at the top Table. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. Colin, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It would be entirely remiss of me to commence the debate without mentioning someone who made a significant impact on so many people's lives. I am referring, of course, to Catherine Sherry, a young mother from Armagh, who lost her life earlier this year while receiving CAR T-cell therapy in London. Her aunts are representing the family in the Public Gallery today, and I thank Anne and Marie for being with us and for the way in which they have raised the issue and want to see a resolution to the problems.

Catherine should never have had to travel hundreds of miles from her home and her family in the final months of her life. Who of us can imagine having to do that? It is unbearable and heartbreaking. That is the human cost of the gap in our system. Catherine's family and many others who are here and who have reached out to us today remind us that, behind every one of those statistics, there is a life, a family and a community.

CAR T-cell therapy is one of the most advanced life-saving cancer treatments available today. It is already being delivered in Dublin and soon will be in Galway, and it is delivered in various centres across Britain, yet here in the North, our patients must travel to London, Manchester or Glasgow. They face separation from loved ones, the stress of travel and the additional costs of that all while they are battling cancer. Whichever way you slice it, that is just cruel and plain wrong. What we have now is not working. Families are being forced into impossible choices, and people here are being denied equitable access to treatment that others on these islands can receive closer to home.

The motion is simple. It calls on the Health Minister:

for CAR T-cell therapy. In many ways, Belfast is a trailblazer when it comes to cancer care, with the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, but it should be a centre of excellence for cancer care, and we cannot keep pushing delivery out to the next decade. Those battling cancer simply do not have years to wait. While we work to build that service here, there is an immediate step that we could take: we could cooperate with Dublin. St James's Hospital in Dublin is already treating patients. The service in Galway will soon be operational. It makes no sense that patients from Newry, Armagh or Derry must fly to London when some of the best cancer clinicians in the world are just down the road. It is about fairness, but it is also about compassion and justice for families who have already endured too much.

I say this to the families who are here today: we see you, we hear you, and we will keep fighting for you. The Assembly cannot bring back Catherine or any of those whom we have lost to that most indiscriminate and horrible disease, but we can make sure that Catherine's story is the last of its kind. Let us resolve today that no one in the North will be left behind in the fight against cancer. Let us deliver CAR T-cell therapy here. In the meantime, while we get ready to do that, if it is going to take a number of years, let us work with our neighbours to provide care close to home. Those battling that illness want to live; they do not have the luxury of time. Let us not leave them waiting any longer.

Mr McGuigan: Before I get to the specific subject of the motion, it is important that we consider the broader context of how cancer care is being delivered in the North. The cancer strategy that was published in 2022 set out a vision for transforming outcomes, improving access and embedding person-centred care, yet, nearly three years on, implementation remains slow, underfunded and fragmented. Cancer patients are already being let down by delays in waiting times for diagnostic testing. The delays add stress and uncertainty and, in some cases, could impact on patient outcomes. We cannot compound that injustice by denying access to cancer therapies being delivered as close to home as possible.

Clearly, I support the motion, and I thank the SDLP for tabling it. I join the proposer of the motion in acknowledging Catherine Sherry and her sad loss and in welcoming her family members to the Assembly. I acknowledge their courage in sharing their family's very personal and heartbreaking story to raise awareness of the lack of CAR T-cell treatment in the North, of the toll that travelling for the therapy can take on the individual receiving the treatment and on their family, and of the additional risk factors of infection that can arise from having to travel on public transport, including planes, and wait in busy spaces such as airports. The implications of all those factors are real, preventable and must be addressed.

CAR T-cell therapy is a breakthrough in cancer treatment. It offers hope where hope has, perhaps, run out. Patients here should not have to travel hundreds of miles for the treatment. They should not have to travel outside Ireland, when Dublin's St James's Hospital, just 60 miles from where Catherine lived, offers the same therapy. The Minister has stated that he is working towards establishing a new regional haematology ward in Belfast that will enable patients to receive CAR T-cell therapy locally. That investment is welcome, but, by the Minister's own admission, it will not be delivered until 2030 at the earliest, assuming that there are no unforeseen delays. The Minister also acknowledges that the time taken to put in place the necessary arrangements to enable patients to access treatment in Dublin would be nugatory, when plans are in place to open a regional ward. However, I ask the Minister, in his response today, to detail precisely how long, he believes, the process to put in place an island-wide arrangement would take. It should be straightforward and take very little time. I also ask him to outline how that time frame compares with the five years' — at least — wait for a local service for patients here. If the answer is anything less than five years, surely, he must act to get that arrangement in place now.

In conclusion —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McGuigan: — access to live-saving healthcare should not be constricted —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Philip.

Mr McGuigan: — by the boundaries of the system. We need an all-Ireland approach to the issue.

Mrs Dodds: First, I thank the Sherry family for being here today and, indeed, for speaking so openly about Catherine's illness and her treatment. I understand that it is an exceptionally brave thing to do. Therefore, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to Fergal, Manus, Tómas, Donal and the wider family circle.

As others have said, CAR T-cell therapy is an exciting, recently developed treatment for some blood cancers in children and adults. As I understand it, and this is probably simplistic, T-cells are the blood cells of the immune system that protect the body from foreign invaders. CAR T-cell therapy reprogrammes the body's T-cells to more effectively target and destroy cancer before being infused back into the individual. It is a living drug that can grow, expand and form memory, and it potentially offers the patient lifelong protection, but it is not provided in Northern Ireland. There are arrangements with the NHS centres in Great Britain to treat patients who require CAR T-cell therapy. Minister, I would be interested if you could tell us how many patients have travelled to England against the number who might have benefited from it in the past.

Action 22 of the Northern Ireland cancer strategy was to monitor the viability of providing specialist services such as CAR T-cell therapy in Northern Ireland. While the Belfast Trust has submitted a business case to the Department for the new regional haematology ward, which will have improved facilities, surely, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of progress, and we should try to offer the treatment more proactively and much sooner so that others can benefit from a life-saving treatment.

There are significant side effects associated with CAR T-cell therapies, and people who receive the treatment will have to have a multi-professional approach. Again, Minister, we would like you to give us some more information about the clinicians who will do that. We are confident that we have world-leading cancer clinicians in Northern Ireland. We need to give them the tools and permission to get on with providing the standards that we would like to see.

We have no difficulty with cross-border cooperation to enable greater ease of access to much-needed treatment, but I make no apology for saying that I want to see and we want to see — I am sure that the Assembly agrees with me —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — this life-saving treatment available here in Northern Ireland for our friends, family and community.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry. Thank you.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It is a particularly emotional topic, and I begin by paying tribute to Catherine Sherry and her dear family. As a mum, I can only imagine what Catherine went through in her final few months when she was separated from her young family. It is distressing for anyone, no matter how sick or well they are, to be away from home, knowing that it will have an impact on family life.

When Catherine was diagnosed in September of last year, many MLAs and MPs were already asking questions about speeding up cancer treatment across the island and east-west. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, but I hope that, by working together to ensure that we bring the voices to the Chamber and to the public, perhaps, we can have a change in Northern Ireland.

I understand that CAR T-cell treatment is a specific type of immunotherapy for blood cancer.

I cannot pretend that I knew everything about it before the debate today, but my colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP — many people are aware of her personal circumstances — has been lobbying the Health Minister, using her husband's experience in Northern Ireland and the haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital in particular, to shine a light on the lack of services there, not because of the dedicated work of our health professionals. I wonder whether the Minister can provide any additional clarity around the timeline that Mrs Dodds referred to, as well as the business case for the project. We understand that it is not as simple as funding and that it requires workforce and facilities, but I am sure that, by putting our heads together and making it happen, it can be done.

I understand as well that the Republic is running its service at capacity and has stated that it could not cope with additional patients. However, given that it is much easier to transfer between Dublin and Belfast than it is to get on a plane and be separated from your family, that issue is worth exploring. We need creative solutions to bring about a change here to everyone's lives and to the families affected.

I end in the way in which I began: paying tribute to Fergal for continuing the work of Catherine. He has shown incredible strength and bravery in helping to save the lives of others at such a devastating time for him and his family. Thank you to the Sherry family.

Mr Chambers: First and foremost, I extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Catherine Sherry. Her tragic passing is a stark reminder to us all of the unbelievably cruel nature of cancer. As Catherine was a mum of three young boys, her case is particularly poignant and upsetting.

Thankfully, over recent decades, there has been significant progress in the treatments and interventions available. CAR T-cell therapy represents one of the most significant breakthroughs in cancer treatment in recent years. That level of advanced treatment now offers hope where, in the past, there would have been little. However, the arrangements here are far from ideal; indeed, patients are being separated from their loved ones at the very moment when they need them the most. The absence of a CAR T-cell therapy service locally is an issue not just of geography but of fairness. It is about ensuring that a postcode does not determine whether someone can spend their last days surrounded by family or in a hospital hundreds of miles away.

I welcome, however, the fact that, instead of trying to justify or explain away the current problems, the Minister of Health here has been upfront in his assessment that he wants to see the position changed and that the mechanism to see a local service introduced here is the delivery of a new regional haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital. Thankfully, that project has been prioritised to proceed, although I acknowledge that it will take some time. An all-island solution would not be just as straightforward as adopting a new policy on this side of the border. Perhaps the Minister will update us later, but access to CAR T-cell therapy in the Republic is already, as others have said, running close to maximum capacity. A bit like us, it is in the process of investing in future haematology capabilities.

Overall, I support the call for equitable access to CAR T-cell therapy for our citizens. Thankfully, that appears to be the current direction of travel.

Ms Flynn: I also support the motion from the SDLP Opposition. Other Members have referenced Catherine's family. As MLAs, obviously, we rise with sadness, but, hopefully, there will be a bit of determination following tonight's motion. Sadly, as we have been told, we are reminded of the recent passing of Catherine Sherry, a young mother from Armagh who travelled to London for CAR T-cell therapy. We see in her story the deep human cost of a system that, unfortunately, forces people at their sickest and most vulnerable to leave their family, community and home to access life-saving treatment.

CAR T-cell therapy is not experimental; it is life-saving and proven. It offers hope to people with blood cancers when all other options have failed. Across this island, thousands live with conditions such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma. For many, CAR T-cell therapy may be their only chance. The devastating truth is that the treatment is available just 100 miles away in Dublin at St James's Hospital, yet patients here cannot access it. That is not because of lack of capacity or funding but because we cannot, as yet, get agreement. Hopefully we will get an update from the Minister on the conversations between our Department of Health and their counterparts in Dublin.

We are told that a CAR T-cell therapy facility may not open in Belfast until 2030 and even then only after accreditation. That would mean at least five more years of patients being forced on to planes to go to London or Manchester, when they could be driven to Dublin in an hour or two. While the progress is welcome, the reality is that people in the North are still sent across the water to England or Scotland. That means long journeys, financial strain, emotional hardship and separation from their children, partners and support networks at precisely the time when they need them most.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to developing haematology therapy services locally. As Members have pointed out, the work is complex. The worry is that those services may take years to establish, and patients who are living with those illnesses today do not have years to wait. For them, linking with Dublin would be the most practical and compassionate solution. People on these islands should have access to health services as close as possible to their home. It is not ideal that families are put on to planes, when there is already a world-class CAR T-cell therapy service in Dublin. Let us be clear that, while we support the building of a local service, we must also support the Minister in getting an agreed all-island pathway, if possible, so that patients in the North can access treatments in Dublin.

I again offer a special welcome to the family members who are in the Public Gallery tonight. We are all thinking about you first and foremost.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I convey my sympathies to the family of Catherine Sherry, the young mother whose story triggered the debate. I admit that I did not hear the radio programme in which the case was initially discussed, as I am not a great follower of the news, but I have since read the story online. She died in King's College Hospital in London, miles away from her three sons. That is heartbreaking. It is unimaginable.

CAR T-cell therapy is a groundbreaking and potentially life-saving treatment for certain cancers. It works by reprogramming a patient's immune cells to attack cancer cells. It has already shown positive results in clinical trials and real-world applications, offering hope to people who may have run out of other treatment options. Right now, though, patients travel to England or Scotland to receive treatment. There is an obvious financial outlay in having to pay for travel and accommodation, and loss of income is incurred during the time away. We need to do better by having cutting-edge treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy available on our doorstep in the heart of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland must not be left behind in healthcare. We cannot continue to rely on the goodwill of distant hospitals or the limited availability of services in England and Scotland. If we were to establish a local service, patients could have equitable access to that life-saving treatment, without the added hardship of travelling, even to Dublin. That is particularly the case for people whom I represent on the far north coast of the Province. Unless I am missing something, it should not be an impossible task. Other regions of the UK, including Scotland, have managed to provide local CAR T-cell services, and I am interested to hear why we lag behind. We have some of the best hospitals — world-class, in fact — and world-class staff. We should therefore be on a par with the very best. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr McGrath for tabling the motion and all the Members who have contributed. Like them, I begin by offering my deepest sympathies to the family of Catherine Sherry. I know that it has been a very difficult time for her husband, her three young sons, the wider family and her friends and community.

Members will have heard me say many times that, in an ideal world, when somebody needs health and social care, they will get it at home and, if that is not possible, they will get it as close to home as possible.

I hope that Members will recognise that asking people to travel to Great Britain is, for me, counter-strategic and counter-intuitive, but it is currently the only option. It is my ambition to improve patient access to all cancer services, including CAR T-cell therapy, which we are considering today.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is a type of cell-based gene therapy that alters the genes in a person's T-cells, which are a type of white blood cell. In turn, that helps attack cancer cells. It is highly complex and innovative and a specialist cancer treatment. It has been specifically developed for individual cancer patients, in particular those with quite advanced cancers where other available treatments have failed.

The therapy can have severe side effects and can be provided only in specialist cancer units that meet a detailed National Health Service specification. Given the very specialised nature of treatment, that therefore limits the options for available specialist centres, with those specialist centres currently located in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Following confirmation of eligibility for CAR T-cell therapy by an expert panel, patients here are referred to a specialist centre in Great Britain. The centres there are the only specialist centres that currently accept or have the capacity to treat patients from Northern Ireland.

We have spoken to colleagues in the Department of Health in Dublin, and the issue is capacity. Mr McGuigan asked a question: the answer that I have is that it would take the Republic longer to increase its CAR T-cell capacity than it would take us to develop and replace ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital.

I can tell Members that we have had a North/South cancer and policy group since March 2023, about two and a half years. If, for example, the Shared Island Fund could be used to advance capacity, I would go there. I invite Mr McGuigan and his Committee to test the information that I have been given by officials, which is, to repeat, that we cannot do increase capacity until we have the new haematology ward at Belfast City Hospital — it looks as though we will not have it until 2030-31 — and that it will take the Republic longer to increase its capacity to take on board patients from Northern Ireland. I assure Members that I will continue to do all that I can to achieve safe and sustainable local service delivery for those services in as short a time frame as I can.

Just under 700 new patients per annum are diagnosed with leukaemia and lymphoma in Northern Ireland. In answer to Mrs Dodds's question, the number of CAR T-cell patients from Northern Ireland treated in the past couple of years is as follows: 28 in the financial year 2023-24; 11 in the financial year 2024-25; and, to date, 11 in this financial year up to August. Some within that referral figure may, unfortunately, not proceed to treatment.

As always, we must remind ourselves that those numbers represent real people: family members and loved ones living in our community. It is completely understandable that there is a sense of urgency about the situation, and it is a sense of urgency that I share. The ideal situation is for us to have CAR T-cell therapy services here so that patients can be treated closer to home and avoid the disruption to family life.

I assure Members that work is ongoing to deliver that CAR T-cell therapy service here. It will be delivered as part of the planned wider cancer service development currently being progressed as part of a new regional haematology ward based at Belfast City Hospital. I am pleased to advise that I have approved the project to proceed and have made funds available, subject to final approvals from departmental officials, to allow development proposals to proceed as soon as possible. As I said, unfortunately, a project of that scale will take a long time. It is not expected to be completed until the financial year 2030-31. I know that there will be disappointment and frustration with that timeline, but I again assure Members that I want to see the ward progress as soon as possible.

I very much recognise the benefits of working jointly with the Republic of Ireland, and I have had good meetings with the previous and current Health Ministers in Dublin on those areas of health and social care where there are clear mutual benefits. Officials from both jurisdictions meet regularly. They consider opportunities for cross-border cooperation in cancer service provision. We want to ensure that we can collectively deliver the best possible services and patient outcomes for people across this island. The rate of development of specialist therapies for cancer, the complexity of new regimes and the standards for delivery make that more challenging than in other health areas. Unfortunately, health officials in the Republic have advised that their CAR T-cell therapy service, which, as Members have referenced, is based at St James's Hospital, Dublin, is currently operating at capacity and cannot support additional patients accessing those services from Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis, so please let us not raise false hope. The Republic is at capacity. We have also been advised by University Hospital Galway that plans to commence CAR T-cell therapy later this year are contingent on staff recruitment. That said, the benefits of providing specialist care closer to home are undisputed. In that regard, we will continue to scope and assess the feasibility of cross-border service models.

My departmental officials will continue to work closely with cancer policy and clinical leads in the Republic on the development of opportunities for cross-border cancer services, consistent with the commitments in the All-Ireland Cancer Consortium (AICC) memorandum of understanding. Until we can provide that treatment ourselves and in the absence of capacity in the Republic, we will, I am afraid, continue to be reliant on services that are available in Great Britain, particularly in London and Manchester, and that are currently available to treat patients who live in Northern Ireland.

That is the reality of the situation that we face today. Like many other Members, and like all the Members who contributed to the debate, I wish that it were different — of course I do — but I can only assure Members and those patients who are affected that I am doing all that is in my power to deliver a CAR T-cell therapy service in Northern Ireland as quickly and as safely as possible.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call on Justin McNulty to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Justin, you have five minutes.

Mr McNulty: Twenty-three years ago today, Armagh won the All-Ireland for the first time. I say that because, on 18 May, I stood in St Killian's, Whitecross, after the funeral celebration for Catherine Sherry, who was buried in St Teresa's, Tullyherron, and her mummy told me that the last message that Catherine sent to her on the day before she died — 11 May, the day of the Ulster final — was "Come on, Armagh". In December 2024, Paul Duggan of the Armagh county board arranged for me to take the Sam Maguire Cup to Catherine's home, as Armagh were reigning All-Ireland champions again. It was a powerfully poignant and sad time but a very cheerful time as well. It gave the family hope and a huge sense of joy that Sam was in their home and with their family.

It is therefore with a sense of sadness and duty that I speak to the motion. I do so to remember and honour the life of Catherine Sherry, a young mother from south Armagh who tragically passed away whilst receiving CAR T-cell therapy for lymphoma in King's College Hospital, London. Catherine's story is heartbreaking. At her sickest and most vulnerable, Catherine was forced to travel hundreds of miles from her home, separated from her loved ones, to access the treatment that she needed. Her family endured the anguish of distance when what they needed most was to be together. While she was in hospital in London, Catherine rang home every day and sang 'You Are My Sunshine' to her sons.

Catherine was small in stature, but, by God, she was big in fight. I pay tribute to her extraordinary strength and bravery. Her family, even in their grief, have campaigned tirelessly. Her aunts Anne and Marie are with us today in the Public Gallery. Her husband, Fergal, and sons Manus, Tomás and Donal are watching from home. We owe it to them and to every patient in the North who is living with blood cancer to act.

Since the NHS commissioned CAR T-cell therapy in 2019, 70 patients from the North have had to travel to England or Scotland. That is the worst-case scenario: gravely ill people being uprooted, separated from their families and support structures and burdened with needless travel while our health service pays over the odds for care that could be delivered here. Upstairs at our meeting earlier, one of the family members told me that the loneliness is devastating.

There is a better way. Access to CAR T-cell therapy services in Dublin would be a huge step forward, but the ideal and most sustainable outcome is the delivery of CAR T-cell therapy here in Belfast. Let us be clear: senior clinicians in Belfast City Hospital have said that they want to deliver CAR T-cell therapy here and are fit to do so. The facilities and expertise are already there, they have enough patients to fund the service and Belfast City Hospital already holds international accreditation for stem cell transplants. Only minimal work is required for CAR T-cell therapy accreditation. Clinicians say that CAR T-cell therapy is a vital new frontier of modern medicine and a field of medicine that is rapidly evolving, and they say that the health service here is paying way over the odds for patients to access the service. The only missing ingredients are funding and political will.

I must call out the insensitivity from the Department in its answer to a question from me, speaking of it being "nugatory". We all had to look that word up, but, when we found out its meaning, we thought that it was very insensitive towards the families.

The Department of Health has pointed to capacity issues in Dublin as a reason not to pursue cross-border cooperation. That does not hold up. New CAR T-cell therapy services will open in Galway this year. The Department has also said that Belfast will not deliver CAR T-cell therapy until 2030 or 2031. That is five or six years away. For families living with blood cancer, that is a lifetime. They do not have the luxury of waiting. Almost every part of the blood cancer journey is already administered here in the North. The only missing piece is the CAR T-cell therapy itself. It is a small but crucial part of the treatment, yet its absence forces patients to leave this island at an enormous emotional, physical and financial cost. It makes no sense. We already have the clinicians, the expertise, the demand, the hospital and the accreditations. The Department is paying way more than it should be to send people away when it would cost less to deliver care at home. It is not a question of capacity; it is a question of bureaucracy and priorities. Who are the commissioners of services in the North?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Justin.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Who nicked my phone?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry?

Mr McNulty: Who nicked my phone? Somebody has stolen my phone.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We will get Building Services to try to find out who nicked your phone.

A Member: There is a phone sitting there. Is that it?

Mr McNulty: Yeah. It's been some joker. Some Shinner joker. Good one, lads.