Official Report: Wednesday 24 September 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I inform Members that the Speaker remains unwell and will therefore not be in the Chamber today. I am sure that we send him all our best wishes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As usual, yes, everybody on their feet. Members who are called to speak will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that they are not permitted to make points of order. Should any arise, I will deal with them afterwards.

Mr Kearney: Rinne na Náisiúin Aontaithe Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána a cheiliúradh Dé Domhnaigh seo a chuaigh thart, an 21 Meán Fómhair.

Tugann an lá sin deis don domhan ár machnamh a dhéanamh — agus ár dtiomantas a athdhearbhú — ar an dóigh a dtig linn deireadh a chur leis an choimhlint, cearta an duine a chosaint agus síocháin an domhain a chur chun tosaigh.

Tugadh dearbhú cinnte an tseachtain seo caite i dtuarascáil ó Chomhairle na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chearta an Duine go bhfuil stát Iosrael ag déanamh cinedhíothú in aghaidh mhuintir na Palaistíne. Is é a tuairiscíodh inti:

Ná haifir orm é, ach caithfidh mé sin a léamh amach an athuair. Is é a dúradh sa tuarascáil:

Cad é an cineál domhain a bhfuil muid inár gcónaí ann?

Tá freagra na ceiste sin le fáil i gcruachás mhuintir na Palaistíne. Tá uileloscadh comhaimseartha ar siúl os comhair shúile an domhain. Tá stát ag baint úsáid as an chinedhíothú, as an ocras éigeantach, as an ghlanadh eitneach, as an choinneáil agus as an chinedheighilt, agus tá stát ag ciorrú páistí nuair a scaoileann naoscairí sa cheann iad. Agus tá sin uile go léir á dhéanamh d’aon turas. Tá an dara cothrom lae den chinedhíothú seo ag druidim linn.

Ar mhaithe leis an chine dhaonna, ní mór don domhan gníomhú le deireadh a chur leis an tsádachas seo. Ní mór trádbhaic arm chuimsitheacha, smachtbhannaí agus dífheistiú a chur i bhfeidhm i gcoinne Iosrael. Tá an t-am ann le Benjamin Netanyahu agus na gealta ina Chomh-Aireacht a thabhairt os comhair na Cúirte Coiriúla Idirnáisiúnta.

Caithfimid rún comhchoiteann a bheith againn ceartas, comhionnnas agus síocháin a bhaint amach do mhuintir na Palaistíne ós sin is brí do Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána.

Mrs Dodds: I rise to highlight the persecution of Christians, particularly those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Often, the world turns a blind eye to that brutal news. It does not get the same coverage as many other issues and the persecution of many other peoples. Open Doors reports that over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination: one in seven Christians worldwide.

In the past month, at least 100 people have been killed by Islamic groups in a series of attacks in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a large number of them were of the Christian faith. Over 95% of the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are Christian, but levels of Islamic extremist violence have soared over the past year. That is only one of many attacks on Christians over the past year. On 22 August, 59 Christians were killed in attacks. On 3 August, 49 Christians were killed. On 25 February, Christians were found killed in a church. On 30 January, churches closed as rebels attempted to take them over. I could go on to list other examples.

I want the House to recognise the persecution of Christians, not just in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but worldwide, and acknowledge that it is a real and present issue and that people are entitled to live out their faith in freedom.

Mrs Guy: I rise to speak about children who are missing in education. I am specifically talking about children who are not registered in school or as being in home education. We do not know how many kids are in that situation, whether they are in harm's way or whether they need support. However, from speaking to the Education Authority, the British Association of Social Workers, the Children's Commissioner's office and other experts, I know that those who are responsible for safeguarding issues are worried. Having received internal minutes and briefings from the Department of Education through an FOI request, I know that the Department is, rightly, worried about the issue.

We have seen heartbreaking incidents in the South that showed what can happen when children fall through the cracks in our systems. We need to do everything that we can to prevent that from happening. That requires better data sharing between our Departments and other jurisdictions, statutory guidance and legislative change, all of which, I know, are being looked at by senior officials in the Department of Education. I fully appreciate that that work is ongoing, but we need urgency. I will help in any way that I can. I will back legislative changes and statutory guidance to improve the situation. We must focus on closing those gaps in our system, and we must get it done in this mandate.

Dr Aiken: Yesterday, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I joined others in meeting the Fine Gael Oireachtas team, led by Emer Currie and Frank Feighan. As is always the case with good friends and colleagues, we had a full and frank discussion, about everything from legacy and Ireland's lack of defence spending to the Windsor framework, the stability of the Assembly and migration issues. Finally, we had quite an animated discussion about the Irish presidential election and the relative merits of the candidates.

Yesterday was such a busy day that, unfortunately, I had not heard the interview with the Sinn Féin and People Before Profit Irish presidential pick, Catherine Connolly, with William Crawley on 'Talkback' and nor had our Fine Gael guests. I have now. I encourage everyone in the Assembly to listen to it as well. You will note Connolly's reluctance to unequivocally condemn the 7 October attacks; her remarks that Keir Starmer should have no say about Hamas and that it should be up to the Palestinian people; that she does not believe that the murder, rape, torture and infanticide by Hamas of 1,195 people on that infamous day in October was genocidal; and that Hamas is part of the fabric of the Palestinian people and it is not up to us to dictate to them, though, hypocritically, she has no problem dictating to the people of Israel.

You may also note that the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, and, indeed, our First Minister called it a "game changer" when they endorsed Catherine Connolly for the Áras. The question for the Assembly is this: do Sinn Féin and People Before Profit support Connolly's assertions about Hamas? If they do, they should come to the Assembly and correct the record, as both parties have asserted regularly that they do not support Hamas and condemn unreservedly the violence of 7 October as war crimes and attempts to commit genocide on the Jewish people, the aim that has been stated clearly by the Hamas leadership. Which is it, Michelle, Declan and Gerry? How do Connolly's assertions match what you have said in the Assembly? With the First Minister's complaining about selling your soul for a sip of champagne with POTUS, how can you sell your soul and that of your party to Catherine Connolly? The question is whether you endorse or condemn her remarks. If, of course, you agree with her and believe that Hamas is to be rewarded by being given power in the future, that is a damning indictment of your support for the causes of peace and reconciliation here and everywhere else.

Mr McCrossan: I rise to discuss the blight of alcohol and drug addiction in our communities. It is one of the greatest social challenges facing our society. Behind the statistics are real people, families and communities that are being torn apart. Every week, I meet families in West Tyrone who are watching loved ones spiral into addiction. Too often, their stories are stories of despair, not because they have given up hope but because they feel that the system has given up on them. Our services are failing. They are underfunded, fragmented and, in many cases, completely inaccessible to those who need them. Waiting lists are far too long. Community organisations are stretched to breaking point, forced to pick up the pieces with little or no support from government. The result is predictable: more lives lost, more families broken and more communities living in fear of what drugs do their streets.

We cannot talk about addiction in isolation. Too often, those struggling with alcohol or drugs are also battling mental health issues, depression, anxiety and trauma, yet, in Northern Ireland, there is no proper dual diagnosis system that treats both conditions together; instead, people are pushed from one service to another and fall through the cracks at the very moment when they need joined-up, compassionate care.

Drugs are destroying lives in every community. From Strabane to Belfast and Omagh to Derry, we see young people being robbed of their future and neighbourhoods being destabilised. It is not just a health crisis; it is a social emergency on which the Executive must act now. We desperately need urgent investment in addiction services. We need accessible, properly funded community-based supports that people and families can rely on. We need a dual diagnosis approach that recognises the inextricable link between mental health and addiction, so that people are treated as whole human beings and not as cases to be passed between Departments. In that vein, it is regrettable that the core funding for the Northlands centre in Derry has been cut. That is short-sighted and speaks to the failings of the Executive to prioritise those who are struggling and battling with addiction, particularly across the north-west.

Addiction is not a lifestyle choice; it is an illness. It requires treatment, support and compassion, particularly from those in positions of leadership in government. If we continue to underfund and ignore the crisis, more lives will be lost. However, with the right services, the right investment and the right political leadership from the Executive, people can have a chance to recover and rebuild their lives with dignity and the support that they so desperately need and deserve.

Mrs Mason: Last week, a number of Sinn Féin colleagues and I met farming families in Seaforde in South Down to hear about the devastating impact that bovine tuberculosis is having on them. What I heard that night can only be described as heartbreaking. Generations — three, four, five or six generations — of families have seen their work and investment wiped out in a matter of weeks as their herds were destroyed by bovine TB. Farmers spoke that night with raw honesty about the huge emotional and financial toll that that has taken on them and about their despair at seeing their life's work reduced to almost nothing.

The overwhelming message from the floor that night was one of anger: anger at being neglected; anger at being ignored; and anger at being left behind. Among the crowd of men and women was a passionate young farmer called James. James is just 10 years old. He sat quietly beside his grandfather while his mother told the family's story, which was one of heartbreak, cattle loss and livelihoods under threat. In that young man's face could be seen his pride in his family's farm but also his worry as he listened to local farmers' devastating stories.

James represents the next generation of farmers, and he deserves a future in which farming is supported rather than undermined. That night, James showed me a picture of his cow, which he had reared himself from birth. Just the week before, he had watched helplessly as it was taken away to be destroyed. The look on his face said more than any report, review, strategy or consultation ever could, but what struck me the most was his determination to keep on farming. I have to say, "Fair play" to James, because, after that late-night meeting, he still managed to get up in the morning and get to school on time.

That night, farmers told me that they felt abandoned by DAERA and by the Minister, who, they believe, has sat on his hands for far too long. While their herds are being wiped out, the Department produces review after review and undertakes consultation after consultation. Farmers do not need another consultation on this: they need action. They believe that the strategies are already in place: fair compensation; meaningful intervention; support for farm biodiversity; and urgent implementation of existing recommendations.

The Agriculture Minister needs to step up to the plate and deliver. It is a human crisis, with families who have farmed for generations now at breaking point. I call on the Minister to meet the farmers without delay, listen to their devastating stories and take urgent action to protect our agri-food sector.

Mr Brett: On 24 October, the people of the Irish Republic will select their new president. That provides an opportunity for parties to set out their vision and seek the trust of the electorate. Where is Sinn Féin in that election? After months of speculation, of shadow-boxing and of telling the people of Ireland that its announcement would be a game changer, Sinn Féin has bottled it. Once again, Sinn Féin is on the run: no vision, no courage and no leadership. The same party endlessly talks about holding a referendum, first by 2016, then by 2030 and then within its members' lifetime, but, when it had the opportunity to stand for the highest office in the Irish Republic, it ran away. It vanished. It spent months complaining, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should be able to vote in that election and, indeed, wasted time in the Assembly calling for that, yet, when it had it had the opportunity to run a candidate in the election, it ran away.

Instead of taking responsibility, Sinn Féin has a habit of demanding that others do its work. It insists that Dublin must produce a strategy to deliver Irish unity. It insist that civil servants must write the plan, and, when nothing happens, it blames everyone but itself. The decision not to run should come as no surprise. Despite claims from Sinn Féin that Mary Lou McDonald was the Taoiseach-in-waiting, the people of the Republic of Ireland sent the party a clear message. Now, instead of standing on its own two feet, it hides behind the independent candidate, Catherine Connolly, who has already managed to make a mockery of her campaign. We were told that she would be a champion for Irish unity, yet, when newspapers looked at her record on Irish unity, they found that she had not made one single comment on the issue in the past 25 years. However, her anti-Israel, anti-NATO, anti-American and pro-Hamas views might have more to do with the fact that Sinn Féin has run behind her. That pattern runs through Sinn Féin's politics. The party shouts the loudest, but, when asked to lead either in Dublin or here, it blames others for failure to deliver what it wants.

I agree with the former Sinn Féin MP for Mid Ulster Francie Molloy, who broke Sinn Féin ranks to say that it should not have backed Catherine Connolly. The decision is a clear recognition that Sinn Féin is not fit to lead the Irish Republic. On that, Members on these Benches agree with Sinn Féin.

Ms Mulholland: I will talk about organ donation, given that it is Organ Donation Week. It is life-changing. It is an act of generosity that can be tinged with joy and grief, depending on the circumstances.

Across the UK, 8,000 people are waiting for a transplant, and 276 of them are children. However, only 1% of deaths happen in circumstances that could even allow donation. As Anthony Clarkson from NHS Blood and Transplant put it:

That really hits home for me when I think about my family and my wee ones. The truth is that any of us in the Chamber could need a transplant at some point.

In Northern Ireland, our waiting list has risen to 163 people. Last year, 44 deceased donors enabled 123 transplants, and 68 living donors stepped up, including one of our civil servants who work alongside the Communities Committee this year. However, eight people in Northern Ireland died while still waiting. Those are eight funerals that I would rather had not happened, and I am sure that we all feel the same.

That said, there is a lot that we can be proud of. Ninety per cent of people here support organ donation, and 59% of us are on the register. That is the highest in the UK. Normally, when we look at statistics across these islands, we see that Northern Ireland is usually lagging behind but not this time. That is testament to Dáithí's law. It is making a difference. Máirtín, his daddy, said that Dáithí's law is already playing a role in saving people's lives, but there is more to do. He is right, because, while deemed consent helps, families still need to be part of that discussion. They are far more likely to say yes when they know and have had that conversation with their loved one about what they wanted. Therefore, I take the opportunity today to beg people to please register, tell your family, have that conversation and leave them certain of your wishes.

For families, losing a loved one is already a really torturous time, and leaving them with one less thing to worry about can help. Máirtín also put it really perfectly when he said:

That culture shift is precious. He reminds us of the humanity behind it all and the human heart of the work. He said of donors and their families that:

I agree with every word.

I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to an fear beag cróga

that is Mr Dáithí and the smiley wee face that I sometimes see in Ballycastle when he is up for his holidays. He is a little boy who has used the toughest of circumstances to change the world around him. This week, please have that conversation with your families.

Mr Stewart: I rise today to condemn and to highlight the behaviour of some private car parking firms that operate across Northern Ireland with impunity. As we all know, those firms use bully-boy tactics and target ordinary people with extortionate fines and threats that are completely disproportionate to the circumstances.

In my constituency recently, an elderly lady contacted my office. She had paid the fine after 15 letters of intimidation by one of those so-called parking firms. When a family member challenged it, it transpired that the lady had been in hospital when the incident occurred. That is not a one-off incidence, but it is absolutely disgraceful. I have written to the Minister today to highlight that issue and many others.

We have all heard the stories. Someone pays for a ticket, is perhaps one or two minutes late and suddenly faces a £100 penalty. If they challenge that or try to debate with the company, they get harassed. Bailiff letters begin arriving, and there is threatening language and intimidation. Those are not the actions of fair businesses; they are the actions of companies that are seeking to squeeze every penny out of our constituents. What makes matters worse is the fact that some of our public bodies employ those companies to do that. Public bodies that are funded by the taxpayer are, effectively, outsourcing intimidation.

The Assembly cannot stand idly by while our constituents are threatened in that way by those companies. We must look to what is happening elsewhere. In England and Wales, new codes of practice and legal frameworks have been introduced to curb the excesses, and action has been taken in Scotland to ensure that enforcement is fair, proportionate and transparent. Northern Ireland must not lag behind. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to review the existing legislation and regulations to finally rein those companies in. As we know, the companies have access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) records, so it is important that they are completely under control. We need clear rules, robust enforcement and real protections for the public. We need to ensure that, if penalties are applied, they are fair, reasonable and transparent. Above all, we need to put an end to the harassment and intimidation of ordinary people who are going about their daily life.

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

As many of you will know, my home town of Derry proudly carries the title "City of Song". Few ensembles encapsulate that spirit more than the choir Codetta, one of our most distinguished musical institutions. Codetta is celebrating a remarkable 25 years of singing together. Under the expert direction of Dónal Doherty, Codetta has flourished over the past 25 years, earning widespread international acclaim. Such is the dedication of its members that many travel home to Derry regularly from Belfast and beyond for weekend rehearsals and performances.

Codetta has performed and competed at the highest levels across Europe. There have been notable appearances in Washington DC and Mexico, where it brought its talent and voice and represented us across the Atlantic. Its accolades are as impressive as its itinerary, which goes from live broadcasts on television and radio to recordings and standout performances at the opening and closing nights of the Proms and even 'Sports Personality of the Year' when it was broadcast from Belfast 10 years ago to an audience of over eight million viewers. Codetta has earned recognition and won awards across the global choral stage. However, I maintain that Dónal Doherty's greatest musical achievement was managing to get a few notes out of me when he taught me recorder at St Columb's College.

In recent years, Codetta has expanded to include junior and youth choirs, nurturing young talent and enriching the musical life of our region. Those ensembles have played a vital role in music education, particularly in developing young voices and fostering a love of singing for generations to come. We are truly privileged to have a choir of such calibre representing Derry and, indeed, the country. I congratulate everyone involved with Codetta on this remarkable milestone.

Ms Sugden: September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month and is an important opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian, womb, cervical, vulva and vaginal cancers. Those cancers affect thousands of women across the UK and Northern Ireland, yet awareness, detection and outcomes remain poor. In recent weeks, I have received correspondence from constituents and charities raising a specific and concerning issue: the widespread misunderstanding that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer. Nearly half of women in Northern Ireland believe that a smear test will pick up ovarian cancer: that is not true. Cervical cancer screening detects changes in the cervix that could lead to cervical cancer, but it does not test for ovarian cancer or other gynaecological cancers. That misunderstanding is costing women time and giving them false reassurance, and, when it comes to ovarian cancer, time is everything.

Ovarian cancer is often called the "silent killer", because its symptoms are vague and easy to dismiss: bloating, pelvic pain, feeling full quickly and changes in bladder habits, which, to be honest, are an everyday event for women. We are told that those symptoms can be put down to hormones, stress or simply being a woman. Too often, referrals come too late.

Only one in three women here knows that bloating is a symptom of ovarian cancer.

The five-year survival rate, overall, remains below 45% across the UK. For woman diagnosed at stage 1, survival can be as high as 95%, but for those diagnosed at stage 4, it drops down to 15%. That difference is stark when we consider the consequences of a late diagnosis. Those outcomes are among the worst in Europe, and that is not acceptable. However, it does not have to be inevitable.

Other parts of the United Kingdom are beginning to act. For example, in England, cervical screening information states in clear wording that the test does not detect ovarian cancer. Public awareness campaigns have helped to challenge myths and encourage women to see their GP if they notice symptoms. Northern Ireland needs to do the same. I urge the Public Health Agency to take immediate steps to run a public information campaign here, using plain language, community channels, GP surgeries and the local media. Women need to know what cervical screening is and is not for. Awareness is not enough, however. We need better pathways for diagnosis.

Finally, we need a women's health strategy in Northern Ireland, because, across these islands, women's health has been an afterthought for too long. Pain is normalised, and symptoms are dismissed, resulting in poor outcomes for women in areas ranging from endometriosis to fertility, from menopause to cancer. Behind every statistic is a woman — a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend. Some are lucky to still be with us, but others are not, because diagnosis happened too late. Their voices should not be ignored.

Ms Reilly: Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth. Tá líon na bhfoghlaimeoirí ag fás, tá earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta ag borradh léi, agus tá coimisinéir teanga le ceapadh gan mhoill. Is léir go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go dtacaímidne uile anseo sa tSeomra seo leis an fhás sin.

In ainneoin an dul chun cinn atá déanta, b’éigean do bhreis agus 25 000 Gael ó gach aon chearn den oileán sráideanna Bháile Átha Cliath a thabhairt orthu féin Dé Sathairn seo a chuaigh thart. Mé féin ina measc agus mé bródúil as bheith ann ag seasamh gualainn má gualainn le pobal na Gaeilge. Bhí 25 000 Gael ar na sráideanna – bródúil agus bríomhar – ag éileamh a gceart. Ag éileamh infheistíocht agus aitheantas cuí don Ghaeilge san oideachas, sa tithíocht agus sa reachtaíocht.

Tá seasca faoin gcéad de Ghaelscoileanna ó Thuaidh lonnaithe go fóill i gcóiríocht shealadach neamhshásúil, agus tháinig titim thubaisteach ar líon na ndaltaí atá ag roghnú na Gaeilge mar ábhar TGMO sna meánscoileanna Béarla le 20 bliain anuas. Tá earnáil na luathbhlianta Gaeilge ag snámh in aghaidh an easa, nó tá méadú suntasach ar an éileamh ar a seirbhísí tráth atá an stát fuarchúiseach sa scéal, rud a chuireann tuilleadh brú airgeadais, acmhainní agus foirne ar an earnáil. Leanann Gaeilgeoirí orthu ag streachailt ar son infheictheachta sa réimse poiblí i gcomhairlí ar fud an Tuaiscirt, pé acu i gcomharthaí sráide dátheangacha nó i mbrandáil comhairle.

Ach lig dom é seo a rá: seasaimid leis na Gaeil nuair a thugann said na sráideanna orthu féin. Leanfaimid orainn ag stocaireacht sa tSeomra seo agus níos faide anonn ar son a gceart, ar son tacaíochta agus ar son infheistíocht chuí. Tá dul chun cinn á dhéanamh, ach tá bealach le dul go fóill, agus leanfaimid linn, go bródúil bríomhar.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin. You have just one minute. Sorry about that.

Mr Martin: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I was going to speak about a young girl who died during the summer, so I would prefer to wait.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go ahead. I will give you an extra minute, so you have two minutes.

Mr Martin: Are you sure? That is very kind. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No problem.

Mr Martin: During recess, on 8 July, Jaidyn Rice, a 16-year-old girl, was killed on the West Circular Road in Bangor. Jaidyn had just finished her GCSEs and was looking forward to going back to school to complete her A levels. She was an active member of the army cadets, where she excelled in first aid, and was considering a future in the army or community work. She was also an active youth leader with the development, integration, citizenship, education (DICE) futures project in Bangor, where she helped young girls and boys from the local area. I know that all those involved in the DICE futures project and the wider North Down Community Network are still very much coming to terms with her loss.

Her mum, Elaine, described her daughter very tenderly:

Her brother described her as "brave and amazing" and said:

A man has been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death whilst driving without a licence and causing death whilst driving without insurance. Few of us in the Chamber, I hope, will ever know the pain that that family has gone through in losing a child. My thoughts remain with them at this time. It is now up to others to honour her legacy and remember her through our actions.

The astounding facts are that the accused in Jaidyn's case was already on bail for other driving offences. He did not even have a licence, but he took a car, and police believe that they can connect him to the circumstances of the night of 8 July. I wrote to the Alliance Justice Minister recently about Jaidyn's case, specifically regarding the man charged being released on bail, which was very hurtful for the families. I was incredulous in trying to understand that. It is therefore very disappointing that Minister Long replied to me that she has no plans to include new guidance on the granting of bail in her sentencing Bill. I believe that to be a significant missed opportunity to provide Jaidyn's family with a positive, legal legacy from the tragic circumstances of her death. It is, unfortunately, an opportunity that the Justice Minister will not take.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I propose an extension to the Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The legislation is not only technically complex but deeply personal. It seeks to deliver truth and redress to survivors of institutions that operated in Northern Ireland over many decades. Those institutions left a legacy of trauma, shame, secrecy and exclusion. Our duty now is to ensure that the legislative response is thorough, inclusive and survivor-led.

The Committee has already undertaken significant work. We launched a comprehensive call for evidence, which has been open for 11 weeks and closes at the end of this month. We held engagement sessions with survivors and advocacy groups to provide more information on the passage of the Bill through the Assembly. We have begun detailed scrutiny of the Bill's provisions, including, at last week's Committee, meeting men and women with lived experience of the various institutions.

It is clear that more time is needed. Survivors have asked us for space to reflect, respond and be heard. Important questions about eligibility, compensation and the structure of the inquiry have emerged, and we, as legislators, must ensure that every clause of the Bill is fit for purpose. An extension will allow the Committee to deepen its engagement with survivors and affected stakeholders, refine the initial redress scheme to ensure fairness and accessibility, and strengthen the inquiry framework to guarantee independence and trauma-informed practice.

This is not about delay; it is about dignity. Survivors have waited decades for recognition, and we must not rush the process now but take the time to listen, to learn and to legislate with care. I urge Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage until the end of January 2026. Let us honour the courage of those who have come forward, and let us ensure that the Bill delivers the truth and redress that they deserve.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for this debate.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill to 15 May 2026. That date was agreed after discussions at the Committee meeting on 11 September 2025.

The Committee was first briefed on the proposed content of the Bill at its meeting on 26 June by officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch. We considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We were informed that the Bill is intended to provide Northern Ireland councils with the powers to deal with dilapidated, dangerous or neglected buildings and sites and to establish a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. That reflects the powers already available in the rest of the UK and will enhance the cost recovery powers for councils. The Committee heard that the Bill provides for a tiered approach based on severity of dilapidation, with those requiring emergency action being judged to be the most severe.

The Committee recognises that much of the current legislation is old and that the departmental consultation in relation to the Bill was carried out almost a decade ago, in 2016. Given the length of time that has elapsed, it is of utmost importance that the Committee take its time to fully scrutinise all the aspects and impacts that the Bill may have to ensure that it addresses the current issues across buildings and sites and that it is viable for councils, in terms of resources, in the current financial climate. The Department's 2016 consultation received 24 responses, mainly from councils, and there was majority support for introducing a Bill with a new broader, updated regime to deal with dilapidated and dangerous structures, neglected sites and a range of visual amenity issues. However, Members are all aware of dilapidated buildings leading to further neglect in an area, and you do not need to go too far from this Building to see a row of dilapidated vacant shops, at the Knock lights, that have been that way for many years.

In the Second Stage debate, Members raised significant issues about the Dilapidation Bill and highlighted the need to see DAERA guidance documentation that will accompany the Bill. I thank the Department for moving on that guidance at pace, and a draft has now been provided to the Committee. That will ensure our enhanced scrutiny at Committee Stage. One of the reasons for the extension date is that the Bill is not as straightforward as it seems, as demonstrated by the issues raised at Second Stage by Committee members and other Members of the Assembly. Therefore, the AERA Committee will need to scrutinise the powers provided to councils and whether it is appropriate that they be discretionary, as well as the full financial and wider resource impacts on councils in implementing the Bill, as guaranteed central funding is not provided for in it, and to explore further whether the cost recovery mechanisms are fit for purpose to encourage councils to use those powers. We will also look at ensuring that there is adequate cooperation and clear communication between councils, landowners, occupiers and other interested parties; the adequacy of the fees and fixed penalty charges; and the time frames for remedial action and dealing with unregistered land.

The Committee is due to receive a briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) at its next meeting, on 25 September. We received its paper yesterday, so we know that RaISe has highlighted further pertinent queries and issues in addition to those that I have just mentioned. The Committee will want to pursue them in detail with external witnesses and departmental officials. For example, further clarity is required from councils on whether the ability to seek compensation under emergency action will have an impact on their decision to use the powers, and there are concerns about the habitat and conservation aspects associated with dilapidated buildings. The Committee will also want to explore and compare the provisions in other jurisdictions to assess whether they are working well.

At this point, the Committee's public call for evidence on Citizen Space is still open and will remain so until 10 October. We encourage all interested individuals and groups to recognise the Bill's potential impacts and to respond to the call for evidence and the invitation to provide oral evidence to the Committee. The Committee is particularly keen to hear from councils, relevant advisory bodies, professional bodies and the housing and rental sectors and NGOs.

The Committee wishes to give the focused issues and wider impact of the Bill due diligence and scrutiny, while keeping on top of its extensive scrutiny remit for statutory rules (SRs) and the new agriculture, environment and fishing policy that seems to be moving forward. The Committee is also aware of the need to provide sufficient time for its deliberations and to allow additional time, given the likelihood of further Bills overlapping with this Bill in the near future.

Having consulted the Bill Office and having considered the evidence that we wish to take on the Bill and our other ongoing other work, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill until 15 May 2026. We will, of course, work at pace to report in advance of that date, if that is at all possible.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion, Mrs Dodds.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the events of the past few days, this is a crucial motion, and the Assembly once again has the opportunity to stand with the innocent victims of terrorist violence by supporting it. The DUP will always stand with the innocent victims of terrorism. We record once again our view that there can be no viable process on legacy unless it has access to truth and justice at its heart. Victims of violence have for many years been sidelined, made to feel that they are the pawns of political expediency by successive Governments who have served up prisoner releases and on-the-run letters of comfort. There are even those in the Assembly who have royal pardons in their back pocket.

Over recent months, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have spent their time consulting the Dublin Government on a framework for Troubles legacy issues, but the record of the Dublin Government on the issue of victims and their access to truth and justice is truly lamentable. They refused to extradite IRA criminals so that they could face justice for their crimes in Northern Ireland, and they have failed to provide answers to those who accuse the Irish security forces of collusion with the IRA.

I make no apology today for talking about some of those cases. I have spoken many times in the House of the case of Ian Sproule. His family have long suspected the gardaí of passing information to the IRA that resulted in his murder. It was a brutal slaying of a young Protestant and loyalist. As Ian drew up to the family home in Killen, just outside Castlederg, his car was sprayed with bullets. The IRA later phoned the house and told his father to go out to the yard and to look at the mess that it had left. It was his son. There has been no expensive Finucane-style inquiry for him; just a heartbroken family still searching for justice. There have been no answers from the Republic's Government, and the Sinn Féin First Minister says that there was no alternative to such wicked murder and loss. No wonder victims are sickened and angry.

I could, of course, mention many others who feel that pain, including the Kingsmills families; the family of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, who were murdered as they crossed the border; and the Hanna family. Those are all families for whom the truth of collusion with the IRA played a part in their fate. I also acknowledge the families whom the Government of the Republic of Ireland have failed — their own citizens — in their quest for truth and justice. The family of Terence McKeever and of Private Patrick Kelly, who was shot during the rescue of Don Tidey, have raised serious concerns about the lack of a full and proper investigation of their murders by IRA criminals. In a recent 'Belfast Telegraph' article, Private Kelly's son David said:

On 15 August 1998 at 3.10 pm, a bomb explosion ripped through Omagh. Twenty-nine people and two unborn children were killed. Over 200 people were injured. That bomb was built in the Irish state and driven to Northern Ireland. After a long campaign, the Omagh families were finally granted their inquiry, but the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bomb inquiry only masquerades as cooperation. It includes no statutory powers, no guarantee of full disclosure from the Irish authorities and no ability to compel witnesses. It is no wonder that some of the Omagh families are deeply disturbed. That same Government have been given a role by Labour in the legacy process. The PM should not trample so lightly on the blood of innocent victims.

The Sinn Féin amendment removes the word "innocent" in reference to the victims of terrorism. Are we surprised? Absolutely not. It is a party that is led by someone who talks about there being no alternative to violence and that constantly eulogises IRA terrorists. Some in the party have suggested that it should embrace the criminals and gangsters of the IRA more fully. There is irony at its heart.

We recently saw a host of Sinn Féin tributes to the IRA killer and criminal "Bik" McFarlane, who led the attack on the Bayardo bar on the Shankill Road in which five people were killed and over 60 injured. Around that time, the killer "Bik" McFarlane was being remembered and honoured at an event in the Falls park. How can we have a reconciled future for Northern Ireland and our children when murder is treated so lightly and murderers are venerated by political parties? Erasing the word "innocent" blurs the distinction between perpetrator and victim. That is the antithesis of justice, and there can be no workable legacy process in which justice is ignored.

We will always stand with the victims of terrorist criminals. A legacy process should have victims at its heart, and the suffering of the innocent should not be airbrushed for political expediency. It is essential that it include the opportunity to hear the stories and voices of innocent victims and to learn about their lives, which were so cruelly taken. We are not interested in the airbrushing of history or the manipulation of the lives of innocent people for political gain. We are not interested in an imperfect opportunity. The lives of the innocent still cry out for truth and justice.

Mrs Dillon: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I noticed a lot of use of the word "we" in the speech of the previous Member to speak. This is not about "we". At the heart of any debate on legacy must be the victims and survivors of the conflict. Their pain, their voices and their right to truth and justice need to be the starting point and, to be perfectly honest, the finishing point.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely not.

The motion highlights the need for answers, including answers from the Irish Government. I am clear that victims deserve the truth, wherever it leads. We must ensure that the approach to legacy is not about closing doors but about opening the door to truth, accountability and healing.

Victims — not "we" — have consistently told us that they need a process that they can trust. They almost had that in the Stormont House Agreement, which the DUP agreed to, by the way.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: No, I will not. Allow me to go on further. I will let you back in.

The DUP agreed to that. It was far from a perfect mechanism, but, at least, it had buy-in from many victims. At least, they had a say in it and had input to it and were consulted on it. Seventeen and a half thousand people responded to that consultation. There are not many consultations that we can say that about.

As I said, victims have told us that they want a process that they can trust. They need a process that commands their confidence and does not simply re-litigate old political arguments but seeks to meet their needs: truth recovery, justice, where possible, and recognition of the harm done. That is why any legacy —.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member [Inaudible.]

Mrs Dillon: Am I OK to move on?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Go ahead.

Mrs Dillon: That is why any legacy framework must be victim-led and have broad support. It cannot be imposed by London or Dublin or even by the Assembly. As I said, it is worth remembering that we have been here before. We had the Stormont House Agreement, which had the endorsement of the Assembly. The DUP supported it, and both Governments were involved in it. The agreement envisaged a role for the Irish Government, who were very involved in the conversations around it.

A process that fails to include cooperation from both Governments would fail all victims.

I share concerns about the British Government's approach to the unilateral passage of the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the amnesty provisions that have undermined confidence across the board, but the answer is not to walk away from engagement. The answer is to insist on a process that victims can trust, that compels disclosure, that has investigative powers and truth recovery processes, and that puts victims at the centre.

I ask that everybody in the Assembly works together to that end, not scoring political points but securing a process that commands confidence, deals with the past comprehensively and allows victims to finally get the answers that they have been denied for too long. I am asking that Members in the Chamber today support our amendment because, truthfully, I think that the original motion is political posturing and has little or no focus on the victims' needs or asks. Legacy is not about whataboutery; it is about families all across our community. I could name many, just as the Member across the Chamber did, but I do not think that they want us to name them; they want us to deliver for them. They lost mothers, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers and sisters during the conflict. They come from all backgrounds and lost their loved ones at the hands of those from all backgrounds. They all, without exception, deserve to know the truth and have the justice that they require for their loved ones. I hope that we will get some of that, but it remains to be seen what will be in the legislative text following the announcement by the two Governments on Friday.

Let me be very clear: as a party, we will listen to all victims, as I have done over many years. From as far back as 2016 and 2017, I have been meeting victims and families from all backgrounds, who were killed and injured by all actors in the conflict, whether republicans, loyalists or state actors. They will decide on the process that meets their needs.

The DUP does not get to decide who a victim is. The definition of a victim is outlined in the Northern Ireland Act 2006. You do not get to decide it, I do not get to decide it, nobody in this Chamber gets to decide it. The definition of a victim is there. I would like us all to accept that, move on and understand this: every single family that lost a loved one feels the same pain; every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same truth; and every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same justice. That is it. There is no equivocation and no nonsense. Every person who died is a loss, and every person who has gone is missed and loved by the people who lost them. Let us just stop this nonsense in the Chamber. I know that people in the Chamber have lost loved ones — right across the Chamber, from all backgrounds. We cannot ignore that. I am one of the very lucky people who did not. I understand that, so I do not speak for victims. That is why I listen to them.

Ms Bradshaw: I welcome the debate today. We should all keep one thing firmly in our minds this morning, which is the victims and survivors of the Omagh bomb and, indeed, all those bereaved, injured and killed during the entirety of the Troubles. They should be at the heart of today's discussion. Their voices must be heard, and their experiences and those of their family members must be used to guide how we deal with the difficult issues surrounding legacy.

In considering the original motion, I found that, while it raises real concerns, it risks becoming more about political point-scoring than about real commitment to truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors, and it takes us away from where the focus should be. Victims are not best served by jabbing rhetoric or a political blame game, passing responsibility back and forth between jurisdictions. They are best served by a practical, victim-centred, human rights-compliant approach.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I just want to make a bit of progress, then I will maybe let you in.

It is because of that that I will oppose the motion and, instead, support the amendment —

— which I believe — [Interruption.]

Mr Gaston: Sinn Féin rewriting history, aided and abetted by Alliance.

Ms Bradshaw: Excuse me. I will be heard in the Chamber. Thank you.

Mr Brett: Sinn Féin stooge.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please rule?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member will be heard. I have already asked Members to be quiet. I am now doing it more formally and more loudly. Proceed.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I feel that the amendment better places the emphasis on the lived experiences and realities of victims and survivors here. Of course, there must be cross-border cooperation, and, of course, legacy issues are an all-island responsibility, but that means working together to put victims first, not using them as pawns in a political contest. I was struck by a comment that a witness made at a Committee session on this very issue. He said — I am paraphrasing more than anything — that we will not see reconciliation on the island of Ireland unless both Governments step up to the plate and provide the information and evidence that they have. That needs to be at the heart of this.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead. I will, actually.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with her when she talks about transparency between the Governments — our UK Government and that of the Irish Republic — but what about the terrorists? What about disclosure for the victims of terrorism? What about the political parties attached to terrorists, like Sinn Féin?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that. I was ready for that question.

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

Ms Bradshaw: I totally agree that everybody who was involved in the Troubles should come forward with the evidence that they have. Do you not think that I find absolutely abhorrent what the IRA and others did to Northern Ireland? I hate it every day. I want to see reconciliation.

Mr Gaston: You are going to vote with them.

Ms Bradshaw: I am going to vote for an amendment that puts victims and survivors at the centre. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, please. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will Members please stop speaking from the sidelines? The Member will continue.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you.

That is my frustration with this entire debate. These motions are tabled, and we have a ding-dong in the Chamber. Victims and survivors and their families look on in absolute disgust and horror at the childish behaviour in the Chamber. Can we please move on and put them at the heart of our work here, through the Executive Office Committee and its programmes and other departmental responsibilities? It is nauseating.

The amendment focuses on one issue: a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government. I am conscious that that could result in victims and survivors being asked to give evidence more than once, and that that carries a real risk of re-traumatising families who have already endured that pain for more than 25 years. If such an inquiry goes ahead, there must be put in place robust victim support; access to counselling and legal advice; and, above all, a coordinated, all-island approach to evidence-giving, so that families are not forced to unnecessarily duplicate statements.

In light of the recent agreement between the Irish and UK Governments, we have a new framework: a proposal for a reformed legacy commission, repeal of the immunity scheme and the reopening of inquests that had been stalled. That deal has the potential to deliver for families that have waited for decades. It offers us a real chance to deliver on the commitments that we are discussing. The overall direction of the amendment is right. It reaffirms the Assembly's position, recognises the failures of the current arrangement, and calls on the UK Government to ensure that any agreement with the Irish Government commands the confidence of victims and survivors. Without that confidence, no legacy mechanism can succeed.

Legacy is a contentious issue for a reason. It is not easy, but we owe it to victims and survivors to approach it with honesty, compassion and practical solutions. The days of the politics of appeasement need to be placed behind us so that we can achieve meaningful and sustainable reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

Mr Beattie: I will just remind people that this is a debate about the Irish Government's role in legacy; that is why we are focusing on the Irish Government's role. We debated our motion on that in March of this year, and not a single Member in the House disagreed. That motion passed without issue, having been amended by the DUP, but, for some reason, we seem to have gone off at a tangent.

James Elliott was kidnapped close to the border in 1972, taken into the Irish Republic, tortured and murdered. His body was then booby-trapped and dumped on the border two days later. Two individuals were charged, not with his murder but with possessing explosives. There was no article 2 investigation by the Irish Government into James Elliott's murder. Why not? The UK has now initiated an article 2 inquest, and hopefully that will start again. Jean McConville, who was abducted and then murdered in the Irish Republic, has had no article 2 investigation. Robert Nairac was abducted and tortured: no article 2 investigation. I could go on an awful lot more.

There is a concern, because Kieran Conway and Michael Hayes admitted involvement in and knowledge of the Birmingham bombing, which killed 21 people and injured over 200 more, and they have not even been questioned by an Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána did not interview Father Patrick Ryan, who admitted involvement in multiple explosions, including in Brighton and Hyde Park. He was never even interviewed by an Garda Síochána. Kingsmills certainly did not get the open and transparent cooperation from the Irish Government that was promised. Corporal Heather Kerrigan and Private Norman McKinley were murdered by the PIRA during a cross-border operation — their killers were quite happy to slip back into Ireland, which they saw as a safe haven. The fact is that Ireland was used as a safe haven for terrorists, who were comfortable attacking civilians in Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that they could go back to the Irish Republic and be safe.

Do I have confidence in the Irish Government and their legacy dealings on the Troubles? Not one bit, and here is why: because the former Irish Justice Minister made it clear in 2021 that the Government had decided that it was no longer in the state's interest to investigate and prosecute Troubles-related crimes. In 1998, the Irish Government literally said, "That is it. We have drawn a line in the sand. We are not going to do it any more". They did so having been lobbied by Sinn Féin for amnesties. The Irish Government stand with their hands in their pockets complaining about the UK Government's legacy legislation while they do absolutely nothing. Their refusal to investigate Troubles-related crimes has delayed and denied justice, and that will be exploited by the perpetrators in the same way that the OTR letters were exploited by Downey. The chief suspect in the murder of Gareth O'Connor in 2003 was handed an OTR letter by a senior member of Sinn Féin — again, denying and delaying justice.

We have already debated this issue. We have already talked about what happened in regard to Omagh, and we supported the families' call for the Irish Government to open an independent inquiry into the Omagh bombing. That is the core of what we are talking about here. The Irish have not done enough, if anything whatsoever. I remind people that the Omagh bomb was constructed in Ireland, the explosives were sourced in Ireland, the timer power unit was built in Ireland, the car was stolen in Ireland, the murderous operation was planned and mounted from Ireland, and the murderers — the perpetrators — returned to Ireland, yet the Irish Government think that it is nothing to do with them. It is utterly scandalous. We should all be up in arms about that. That is the heart of the DUP motion: to say to the Irish, "You have not done enough. Do more". How you cannot support that is absolutely beyond me.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes, of course.

Mr Tennyson: The motion also says that it deplores the decision of the Secretary of State to negotiate with this counterpart in the Republic of Ireland. How do you propose that we get full cooperation from the Irish Government in the absence of negotiation?

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

Mr Beattie: Negotiations are negotiations, but you cannot be a negotiator if you are the ones who are literally denying justice at the same time. You cannot turn round and say, "We are going to negotiate with you and we are going to make sure that you have an oversight body, but, do you know what, we are not going to do anything". That is a genuine concern. Whether you see it or do not see it, that is a genuine concern.

The Irish Government have now said that they will have a gardaí legacy unit. That is a move in the right direction. Who will be the oversight body for that legacy unit? How will we ensure that they do not redact information? In my last conversation with the Irish Government, they were quite clear that the directorate of military intelligence, which was formerly known as G2, will be able to redact information before investigation, and an Garda Síochána will also redact information before investigation. There is no oversight body.

I am further concerned, because, when I asked the First Minister just yesterday whether she could guarantee that the process will be victim-centred, it became clear to me that nobody has even engaged with our Executive Office, which is responsible for the victims and survivors strategy, so it cannot even say that it will be victim-centred.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I am sorry, but I have only five seconds left. I support the motion. Not every word in it is perfect, but I still think that it is clear.

Mr O'Toole: It has been said before but needs to be said again, and as often as possible, that the people who matter most in this discussion are not those in the Chamber but those who are victims of the Troubles, as well as their families. In everything that we say and do, we must think about them. We also have a responsibility to the society in which we live. Young people today and future generations will take on the leadership of this society in years to come. We have a responsibility to them not to pass on the poison of our conflict but, rather, to do as much as we possibly can to create a healthy and reconciled society. We are clearly failing at that task thus far.

The amnesty proposals that the previous Tory Government put forward marked a nadir in the post-conflict period. The proposals —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

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

The proposals that have come from the UK and Irish Governments are as yet scant in detail. There has been progress made in some areas, but there are real concerns that need to be addressed, and I hope that they will be, in part through legislation and engagement with victims and survivors first and then with political parties. I have to say, however, based on the quality of debate in the Chamber, that some will wonder how productive that engagement will be. Legislation will come forward in Westminster, and it is right that there are parties that will actually be in the Chamber there to amend that legislation where necessary.

I will continue with my points, but I will give way now for the purposes of debate.

Mr Burrows: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I accept and agree that a proposal for amnesty from any Government is totally inappropriate. You described the previous UK Government's proposal as being a nadir. Do you also agree that the amnesty that Michael McDowell says that the Irish Government gave to every suspect in terrorist crimes in the Republic of Ireland at the petition of Sinn Féin was morally indefensible? In fact, it was worse, because it was not even transparent, as it was not done through legislation.

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

Mr O'Toole: Our party has a consistent record of opposing amnesties. I do not want the debate to be about political point-scoring, but I am clear about where my party has always stood on violence in this society, be it republican, loyalist or state violence. All three happened. Parties on all sides of the Chamber remain in denial about the violence from republicans, loyalists or the state, or, indeed, from the state in collusion with loyalists or through the state controlling senior republicans. We have no issue with being clear about our position. We have no problems with our record, and I do not want this to be about party political point-scoring.

We have been clear, and we were so earlier in this year, when we had the debate on their role, that the Irish Government needed to do more to assure and do right by the victims of the Omagh bombing. As a nationalist party that believes in a new Ireland, we have never had any difficulty with saying that. We have always stood by the Omagh victims, and we stand by all those who need more information from the Irish Government about incidents that happened during the Troubles. We make no bones about that. We have also been clear in calling out what happened and in standing with victims, not just those of state-sponsored collusion by Britain but those who are unable to access justice because the British state continues to hide information from them, and it is hiding information from them.

Bridie Brown is 87 years of age. She wants to achieve in her final years some level of truth and justice for her family. The British state is preventing her from getting that, because it will not disclose information that is germane to the murder of her husband. Those are clear facts. Just as we stand with the Omagh families, with the victims of Kingsmills, with Bridie Brown and her family and with the families of all the victims of our conflict, we will always call for a system that does right by all those people. That will be our approach, and it is the approach that we have always followed, as we deal with the new legacy proposals.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will take a very brief intervention.

Mrs Dillon: It will be very brief. Does the Member agree that the Brown family did not seek an inquiry but tried every other process, and that the legal process told them that the only way in which they could get the truth was through a public inquiry?

Mr O'Toole: That is certainly true. The Brown family has behaved with extraordinary dignity and has been thwarted completely indefensibly at every turn.

Let me say this: we will not be found wanting in our responsibility to challenge, where necessary, the Irish Government, and we are robust in challenging the British Government. We will test the new proposals, doing our job in the Chamber, at Westminster and everywhere else and speaking up for the values that we want to see. We want to see a reconciled society. I worry about the trivialisation of violence. I am worried about the minimisation and glamourisation of everything that happened. I worry about people minimising and glamourising the IRA campaign and about people turning up outside a courthouse wearing a Parachute Regiment beret when a man is on trial. I do not want to prejudice that trial, but we know that innocent people were mown down on the streets of Derry. A British Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons and apologised for it, but people still see fit to turn up to a courthouse to somehow undermine the idea of justice for those who seek it over Bloody Sunday.

In all those things, we need to be serious, but I fear that there is no seriousness in the Chamber today. I fear that there is a constant desire, 30 years on from the first ceasefires, to rub one another's nose in it. Nothing in a legal framework —

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

Mr O'Toole: — stops clarity coming from the organisations that were responsible for the conflict.

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

Mr O'Toole: We will call for consistency —

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

Mr O'Toole: — and clarity for victims.

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

Mr Frew: I will point everyone again to the motion, which refers to:

Why can the House not support that wording, in a motion that seeks truth and justice for victims and survivors? Why can it not? Why will the House divide, when the victims and survivors need truth and justice and need the House to fight for them? They have waited long enough. They have waited for decades and generations. People have died not knowing the truth and not seeing justice applied to the perpetrators and the people who killed and savagely murdered their loved ones, yet some Members here think that the motion is unhelpful and want to move on. They want to forget. The SDLP Member talked about the failure of moving on from the "poison" of the past. Well, I can tell you now that the innocent victims who died at the hand of terrorism did not spread any poison.

Mr O'Toole: I did not say that.

Mr Frew: They did not spread any poison.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way.

Mr O'Toole: The Member has just misquoted me. I said nothing about innocent victims not moving on and that being a form of poison. That is a direct and offensive misquote. I acknowledge the seriousness with which the Member takes the issue, but that is not what I said. Dealing with innocent victims and giving them justice is not the same as —. The whole point is to create a process that allows them to have truth and justice. That is how we remove the poison from the future.

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

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his clarification.

Then we have Sinn Féin Members, who want to amend the motion to take out the word "innocent". Does removing that word from the victims not resonate and perpetuate the guilt? That is shabby. It is really, really bad. Sinn Féin has campaigned vigorously for amnesty, which is the opposite of justice. How can it say out of one side of its mouth that it seeks justice and truth while lobbying from the other for amnesty for IRA terrorists who perpetrated murder and killed people at the border in Northern Ireland, including Protestants at that border and Catholics who they suspected of informing? Without any trial or a justice process, those people were summarily executed at the side of the road. That is what the IRA did to the people of Northern Ireland from all religions, including Protestant and Catholic. So many people cannot move on because they have not seen truth and justice. That is what they want.

We talk about transparency from the British and Irish Governments, but where is the disclosure from the IRA and loyalist terrorists? Where is the disclosure from Sinn Féin members who were in the IRA? They are bound by some code. That is some code indeed for the victims of terrorism when they cannot get the truth from politicians in this country who had a history in the IRA but will not speak up and deliver that truth for those people when it would be so easy for them to do so. Search your conscience. People out there have been living in hell because they cannot get the truth. Some people know the truth, but people cannot get justice because of the on-the-run letters and the fact that the Irish Government will not investigate their part in the terrorist campaign. That is truly awful. My party will always defend every innocent victim, no matter where they come from, what their religion, where they went to school or where they serve their God. We will support them all. I wish that every other party in this place could say the same.

I turn to the Alliance Party, which is going to support Sinn Féin's amendment. That is diabolical. I ask it to search its conscience and read the text of the DUP motion. I pray that it sees the light when it comes to our wording, comes back and runs round to support us in our endeavour, because we have the victims at the heart of the process.

Mr Tennyson: When we discuss legacy, victims and survivors must always be at the centre of our discussions. One of the greatest failures of this place and of the two Governments over the past 27 years since the Good Friday Agreement has been the perennial failure to find a way forward or deliver a comprehensive package to deal with our past and its legacy. That has let down not just victims but wider society. It has acted as a barrier to truth, justice and accountability and to building the truly reconciled, united and integrated community to which we on these Benches aspire.

However, more callous is the perennial willingness of Members to use victims as political footballs. We have seen it when perpetrators have been eulogised by some parties in the Chamber or, I have to say, when politicians have stood outside courts alongside alleged perpetrators or, worse, have met representatives of active paramilitary groups, pouring fuel on the flames and causing even further trauma to victims. Allow me to be clear at the beginning of my contribution and say that, since my party's foundation, it has been unwavering in its commitment to the rule of law and that we will take no lectures from any party that flirts with terrorists and paramilitaries.

Alliance has also been clear that the border should never be a barrier to victims in accessing the truth and justice that they deserve. The Irish Government have a duty and an obligation to ensure full cooperation and the delivery of reciprocal arrangements. The fundamental problem with the motion is that it condemns any bilateral negotiations with the Irish Government. You cannot deliver a comprehensive package and have Irish Government cooperation in the absence of that negotiation between the Secretary of State and the Tánaiste. That is why we will oppose the original text.

Indeed, since the motion was tabled, a significant new framework has been announced. Like other parties, Alliance wants to take time to consult victims and survivors, who must be at the heart of our considerations. We want to see the detail of any legislation that will be passed either at Westminster or by the Dáil.

It is clear, however, that there has been a significant change in substance and tone. That change is to be welcomed. As part of that framework, there is now a commitment from the Irish Government to investigate all Troubles-related incidents that happened in the state. That is progress, and it must be acknowledged. There is also a commitment to set up a new legacy unit and cooperate fully with any inquiries that happen in the United Kingdom. Let us take time to consider the detail of the legislation that will go through the Dáil.

I give way to the Member.

Mr Burrows: Do you accept that the belated setting up of a unit in an Garda Síochána to investigate the past is too little, too late? How many victims have died during the amnesty? How much evidence has been lost? How many suspects have died without being brought to justice in the past 25 years? It is too little, too late to investigate things 25 years later.

Mr Tennyson: I agree: it is too little, too late. Perhaps, I will come back to that point as I close my remarks. There has been too little from the UK Government, the Irish Government and, indeed, many of those who were involved in paramilitary organisations during the Troubles. There are failures on all sides. The challenge with the motion is that it does not acknowledge that shared ownership and responsibility across all parties.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, briefly.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's being generous with his time. You have articulated the reason why the Alliance Party opposes the motion — because it states that we deplore the negotiations between the Irish Government and UK Government — but, if you read on, you will see that there is a particular reason for that, which is the failure of the UK Government to get a proper process and reciprocal arrangement from the Irish Republic. It is not, therefore, an outright condemnation of the negotiations. With all due respect, Mr Tennyson, the reasons that you have articulated for opposing the motion are wafer-thin.

Mr Tennyson: Well, that is your view. I did not read the motion in the way in which you have just described it. It focuses solely on the Irish Government and rejects engagement with them. Because it was tabled prematurely, it does not acknowledge the progress that has been made in the past week, and that is a flaw.

There is a clear departure from the folly of any notion of amnesty. The callous approach of the previous Government was to depart unilaterally from the Stormont House Agreement and seek to shut down avenues for truth and justice for victims across our community and society. Ultimately, any process must command the confidence of victims. It must have independent oversight of the involvement of both the UK and Irish Governments. It must be human rights-compliant and have active participation from victims and their families. There is shared ownership, which the motion does not recognise. I hope that that can be redressed through the new framework.

There are those who say that we should simply move on. That is easy to say when you have not lost someone; it is much harder for a family living with that pain. Getting a comprehensive legacy process is not about living in the past; it is about dealing with our past comprehensively so that we can move forward together towards a truly united and reconciled community. That ought to be where our focus is. I will take no lectures from parties on either side of the Chamber who have frustrated that process for 30 years.

Mr Burrows: As I said yesterday, these are solemn matters. The proposals merit serious consideration, because we owe it to the victims. I will take exception: the Ulster Unionist Party is examining the proposals very closely. We will try to shape, bend and influence whatever the outcome is. There are lots of things that can be done constructively. That is why we have set out our guiding principles, which put victims first.

There is a big issue with how the Irish state has dealt with the Troubles not just during the conflict and the terrorist campaign, with the lack of extraditions — fewer than one in 10 — etc but with the amnesty. It is a really serious issue. I now have the video clip where Michael McDowell says loudly and clearly that members of Sinn Féin lobbied for an amnesty and that the Government gave that amnesty and instructed an Garda Síochána not to investigate any crime anywhere on the island of Ireland. Not only was that shameful and done without legislation and transparency, my big concern, which I am putting on the record today, is that, when a state gives a solemn undertaking not to do something and, 25 years later, says that it will start reinvestigating crimes, that is a "breach of an executive undertaking", as it is called in law, and an abuse of executive power. That is what caused the issues in the Downey trial. Downey was told — there is a specific issue with his letter — that he would not be prosecuted in that case. When he was prosecuted, the judge rightly said that that was an abuse of executive power.

Sinn Féin's former colleagues in the IRA are sitting on a potential "Get out of jail free" card. That is why we will ask the Irish Government for two things. One — [Interruption.]

Members at the back of the Chamber are laughing; I do not find it funny. I will give you some examples. Let me say first what we will ask of the Irish Government: number one, a full report. Let us have a transparent report on what was offered to whom. I also want to see legal advice. What are the implications? Could they scupper an Garda Síochána in bringing those former comrades to justice?

Let me tell you about one former comrade, Seamus Kearney. This example highlights the hypocrisy. In 1981, Seamus Kearney waited in a hospital car park. John Proctor, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was visiting his newborn son in the maternity ward. When he came back and got into his car, who was waiting for him? Seamus Kearney, the freedom fighter for Ireland. He was smoking a cigarette, and he pumped rounds into that man, whose son grew up without him.

Here is the thing: we were told at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that we had to accept that people would get out after two years, but that was it; there was nothing else. What happened when the police brought Seamus Kearney to justice under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, by which he would get two years? Former Sinn Féin south Derry MLA Ian Milne said that it was a vindictive prosecution, because he had been good republican. I would hate to see a bad republican, but this is the point: Sinn Féin has opposed the rule of law being implemented as agreed under the Belfast Agreement, just as the Republic of Ireland has opposed it in giving an amnesty. The UK should be suing the Republic of Ireland, not the other way around.

Here is the thing: I condemn every loyalist paramilitary. The Shankill butcher was as evil as the Shankill bomber. Any rogue former colleague of mine — one joined the Glenanne Gang — is a traitor and should be put in prison. I call for anyone who did such things to be stripped of all pensions. We stand by every victim, but, in reality, 99% of the people who did wrong were paramilitaries. We need to put the victims first, and we can do so only if we build the legacy agreement on solid foundations. The Irish Government need first to publish what was agreed with Sinn Féin and tell us what the legal outworkings of that are. Will that scupper an Garda Síochána in investigating Troubles-related crime?

We ask the Irish Government — we want to look forward — who will staff the new an Garda Síochána unit. We are told that the investigation unit that will be part of the legacy commission up here must have a non-Northern Ireland director of investigations, so we say that the an Garda Síochána unit must have a non-Republic of Ireland investigator to oversee it. Who provides the insight and the oversight? Both states should give unredacted intelligence to investigators. I know for a fact — no one can challenge this point; I will finish on it — that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) gets unredacted, unvarnished intelligence from the security services. How the ICRIR releases that is a different issue, but it gets it. An Garda Síochána and G2, as it was formerly known, will not give that, but we need to make sure that they do so.

I agree that we should put victims first, but there are massive issues. I support the motion. The Republic of Ireland has a lot of ground to make up —

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

Mr Burrows: — and I hope that it can.

Mr McGlone: I listened intently to the Member who spoke previously. He makes a case for strong collaboration between the British and Irish Governments. I welcome that, if that is his logic; it is not entirely consistent with support for the DUP motion. We cannot support a DUP motion that "deplores" greater cooperation between the British and Irish Governments on proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past or on any other issue of shared responsibility. A case has just been made for shared responsibility. Why should we negate that? We are minded to support the amendment.

The SDLP has consistently rejected an amnesty for all those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles. The two parties in the joint office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have repeatedly failed to make progress on the legacy arrangements in the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. They share a responsibility for the decade of failure since then to deliver on that vital issue for victims and survivors. I have met those victims and survivors and heard their hurt, their suffering and —

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Will the Member agree that responsibility for the Stormont House Agreement and introducing the legislation lay with the British Government? They agreed to do it in March 2017 and in October 2017. They said then that it would be 2018. The British Government failed to introduce the legislation. That was outwith our control.

Mr McGlone: Absolutely, and I will come to that too. I said "share a responsibility" — very specific in the language.

The agreement announced by the Irish and British Governments at the weekend set outs a new framework for the way forward. It is intended to reform and replace the measures in the widely opposed Legacy Act of the previous Tory Government and more accurately reflect the arrangements agreed by both Governments under the Stormont House Agreement. That process is expected to resolve the legal dispute between the Irish and British Governments that the DUP appears to be concerned about. I remind the DUP that the Legacy Act did not have the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Act shut the door on the prospect of truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors. Without that prospect, there could have been little hope for reconciliation, which, I trust, we all so hope to achieve.

We in the SDLP give a cautious welcome to the announcement by both Governments. It represents some progress. However, as we all know, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will wait until we see the final form of the legislation. No doubt, there will be multiple attempts at amendments. We will wait and see the outcome of that. We have concerns that what is being introduced may fall short in meeting the needs of victims and survivors.

Bridie Brown has been mentioned today, and I emphasise that, for the British Government, a key element is that they listen and that they remove their objection, their stalling and their methodology for trying to prevent the truth from coming out in the case of Sean Brown's murder. It has been before the court multiple times, and there have been multiple findings by High Court judges that the only way forward is a public inquiry. The British Government and the Secretary of State have to withdraw their case, which is placing another blocking stone in the way of that public inquiry.

We are running out of opportunities to address the legacy of the past, but, as I warned the Assembly in 2021, attempts to seal off the past are doomed to failure. The poison will not be contained and will continue to contaminate the present and the future until properly addressed. Secrecy from Governments and from paramilitary groups has long obstructed the necessary process of truth recovery for victims and their families. Both Governments have now committed themselves to legislating to facilitate full cooperation with the proposed legacy commission. We hope that they will deliver on that. We believe that that full cooperation should also cover existing inquiries, such as the Omagh bombing inquiry. Ultimately, it is for that inquiry, as an independent statutory public inquiry, to decide whether any agreement they enter into is appropriate or whether either Government are not cooperating fully with their investigations. However, the SDLP believes that there is a need for the UK and Irish Governments to adopt positions of full disclosure in legacy investigations. To that end, we have repeatedly called for the removal of any national security vetoes in legacy investigations, including the Omagh bombing inquiry. The British and Irish Governments could and should agree to that measure.

The SDLP will continue to engage with both Governments and with victims' groups and consult on the proposals and the forthcoming legislation. Our objective has always been to build a legacy architecture that can deliver a reconciled, shared future. We are committed to working constructively to achieve that shared future.

Mr Gaston: The motion before the House has in every sense been overtaken by events. The Secretary of State has shamefully announced that Dublin will co-design legacy plans. Let me be clear: that is not just wrong; it is an obscenity.

We must never forget the historical record of the South. Many victims of the IRA would still be alive today but for the deliberate actions and, indeed, glaring inactions of the Irish state: sanctuary across the border; refusal to extradite known terrorists; provision of safe houses and training grounds; and free movement of explosives through the Republic.

All those actions sustained the IRA's murderous campaign.

The facts are undeniable. Between 1973 and 1997, only eight out of the 110 extradition requests from the UK to the Republic were successful. The Irish constitution, which claimed Northern Ireland as its own, was repeatedly exploited by terrorists in Irish courts fleeing justice. Before the arrival of the Libyan Semtex in the mid-1980s, bombs in the majority of republican areas were made from Irish industrial explosives, which came straight from quarries across the border into the hands of killers. Today, however, we are told that the same Republic should be trusted to shape how legacy is handled. That is grotesque, and it is an insult to every innocent victim.

The document that was released on Friday shows that the Republic is committed to investigating only unsolved incidents in its jurisdiction. There is no commitment to examine the fact that the bombs that were made for Omagh and Enniskillen were built in the Republic, before being transported across the border. There is no prospect of getting accountability for the attempted bombing at Tullyhommon, where a bomb that was four times the size of that used on the same day in Enniskillen failed to detonate. It was targeting Boys' Brigade and Girls' Brigade members, and its command wire ran into the Republic.

We also have the very real issue of collusion between the Irish security forces and republicans. Mrs Dodds has already mentioned Ian Sproule. I also think of Ian Sproule today: a young joiner who was shot 44 times outside his Castlederg home, after which his father received a phone call telling him to go outside to see what the IRA had left him on the street. After that murder, an inaccurate gardaí file was leaked to a journalist seeking to blacken the reputation of an innocent man.

I also think of the Hanna family, who were blown up by a 1,000 lb IRA bomb, intended for a judge, as they were returning from Dublin Airport after a trip to Florida. Does six-year-old David Hanna not deserve justice? He was found dead with a Disney ticket in his pocket. The blood of that young boy and his parents still cries out for justice, yet Dublin, London and those who share power with the political wing of the very people who planted that bomb turn a deaf ear. Lord and Lady Gibson, a couple aged 73 and 67, who should have been left to enjoy their retirement together, were blown up just moments after crossing the border. Serious questions have been asked of but never answered by Dublin in the Gibson and Hanna cases. Does Friday's paper commit to anything on them? No. Dublin takes it upon itself to equality-proof the UK proposals, while, all the time, it is up to its neck in facilitating IRA terror, and, in multiple cases, it was colluding outright. My goodness: what we have heard today from the Alliance Party. Sinn Féin can always rely on its little helpers to rewrite history. Alliance is happy and content that the word "innocent" be stripped out of the motion, but —

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

Mr Gaston: — I certainly am not.

Ms Sugden: When we debate legacy in the Chamber, it is important that we be reminded that we are not just debating history in the abstract but talking about people: about families who are still living with loss and about communities that are carrying grief that does not fade with time. Some are into their third generation of waiting, but the questions remain the same and the answers have yet to come. The motion rejects amnesty and insists that any future framework command the confidence of victims and survivors. That is 100% right. It matters that it also holds both Governments to account, because, for too long, one Government have been quick to hold up the other to scrutiny while resisting the same scrutiny themselves. Victims see that imbalance, and it deepens the mistrust. If we want legacy to mean anything, we cannot have double standards.

From my previous role, I recall sitting with families who had lost loved ones during the Troubles, but what I remember most from those meetings was the look in their eyes. To an extent, the stories that got them to meet me mattered less than the pain that they continued to carry. What also struck me was their determination. They were not asking for miracles; they were asking simply for truth, disclosure and accountability. Almost a decade on from those meetings, many of those families are still asking the same questions. The fact that they must keep telling us shows how far short both Governments have fallen in giving them the answers.

I recently wrote to the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to press those points. In his response, he spoke about the development of a substantive package, which we have since heard of, with the restoration of civil cases, stronger investigative powers and enhanced cooperation from an Garda Síochána. I welcome those assurances, but words must be backed by enforceable commitments. They cannot remain aspirations. Without statutory powers and the ability to compel witnesses and guarantee disclosures, victims will, once again, be left with promises and without answers.

Omagh makes that clear. The bombing was one of the darkest atrocities of the Troubles. Twenty-seven years on, the families are reliving their trauma through an inquiry that they fought for tirelessly, yet the memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, while presented as progress, is cooperation in name only. It carries no statutory power, no authority, no powers to compel witnesses and no guarantee that all evidence will be put forward. For the Omagh families, that is not justice; it is delay dressed up as delivery.

When we think of Omagh, we think not only of the many lives lost but of the futures that were stolen. Among the victims was Avril Monaghan, who was killed along with her mother, her unborn twins and her daughter, Maura. In that moment, three generations of a family were gone, as was the hope of a new generation, who, had they got to live that day, would never have remembered the Troubles. They would have lived their lives free from the burden of the past, but that never happened, because the atrocity continued. What strikes me most is the innocence of those victims. They were people going about their day. They had no political interests, no political information and no stake in the battles that consumed this place for too long. They were creating lives, raising families and building happiness for their families and children, yet they were dragged into something that they never should have been involved in. It is the victims and survivors — the ordinary people who never asked to be part of it — who carry those consequences, not the politicians or those who claim to be fighting for a cause. That is why legacy is not a matter of convenience for Governments; it is an obligation to the innocent.

Omagh is not the only example. As we have heard from others, the family of Ian Sproule still wait for answers about an intelligence file that was allegedly in IRA hands before his murder. Like so many families, they have lived with silence when there should have been candour. Their experience reminds us that, unless both Dublin and London face up equally to their responsibilities, legacy will remain unfinished business. Reconciliation requires honesty. It requires both Governments to be open, candid and accountable, not just when it is convenient but when it is uncomfortable. We know that the truth will never be complete and that justice will not always be possible, but it is our duty to go as far as we can and provide the answers where we can. To stop short, because disclosure is politically awkward, would be another betrayal of those who have already borne too much.

I support the motion, because it rejects an amnesty, calls for an assurance that any agreement between the Governments will command the broad support of victims and survivors, demands that no side be beyond scrutiny and recognises that grief does not stop with one generation but passes through families and communities across time, which will continue to happen unless we address it. Northern Ireland cannot afford another false start —

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

Ms Sugden: — on legacy. Thank you.

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

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Our thoughts are very much with the victims of the conflict on days like today. Those families who refused to be silenced have forced this British Government to recognise that the cruel and callous Legacy Act needs to be repealed and replaced. The key test of the intent of the two Governments is not in what was promised last Friday but what will be in the final legislation when it passes into law.

The approach of British Governments since the Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed in 2014, has been deliberate delay and obstruction. Ten years on from the Stormont House Agreement, we in Sinn Féin remain in problem-solving mode on the delivery of previous legacy commitments. Our focus has been to ensure that any approach to legacy is human-rights compliant and capable of commanding the maximum confidence of families. We have also held firm on the view that all outstanding legacy inquests that were halted on 1 May 2024 should be completed. There should also be an independent investigations unit that is capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations and, separate to that, an information retrieval mechanism.

The absence of a British commitment to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown is deeply concerning. Announcing a long-fought-for public inquiry into the Sean Brown case could be crucial to building trust in this British Government's publicly stated intent of helping to bring truth, justice and acknowledgement to all victims and survivors and their families.

Despite the DUP rhetoric in the debate, the Irish Government have an important role in this process. They are a co-guarantor of the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the Stormont House Agreement. Only when both Governments have worked together has progress been made. It is crucial that there be a joint approach to legacy matters.

The DUP has a political view of whom it classes as victims. That does not include a huge number of victims. Over many years, it fought against victims of the state who were seeking truth and justice. It fought against inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Pat Finucane inquiry. It praised shoot to kill by British forces, supported the use of plastic bullets against children and fought against lawful inquests. From its narrow point of view, state killings were OK, so I do not think that it should get too high on the horse of righteousness, particularly when we remember that the DUP had its own armed wing — Ulster Resistance. That was founded and led by DUP leaders, whom we saw flouncing about in their lovely red berets. Of course, Ulster Resistance imported hundreds upon hundreds of weapons, and the Police Ombudsman's report into Operation Greenwich confirmed that weapons that Ulster Resistance brought in were supplied by UDA death squads and murder gangs in the north-west. Therefore, when people on the opposite Benches ask republicans to stand up and come clean, those in the DUP should maybe listen to their own advice.

Our position has always been that all the victims, survivors and families who have been affected should be included in any legacy process. Sinn Féin will scrutinise the fine detail that is provided and urge that the underpinning legislation be published without delay. We will engage with victims' families, advocacy groups and the legal and human rights practitioners who work with them.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: No.

Any published legislation that underpins the proposals will indicate whether the British Government are, in fact, serious about delivering in good faith on their commitments to repeal and replace the Legacy Act and deal with the British state's role during the conflict. Resources will be critical to deliver that package. The onus is on the British Government to provide the resource that is required to deliver that new framework. There should be immediate discussions with the Finance Minister.

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

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I pay tribute to my colleague Mrs Dodds, a Member for Upper Bann, who has been a strong and consistent advocate for innocent victims across Northern Ireland in this place and during her entire political career. Mrs Dillon, a Member for Mid Ulster, criticised Mrs Dodds for using the word "we" when talking about victims. Mrs Dillon may like to rewrite the past, but the great lady who is sitting in front of me is a victim of IRA terrorism.

It was Mrs Dillon's colleagues who were the cowards who tried to break into the Royal Victoria Hospital to murder Mrs Dodds's dying child and murder her and her husband. So, we will take no lectures from the party opposite on that issue.

The Member also outlined her opposition to an amnesty yet had no objections to royal pardons being handed to her Sinn Féin colleagues. She had no objections to amnesties being handed to Mr Kelly and others who bowed on bended knee to get the royal pardon from the royal prerogative of mercy. She criticised this party for the stance that we take on the definition of a victim and tried to indicate that she would force us to accept that the definition of a victim should be supported by this party. Let me be very clear. The DUP will never allow those who murdered and maimed to be equivalent to those whom they murdered, and that is what the Alliance Party, in supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, is doing. It is putting on the same level the Shankill bomber who blew himself up and the innocent people whom he was blowing up. Your record will be clear in the House, and the Alliance Party's record will be clear in the House that it stood with victim makers when it could have stood with victims.

Of course, Sinn Féin will always have the cover of the Alliance Party, whether in the Executive Office Committee or here today. The deputy leader of the Alliance Party tried to wheel out the thinnest reason to oppose our motion, so I think that it will be useful to read into the record the exact wording. He stated that he objected to it because we lamented bilateral discussions between our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, but our motion is clear. It:

That is the line that the Alliance Party claims that it is opposed to, and I will give way to any Member on the Alliance Benches who can reasonably articulate why those victims and those loved ones do not deserve to have the precondition of receiving justice from the Irish Government. There is absolute silence because Alliance has no answer. It has made it clear, as it does in every debate in the House, that, whatever comes forward from Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, without precondition, will support it.

I want to turn to the comments made by the first Alliance Member to speak in the debate, who accused Members of engaging in childish behaviour. I will give way if you want to articulate who you were talking about. Is it this party, which is bringing forward the concerns of victims? Is it this party, which read into the record the names of victims across Northern Ireland of all traditions and of none who were murdered as a result of collusion by the Irish state? Again, that is met with silence.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Ms Bradshaw: You have tried to goad us into a response. I have made it very clear that my focus, today and every day, is on the victims and survivors of the Troubles, and I will do everything that I can to move this country forward on the premise of trying to achieve reconciliation on this island of Ireland. That is where my focus is. It is not about political point-scoring in this Chamber.

Mr Brett: You will have the opportunity, Ms Bradshaw, to cast your vote in around 10 minutes' time. Victims across Northern Ireland will be watching how the Alliance Party votes on this because they are sick, sore and tired of being lectured by a party from on high that, when it has the opportunity to stand side by side with those victims, instead decides to stand with its friends and colleagues in Sinn Féin.

My two colleagues articulated very well why this party tabled the motion. We believe that all those responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they were unionists, loyalists, republicans, nationalists, state actors or IRA informants sponsored by the British state, should come forward and give all the evidence that they have to ensure that they face justice.

We heard from Mr Sheehan that Sinn Féin is in problem-solving mode. I will give way to Mr Sheehan if he will call on his former comrades in the IRA to come forward and give all the information that they have about the killings that they were involved in. I will give him the opportunity to set that out now.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for giving way. You should focus on your party

and its role

in importing a massive amount of weapons that were used to kill innocent Catholics. Your party formed that organisation. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr Sheehan: Your party is responsible for it.

Mr Brett: When the convicted cash-and-carry bomber had the opportunity to call out his IRA —

Mr Sheehan: Ah, use your own script, Phillip —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): One Member will speak at a time.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

They do not like the truth. They do not like justice, but I will give them the truth. The convicted cash-and-carry bomber will not take the opportunity for his colleagues in the IRA to give their information. That is who the Alliance Party is voting with. That is who you are going to troop behind, like you always do.

The record will be clear that some parties in the Assembly have no interest in innocent victims. If our party loses the vote today, we will continue to raise the issues. However, it is not our party that will be failed; it will be innocent victims, the length and breadth of the country, who will watch on in abject horror as parties unite to strip them out of the motion. Some are more interested in protecting electoral transfers at the next election than standing with innocent victims, but our party and all right-minded people will always stand with them.

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 with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next item of business will begin after Question Time.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6, 7 and 9 have been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss investment in sports facilities. I will, however, continue to make the case at Executive level for improved funding for my Department so that it can provide better services across all its activities, including sport.

Mr Honeyford: Last week, the Minister announced £82 million of spending for 20 clubs, but he has only £36 million available. The GAA, Ulster Rugby, Ulster Hockey and all the other sports also need capital investment, so can the Minister tell us what other capital funding he is exploring to bridge that funding gap so that we can finally see the delivery of the full football fund, Casement Park and upgrades to all the other grounds that need them?

Mr Lyons: I want to see sporting need met in all areas of Northern Ireland. Importantly, I want to make sure that the £36·2 million that has been waiting for many years can be spent. There has been a degree of over-planning so that, if some of the clubs fall out because they are not ready to proceed at that stage, we will still have the funding available so that some can proceed, and we can get the money spent. However, I recognise that there is a need for additional funding for sport in Northern Ireland, and I will certainly make the case for it.

Miss Brogan: Last week, at the Communities Committee, departmental officials mentioned that the Minister is seeking additional and alternative funding for the football fund. Can the Minister confirm whether he is seeking additional and alternative funding for other sports or projects, or is it just the football fund that he is seeking those funds for?

Mr Lyons: There is certainly a need in football, and, when questioned, officials were answering directly about the football fund. I have always said that we need more money for sport across Northern Ireland. One reason why I brought forward the Olympic legacy fund is that I realised that, outside the three main sports, many sports do not feel that they are getting the funding that they deserve. I am putting a proportion towards that so that those needs can, I hope, be partially met, but I will always be an advocate for more money for sport in Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the investment that he has made in sport, and I know that he values equality across sports. Does he accept that, at this point, football and rugby are £50 million behind when it comes to equality of funding?

Mr Lyons: Yes, that is absolutely the case. I believe that we should proceed on the basis of fairness and what was put in place through the arrangements in 2011. He is right. Unfortunately, the UK Government have moved outside of what was agreed previously, and, therefore, football and rugby are now behind when it comes to the funding that has been made available to them. That will need to be remedied.

Mr Durkan: Did the Minister have any discussion with the Finance Minister in advance of his announcement on the Northern Ireland Football Fund, which over-plans by some £50-odd million? When did he inform his colleagues of the content of that announcement?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that there has been extensive engagement through the House and through the Committee. I have updated Executive colleagues at the appropriate times, and I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss these matters further. However, it is under my remit as Communities Minister, and, with Executive approval in place since 2011 for the Minister to take forward such a scheme, I do not require Executive approval. However, I will, of course, keep Executive colleagues updated. Of course, it went through the proper processes, with everything going to the appropriate Departments to get those assurances.

Mr Allen: Twenty clubs are pleased to be moving forward to the next phase of the fund, but, equally, many more clubs are frustrated that they are not moving forward. Minister, what engagement is your Department having with those clubs to better understand their needs and to understand what the Department can do to support them?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We are beginning a process of engaging with clubs that were not successful at this stage so that we can, first of all, give feedback on the assessment and, then, talk about next steps, some of the immediate needs that they have, what other funding sources might be available and the plans that we have moving forward. I emphasise the words "at this stage" because I want all clubs to see their need met and this to move forward.

Mr Lyons: My Department's regeneration policy focus is on urban settlements with a population of 5,000 or more, whereas rural villages and towns with populations of under 5,000 fall within the remit of DAERA. However, my Department has been leading on the delivery of the COVID recovery small settlements regeneration programme, which was part-funded by DFI and DAERA. It is delivering over 100 projects in small settlements across Northern Ireland, representing a total investment of almost £29 million.

Miss Dolan: Minister, will you provide specific examples of projects that have been approved or funded in Fermanagh recently?

Mr Lyons: Under the policy that I have just outlined, we have had improvements to the Belleek marina walkways, construction of a multi-use games area (MUGA) in Rosslea, refurbishment of an Orange hall in Derrygonnelly and renovations at Belcoo Enterprise Centre, and refurbishment of the recreation centre in Castlecaulfield is under way.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the vital work that the Minister is undertaking to provide support to local communities. Will he outline how his Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund can impact on rural communities? Has the AERA Minister shown his support?

Mr Lyons: That fund will be open to all community organisations across Northern Ireland that are in need of renovations or improvements. I look forward to updating the House about that soon and announcing the next steps. Certainly, it will be of benefit to rural and urban communities. As to engagement with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, there have been meetings with officials on it. I have spoken to the AERA Minister and would welcome further engagement, because he and I should work together to make sure that we deliver for rural communities.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you talk about regeneration schemes. What protections will be put in place to ensure that any historical buildings will be looked after in those schemes and not left behind?

Mr Lyons: Robust procedures are in place to make sure that those buildings are looked after. My big concern is that there is often not the funding, either from the Government or the owners, to make sure that we preserve them. I am keen to emphasise that regeneration does not mean that everything has to be new. Use of existing and old buildings can play a very important role in the revitalisation of towns, cities and rural areas. I will certainly play my part in making sure that that can happen.

Ms D Armstrong: The Minister mentioned DAERA's metric: the 5,000 population figure. What investment can he make in smaller rural communities that fall under that population figure?

Mr Lyons: Those are not under my remit, but my Department is leading on the shaping sustainable places policy. Consultation on that ended earlier this week. Under the current proposals, all settlements, regardless of population size, will be eligible for investment. We have heard from Members across the House about the lack of vires that I have in relation to smaller settlements, and this is hopefully a way in which we can rectify that.

Mr Lyons: Funding delivered by the Arts Council on behalf of my Department supports musicians through various programmes, with an investment from my Department of £750,000 for 2025-26. The musical instruments programme provides three strands of support for various groups and individuals. With an investment of £100,000 from my Department, the travel awards for bands programme will help bands with travel costs and promote music making and player development and complement the musical instruments for bands programme. The Ulster-Scots Agency has supported marching bands in Northern Ireland in 2025 by providing grants of £121,000 to 69 bands for community tuition and £12,300 to 46 schools for band-related tuition. The agency provides ongoing opportunities for bands through major events such as Belfast International Tattoo, as well as support for bands through mentoring and capacity building.

Ms Brownlee: The travel fund was welcomed by the marching band sector. Minister, can you assure us that it will be a rolling programme that will allow bands the time to plan for their travels?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can. I thank the Member for meeting me about that and sharing some of her concerns about deadlines. As a result of her intervention and that of others, we have looked at this and we will make sure that the fund will be on a rolling basis so that those deadlines do not interrupt the bookings that some bands will want to make.

It is good that the fund is in place. We were recently at an event in Carrickfergus where marching bands came from the United States and put on a fantastic show for us. I want people from outside Northern Ireland to be able to benefit from the talents of our bands and musicians. The fund is one way in which we can help them to do that.

Mr McHugh: Minister, what efforts will you make to ensure that this recognition extends to marching bands across all cultural backgrounds and that it includes GAA bands, traditional Irish bands, republican bands, international bands and LGBT bands that are associated with the pride event?

Mr Lyons: The fund is open to everybody. It is not about anybody's identity or background. It is about music. That is what we are trying to promote.

Mr O'Toole: Further to the previous question, I welcome the fact that we have so many terrific marching bands from all backgrounds. I hope that the fund is inclusive. Will the Minister make any specific effort to ensure that those bands are encouraged to participate and proactively get involved with the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, which is coming to Belfast next year?

Mr Lyons: I had a great opportunity to meet the fleadh organisers, and they were very keen to stress how they want the fleadh to emphasise musical ability and talents from right across Northern Ireland. There has already been engagement with the Ulster-Scots Agency around that, and I hope that it can be a celebration of music from all backgrounds and traditions.

Mr Lyons: The National Association of Councillors is a representative body. It is not a trade union, as its members are not employees. As councillors are not employees, they cannot go on strike, but they may elect not to perform their duties.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that NAC NI is not a union and therefore not subject to the protections afforded to unions, does he agree that strikes or other industrial action, as signed off and recommended by council members from the Alliance Party and the SDLP, in order to attain wish-list items such as pay rises, golden handshakes for those who lose their seats or, indeed, choose not to defend them, free broadband and other items, puts participating councillors at risk under the councillors' code of conduct?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, it is up to the Alliance Party and the SDLP to say whether they support the action that is proposed by their councillors. Perhaps they will intervene and let us know that at some stage. However, in relation to the Member's specific question on the code of conduct, I highlight the fact that councillors are elected members, and, on taking up office after an election, they sign a declaration that says that they will observe the Northern Ireland local government code of conduct. That code provides:

and must not

That is very clear.

Ms Mulholland: I am delighted to get up to clarify something. The Minister asked, and I will answer. I have already said so, and my party has been on record to say that. Does the Minister agree with me that, in a ministerial position —.

Mr Lyons: You have said what?

Ms Mulholland: Pardon?

Mr Lyons: You have said what?

Ms Mulholland: That we do not agree with the strike action. I think that that is pretty clear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, we are not having a debate. It is Question Time for the Minister.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister agree, then, that it would be wrong for Ministers to use their position when they do not get what they want, perhaps by stepping down, resigning, going on strike and not doing their role, as that might also erode public confidence?

Mr Lyons: It is interesting that it has been confirmed that there is great division in the Alliance Party on the issue. Of course, it is clear, and I am very clear, that at no stage have I ever done anything that would confer a personal benefit on myself. That is very different from what is being proposed by the Alliance Party and the SDLP. That is clear for everybody to see.

Mr Gaston: The NAC has form for being obsessed with money. I think of my time on the NAC, when it refused to give back the £10,000 COVID grant that, I believe, it should not have received. I am looking through the minutes of its meeting on 21 May 2025. Its members said that they wanted to lodge FOI requests because they were unhappy with their pay offer. The minutes state:

and

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, is there a question for the Minister?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: There is no talk about strike action in the minutes. For transparency, can the Minister point us to where we can find who asked for, and who supported, strike action? I certainly think that the NAC, true —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — to form, is not interested in transparency.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, go ahead.

Mr Lyons: All that I can say is that that is an issue for the NAC itself. I had a meeting with the NAC on 7 July. I said that I wanted to listen to its concerns. I invited it to provide me with a paper outlining its views and said that I would consider any additional information on other issues that were raised, such as the issue of uniformity of allowances. Unfortunately, it did not provide me with that information. I am disappointed that the NAC is considering strike action instead of engaging in constructive discussion.

Mr Lyons: Since February 2024, I have delivered the following for the people of Upper Bann: £1·8 million for the People and Place neighbourhood renewal programme; £3·5 million for the Banbridge public realm scheme; £247,000 for the Empty to Occupied scheme; and £300,000 for the Fit For Future scheme. I have also delivered £400,000 for the Lurgan laneways scheme and £845,000 for street furniture and seasonal lighting. There has been £2·5 million for community and voluntary organisations, £280,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Lismore College in Craigavon and £225,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Banbridge High School.

The Member will be aware of the clubs that have progressed as a result of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Over £9 million has been delivered through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's completed maintenance scheme and £6·7 million through its planned maintenance scheme. Over £1 million has been delivered through labour market partnerships, with £60,000 delivered through the Arts Council's musical instruments programme. There have been 87 new starts for social housing and 153 Co-Ownership property completions. A total of 1,738 people have been helped to access additional benefits totalling £3·8 million through the Make the Call service, which I have protected. We have had 12 job fairs. Sport NI has supported many clubs, including the Northern Ireland karate club and Waringstown Cricket Club. In addition, we have supported 10,010 pensioners through the £100 winter fuel support payment.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. It is good to hear the record of a DUP Minister who is delivering for people across all our constituencies.

Mr Clarke: Hear, hear. [Laughter.]

Mrs Dodds: I notice the laughter and mocking from the SDLP, which —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mrs Dodds: — does not have a representative at all in Upper Bann.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mrs Dodds: Minister, what are your plans for further delivery?

Mr Lyons: I look forward to continuing to deliver for Upper Bann and constituencies right across Northern Ireland. SDLP members are laughing, along with some in the Alliance Party. I remember when the leader of the Opposition came to the House to ask me when I would publish my housing supply strategy. I had published it six months previously. Other SDLP Members asked when the Executive Office would publish its integration strategy. It had already been published. Mr McCrossan came to the House and told everyone that the vesting orders for the A5 still stood, when they had in fact been quashed by a High Court judgement. The SDLP gets it wrong again and again.

I am happy to deliver, and I will deliver more that will benefit people in Upper Bann. Funding from the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will come forward, and it can help organisations in the Member's constituency. There will be more money for Your School Your Club. Its budget will rise from £500,000 to £3 million this year. We will be bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy that will help her constituents. There will be significant investment in the new employability programme. Antisocial behaviour legislation will be introduced. We will crack down further on fraud and error. Of course, we have announced the Olympic legacy fund, which will deliver in her constituency as well.

I am more than happy to stand by my record of achievement and stand over the things that will make a difference. The SDLP and Alliance can scoff, but those measures have made and will continue to make a real difference to the lives of people in Upper Bann and across Northern Ireland.

Mr Beattie: That rolled off your tongue wonderfully, Minister; it did not sound as though you prepared it at all. [Laughter.]

I raise this again: the historic environment division and Knock Iveagh. Are you looking at that, or is it dead in the water? The council needs to move on it.

Mr Lyons: We can take responsibility only for what is within our gift and what is our responsibility. Decisions were made by the council, and those decisions stand. I am always happy to meet and see what alternative pathways there are, but I have to operate within the law. I am happy to do anything further that we can do, because I understand the public concern.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, that is a new one for us: you answer the Member for Upper Bann by directing your reply to the SDLP. It is a bit strange, but you are the Minister.

How can you ensure regional fairness and balance in investment decisions in your Department? Has the Department for Communities not adopted that policy priority? What measures do you use when you make investment decisions?

Mr Lyons: I will refer to the SDLP when it scoffs and laughs at what we have been able to deliver through the Department.

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. I would like to —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time.

Mr Lyons: I will keep on delivering — [Interruption.]

Ms McLaughlin: We never —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that people think that Question Time is a bit of craic, but it is not. There are people here who are waiting for the answers. Could you all, including the Minister, address the questions that are asked and keep the political nonsense for afterwards? That includes everybody. Go ahead.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am here to deliver on behalf of all communities in Northern Ireland. I have delivered in the Member's constituency, and I look forward to making more announcements shortly about how we are investing. We look at regional balance, of course, and that is taken into consideration in our decisions, depending on the process that is already in place.

We have delivered. We have delivered through the public realm scheme for the Harbour Square development. The Member shakes her head, but it is true that we are delivering and getting on with that. Of course, I want to do more — I wish that we had the funds to do more — but I assure the Member that we will treat everybody equally and make sure that we share across Northern Ireland the benefits of the things that we are able to do.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons: My Department has developed proposals that will ensure that social landlords have appropriate powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. I have brought forward a paper for the Executive’s consideration outlining proposals to amend legislation, specifically injunctions against unacceptable behaviour, grounds for possession and changes to eligibility for social housing and full duty homelessness status where there has been unacceptable behaviour.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that, like me, he is frustrated at good people and good tenants being terrorised by bad people and bad tenants. His announcement today is important, but will the Minister indicate when the measures that he refers to will be brought to the House?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. Any public representative who is in touch with their communities will see complaints about a small number of people who make life exceptionally difficult for others. It is time that we used the powers that are available to us and provided for more powers if necessary. I want the Bill to be introduced in early 2026. I need Executive approval. I hope that the First Minister will allow it to go on the agenda and that other Executive Ministers will give me support, at which stage I can bring the Bill to the House.

Ms Ferguson: What contact has the Minister had with other Departments — I think specifically about work by the Department of Education, our youth workers, his Department through community development and the Department of Justice — about increasing and improving diversionary activity in the hotspot troubled areas in our estates?

Mr Lyons: Several areas in my Department help to take forward that sort of work. I welcome that. The particular policy proposals that we are talking about right now will have gone to all Ministers for their comment. I look forward to hearing from them, if they have not commented already.

Mr McMurray: Have you had any discussions with the PSNI on data sharing with all social housing providers?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Discussions have been ongoing. There was a joint consultation on that with the Department of Justice, and we will look at all the avenues that are open to us to make sure that we can tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour, which is causing exceptional difficulties for many people.

Mr McNulty: My office and others are experiencing a worrying trend whereby unresolved antisocial behaviour drives families to request transfers, displacing families and adding further pressure to the housing waiting list. Families have often been placed in what they describe as their "dream home" —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr McNulty: What are you doing to address that? What engagement has your Department had with the Housing Executive to ensure that transfer requests for that reason are recorded as a reportable category in the housing management system?

Mr Lyons: The exact reason why I want the legislation is so that we have additional powers to deal with that issue. The people who should be moved are those who cause problems, not those who are affected by them.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn. Questions 10 and 12 will be grouped.

Mr Lyons: The public consultation went live on the DFC website on 17 June and closed on 19 September. We are analysing and considering all the responses received throughout the consultation process. I will share the outcome of the analysis with my Executive colleagues, and we will take forward any further development as appropriate before finalising the strategy.

I am committed to ensuring that a long-term strategic approach is taken at both departmental and Executive level to deliver on my Department's housing and anti-poverty priorities.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. I hope that the strategy is long-term; it has certainly been long delayed. Will it be sufficiently ambitious to meet the needs and the difficulties that many in our community have to live with?

Mr Lyons: It is ambitious, and we set that out in the strategy. It will be followed by action plans. It will be agile, because it will be a 10-year plan and we want to make sure that it can deal with other issues as they arise. However, I am committed to making sure that we have something in place that is deliverable and effective and that, ultimately, will make a change to people's lives here.

Mr Gildernew: Given the many voices from the sector expressing serious concerns that the draft strategy is not fit for purpose in tackling poverty, will the Minister commit to working with his partners in the anti-poverty co-design group to significantly strengthen the strategy into something that will make a lasting impact?

Mr Lyons: The consultation process is there for a reason: to hear views. We will take on board the views of all those who have commented on the draft anti-poverty strategy. Ultimately, I will need to get approval from the Executive. They signed off on the draft strategy. All members of the Executive were asked to contribute their ideas and what they wanted in the strategy. The Executive allowed it to go forward for consultation. I want to make sure that it has everything in it that it needs to have, but, even more important, we need to make sure that the action plans have what is required as well. It will be up to Executive colleagues to decide whether they want to change the strategy and whether they are willing to put in some of the other measures that may be suggested. I am more than open to including any of those that come forward that we can deliver.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nuala McAllister is not in her place.

Mr Lyons: Private developers can use vacant Housing Executive land to develop social housing but only in collaboration with a registered housing association. Housing Executive land has featured in the development programme, with 31 units being developed by associations in collaboration with private contractors on Housing Executive land last year. I encourage any interested private developer to contact our housing associations and/or the Housing Executive.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Doug, you have less than a minute for a supplementary question.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Legahory in Craigavon has footpaths, street lighting, sewerage, entrance and exit roads but not a single house. Will the Minister encourage the Housing Executive to give that land to developers so that they can develop housing on it?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 30 seconds, Minister.

Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to look at the individual development that he talks about. I do not know enough about it to comment at this minute, but I am happy to chase that up.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Lyons: I did not pick up what the Member said at the start. As for releasing the information, I am happy to consider doing that. It is not what we normally do, simply because of the process, the names involved and the rankings of the clubs. Out of respect to them, we do not normally release information. However, some have questioned the process, and some have tried to inject uncertainty into the process, so it may be necessary for us to do that. I will take advice on that, and we will see where that goes.

Let me be clear: I will robustly defend the process that was put in place, and I will robustly defend my officials against some of the slurs that have been directed towards them, as I will the clubs that have been successful and have been called into question. I am happy to return to the issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mark, I could not hear what you said at the start either. Will you speak up? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Durkan: Gabh mo leithscéal.

I certainly did not slur any officials, nor did I slur any clubs.

Obviously, any and all clubs that were unsuccessful will be unhappy, but there is a consensus across all clubs and communities that Institute and Ards have been particularly hard done by in the process. What plans are there to help those homeless clubs?

Mr Lyons: I fully recognise and understand the concern that those involved with those two clubs face, and I recognise the concern that has been expressed. From my point of view, we had put through the process that is currently in place, and, obviously, there was a different marking scheme for clubs that did not have their own ground when it came to footballing need.

I will meet those clubs shortly. We will look at options and talk about the future, but, ultimately, it would be great if we could get more investment in football, so that more clubs can be taken forward. That is certainly something that I will call for. I hope to be able to talk to Executive colleagues about that, because football is £50 million behind in terms of fairness. I also want to look at other sources of finance, including financial transactions capital.

Mr Lyons: That is something that I have been working on since I came into office. It is critical for us to build more homes but also to preserve the stock that we have. Because of the lack of investment there is a problem. I have written to the Department of Finance, following an engagement that I had with the Secretary of State in the past couple of weeks. I want to get everyone in the room around the table so that we can finally work out what the Treasury, the DOF, we and the Northern Ireland Office need to do in order to get this going, because we need it to happen. It should be a priority for the Government. It is certainly a priority for me.

Mr Butler: I welcome the Minister's answer, and I assure him of the Ulster Unionist Party's support, should he bring that forward. That is the new stock, but I have explained before that there are significant problems with the maintenance, quality of maintenance and access to maintenance of some of the existing stock. Will the Minister provide an update on any works that he has undertaken in that space?

Mr Lyons: That is an area of concern. I have frequent representations from constituents and colleagues in the House about Housing Executive maintenance. I want to make sure that we can have people living in the homes that they want to live in, to the standard that they want. Some of those issues will be addressed through the fuel poverty strategy, but, ultimately, we need more investment. The easiest way for that investment to come is through the borrowing powers that the Housing Executive so desperately needs. I encourage all Members to get behind that call, so that we can make a real difference. Achieving that in this Assembly mandate would be one of the most important things that we could do.

Mr Lyons: I look forward to launching the strategy in the coming days.

Ms K Armstrong: I am glad to hear that, Minister. When will third-party organisations that deliver programmes to support people with disabilities in work find out when funding may be available and for how long?

Mr Lyons: The strategy will go out to consultation first. We look forward to that happening and getting the feedback. Decisions will be made after that.

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to do that. Of course, we were able to deliver winter fuel support in North Antrim, and over 10,700 people were impacted on there. I am pleased that I was able to push forward match funding for Bushmills courthouse. There was £1·37 million for voluntary and community organisations. There was £1·5 million for Ballymoney public realm scheme. There was £600,000 for the Ballymena scheme. There was £118,000 for the shopfront scheme. There was £525,000 for the COVID recovery small settlement scheme. Ballymoney library was refurbished. There was over £1 million for labour market partnerships. There was the regeneration of the St Patrick's site. There was £93,000 for the Arts Council musical instruments scheme. There were 116 new jobs through the expansion of services with the Department for Work and Pensions. We also delivered Northern Ireland's first cultural world heritage site at Gracehill. A lot of work went into that, and it will be of great benefit not just to his constituency but to Northern Ireland. Finally, 1,392 people were helped to access additional benefits of £3·1 million through the Make the Call service.

Mr Burrows: Those are all good things, and we welcome them. We will support the Minister when he does positive things. However, there are areas in my constituency where it feels as though that is not trickling down and where it is not being felt. I was in two of them: Drumtara and the Queen Street area. People there would like to invite the Minister to come up, have a walk and hear first-hand from them, in a very constructive way, about the things that, they think, could be done better in their constituency. Will he come up and visit my constituents?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to go to North Antrim at any stage. I look forward to that visit.

It is important to highlight what we have been able to achieve. I saw some Members shaking their head and tutting when I was listing the Department's achievements, but it is important to note that we are making a difference and making changes. Things are happening that would not have happened if we were not in post. I am proud of the things that we have been able to achieve. However, far more needs to be done. The Member mentioned particular areas, and perhaps the shaping sustainable places programme will be able to deliver for them. Let us deliver what we can. Let us show people that we are getting things done. Let us identify other problems that exist, and let us work together to see what we need to do to tackle those as well.

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of what happened to the Tollymore centre and the damage that was done. Sport NI has advised that the running costs of the facility have steadily increased in recent years and that income has declined. The current operating model is financially unsustainable. The review is now under way, in line with 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' principles. It is expected to examine the value for money of continued operations, given the significant losses associated with maintaining the facility. I am keen for the review to be completed without delay so that a decision can be made on the future of the centre.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, thank you for that update. The centre is the only one of its kind on this island, and we are very privileged to have it in Northern Ireland and in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that having the opportunity to do activities such as rock climbing, hillwalking, canoeing and kayaking in the heart of the Mourne Mountains is unique and that it would be great to see the centre being sustained?

Mr Lyons: I fully appreciate and understand that and recognise the Member's passion for the centre.

That is why Sport NI is undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way forward. We want to see a way forward for it. We want to make sure that we have that in place. I have asked them to keep me updated on that so that we can keep people informed. It is an issue of importance not only to people in South Down but to many other users across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: They absolutely can access that investment in the future. We have a competitive process in place. That has been done in the right and appropriate way. However, I understand that there will always be winners in the process and those who did not progress at this stage. I hope that we can get additional finance so that we can progress more clubs. I want everyone to be assured that I want everybody to get through the process. I want everybody to have their needs met, and I work hard to make sure that I do everything that I can to make sure that that happens.

Mr Delargy: Can you outline your rationale for why only two tier 3 clubs were selected to go forward in this part of the process?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, we had a limited pot of funding available. Even with over-planning, that limited the number of projects that could go through. I wanted to make sure that we spent the money; that was first and foremost what I wanted to ensure. I also wanted to have a mixture from those different tiers: tiers 1, 2 and 3. The further down we went on tier 3, the huger the impact would have been on the other two tiers because of the amounts of money that we are talking about. The solution to the matter is not to take from one to give to the other; the solution is to get more funding in place.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to review sporting bodies at any time. I want to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete. I want no sport to be left out. I will happily raise that on behalf of the Member and his constituents, but perhaps he can give me a bit more information, if he wants me to take something forward.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. One of my younger constituents, Charlie Wall, has been selected to represent Toxic Hockey in the under-12s inline hockey event in Barcelona. Charlie is the only person from Northern Ireland to have been selected. In-line hockey is not recognised by Sport NI, and Charlie's participation is entirely self-funded. Will the Minister look at that case for me?

Mr Lyons: First of all, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Charlie on his success and wish him all the best for the event. The Olympic legacy fund was designed to help some of the sports that do not always get the merit or the attention that they deserve. I am more than happy to raise the specific issue of this sport with the chief executive and other staff of Sport NI. If the Member furnishes me with more details, I will be happy to take that up on his behalf.

Mr Lyons: Quite a few announcements have been made and funding allocated. We will not be able to do much more in this financial year, but I always want to make sure that we make the best use of the funds that we have. We are bringing forward the Olympic legacy fund and the community infrastructure fund because people said that they wanted that smaller level of investment in their community. We will certainly look at the budget moving forward to see whether more resource needs to be allocated to those or, indeed, any other schemes.

Mr Allen: The Minister rightly referred to what people want us to do. Another area that I think of and, indeed, declare an interest in as a disabled person is access in society. The community infrastructure fund, for example, will improve community access, but has the Minister anything under active consideration for improving accessibility across Northern Ireland?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have 30 seconds.

Mr Lyons: I will cover the issues that the Member raised in the schemes that I introduce. He will have seen that with the Northern Ireland Football Fund and in the scoring mechanisms that are in place for other funds. I point the Member towards the disability strategy that I will introduce very soon. It will address many of the issues that he raised.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perfect. That ends questions to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Butler: 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Robbie, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I declare an interest, because of Nurse Butler and Nurse Hancock, my wife and my daughter, as the debate will impact on them.

Today, the Assembly faces a moment of truth. We have been here before, and I have to be absolutely clear that this is not just a debate about pounds and pence or about figures on a spreadsheet. It is also about people, about fairness and about trust between those who serve us and those of us who are meant to serve them. The motion before us seems to be pretty straightforward. It reaffirms something that we should never have to debate, which is that our health workers deserve pay parity, just as they did in January 2020 and just as they did in February 2024.

Upon the restoration of the institutions last year, many promises were made, with health staff, rightly, at the very top of the list. Within days of the Assembly's returning, Minister Swann, the then Minister of Health, was able to present a deal that saw pay parity restored. When Minister Nesbitt took up the post, he was absolutely clear that he wanted the 2024-25 pay award to be delivered as quickly as possible. Through persistence and an innovative but successful approach, he made sure that staff got the increase that they deserved. He also said, however — this is important — that he wanted it to be the last time that health workers were left waiting until so late in the year before knowing whether they were going to achieve parity and whether previous commitments would be honoured. Every party here nodded along in agreement, yet here we are again. Almost six months into the new financial year, our health and social care workers are still waiting for their increase whilst their colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales have already received theirs. I am sure that most of us will agree that that is unacceptable.

I will pause there, because this is about more than just money. I know that some Members will find this a shock, but I used to work in the Fire Service. I know that that will have been a secret to some, but I want to use the Fire Service again as an illustration of how I genuinely know what it is like to go in and sacrifice more than your time by putting yourself in risky situations during a shift in which you do not know what is coming, while knowing that your community depends on you. That is what our health and social care staff do every day. It is what our nurses, doctors, paramedics, porters, cleaners, admin staff and allied health professionals (AHPs) do. They do not clock in for the money, although fair pay matters; they do it because they care, they want to serve and they believe in what they do. Here is the reality: they are serving in environments that are already stretched to breaking point. The wards are short-staffed, colleagues cover double shifts, patients are waiting for longer than ever, and the staff are going home physically and emotionally exhausted. On top of that, when they feel undervalued because promises of parity have been made but not delivered, it does not just dent morale but drives staff away. It makes recruitment harder, and it weakens the entire health system.

Let us be honest: this is not a new problem. It was not that long ago that Northern Ireland's health workers, for the first time in their history, took to the picket lines. They stood in the cold with placards in hand, not because they wanted to be there but because they felt that they had no choice. The patients waiting at home did not blame the staff; they blamed the politicians, and rightly so. Those strikes were a collective demand to be heard when every other avenue had failed them. Colleagues, we cannot and must not allow health workers to be forced into that position again, because the cost of failure is not just borne by the workforce. It is borne by every patient waiting for treatment, every family desperate for care and every community that depends on the system to function, and, yet, here we are again.

Pay awards have been implemented in England, Scotland and Wales, but, in Northern Ireland, sadly, they remain stalled. Every week of delay makes industrial action more likely and erodes trust in the Assembly, and the workforce is depending on us. Let us not kid ourselves: unless the Executive act soon, industrial action will come. When it comes, it will be massive. I fear the damage that it will inflict on the Programme for Government target for waiting lists.

Some Members will point out the scale of the savings that the Department of Health has already made, and, if they are not going to point it out, I certainly will. The Minister has said that the savings that he has achieved this year are "unprecedented", but, even with that, a gap remains, and around £200 million of that relates to pay. It is not a problem that the Department of Health can fix on its own. The problem requires collective Executive responsibility, and it requires us to step up, because failure to act will not be measured in abstract numbers; it will be measured in pickets at hospital gates, exhausted staff leaving the service and waiting lists that grow even longer.

Every party in the Chamber stood on a platform that promised to deliver for our health workers. We clapped for them during the pandemic. We praise them in speeches. We wrote in manifestos that their work would be recognised and rewarded, but promises mean nothing without delivery. If we allow health workers in Northern Ireland to fall behind their counterparts elsewhere, we will have broken faith not only with them but with the people who trusted us to stand by them. I am not surprised that the trade unions are growing impatient. If the truth be told, as an MLA who is married to a nurse, I am also losing patience, because the issue is too serious to be trapped in political wrangling, and, unless the request of my colleague Minister Nesbitt for ministerial direction is approved soon, we risk plunging into a winter of discontent in our health service.

Behind every cancelled procedure or missed opportunity is a human story of a patient in pain, a family left waiting or a child who needs an assessment. Industrial action on that scale is not just inconvenient; it would be devastating. The Assembly has this simple but profound choice: we can allow delay, drift and division to drive our health workers onto the picket lines, or we can send a clear, united message that the Assembly gets it. As someone who has worn a uniform, has stood on the front line, knows the weight of public service and has had to take strike action at one point, I can say this with conviction: fair pay is not optional; it is essential.

Our health workers have carried us through crisis after crisis, and they do not deserve to carry the burden of political inaction as well. Let us do the right thing. Let us honour our word and give our health workforce the certainty and parity that it deserves. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is worth reminding ourselves that healthcare workers in the North are among the lowest paid across the entire public and private sectors. NIPSA reports that the NHS here is the only — I will repeat that: the only — public-sector employer paying below the real living wage for its lowest-paid staff. Ambulance Service workers in Unite and NIPSA have been engaged in industrial action for better conditions and safe staffing for almost three years now. Poor pay is a major driver of the staffing crisis in the NHS. Both are connected. Shamefully, this is the third year in a row that pay parity has been broken; the third year in a row in which health and social care workers have been put in that unacceptable position. Over the past two years, uplifts were paid in instalments, with the final instalments being paid at the very end of the financial year. A non-consolidated lump sum for 2023-24 was paid in August 2024, six months after the end of the financial year. This is worth asking: what is the excuse this time? The Executive have been up and running since February 2024. There has been plenty of time to prepare and find the money to make sure that such a shambles did not happen again, yet here we are.

In 2022, MLAs from Executive parties joined healthcare workers on various picket lines demanding fair pay. Those same MLAs and Ministers are now in a position to deliver pay parity, but they refuse to do so. They have fallen silent or are pointing the finger at others. All the rhetoric about joined-up working and delivery has gone completely out the window, and it is back to doing what the Executive do best: siloed working and playing the blame game. Achieving pay parity should be accounted for in every year's Budget, but it is not. Pay parity does not by itself reverse a decade of pay freezes and below-inflation increases, but it is the very least that our health and social care workers deserve. We are talking about a very modest pay offer of 3·6%, which is below the rate of inflation and well below the increase that NHS staff in Scotland accepted. Failing to deliver even that paltry sum is a damning indictment of an Executive who treat healthcare workers as second-class citizens and not worthy.

Placing all the blame on Westminster will simply not wash this time, not when the Executive are funnelling money out of the NHS and into the private sector. 'Belfast Live' recently reported that, between 2020 and 2025, our five healthcare trusts spent at least £302 million on private healthcare appointments. That is a shocking figure. The Health Minister's plan to tackle waiting lists includes even more reliance on the profiteering private healthcare sector. MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and X-rays are being outsourced to private firms, throwing good money after bad. Treatments and surgeries in orthopaedics, dermatology, gynaecology and much more are being delivered by profit-making organisations. Those private providers are raking it in; they are profiting from the crisis in our NHS. That is completely unacceptable. Procedures that should be done through the NHS are being outsourced. Staff who would otherwise be working in the NHS are working in private clinics. The maths is simple: the more money that the Executive pour into the black hole of private healthcare, the less that there is to invest in the NHS. The Executive's underfunding of public healthcare got us into this mess in the first place. More of the same will not get us out of it. Relying on the private sector to tackle waiting lists is a doomed strategy for multiple reasons. Private companies with profits to boost and dividends to pay will always choose a private patient over NHS work because there is more money to be made from privately insured or self-paying patients. Some people have been languishing for years on waiting lists. Those who can afford it have already opted for private treatment, so I ask whether our private hospitals even have the capacity to take on further NHS patients.

The private sector does not train its own medical staff; instead, it poaches staff who have been trained in the NHS. It relies on the NHS. It cannot survive without it. Workers who would normally do extra hours in the NHS are paid more for straightforward procedures, such as cataract operations, in the private sector, but that means that other more complex procedures are not being done for the NHS. Those with more complex conditions — they are usually working-class people from communities such as mine and elsewhere — are left languishing on waiting lists because of the proliferation of the private sector. Would those hundreds of millions of pounds not be better spent on our overworked and underpaid healthcare staff? It will cost around £200 million to honour pay parity this year. At least £300 million has been sunk into the private health sector in the past five years.

If we were to stop the nonsensical and unethical stealth privatisation of our health service and invest directly in the NHS, we could put an end to staff shortages and the workforce crisis.

It is an insult to imply that industrial action would undermine waiting list initiatives and exacerbate the healthcare crisis. Health and social care workers are being forced to pay for a crisis of the system that has been handed down from Westminster and implemented by Stormont. It looks like those workers will soon be striking to save the NHS, as they have done repeatedly since 2019. They will strike for better, safer services for us all. There is no way to achieve that without investing in the workforce through fair pay and better conditions. I hope that Members will support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry. I call Philip McGuigan. Philip, you have five minutes.

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

Our health service is the most vital of our public services. It relies heavily on its greatest asset: its staff. The safety of staff and patients alike is compromised as a result of staff shortages. There is a huge hole in our health and social care services as a result of pay issues that affect the recruitment and retention of staff.

That was me speaking in 2019 in support of nurses and healthcare workers as they were about to go on strike because of pay and conditions. Here, today, I am equally frustrated, although certainly not as frustrated as nurses and healthcare workers, that we have reached a position where nurses feel once again that they have no option other than potential strike action. I absolutely support the commitment to the core principle of pay parity for health and social care workers across the North, as I did in 2019.

Nurses and all other healthcare workers should not be in the position of again having to consider strike action to get the pay award to which they are entitled. I recently met the RCN, the British Medical Association (BMA) and other health unions, and I am well aware of the depth of their resolve and of their determination on behalf of their members. Clearly, they just want the issue to be resolved. The health service is important to us all. As elected politicians, we should work together to make it better for the people whom we represent: our constituents, who need and rely on the service. We also need to work better to ensure that it is better for those who work in it.

Why are we here again? I am conscious that healthcare workers do not want to get involved in party political discussions or debates, but it is important for me to outline my thoughts on some of the issues. As we in the North of Ireland are tied to Westminster, there has been underinvestment in our public services for close to 15 years — 15 years of austerity. Our Executive are still not adequately resourced. Sinn Féin believes that the best long-term solution to improve health outcomes in the North is an all-island health service in a new Ireland. In the context of the current interim arrangements in the North, however, Sinn Féin has prioritised the issue of health. In the Executive, through the current and previous Sinn Féin Finance Ministers, Sinn Féin has prioritised Health budgets from the money that has been available to the Executive. The Department of Health's opening budget was £8·4 billion this year, which is £650 million higher than the 2024-25 budget. Over 50% of the Executive's available resources go to Health. The Department received allocations of £115 million as part of the June monitoring round, so its total budget for this year is £8·6 billion.

Sinn Féin has prioritised Health, but, ultimately, the Health Minister is the Health Minister. Even though the Health Minister is not from my political party, I want him to succeed. We all need him to succeed. I have some sympathy with the Health Minister, as I do with all Ministers when dealing with their budgets. Ultimately, however, he is the person who decides how the money in the overall Health budget is allocated. The Health Minister is responsible for setting and funding Health priorities, including paying healthcare staff. I am disappointed that the Health Minister did not prioritise pay when he received his budget; that he has, so far, not resolved the issue of pay for health and social care staff; and that, as a result, we have again arrived at this position.

It is a position that we must get ourselves out of. There must be a solution to the issue.

I assure the Health Minister that, in his efforts to find a resolution to the issue of pay for healthcare workers, he has full support from me, as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. Furthermore, he can be assured that Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive are totally committed to solving the problem. I am hopeful that an agreement can be reached to deliver the well-deserved and well-earned pay award. Sinn Féin will continue to work to make that a reality.

Mrs Dodds: As others have said, we owe an enormous amount of gratitude to our healthcare staff — our nurses, our doctors and our hospital workers, who look after and care for us at our most vulnerable times, who save lives every day and who shore up a health service that is at breaking point. I make it my business to regularly contact and visit the largest hospital in my area, Craigavon. I was there this month discussing the potential for further winter pressures and crises. On that day, the longest waiting times were 62 hours for someone who already had a bed, and 42 hours for someone who was waiting to be admitted and, for all that time, was sitting on a chair.

There is no doubt that our healthcare staff work in the most difficult of circumstances, but it is not enough for us to clap for the NHS and say how much we appreciate them. Healthcare staff need to be properly paid, and that means parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only way to acknowledge their hard work. I am annoyed, like many nurses and other people are, that healthcare staff feel that they have to go to the extreme of either threatening or taking strike action to bring the matter to a head. That is not acceptable for a service that is such an important part of our community and lives. I respect, acknowledge and uphold everyone's right to strike, but I hope that we can find a solution to the issue and resolve it.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: If you let me continue for a minute, I will give way.

It is hugely important. I listened with interest to the Sinn Féin contribution, which was quite defensive. It is important that we find a resolution. I hope that the Finance Minister and the Health Minister can work together to resolve this most difficult subject. We should not drag our heels on the core services that we all depend on.

I will give way.

Mr Allen: Does the Member agree that this is and should be an Executive priority?

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you.

Funnily enough, I was just coming to that very point. The Minister needs to price in pay increases at the start of every year, and that should be monitored throughout the year. It is not that we do not know that it is going to happen — we do — so we need to price in those pay increases every year. We know broadly how much they will cost, and it is important to price them in. However — the Minister would be disappointed if I did not say this — we also have to think about how the Department of Health spends money. I cannot imagine where the Executive would be if every Minister sought a ministerial direction for a bill that they want the Executive to pick up. We have to think about how we spend money; that is hugely important.

I had a look at the health service's administrative costs for last year: they totalled almost £600 million.

There are now more staff in the Department of Health than when we had the Department of Health and the Health and Social Care Board. The money that is spent on administration actually exceeds the amount that we spent when we had those two separate organisations. How on earth can the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) take up 500 roles in the Department of Health? It is important that we actually consider how we spend health money.

Of course, Minister, it is also really important that there is accountability for the money that is spent. We have a new state-of-the-art maternity hospital. You wrote to the Health Committee last week saying that you were content with the options presented by the trust. That means that a hospital at £100 million will have to have millions more spent on it and probably wait another two and a half years before it is open and before any mother or baby can occupy that hospital. The acute mental health hospital is in exactly the same position. You cannot ask for more money without accountability for the money that has been spent. I look forward to hearing the discussion around that.

I hope that we have a resolution to this most vexatious of issues. I am sad and I am angry that nurses —

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Diane.

Mrs Dodds: I am sad and angry that nurses are in this position.

Ms Bradshaw: It is with great frustration that I speak on the motion. I am confident in saying that I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber will disagree with the need to ensure that health workers receive a proper wage for the work that they do. Indeed, it is only due to the commitment and dedication of the staff that we still have a public health service. Without their sacrifices, the long hours, the unacceptable workloads and so on, the health service would have long since collapsed. The BMA put it best when it stated recently that the health service cannot continue to be run on the goodwill of staff.

The great irony today is that the party that has held the Health portfolio for the past six years is the party that tabled the motion today. I have some sympathy in that two of those years were spent without a functioning Assembly or Executive due to the political whims of one party. The fact remains, however, that the health service has only continued to decline during those years. The Minister claims that he does not have the budget to cover pay awards for health workers, and the motion is a clear attempt by his party to shift the blame. When will the Minister accept that it should be a matter of prioritisation for him and his officials? The Health Minister rolls out the sound bites, but not once has he provided any kind of a priority list of how he will spend his budget, which, I remind Members, is over half of the overall Executive Budget. Not once has the Minister taken responsibility for the fact that, in reality, he could find the money for those pay awards if he wanted to, if he simply prioritised it at the beginning of the Department's budget-setting process. I think that other Members have mentioned that today, and it is something that the BMA has also highlighted.

We have said it before and we will say it again: there is no health service without a workforce. Instead, the Department continues year-on-year to hand a blank cheque to the health trusts, allowing them to spend whatever they need at the expense of other elements of healthcare, including staff pay.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I very much appreciate the Member giving way. Will she explain to me how I am supposed to set a budget that deals with the pay rises and pay recommendations before those pay recommendations are made?

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Minister. The point that I am making is that you can make assumptions about how pay awards will shift with those negotiations and inflation. Yet again, our health workers have to watch on as their counterparts across —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I am nearly finished. I will just leave it there.

Our health workers have to watch on as their counterparts across the UK receive their pay awards, whilst our staff, who are just as dedicated, hardworking and under pressure, are feeling undervalued.

I will give way. I have time. Go ahead.

Mr Allen: The Member, in her response to the Minister, said that he could have factored in an assumption. If the Minister were to do that, can the Member give a guarantee that we would not then be back here criticising the Minister for making an assumption?

Ms Bradshaw: The point that I was making was that this should be the number-one priority, because we do not have a health service without our health workers. [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: I am saying that if the Minister came here with his priorities and set out how he wanted to prioritise his money and the priorities for his Department, we would support him, but he has not done that. [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: When will the Minister and his party take responsibility by taking action to protect our workforce and save our health service?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members to make their remarks through the Chair.

Mr Durkan: First and foremost, I put on record our deep gratitude to and admiration for our health heroes. They are the people who keep our system afloat and keep our citizens alive in the most difficult of circumstances. They are overburdened, undervalued and underpaid, yet, day in, day out, they continue to provide stellar care. They deserve fair pay, and they deserve it now, not after months and months of political wrangling and "pass the problem" being played around the Executive table.

I had reason to visit Altnagelvin Hospital's emergency department recently, and what I witnessed was pretty chaotic. I saw a team stretched to breaking point, with queues down corridors and staff under immense strain and pressure, yet their professionalism and compassion shone through. That chaos is their daily and nightly reality. They bring humanity to a system that is not just creaking at the seams but cracking down the middle. The comfort that they bring to patients and their families during their darkest days is invaluable. I am acutely aware, however, that our gratitude is not enough. If it were, our health service would not be losing staff to burnout or better-paid jobs elsewhere, be those in the private sector or in other jurisdictions. Staff need fair pay and respect, and that should be reflected not just in rhetoric but in their pay packets and in their purses and wallets. They are the backbone of society, and it is a disgrace that the Executive continue to delay funding for what is a crucial and critical pay award.

I want to raise another issue. When these increases inevitably arrive, having been delayed and delayed, the way in which payments are made will impact on the lowest-paid staff: those who are on universal credit. Too many of our lowest-paid staff will see any additional award that they get in a lump sum clawed back, almost pound for pound, through the universal credit system. That money is given with one hand — eventually — but the delay in its being taken back is not quite so long. If we truly value those workers, we cannot allow that to happen, so I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to engage directly with trade unions and, crucially, the Minister for Communities. There must be a way in which to ensure that the pay award can be delivered in instalments or in a manner that prevents it from being swallowed up in universal credit calculations. Otherwise, as has happened before, some staff will see no benefit from the increase when it eventually arrives.

Our health and social care system is only as strong as the people who staff it. We are losing nurses, specialists and porters to burnout and to significantly better pay opportunities elsewhere, and no longer just to Liverpool or London but to a couple of miles down the road in Letterkenny. If we are serious about rebuilding our health service, tackling waiting lists and improving patient care, we must start by valuing our staff. Fair pay is not a luxury but the foundation on which the health service stands. Let us ensure that the staff, who give us everything and are the lifesavers and the caregivers, are finally given in return what they deserve. They are not demanding the impossible. Rather, they are asking for a pay packet that helps them keep the lights on, a roof over their head and food on the table for their children.

As Mr Butler said, today's ask is not optional. It is long overdue. If it does not come, with our health workers left with no option but to strike, the Executive parties, which would not prioritise this pay increase, dare not land on the picket lines to pose for pictures while holding placards.

Ms Flynn: I also support the motion and restate our unwavering commitment to pay parity for Health and Social Care staff. As outlined by the Member who spoke previously and many others, our health workers are the backbone of the system. We have all had our personal experiences of the health system, as have our family members, the people around us and the constituents in our constituency offices. What those people — nurses and doctors — do every day is the life and breath of our public health system. It is not right that we have got to the point again where people feel the strain and stress of possibly having to go back onto picket lines. None of us wants to see our healthcare workers put in that position. They are the ones who care for patients. As Mark said, they are often in difficult circumstances. Day in, day out, they work long hours with heavy workloads and often at significant personal risk. They deserve decent, fair pay, safe working conditions and the recognition of a system that values their contribution. We owe them nothing less.

The NHS Pay Review Body recommended a 3·6% rise for Agenda for Change staff in 2025-26. As we know, that includes nurses, midwives, ambulance staff, porters, cleaners and health visitors: the full spectrum of staff who ensure that our health service operates safely and effectively. The recommendation has already been implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. Yet, in the North, our workers still wait for what is rightfully theirs. No Member will say that the delay is fair or acceptable. It sends the wrong message about how we value our workforce in our health system.

As has been said, responsibility for delivering the pay award ultimately lies with the Department of Health, as the lead Department. However, it is important that engagement takes place with the Department of Finance and other Departments. Everyone needs to come together, on whatever level, simply to find a resolution and get the issue solved. That is what needs to be done. Paula mentioned the responsibilities of the Health Minister, which are important and, no doubt, difficult, but he must prioritise where his money goes. Stretched as his budget is, it is important to have that priority set out. It is also important that, at the end of the day, we do not have people back out on picket lines. We must do whatever needs to be done to fulfil the pay awards.

No one thinks that it is an option for the staff not to receive the pay awards. Nobody wants to see further delay. With every day that passes, staff feel increased strain on their pay. Without resolution, confidence will be eroded and morale undermined. That is not what those workers need, when they work in an environment where they help people, for their physical and mental health.

Mark made the point that the later the pay award comes, the more pressure it puts on people who are in receipt of benefits and universal credit. We must bear that in mind too. I hope that we will get the payments over the line ASAP, but then we have to factor in how it will impact on people who may miss out because they are on universal credit. Mitigations must be discussed and put in place to protect those people and ensure that they receive the fair pay that they deserve.

Mr Robinson: We often hear in the House and in Committee that, without the dedication of our health workforce, we simply would not have a health service. It is often said that our healthcare staff are the spine of the system that sustains health and social care. Nurses, who also need progression pathways, care assistants, therapists, porters and countless others, day in, day out, dedicate themselves to the well-being of others. We all know such people locally, and they work in seriously challenging circumstances. All of us in the House have seen at first hand how those people are worked to the bone. In some cases, their goodwill is keeping some sectors of the health service from total collapse, yet, despite all their sacrifices, fair pay frequently becomes an annual fight.

The DUP supports the principle of pay parity, and we want staff here to be recognised, just like their counterparts in GB. Everyone in the Chamber knows that the challenges facing the health and social care sector in Northern Ireland are enormous. The pressure on hospitals, the growing waiting lists and the impact on the mental and physical well-being of our workforce should keep us awake at night. I have family in the health sector, and I know the stress and the pressures that they face. However, even amidst the financial challenges that face public services more widely, there is public recognition of the need to respect and reward the workers who keep our health service afloat.

As winter approaches, along with the annual additional pressures that come with it, the Province is staring at the added catastrophic pressure of health service staff being on a picket line in November. The Health Minister must try to avoid such action. We can all point to overspends on projects such as the Belfast maternity and children's hospitals. That money could have been spent elsewhere. Staff should not be the fall guy for money that has been lost elsewhere in the system.

There are many mounting pressures on the Executive. We must also recognise that the special educational needs (SEN) reform agenda needs to be supported by the Executive too. The money spent on SEN and on health service pay are investments that cannot and should not be avoided.

Mr Chambers: It is shameful that, six months into the current financial year, our Health and Social Care workers are the only group in the United Kingdom's health sector that is still waiting to receive the nationally agreed pay settlements. We talk about the importance of staff retention, but, if ever there were a recipe for health workers to take their skills to another jurisdiction, the current situation is it.

I have said in the Chamber many times that our health and social care system has been sustained for years by staff loyalty and delivered with huge helpings of freely given goodwill. However, goodwill cannot be depended on for ever. Goodwill does not put food on the table, pay the mortgage or fund children's education journey. The figure on the payslip deals with the financial demands that we all have to address. How can we as politicians allow that serious breach of wage commitment to continue for a minute longer into the current financial year?

The settlement for which our Health and Social Care workers wait was a result not of some bullish and outlandish salary demand but of a national and independent assessment. We hear about the potential of a full strike by our nurses: just imagine the impact that that would have on the operation of hospitals. The front-line heroes for whom we stood clapping on our doorsteps in gratitude for their selfless service during the COVID epidemic do not have one ounce of desire to walk out on their patients at this time. That goes against every fibre of their dedication to care for the sick and help make them well again. Why are we allowing it to happen? Why are we putting our Health and Social Care staff into a corner where they are left with no alternative to secure what they are fully entitled to?

I have stood on the picket lines with our nurses, and it was clear that they would rather have been on the wards than standing on the streets with placards. That is not who they are. I will happily stand alongside them again, if we go down the shameful road of forcing them on to the picket lines. The catastrophic consequences of strike action will rest not with them but with us in this place for breaking promises that we have made. The current Health Minister, Minister Nesbitt, and the previous Health Minister, Minister Swann, have made their positions clear that agreed pay settlements for Health and Social Care staff must be met in full and in a timely manner. That should be the position of every member of the Executive.

I will conclude by saying that I am disappointed to hear the attempts at cheap political point-scoring on such an important issue in the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 15 minutes, Mike.

Mr Nesbitt: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I respond to the debate, I want to respond to some of President Trump's remarks about the use of paracetamol during pregnancy and the MMR vaccine.

I can advise that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the responsible body for regulating all medicines in the United Kingdom. It monitors continuously the safety of all medicines, including those used during pregnancy, and there is no evidence — I repeat: no evidence — that taking paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism in children. I note and welcome a strong statement backing that up from Ema Cubitt, the Independent Autism Reviewer.

With regard to jabs, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is the expert scientific advisory body in that area. It strongly supports the use of the MMR vaccine. The possible links to autism and Crohn's disease have been investigated and proved to be wrong. The MMR vaccine remains the most effective and safest way of protecting our children. I hope that that gives some clarity in the face of those comments from the United States.

For the debate, I will make two points by way of context, if I may. First, I understand that every Minister faces massive challenges. No Department has the budget that it requires to achieve what it wants to achieve. I am also aware that every budget for every Department in some way contributes to tackling the social determinants of ill health, whether lack of education, social exclusion or economic inactivity. I get it.

I have often said that, to deliver health and social care, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicines but all that is as nothing if you do not have the workforce. Every week, I am out and about meeting members of the workforce. I am struck continuously by the remarkable combination of professionalism and compassion — professionalism based on training and experience and compassion based on empathy and humanity. Why would we not want to reward that workforce appropriately and in a timely manner? That goes to the core principle of pay parity: it is a matter of principle, fairness and respect. I take the issue seriously because it speaks directly to how we value the extraordinary work that is carried out daily by our Health and Social Care staff. They deserve to be remunerated not just adequately but fairly and because, when we pay our staff fairly, we are not just balancing the books but affirming their value, hopefully, boosting their morale and strengthening the future relationships in healthcare. We can no longer remain in a situation where our staff continue to feel rightly that they are always last in line for consideration of pay awards, well behind the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Timeliness is therefore important.

I will turn briefly to Mr Carroll's amendment for a moment. If I set aside the major concern that I have about the accuracy of the figures that he was referencing, it might be helpful just to mention that the total waiting list initiative spend from April 2021 to July 2025 has been approximately £347 million, of which £248 million has been spent in the independent sector. The £347 million has enabled 1,205,820 patients to receive an assessment, a diagnostic test or treatment, of which, over half a million were managed by the independent sector. Of course, in an ideal world, I would like to see all that money being invested in core services in HSC. I suspect that Mr Carroll already understands that we do not live in an ideal world. However, the money that has gone into the independent sector has undoubtedly saved and lengthened lives. It must be quite the luxury for Mr Carroll to live in a world of ideology, sheltered from the realities of the challenges of delivering health and social care.

I will move to the main issue at hand. Following approval of the final Budget for 2025-26, the Department of Health received, as Members said, an allocation of approximately £8·4 billion. However, after factoring in inescapable increases — inflation, demand, national living wage commitments, the ring-fencing of waiting list funding, the shortfall in employers' National Insurance funding and the pay body's recommendations — my Department faced a funding gap of over £600 million. Of that, about £200 million is needed to implement pay awards of 4% for doctors and dentists and 3·6% for our Agenda for Change staff. I am on record as saying that I find that differential in awards most unhelpful, and, I believe, the Royal College of Nursing sees it as a slap in the teeth for its members.

We are working hard to deliver savings internally. To date, £155·6 million has been identified, but the scale of the challenge means that we cannot bridge the gap alone; it is unprecedented and, we believe, unmanageable. The decision to ring-fence £165 million for waiting lists from within the existing budget rather than provide it as additionality, has intensified pressure on the HSC, with the requirement to make further savings and efficiencies that will inevitably have consequences for services.

I acknowledge that the Department received £25 million in non-recurrent funding through June monitoring, but the overall funding gap remains at over £400 million, excluding pay. Without additional support, trusts may be forced to propose measures that have potentially catastrophic impacts on services, with direct consequences for patients.

As has been noted, I issued a ministerial direction in May requesting approval to implement the pay award. The Executive have not reached a position that would allow my Department to proceed, but I am hopeful, perhaps more so than I was this time last week. The delay is regrettable. It sends a damaging message to our workforce that its dedication is not matched by political will. It also places Northern Ireland at risk of significant industrial action, with formal disputes already lodged by the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA Northern Ireland consultants committee and hospital dentists at the British Dental Association in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge ongoing engagement with trade unions and professional bodies. Their advocacy on behalf of staff has been clear and consistent, and it is deeply rooted in the desire to protect patient care. We will continue to engage.

I will mention a particular meeting. After the previous Executive meeting, I happened to go straight into a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing. Its chief executive, Nicola Ranger, had flown in from London. I met her along with Rita Devlin, the local director. Nicola Ranger is a very personable individual, and I like her a lot on a personal basis, but that meeting was scary. I see, hear and read a lot about health and social care delivery that I could allow to scare me if I wanted it to. I try not to do that, but the meeting was genuinely scary because her simple message was, "We've had enough. This happens year-on-year, and it only happens in Northern Ireland, so we will ballot, not on industrial action but on strike action. We're learning the lesson from the previous strike action, when we thought that we were too soft, putting in so many derogations and mitigations that our message did not land sufficiently. No derogations and no mitigations this time. We will come out on strike, and we will focus on band 5 nurses, who most closely interact with patients". I was scared. I looked at the Chief Nursing Officer, who was sitting beside me, and she looked scared. The Royal College of Nursing is preparing to ballot its members not on industrial action, I emphasise again, but on strike action. The implications are massive.

We are over halfway through the financial year. Pay increases have been implemented elsewhere in the UK, but our staff are still waiting. It is not just a financial issue; it is a matter of morale, retention and respect. We often talk about the goodwill of the workforce. Let us be clear: goodwill is a finite resource. Everybody has their limit, and, once you burst through that limit, there is no easy way back.

I remain committed to working with colleagues across the Assembly and Executive to try to deliver a fair and timely pay award while supporting the management of our overall budget. I also welcome any engagement from the Committee in helping us to move forward together. If we want a world-class health service, and I do, we must treat our staff with world-class respect. That begins with fair pay, so let us show our workforce not just in words but in our actions that we value them. Let us be not the last to act but the first to lead.

I will take a moment to finish by commenting on a couple of specifics that have been mentioned. Mrs Dodds talked about my reaction to the maternity hospital. To be clear and to put it on the record, I signed off on the trust's preferred option to fix the water issues in the new maternity hospital after receiving independent, professional advice. I did not simply accept what was being proposed to me. Mrs Dodds, if I heard her correctly, seemed to suggest that there was the same situation at the acute mental health inpatient centre at Belfast City Hospital. That is not the case. That hospital is still operational.

Ms Bradshaw said that it might be better if I were to define my priorities. I first came to the House as Health Minister on 3 June 2024, and I defined my priorities: health inequalities, cancer care, waiting lists and mental health. I am happy to repeat those, but it is simply not true to say that I have not defined my priorities. Those remain my priorities, as well as respecting our staff, and I hope and am confident — much more confident than I was a week or two ago — that we will find the solution that our health and social care workforce deserve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Minister. I call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Gerry, you have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will respond to some of the comments and address some of the issues. I will not have a chance to summarise everything, but I am sure that the Member who closes will.

Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, referred to his support of the RCN in 2019 when he was first appointed as an MLA. He took strike action then, and he vowed to stand with it again if it decides to take strike action. He blamed the issue of low pay and pay inequality solely on Westminster, without mentioning the fact that the Stormont Executive and his party colleagues are responsible, alongside other Ministers. He went on to criticise the Health Minister. It is not my job to defend the Health Minister, but it is interesting that there is no acting in unison or cooperation on this issue between Executive parties.

Diane Dodds mentioned that it was not good enough just to clap for or well-wish our healthcare staff. It is a rare occasion that I agree with the DUP, but I do on that point. I hope that the Member will do the logical thing and back my amendment, which joins the two issues together, and back the amended motion as well.

Mark Durkan talked about pressures in Altnagelvin and the fact that porters and other staff had to leave, effectively, to go not just to Australia, as was the case in the past, but to other regions, such as the South, to get paid better. Órlaithí Flynn mentioned a similar issue.

We are in a strange situation with the debate. We had a debate about a very important motion and lots of reference to the motion, but, aside from the Minister, there was not one fleeting reference to my amendment. The positive thinking in me surmises that that shows that there is unanimous support for the amendment, that Members have had a change of heart and now know the logic of what I and many other people would say. However, I suspect that there is something else going on. I am happy to give way to anybody who wants to state their opposition to the amendment, if that is the case. Nobody is keen to jump up. I hope, therefore, that Members will back the amendment rather than voting against something without explaining their logic.

The principle about criticising the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money — our money, taxpayers' money — is funding an unfair, two-tiered system is key.

It cannot be business as usual.

The Minister mentioned the "quantum of the figures". He tried to pour cold water on the figures that I quoted. Minister, you may wish to speak to your press team, because those figures were retrieved by 'Belfast Live' from your Department: your healthcare system. If the figures are wrong, find out from your staff why they are wrong. A bit of in-house work is therefore probably required at your end.

The Minister also talked about my idealism and my being hypocritical — he made other swipes at me, which I will take — and he said that I had "quite the luxury". Minister, I remind you that you and other Ministers have the luxury of earning £90,000 a year. Some of our healthcare workers can only dream of earning a half or a third of that. I will not take any lectures from you or anybody else in the House about luxury.

The Minister's Department has already broken pay parity by failing to implement this year's pay recommendation when it was announced. That is having a demoralising effect on workers. The effect that it is having on them cannot be overstated. They are sick and tired of being used as political pawns by the Executive and of the attitude of, "Yes, we'll clap for you and stand with a sign on the picket line with you, but when it comes to voting the right way — to back proper pay for you — we'll look the other way. We'll put our heads down".

Nurses are using food banks. Some are homeless. Social care workers are out of pocket on travel. That is a disgraceful situation. The Minister cannot afford to pay our healthcare workers what they are owed, because he, as well as his predecessors, has already given the money to his mates in the private healthcare sector. Funnelling money away from the NHS into the private sector is a recipe for disaster. I urge Members to stop letting that happen. The first step to doing that is to back the amendment and then the motion as amended.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry. I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Diana, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the motion, as well as the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on what is undoubtedly one of the most pressing and urgent issues facing the Northern Ireland Executive. Having spoken to health workers and their families across Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I know that patience is running out. Time and again, they tell me the same thing, which is that it is not just applause that they want but action. It is not just praise in speeches that they want but parity in pay. The principle of parity matters, and perhaps even more deeply in rural communities and rural constituencies such as mine, where recruiting and retaining staff is already a challenge.

We must also be honest about the consequences of inaction. If the ever-increasing prospect of industrial action is realised, patients will suffer delays, families will face uncertainty and staff will be forced to make choices that no professional should have to make: to stand up for fairness or to deliver care under impossible strain. The Assembly cannot allow that situation to unfold. Each of us, regardless of which party we are in, made commitments to value our health workers. Now is the time to show that those commitments were not hollow words but promises that we intend to keep. Our health workers in Northern Ireland do the same job as their counterparts in London, Cardiff and Glasgow. They carry the same burdens. Why, then, should their pay packets say otherwise? Why should they be asked to do more for less?

I thank everyone who took part in the debate. I will mention some of the comments that were raised. Seven Members contributed to the debate. It is undeniable that there is support and goodwill for our healthcare staff and a recognition that pay parity is needed. Gerry Carroll said that it:

Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, said that Sinn Féin is "committed to solving the problem" in the Executive and will continue to work to make pay parity a reality. Diane Dodds from Upper Bann stated that she is:

She hopes that the Finance Minister and the Health Minister can work together to resolve the issue.

Mark Durkan from Foyle expressed his:

and talked about his recent visit to Altnagelvin. He also acknowledged the problems that can arise when workers who are on universal credit receive a lump sum, telling us how their money can be clawed back through the universal credit system. He appealed to the Minister to talk to the Finance Minister on that topic.

Paula Bradshaw said that the BMA has stated:

She also said that the pay award should be a matter of prioritisation for the Minister and his officials. She heard the Minister's response.

Órlaithí Flynn mentioned her support for the motion and her party's unwavering commitment to the staff. She said that they deserve decent, fair pay and working conditions and that we owe the full spectrum of staff nothing less than what is rightfully theirs.

Alan Robinson, a Member for East Londonderry, called health staff the "spine of the system" and said that the DUP supports the principle of pay parity, while recognising the financial challenges that exist in public services. My colleague Alan Chambers, a Member for North Down, said that it was shameful that our health sector has not received a pay award.

I now turn to my concluding remarks. Pay parity is not an aspiration; it is a principle. It is a line in the sand that the Assembly must not cross, for, if nothing else, we all can remember only too well the consequences of what happens when it is crossed. We can either preside over a system where staff are asked to continue to wait for pay that, they know, they are entitled to, where patients continue to wait and where our workforce continues to feel abandoned, or the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly can grasp this moment to affirm pay parity, approve the ministerial direction request from my party colleague Minister Nesbitt and show our health workers that we stand with them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Diana.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, we will take our ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given Colm Gildernew leave to raise the matter of the protection of Sliabh Beagh from fires and environmental damage. Colm, you have up to 15 minutes.

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

I thank Members for joining me in the Chamber to discuss a really important topic. I also thank the Minister for attending.

Ireland is known for its many beautiful landscapes. Our constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is one of the best examples of what the island has to offer. One of the more scenic areas in our constituency is, of course, Sliabh Beagh, which spans the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone and Monaghan. Sliabh Beagh is a Ramsar convention site, an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and a conservation area. It is a unique area that offers many other protections for birds and wildlife. Sliabh Beagh spans 10,000 hectares in total, when the upland, forestry and almost 2,000 acres of protected wetland are included.

Earlier this year, Sliabh Beagh was engulfed in some of the worst wildfires that the area has ever seen, with the NIEA estimating that up to one third of the region was damaged. The wildfires absolutely decimated much of the unique biodiversity of the region, including the habitats of many of our rare protected species, such as the hen harrier, Irish hare, red squirrel, skylark, curlew, golden plover and pine marten. Sliabh Beagh is the source and rising point of three of Ireland's 20 rivers that are designated as pristine, which indicates its importance as a source of water. Sliabh Beagh is a complex, unique and precious resource that contains many other endangered species of flora and fauna.

The fires impacted on the local economy, as they greatly restricted tourism for a prolonged period. Sliabh Beagh has huge eco-tourism potential. I am delighted that £6 million has been awarded from the Shared Island Fund to develop the tourism potential of the area by attracting new visitors and increasing total spend there. However, if we are to have any hope of transforming the area into a dynamic driver of local economic prosperity, we need to find an innovative and permanent solution to the wildfires.

The prevalence of wildfires is increasing throughout the North, and, indeed, the rest of the island and the world as a result of the warmer climate. Wildfires can be particularly hard to extinguish because of how fast they spread, and because the remote terrain is inaccessible for fire and rescue services. Last month, I attended a presentation in the Sliabh Beagh Hotel in County Monaghan, along with my colleague Cathy Bennett TD. Diana Armstrong was also there. We heard details of a proposed new fire prevention plan that is being developed by the River Blackwater Catchment Trust. The proposal includes the use of drones both to detect fires in the first instance and as a mechanism for spraying water on top of flames in remote and inaccessible areas. It is hoped that drones will also act as a deterrent to anyone who would seek to deliberately start a fire, which is a persistent problem in the Sliabh Beagh area. It must be said that it is also critical that privacy and data protection issues be fully addressed. Any proposal of this nature, involving greater surveillance, must be proportionate and not impact on people's privacy. However, it is important that we also use emerging technologies in a way that benefits our community and our environment. I have been struck by the potential of the plan to date. It could represent an innovative and modern solution to a persistent and difficult problem.

I acknowledge the Minister's recently published peatlands policy. If he could outline how it might assist with the protection of Sliabh Beagh, I would be keen to hear it. In the time ahead, it will be important that the River Blackwater Catchment Trust and all relevant cross-border agencies and bodies, including the Sliabh Beagh Trust, local councils and other relevant groups, across the island and across counties, work together on the nature of the proposal so that it will be of huge benefit to all of us in the long run.

Colleagues, we should also ensure that custodians of the land, environment and community, such as our farmers and rural dwellers, are meaningfully engaged and made fully active partners in the protection and potential of our beautiful landscape for many generations to come.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately seven minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank my fellow constituency MLA Colm Gildernew for bringing forward this very important Adjournment topic today. I attended the same event as Colm in the Sliabh Beagh Hotel, which really raised my awareness of the issues facing the community in the protection of the landscape, species and habitat.

Sliabh Beagh is a 9,000-hectare European designated site and area of special scientific interest straddling the Fermanagh-Monaghan border. The peatlands cover a total area of 3,000 hectares: 1,000 hectares in the Republic of Ireland and 2,000 hectares in Northern Ireland. The protection of peat uplands carries ramifications across our whole society. There are many environmental, societal, economic, cultural and tourism reasons why we must take their protection very seriously. Soberingly, half the peatland on Sliabh Beagh was burned in a wildfire last May. I well remember driving towards Fivemiletown from Belfast and seeing the skies lit up red and the palls of smoke. It is something that no one would want to see. Wildfires have significant financial implications. In the case of Sliabh Beagh, it took 200 firefighters to bring that blaze under control, at a cost to the public purse of £1 million.

The impact of wildfire on peatland is not only financial. There is no cost that can be put on the catastrophic loss of ecology and biodiversity at Sliabh Beagh. The peatlands at Sliabh Beagh offer many great benefits, such as the storing of carbon, the regulation of water, and shelter for the Irish hare, the pine marten, the red grouse, the golden plover and the endangered hen harrier, amongst others. Healthy peatlands are good for our climate, reduce the risk of floods and support vibrant plant life. When peatlands are degraded and dry, the fire risk intensifies, as we saw at first hand in May. A startling report by the BBC this summer revealed that it could take thousands of years for Sliabh Beagh's peatlands to return to ecological health.

I commend organisations such as the River Blackwater Catchment Trust, which is working to bring the ecosystem back and raise public awareness. I recently attended the stakeholder event, as Colm mentioned, at the Sliabh Beagh Hotel, which highlighted the importance of a coordinated approach to the prevention, detection and fighting of wildfires. I commend Roy Spence and Alan McCabe from the River Blackwater Catchment Trust for bringing those interested parties together to increase awareness and inform them of the priorities of the trust and the success that it has had in securing Shared Island funding and PEACE PLUS funding to protect the peatlands. The trust received funding to the tune of £6 million as part of the Shared Island Fund this year.

That enabled the purchase of drone surveillance and infrared technology, which we saw demonstrated.

Restoring Sliabh Beagh, alongside other degrading peatlands, will require stronger enforcement and regulation, where needed, in order to prevent negligent fires and to increase education on the dangers that peatlands face. That will be done through better fire prevention interventions and raising the local community's awareness of the part that it can play in protecting that valuable asset. Protecting peatlands such as Sliabh Beagh is essential for our climate, for nature and for the community. I welcome the Minister's new peatlands strategy, and I will monitor its progress in restoring those vital ecosystems.

In closing, I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate and again commend the River Blackwater Catchment Trust for the valuable work that it does.

Ms Murphy: I thank my constituency colleague for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House.

Sliabh Beagh is a site of ecological and cultural importance that spans County Tyrone, County Fermanagh and County Monaghan. It is a place of beauty, a space for recreation and an important part of our natural heritage. Beyond that, it is a vital part of our environment and of the public health infrastructure.

When fires rip through peatlands, the damage goes far beyond the visible destruction. Peatlands are some of our most effective carbon sinks, locking away greenhouse gases that would otherwise accelerate climate change. When they burn, not only is that storage capacity lost but harmful emissions are released directly into the atmosphere. That is a huge price for society to pay for a moment of recklessness. That is why education is so important: so that people can understand just how dire the consequences are of lighting fires in protected areas. That must be followed by robust enforcement where any wrongdoing is detected.

The destruction has a huge impact on rural communities. Many farmers and landowners around Sliabh Beagh already play their part by trying to protect the habitats as best as possible, including by reducing fire risk and managing the land responsibly. There is enormous potential to develop the Sliabh Beagh area into a driver of sustainable rural tourism. That is evidenced by the £5 million investment from the Shared Island Fund. Walking routes, eco-tourism and cultural heritage trails can bring much-needed investment into rural areas, creating jobs and income while safeguarding the environment.

Protecting Sliabh Beagh is about climate control, but it is also about rural development and community pride. As we all know, resources are scarce in rural areas, so we need to ensure that communities are supported in their efforts to protect and develop such sites for the benefit of everyone, thereby ensuring that Sliabh Beagh can achieve its potential and remain a thriving landscape for generations to come.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. In May, the peatland at Sliabh Beagh suffered major damage from a wildfire that had been set deliberately. Although I am not a representative for the area, I know all too well the damage that wildfires can cause. Recently, following significant fires in the Mournes, I met the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service and a local search and rescue charity, Sky Watch NI. I had the deputy First Minister out in the wake of those fires.

Recent fires have caused untold damage to biodiversity, wildlife and natural habitats in the Sliabh Beagh area. Without dedicated and professional efforts, the devastation could have been much worse. I pay tribute to all our emergency services. With over 25 firefighters and five pumping appliances deployed, the fire still managed to damage one third of Sliabh Beagh significantly. As has been said, peat fires differ from other wildfires, because the peat can burn underground for days or even weeks. They are harder to extinguish and cause more destruction.

I have heard about the work of the River Blackwater Catchment Trust, which Diana mentioned. I have read about some of its work on turning to drone technology as a potential solution for monitoring and protecting the area. It has trialled thermal-imaging surveillance drones. Once a fire is detected, those drones can transmit real-time high-resolution images. The early warning system is designed to accelerate response times. The trust plans to trial large agricultural spraying drones that could dampen fires before they spread. That technology is very much in the experimental phase, but we should collectively support any innovation that could combat the problem and look at how it might be rolled out across Northern Ireland.

We support a multi-agency approach to tackling wildfires, and we have seen our emergency services in action this year. Once ignited, the fires spread rapidly, putting life, property and wildlife at risk. As someone who lives close to the foot of the Mournes, I see the rate at which some of those significant fires descend on people's homes, and it is, frankly, terrifying.

It is important that we rededicate our attention here to continuing the work that was ongoing prior to this fire to maintain the environment and biodiversity in the area. Therefore, it will be critical to measure the full extent of the impact on our environment in order to scope an appropriate response and restoration interventions. DAERA and the NIEA must work proactively to assess the damage fully. However, tragically, it is likely to take decades to recover from the loss incurred in biodiversity and the environment.

Stopping the fires should also be a key driver in the response. Enforcement and legislation must be strengthened to deal with the problem. We cannot afford to take our environment for granted, particularly given its importance to tourism and our local communities.

We are also supportive of examining the potential for a greater use of firebreaks to limit future damage. Under-grazing can lead to gorse drying off and posing a risk of wildfires that would stretch across a far wider area than the two metres that would be removed to create a firebreak.

Again, I thank the Member for tabling this important debate in the House. In representing rural constituencies with specific issues, it is an incredibly important issue to bring to the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on it.

Mr Blair: I also thank Colm Gildernew for raising this important issue for today's Adjournment debate.

As we move into colder and wetter months, it is understandable that our concerns about wildfires might diminish or be replaced by more seasonal issues, such as flooding or adverse weather conditions. However, the impact of wildfires on our natural environment does not fade with the seasons. Every wildfire, no matter how small, leaves a lasting and detrimental mark on our species and habitats. It is deeply troubling and unacceptable that many if not most wildfires are caused deliberately. The devastation to our environment, our wildlife and our plant life is serious and long-lasting.

I express my sincere gratitude to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, as well as to everyone else who put their lives at risk to tackle recent wildfires and to all those who worked so hard to restore our natural environment in their aftermath.

This year alone, more than 25 firefighters were deployed to tackle the fire at Sliabh Beagh, yet, despite their efforts, one third of that crucial area was significantly damaged in May. The River Blackwater Catchment Trust has warned us that it could take thousands of years for the peatland destroyed by fires at Sliabh Beagh to return to what would be regarded as ecological health. The bog is not only vital for biodiversity but serves as the home of the endangered hen harrier. The peatlands themselves are crucial habitats that lock away carbon, supporting our climate goals. When healthy, they also act as natural water filters, improving the quality of our lakes and rivers. For all those reasons, we must do everything in our power to protect and restore those vital ecosystems.

I am pleased to note that protecting peatlands from wildfires is a clear priority in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs' recently published peatlands strategy. Across agencies, there is innovation and collaboration. The River Blackwater Catchment Trust, for example, is now exploring new ways to tackle wildfires, such as utilising drones. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency is prepared with specialist wildfire vehicles and has expert staff available to advise and support wildfire response efforts, as happened at Sliabh Beagh.

In June, departmental officials visited the Sliabh Beagh area of special scientific interest to assess the impact. While the damage is extensive, officials believe that, given time and freedom from further pressures, such as heavy grazing, the area will eventually recover. The Department will continue, I understand, to monitor the situation, providing ongoing support and guidance. However, another fire like this year's fire could be the final blow for the site. Ultimately, a joined-up approach across government agencies, landowners and farmers is essential, if we are to prevent wildfires or to respond as effectively as possible when they occur.

Dissuading people from deliberately setting destructive fires at Sliabh Beagh or anywhere else in Northern Ireland must be an absolute priority. Deliberately setting a wildfire on a site of special scientific importance where rare species and fragile habitats are endangered is simply a crime against nature.

Looking ahead, we await the publication of a wildfire strategy. Hopefully, when published, it can progress without delay. The hard work on implementing real measures to limit the effects of wildfires must begin before the next wildfire season. Let us all remember this message after the debate and carry it outside the Chamber: safeguarding our natural environment is the responsibility not just of government and agencies but of every individual in our society. Fostering a culture of awareness and respect for our ecosystems will ensure that we sustain a resilient, diverse and thriving landscape for current and future generations to enjoy.

Mr McNulty: I rise to highlight the urgent need for greater protection of Sliabh Beagh, one of our most important natural landscapes, from the twin threats of fire and environmental damage. Sliabh Beagh is not just a border upland stretching across Tyrone, Monaghan and Fermanagh; it is a living, breathing ecosystem. Its blanket bogs are a critical carbon store; its woodlands and wetlands are home to rare species; and its open hills are part of our shared ecological heritage. It is a place where people walk, farm and connect with nature, yet, year after year, it comes under attack from fire and neglect.

We have seen devastating wildfires in recent years that have destroyed hectares of precious bogland. Those fires are not just accidents of nature; many are caused deliberately. When the bog burns, centuries of stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, wildlife is killed and the land is left scarred for decades. For the communities around Aughnacloy, Emyvale and Knockatallon, those fires bring fear, damage livelihoods and are destructive to the natural assets that should be protected for future generations. Environmental damage also comes in less visible but equally destructive forms such as illegal dumping, reckless off-road vehicle use and the draining of bogland, which undermines its ability to store water and carbon. All that weakens the land, increases flood risk downstream and chips away at the ecological and wildlife assets that should be cherished and protected.

What needs to be done? First, there must be a clear cross-border protection strategy for Sliabh Beagh. That upland does not respect county or jurisdictional lines. A coordinated approach between DAERA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the South, local councils and community groups is the only way to ensure effective prevention, monitoring and enforcement. Secondly, we need enhanced fire prevention and rapid response capacity. That means supporting the Fire and Rescue Service, farmers and local volunteers with the resources to act quickly, alongside stronger penalties for those who deliberately light fires. Thirdly, there must be long-term investment in restoration. Re-wetting drained bogs, planting native trees and supporting sustainable farm practices will help protect biodiversity while locking in carbon. Those measures are not just good for the environment but are cost-effective climate actions that are good for humanity. Finally, education and awareness are key. Sliabh Beagh can and should be promoted as a place of pride, a place for responsible tourism and a shared natural heritage. If local communities are empowered and supported, they will be the strongest defenders of the landscape.

The fires that rage across Sliabh Beagh are more than flames on a hillside. They are a symbol of how fragile our environment has become. If the Executive are serious about tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity and supporting rural communities, the priority must be safeguarding places such as Sliabh Beagh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I thank Colm for bringing the Adjournment debate on what is a very important issue.

We know, as has been referenced, that wildfires are, sadly, not unique to Northern Ireland. In the past year, we have seen wildfires across the UK, Ireland, Europe and beyond. Hotter, drier summers as a result of climate change are exacerbating the risks posed by wildfires in Northern Ireland. That is yet another reason why we cannot afford further dither and delay in climate action.

The devastating impact of wildfires on our communities and precious landscapes is too great.

Despite what some say, Northern Ireland is not immune to the impacts of climate change. It is essential that we redouble our efforts to tackle climate change for sake of the health and well-being of our communities and economy. To tackle wildfires head-on, a truly collaborative and collective approach is needed from government and stakeholders. DAERA cannot do this alone: it requires everyone to work together.

A significant fire started on Sliabh Beagh on Wednesday 7 May of this year and was extinguished on Saturday 10 May. The fire was started deliberately at multiple locations across the site and impacted on nearly 8 square kilometres, making it the biggest fire recorded in Northern Ireland's history, ravaging what many would agree is the most beautiful and special part of Ireland. The fire affected approximately 90% of the ASSI protected zone. Northern Ireland Environment Agency wildfire all-terrain vehicles were deployed on day 1 and remained on site throughout the incident.

I put on record my thanks to officials from the Environment Agency, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and everyone else. Minister Nesbitt and I met Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service personnel a while ago in Lisburn and gave our thanks to the staff for the work that they do to respond to such wildfires, not just in Sliabh Beagh but in many other places across Northern Ireland.

In the case of Sliabh Beagh, there was excellent North/South cooperation. I thank my partners in the South for how they engaged and responded.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland was in attendance and deployed its helicopter during part of the incident for vigilance. I encourage anyone with any information on the fire to report it to the police or to Crimestoppers.

In the wake of this appalling act, I warmly welcome the enthusiasm shown by local stakeholders to come up with potential solutions to help support recovery and prevent the number and severity of future fires. A conservation management plan was previously prepared for the Sliabh Beagh special area of conservation as part of the Collaborative Action for the Natura Network INTERREG project. The Peat+ project, led by Ulster Wildlife, was recently successful in PEACE PLUS funding, has won awards for biodiversity, nature recovery and resilience and includes conservation initiatives to boost wildfire management planning and habitat works in the area. I really welcome that.

We cannot, however, talk about Sliabh Beagh without referencing the wider context and challenges of wildfires in Northern Ireland. I am committed to playing my part, and I am glad to confirm that the new wildfires strategic framework was recently agreed by the Executive. It will be launched soon, once we get all government agencies and relevant stakeholders together to launch the plan and work in collaboration to deliver the action plan that will arise from it. Future wildfire efforts from all stakeholders will be focused on the objectives of prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. Publication of the strategic framework will enable the development of a focused and detailed wildfire action plan. We must agree that together. The action plan will therefore be co-designed to align with and ensure delivery of the strategic objectives within the wildfire strategic framework.

I am keen to see all stakeholders, including those at Sliabh Beagh, come together and engage in this process to design and implement the action plan. Key action from the strategic framework should be to enhance public knowledge of the risks that wildfires pose, in particular to public health. Hopefully, if people are aware of those risks, they will think twice before starting a fire.

Another action must be the development and implementation of wildfire management and response plans in high-risk areas. The management plans will aim to make the landscape more resilient to large-scale wildfires, and the response plans will facilitate efficient responses to incidents.

Land management is absolutely key to creating more resilient landscapes. Examples of that are the intrinsic links between climate change, biodiversity decline and water quality. Peatland restoration is a great example of a key intervention that delivers win-win outcomes for society. Re-wetting peatland reduces fire risk, while creating important habitats to support nature recovery; acts as a carbon sink, reducing our emissions; and provides natural filtration of water to improve our waterways. That is why the publication of Northern Ireland's first peatland strategy is such a game changer. We launched it last week. It is on the DAERA website, and we encourage people to have a look.

Our efforts to incentivise nature-friendly farming through the Farming with Nature initiative is another example of win-win land management policy. Supporting farmers to better manage existing habitats and introduce new habitats for nature recovery, again, has knock-on positive benefits for water, climate and increasing resilience to wildfires. That combination of measures should hopefully reduce the extent and severity of wildfires, should they occur.

When we talk about wildfires, we need to be conscious that so many are deliberately set. I have no hesitation in calling them what they are: acts of rural arson. We need to call time on it. It is wrong. Deliberately and maliciously setting fires destroys our environment, takes firefighters and other resources away and puts homes and lives at risk. Moreover, people who set such fires are not being held to account. That needs to end. Those who are shielding the culprits need to come forward, ring the police or Crimestoppers, tell us who did it and be prepared to give evidence in court. I ask this of everyone: if you are aware of anyone who has been involved in deliberately and maliciously setting fires in our countryside, come forward before someone is killed or seriously injured.

I thank those involved in the community effort in response to the devastating incident that occurred at Sliabh Beagh. I express my commitment to work collectively with my Executive colleagues and stakeholders to shape a way forward in delivering the strategic framework for wildfires. We hope to launch that framework soon. I want to get people together and brief them on it. If we work collaboratively on the issue, we can turn a corner on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank Colm, the Minister and Members who took part in the Adjournment debate this afternoon.