Official Report: Monday 06 October 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement on an explosive device being left at the office of Sinn Féin representatives Liz Kimmins MLA and Dáire Hughes MP, which fulfils the criteria that are set out under Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Ms Ennis: I condemn utterly the disgraceful and cowardly overnight attack on the office of my Sinn Féin colleagues Liz Kimmins and the MP for Newry and Armagh, Dáire Hughes. As the Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle mentioned, and as the PSNI has confirmed, a viable explosive device was left at their shared office in the heart of Newry city. I send solidarity to Liz and Dáire and their families, and also to their hard-working staff who, no doubt, will have been left shaken by what occurred overnight.

This despicable and cowardly act is an attack not just on Sinn Féin and our representatives but on the wider community in Newry and Armagh. Liz and Dáire's office is a busy and much-relied-upon community resource and hub. They and their staff assist huge numbers of people, day in, day out. I say this to the person or people who were behind the attack: Sinn Féin will not be deterred from supporting our communities. We will not be deterred from delivering change. This attack will not derail us.

The attack was an attempt to threaten democracy and the democratic process. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Any attempts by criminal gangs or by anyone else to thwart the democratic process or interfere in democratic decisions must be called out and must be condemned roundly by everyone in the House. Sinn Féin will not be deterred, and we will not be intimidated from continuing our work to better the lives of the people in Newry and Armagh and across Ireland.

I urge anyone with information about the attack on my colleagues' constituency office last night to come forward and contact the PSNI.

Mr Clarke: I also condemn the attack. Of course, this is not the first attack that we have seen in Northern Ireland. We are all too aware of many attacks across Northern Ireland, going back a long time, 30 to 40 years, into its history. On every occasion, every attack was wrong then, as it is now with this attack.
The Member who spoke previously is right: it is an attack on democracy. There has always been an alternative. There has been intimidation, bomb attacks, bullet attacks and murder and mayhem for many years, and, on every occasion, that has been wrong. We on the Benches on this side of the Chamber have always condemned outright all of those incidents as being wrong.

I put on record my thanks for the work that the army technical officers have done. We are very fortunate to have them here. Unfortunately, we require them here, but we are fortunate to have their services. They can come along and make those devices safe, and I hope and pray that intelligence is used from this to bring those responsible for this attack to justice. Like the previous Member who spoke, I call for those with any information to bring that to the PSNI to ensure that this is the last time that we see this on our streets.

Mr McMurray: I, too, join in the condemnation of those who left an explosive device outside the offices of Ms Kimmins and Mr Hughes. Placing explosive devices in the streets was always wrong, is wrong and will continue to be wrong. That bears being said. We all have constituency staff, and we know of the pride that they take in their roles. I know that the staff involved run a good constituency office, and my thoughts are with them. My thoughts are also with the people of Newry more widely.

There is no justification for the attack, but it does point to the polarisation and the increasingly difficult discourse that the political sphere in which we operate is currently undergoing. That is relevant too. Thanks to the PSNI and the army technical officers who responded, and I echo the calls for any information that is forthcoming to be passed on to the PSNI.

Mr Burrows: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I condemn unequivocally the terrible attack on Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes. It was a despicable attack, and I agree entirely that it is an attack not only on the entire community but, in fact, on our democratic system. I am a great believer that an attack on any one of us here is an attack on all of us and on what we are trying to do to represent people across Northern Ireland. I give my full solidarity to Liz and Dáire, to their constituency workers and, indeed, to their families, who will be frightened.

I do hope that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, supported by our security services, particularly MI5, which supports the work that the PSNI does in dismantling those who commit terrorism, is successful in bringing the people who did this to justice. I salute the police and the ammunition technical officers, and I hope that there are forensic opportunities from the device. We as a party, of course, know very well the price that terrorism brings to innocent people. Edgar Graham and Robert Bradford were wickedly murdered by terrorists, and, thankfully, we see far fewer of those kinds of despicable attacks. Those attacks were wrong then, they are wrong today, and they will be wrong in the future. Unequivocally, I stand with Ms Kimmins and Dáire Hughes, as does the entire Ulster Unionist Party.

Mr McNulty: I am shocked and appalled at the news that a bomb was left at Sinn Féin's office in Newry. The bomb threat, on one of Newry's busiest streets, posed a serious danger to the public and is a total disgrace. My thoughts are with Sinn Féin's office staff, who were put in harm's way at their place of work. That is completely unacceptable.

I offer my support to Sinn Féin's local representatives: Dáire, Liz and all the councillors who use the office regularly. They were democratically elected to represent their community yet have been targeted with violence and intimidation. There never has been, and there never will be, any place for that type of violence, thuggery and intimidation in our society. I condemn that atrocious act. Those behind it should be ashamed of themselves. I urge anyone with information that can assist in identifying those responsible to come forward to the police.

Mr Gaston: I join other Members in condemning the pipe bomb attack in Newry. Such activity has no place, and it never had a place, in any democratic society. Today, although we rightly think about what could have happened but for the prompt action of the security forces, and of the British Army bomb squad in particular, my mind turns back to the events on this very day half a century ago, 6 October 1975. On that date, a 45-year-old RUC detective constable, David Smyth Love, responded to reports of a robbery at a bar on the Dungiven Road, 3 miles outside Limavady. The criminals held staff and customers at gunpoint —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — and demanded the contents of the till.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, I appreciate that you are trying to expand your contribution because of the date on which another person lost his life, but I respectfully ask you to return to the content that is central to the Matter of the Day, please. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What I said will bring me on to where I was going with it.

As the men fled, they told the barman that they had left a 10-lb bomb that would go off in 10 minutes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, if you do not —.

Mr Gaston: With all due respect, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, what I am saying is relevant to what we have, which is the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. It is experiencing today what it inflicted on many people up and down this country through its years of terrorism.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, take your seat, please.

Mr Gaston: With all due respect, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like you to let me finish what I was going to say.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I think that you have exhausted your opportunity to speak, so take your seat.

Mr Gaston: I strongly disagree. Sinn Féin is feeling today what it inflicted on many people during the years —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you are challenging the authority of the Chair. Please take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — of terror in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, please. If you persist, there will be consequences, so thank you very much.

Mr Carroll: I unequivocally condemn the actions of those who left a deadly device outside a Sinn Féin constituency office. It is the office of an MP and a Minister. It is an office, like my own and that of others, that no doubt offers constituency advice and support on a range of issues. My thoughts are also with the staff, who do a difficult and challenging job, as staff in all constituency offices do. I do not know how they are feeling today, but I send my thoughts to them.

I totally and utterly condemn that action. I do not know the motives of those who carried out the threat by leaving that device, but one can speculate. One wonders whether it is connected to the statement that the UDA and the UVF put out at the weekend to say that vans with bilingual signage on them would be torched. [Interruption.]

That is completely unacceptable. It poses a dangerous threat, and all parties, instead of shouting out as one to my right is doing, should be speaking out clearly and saying that that type of violence and intimidation should not be happening. Instead of clamping down on peaceful protesters, the PSNI should be going after the people who are doing that —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, take your seat.

Mr Carroll: — so I condemn it.

Ms Sugden: I add my voice to the condemnation of the incident in Newry. No elected representative, no member of staff and no member of the public should ever face intimidation or threat because of political work that is being done. My thoughts are with Minister Kimmins, Dáire Hughes and the local community for having to endure what happened.

Whatever our political differences, we share a common duty to protect the safety of those who serve the public. There can be no place for violence in political life — not here, not anywhere.

Many people will feel unease that this is happening against a wider backdrop where hostility seems to be rising again, not just here but globally. In recent days, we have seen violence on the international stage, with attacks on places of worship. I wholly condemn the attack on the Manchester synagogue, and my thoughts are with the Jewish community and Manchester. With such acts of aggression against political figures, the tone of public life has become sharper, volatile and, at times, dangerously personal. That matters, because what happens elsewhere always has a way of seeping into Northern Ireland. The language that we use, the behaviour that we tolerate and the boundaries that we set determine the kind of politics that we have at home. It feels, at times, as though anger has become the default setting in many parts of the world, but anger solves nothing, and violence solves nothing. Politics, for all its frustrations, must always be the alternative to both. We should stand together against intimidation and for democracy, dialogue and decency. We should stand for the idea that change must be achieved through words, not weapons, argument or aggression. That is how we preserve the peace that we fought so hard to build in Northern Ireland.

Mr Butler: I add my support and solidarity to Minister Kimmins; the Member of Parliament Dáire Hughes; their families, in particular, because this extends way beyond the political sphere and the individual who has, potentially, been threatened; and, as has been picked out, the staff who work in the office.

I am sure that I do not need to remind Members of the fact that, over the past couple of years, sadly, we have been involved, through the good work of the Assembly Commission, in having to look at the security arrangements around all our offices and in reminding Members, including myself, that the platform that we have to speak on comes with significant responsibilities. This country suffers from PTSD because of the violence of the past. There are two plaques at the entrance to our Chambers, one at each Chamber. One plaque is for Senator Wilson, a nationalist who was murdered by loyalists, and one is for Edgar Graham, a unionist who was murdered by republicans. We need to own the words that we say, and we need to ensure that the words that we speak impact positively by, perhaps, bringing a little bit of peace and stability to a world that is struggling.

I pay my respects to the PSNI and the ammunition technical officers who respond, at times without political support, in the most dangerous of circumstances because they are apolitical. They provide safety for the public and for us. It is not so long ago that we were having debates about Jo Cox and David Amess, so it is not just in Northern Ireland that politicians face threat. There is global instability. It was really sad to wake up this morning to read that, once again, Northern Ireland was seeing the threat of violence. I condemn it unreservedly, and I ask Members to speak with one voice in opposing it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I go to the next Matter of the Day, I remind Members that, if you stray off-topic, I will ask you to take your seat, rather than give you two, three or four opportunities. You can protest all you want, but it will not make any difference. The other announcement that I want to make is that, when I am in the Chair, I will chair. This morning has been like the video of the woman who cannot drive her car unless her husband is sitting beside her, telling her to turn left or right. I do not need that. I know what I am doing. If you have an issue with the way in which I am doing it, take it up afterwards.

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

Mr Sheehan: The Global Samud flotilla is made up of 500 activists from 44 countries in 40 vessels. It was trying to break the illegal blockade of Gaza and the Israelis' use of starvation as a weapon of war. The flotilla was carrying baby formula and medicines for children who are being starved and whose mothers cannot feed them because they do not have milk in their breasts.

The activists on the flotilla are the best of us. They are the best of humanity. Given that the Israelis have attacked other flotillas, in particular, the Mavi Marmara ship, on which 10 activists were murdered by the Israelis in 2010, it was an act of great courage for those 500 activists to join the flotilla and try to break the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza.

There are Irish activists on the flotilla, not least our comrade and colleague Senator Chris Andrews and Tadhg Hickey, who is a well-known activist from Cork. Reports have come out about the brutality and ill treatment that the 500 activists have received from the Israelis. Remember: the seizure of those vessels in international waters is a war crime. It breaches international law. Of course, the Israelis do not care about international law. They have consistently broken international law; they have used starvation as a weapon of war; and they are involved in the genocide of the Palestinian people.

Steve Aiken can sit and laugh all he wants — I have no doubt that he will get up and defend that genocidal regime — but, perhaps, some day, he will show one small bit of humanity. Contrary to what his colleague Doug Beattie said the last time that we talked about this, the attacks on the flotilla came from Israeli drones that dropped flash grenades on to some of the ships, not flares, as Doug Beattie tried to assert in the Assembly.

I send my best wishes to all who were involved in the flotilla and those who are still illegally imprisoned at the hands of the Israelis and are receiving ill treatment and brutality. It is time for the world to stand up against the Israelis to end the genocide now.

Mr Carroll: As we have heard, on Wednesday evening, Israel intercepted ships belonging to the Global Sumud flotilla, and Israeli warmongers abducted over 400 peaceful activists on board 41 ships. The purpose of the trip was to deliver aid to Gaza, where Israel has imposed an illegal blockade since 2006. Since October 2023, Israel has tightened its blockade, which it declared publicly, and it cruelly denies Palestinians access to food, fuel and medical supplies.

Israel's aim is to destroy Palestinians in Gaza and bring about a humanitarian disaster; in other words, as declared by the UN Commission, it is continuing to try to commit genocide. The activists on the ships were attempting to break the blockade and to stop the genocide. Some have been deported, while others remain in a prison in the Negev desert that is notorious for its inhumane treatment of Palestinian prisoners.

Look at how the only democracy, so to speak, in the Middle East is treating Greta Thunberg, a brave 22-year-old-woman, who is a shining light in a dark and gloomy world. They have subjected her to oppressive, inhumane treatment, as well as bullying and harassment. As we have heard, there were 16 Irish citizens and 13 British citizens on board the flotilla. The message from Amnesty International is that the interception was a clear illegal act of aggression, and it called it "a calculated act of intimidation". The authorities began deportation proceedings without giving notice to the activists' lawyers and denied them access to legal advice. Israel's National Security Minister, Ben Gvir, disgracefully filmed himself taunting captured flotilla members, whom he labelled as "terrorists", while he was surrounded by an armed guard of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Make no mistake about it: Israel is definitely the terrorist state, and the world knows about it.

We have also seen 15,000 people marching through Barcelona in recent days in response to Israel's actions and 3,000 people outside the European Parliament buildings calling on the EU to break —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, will you stick to the flotilla, please?

Mr Carroll: — the siege of Gaza. It is very important.

In response to the siege, we saw walkouts in Italy and two million workers participating in other places across the world. In Dublin, at the weekend, I joined tens of thousands of people protesting to mark two years of genocide and calling on the state to sanction Israel. After that march, activists rallied to shut down Dublin port, where they were pepper sprayed and subjected to disgraceful —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, come back to the flotilla or take your seat.

Mr Carroll: — police brutality. We need to cut all ties with Israel and isolate that brutal regime.

Mr Buckley: What we have heard so far is an act of disinformation, to begin with. First, illegal kidnapping? Not just because the Member for West Belfast says that it is. The truth is that the interception was under maritime law. That is the first bit of disinformation that I would like to debunk. The second bit is that those participants were held in brutal conditions. That does not bear out when we look at some of the footage of those who intercepted the vessels. If we want to talk about brutal conditions, there is no mention of some of the hostages who have been kept in tunnels since 7 October. If we want to talk about brutal conditions, what about those who are still suffering the impact of the war in the Middle East? That is where the focus should be.

If the noble aspiration of the flotilla was to deliver aid — it is a very noble aspiration, by the way, to deliver aid to anybody in distress — another piece of disinformation is that there was no mention of the fact that, prior to being intercepted by Israeli forces, there was a call for people who wished to have aid distributed to go by the legal route, which was to the Israeli port where the aid would be looked at and be provided to the people of Gaza. Those are the facts. That was on a loudspeaker for all to hear. The participants knew before they even got aboard the flotilla that they would not be allowed to breach the blockade. They were told where they should go to ensure that their aid would have an impact. Those are the facts.

We can get into a debate about disinformation and what occurred, but if we are serious, and if the flotilla's point was to bring about an end to the conflict in the Middle East, why are we not talking today about the potential genesis of a global peace plan that could potentially end the conflict in the Middle East? It is a peace plan that has been endorsed by the Arab countries in the region and the participants in the conflict. That is where the focus should be.

As we listen to some of the rhetoric surrounding what was a stunt —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jonathan, get back to the subject of the Matter of the Day.

Mr Buckley: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I say clearly that the flotilla was a stunt. If we talk about the stunt, it is in these terms: if you want to deliver aid, deliver it through legal routes that can have a genuine impact and help get the peace.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl. Cuirim fáilte romhat ar ais, Kate.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you. I think that it is good to be back. Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker; it is. I am really delighted to speak on this subject. Pat Sheehan and I have done quite a lot of work with the Palestinian community, and that is what I want to bring the issue back to. This is not an orange or green issue. There is a genocide going on. It is a humanitarian issue, and it is something that we need to speak out about.

One of the Palestinians whom I have been working with in Belfast has lost so many family members, and I knew that the narrative would be that this was a stunt, so I asked him what the flotilla meant to Palestinians. He said that, for four generations, his people have been suffering. He said:

Real people are suffering, and, to them, the flotilla represented the fact that people care. I am inundated with messages every day from people from across my constituency who are desperate for us to do something. Real people are dying; real people are being impacted. I stand with my constituents and the people on the flotilla who are taking action when so many people feel helpless.

Dr Aiken: I make a declaration of interest as someone who has conducted maritime blockades in several places around the world.

The Gaza Mediterranean maritime blockade is recognised as a method of warfare that has developed in the context of international armed conflict legislation, which states:

For the blockaded territory, crucially, enforcement focuses on vessels' destination, not their cargo. If a vessel breaches or attempts to breach a blockade, that is enough to make that vessel liable to capture. The law on blockade is generally considered to reflect customary international law. Its landmark text, the London declaration of 1909, contains several provisions that help define the law, which is mostly contained in maritime military manuals, maritime law and soft law instruments. It states that a maritime blockade is established lawfully if the following requirements are met:

It was. The declaration also states:

It does not.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Steve.

Dr Aiken: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, this is relevant to the Gaza debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Actually, it is not relevant. Maritime law is not one of the Matters of the Day; the debate is about the interception of the Global flotilla. If you could return to the subject, I would appreciate that.

Dr Aiken: Maritime law is exactly what it is about, because that is what the Israeli Navy followed. I accept your judgement. I will sit down, because it cannot be appropriate to talk about the matter without talking about international maritime law. That does not make any sense.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Had you mentioned the Global flotilla, I would have allowed you to continue, but you did not.

On that basis, I move on to Mark Durkan.

Mr Durkan: Last month, I said that we stood at a moment that demanded moral clarity and political courage. Recent events have brought into sharp focus the suffering, the injustice and the obligation to act that we all share. The Global Sumud flotilla, which was carrying humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, was intercepted in international waters. Reports — no one can dispute or has disputed the reports — indicate loss of life, detainees being transported and confessions being demanded in foreign ports. Those actions cannot be dismissed as mere collateral damage; they raise fundamental questions of international law, human rights and collective responsibility.

Such a blockade, enforced with lethal force, amounts to the collective punishment of civilians, many of whom lack safe passage or recourse. We cannot pretend to be neutral when human beings suffer under a siege. We cannot remain silent in the face of force being used against vessels bearing aid for starving and suffering people in Gaza. The images that we have seen should stir our consciences; the stories that we have heard should move us all; and the calls that we receive from grieving families should break through any political reticence.

Any investigation into those events must be international, independent and fully transparent. All detainees must be released unconditionally. Diplomatic pressure must be brought to bear. Our Governments, North and South, and those in the UK and Europe must press for accountability, not complicity. Economic and political levers must be used to demand compliance with international law. Finally, we must recommit ourselves to the principle that human dignity is universal, not selective. It must reach those in need. Dialogue must replace dominance. Peace must be forged in justice, not imposed through force. Silence is not a neutral act — it is a choice — and denial is a despicable one. Let us choose justice and solidarity. Let us choose a future and a present in which no people are punished because of their borders or their plight. Let those who govern know that we will hold them to account in the name of human rights, compassion and the common good.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I give the same warning that I gave at the start of the previous Matter of the Day: if Members do not stick to the content of the Matter of the Day, I will ask them to take their seat and will move on to the next Member.

Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the attack on the Manchester synagogue and its implications for the Jewish community in Northern Ireland, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members again that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Gaston: The attack on the Manchester synagogue on Thursday was an outrageous assault on the Jewish community, occurring on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Yom Kippur, which is better known to Christians as the "Day of Atonement", is a time when sin is recalled and repented for. In the Old Testament, we remember the slaughter of a goat on that day and the sprinkling of its blood in the Holy of Holies. Last week, Jewish blood stained the streets of Manchester as two men were murdered and three others were seriously injured. I pay tribute to the courage of those who died protecting their family, friends and neighbours, but there is a need for more than words. The attacker was a Muslim who was out on bail for an alleged rape. Although he was a British citizen, he was of Syrian origin. The danger of Islamic extremism can no longer be ignored.

The climate in which the attack took place also needs to be acknowledged. For years, anti-Israeli protests have featured antisemitic slogans and placards perpetuating harmful Jewish stereotypes. Even after Thursday, that rhetoric did not stop. On Friday, I wrote to the Chief Constable after being advised that, at an illegal roadblock at York Street, there were chants of, "We got two". Shame. I regret that Members of the House, including a Member for South Belfast from the Alliance Party, sought to contextualise those illegal protests. Decency should have kept the protesters in the house on Thursday evening, of all nights. It is shameful that the Member for South Belfast could not even bring herself to say that.

Let us also recall that, just last week, a Member's statement was used by a Member for West Belfast to laud Kneecap, after the case against one —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — of its number collapsed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: What were they accused —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — of, Principal Deputy Speaker?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, take your seat.

Mr Gaston: Displaying a Hezbollah —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — flag.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: It seems, Principal Deputy Speaker —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — that you do not want to hear from —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: — people who have opposing views on the subject.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: You cannot be neutral on this.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: You have done this a number of times today, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: You do not deserve to be in the Chair if you cannot be neutral.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. That is your opinion. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, everybody, please.

You brought this very important Matter of the Day to the House.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and you will not even let me —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Have a bit of manners, please, and let me finish my point. You are the one who disrespected the rules. I seriously advise you to think again. The Matter of the Day should be about the attack in Manchester rather than your using it to attack other Members. I am therefore going to move on.

Mr Kearney: The attack in Manchester against the Jewish community was horrific. It was a despicable, murderous attack on innocents. That heinous event was made all the more vicious and appalling because it occurred on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It has, understandably, caused huge pain and torment for Jewish people everywhere. On behalf of Sinn Féin this afternoon, I extend our thoughts and solidarity to the Jewish community, not just in Belfast and in the rest of the North but everywhere.

It is at times such as this that we must speak with a united voice. There can be no room for hatred. We must oppose antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and sectarianism from whatever source. Sadly, what happened in Manchester is a reminder that we must continue to campaign for a world in which everyone, regardless of religious belief or ethnicity, can live in dignity, with respect, equality and freedom.

Mr Kingston: Last Thursday, the Hebrew congregation of Heaton Park in Manchester was targeted in a diabolical act of terrorism on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar. The attacker drove a vehicle into pedestrians, then launched a knife attack on worshippers, two of whom were killed, with others injured before the attacker himself was shot dead by the police. The victims have been named as Adrian Daulby, aged 53, and Melvin Cravitz, aged 66. Tragically, one of the victims was hit by police gunfire as worshippers held the synagogue door closed in order to save lives.

The 35-year-old attacker came to the UK from Syria as a child, along with his family. His father issued a statement condemning his son's terrorist attack last Thursday. It later emerged, however, that the father had previously posted on social media praising the terrorist actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, saying:

In all debates about the situation in Israel and Gaza since October 2023, I and others have warned that strong words here will have little impact on the situation there but will have a major impact on community relations here, particularly for our vulnerable Jewish community.

Mr Martin: Hear, hear.

Mr Kingston: What happened in Manchester is a realisation of those worst fears of antisemitism: Jewish people killed purely because of their religion. In Northern Ireland, we have also witnessed terrorist attacks on places of worship. We think of the appalling murders at Darkley Pentecostal Church and the murders of Gerard Kiely and Kevin Ballentine outside St Brigid's Church in Belfast, and we remember Mary Travers.

Our Jewish community in Northern Ireland is small but vulnerable. Phillip Brett and I greatly value the synagogue in our North Belfast constituency, and we have been honoured to attend events there over the years. Since last Thursday, I have spoken to members of the Hebrew congregation to reiterate our support and to the PSNI commander for north Belfast about security arrangements for that community. Sadly, we have witnessed antisemitism in Belfast, with attacks on the headstones of Jewish graves in Belfast city cemetery and the removal by a community group of a blue plaque in Cliftonpark Avenue marking the birthplace of —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brian, please return to the events in Manchester. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: This is relevant to that, in that words have impact here.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I ask you to return to the events in Manchester.

Mr Kingston: The blue plaque marked the birthplace of Chaim Herzog, who served two terms as president of Israel, an honoured position that is now held by his son Isaac.

Let us not be blind to the dangers of intolerance and antisemitism in society in Northern Ireland. Let us be mindful of the impact of words, and let us support the needs of our cherished Jewish community.

Ms Nicholl: What happened in Manchester at Heaton Park synagogue was horrific, and I have no hesitation in condemning the antisemitism and hatred. My heart goes out to the entire congregation, particularly to Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and to the incredibly brave people who saved countless lives.

I believe in our common humanity, and I believe that everyone should be treated equally and live in safety and peace. It is shameful to use such an awful attack to score political points. You can care about people on one side of the world and care about people in Manchester just as much. It is not an either/or. I am in politics because I care deeply about people and about peace, equality and humanity. I want to set the record completely straight by saying that I and my party completely condemn the attack in Manchester. It was wrong, and it was awful. We stand against antisemitism and hatred, and we always will. Our hearts go out to that community and to every Jewish person in this society who is living in fear as a result of that attack.

Dr Aiken: I will try to make sure that I stick strictly to the horrific attack in Manchester.

Yom Kippur is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar: the day of atonement, when members of the Jewish faith fast from sunset to sunset, pray, repent, reflect and seek closeness to God. Last Thursday, that holy day was desecrated by a vile antisemitic attack in Manchester. There is no context, hand-wringing, whataboutery or claim that "It is part of a justified resistance" or whatever to explain those antisemitic murders. The Heaton Park synagogue was attacked simply because it contained Jews at worship. Why did it occur? That is the question that we should all ask. Why is our much-valued Jewish community on the island of Ireland and elsewhere in our nation in so much fear? It is because of the oldest hatred, that most insidious example of racism: the evil of antisemitism. It is the oldest sectarian trope in the world, and it has been given agency by those who march shouting support for a global intifada, the literal translation of which means the murder of all Jews everywhere. What does "from the river to the sea" mean, if it does not mean the death of every Jew in Israel?

If you will not listen to my reason, listen to the words of the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, about the Heaton Park synagogue attack:

I hope for all our sakes that everybody takes heed, especially on this island, where the scourge of antisemitism is among the vilest anywhere. May we also never again have to hear the Jewish prayer of Kaddish, which is the prayer of the dead, said in our nation for the murder of our Jewish friends. However, until we recognise the disease of antisemitism that is endemic across these islands and take action to do something about it, I fear for the future, not just for the Jewish community but for all of us. Shalom.

Mr O'Toole: Like others, I express my condolences to the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were murdered at the Heaton Park Hebrew congregation in Manchester in the most grotesque and evil act of antisemitic hatred.

There are, as the Member who spoke previously said, no words of context that mitigate, contextualise or justify what was unmitigated antisemitic hatred turned into a murderous act. Those words have to be absolute, complete and definitive. That act of hatred and evil was made worse by the fact that it happened on a holy day — the holiest day for people of the Jewish faith, Yom Kippur.

In expressing condolences to the families of the immediate victims, let me also express my and my party's solidarity with the Jewish community in Manchester but also with the Jewish communities here in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland and across these islands. Let me say that we understand and acknowledge the real fear that they feel at the minute. It is real, and we will not minimise it. What we saw on Friday was utterly depraved. The evil of antisemitism is pernicious, timeless and has to be stood against, as all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and Islamophobia must be stood against. It is important to say that there can be no context for the people who carried out that act. There is no cause that justifies or mitigates that appalling, depraved, evil act.

It is also true that people are entitled to make criticisms and observations about what is happening in the world. The appalling events in Manchester should in no way be conflated, as one or two have done today — I do not want to get into that debate because it is not appropriate — with people standing against horrific events in another part of the world, because there is no justification or context for those evil acts.

The Jewish community in Belfast is very small, and those people will, I am sure, feel vulnerable at this time, so let me say this clearly and personally to them: we hear you. You are part of our community. You are wanted, you are treasured and you are part of this city and this community. The acts on Friday were utterly repellent, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to stand against them today.

Mr Carroll: I want to say unequivocally that I totally and utterly condemn the disgraceful attack and the killing of two members of the Jewish community outside a synagogue in Manchester last week. Nobody should be killed in that manner but especially not as they are leaving a place of prayer and worship. People obviously feel frightened and under pressure, and I extend my solidarity to them.

I also strongly suggest — this comes not from me but from Jewish groups in Britain and elsewhere — that people should refrain from suggesting or trying to tie all Jewish people to Israel. That is historically inaccurate, because not all Jewish people have always supported the creation of Israel, but, today, we see large contingents of Jewish people on demonstrations in America, Britain and Ireland who are against Israel and support the freedom of Palestinians, so it is important that people do not conflate the two, which would be, by definition, antisemitic in and of itself.

We should also recognise where antisemitism comes from. Despite some of what we have heard today, antisemitism is a disgusting, poisonous, racist ideology that was created in Europe and was backed and funded by European believers in warped ideas about racism and racial hierarchies and stereotypes. People should not blame Muslims, people on the left or people standing against genocide for antisemitism. It is inaccurate, but it is also disgusting, frankly. I should also point out that is the far right and billionaire owners of the media —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, can you return to the events in Manchester, please?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: I will, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging you at all, but I am talking about antisemitism and where it comes from. We see modern elements of the right and far right —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, I am asking you again, and, if you cannot do it, take your seat.

Mr Carroll: I am talking about antisemitism, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Matter of the Day is about the events in Manchester and the impact on the Jewish community. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, listen, do not be smart. If you cannot —.

Mr Carroll: I am not being smart at all. I am talking about the issue —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Mr Carroll: All right. OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, OK?

Mr Martin: First, I condemn the attack that resulted in such dreadful loss of life at the Manchester synagogue, which, as others have said, happened on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

I extend my thoughts and prayers to all the families who have lost loved ones. May their memory be a blessing. I have spoken to a couple of Jewish friends who live in Great Britain, and they are fearful but stoic about the situation that they face. They reflect that, given the marches over the last number of years and the increased hatred that they have faced, this is hardly surprising.

I was in the synagogue earlier in the year and, at that point, the fear among Jewish folk living in Northern Ireland was already tangible. However, when you speak more widely to Jewish people — this is in complete contrast to what was said by Mr Carroll — they tell you that the threat that they face in the UK now is exclusively from the far left and Islamist groups. That comes directly from Jewish people. One of those groups organised a protest less than 12 hours after the attack on Thursday on the Manchester synagogue. During that protest, demonstrators clashed with police near Downing Street, and the 'Telegraph' reports that one gave a report that said:

I therefore call on the Prime Minister to do more to protect this marginalised community, who live in such fear of attack that they need security guards to protect their schools and synagogues. I repeat that: they need security guards to protect their schools and synagogues, the elderly and children. That is standard for Jewish people living in Great Britain. I make it clear to any Jewish people listening that this party will always stand up for you and will always oppose the rise of antisemitism in this country. We will never abandon you. Shalom.

Miss McAllister: Let us be clear from the very start: we all should and must condemn the attack that took place last week on the synagogue in Manchester. I put my thoughts with the families of the victims who were killed: Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. First and foremost, our thoughts must be with those families. However, I also want to express my sympathies to the serving officers on the ground on that day. I do not doubt that it was a difficult and intense situation that will leave lasting trauma. The attack on the Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur is just horrific. It is about targeting not just one religion but all religions. It is an assault on the freedom of religion and all our shared values. It is not just the climate around this conversation that needs to be addressed but rather the issue of violence. It is never the answer, and it is never an excuse for anyone.

My constituency, North Belfast, has the only remaining synagogue in Northern Ireland. The community is small, but it is mourning massively. Our thoughts are with those people today, as they also fear for their safety and future amid the toxic debate and culture when freedom of religion is attacked. I express again our solidarity not just with the Jewish people of Manchester but with all Jewish people who feel frightened in our society today. This could have been much worse. There could have been many more deaths. I pay tribute to all the emergency services that responded and thank them. It further highlights the importance of democracy and standing up for our shared values and beliefs. Hopefully we will not have this situation again.

Mr Brett: Representing North Belfast has many honours, but one of the greatest, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, is that we are the home of the Jewish community. As has been articulated by my colleague Mr Kingston, we have a proud record of supporting that small but important community.

Just two weeks ago, I attended a packed event at the synagogue as the community raised money for important local causes and charities. One of the most shocking things about attending the synagogue was that there had to be police protection outside. The location of the fundraiser could not be released for fear of attack. Weekly, when our small but important Jewish community goes to carry out their acts of worship, they have to do so under the protection of security. If that were any other religion anywhere else in Northern Ireland, it would be a national disgrace. Political parties of all traditions and none would stand up weekly and call it out. However, it seems that the Jewish community gets support only when attacks like this take place.

The local community has organised a vigil for 6.30 pm on Wednesday at the memorial on the Shore Road as an opportunity for everyone to come together to remember the victims of the attack but, more important, to show solidarity with that small but influential Jewish community. I am sure that the warm words in the Chamber today will be matched by action. I look forward to seeing all Members there on Wednesday evening.

Mr Buckley: There is universal condemnation of what happened in Manchester. It was a horrific attack on a vulnerable community. We must set it in context: those people were murdered because of their religion. It is every community and every family's worst nightmare, and we are thankful that it did not result in further deaths. One of the most horrific aspects of what happened in Manchester is that, had it not been for the brave actions of one of the victims, who essentially barricaded the door, countless more deaths could have occurred.

It is relevant to Northern Ireland because, regardless of our community background, we all know the trauma caused by terrorism. Many of our families have been affected by it. We know that actions taken in a moment can haunt and traumatise a family for years to come. As has been mentioned, we know the scars that many of Northern Ireland's law enforcement personnel continue to bear because of the things that they witnessed as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

We have a vulnerable Jewish community in Belfast. Anybody who takes the time to talk to them will understand their sense of vulnerability. They have been subject over many years to, in some cases, low-level antisemitic attacks and, in other cases, horrific forms of antisemitic behaviour. There have been headstones defiled, attacks on businesses and online antisemitic rhetoric directed at a small and vulnerable community. As has been mentioned, we stand in full solidarity with them not just today but in the days to come.

I remind Members across the Chamber that, just because somebody is Jewish, that does not necessarily mean that they agree with the actions of the Israeli Government. Just like people in Northern Ireland, they can have all types of opinions, which they are entitled to hold, but they should never become the focus. They should never be drawn into what is, in many cases, antisemitic behaviour that spills out from what may have been, at the beginning, well-intentioned protest.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Jonathan.

Mr Buckley: I encourage Members to understand that and stick to that principle.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated; thank you.

Members, please take your ease while we make a change at the top Table before Members' Statements.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek clarity from the Speaker's Office. The Business Committee allocates up to 30 minutes for Members' Statements. If a Member rises during that 30-minute time slot and there is still time remaining, will that Member be called or not?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jonathan, it is usually the process that lasts 30 minutes. That is why, at times, as you will have noticed — you might even have been subject to this — a Member might have only one minute, one and a half minutes or two minutes. While Members have up to a certain number of minutes in which to speak, we ask people to not go over that but to go under that. We, at the Table, try to get as many people in as possible, but the whole process lasts 30 minutes. If Members feel that they have not been called within the time, they should let the Speaker's Office know, and we will examine the Hansard report.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, for clarity, if a Member rises to their feet, and there is still time left in the 30 minutes, they would be called, but it might be for a shorter time under the 30 minutes. Is that right?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is what I have done in the past. If the Member is not content, he should go to the Speaker's Office with specifics, and we will look at the Hansard report.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In fact, I have two, but I will try to get them in briefly, and you can shut me down if I —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Matthew. It is not two points of order. You either have a point of order, or you do not.

Mr O'Toole: OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On Thursday, I received a response to a question for written answer that I submitted in February 2024. I asked when a Programme for Government would be published. A draft Programme for Government was published in September last year, and it was finalised in March this year. Standing Orders provide that a written answer should be given within 10 days. It has taken 20 months. Will the Speaker's Office advise whether that is acceptable?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can advise. I will come back with advice.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your first point was not a point of order, but you have put the issue on the record. Will you make sure that your second is —

Mr O'Toole: It was under Standing Orders.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: — actually a point of order.

Mr O'Toole: With the greatest of respect, it is in Standing Orders, so I think that it was in order to ask that question.

My second point of order relates to the Executive legislation programme, which came out via email to Members of the Assembly on Friday. It is supposed to be the legislation programme for what is left of this year and next year. Given what the Speaker has said about statements being brought to the Assembly, it is highly unacceptable that it was emailed to us with no oral statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Will the Speaker's Office advise on whether it is comfortable with such an important document being emailed to Members on a Friday as if it were correspondence about a lunch event?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: First, I will go back to your first point of order. Just because something is in the Standing Orders does not give you the right to use whatever Standing Order it is to try to make a point. Your point is on the record.

Secondly, in relation to the statement, Ministers should come to the House. It is my understanding that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have tabled a motion, which was circulated to you last week. I assume that you missed that.

I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Further to your response to Mr Buckley, I signalled a number of times to get in to speak on the Matter of the Day regarding Gaza. I believe that we were well within the 30 minutes. Will you clarify to the House that you chose not to call me to speak, even though time remained?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will clarify to the House. I asked you on three occasions to take your seat, and I advised you that there would be consequences. I did not call you, and I was not going to do so until I got advice. It has happened with you and me before. You have shown continual disrespect, particularly to me. It is not about me; it is about the Chair and what it represents. I believe that you have disrespected the office of Speaker. On that basis, I did not call you, and I told you that there would be consequences. I am going back to get further advice, and when I get it, I will decide whether it is appropriate to share it with you.

Mr Gaston, today's Hansard report will show that I asked you on at least three occasions to desist, and you did not. I felt that you were very disrespectful. On that basis, I decided that you should not be called to speak on something. Thank you.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I have ever challenged your ruling or been disrespectful — passionate, probably, but disrespectful, I do not think so — but may I have some clarity? I was trying to connect the issue of the attack on the Jewish synagogue in Manchester to the issue of antisemitism. Like other Members, I believe that the two are connected, so I tried to give some explanation for that. Can you advise me, now or later, in order to keep me right, on how they are not connected?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can advise you, Gerry. I knew that you were trying to talk about the ugliness of antisemitism. I felt that you had done that, but you kept on, and I asked you to return to the subject. I tried to give everybody the same latitude, but, when I felt that people were pushing it, I called them out. To be frank, I felt that you were pushing it. You were not being disrespectful, but, when I asked you to return to the subject, you did not, so I moved on. I said before each Matter of the Day that I would do that. I am not saying that you did this, Gerry, but it is very disappointing that, when such matters come to the House, particularly on the first sitting of the week after such horrendous times for people, some Members choose to score political points. That is regrettable.

I will move on. Members, take your ease.

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

Mr Dickson: As Members will be aware, I chair the all-party group (APG) on cancer. Today, I bring the House's attention to a cancer that desperately needs our focus: brain cancer. I will tell you about Rachael, who is in the Public Gallery.

Rachael is just 23 years old and the mother of a two-year-old. Last year, she was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. She has already outlived her initial prognosis yet continues to endure distressing and debilitating symptoms. Despite that, Rachael and her family have chosen not to remain silent but, rather, to campaign for change. On her behalf, I therefore ask Members to sign the United Kingdom Government and Parliament petition on brain cancer. I will send the link to all Members after I have made my statement.

Rachael's call is not only urgent but justified. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40 in the United Kingdom. They kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer, more women under 35 than breast cancer and more children than leukaemia. Every day, 33 people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed with a brain tumour, and over 5,000 will die from one each year.

Brain cancer is indiscriminate, affecting anyone at any age. There is no preventative measure and little benefit from early detection. Without research, funding and innovation, brain tumours will remain a death sentence for many. Overall cancer death rates have fallen by 20% in recent decades, but that is not the case for brain cancer. The United Kingdom now ranks close to the bottom of the list of wealthy nations for five-year survival rates, while, interestingly, Ireland is in the top five. We must ask why that is, because the situation in the UK is simply unacceptable. Between 2018 and 2022, more than 800 people in Northern Ireland were diagnosed with brain tumours, which is an average of 160 a year. Survival rates have barely improved, however.

Our Health Minister has a duty to act. We need a cancer care strategy that treats brain tumours not as an afterthought but as a priority. We need to end the lottery for rehabilitation and psychological support, so that survival is not only about extending life but about ensuring quality of life. We need to support Brainwaves, Northern Ireland's only voluntary brain tumour research and support charity. What steps will the Minister take to prioritise brain cancer and tackle waiting times, which cost lives? How will he ensure that people can access cancer trials despite continual hold-ups to clinical trial sign-offs? What plan will he bring forward to overcome barriers that deny patients equal access to care and support?

This is about people such as Rachael, her two-year-old child and families across Northern Ireland. They deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. Brain tumours are among the most devastating forms of cancer, yet that area remains underfunded, under-researched and misunderstood. Without investment in research, brain tumours will continue to be a death sentence. It is time to end delays to funding, diagnosis and treatment. Research and prompt treatment paths offer the only real hope for transforming survival —

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

Mr Dickson: — and quality of life.

Ms Reilly: D’aontaigh Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste beartas nua Gaeilge an tseachtain seo caite. Is é is aidhm don bheartas cearta Gaeilgeoirí a neartú agus infheictheacht na teanga a mhéadú ar fud na cathrach.

Tá Ghaeilge agam ón chliabhán. D’fhreastail mé ar scoil lánGhaeilge. D’oibrigh mé in earnáil na Gaeilge, agus úsáidim Gaeilge gach uile lá. Is Gaeilgeoir fosta é mo nia. Tá sé ceithre bliana d’aois. Is mór idir an saol a bhí agamsa mar Ghael óg agus an saol a bheidh ag mo nia, agus a bhuíochas sin ar an obair a rinne Sinn Féin agus páirtithe eile, ar an obair a rinne grúpaí agus gníomhaithe teanga, orainne uile a tháinig amach ar na sráideanna — ar ghrúpaí a throid go dian, sa Teach seo, i gcomhairlí áitiúla, agus i ngrúpaí pobail — dá thairbhe sin, fásfaidh mo nia aníos i sochaí ina n-aithneofar agus ina mbeidh meas ar a theanga.

Ar an drochuair, i ndiaidh an chinneadh sin a ghlacadh, rinneadh bagairt ar áiseanna de chuid Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste. Ba cheart na bagairtí a rinne grúpaí paraimíleata dílseoirí inné a cháineadh go soiléir neamhbhalbh. Ní mór do cheannairí polaitíochta seasamh le chéile i gcoinne na mbagairtí sin, go huile agus go hiomlán.

Ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge. Ní bagairt é an comhionannas.

Is cinneadh stairiúil é cinneadh na Comhairle, cinneadh dearfach. Thiocfadh le beartas Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste a bheith ar cheann de na beartais teanga is forásaí ar an oileán seo. Is tiomantas é do chearta Gaeilgeoirí, d’fhorbairt ár bpobail, agus do theanga atá mar chuid den oidhreacht chomhchoiteann againn a chur chun cinn.

Is cúis dóchais é comhaontú na comhairle. Tá an beartas ina chéim chun tosaigh, céim i dtreo Béal Feirste a thugann daoine le chéile, cathair ina ndéantar an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú agus a cheiliúradh.

Mr Brett: In Belfast, household and business rates continue to soar, our city centre looks like a bomb site, and our basic services cannot be delivered. Instead of addressing those issues, however, the parties opposite thought that it would be a good idea to commit at least £1·9 million of hard-pressed taxpayers', ratepayers' and businesses' money to enforcing a divisionary and discriminatory Irish language policy.

Not content with enforcing unwanted signage in residential streets across our city, the council's latest act has been to target council facilities and staff uniforms. Despite a survey of Belfast City Council staff members showing that the majority of staff oppose the introduction of bilingual signage to their place of work or branding on their uniform, the parties opposite united to vote down a DUP amendment at last week's council meeting.

Fear not for those staff, however, because, page 4 of the 19-page policy document that was agreed by those parties states:

to staff members. This, clearly, is not Northern Ireland; it is North Korea.

If a member of staff disagrees with the policy to wear Irish language-branded uniform, they will be sent on cultural awareness training. Do you think that householders across Belfast, who pay hundreds of pounds on rates each month, want to see their rates spent on that? Do businesses in the Tribeca area, which see the city centre collapsing around them, want to see the thousands of pounds that they spend monthly spent on that?

The political commentary around it is that unionists should not feel intimidated or aggrieved. Let me be very clear: Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party do not get to tell unionists and the people whom we represent how to feel. The policy is utter discrimination. That is why we, along with our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV, have called it in. We will bring it to court. We will ensure that there is equality in Belfast. The unionist minority in Belfast will not sit down and be quiet in the corner as some of the parties here expect us to be.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Kate Nicholl. Welcome back.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel as though I have been here for months now after this morning.

It is 2025, and I stand here as the first MLA to have taken proper maternity leave. New rules that allow proxy voting and maternity staff cover came in just before I went off. That support simply did not exist when I had my second child, Étaín. Back then, I had just finished my term as Lord Mayor of Belfast and had been elected to the Assembly, which was suspended. Even though we were not passing legislation or scrutinising in Committees, we were all still busy with casework in our constituency offices. There is a picture of me with Étaín, who is a week and a half old, and I am wearing her in a baby carrier. Back then, I wore that as a badge of honour because I had gone back to work so quickly, as though I were saying, "Look how dedicated I am to my job". It is only now that I see that, actually, I was undermining the importance of maternity leave. I feel so sad when I see that picture for Étaín, for me and for any mother whom I unwittingly put pressure on to feel that it was normal. Maternity leave matters. It matters for mums, babies and families, and it benefits society by promoting equality and helping women to stay in the workforce. Too many women face impossible choices between career and family. So much of that is due to the cost of childcare. That really has to change.

Six months ago, my husband, Fergal, and I welcomed our beautiful baby boy, Dara. It is his first day at day care today, and my first day back at work. I am a little sad about it, I have to say. Rather than wearing the badge of honour of going back to work really early, this time I wear the badge of honour of focusing on my child and on me. I thank my amazing team, particularly Curtis Irvine, who held everything together. I also thank colleagues in the Chamber. So many people reached out to me from across the political spectrum to check on us. It was greatly appreciated. It has reminded me that caring is not a distraction from leadership; it is part of what makes us better at it. I hope that any woman MLA feels empowered to take whatever time they need when the time comes. I hope that more women see that you can have a young family and a career in politics, because, when our institutions reflect real life, we make better decisions for real people.

I am back, Mr Deputy Speaker, and more motivated than ever to work on the issues that really impact on family life: childcare, the cost of living and opportunities for the next generation. Those are the issues that unite us and that we can work on together. While I miss Dara so much today and feel really sad about it —

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

Ms Nicholl: — I know that, if we are working for him, it is worth it.

Mr Burrows: I acknowledge the passing last Thursday of Jim Dixon, who was the most seriously injured survivor of the Enniskillen bomb. Jim Dixon died aged 88. That bomb, which was detonated on 8 November 1987, murdered 11 people and injured over 60. I will read into the record what Jim Dixon said to the 'Belfast Telegraph' in 2009 when he described his injuries that day:

Mr Dixon was an innocent victim, and the people who committed that terrible atrocity were victim makers and can never be described as victims. I do not want to politic about the pain and misery that people have lived in and the death and destruction that was inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, but I take incredibly seriously my responsibility never to let history be rewritten, including by some people in the Chamber.

Those who went out to murder and maim, whether they were loyalists or republicans, were victim makers. The people who were blown up, bereaved, widowed and orphaned were the victims. We will never remove the word "innocent" from the front of the title "innocent victim", and we will never play into a narrative, no matter how persistently it is propagated. The people who committed those terrible atrocities were wrong. I was glad to condemn the terrible attack on Liz Kimmins's office. I find it difficult that, in a democracy today, having heard the words of Jim Dixon, there are people who sit in the Chamber, whose words matter to young people, who cannot simply say, "That was wrong. There was an alternative, and we are deeply shamed about what we did to the people of Northern Ireland".

Mr Durkan: Tá meirg ar mo chuid Gaeilge, ach, mar a deirtear, is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste, agus déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall anois. Is le croí trom a labhraím inniu faoi bhás Mhancháin Magan, scríbhneoir, iriseoir agus fíorurlabhraí ar son na teanga agus ar son an dúlra. Ní hé amháin gur scríobh sé faoin Ghaeilge agus faoin dúlra, is amhlaidh a mhair sé iad. Bhí sé ina ghuth acu sin nach raibh guth acu agus ina sholas acu sin a tháinig roimhe agus a thiocfaidh ina dhiaidh.

Mar a dúirt sé féin:

Is focail iad sin ba chóir dúinn a choinneáil beo inár gcroí agus inár ngníomhartha. Tá Éire níos boichte inniu gan é ach níos saibhre mar gheall ar a rian. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam uasal.

Mr Gaston: Last week, we saw another stage in the ongoing process of the erosion of and, indeed, the attack on one identity in Northern Ireland for the promotion of another. I refer, of course, to the decision by Belfast City Council to impose a radical Irish language policy across our capital city. Once again, those who preach tolerance and equality have found themselves on the same side as Sinn Féin, giving no thought to those they refuse to tolerate and those they deliberately exclude. Having joined hands with republicans in 2012 to tear down the Union flag from City Hall, Sinn Féin's little helpers in the Alliance Party once again aligned themselves with republicans, this time to impose Irish citywide.

Just a week earlier, in the House, Alliance backed an amendment, which was tabled by a convicted IRA bomber, to strip the word "innocent" from a motion about victims. That amendment removed the distinction between the Shankill bomber, who took his own life, and the nine innocent people whom he murdered. A Justice Minister who cannot distinguish between a victim and a victim-maker is a Justice Minister who should be shown the door, yet the TUV's motion of no confidence in Minister Long sits in the Assembly's Business Office, signed only by me. I ask myself, "Why?". To rebuke Mr Clarke: Mr Clarke, it is no stunt; it does exactly what the DUP has failed to do; it puts an action to the DUP's empty rhetoric.

Then, there is the wider issue of the Irish language across Northern Ireland. Even as the issue plays out, the DUP and Sinn Féin are engaged in appointing an Irish Language Commissioner — a person who will enforce the language across the public sector in every corner of Northern Ireland. If reports are correct, Pól Deeds will be appointed. We know from the evidence that he presented to the Executive Office Committee in Stormont that he is a fanatic. He is already on record as saying that even the sweeping legislation does not go far enough.

There is no point in attacking Alliance on victims' issues while maintaining the Alliance leader in office. To the DUP —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston —

Mr Gaston: — you cannot criticise Belfast City Council —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, a pattern is emerging —

Mr Gaston: — while recruiting an Irish language enforcer —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, when the Speaker gets to their feet, you desist from speaking and you resume your seat. Any pattern-setting that has happened today — as I witnessed earlier when I was on the Back-Benches — will not be carried on into this setting. There is a standard and a guideline that Members' statements are on a topical matter — not matters, plural, Mr Gaston. There is an even clearer guideline that there will not be a direct attack on a Member or Members.

Mr McGuigan: Last week, Cycling Ireland sent a team of 20 junior and under-23 riders to France for the European Road Cycling Championships. They all represented themselves and this nation exceptionally well. I put on record special congratulations to Conor Murphy, who won silver in the junior time-trial event; David Gaffney, who won bronze in the junior road-race event; and Edendork's Adam Rafferty, who won bronze in the under-23 time trial. All those results were achieved against the best cyclists in Europe.

The European Championships came a week after the Road World Championships in Rwanda, where the Irish team helped Ben Healy to win bronze — our first medal in cycling at that level since 1989. As a cycling fan, I am well aware of Tadej Pogacar and Remco Evenepoel — two of the greatest athletes, not just cyclists, of this generation — who came first and second respectively, so, for Ben Healy to come third is an exceptional achievement.

All of that has come after a wonderful season for professional Irish cyclists. Seven male and three female riders have excelled at world tour level, representing Ireland at races such as the Giro d'Italia, the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes and the Vuelta a España, as well as the many one-day cycling classics across Italy, France and Belgium. I pay special tribute to Mia Griffin, Fiona Mangan and Lara Gillespie, who, this year, became the first three Irish cyclists to take part in the Tour de France Femmes.

Irish cycling is in a great place. I am old enough to remember the golden generation of Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche, and that is where we are at once again. I not only put on record the achievements of all those Irish cyclists, which they have earned as a result of dedication and hard work — they are doing this nation proud — but acknowledge that those achievements provide a road map to allow others to dream of following suit by representing their nation and to aspire to emulate their heroes at that level one day.

Again, I congratulate all of those who have been representing this nation at World Tour and world professional cycle races across Europe this season.

Mr T Buchanan: It was with sadness last Thursday that I learned of the passing of Mr Jim Dixon, a well-known, highly respected businessman from Enniskillen. At the outset, I tender my deepest sympathies to his wife, Anna, and daughters Suzanne, Sharon and Serena and their respective families. I trust that they will find the needed grace and strength from the God of all comfort in the days to come.

As most will know, Jim was seriously injured in an IRA bomb attack on 8 November 1987 while in attendance at the Poppy Day wreath-laying service at the cenotaph in Enniskillen. Unknown to Jim, he was only 10 feet away from the no-warning explosion that killed 11 people, injured more than 60 and left many others, including women and children, traumatised to this day. Let us not forget that that was an atrocity and that the First Minister stated that there was no alternative to that type of action. I ask the House to reflect on that statement.

Jim was the most seriously injured person to survive the bombing that day and was told by three surgeons that he would not survive due to the extent of his injuries. In 2009, recalling his injuries in the 'Belfast Telegraph', Jim said:

I know that that was said earlier today, but it bore repetition. What horrendous injuries he suffered as an innocent victim of IRA terrorism. Those who carried out that atrocity are not victims, but victim makers. The House needs to be clear on that.

Amid all of his suffering, it was Jim Dixon's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal saviour that gave him strength, wisdom and compassion and bore testimony to great Christian values and fortitude throughout the next 38 years of his life, during which he never had a day without pain or suffering. For Jim, his suffering is over — he is now with his Saviour — but, one day, there will be no hiding place for those who carried out the atrocity. We are reminded in the word of God that:

Ms Sugden: I rise to speak about the Ruby's law campaign. Ruby's law seeks to close a serious gap in our legal system, one that, too often, leaves victims of domestic abuse facing an impossible choice between their own safety and the safety of their pets.

At present, our law treats animals as property. In domestic abuse cases, that means that a pet can be used as a tool of control that can be threatened, harmed or withheld to intimidate a partner to stop them leaving. Those working in the area will tell you that it happens much more often than people realise. Some victims remain in dangerous situations because they fear what will happen to their animals if they leave. Ruby's law would change that. It would allow our courts to include pets in non-molestation and occupation orders, recognising them as part of the household and ensuring their protection when a person seeks safety. It would also create clearer routes for emergency fostering or temporary care when someone has to leave home urgently. It is not just about animal welfare; it is about human welfare and closing another avenue of coercive control. Where animals are at risk, people are often at risk too, and that link has been proven.

In England and Wales, the Ruby's law campaign has already prompted serious consideration of changes to the Family Law Act 1996 to allow courts to protect pets through non-molestation and occupation orders. Westminster has already passed the Pet Abduction Act 2024, which recognises animals as sentient beings, rather than mere property, under theft law. That is a significant step forward in how the law views the bond between people and their animals.

Across the UK, police guidance on coercive control already acknowledges threats or harm to pets as a recognised form of abuse. The Republic of Ireland has begun to examine that connection as well.

Research has shown that over half of women using refuge services reported harm or threats to their pets as part of domestic abuse. In my constituency, Causeway Coast Dog Rescue has been leading the conversation, not just locally but across the UK, by highlighting the realities and calling for legislative change. Its work has given a voice to victims who have stayed silent out of fear of what would happen to their animals if they left without them. Ruby's law is about recognising that link and saying clearly that abuse in whatever form it takes will not be tolerated and that the justice system will respond to the full reality of coercive control.

I urge the Executive, through the Minister of Justice, to bring forward the reform and to engage directly with those who have been campaigning for it. It is a practical and compassionate change that would make a real difference. Northern Ireland should protect the vulnerable in every sense of the word. If we bring in the law, our laws will reflect the realities behind closed doors.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Nick Mathison. You have two minutes.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak today about the problems that schools, pupils and parents faced as a result of the handling by the Education Authority (EA) of school closures arising from Storm Amy. Everyone here will agree that pupil and staff safety on school premises is key, but the timeline for arriving at the school closure announcements on Friday caused unnecessary pressure to come to bear on school leaders and parents. Despite an amber weather warning being in place from 1 October, schools began to receive contact about closures only on the day of the storm, at a point at which kids were already in school, parents were already at work and the school day had started. School leaders simply needed time to manage the closures. I understand that not every weather event affords them that time, but, in this case, we had ample notice, so it is hard to understand why a call was not made the previous day so that schools had time to plan and communicate clearly and effectively, also allowing parents to plan.

The breaking down of the closures by county created confusion. Parents were uncertain whether Belfast was included, and, despite the Met Office's weather warning map not covering all of County Antrim, the EA's closure had a blanket effect. That could have been avoided by earlier and clearer communications. To add to that, some communications on transport and meal provision did not land until the closure time of noon was imminent, with mixed messaging coming from different EA departments. There were further delays in information about transport and meal provision arriving on social media. Again, all of that could have been avoided had early decisions been taken on the previous day in order to allow our schools to prepare.

I could go through a timeline of the pressures that school leaders faced in trying to manage the situation. They were receiving contact on all fronts: from social media, from school apps, from phone calls to the office and from parents at the door. They also had to manage their staff's childcare needs on the day. In short, we have an efficient, timely weather warning system in place. The EA had time to utilise it and give proper notice.

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

Mr Mathison: I hope that lessons are learned for the next time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the time for Members' statements.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will make a statement to the Assembly on my plans to bring forward a new disability and work strategy for Northern Ireland.

Disability influences lives in many unique and personal ways, and the issues that disabled people face can be complex and intersectional. Given that one in four working-age people in Northern Ireland is disabled, few of us are untouched by disability, yet many disabled people and people with health conditions face multiple barriers that can lead to poverty, social exclusion, inequality and disadvantage, among a range of other challenges. Employment can offer a means to help address and overcome many of the challenges faced, yet, despite the representation of disability across society, only 41% of disabled people in Northern Ireland are in work.

That is the worst figure in the UK.

Furthermore, disabled people who are in employment tend to occupy lower-quality jobs, earn less and find it harder to progress in their careers. Put simply, Northern Ireland’s performance in disability employment has not been good enough. I want us to do better. I am, therefore, bringing forward a new disability and work strategy for Northern Ireland. Co-produced by a wide range of partners, including those with lived experience of disability, the strategy sets out a clear commitment to see an additional 50,000 disabled people in the workforce by 2036 and a disability employment rate of 50% and growing. That will ensure that more disabled people and people with health conditions have access to, can sustain, and can thrive in quality employment in an inclusive Northern Ireland labour market.

The work intersects with a range of strategic agendas, such as the Executive's anti-poverty strategy, the skills strategy, the autism and mental health strategies and the review of special educational needs provision. Of course, it also aligns with our forthcoming Executive disability strategy, which I plan to bring forward in the coming weeks.

In co-producing the strategy, we have placed people with lived experience of disability at the centre, involving them at every stage to ensure that we have identified and shaped the change needed to achieve better outcomes. We have a wealth of experience in our voluntary and community sector, which has delivered close support to disabled people for many years. The sector's insight and value cannot be overstated, alongside the contributions of all partners across the disability and work agenda.

We have worked with a diverse group of over 100 stakeholders, including disabled people, community and voluntary organisations, employers and their representative bodies, central and local government, academics and trade unions, each contributing their views, experiences and priorities to help inform and shape the strategy and its actions. That partnership working will continue as we move forward through detailed design, implementation and monitoring of interventions.

The strategy is constructed around four themes. Under a personalised support theme, the strategy recognises that each person has unique circumstances, needs and ambitions when it comes to work. So much good work is already being delivered by many dedicated and expert individuals across our disability and work ecosystem. The theme aims to build on those foundations to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of disabled people, whether through light-touch interventions or through more specialised, long-term and ongoing interventions such as the supported employment model. Our support must work for everyone. We will achieve that by having more and better engagement by our front-line teams; by identifying improvements and ensuring stability in our pre-employment and in-work supports; and by further integrating health and employability provision to create clear employment pathways for disabled people, working closely with the Department of Health.

Under a second theme of inclusive skills, careers and educational transitions, we will ensure that skills provision and careers advice is accessible and tailored, that support is available for those who wish to pursue self-employment and that young people with special educational needs are supported during key educational transition points as they begin their employment journeys. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy and wider partners in the space to ensure a joined-up approach that removes cliff edges and delivers continuous support.

The strategy's third theme focuses on supporting and enabling employers. While employers play a crucial role in the agenda, we need to recognise that they, too, need support to help them to shape our workplace cultures and employment practices and contribute to more disabled people finding, sustaining and flourishing in employment. We will advocate for the benefits of disability employment, help build employer awareness of best practice and make it easier to navigate and benefit from the support available. We want to see workplaces where disabilities and health conditions can be disclosed with confidence and where line managers are supported to respond to the needs of their staff effectively.

The fourth and final theme consists of a range of actions that are deemed to be strategic and structural enablers. The theme enhances partnership working, drives and informs our activity, sets out commitments related to the public sector leading by example and delivers clear reporting and monitoring of progress under the strategy.

For the first time in our history, we are proposing a disability and work council for Northern Ireland, which will have oversight of delivery against our commitments. It will be tasked with coordinating and supporting delivery, engaging with disabled people and employers and co-producing interventions. Its membership will comprise a wide representation of expert partners, and, alongside my Department, it will be jointly chaired by a disabled person. During the lifetime of the strategy, its delivery will be continuously monitored, with annual progress reports and a midpoint review to ensure that we are responsive to any wider influences and opportunities that may arise.

Today, I am launching a 12-week public consultation on the disability and work strategy. The wide-ranging conversation with society provides an opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and highlight any areas that can be strengthened further. As part of the process, we will host a series of roadshow events, and documents will be available in a range of accessible formats to make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute to the consultation.

I will take a moment to stress the need for adequate resources to implement the strategy. Disability employment is not a challenge that my Department can solve in isolation. We have worked closely across the Departments to commit to actions under the strategy, and the Executive have given their endorsement, but, without additional resources to implement actions, we will not see the important changes that we all want to see or the wider positive impacts on economic inactivity, poverty, health and well-being, social inclusion and our economy.

Our forthcoming three-year Budget provides the opportunity to kick-start the momentum. I intend to include the resourcing requirements for the strategy in my departmental bid, and I encourage other action owners to do the same. It is essential that the resourcing bids are met in full, or we risk continuing to see many disabled people excluded from the labour market and deprived of the opportunity to fulfil their career ambitions. The support of my Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly is essential to secure the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full.

I sincerely thank everyone across the disability and work ecosystem who has contributed to the development of the strategy. Your insight, experience and commitment have shaped a vision that is ambitious, inclusive and achievable. To disabled people and those with health conditions across Northern Ireland, I say this: I see your talent, your drive and your aspirations. The strategy is about matching your ambitions with real opportunities and creating the conditions for you to thrive, not just survive, in the workplace. You deserve nothing less.

No single person or organisation owns disability or employment. Real change will come only when we work together as government, employers, the voluntary and community sector and society as a whole, sharing the responsibility and pushing each other to go further. In bringing forward the strategy, I am committing to action. We will build on what works, change what does not and ensure that every disabled person has a fair chance to access, sustain and progress in quality employment. It is not just a strategy; it is a promise: a promise of progress, partnership and possibility. Together, we will deliver change that is felt in workplaces, communities and lives. Let us get it done, and let us make a difference. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: The disability and work strategy is an extremely important piece of work. I hope that the co-design is meaningful and that disabled people and the representative organisations are listened to and heard, unlike many of those involved in the co-design process for the anti-poverty strategy.

Minister, you called this a "promise", but you said that it can be kept only with the support of your Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly to secure the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full. What are the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full?

Mr Lyons: I do not want to jump ahead of the consultation process that will take place. It is the same as with the anti-poverty strategy, which he mentioned: we genuinely want to hear from people about what they want to prioritise and what, they think, should be put in that may not be in there yet.

I give this commitment: I will fund everything that I am able to fund. I have already set aside funding and made bids for some of the actions that I can take. That is why I believe that it will make a difference. Some of it will require investment, but we will get a return on some of that investment as well. Much of it is also about a culture change that we need to see. I will make sure that I put the funding in place, and I call on Executive colleagues to do the same not just because we will get that economic and financial return on it but because of the difference that it will make not just to the lives of disabled people across Northern Ireland but to wider society and to employers, who will have the opportunity to open themselves up to that incredible talent pool which, right now, is not being accessed.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement on this very important work. I really welcome some of the elements of it, particularly the strong co-production and co-design that is woven through it and the Minister's commitment to extensive engagement through the consultation. I also thank the Minister's officials for briefing the Committee on this important work.

One of the things that I am most pleased about is the inclusion of targets. That would have improved the anti-poverty strategy. The target that I will ask about is that of 50,000 additional disabled people in work by 2036. How was that figure arrived at? What modelling or evidence underpins its feasibility?

Mr Lyons: That was a topic of extensive debate during the co-production process with those involved. That figure was landed at because people believe that it is ambitious but achievable. It takes us up to where the rest of the UK is.

I want to remove the disability employment gap entirely and ensure that everybody has the opportunity to thrive in work, but we have to be realistic about what is achievable. It is an ambitious target: for context, an additional 50,000 people in work is the equivalent of everybody in the Civil Service and the entirety of those working in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. That shows how ambitious the target is. It is something that those involved in the process were very supportive of. I highlight to the Member that there will be annual reports and that midpoint review five years in. If that target needs to be changed, it is certainly something that we are happy to look at.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister and Members, as you are aware, Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will resume after the question for urgent oral answer this afternoon, and the next Member to be called will be David Brooks.

Members should take their ease while there is a change at the Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 13 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We are committed to ensuring that they get the redress that they deserve. Payments have been received from the Good Shepherd Sisters, Barnardo’s, the De La Salle order and the Diocese of Down and Connor in respect of the De La Salle-run homes. Engagement with those institutions will continue in order to finalise their contributions. Constructive discussions are ongoing with the Irish Church Missions, the Sisters of Nazareth and the Sisters of St Louis. Details of the amounts received will be published once the process is complete.

Ms Egan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. What learning is your Department taking from the process with regard to securing contributions for support services and redress for those impacted by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that we learn everything that we can from this process and roll that forward. There have been some significant successes in the process across many areas. I would have liked the institutions to have stepped up to make contributions earlier, but we are where we are, and we continue to work with those institutions.

The Member is absolutely right: there is a lot of commonality in the issues of HIA and those of mother-and-baby homes. We are acutely aware not just of the importance of contributions from the institutions in light of their part in the harms that were caused but of the strong message that it sends about an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by those institutions. Such an investment is required to support people with redress and, as you rightly pointed out, for services to meet their needs today. As you will know, the junior Ministers are taking that work forward. They are, I understand, engaged in reaching out not just to the Irish Government to talk to them about their experiences of trying to get contributions but across the UK. We will take that learning and ensure that we maximise the opportunity to get contributions.

Miss Brogan: Is the deputy First Minister able to provide an update on a memorial to victims and survivors?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Yes. I am pleased to say that we are making positive progress on that important issue. We are trying to maximise consensus among victims and survivors. We acknowledge that victims and survivors do not speak with one voice; that is completely understandable. However, we want to move forward with the maximum consensus that we can achieve.

I have previously extended my thanks and do so again to the Speaker's Office for all of the help and support that has been given to us to identify a suitable location for the plaque. We are working with a range of individuals and organisations to ensure that they are content with the draft wording of the plaque. We are making significant progress on that, and we hope to be in a position to place the plaque very shortly.

Mrs Cameron: The deputy First Minister will, I know, agree that there is a moral responsibility and not just a legal responsibility on the institutions to step forward and provide contributions. Does she also agree that voluntary contributions by the institutions would be seen as a sign of good faith?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I record my huge thanks to Pam for her work as a junior Minister. She was involved in a significant number of meetings and engagements and on the detail of these matters. You were key in pushing the process forward and getting it to where it is, and I thank you for that work.

You are absolutely right. Discussions are ongoing with the mother-and-baby homes about how we can legally require institutions to give contributions. I believe that they should. The Member will be aware that, internationally, there are no examples of other places being able to legally require institutions to make a contribution. The moral obligation, however, is at the heart of this. It should not take legislation to force the hands of the institutions. Those institutions should step forward and step up, acknowledge their role in the significant harms that were caused and come forward with those contributions as soon as possible to avoid us having to take action to force them to do so.

Mr Gaston: This issue has been a real frustration for me and, indeed, the Committee. Victims are wondering whose side the person appointed by the Executive Office to carry out the negotiations is on. Are they on the side of protecting the institution, or are they there to get value for money for the state? If money is not forthcoming for redress, will the Executive consider going after assets so that victims get money out of the institutions that caused the problem?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Important issues are at play. At this stage, we have paid out just over £108 million in compensation to well over 5,000 applications received. The scheme is now closed, and only a small number of those applications are left. Those are being assessed, and it is anticipated that the panel will finish that work by November, when the assessment of those remaining applications will be completed. That is the aim.

Discussions with the institutions have been ongoing. There are legal challenges, there is no doubt about that. I assure the Member that we have pushed as hard as we can to make it clear that we believe that the institutions must contribute. We believe that there is an absolute moral responsibility as well as an acknowledgement of fault. There are real legal challenges, however, which is why, internationally, no other state has been able to legislate to compel institutions to make contributions. I asked specifically about assets and was advised that asset transfer can sometimes be a liability for the Government due to contamination or the state of premises. Therefore, we need to be careful, if we are to go down that route, that it provides value and additional resources for victims and survivors.

Of course, all that is underwritten by the state, and that is the challenge. That £108 million is rightly recognising what people went through. That is going out through the state at the moment with a small contribution from the institutions. We continue to pursue that, but it has been a challenging situation legally.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Bunting to answer the question as the very first in her new role as a junior Minister.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): By way of context, the framework is based on four themes with six outcomes, eight guiding principles and 19 priority areas. It sits alongside an initial two-year delivery plan comprising 14 actions, all of which are progressing well.

We are determined to do everything that we can to stop the harm and abuse faced by women and girls, who, we know, are disproportionately affected by violence, abuse and harm. The Member will know that we are two years into a seven-year framework, and a crucial area of work at this stage is prevention. A key area of focus is challenging the harmful attitudes, cultures and behaviours that can escalate and lead to actual violence.

We allocated £3·2 million to the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) change fund. We were delighted to secure an additional £2·2 million that will further advance work in that area because some council work was oversubscribed. Councils are embedding action to end violence against women and girls in their service delivery and are developing signposting and resourcing for local communities. Each is running numerous projects for women and girls, but men and boys are included. In addition, eight community and voluntary sector expert organisations are delivering activity that will strengthen the impact and reach of ending violence against women and girls expertise and programmes to support schools, tertiary education, communities and workplaces.

By way of further information, the Power to Change campaign, jointly launched by TEO, the Department of Justice and the PSNI in January, targets harmful attitudes and behaviours of men and boys and uses the active bystander approach, whereby people are taught how to intervene safely if they see inappropriate or unwanted behaviours.

I presume that my time is up.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for her first answer to the House. I appreciate that is on an issue of great importance and one that she will fully endorse and support.

Given that the framework states that the responsibility for the strategic framework's implementation "lies with everyone", and given that leadership starts at the top, will the junior Minister agree that it should be a standing item on the Executive's agenda so that every Minister can take responsibility for what they need to deliver in the area in order to ensure that the strategy will not be left on a shelf and that we will have more than just words for women who need to be protected by it?

Ms Bunting: I fully appreciate where the Member is coming from, but it is abundantly clear that the Executive take the issue seriously. Although the strategy sits with TEO, it has been agreed by the entire Executive, and there are indeed regular updates. There are also oversight bodies to which other Ministers contribute.

I highlight to the Member the fact that all of government and society working better together is one of the six outcomes of the strategic framework, and that is embedded in the Programme for Government (PFG). We are therefore working collectively with Executive colleagues in a number of key work areas in the delivery plan, which include sectoral groups on safer socialising, the workplace, tertiary education and the healthy relationships forum.

Successful delivery of the strategic framework is clearly reliant on close collaboration with a range of Departments, including Education, Health and Justice, and we remain committed to taking that approach with all Departments. The Department of Health and the Department of Justice jointly lead on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which was published in September 2024 and is aligned with the framework. Officials are represented at a senior level on the governance structures for the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, and DOJ and DOH are represented on the governance structures for the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. That is to ensure alignment and augmentation and also to avoid duplication of effort. I hope that that answer helps the Member.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you give us an update on the Power to Change public awareness campaign?

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for asking that important question. The Power to Change campaign is really important, because it urges men and boys to play their part in effecting a cultural and societal shift. That cannot be done by women and girls alone. It challenges men and boys to check and change unwanted behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls, including those activities that demean and inhibit women. The campaign uses the active bystander approach, as I mentioned earlier, to challenge men and boys to step away from negative attitudes, to challenge their friends and to have the confidence to step in safely and put a stop to behaviour that may escalate or that may put their friends at risk of offending in the future.

The campaign had a wide reach right across Northern Ireland, with targeted messaging on social media, posters, billboards and buses and in pubs and restaurants, as well as on the radio. The campaign toolkit has been delivered to teachers for use in schools right across Northern Ireland, and that is starting a conversation that needs to be had right across society to encourage men and boys to be part of the solution. The next phase of the campaign will be developed with input from young men, and that will help us reach a younger audience in a way that will make sense to them and equip them to make better decisions when they witness challenging behaviour towards women and girls. I highlight the fact that, through the local change fund, a lot of councils are doing great work in that area. There are a lot of projects that engage not just women and girls but boys and men in the areas of understanding and prevention.

Mr Dickson: I warmly welcome the new junior Minister to her role. Junior Minister, I am pleased to hear that Queen's University has been asked to carry out research to identify gaps in legislation, particularly on the attitudes of men and boys to violence against women and girls. Will that research include work with people who are currently held in prison?

Ms Bunting: I will outline some aspects. The research has been commissioned to identify evidence gaps, as the Member outlined, in understanding attitudes and behaviours of men and boys in the subject area. The research will focus on boys and young men aged 16 to 24. The research process is under way and includes engagement with stakeholders, interviews with organisations that work with young men and boys, focus groups and a survey. The research process will be advised by a young people's advisory group and an international expert advisory group.

On prisons, I am aware that work has been undertaken in Hydebank. I understand that it was conducted by White Ribbon NI. During a briefing, I heard that that work was incredibly successful, had a tremendous impact on those young men and made them reconsider their views and actions when it comes to how they behave towards women and girls.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act, matters that are considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial should be referred to the Executive for discussion and agreement. Under the ministerial code, Ministers have a duty to refer to the Executive matters that are considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial. Whether a matter is cross-cutting, significant or controversial is, in the first instance, for Ministers to judge after due consideration and acting in good faith in the context of the matter in question.

Mr Stewart: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Infrastructure Minister's decision to introduce bilingual signage in Grand Central station is not only costly but controversial and cross-cutting? In light of the judge's damning comments last month, have there been any attempts to resolve the matter at the Executive? What would the deputy First Minister like to see being introduced in future to prevent that type of incident from happening again?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is absolutely clear to most people who look at the issue that the way in which the Irish language is displayed in public places, and this proposal in particular, is controversial. It has caused controversy. There are a number of strong views across the piece on the matter. The test that the Minister ought to apply her mind to is whether it is cross-cutting, significant or controversial. In this case, in my view, it is not only significant but particularly controversial and cross-cutting. Those are the two arguments that are currently before the court. The judge made clear his frustration that the matter had not been resolved by politics. I therefore believe strongly that the Minister ought to bring the matter to the Executive for discussion and decision.

Issues around the Irish language brought this place down. They were used as a reason to keep this place down for many years. That is a demonstration of the controversy. Some people have speculated that an Irish Language Commissioner would be supportive and that Irish language signage is therefore not controversial, but of course an Irish Language Commissioner would support Irish language signs everywhere. That is not the test. The test is whether it is controversial across the range of different views, and it clearly is.

We know that the Minister has no vires to take a decision that ought to have been brought to the Executive. In my view, the decision needs to be brought to the Executive, and the Minister should do so.

Ms Ennis: Will the deputy First Minister outline why the ministerial code has not been amended following the passage of the Executive Committee (Functions) Act 2020?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The matter was under consideration, as the Member may be aware, but it was not laid in time while these institutions were in operation. However, the courts have made it clear that the ministerial code is guidance. What matters is the primary legislation. The primary legislation endures, which means that the test remains the same: a Minister must bring for a decision to the Executive any matter that is significant, controversial or cross-cutting. Indeed, the judgements, legal cases and jurisprudence in all such matters also make clear that the Minister has no vires to make a decision that ought to come to the Executive on any of those grounds. Therefore, the Minister cannot make that decision alone, and, in this case, she absolutely should take the matter to the Executive for discussion and decision.

Mr K Buchanan: Given the comments that we have heard in court, and to follow on from John's question, which raised that point, is there any indication that the Minister will bring the matter to the Executive table? That is the place to sort out such things and have everybody in the Executive agree them, rather than take them through the courts.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. When we look back to the origin of that requirement, we find that it arose from the further negotiations in St Andrews. It is now part of the infrastructure and the processes around the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, as amended by the St Andrews Agreement. It is there to stop Ministers having solo runs on significant, controversial or cross-cutting issues. It is a safeguard for the Executive in recognition that they are a multi-party Executive and, therefore, on key issues, must act as one. They must try to build consensus as one. In this case, there is clearly a range of views. Regardless of the substance of the issue, it is incredibly important that we protect the integrity of those processes. We should protect the decisions that ought to be made by the Executive. Importantly, it does not matter whether a particular Minister feels that they will not get the outcome that they want if they bring an issue to the Executive, because that is not the test. The test is whether the issue is cross-cutting, significant or controversial. If it is any one of those three things, it must be brought to the Executive for discussion and decision.

Mr McGlone: Ba mhaith liom fáil amach cá huair a bheas an coimisinéir teanga in oifig.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Patsy, that is not related at all to the question. I will move on.

Questions 4 and 6 have been grouped.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I was delighted to recently meet representatives of the Bank of America, along with junior Minister Bunting, to hear first-hand about its exciting plans to establish an office in Belfast. Those plans will create up to 1,000 new jobs, which is hugely significant, sends a powerful signal about the strength of our professional services sector and represents a real vote of confidence in our local workforce. The investment reflects Bank of America’s continued commitment to the local economy, building on its previous partnership with Belfast Met to support the digital skills and employability programme — an initiative that has empowered individuals from diverse backgrounds to gain valuable qualifications. The latest announcement adds to a growing list of global firms, such as Evri, Sysco, Sensata, Seagate and EY, which are choosing to invest locally, reinforcing our position as a competitive and attractive location for international business.

Mr Brett: Does the deputy First Minister agree that that investment in Northern Ireland shows the strength and importance of having a joint head of Government that turns up, stands up and speaks up for Northern Ireland on the international stage, and will she commit to continuing to represent everyone in Northern Ireland whilst others boycott their duty to the people of Northern Ireland?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. There is no doubt that, if we want Northern Ireland to thrive, we must grow our economy. Growing our economy has two distinct aspects. One is about supporting our local and indigenous businesses, and we must do that. I know that it has been a very challenging business environment for people to trade in. However, importantly, we must attract foreign direct investment. We have been very successful in doing so, particularly from the time of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement. We should build on that. It has had its challenges, and that is why it is particularly important that we absolutely welcome that huge announcement by Bank of America.

As I said, the junior Minister and I met Bank of America last week, and we emphasised our absolute support. It is absolutely important that all Ministers step up, regardless of personal views or political opinions. These are good jobs for people from a great company that has invested in places all over the globe, including in other parts of the UK and Ireland. They are very welcome here. I will continue to do everything that I can to champion our local businesses and to push forward in all sectors where there is the opportunity for growth.

Mr Burrows: The Ulster Unionist Party certainly welcomes the high-quality jobs that will come from that investment. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the investment not only brings high-quality jobs but increases tax revenues, which will help the most disadvantaged in our society, and, therefore, anyone in the Executive should put the public interest before their narrow political interest and welcome and encourage that kind of investment?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. The people who will take up these jobs will be from all parts of Northern Ireland and from all political views in Northern Ireland, and they all have a right to access good jobs. I really welcome the announcement. It is a confident show of the potential in our economy in Northern Ireland, and that is in the context of it being quite globally challenging for a whole range of reasons. Indeed, it was not the first time that I had met Bank of America. We participated in an investment breakfast at the UK global investment conference in London last year, where we had the opportunity to make a pitch about Northern Ireland. We talked about our younger workforce, our highly-qualified workforce and the fact that we had pushed ahead to develop expertise, particularly in back office and professional services. Of course, that first link from Bank of America into Northern Ireland, through the previous ambassador, Jane Hartley, with the collaboration of Belfast Met really helped people who are most in need. It is really good to see that they have taken the next step.

Politics should play a role in encouraging that kind of investment and jobs for everyone, because that is the way that we will be able to make this place thrive and succeed.

Mr Delargy: Does the deputy First Minister agree that regional balance across the North is key when it comes to economic growth and investment?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Of course, if we are to grow the Northern Ireland economy, it is important that all parts of our economy can grow and are given the support and tools to do so. Along with the First Minister, I attended the opening of the digihub in Omagh. It was fantastic to see so many people already taking up those spots. I think that there were almost 20 companies within that digihub, where they are able to have a workplace and to have access to the tools that they require in order to run their businesses from somewhere close to where they live. That is really important.

I attended the Queen's University Belfast AI conference, and one observation that was made at that conference was that the more that we go into the digital space and have companies around that technological and digital advancement, the more that people are able to work from all parts of the world. It does not have to be in those big hubs of, for example, London and Paris. It can be from every town and village throughout. We absolutely want to encourage that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive have made a strong start and continue to work together to progress the key priorities outlined in the Programme for Government. For example, we secured an additional £1·3 billion in funding to support vital public services. Working parents have already saved around £8 million since the launch of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024. The scheme's coverage has increased from 15,000 to approximately 24,000 children, thanks to a £55 million investment in early years and childcare this year. Nearly 59,000 additional outpatient, diagnostic and inpatient procedures have been delivered through the ring-fenced funding of over £200 million for health waiting lists. That puts us well on track to meet the Programme for Government target of 70,000. We delivered not only the strategy to end violence against women and girls but a delivery framework, with actual money going out the door to work with organisations and change people's lives on the ground. We have committed substantial investment to protecting and restoring Lough Neagh. Over last year and this year, more than £20 million has gone into work to tackle the big issues that face Lough Neagh. We have agreed our transformation board, and we have established a delivery unit and an AI and digital unit. We are driving forward transformation, with the first £129 million of the transformation fund already out to reform and transform the public sector.

Those are just some examples of the work that is happening across Departments. While some do not want to acknowledge that work, I am very proud of the start that we have made. However, we are not complacent. We know that there is much more to be done, and that is why we are driving forward delivery in the Executive.

Miss Hargey: Thank you for that comprehensive list. The Programme for Government also outlines the need for an Irish language strategy, including promotion and greater visibility across the public sector. Will the deputy First Minister join me in acknowledging and recognising the vibrancy of the language and in unequivocally condemning any intimidation, threats or criminality in response to the democratic decision that was taken last week by Belfast City Council?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: In our Programme for Government, we focused on nine key priorities. For me, that is about driving forward the big issues that really impact on people's lives: tackling health waiting lists, improving our education system, mending holes in school roofs and trying to ensure that there is economic growth right across Northern Ireland. It is about championing what we are doing here.

I recognise that many people love the Irish language. They want to celebrate and speak the language that they love. I took the opportunity this morning to speak to the Chief Constable about the story in the Sunday papers. Indeed, he confirmed to me that, at this stage, the police are not aware of any allegations or any evidence of that. We will have to see how that develops. It goes without saying — I have said it in the House many times — that any threat, violence, intimidation or breaking of the law is wrong. That is my stance, no matter where it may happen. In this case, an allegation has been made. I have spoken to the Chief Constable. There is no evidence of such activity, but, as I said, we will continue to keep an eye on that situation.

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

Mrs Little-Pengelly: In reality, as I said, we are focused on the issues that really matter to people. I find it frustrating that, when I stand here telling you about the huge amount of work that has to be done to reduce health waiting lists, support people to get the operations that they need, transform the health service, fix the challenges in special educational needs and grow our economy, you constantly want to bring it back to matters of political disagreement on certain issues.

I cannot be clearer about this: all paramilitarism is wrong. It always was, it still is, and it will be in the future. There was never any justification for it. There was always an alternative. I could not be clearer about that.

Mr O'Toole: To be absolutely clear, deputy First Minister, I asked you an entirely legitimate question. Do not lecture me or the Opposition about delivery

—

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: — when your party and others in the Executive have abysmally failed on delivery. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: Please answer my specific question: is continued engagement with the Loyalist Communities Council appropriate in that context? Further to that, will you demonstrate that you agree that delivery on the Irish language is legitimate and appropriate? [Interruption.]

When will an Irish Language Commissioner be appointed and in office?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. There were two supplementaries. The answer will be to the first supplementary. You cannot have another one; that is not what topical questions are for.

Furthermore, any Member who asks a question will be heard: OK? Go ahead.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. That is perfectly legitimate answer to you, if your party criticises others for, allegedly, not focusing on the big issues, yet, week in, week out, you come to the House and try to find political wedge issues to get a headline or a tweet with a social media post that shows

only your question and never the answer. The reality —

Mr McGrath: Distraction. Answer the question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — is this:

you are from a party that engaged with people — [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — who were not on ceasefire.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Your party engaged — [Interruption.]

Mr McGrath: Rubbish. You cannot even answer the question.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member will take her seat.

Mr McGrath: She cannot even answer the question.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You too. She has answered the question.

I call Cheryl Brownlee.

Mr McGrath: Will she answer this one?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Knock it on the head.

I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is timely and reminds us of the serious issues that we face, which do not include only those that I outlined regarding what we need to do about public services. There are serious issues that should be approached in a serious way, and this is one such issue. Like so many, I was appalled to see the scenes that played out in that terrorist attack. The First Minister and I took the opportunity that we were offered of a briefing on it from the UK Government. One of the questions that we asked was what further support could be given to protect our small Jewish community in Northern Ireland.

It should be horrifying to everyone that our small Jewish community would feel such fear and threat, but, undoubtedly, they do. I reached out to the community to send my solidarity in what they are going through. We were advised that the Home Office has a number of schemes, including the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant, which is managed on behalf of the Home Office by the Community Security Trust to protect synagogues, Jewish educational establishments and community organisations. It is a tragedy that such schemes are needed to protect people in that community as they try to go about the core protected right to worship in whichever faith they choose to worship. I will follow up with the Jewish community here to make sure that it maximises its use of the support that is available to it.

In advance of the anniversary of 7 October, which is tomorrow, I send my solidarity to those who are still without their loved ones who are hostages in that region and to call again for the release of all of those hostages without reservation or condition.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Beyond addressing the immediate and serious security concerns, what steps can be taken to promote a greater understanding of and respect for our Jewish community in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: So many issues come into play in that. We often talk about being responsible in what we say and how we say it. That is said an awful lot, yet we see so many examples, particularly in relation to the Jewish community across the UK, not just of carelessness but of deliberate attempts to intimidate and create hostility towards people. Of course, that community should be valued and protected in the UK.

The emergence of social media has been toxic. We see antisemitic and other abuse on social media: not just a handful or hundreds of messages but thousands and thousands of messages daily, spewing hate, intolerance and bigotry.

Everybody has a responsibility, and I would like to think that we could stand in solidarity across the House to condemn clearly antisemitism, wherever it occurs.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: To be brutally honest, once such agreements are made in which people make promises, the challenge is to make sure that they follow through with those promises. For example, a key issue in the Member's constituency that was included in NDNA and other agreements is Craigavon House. I want to see Craigavon House developed. The UK Government gave commitments that they would support that, and that has not happened.

There is a range of outstanding commitments. I raise them continuously with the UK Government directly; indeed, MPs raise them at Westminster. It is important that the UK Government step up and honour those commitments, because to do so is to approach such significant agreements, which often precipitate action, in good faith. To not fulfil what is promised in such agreements is to act in bad faith.

Mr Allen: The deputy First Minister referenced Craigavon House, which is the subject of one of the commitments that I was thinking of. It is a shame that the UK Government have not delivered on that commitment. What engagement is the deputy First Minister having with Executive colleagues to ensure that Craigavon House is restored and protected from further vandalism such as we saw recently?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I reached out to the Somme Association about the recent vandalising of the house. The house still has a number of its original features, and those need to be protected. The house is not in a great state of repair and requires support to bring it back. It is a house with incredible history and heritage. It would be a good centre for tourism, as people want to visit a place in which so many historic events happened, as well as for education, enabling people to better understand its history.

Just last week, we celebrated Ulster Day — 113 years since the signing of the Ulster covenant. When I post about such things, I am always shocked at responses from people in Northern Ireland, albeit they have the confidence to respond, that clearly demonstrate that they do not understand what that was all about or about the history and heritage of this place. A lot of bigotry and intolerance can be caused by a simplistic, one-dimensional approach to our past and to who people are.

There is huge potential in Craigavon House. I want the UK Government to step up and support it. Departments can play a role as well. I have spoken to my colleague in the Communities Department to see what opportunities may exist to push it forward, with support from the UK Government and the NIO.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. As she is aware, we take a life-cycle approach to all public services and, indeed, to most of our key priorities. There will be some that are less relevant than others, but I would argue that even the like of affordable childcare has a big impact on our older population, because many of those people are stepping in to provide unpaid childcare in much greater numbers than ever before. It is an incredible thing that they do. It is also a demonstration of the active lives that people can now have into much later life.

The Member is absolutely right: it is important that we continue not only to monitor the situation but to project forward our needs. We know that there will be needs in Health and Social Care (HSC) owing to the types of illnesses that people are facing, not least Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Local councils are taking an age-friendly approach. I had the opportunity in Lagan Valley to attend Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council's age-friendly event with so many organisations that work with our older people across the constituency. Lagan Valley is a good example of a constituency that has an ageing population with needs.

That approach has to be mainstreamed into everything that we do. We need to ensure that we take that fully into account in all our equality impact assessment (EQIA) screening — as you know, we have recently appointed our new Commissioner for Older People — and in the reporting on and monitoring of our Programme for Government.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Minister's agreement on how important that is for moving forward. We need a tangible plan, however, and we need to recognise that. I think that it was Chris Whitty who said that we need to design our public services to reflect the population that we serve. How are the Executive doing that in particular so that we do not find ourselves in a much worse situation than we are in now?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I said, that approach is mainstreamed into Departments' policy development. One of our initiatives is to push forward better data analytics, particularly through the work that our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) is driving. One thing that we have identified that could help policymaking is for us to have a better understanding of the data behind everything and, importantly, to ensure that it is linked to what we do. There is no point in having all those fantastic datasets if we are not putting the data into practice. We are therefore pushing forward with a range of strategies, including a data strategy. That presents a really good opportunity to ensure that the analytics are taken fully into account in policy development and, importantly, in service delivery.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Often, as in this case, there are questions to be answered. It is important that, when we approach all the issues, we find the best way in which to get answers. From a personal and party perspective, I do not support holding an unlimited number of public inquiries. They are not necessarily the best way to get outcomes. They tend to be costly and bureaucratic and to take an awfully long time. We should always look pragmatically at what is the best intervention for getting to the truth of the matter, to get to the answers and to reach the desired outcomes. At the moment, the matter is being considered by a range of people. Hopefully, there will be some conclusions provided shortly.

Mr Chambers: Does the deputy First Minister then agree with me that the call for any public inquiry does not always meet the test of whether it is in the public interest to go down that road, given the cost to the public purse, among other considerations?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to take all matters into consideration. As I have said, I am a great believer in a range of options being available; indeed, if the legislation is not there to provide for those options, we should consider introducing it. At the moment, we have the Inquiries Act 2005, and public inquiries can be activated under that Act. As we have seen with the historical institutional abuse inquiry and the inquiry into mother-and-baby homes, however, it was felt that the Inquiries Act was not fit for purpose for either, and we therefore we had to enact a tailored legislative option to take more fully into account what we wanted to do. There is a range of options: it does not have to be one massive public inquiry or nothing. That needs to be looked at actively across the system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Executive Office.

Mr McMurray: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not take a point of order during Question Time, Andrew. I will take it afterwards, if that is OK.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): As Members are aware, I issued a ministerial direction to implement the pay recommendations for 2025-26. That has been referred to the Executive for consideration and decision. The decision has not yet come. I have raised the issue at several meetings. Two weeks ago, I stood in the Chamber and was quite optimistic. I am not just as convinced today, but let me be clear: if we do not act soon, there will be strike action. I understand that the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has a key meeting this Thursday that will, I anticipate, rubber-stamp strike action.

Mr McGrath: It is obvious that we are dithering in delivering the payment that was promised to nurses. The frustration among nurses is absolutely palpable, to the point that they are going to strike because they cannot get the money that is owed to them. That will have a detrimental impact on our health service. The Minister says that it is the responsibility —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr McGrath: — of the Executive; the Executive say that is the responsibility of the Health Minister and the Finance Minister; and nobody is paying our nurses. For openness and transparency, when will see the payment for our nurses?

Mr Nesbitt: I hope that the Member recognises that I cannot answer that question, because my permanent secretary has made it clear to me that we do not have the funds available, hence the ministerial direction. I have to say that I disagree with the term "dithering". Every Minister and every Department is struggling badly with their budget allocation, and that has an impact on service delivery across the board. However, on the list of our priorities, paying our nurses, doctors and other Health and Social Care (HSC) workers must surely be the number-one priority.

Mr McGuigan: I echo the Minister's comment that it must be a priority that our healthcare workers get their pay. Further to the issue of nurses and doctors, Minister, in January, you stated that you would ensure that social care workers received a real living wage, and I think that the deadline for that was September. When will social care workers, who have had to wait for a long time to see that commitment, see their pay?

Mr Nesbitt: That is a valid question from the Chair of the Health Committee. I did, indeed, commit to providing the real living wage for social workers from September, so we are through that deadline. Unfortunately, that has become part of the mix in how we address what is a £600 million funding gap for the Department of Health. I understand the real living wage to be a commitment at Executive level, and I have discussed at Executive level whether my colleagues want to prioritise honouring the real living wage commitment or, perhaps, to delay the real living wage for social workers until the start of the next financial year. That would put some £25 million towards that £600 million shortfall.

Mr Donnelly: There is real frustration among healthcare workers, who are left out of pocket again. Will the Minister commit to prioritising pay awards in his budget for 2026-27 to avoid the repeated delays in healthcare workers receiving their money?

Mr Nesbitt: I am open to doing that as we move into a multi-year, presumably three-year, Budget. We will certainly run that as an exercise, and we will have to make a best guess at what the pay bodies will recommend, because the Budget will come ahead of next year's pay award recommendations. We will then have to see what services will be included and what impact that will have on health and social care delivery. I am positively minded to what the Member suggests.

Mr Carroll: Minister, it is concerning to hear that you are not optimistic about resolving the pay demands. Can you detail why that happens, seemingly, every year and why parity is not automatically accounted for in each year's budget?

Mr Nesbitt: To be clear to Mr Carroll, I am less optimistic than I was a couple of weeks ago, but I still think that the situation will be resolved. Even if it leads to strike action — I pray to God that it does not — at some point, the pay issue will have to be resolved. If we allow it to go to strike action, it will have an impact on service delivery, on waiting lists and on staff morale. The bottom line is that, when it is resolved, it will cost more than it would cost to sort it out today.

Why does it happen year-on-year? Despite the fact that there is £8·4 billion in the budget, it is not sufficient, and we need to reform how we deliver health and social care so that we can be more efficient, which will make those pay awards more affordable.

Mr Nesbitt: In the mid-Ulster area, mental health services are provided by the Northern and Southern Trusts, as well as community and voluntary groups. Both trusts provide community mental health teams and teams that look after the mental health of older people. In the Mid-Ulster Hospital site, patients can access crisis resolution or home treatment services, community addiction services, perinatal mental health services, psychological therapy services and, where appropriate, the Regional Trauma Network. A recovery coach with lived experience offers one-to-one sessions, and an opiate substitute treatment clinic operates once a month in Cookstown. The Recovery College and Bereaved by Suicide services are also available locally, while a child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) team is based in Magherafelt to care for our younger population.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Several people in Mid Ulster followed advertisements on television — that is the right thing to do — and reached out but did not get the help that they needed: help came too late. Further to the answer that you gave me, have there been any improvements in the past number of months, or is that is what is there? Have there been any improvements in the service? I ask because, when they reached out, the help was not there.

Mr Nesbitt: I believe that I have given the Member quite a long list of services that are available in that area. The people in the workforce who deliver those services are extremely committed and dedicated. However, as with most if not all of Health and Social Care, demand currently outstrips capacity. I do not see that ending any time soon. The focus also has to be on demand, and the Department will, before the calendar year is out, look at ways in which we ask the public to look at the demands that they are putting on the Health and Social Care service.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you rightly outlined a significant list of services being provided. I am sure that the Member opposite will agree that it is getting access to those services in time that is the issue. That is not to query the people who deliver those services; they are very good at what they do. Can the Minister confirm whether the10-year mental health strategy is being properly funded, or are Mid Ulster communities being let down by underinvestment?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. The mental health strategy was published alongside a 10-year funding plan. That plan outlined that, over 10 years, £1·2 billion was needed to implement it in full, so the direct answer to the direct question, "Is it being funded in full?", is "No".

Ms Mulholland: Something that would greatly improve the services in Mid Ulster and across the Northern Trust area is the construction of Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health in the Northern Trust. Can the Minister give us an update on the funding position for that or the timeline for that mental health provision in the Northern Trust?

Mr Nesbitt: I have been to Holywell Hospital and looked at the plans. There is a mock ward that you can walk around and view. A world-class facility is being planned. Can we afford to fund it? I do not know the answer to that, because we have yet to see the capital budget's release from the Department of Finance. When we do, we will have a better idea, but I have to manage expectations and say to the Member that it is a very costly project. To do it on the timeline that currently exists is doubtful. I anticipate that there could well be a delay of, perhaps, a year, maybe even more, so I want to manage the expectations. However, the current facility is not really fit for purpose; it is way past its use-by date. That is one of the many challenges that we face with our capital build.

Ms Sugden: To go further than what you have said, Minister, I understand that the plans for Birch Hill have been paused, with no date for them to start. How, then, are you increasing capacity in other units, such as the Ross Thomson Unit in Coleraine, given the shortage and the wait lists that exist in those units?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that thought is being given to alternative arrangements in the event that Birch Hill does not go ahead as planned. I was at a meeting in that regard as recently as late this morning. However, I will not go into detail at this stage, because I do not want to raise false expectations.

Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased to say that the Department is steadily increasing investment. First, there were 15 additional places at the Open University in 2019, and, in 2021, 10 more were added, bringing the total to 285 per year. Since then, I have secured additional investment to further increase social work training places. In September, we commissioned 163 places at Ulster University, 127 at Queen's and 54 at the Open University. That is a very significant total of 344 — the largest number commissioned to date. That is from a baseline of 260 in 2019.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Connie Egan for a supplementary — sorry, Robbie for a supplementary.

Mr Butler: Connie is one of my favourites too, but we will keep that between us.

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will know that social work is close to my heart, particularly in and around children's services and looked-after children. The Minister has given us good news about the training places, but those training places need to be transformed into paid work opportunities. Have the Department and the Minister any updates regarding employment opportunities for those trainees?

Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased to say that we have. We have been successful in recruiting newly qualified social workers into trust vacancies, particularly in the past three years. My Department continues to work closely with senior managers in the trusts, and we are developing a recruitment process for social workers that is both quick and efficient. It has resulted in almost 700 newly qualified social workers taking up post in trust services since June 2023. That is an unprecedented number. We hope to repeat the mass recruitment of newly qualified workers in the coming years in order to bring some relief to workforce pressures.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Definitely Connie Egan for a supplementary.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Minister, do you agree that the reason why there are so many vacancies in social work is that many social workers feel that there is a bureaucratic overburdening on them? What is your Department doing to ensure that they can have more face-to-face time with their clients?

Mr Nesbitt: One of the other issues is the real living wage. I am keen to secure that for social work. I will make a general point to the Member on bureaucracy. Health and social care can be a complex area to work in, but I am very much of the opinion — I have stated this almost from the get-go — that we have overcomplicated how we deliver health and social care. Therefore, any moves that we could take to remove democracy — bureaucracy, rather, and make it simpler to deliver would be welcome.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perish the thought that we would remove democracy, Minister. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: That is my secret.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know.

Mr Nesbitt: My secret is out, obviously.

As is the case across other areas, the Western Trust continues to experience significant demand for autism assessments. I am afraid that the latest figures show that just over 3,000 people are awaiting assessment. That includes 2,517 children. The trust currently completes around 420 child and 50 to 60 adult assessments each year. Therefore there is a huge mismatch between demand and capacity, and, of course, the result is growing waiting times, with some people now waiting for over three and a half years for assessment. I fully recognise the impact that delayed diagnosis can have on individuals and on families, and I am committed to trying to reduce those waiting times.

Miss Brogan: I thank the Minister for his answer, but to hear that 3,000 people are waiting for an autism assessment is really stark, and it puts such stress on lots of families. Will the Minister give an indication of how autism assessment waiting lists in the Western Trust compare with those in the other trusts in the North? Will he outline what he is doing to ensure that children and adults in West Tyrone and the Western Trust are treated fairly?

Mr Nesbitt: The Western Trust undertook a waiting list initiative last year. That delivered 20 additional assessments for individuals who were approaching 18 years of age. It plans to use identified non-recurrent investment this year. That should help deliver a further 13 assessments across children and adults. Its autism services for children and young people and adults maintain highly efficient processes for organising clinics and appointments. All assessments follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria, and vacant posts are filled as quickly as possible.

I hope that that provides some assurance to the Member that her trust is doing what it can in that area.

Mr Robinson: Minister, what is your advice to all those families who will potentially wait years for such an assessment in the Western Trust?

Mr Nesbitt: I say to them that, while the waiting lists are not what they should be, the services are of a very high quality. Some people say to me that Health and Social Care is broken; I do not agree with that. However, I accept that some of the pathways and access into Health and Social Care are very badly damaged. I assure them that autism is on my radar. It is in my family community, if I may put it that way, so it is not as though I am unaware of it or uncommitted to trying to do what we can to tackle the waiting lists, which are quite shocking.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, in the US, there have been trials of an autism medication called — I do not know whether I am pronouncing this right — leucovorin, which has been proven to have a very positive impact on children, particularly non-verbal children. Has there been any exploration of that medication by your Department?

Mr Nesbitt: I am unaware of that medication. I will certainly take that question away and ask the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer and other senior colleagues. We will get back to the Member.

Mr Nesbitt: Members will be aware that perinatal and paediatric pathology services are provided through a service-level agreement with Alder Hey Children's Hospital Foundation Trust in Liverpool. That has been the case since January 2019. I accept that it is not the preferred service model, but I assure the House that it is delivering in a timely, sensitive and appropriate manner.

My Department commissioned an evaluation of the service that was completed earlier this year by Queen's University Belfast. The work was supported by my Department and the Public Health Agency (PHA), as well as by stakeholder representatives, including Sands and Cruse Bereavement Support. The report contains 21 recommendations that are aimed at improving the service and care, including enhancements to reporting, communication, clinical education and follow-up for parents. I have accepted the 21 recommendations, and those are being actioned.

Mr Beattie: First, I welcome the fact that the Minister and his Department have accepted the 21 recommendations in full. Does the Minister have further information on potentially offering families access to approaches that are less invasive than a post-mortem?

Mr Nesbitt: I am very keen that we explore that area, because there have been developments that could be of great benefit to families who go through such a traumatic time. They involve using imaging and other approaches, rather than a full post-mortem examination. I should stress that the approaches are relatively new and are used in a small number of specialist centres, but I am keen to understand the feasibility of adopting those in Northern Ireland if they can mitigate the need for remains to be transported to Alder Hey. I have asked a task and finish group to consider the feasibility of non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques. I will provide further advice as it emerges.

Miss McAllister: Minister, this is a very difficult and sensitive subject. I do not know whether you are aware that some of our hospitals do not even have a dedicated space for doctors and nurses to tell families that their little one has died or the way in which they passed away, or for families to be with their young in very limited circumstances. It may be a small number, but it is very important.

Minister, will you commit to looking at that issue and the capacity in our health estate in order to ensure that parents have the space to grieve and that doctors and nurses feel empowered to give them the information and support that they need?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member that it is an incredibly sensitive and, potentially, traumatic moment for families, and they certainly should have a dedicated space where their privacy and dignity are respected. I have visited some of those areas in some of our hospitals. I know that I have responded to questions for written answer on the facilities that are available across Northern Ireland. If the Member knows of specific hospitals or health facilities where that does not happen, I encourage her to write to me, and I can use that. However, I will separately task officials with a full review across Northern Ireland.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department is very aware of the challenges facing the South Eastern Trust in providing ear, nose and throat services. The trust has had difficulty recruiting consultants in recent years, and, in July 2025, there were three vacancies. To address that, my officials have been working closely with the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust to develop a greater Belfast ENT service.

I am pleased to advise that that collaboration has recently secured the recruitment of four new consultants. In time, they will provide significant additional capacity in the wider Belfast Trust and South Eastern Trust catchment area.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I could have saved you from getting up to give me that answer because I received it in writing at 2.48 pm. What support can you provide to children who have been waiting to see an ear, nose and throat specialist for 180 weeks, given that they are heading into school with deafness, and their development and communication skills are falling way behind?

Mr Nesbitt: I accept that the waiting times for services and treatment are extremely frustrating for patients and their families. I assure the Member that my officials and I have been working to address paediatric waiting lists and to modernise and standardise practices and pathways right across Northern Ireland.

The Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust have validation exercises under way. Those lists are being amalgamated. As well as validating lists, the exercise involves consultants clinically e-triaging referrals. That is to determine whether the referral requires the patient to see a consultant in outpatients or whether they could go directly to surgery, diagnostics, audiology or to another professional, or, indeed, whether they should be returned to primary care, where they might be managed by primary care with advice.

It means that only patients who need to see an ENT consultant will remain on the waiting list. It is a standardisation of clinical pathways. It is being implemented by the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust but will be rolled out right across Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are doing what we can.

Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge that that is key, and I do so with pay on the agenda, which is clearly the headline in the court of public opinion. Everybody should have a reasonable expectation of career progression during their time, and the evidence very much suggests that that is not the case for band 5 nurses.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that you will agree that workforce retention is at the heart of safe care. Do you accept that the ongoing delay in the winter preparedness plan will have an impact on staff retention levels? Can you commit to when that plan will be published, given that it was promised in August, then September, and we are now well into October?

Mr Nesbitt: I share the Member's frustration with the delay in the winter preparedness plan's being published. The fact of the matter is that I saw a draft, and I wanted some work completed on that. I am very optimistic that it will be published this month, that is, October. I am not sure whether I agree with the Member that the delay is having an impact on staff morale. We are way ahead of where we were last year, but are we in the right position?

To manage expectations, we are not simply looking at making everything right this winter. That is an overly ambitious position to take. Some proposals that have come out of the big discussions that took place this year may not see the fruits returned this winter, but it is important that we look at short-, medium- and long-term actions that can be taken to relieve those additional winter pressures.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call David Honeyford, I remind Members that their supplementary questions need to be related to their primary questions. They cannot be completely different.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to see an expansion of the number of specialist nurses and advanced nurse practitioners, because that will improve patient care. It will reduce the waiting lists for assessment and treatment. I have visited primary care surgeries at which advanced nurse practitioners are making a magnificently positive impact.

Additional funding has been identified through the elective care framework implementation and funding plan to help increase the numbers of specialist nurses, particularly in the areas of cancer and urology. Other specialist nursing areas, including advanced nurse practitioners, will be considered, but that is subject to the consideration and approval of fully costed business cases.

Mr Honeyford: I want to see Santa come at Christmas, but it may not happen. Minister, your party has been in control of the Department for many years. When will we see delivery and waiting lists driven down?

Mr Nesbitt: We have increased numbers of specialist nurses. The Member is making a party political point.

Mr Nesbitt: In the past 12 months, 2,142 patients have been removed from the vascular varicose vein outpatient waiting list owing to a change of criteria, with 976 patients remaining on it. I recognise the disappointment of the patients who were removed from the waiting list. The fact that many patients had been on it for a number of years, however, is evidence in itself of the pressures and demands on the service. Similar to other services, waiting times for vascular surgery are lengthy and, sadly, growing. In 2022, the Department of Health updated the effective use of resources policy, following a review of the evidence-based commissioning position across a broad range of procedures and treatments. Subsequently, certain procedures are commissioned in Northern Ireland only for patients who meet the criteria.

Mrs Guy: Minister, it is very concerning that some 2,000 patients have been removed from the waiting list owing to a change of criteria. I can evidence that using the experience of one of my constituents, who has painful varicose veins. She was on a waiting list for four years and was removed owing to the criteria change. She was then re-referred by her GP but was again declined for a place on the waiting list. Can the Minister give an assurance that changing the criteria is not a tactic to reduce waiting lists while not treating patients?

Mr Nesbitt: I can assure the Member that the clinical guidance — CG168 — from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as the views of a range of stakeholders, clinical and non-clinical, informed the effective use of resources policy for the treatment of varicose veins. NICE interventional procedures guidance was also considered. Further to the direction outlined in 2022, owing to pressures, a decision was taken in 2023 that assessment and treatment could be provided only to patients with severe varicose veins.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Linda Dillon is not in her place.

Mr Nesbitt: A costed model is being completed that estimates that just over £5 million of recurrent funding is required in order to deliver a 24/7 service. That funding could deliver up to 160 additional procedures every year and increase capacity in other areas, such as stroke and interventional neuroradiology. My officials are developing a strategic outline case to refine the estimate further. It is important to note, however, the current financial challenges that my Department faces. Following the approval of the final Budget for this year, my Department was left with a funding gap of over £600 million. In that context, and although I remain committed to introducing a 24/7 thrombectomy service, I am currently unable to allocate the required additional funding.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his recognition that it is a real issue. It is a concern in my constituency, where there are over 2,000 stroke survivors. Given that a thrombectomy is most effective within six hours of a stroke, can the Minister outline how he will address the inequality in treatment for those unfortunate enough to have a stroke outside of current treatment hours? Furthermore, how will he tackle the regional variation?

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

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The hyperacute stroke project board is currently leading on the process to identify the optimal configuration for any future hyperacute stroke services in Northern Ireland.

We have worked with the University of Exeter on that. Given the current financial pressures, we have to take a forward-looking and strategic view of how we deliver those services in the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions to the Minister of Health.

Mr Nesbitt: Some weeks ago, a number of options were put to me for how we fix the water issues at the maternity hospital. I was not content to simply accept the advice that I was given, so I asked the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to commission an independent review of that advice. That has now completed. The independent reviewer concurred with the option that the trust had come forward with. That is now in the design phase. The trust is commissioning the design for the remediation work, which will include a separate water system for the neonatal unit, where the most vulnerable babies will be, so it is incredibly important that we get that right. That is the chief reason why it will take so long to complete. I have asked officials to look at a phased opening and to explore whether there are services that could be started in the new hospital before it is fully open. I have not had a definitive answer to that. Certain services have been ruled out, but some are still in play. I discussed that as recently as lunchtime today with the key officials. I remain optimistic that we will see some services rolled out on a phased basis.

Mr McGrath: Minister, in light of the recommendations from the Belfast Trust, you said that its reputation was in the gutter, and you requested that a further review take place. That further review concluded that the Belfast Trust's recommendations were sound and that its governance is acceptable. Who got it wrong: you or the trust? Did we need the delay that has been caused by the additional review, not to mention the additional cost, given that it changed nothing?

Mr Nesbitt: For clarity, I do not think that any review that I have commissioned has caused a day's or even a minute's delay in the process. Even when I said that I wanted an independent assessment of the trust's preferred option, the trust was given permission to go ahead and plan the design phase as if the option were going to be confirmed. It now has been confirmed. The trust has been working on that.

Another report, which is looking at the timeline, is not complete. I put a lot of store by that. I am hopeful that that will answer the Member's question about where any finger of blame should be pointed. I asked officials today to ascertain when that report will be complete. As the Member may know, there have been some difficulties with compiling all the information and evidence.

I talked about a phased opening of the maternity hospital. In order to manage expectations. I will clarify that, if there is to be a phased opening, it will be for ambulatory services only.

Mr Nesbitt: That is quite a technical medical request. I am not sure that I am equipped to answer it, so I commit to the Member that I will take it away. Perhaps, in her supplementary, she will be as specific as possible about the information that she seeks.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister. I am concerned that Target Ovarian Cancer has found that 50% of women in Northern Ireland think that their cervical smear test will detect ovarian cancer. Will he commit to meeting me and Target Ovarian Cancer to discuss that further, as well as other action that we can take in order to improve outcomes for women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer?

Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly make that commitment, yes.

Mr Nesbitt: It was essential to secure the indefinite ban on the supply and sale of puberty blockers to under-18s. That ban was based on expert advice, which very clearly cited the insufficient evidence of the safety and effectiveness of those puberty blockers. I would be concerned by any efforts to bypass that ban by using alternative medical drugs, especially those that are based on very little medical foundation. One of the reasons for my going for a gender service is that, when I spoke to the families of young people who were on or wanted to be on puberty blockers, they told me that, because the service does not exist except in name, we were effectively forcing them to seek out international providers. There is absolutely no safety regime that we can put in place in order to guarantee the safety of those medications.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. GenderGP, which is based in Singapore, is promoting alternatives to puberty blockers online that may well be harmful to very vulnerable individuals without a GP's prescription. Is there anything that the Department of Health can do in collaboration with others in order to address that?

Mr Nesbitt: That is the exact point that I was trying to hint at in my first answer. I am not sure whether that organisation, the Singapore-based GenderGP, is the same as the one that I had in mind, but, as I was working my head around the puberty blocker ban, I was made aware that there was one prescriber who, I believe, was a native Spaniard but was based in Romania and was prescribing through Singapore. How on earth do you exercise any quality control or safety over that?

As with all medications, it is particularly important to take great care when buying medication online. Many websites that sell medicines online are based overseas and are not regulated by the UK authorities. Obtaining prescription medications from unauthorised sources will significantly increase the risk of getting substandard and fake medicines.

To answer the Member directly, I say that my Department's medicines regulatory group works with partners across government and policing in order to combat the unlawful trade in medicines. The medicines regulatory group monitors online channels for evidence of illegal activity. It takes proportionate enforcement action, and I will ask that the content of GenderGP is reviewed with immediate effect.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that the BMA General Practitioners Committee is in dispute with my Department over contract arrangements for the current financial year. On that basis, I would wish to try to encourage that committee to come back and start talking about next year's contract and about my desire to introduce a neighbourhood model that will facilitate the shift left that I talk about, which will put care as close to people's front doors as possible. I do not want to say anything prescriptive today that might discourage the GPs from re-engaging.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his understandable response. I look forward to seeing his plans being progressed. I noted the BMA's concern about the risk of patients facing harm or serious issues being missed. Does he agree that there can be few systems worse than the current system, whereby we have an 8.00 am lottery, with patients having to ring 700 or 800 times?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of the 700 to 800 figure, but access is not what it should be. As a matter of principle, online has an important part to play going forward. I was in Sheffield and London looking at examples of the neighbourhood model, and there is no doubt that online triage is a thing. It seems to work well in the GP practices and primary care networks that we looked at, and I see that being part of the future. As a matter of principle, it would be fantastic if people were able to go online and book an appointment for the next day, or the next week if it was a non-urgent case.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Trevor Clarke is not in his seat.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware of Encompass, which is a new electronic patient record. It is now rolled out across all five geographic trusts, from Northern to Southern, Western to South Eastern and Belfast. The potential for public health initiatives from trapping that data is immense. As for a working practice for an individual, you might not notice much at the moment, but some of the doctors, clinicians and consultants who I meet weekly have said that they had been working in healthcare delivery in the health and social care system for two or three decades and that this was the best thing that had ever happened. Yes, it is extremely expensive, but it is not only the future, it the present. As people get more and more used to it and the functionality within it, it will switch from being simply an electronic patient record for an individual patient to a magnificent tool for delivering public health initiatives at scale.

Mr Honeyford: It is £2·5 billion. Can you give me a concrete example of where that IT system allows you to realign resources and take away back-office stuff and put more doctors, nurses, consultants and front-line staff in to address waiting lists and the needs of our constituents?

Mr Nesbitt: It is an electronic patient record system. It is doing away with paperwork. That frees up efficiencies. It is not designed for what you have just said that you want to see.

Mr Nesbitt: On the last point, I assure the Member that an early alert system is in place, and not just for the Belfast Trust. I have put it into the intervention framework at level 5, which is the highest level. I have sent in two experts — one clinical and one an expert in organisational culture. I have just received their interim report, and I hope to have a verbal briefing on that tomorrow. Jennifer Welsh took up post as chief executive on 1 October, and we are in the process of beginning to advertise for a new chair of the Belfast Trust. I think that that combination of measures and interventions by me and the Department will yield fruit, and part of that fruit will be an increase in public confidence in what is delivered by the Belfast Trust.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer and the intervention that he and his Department have made.

Minister, I recently corresponded with you on behalf of a constituent regarding transport issues within the trust, and there does appear to be an issue that has not been rectified. Will the Minister commit himself to meeting me and my constituent, and indeed with the Belfast Trust, to better understand those concerns, even though it is not directly within his remit?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have 10 seconds.

Mr Nesbitt: In that case, Principal Deputy Speaker, I suppose that the answer has to be yes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends topical questions.

Andrew has a point of order.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for my premature point of order earlier. This is under Standing Order 65(1)(a). I have no skin in the game during Executive Office Question Time, but there were times when, because of chuntering in the House, I could not hear the deputy First Minister or the leader of the Opposition. Is there a ruling on that? Is there guidance on that? When political discourse is really coming to the forefront day to day, it is unbecoming.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There is guidance on it, and we are all expected to behave ourselves. The majority of Members do, but, as you have seen, some Members disrespect their colleagues across the Benches and their colleagues cannot be heard. It is disrespectful to them, but it is also disrespectful to the people who are watching and listening in. Thank you.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for missing my question.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No bother, Trevor. It happens to the best of us.

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

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The deployment of additional officers to other regions of the United Kingdom requested under mutual aid arrangements is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It is in the best interests of the public generally that all police forces across the UK can call on support to help maintain safety and public order.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I am bit disappointed but not surprised by that answer. Were you or your officials made aware of the PSNI's decision to deploy officers to London? How many were deployed? Do you think that it speaks volumes about whom the PSNI views as threats in society when we have paramilitaries threatening to burn city council vans, a violence against women epidemic and racist violence on the rise, yet the people who are targeted and arrested by the PSNI are peaceful protesters in London?

Mrs Long: First of all, I would be surprised if the Member was surprised at me stating the fact that the police are operationally independent of me and my Department. That begs this question: why did the Member ask the question in the House at all? It is clear from previous Speaker rulings that I am not answerable for the operational decisions of the PSNI. I and my officials were was not consulted because it is solely an operational decision.

The Member commented on the policing of threats from paramilitary organisations. The Member will be well aware of my view of such threats. There should be no paramilitary threats, no paramilitary intimidation and no attacks on either politicians or public servants who are working for the council. There is no excuse for that happening. I look forward to the police being able to resolve who made those threats and deal with the matter appropriately, but they will do so independent of my direction.

Mr Kelly: While I understand that the PSNI also requires mutual aid to come here on occasion, the sight of the PSNI being used to arrest peaceful protesters in London at the weekend has given rise to deep concern. That is especially so given that senior members of the Conservative and Labour parties are talking of increasing draconian measures against protesters in Britain and possibly here. I understand what the Minister said, but can she give her view on any further proposed legislation to attack the right to peaceful protest, especially by rolling back human rights safeguards, which was discussed by both parties in the media over the weekend?

Mrs Long: The right to peaceful protest is an intrinsic part of living in an open and free society, and it is important that people are free to engage in such demonstrations. It is, however, a qualified right, as are all such rights, and it is one that requires a balance in its impact on competing rights that are being exercised in the same space at the same time.

It is not for me to opine whether the Met Police did their job correctly. Most people, even those who mock the fact that the police are operationally independent of me as Justice Minister, accept that directing the Met is well outside my remit. However, it is a matter for the Met, and, when PSNI officers are deployed under mutual aid, they act at the direction of their commanding officers in the force to which they are deployed. It is not a matter for us.

With respect to rolling back on protests, parades and other gatherings in Northern Ireland, we have no plans in the Department of Justice to do that.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to tell us today about her role in operational policing. That has been useful. Is she concerned, like some of us on these and other Benches, that Members are insinuating that it is unfair for the police to police parades that support proscribed organisations?

Mrs Long: At the end of the day, it is not for me to decide what the police do and how they do it; it is for the Chief Constable to decide that. They are proscribed organisations, and that is the rationale for the arrests that took place. Again, it is not for me to defend the policy, because it was not made here. It was made in Westminster. It is a reserved matter, so I will not opine on it. However, it remains the law across the whole jurisdiction, whether in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the UK. When it comes to policing, as I said, officers act at the direction of their commanding officers on the day, and that would be the service to which they are deployed, which, in this case, was the Metropolitan Police, which was acting to deal with the protest issues that it had on Saturday.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Connie Egan. No? OK. Nuala McAllister. Her name is down, so take it up with your Whip.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Apologies for that. As a member of the Policing Board, I will raise the issue at the board, and it is important to do so, particularly when the Chief Constable of the PSNI has raised issues of stretched capacity in the service. I understand that the Met will reimburse the PSNI, but still, it stretches officers' time. Does the Minister agree that the Policing Board is the best place for all political Members to raise those issues?

Mrs Long: The Member will not be surprised when I say yes. The Policing Board is the correct place to raise those issues and to hold the Chief Constable operationally accountable for his decision-making. Sometimes, in the desire to be critical of the answers that Ministers give, there is an intention to encourage Ministers to step outside the strict responsibilities that they have: I warn people against doing so. Were I to behave in a politicised manner — directing the police, telling them where to go, what to investigate, whom to charge, how to handle cases — you can just imagine the reaction that I would get in the Chamber on a week-to-week basis. Not everything that I might prioritise would be what you or the police might prioritise. Inviting me to step into a space into which I will not be drawn sets a dangerous precedent. We see political policing in other places. We understand from our own history the dangers of it, and that is why we have a Policing Board and a separation of powers. Members should be wary of trying to undermine it.

Mr Burrows: In fact, we have seen political policing here in recent times. Mr Kelly will know, because he rang the previous Deputy Chief Constable, on 5 February 2020, asking for a prisoner to be released in live time. His boss, then the deputy First Minister, now the First Minister for all, Michelle O'Neill, rang the Chief Constable —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, could you make your question relevant to the —

Mr Burrows: It is about political policing. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will you make your question relevant, please, and do it now?

Mr Burrows: I certainly will. As a former PSNI officer, I hope that the Justice Minister agrees that mutual aid is vital for the PSNI. You cannot expect to get resources when you really need them if you are not prepared to give resources when you are able to. It is part of being in the United Kingdom.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that mutual aid is a vital resource that we must support?

Mrs Long: As I stated in my original answer, it is in the best interests of the public generally that all police forces across the UK can call on support to help maintain safety and public order. The PSNI provided mutual aid assistance to the Metropolitan Police at the weekend. Requests for such assistance are coordinated by the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC), and I believe that it is important that the PSNI have recourse to that resource when it is required.

Mr McGrath: When a murderer was being held down in the street in my constituency, it took the police 28 minutes to respond, yet we can send officers over to London to help arrest people for wearing a T-shirt. Does the Justice Minister not accept that there is some lunacy in taking that approach that we, as political leaders, need to address here?

Mrs Long: The Member sits on the Policing Board, so he will have every opportunity to ask that of the person who made the decision. If the Member wants me to make the decisions here in the Chamber, that will mark a departure from the view of his predecessors, who jealously guarded the tripartite arrangements for policing in order to prevent political incursions into the operational space. It seems that the SDLP is more concerned with scoring cheap political points than it is with the substance of the issue, which is that the Member sits on the Policing Board and has every opportunity to challenge the Chief Constable, both about the speed of response in the Member's constituency and about his decision-making on mutual aid.

Mr Martin: Does the Justice Minister agree that prosecuting those who support proscribed terrorist organisations such as Palestine Action is important in a lawful democracy, or does she agree with the head of nations and regions at Amnesty International UK, Patrick Corrigan, who thinks that it is a pointless use of resources?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, do not respond.

Mrs Long: I think that my —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, resume your seat. I am instructing everyone to ask a question that is relevant to the question for urgent oral answer. You have been at this all day.

Mr Martin: It was relevant.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Please ask a question that is relevant to the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Martin: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, as far as I am aware, the question was relevant —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is not.

Mr Martin: OK. I will take your ruling on that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Dickson: Minister, you have clearly set out to the House the responsibilities that you have for policing in Northern Ireland and the operational responsibilities that the Chief Constable has. For the slow learners in the House, will you set out the consequences of the alternative, were you to have operational responsibility?

Mrs Long: I am well aware that matters to do with policing can become politically fraught. It is therefore important that the decisions on the allocation of resources to policing and policing structures, and the prioritisation and distribution of those resources, remain a matter for professional police officers. As armchair generals, we may all wish to give our opinion on what we see as priorities, but I prefer to leave that to the professionals, who have to do the job and who can be held accountable at the Policing Board for how they do it.

Mr Brett: I agree with every single word that the Justice Minister has said in today's replies. Does she agree that it is vital not only that she respect the operational independence of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but that every single political party and Member respect the settlement also?

Mrs Long: I am not sure whether the Member or I should feel queasy if we are in such complete agreement today, but, yes, I agree that every Member has a duty to uphold the operational independence of the PSNI and to hold it accountable through the appropriate structures. Those are the arrangements that were put in place to build confidence in policing, and part of our role, as political leaders, is to build that confidence through using the structures properly.

Mr Chambers: For some in the House, including Mr Carroll, it seems to me that their issue is with what the officers were doing rather than with the fact that they were in London. Does the Minister agree that the purpose of a call for mutual aid is not a matter of consideration for the Chief Constable on whether to meet that call but, rather, is a matter of operational capacity at a particular time and that the Chief Constable is best placed to make that call?

Mrs Long: I agree that the Chief Constable is best placed to make that call. That is what I have said throughout my response to the question for urgent oral answer. It is not for any of us to decide, based on whatever perspective we might have, whether it is appropriate for officers to be deployed in any situation. Making those decisions is for the Chief Constable, who is ultimately accountable to the Policing Board. By all means, Mr Chambers, as a member of the Policing Board, you can hold him to account as well as its other members can.

Mr Kingston: Does the Justice Minister agree that the mutual aid arrangement is a positive for law enforcement across the United Kingdom and that, at times, we in Northern Ireland have to be prepared to give as well as to receive?

Mrs Long: We benefited from mutual aid in the summer, when, sadly, we had to call on those arrangements. Of course, it is not free. It comes at considerable expense. The force that requests mutual aid has to pay for it. There is a full-cost-recovery system. However, it is important that, at times — for example, when the police are stretched thinly because of a number of competing operational demands — we can make that call and have that additional support. For me, the fundamental issue around policing is that we have a shared objective, which is to keep people safe. That is what needs to be upheld, whether by bringing police officers to Belfast or by using officers from Northern Ireland elsewhere on occasion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we move to the next item of business, which is the conclusion of the statement by the Minister for Communities, I want to say a couple of things. If Members are not happy with some of my rulings, they should go to the Speaker's Office. I, too, will examine Hansard. I find it very misogynistic that, even though I have taken the time to look at Standing Orders and have given Members flexibility in asking their questions, when I point out that they are not keeping to the topic, I get kickback. That is their prerogative as elected representatives, but I find it disrespectful.

I also find it very disrespectful to refer to any Members as "slow learners". That language should be consigned to the past.

Members, take your ease.

Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not get the chance to speak to the Principal Deputy Speaker as she left the Chamber. She corrected me on and chided me for the tone and language that I used. I wholeheartedly apologise to the House. Please pass on my apologies to her.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Dickson, that is noted and will be passed on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to questions on the ministerial statement.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his statement. What are the implications of the 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper? How does the strategy ensure that disabled people who are impacted on by any reforms will be supported?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I am grateful to the Member for his question. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the Green Paper. Hopefully, Members across the Chamber will be aware of our efforts to encourage the UK Government to reconsider their proposals. While many of the initial proposals have been removed, the nature and impact of the remaining proposals are still unclear.

The disability and work strategy does not propose any legislative changes or welfare reforms, but it offers employability support on a voluntary basis to disabled people and those with health conditions. What is important is that we support people into work and give them a helping hand rather than pulling the rug out from underneath them, which is exactly what, I think, the Labour Government are trying to do.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as you pointed out, being in employment is a key thing for people with disabilities. One of my concerns is that such employment should be fairly paid and sustainable. What work can be done with employers to ensure that pay will be appropriate for the positions that are offered and that those positions can last for a longer period?

Mr Lyons: Employment law is still in place, and employers will be required to make sure that they treat their employees fairly and pay them the proper wage for their job. The Member can be assured that making sure that that is the case will be a focus of ours, because it would be outrageous if someone who was doing the full job were to be paid less simply because of their disability. I am trying to help people into employment, but that is certainly not so that they can be taken advantage of.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the draft strategy and for the work that the Department has undertaken on it to date. His statement referred to the desire:

It is concerning that individuals might not have the confidence to raise the issue of disabilities or conditions that may impact on their employment. What aspects of the strategy does the Minister foresee as addressing that?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is part of the wider work that we will do with employers to give them confidence to hire staff who are disabled and to show them how they can help current staff. I have seen first-hand in businesses that I have visited how employers can be helped to make minor changes — reasonable adjustments — that come at no cost or a relatively small cost but that open up huge opportunity for better productivity and an improved workforce.

Broadly, we will help with what needs to take place for what is a culture change. Again, I do not see any of that as burdensome; rather, I see it as unlocking potential and opportunity for employees and employers.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire

for his statement. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the principle of co-design and co-production with the disabled community is essential if we are to have a strategy that is fit for purpose and supported across the board. Will the Minister confirm whether the co-design group has been involved in that part of the process in the past weeks and whether it has seen the draft strategy?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I can confirm that disabled people have been part of the process at every stage and have been aware of the document. I draw the Member's attention to pages 8 and 9, where she will see endorsements from a number of groups that will be involved in this daily. The strong support that we have had from stakeholders and all those involved in the process is testament to how simple and straightforward it was to identify the challenges. There was no disagreement on those, nor was there much disagreement on what we need to do to make them right; I assure her of that. I emphasise again that the draft strategy is going out to consultation. I do not believe that it is the finished product. If we can make improvements to it, I absolutely want to see them happen.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. What impact will the plan have on those who will be assisted into work?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue and, in doing so, to first make the distinction that people will be assisted into work. It is about helping, supporting and encouraging people, which is very different from the approach that the Labour Government have taken in their botched attempts to deal with those issues since they came into office. There will be huge benefit for the people who are helped into the programmes. We know the benefits of work. We know that it is important for people to get into work, with the impact that that can have on their physical and mental health and well-being and on their economic situation. That is why this is so positive. It will be beneficial for the individuals concerned, but it will also be beneficial for the employers that open themselves to another pool of talent, and, of course, it will be better for society as a whole.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Minister; we welcome the announcement of the consultation. You spoke about supporting and enabling employers to take on more staff with disabilities. That is really important. How will that work align with the Department for the Economy's skills strategy and employer engagement programmes so that businesses receive coherent and joined-up support rather than a patchwork of schemes? What conversations have been ongoing with the Minister for the Economy and the Department for the Economy about embedding disability inclusion? Have you put in any joint bids for the multi-year funding?

Mr Lyons: That is the whole point of bringing forward the strategy: it is not a DFC strategy but a cross-departmental strategy. Departments have fed into the process to make sure that we work together. When the Member sees and, I hope, responds to the consultation on the strategy, she will see that there are some actions that we will be taking collectively with other Departments; other Departments will be doing things individually as well. There is significant work for the Department for the Economy to do. That can be seen throughout the document and particularly in relation to skills. I hope that this will just be the start of Departments working more closely together.

These strategies matter. We saw that with the housing supply strategy, which led to an increased focus on developing relationships. The same needs to happen here. Members can see in the draft strategy, and will see in the action plans to follow, that there will be significant cross-departmental working to tackle some of the challenges that we face.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you mentioned that the strategy will interconnect with other strategies such as those on anti-poverty, skills, autism and mental health. Does the disability and work strategy connect with the Sign Language Bill, which is going through its Committee Stage, and the gender equality and sexual orientation strategies?

Mr Lyons: The intent of the sign language legislation is to ensure that there is greater access to public services in particular, and a better understanding of sign language. You will certainly see some interconnectedness with this. The Member will be aware that I am still considering next steps on what was called the sexual orientation strategy and the gender equality strategy. I will have further meetings about those this week and hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he advise why the disability unemployment rate is so high in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and what this strategy will do to address that?

Mr Lyons: There are a number of historical reasons for that, which are to do with some of the issues that we have relating to economic inactivity, poverty, social exclusion and health and well-being. That is why we are where we are. We need to bridge the gap, and that is exactly what the strategy aims to do by getting an additional 50,000 people into employment over the next 10 years. I would like it to be the best in the UK. We will certainly do everything that we can to achieve that, and we will change it if needs be. Fifty thousand more people into employment in the next 10 years is an ambitious target to start off with. To put that into context, that is the same as the number of people who are employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust combined. It is ambitious, and we should all want to work together to bring Northern Ireland up to where the rest of the UK is.

Mr Butler: Credit where it is due, Minister. As the chair of the all-party group on disability, I am delighted to see this strategy and will take some time to read it. Does the Minister have an understanding at this stage of how the new disability and work council will ensure that public bodies and Departments implement the recommended changes? Does the Minister envisage there being any powers to hold it to account in achieving the targets?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that point, because it is important that we have that in place. It is one of the first of its kind, and it is the first time that we have done something like this in Northern Ireland.

It is important that it is in place, because I genuinely want to make sure that we monitor progress, that people are held to account, that failings are identified and that improvements can be suggested. I look forward to that being in place almost immediately following the launch of the final strategy, subject to consultation and Executive approval. It is important that we have oversight if for no other reason than we want to monitor progress so that we can change that target of 50,000 if needs be.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the Minister's disability and work strategy and note that you will launch a disability strategy in the next few weeks. That is very welcome.

Obviously, it is essential that the strategy receives the appropriate funding to support its implementation. Will you confirm what additional investment there will be alongside the investment for existing programmes? Will they remain? Do you expect additional investment? What is needed, and have you had any conversations with the Finance Minister on multi-year budgeting?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I will certainly submit bids, because we need to ensure that we have sufficient investment in it. By the way, it is investment: we will get a return on it. We will get a return because money will then not be spent on benefits and welfare and instead be spent on increased provision for those who are in employment. It is really important that we see that money as an investment. I certainly intend to put additional resource where it needs to be. I hope that Executive colleagues will follow suit and ensure that they put in the money that needs to go into it. Of course, we already spend tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds in the area. If some of that money can be diverted into something that is more beneficial and brings greater bang for the buck, I am happy to look at that as well, because we have an opportunity here to make a real difference.

The strategy will be part of conversations that I have with counterparts in the UK Government, because, as is the case with what I am doing on welfare fraud and error, we often do the work and Treasury gets the benefit from that. It could be the same with this strategy: we can put in the investment and get more people into work, but the primary beneficiary of that in financial terms will be the Treasury. There should be sharing of that benefit so that we can reinvest it here and ensure that we help more people. That is what I intend to do. I will certainly not be found wanting when it comes to putting in that investment from my budget and baseline. I hope that Executive colleagues will help me out in that.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on bringing the strategy to the House. Can you tell us why the strategy has taken so long to prepare, given that the previous strategy expired in 2021? What has caused the delay?

Mr Lyons: I would like to have seen the strategy launched much earlier, but I had to deal with the situation that I found when I came into the Department. I made it a priority to progress the strategy. Since I have been in office, we have had to allow the time to gather evidence, co-produce actions and quality-review its content. Actions are owned by multiple Departments as well, so I have had to ensure that we had Executive buy-in and support for future funding bids. I reassure the Member that we have got to this stage because I made it a priority. I wanted to ensure that we delivered it because I know the change that we can make and the real impact that we can have on people's lives. The House and the Executive get a lot of criticism for things that we do not do. I did not want that to be the case in this mandate. That is why we now have one of the most comprehensive strategies for disabled people that we have ever had. I will follow that up shortly with the wider disability strategy.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement and all that is included in it. Will the disability and work council contact participants throughout the year and afterwards to determine the success of the strategy? What safety nets and measures are there for participants who may find that, with the best will in the world, the work is overwhelming? What welfare benefits will be there for them to return to?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, we want the disability and work council to be as effective as possible, which is why we will ensure that it has access to the people and information that it needs to make the necessary recommendations. This is new for us and has been widely welcomed, so I want it to be a success. We will do everything that we need to do in that regard.

On the Member's other question, I hope that we do not get into that circumstance, because, even if one or two things do not work, I would like to think that we will be able to find the help that individuals need. That is why it will be so tailored in the first instance, so that we are not going down the wrong path or doing something that does not work. It is about putting in the work early on to make sure that it is a success for all who need help.

Mr McGrath: Minister, while we all want to see this succeeding, because it is important work, just an hour ago, we heard from the Health Minister that he does not have enough money to fund the mental health strategy, and that is a major barrier to getting people into work. Under this strategy, what sort of cross-departmental work will take place to help people to get back into work who are not being helped due to the lack of investment in the mental health strategy?

Mr Lyons: Of course, all of those issues intersect. Improving people's mental health and well-being is really important, and I may have another announcement for the Member later today, if he would like to come back to the Chamber, where I will be able to give more information. For me, this is about priorities, and it is a priority for me to make sure that we can support and help people. That will require funding, and I am stepping up to the plate on that. I am prepared to get the funding that is necessary, and I am prepared to make the case to Executive colleagues and to the Treasury that this is an investment on which we will get a huge return and where we can prevent some of the other problems that people face. I often say that giving money to the Department for Communities can help all of the other Ministers in the Executive because of the positive impacts that we can have on people's lives early on. Getting into solid, sustained employment is a good way to help people with some of the mental health issues that they face, so I stand ready to do whatever I can and to work with whomever I need to work with to improve outcomes for people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his welcome statement on the new disability and work strategy.

Minister, there is an opportunity for the public sector to lead by example to support more disabled people in work. Can the Minister outline what more can be done from within the public sector?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We have to lead by example, and it would be wrong of us, as an Executive, to ask employers to do something that we are not prepared to do ourselves. We have taken the lead on that. The Department of Finance has been involved in the development of the strategy, and, as an employer, it has set out its five-year people strategy that will ensure initiatives around guaranteed interview schemes, reasonable adjustment policies and training.

I am delighted that, through the Department for Communities' JobStart programme, we have been able to support people into employment, including supporting people into the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I think that I have told this story before, but it is one of the things that have stayed with me most during my time in the Department. I met some of those who were helped through the JobStart scheme, including one individual who had autism and felt that the workplace was never going to be for him because he would never be able to fit in. However, he got a job working in the Civil Service in data input, and it was perfect for him. He loves it, and he told me how proud he was that he was able to get a job and to sustain employment. He said how proud his parents were that he had been able to do that. That is genuinely life-changing, and I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is able to create such opportunities. There are so many people who have potential, talent and ability, but barriers — sometimes very small barriers — stop them getting into employment. I do not want that to be the case. Let us break those down and open up a reservoir of talent and potential. That is what I am determined to do.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his really important statement to the House. You have just touched on one example, and many of our disabled population, including those with autism, have much talent to offer employers, so I very much welcome the strategy and the consultation announcement. Would the Minister like to tell us some more about what engagement there has been on the development of the strategy with disabled people in particular?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her question and for the really important work that she has been doing for many years on behalf of people who have autism. It is important that the issues be raised and understood.

To understand the issues with disability and work, we need to talk to others. We need to hear from those who are at the coalface: employers and those who have lived experience of disability.

The strategy was co-produced with a diverse range of over 100 partners, from central and local government, the community and voluntary sector, employers and their representative bodies, statutory bodies such as the Equality Commission, and those with lived experience of disability, both individuals and organisations. We have therefore accurately captured the views of disabled people locally to ensure that their issues are understood and, importantly, that actions are targeted and effective. That is why it is so important that we will have a disability and work council, as it will have disabled people on it. It will also have a disabled person as its chair. The council will give disabled people a real insight into what is happening and real controls over governance.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. It is fantastic that you have brought the matter to the House today. You touched on barriers. Accessible transport is a huge barrier to people getting into and staying in work. At this stage, what communication has your Department had with other Departments to ensure that community transport is accessible and inclusive for all?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise that issue. Together, we recently met South Antrim Community Transport and saw at first hand the important work that it is doing in our constituency. Further work on accessible transport will be done, because, in a number of weeks, I will be bringing out the disability strategy, which will focus more widely on transport and accessibility issues. I am keen to break down barriers to disabled people getting into employment. Transport is rightly one such issue that we need to address. That will form part of the wider disability strategy, but I encourage the Member and anyone else who is interested to respond to the consultation on the disability and work strategy and make their views known so that we can see how those views can be incorporated, because what is the point in people having a job to go to if they cannot get to it? We therefore want to make sure that there is a focus on that as well.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I certainly welcome your disability and work strategy. I will take a moment to praise a scheme that is currently being run between Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Castle Tower School in Ballymena that is preparing young people with special needs for the world of work that lies ahead of them. The pathway that you have set out is the correct one. You have given us your promise in the statement. I want to know what the other Ministers have promised you by way of resource and money before the strategy goes out to consultation in order to ensure that what you have told us today is deliverable. There has to be buy-in from everybody, as responsibility cannot be left solely to the Department for Communities. Can you therefore outline what the other Ministers have committed to providing so that, when the strategy goes out to consultation, people will know what to expect?

Mr Lyons: I completely agree with the Member that this is not just for the Department for Communities to do. Rather, it is a cross-departmental, cross-Executive strategy. We need to make sure that everybody buys into it and that everybody is prepared to work together. I am doing my part. I have set aside funding for the strategy. I have bid for more, and I continue to do what I can. I would be more than happy to get the Member's support to lobby my Executive colleagues to make sure that they take forward, and take seriously, the actions to which they have committed themselves.

We have set a target. I do not want just to meet that target. I would love my successor in five years' time to come along and say, "The strategy has been such a success that we are now going to increase the target and close the disability employment gap even more". As I said, I would therefore welcome the Member's assistance in lobbying my Executive colleagues.

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

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill [NIA 22/22-27], which is a Bill to enable the Department for the Economy to make regulations to close the non-domestic RHI scheme.

Ms McLaughlin: 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. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: I speak in the interests of fairness and opportunity for people across Northern Ireland, because fairness — the basic promise that everyone should have a fair crack of the whip and a fair shot in life — is at the core of the motion and at the heart of regional balance. However, the reality of our economy is that wealth is dictated more by postcode than by merit or talent.

Let us begin with the facts: people in Derry face a gap of around 10% in employment and economic activity compared with other areas across the North; average wages are almost 30% lower than in Belfast; the rate of poverty in our north-west communities is double that of some other parts of Northern Ireland; the rate of drug deaths in the most deprived parts of the Western Trust area is almost two and a half times the trust average; and from 2019 to 2021, people in the most deprived areas of Derry and Strabane were likely to die seven years earlier than the Northern Ireland average — a gap that has widened since 2015. It is a problem that is felt passionately by many people west of the Bann who are locked out of opportunity, including by embarrassingly poor transport links.

In 2012, we had a regional development strategy that emphasised the importance of modern infrastructure, but, 13 years later, look where we are. The European Commission's regional competitiveness index ranked the north and west of Ireland at 218th out of 234 EU regions for infrastructure. We have failed to move the needle, and people west of the Bann still pay the price, not least through the failure to deliver the A5, a project that is vital not just for the north-west but for Fermanagh and Tyrone. Its completion would open up access to jobs, trade and investment across the region. The failure to deliver the A5 is not just incompetent but a betrayal of the families who have lost loved ones on that road. It is regional imbalance writ large. Modern roads are not just tarmac; they are the arteries of economic growth.

Regional imbalance does not stop at the Bann, however. Some of the 10 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland are in the North Belfast constituency of my Economy Committee colleague, Phillip Brett, and in West Belfast. Members across the Chamber can attest to the impact that that has in their constituencies every day. This is not a question of west versus east; it is about fairness and building a Northern Ireland that works for everyone.

A report by the International Longevity Centre UK recently measured local authorities by inequalities in health, wealth and opportunity. Derry was ranked the third worst in the UK. It was 357th out of 359. When we talk about deprivation, we must also talk about air quality. Poor air quality is a serious yet often overlooked indicator of poverty and health inequality. It is of little surprise then that Foyle is above the Northern Ireland average for respiratory conditions such as asthma and COPD. Those facts tell the real story of Northern Ireland today, and it sits totally at odds with what we hear from Ministers in the Chamber.

Regional balance is not about pitting one area against another. What is good for the west should be good for Northern Ireland as a whole. That is the challenge, and it is our responsibility as legislators. Despite the rhetoric, regional balance remains a claim on paper — just warm words. For too long, it has been used to pacify the long-standing demands of people who have been denied the university that they were promised, the investment that was pledged and the economic justice that they deserve. We welcome the recent progress on Magee. The number of higher education students in Derry now stands at around 6,000. However, when you set that against the 46,000 students in Belfast, you see that it is not balanced.

The resignation of Kieran Kennedy from the board of Invest NI was a stark warning and a damning indictment of the Executive's failure to deliver for regional economies, especially in the north-west. Kieran is a respected voice who understands what is at stake. His decision speaks volumes about the lack of urgency and cultural change at the heart of Invest NI. It was interesting to read about an hour ago that Invest NI has just advertised a new role for the head of regional business in Derry. What a coincidence.

Given the decisions on the football fund that left clubs such as Derry City Football Club and Coleraine Football Club out in the cold, it is clear that regional balance still is not embedded across Departments. So what needs to change? We need an economic strategy that drives growth in every part of the region, recognising the comparative disadvantages of each area and ensuring that no community is left behind. We need a skills policy that links education with opportunity and seizes the jobs of the future, from green energy to AI. We need to see progress on the subregional economic plan and a whole-government approach to make it work. That is why our motion calls on the Minister to ensure that every Department plays its part. It is why I have brought forward a proposal for a regional balance Bill, which has now been formally submitted to the Speaker's Office. I look forward to engaging with the Speaker and hope that the Bill will be granted approval to progress to the drafters. It is in the interests of every Minister in the Chamber that the legislation goes forward, because poverty does not care about borders or council areas. We should all want a society where our chances of a good education, access to healthcare and a prosperous future for our children are not decided by our postcode.

The First Minister recently told us that the north-west is thriving. I will never stop speaking up for the north-west. I am probably like a broken record at this stage. I will also never stop being honest. Walk around the streets of Derry and ask people whether they think that our city is thriving and whether they feel the difference of government in their wage packet or their daily life: "thriving" is not the word that you will hear.

One year ago, the subregional economic plan declared a new, strategic approach to economic policy that placed regional balance at its heart. One year later, people still wait to see and feel the difference and to even understand what the purpose of the plan is. That needs to change. With a different approach that is grounded in fairness, evidence and ambition, it can change.

I put the motion to the Floor.

Mr Delargy: Regional balance underpins Sinn Féin's economic strategy, which is a commitment to making the North work for all its people. The basis of our economic strategy is to make the economy work for ordinary people, not just for ordinary people to work to boost the economy. It is only when our economy is delivering real change at a grassroots level that that becomes a reality. That is why Minister Archibald's 'good jobs' Bill and myriad other progressive legislation advance that agenda. The key reason why Sinn Féin took up the Economy portfolio last year was to address and improve regional balance. That is why we made regional balance a key pillar of the Department's economic strategy. That is why it underpins the other three priorities, and that is why we insisted that regional balance be a shared Executive priority.

In delivering regional balance, people want to hear what has been achieved. They want to hear tangible outcomes. Today, I will outline what Sinn Féin has already done. Let us talk about Derry. Let us talk about the A6, which was a transformative project for regional balance delivered by former Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard. Let us talk about the decentralisation of the Civil Service under current Finance Minister John O'Dowd and former Finance Minister Conor Murphy, which has brought jobs to the heart of many of our communities. Let us talk about the transformation of Magee. Other parties talked about a policy, but Sinn Féin Minister Caoimhe Archibald and former Minister Conor Murphy delivered on it. Let us talk about Ebrington, Meenan Square, the North West Cancer Centre, City of Derry Airport and a plethora of new schools. Let us talk Derry up.

Everyone here knows that Derry and other regions, particularly those west of the Bann, have experienced chronic underinvestment under decades of the unionist party. My grandparents and their generation, who came out on our streets as part of the civil rights movement, marched with a vision to talk not only about the problems but about the solutions. They created the framework where I can stand in the Chamber today as an equal to everyone else here. My generation no longer has to experience the neglect and lack of opportunity that their generation faced. The campaign that they talked about and that they marched for was about talking Derry up. It was about selling Derry's story to people across Ireland and the world.

Derry's story is changing, and regional balance is changing under Sinn Féin's leadership. That leadership is focused on delivery, it is focused on opportunity, and it is focused on building a positive future for all. It is also an opportunity and a vision for everyone else in the Chamber to get behind that and to work together to build that. It is not a partisan issue; it is about fairness and ambition for our whole economy. When we work together and push in the same direction, we can achieve real change. However, it takes everyone to work together. It takes collective leadership from the north-west and, particularly, from our political representatives. The people of Derry and the entire North deserve that. They deserve a society where investment reaches every corner and where no young person feels that they need to leave Derry to succeed. The same goes for young people in Donegal. Regional balance can never be addressed while our country is partitioned and while Derry is cut off from its natural hinterland in Donegal.

Of course, there are challenges. No one here is denying that. However, when we hear all about the challenges and not about the opportunities, businesses and those hoping to invest in Derry will naturally switch off. When they do not see a collective political will, that is extremely problematic for investment. The collective leadership coming from Derry businesses, the chamber of commerce and, most important, the people of Derry is that we have a collective cause and must row in the same direction. I agree that we should encourage regional balance across all our Departments, but that is what we are already doing.

We consistently ask questions about why Altnagelvin Hospital does not have an adequately sized or resourced emergency department and about the funding for mental health groups and charities. We champion organisations and leaders from the north-west and hold Ministers to account, but we are so much stronger when we do that together.

Mr Middleton: The DUP wants all of Northern Ireland to succeed. We want every part of our country from east to west to thrive within the United Kingdom. We committed to addressing the challenges of regional imbalance in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), and we remain in support of that commitment. Of course, the focus to date has been on the Foyle constituency, but I recognise that regional imbalance goes well beyond that area, and my colleague, Maurice Bradley, will speak to that fact.

I hope to address a number of points in the motion as best I can. First, there is the resignation of a member of the Invest NI board. Kieran Kennedy was appointed by the then DUP Minister, Diane Dodds. At the time, it was argued that he was a champion for the north-west and had a track record of growing a local company into a huge success. Of course, we wish Mr Kennedy well and thank him for his time on the board, but we recognise that the board is much bigger than one individual. We need to work with the board members who continue to do good work, and we should not use the resignation of a board member for our political purposes.

The motion states that recent Executive decisions appear to have paid little regard to the need for regional balance, and the football fund was mentioned specifically. Of course, I am on record about the disappointment of clubs, such as Institute Football Club in the north-west, but the fund was not based on geography; it was based on other criteria. Therefore, rather than being a politician who moans and complains about it, I sought meetings with the Minister, officials and the council to bring about a resolution and further investment for the north-west.

Increasingly, over the past number of months, it appears that the SDLP is allergic to positivity. DUP Ministers and the Executive have been delivering for the north-west, and that is clearly recognised by business representatives and those involved in leadership. Let us take some time to look at the delivery over the past 12 months. There was the Derry-Londonderry North Atlantic (DNA) Museum, a £15 million investment supported by DUP Ministers. The SDLP attended the launch and welcomed the project, but there is no recognition of that today. The north-west regeneration fund is a £10 million fund announced by the DUP Minister, Gordon Lyons, to deliver key projects, such as the regeneration of Austins in the city centre. Again, that was welcomed by the SDLP, but there has been no delivery other than that from our party. The creation of 270 new jobs in Londonderry through the Department for Communities: again, that is a DUP Minister delivering for our constituency. There have been significant public realm works, again brought forward by DFC, and thousands of pounds of investment in Londonderry's city centre. Again, that was welcomed by the SDLP, but no credit has been given to the DUP Minister. Millions of pounds have been spent through Urban Villages, an initiative brought forward by the now deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, when she was in the Executive Office. There has been £300 million in city deal funding for Londonderry and Strabane, again delivered through DUP MPs. There has been £20 million of towns funding for Londonderry and Coleraine that was, again, delivered through DUP MPs.

The SDLP is playing politics for politics' sake. The party's negativity does not reflect the work to address regional imbalance; in fact, in areas where the SDLP has power, such as the council, it has failed. The SDLP's MP has disappeared: he has failed. When opportunities come forward from the defence sector, the party opposes them. It is a party that has lost its way and lost credibility on those issues.

I support the Minister for the Economy in bringing forward the subregional plan. We need to see progress on that, and we will hold her to account, but to play politics with it is downright shameful, and nobody is buying into it.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the proposer of the motion, Sinéad McLaughlin. It is an important issue that we need to discuss honestly. Alliance believes that economic regional balance means that every person, no matter what their postcode, will have equal access to skills training, jobs and opportunities.

That, however, has to mean much more than numbers on a map and be about more than a binary argument that pitches Belfast against Derry. For Alliance, regional balance must mean that every person, whether they live in Derry, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Omagh, Lisburn, Dromore, Newry or Belfast, has the same chance to succeed. As the proposer referenced, some of the most deprived areas are in the constituencies of North Belfast and West Belfast. For us, prosperity must be shared. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor must be reduced in order to bring about a shared society. All of that requires government to work together across Departments, not in silos. None of the issues that we are dealing with fits neatly into just one Department.

The motion calls on the Minister:

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It does my head in, and I will keep raising this point, that, although there is barely an issue that we deal with that does not cut across multiple Departments to deliver on, we have only one Minister to scrutinise what we want taken forward. The Department of Health is probably the only Department in which issues are self-contained. Most issues are not, however. Skills cuts across the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy. Adult reoffending, at which the PAC looked recently, cuts across the Department for Communities and the Department of Education. Jobs and mental health are also factors involved. Everything has to be considered if adult reoffending to be addressed, but our Committee structure is based on scrutinising one Minister's Department, with Committees powerless to scrutinise wider issues, which makes delivery slow and difficult to achieve. Looking at that is a major part of the reform that the Assembly needs to undertake.

We need to achieve regional balance in order to make sure that every community in every town and village across Northern Ireland sees the benefits of prosperity and economic growth. We must raise the value of the money in everyone's pocket, not just in the pockets of those in the wealthy suburbs of Belfast or in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I agree with the need to have regional balance, but, with all due respect, what I struggle with is what the SDLP often means by "regional balance". It simply means Derry, not anywhere else. I absolutely agree that regional balance has to include Derry, but it also has to include everywhere else.

Lagan Valley is, wrongly in my view, included in the Minister's definition of the Belfast metropolitan area. Invest NI has zero land in my area to bring jobs to or for companies to expand, however. The DUP continues to block Maze/Long Kesh development, which leaves us with nothing, and with no way in which to bring new jobs to the area. We are located in the M1/A1 corridor, yet my constituents are left without any hope of jobs or opportunities being expanded locally. The M1 continues to be a car park into Belfast in the morning. I am being let down by Invest NI and by the Minister's definition. Part of achieving regional balance is having the ability to move stuff to where business is looking to position itself. I have been calling for ages for a Northern Ireland-wide development plan — a master plan, if you like — to sit above councils' individual local development plans (LDPs). Such a plan would shape our economy, give us locations for energy and renewables sites and plot the major infrastructure that we need, such as the A5 and the implementation of the all-island rail review. Without such a plan, we cannot deliver regional balance. If we do not have the infrastructure, such as the A5 and rail networks, we cannot deliver it. Without the road network —.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. To that end, does he agree that we therefore really need to see the investment strategy published? Is his party asking for that at the Executive? I have no idea where it is.

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

Mr Honeyford: Investment is part of it, but I am talking about having an overall plan in which we see the A5 upgraded and all the other bits of major infrastructure that we need plotted. In the west, you cannot ask for health reform if you do not allow people to access hospitals quickly and simply via road or rail networks. That has to happen. Regional balance cannot be about winners and losers. It cannot be about Belfast versus Derry. Rather, it has to be about fairness for every community, from the largest city to the smallest village. We owe it to every young person, family and business to create an economy in which prosperity is genuinely shared.

I believe completely in a shared future. I believe in a shared island economy. Providing opportunities for everyone is fundamental to what Alliance wants to see, but that has to work everywhere, not just in Belfast and Derry.

Ms D Armstrong: I will put forward a perspective from the south-west. I thank Sinéad for proposing the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party shares the concerns around regional imbalance that are raised in the motion. However, we believe that regional balance should be tailored to benefit all of Northern Ireland. While investment in the north-west is welcome and necessary, it must not come at the expense of other regions such as the south-west.

The story in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been one of cuts and job losses in recent years. Last year, BT axed 300 jobs, and this year, jobs were lost at Severfield, which is a leading employer in Ballinamallard. Those are only a few cases from the south-west that have exacerbated the feeling of neglect and avoidance.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Certainly.

Mr Gildernew: Does the Member agree that the A5 is an absolutely essential element in creating regional balance in our constituency?

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

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for his intervention. When we look at the A5, we also need to consider our spending priorities. The A5 is an Executive flagship programme, but other Members have mentioned an all-Ireland rail strategy. Where is the magic money tree for everything that we need? I am, of course, looking for jobs for the south-west. At the moment, businesses in the south-west have to deal with lacklustre infrastructure, yet they still manage to export globally. I want to see that being improved.

The north-west has already been earmarked a £290 million investment package through the Derry City and Strabane region city deal. On the other hand, the Mid South West growth deal's investment of £252 million is spread across three council areas — Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Mid Ulster District Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council — meaning that funds need to be stretched further in order to support real economic development. Invest NI has reported that, in 2024-25, it supported 236 investments in the north-west, with £22 million in financial support and £165 million in total investment. That level of investment has simply not been replicated in the south-west. The local press recently highlighted the lack of funding for sports and community organisations in the area. Over the past three years, Sport NI has allocated a total of 3·25% of its funding to the Fermanagh and Omagh area. The lowest allocation was this year, with 1·3% for 2024-25.

For regional balance to work, people in all corners of Northern Ireland need to feel that the economy is delivering for them. I echo the call for the Minister for the Economy to publish an assessment of the progress that has been made under the subregional economic plan, in order to give a true picture of economic progress. The local economic partnerships are vital for assessing barriers to and opportunities for economic growth, but we desperately need to see some form of outcome from those partnerships and a clear plan from the Department as to how it intends to support them.

The recent resignation of Mr Kennedy from the Invest NI board has, rightly, raised questions about how regional economic interests are being represented here. A recent response to a question for written answer that I posed to the Minister for the Economy assured me that the appointment to the vacant post would be made on merit. I welcome that, but the Invest NI board needs greater regional representation in order to have a voice from areas such as the south-west. Representation from all regions would demonstrate regional balance in economic policy that is fair to and inclusive of all regions in Northern Ireland. In short, we support regional balance, but it must work for the entirety of Northern Ireland. Let us ensure that every community has a fair shot at growth, investment, opportunity and prosperity.

Miss Brogan: As a representative for West Tyrone, I am very aware of the damaging effects that regional imbalance has had on services, infrastructure and communities west of the Bann. For generations, indifferent British Governments and Stormont regimes have starved the west of resources and infrastructure, but that tide is turning. Sinn Féin Ministers have made undoing the damage of regional imbalance a key focus of their delivery. As First Minister, Michelle O'Neill ensured that regional balance was a Programme for Government commitment for the Executive. Minister Archibald is carrying on the work of her predecessor, Conor Murphy, who made regional balance one of the four pillars of his Department, and she has built on that foundation, not just with words but with a £45 million regional balance fund that will benefit every council area across the North.

In addition to that, Minister Liz Kimmins has been fighting tooth and nail to ensure the delivery of the A5, which not only represents a massive investment in Counties Tyrone, Derry and Donegal but is a vital piece of national infrastructure that will have significant investment, economic and, most importantly, safety benefits for communities in the north-west of Ireland. Minister Kimmins also announced recently that the A32 Cornamuck project is to progress to the procurement and construction stage. That is an important road for people in my constituency who travel between Omagh and Enniskillen, particularly those trying to reach the South West Acute Hospital.

As a member of the Committee for Communities, I share the motion's concerns about the distribution of the football fund. The Committee will continue to scrutinise Minister Lyons on the matter. Given the recent announcement of other sporting and cultural funds from the Department for Communities, I again remind the Minister of the regional balance obligations that his party signed up to as part of the Programme for Government.

For a long time, communities in the west just had to accept that, when it came to investment, all that they were going to get was scraps from the table. Times have changed, however, and we will no longer accept that. Sinn Féin is committed to equality, and regional balance is a crucial part of that commitment. That is why our representatives will continue to fight for marginalised communities all over Ireland.

Mr Bradley: I agree with the broad principle of the motion. We have heard a lot about regional balance, but, when we hear the north-west mentioned in the Chamber, what is really meant by the north-west is Foyle. The truth is simpler, however, and far more uncomfortable, which is that there is no real regional balance in Northern Ireland. One of the most glaring victims of that imbalance, rarely mentioned and even more rarely supported or prioritised, is the Causeway Coast and Glens council area, where there are two highly deprived areas.

The Minister can cite quite a few millions for Londonderry — funding that we all welcome — yet fail to explain why the Causeway Coast and Glens area, with its world-class potential, continues to be overlooked. We hear about support for Magee, but what about Coleraine? It is the home of Ulster University's flagship biomedical research centre, a campus of equal academic standing, yet it receives no comparable commitment or dedicated task force and no strategic investment. The truth is that no major new investment has been announced for the Coleraine campus in years.

Let us talk about the subregional economic plan, which is now a year old. It was launched with £45 million in funding, but how much has actually been spent and where? It means that businesses in the Causeway Coast and Glens are waiting for support that never arrives, so what happens? The better resourced areas pull away, and our region is left behind again. The SDLP rightly focused on Foyle; I, in turn, am rightly focused on the Causeway Coast and Glens, East Londonderry. In the Chamber, when we speak about the north-west, we leave out the Causeway Coast and Glens. Do not forget that the Causeway Coast and Glens area is the largest council area in the country, stretching from Waterfoot to Greysteel.

The motion is not about taking away from Londonderry, Belfast or anywhere else. It is about finally recognising that regional balance must mean more than a two-city strategy. If we truly believe in balanced economic growth, let us see it. We want to see a dedicated investment plan for Causeway Coast and Glens and other council areas, a task force for the Coleraine campus just like Magee, and an update on how the £45 million subregional plan will be spent, with real deadlines and delivery.

The Causeway Coast and Glens has the talent and ambition. What we lack is the attention of the Executive; that needs to change, and it needs to change now. Regional balance is for all, not just a few. We lost out, as did Derry City, Institute and other clubs, through the football fund. However, we are trying to address that. I have had meetings with the Minister and Coleraine Football Club, and the club is due to meet officials from the Minister's Department tomorrow, so all is not lost. Regional balance is for everybody, not just a few.

Ms Nicholl: I had written my speech, and it says:

but this is the fourth time that I have spoken since coming back. One of the things that I did not say earlier today — the Minister is here now with members of her party — is that I am so sorry for the attack on your colleagues' office. I want to put that on record.

I am delighted to speak on the motion. Sinéad McLaughlin is the queen of regional balance and never misses an opportunity to champion it. I will not repeat a lot of what has been said, but there is one thing that I was thinking. Sometimes, regional balance and what it means gets lost in political discourse. For most people, it just means not having to move away from home to access good jobs, services or opportunities because those things are shared out more fairly. I am married to a Fermanagh man. By way of regional imbalance, there is no way that he would have left Fermanagh if he could have helped it. I have benefited from it. We need to see fairness, fair distribution of investment and support for all people across Northern Ireland.

Regional balance is vital. I am an unapologetic champion for Belfast. It is and always will be a key economic driver for the region. It is the capital and is actively competing with other large cities across these islands for investment and exposure. However, we can and absolutely should have other economic drivers in the region, including Derry, the south-west, mid-Ulster and more. Regional balance is not just about economics. Economic levers without social and community infrastructure around them will not deliver the kind of sustainable region that we should be aiming for. Transport, education, health, housing, infrastructure and access to high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare are all vital. I am also not really sure that the word "balance" does this debate justice. Ultimately, it is about unlocking and releasing the full potential of all our parts of home and providing the best opportunities for all our people across Northern Ireland.

As my colleague David said, for regional balance to be delivered, there has to be a joined-up, whole-of-government approach. That is not something that we are that good at in this place, but we are really good at innovation. In our tech sector, the connections between industry, academia and government perfectly position us to take advantage. Just look at the trailblazing success in cyber and screen. I am really interested in the potential of AI. The Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) outlined in its recent capability census:

Its presence in Derry helps to serve businesses across the region, from what it describes as:

ensuring that they:

The growth of AI firms and firms that make use of AI presents a real opportunity to create more evenly spread opportunities across the whole region. It is really great to see the AICC leading by example.

Regional balance must be delivered, but it needs to be holistic, and if there is one message that comes from my speech, I want it to be that. It requires a joined-up approach right across government, and we need to see more sustainable long-term opportunities and investment in all parts of Northern Ireland.

Ms Sheerin: I am struck by the commonality across the Chamber during this debate, and I welcome that.

As others have said, the Members for Foyle often talk about Derry, but it strikes me that we have something in common when it comes to how Derry is discussed. We are all saying the same thing but are just saying it differently. Our language differs when we refer to Derry, and it differs when we talk about what we see as the priorities for regional balance. I am also from Derry, albeit a different part of Derry, and this is one of the most frustrating parts of my life. When I meet somebody new and tell them that I am from Derry, I get two common retorts. One is, "Is it 'Derry' or —?" I immediately cut that off, because if I called it something other than "Derry", I would have done so. They also then assume that I am from the city, which I am not. I am from mid-Ulster, which has also suffered very badly as a result of a lack of investment down through the generations. We in Sinn Féin want to change and address that, and that has been pursued by our two Ministers who have held the Economy brief since we took that on. As I have said, it is a priority for everybody in this Chamber and in the Executive, and addressing regional imbalance is mentioned in our Programme for Government. We should all support that.

When we look specifically at the north-west of the country, it would be remiss not to refer to the fact that partition has had a very negative impact on and really serious implications for that part of Ireland. My colleague Mr Delargy has already outlined the fact that the natural hinterland for Derry city is Donegal, and a barrier has been put in place there that is still having ramifications today. We need to address that. Realistically, we are not going to see the economic prosperity that we all want to see until we are in a new and revised Ireland. That is something that we have to battle with. However, it should not mean that we cannot make progress in the interim. That is what my party colleagues are trying to do.

As others have outlined, areas of the North that traditionally did not receive investment or support were oftentimes left to their own devices. In that gap, we have seen a lot of very impressive indigenous businesses thrive without support. I see that in my own area. Mid-Ulster has a massive engineering sector. Most of the crushing and screening equipment produced in the world comes out of our wee part of the country. That has been done without proper infrastructure or government support. Those firms have worked away on their own, and that ingenuity is amazing.

The message from across the Chamber is that we all support this and want to see it prioritised. Our Minister is committed to that.

Mr Brett: I start by saying that, although I am a representative of Belfast, I am the party's economic spokesperson, so I am committed to ensuring that we have a Northern Ireland that works for everyone, in every corner.

I welcome Ms Nicholl back to her place. She will bring a much-needed calm and zen back to our Committee deliberations. She is very welcome back.

I thank the Member for Foyle for the debate. Although the tone or content of the discussion has drifted away from the motion, a number of issues in it are worthy of discussion, not least the subregional economic plan that was announced by the Minister's predecessor more than a year ago. I am on record as having criticised that plan when it was launched, because I believed that it had failings. Those have been played out to date. The exclusion of Ards and North Down from the renewed focus by Invest Northern Ireland under the Minister's instruction is, in my view, completely unacceptable. In the rankings of labour productivity and median wages, that council area ranks worst and second worst in comparison with other parts of Northern Ireland. The Minister at the time could not justify the creation of a false Belfast metropolitan area plan area to exclude funding or support from that council, and, to date, neither has the new Minister been able to do that.

I also said that, in many ways, plan would not be worth the paper that it was written on if the proposals were not advanced. Unfortunately, that is now the case. Within the document, page 9 is dedicated to the Invest Northern Ireland regional property fund. That new approach was taken forward by the Minister to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland would invest in new properties and business parks. To date, the Minister has allocated zero pounds to that programme. If it were a Minister from these Benches who allocated zero pounds to that fund, we would be accused of sectarianism and anti-Foyle sentiment.

The previous Minister's approach to the subregional economic plan was the economic partnerships: some £45 million has been allocated to that to date. How much of that vital £45 million of resources has been spent? Absolutely zero. Again, if this party had behaved in that way, we would have been, rightly, criticised.

I will pick up on some of the points made by other Members who spoke, who blamed the lack of investment in parts of Northern Ireland on the big bad unionists. The message for the Benches opposite is that you have jointly run this place for 25 years. No longer can you criticise Ministers. You have had the joint head of Government since 2003. You now hold the Economy, Infrastructure and Finance portfolios. You can no longer blame failings on the big bad unionists. Had we presided over the shambles that is the A5 court case, this party would have been hounded by our political opponents and the media. You cannot blame that on the big bad unionists.

I also want to pick up on Mr Honeyford's point. He incorrectly stated that the DUP is holding up the economic development of the Maze/Long Kesh site.

I will go tomorrow with Mr Honeyford and a digger to clear that site completely and open it up for economic development. What Mr Honeyford did not say is that the DUP will not support a shrine to terrorists on that site. If Mr Honeyford wants to join me with a digger tomorrow, we can go and clear the site.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: Mr Honeyford.

Mr Honeyford: There is no shrine. There never was a shrine, and there never will be a shrine. Why can we not get on with opening the place up for everyone?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): With the intervention and the general theme, we are some way off the basis of the motion.

Mr Brett: I take it that Mr Honeyford will not be taking up my offer that we clear the site with a digger tomorrow.

My party remains committed to ensuring that we have regional balance in all parts of Northern Ireland. It is worth reading into the record some figures relating to the points raised by my colleague, Mr Bradley, who is an articulate champion for the people whom he is honoured to represent. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council Area is ranked ninth out of 11 for labour productivity, tenth out of 11 for median wages, ninth out of 11 for subregional employment rates and ninth for greenhouse gas emissions. That is where the focus of this place should be: ensuring that people of all backgrounds and communities in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area receive the support that they deserve. Mr Bradley can be assured of my support in ensuring that he gets a fair case for the people whom he represents.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion, because regional imbalance is one of the most serious barriers to opportunity across Northern Ireland. This summer, a member of the Invest NI board resigned, stating that the organisation was failing to deliver genuine regional balance, particularly for the north-west. That resignation was a clear signal that the problem runs deeper than process or policy; it is a mindset. It is not perception; it is culture. It reflects that decision-making still defaults to Belfast first and everywhere else after, if at all.

As others have said, when discussion turns to the north-west, attention often centres on Derry city. I know that those who tabled the motion mean it sincerely and constructively. However, like others, I want to speak for the wider north-west and north coast and, indeed, every part of Northern Ireland beyond Belfast, because that is where regional imbalance is felt most sharply. Coleraine, Limavady, Ballykelly, Garvagh and rural communities in between: those are the areas that are often bypassed when investment decisions are made.

My constituency of East Londonderry is in a policy blind spot, not because of distance but because of direction. Northern Ireland is a small place. You can travel between its furthest points in two to three hours, so geography is not a barrier; connectivity is. When transport links, digital infrastructure and investment pipelines all flow inward to Belfast, opportunity cannot spread outward. Until we fix those connections — physical, digital and economic — we will never achieve real regional balance. The issue is not how far we are from Belfast; it is how far decision-making is from everywhere else.

The Department for the Economy's subregional economic plan confirms that reality. As Mr Brett said, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area has one of the lowest shares of good jobs in Northern Ireland and among the lowest median wages. That is not a coincidence; it is the result of years of underinvestment in infrastructure, skills and enterprise. Yet, East Londonderry, like other constituencies, is a place of opportunity, with a world-class university campus; expertise in life sciences; renewable energy potential; thriving small businesses; and the strongest tourism brand across the UK and Ireland. Potential is not our problem; political attention is. Announcements alone will not change that. Yes, we have seen the growth deal, and we are optimistic, but it is being delivered slowly. We have seen investment frameworks with no subregional targets. Meanwhile, economic inactivity remains high, wages are stagnant and too many young people are leaving the north coast for their futures.

East Londonderry has one of the strongest political representations in local government and at Westminster, yet, despite that level of access and influence, our constituency continues to record some of the poorest outcomes in Northern Ireland. It has among the highest inactivity rates and deepest deprivation and some of the lowest pay levels across the region. That should concern every Member of every constituency, because, if a constituency with that level of representation falls that far behind, something in the system is not working. I appreciate that the problems did not appear overnight. They have taken years to build up, but the same parties have held power for most of that time. They have had the opportunity to fix them. While the imbalance is long-standing, the failure to correct it is not inevitable; it is a choice. It is not one Department's problem. Every Department —.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes. Go ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: I totally agree. Let me be clear: when I talk about regional imbalance, I am talking about places that have been left behind. Obviously, Derry is in my heart, and it is in the constituency that I represent. If we fail the people of my constituency, that is a tragedy, but failing the people in the Causeway Coast and Glens area or Fermanagh is also a tragedy. The area west of the Bann has not had the investment that it needs. It has been left behind. It has potential, opportunity and ambition, and it has been failed year after year, decade after decade. If regional balance is good policy, it is good law, and it should apply to all places here that have been left behind.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Interventions should be brief, Ms McLaughlin. You will run the Member out of time.

Ms Sugden, you have an extra minute.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the intervention. I agree 100%, because, to get to Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland from Belfast, you have to go through East Londonderry. I reiterate the point that it is about connectivity. It is about looking at Northern Ireland as a corporate plan and ensuring that every part of it is connected. By not doing that, we fail Northern Ireland, not just its individual parts. We fail to get the opportunities that we could have as a region. Again, Northern Ireland is not a huge place. It has a population of about 2 million people. Huge opportunity comes with that, and the Government need to do so much more to realise that opportunity.

I will touch on the point about the other Departments. I appreciate that the Minister for the Economy will respond to the debate, but it is not just about her Department. It is a cross-cutting issue. Other Members talked about the Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Football Fund. I appreciate that that was not a geographical application, but it has created a geographical problem, because the north-west is not represented. That in itself is something that we need to reflect on. I think of the Department for Infrastructure in relation to transport and of the Department for the Economy in relation to Coleraine. I reiterate Mr Bradley's point about how it should not be a competition between the campuses at Coleraine and Magee. It should be about them complementing one another so that we can realise our potential in higher education.

I support the motion. It is important not just for East Londonderry but for everyone in Northern Ireland that we support it.

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

Ms Sugden: I look forward to hearing the plans to do so.

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

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important issue. The geographical imbalances in our economy have deep roots, as Members have said. Historical patterns of underinvestment tend to become self-reinforcing, as investment is drawn towards areas that are already economically strong. Overturning that legacy requires political commitment and determined action over time.

This is the first time that my party has controlled the Economy Department, and we have brought a new strategic focus on regional balance. It is one of our four key objectives. In October last year, my Department published its subregional economic plan. The plan committed to the creation of 11 local economic partnerships to identify the main barriers to economic development and the interventions needed to unlock it. Those partnerships have all been established, and they are now developing their action plans. As far as I am aware, a number have already signed off on their draft plans, including Causeway Coast and Glens, Maurice. Departments will be asked to work with the partnerships to deliver those plans. My Department has also established a £45 million regional balance fund to help partnerships with delivery that has been profiled over the three years.

The subregional economic plan also set a regional balance target for Invest NI for the first time. The target is to increase the number of investments outside the Belfast metropolitan area from 56% to 65% over three years. Having hit 59% in year 1 of the strategy, Invest NI is on course to achieve that ambitious target. The lack of land is a major barrier to regional balance. Invest NI is therefore implementing a new regional property programme. While infrastructure challenges exist, key projects have been identified, including a new business park at Desertcreat that aims to promote green growth and address the shortage of industrial land in mid-Ulster.

The north-west has a particularly high level of unrealised economic potential and is therefore a particular area of focus for my Department and Invest NI. The most significant project is the Magee expansion. That is a huge undertaking, involving investment in infrastructure, teaching facilities, new courses, new staff, marketing initiatives and student accommodation. The task force was established to bring together business, the university, students and the community sector in a citywide effort.

To date, all the land needed to reach the 10,000 students target has been acquired. Since the Magee task force was established, my Department, in partnership with Ulster University, has committed almost £21·5 million of capital funding, which is more than in the previous 10 years. Student enrolments at Magee have increased by 44% since 2021, and the university is confident that the number of students will reach 6,300 this year. As people see that progress being made, those who previously doubted now believe in the project and are giving their support to it. That momentum will be invaluable in reaching 10,000 students by 2032.

In addition, £3 million of annual funding from my Department has helped to secure important routes for City of Derry Airport, and FinTrU, Seagate, EY and Alchemy Technologies have announced significant investments in the area. With the support of Invest NI, however, we have seen investments across the North. To bolster our creative sector, we have developed Studio Ulster to support further investment in the future of film, animation, immersive installation and gaming. Studio Ulster receives £25 million of investment through the Belfast region city deal, which demonstrates our strong commitment to creating high-value, high-paying jobs.

In Newry, McGuinness Mechanical Engineering is investing over £3 million to double its workforce. That will enable it to grow its maintenance division and increase sales in the South. In Dungannon, Mackle Snacks invested over £6 million to expand its factory, enhance automation, boost productivity and create more good jobs. That was the first investment to be supported by Invest NI's new agri-food investment initiative.

In Omagh, almost £3 million of investment by Lagan Energy will grow its team by 30 roles over the next few years as it continues to expand its footprint in the global renewables sector. In Kilrea, Hutchinson Engineering has invested almost £12 million in new equipment that will further boost its productivity and support growth. In Ballymena, Invest NI has supported CIGA healthcare to secure almost £3 million in international contracts.

The investments in Belfast, Newry, Dungannon, Omagh, Kilrea, Ballymena and Derry help to deliver well-paid, highly skilled jobs in every town, city and rural community. As Economy Minister, I will build on that positive momentum, because everyone, no matter where they live, should have an opportunity to build a life here at home for them and their family.

My focus on supporting our tourism sector is also key to achieving regional balance. Of all employment in our tourism industry, 70% is based outside Belfast. The tourism vision and action plan, which was co-designed by my Department in partnership with the industry, is being implemented. As part of that plan, my Department is working with Fáilte Ireland to ensure that the North can benefit from its all-island regional brands. Significant investment has already been made to support the joining of the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route. That will help to bring more tourists to our amazing coastline. My Department's officials are also working closely with their counterparts in Fáilte Ireland on Ireland's Hidden Heartlands to bring together the Shannon-Erne waterway and allow the Fermanagh region to benefit from that popular tourism route.

The legacy of underinvestment will not be fully addressed overnight, but my Department and I have put a credible plan in place to promote regional balance, and progress is being made. That work will continue, because everyone should share the benefits of prosperity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Mark Durkan to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Durkan: The motion goes to the heart of something that we in the north-west have been saying for years and that many Members here have been hearing for years, which is that regional imbalance is not an accident. It has been baked into decision-making at every level of government for a long time, and it will be hard to unpick that. Regional balance is not a slogan; it is a formula for fairness, equal opportunity, a stronger, more prosperous Northern Ireland and a stronger, more prosperous Ireland, because, as has been said — I was going to make this point — partition has not worked for Derry or for Donegal. Contrary to the First Minister's belief, the north-west is not thriving, and neither are most council areas outside Belfast. That mindset, which is so detached from reality, demonstrates just how Belfast-centric politics have become here and how out of touch many of our political representatives have become.

It is not about just Derry. The SDLP — the Opposition — will tomorrow call for support for the apple-growing industry in Armagh. We are told, however, that Derry is the second city, and we continue to receive second-class treatment. There is nowhere where that imbalance has been more pronounced or more painfully felt. We are not alone, as I have said, and it is brilliant to hear so many voices around the Chamber speak in so many different accents in support of the motion. It is clear that Belfast work has not worked for anywhere else or for anyone else. Last week, I spoke about how the north-west had been left behind, with flagship arts organisations such as Echo Echo Dance Theatre and the Waterside Theatre closing and about 80% of arts funding being concentrated in Belfast. There are places that get a rawer deal than Derry in that regard, with some councils receiving less than 1% of the overall arts funding, yet the Communities Minister and the Executive have done nothing to address that. The crisis intervention service in Derry was left to collapse, despite Derry having one of the highest suicide rates on these islands. When BT jobs were stripped away from Derry, the lucky workers were told to move to Belfast, following which thousands more jobs have been announced there. That is not balance; it is the opposite of balance.

I feel that I may be playing into the image that Gary Middleton tried to portray of the SDLP when he said that we seem to have become "allergic to positivity". Given what else Gary Middleton said, I fear that the DUP and he may be becoming allergic to reality. Of course, we welcome any and every investment in Derry and the north-west, but he cited the example of the 270 jobs with the Department for Communities. I was firmly under the impression that those were through the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), not DFC. There is the £15 million for the DNA museum, which will be a brilliant asset to the tourism product in Derry, as well as the whole of the North and specifically the north-west, but all that money did not come from Executive Departments. That is the kind of gaslighting that goes on. People are not stupid; they see through it.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate my colleague giving way. Does he agree that, while lots of things that have been described today are positive in and of themselves, there is a little bit of what he calls "gaslighting" — it could also be referred to as "snake oil" — going on, with people listing things that are happening, some of which were agreed years ago, long before the Executive were restored. They are good things in and of themselves but are being described as if they were huge, revolutionary plans for regional balance when, in fact, they were announced years ago. Positive as those things are, our job as official Opposition is not to cheerlead for them.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. Those are things that happened long ago and things for which we have been waiting a long time. Mr Delargy gave the example of the Meenan Square development, of which we have heard much but seen little. Gary Middleton also accused us of "playing politics". Being accused of playing politics by the DUP is like being lectured on workplace safety by Homer Simpson. I struggled to find a comparison there, because I had to think of someone whom I would not offend by comparing them to the DUP.

The resignation of Kieran Kennedy from the Invest NI board is not an isolated act but a symptom of a wider and deeper malaise in government. The Department for the Economy's data admits that. We have heard the figures cited by a number of contributors. Labour productivity in Belfast City Council area is 31% higher than it is in Derry and Strabane District Council area. Median wages are 44% higher in Belfast than in Ards and North Down Borough Council area.

The Northern Ireland Football Fund debacle laid it bare. Clubs like Derry City FC, Institute FC and Coleraine FC were promised funding, played for fools and got zero. That decision was political. It was not independent, and it mocked any claim of regional balance. Do not forget that the first thing that the Minister did with regard to that fund was to change its name from the "subregional stadia programme fund". Representatives from all parties have expressed criticism and concern. Even the First Minister and the Economy Minister called, in the press, for full scrutiny and transparency, but, when push comes to shove, no Member from any of the Executive parties has supported our bid to ensure full scrutiny and transparency. They have just shrugged their shoulders and circled the wagons. People are not stupid, as I have said. They see through this ruling by fooling. I appreciate that Maurice Bradley and Gary Middleton have both said that they are working with the Minister and the respective clubs to sort that out, but we will not hold our breath.

The rates support grant, which was meant to — invented to, actually — support poorer councils has been slashed by 75% since 2008. Ratepayers in struggling council areas now pay far more for basic services while wealthy areas are cushioned. Those with less get less. Recently, Derry and Strabane ranked 357th out of 359 UK councils for quality of life, a fact that is ignored when Ministers boast that we are thriving.

Regional imbalance is not just about money but about mindset. The A6 upgrade has not been finished. The A5 has not been started. We cannot tell people to leave the car at home when one in five rural bus services are cancelled and rail investment bypasses the north-west. We still have not received from DFI an explanation for the blatant timetable discrimination that we see every Sunday especially, never mind the relatively small investment that would be needed to put it right. Over 100 areas face waste water constraints, and 55 projects have been lost because of it. We are also the worst in the west for health outcomes: we have the lowest psychiatrist numbers and the longest waits for surgery, autism assessments and mental health support. The people who live in the Western Trust area and the people who work for the trust are being failed by an outdated capitation formula that does not recognise social need. One in four children live in poverty. Homelessness has doubled in a decade. We welcome progress on Magee, but where is the funding not just to enable that expansion but to facilitate it causing less friction in neighbouring residential communities? We need everyone to buy in, yes, but we also need every Department to pay in.

We in the Opposition are not just cursing the darkness but trying to provide light. My colleague Ms McLaughlin has outlined again the SDLP's intention to enshrine in law, through her private Member's Bill, an end to outside of Belfast being an afterthought. Mr Delargy spoke of the need for everyone to work together to ensure regional balance. We do and we will need all parties to do that. However, we cannot merely encourage every Department to ensure regional balance; we will have to force them to do that through law.

The motion is about more than economics; it is about equality. We call on the Minister for the Economy to compel every Department to deliver real, measurable regional balance. Our message is simple: we do not want pity or platitudes; we want parity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for a debate or long-winded introductions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): On 2 June, I made a statement to the Assembly regarding my Department's 2025-26 budget allocation. In that statement, I conveyed my desire to increase opportunities and life chances for everyone in Northern Ireland and announced my intent to invest in a multimillion-pound employment programme that would support all age groups and help to tackle the barriers to economic activity. For too long, we have had the highest rates of economic inactivity across the UK. Too many of our citizens of working age are not able to enjoy the benefits of fulfilling, quality employment.

Earlier today, I launched a public consultation on an ambitious 10-year disability and work strategy, and I encourage responses to that. However, that is not all that I am doing. I want to tackle the full range of issues of unemployment and inactivity, and I want to break down those barriers to employment. That is why, today, I am also announcing a £12·4 million investment in employment support, the biggest single programme that my Department will deliver, in addition to existing employability provisions across my Department. That programme is JobStart, Creating Work Opportunities. The new employment scheme is wider-ranging than ever before. It will provide flexible, responsive support to those who need extra help to enter or re-enter the labour market.

The scheme will build on the successes of previous JobStart programmes, but it will go further. It will widen access to all working-age benefit claimants and will include more flexible options to respond to the needs of people who have additional barriers. I have had the pleasure of meeting participants from previous schemes, and they have told me how that support has changed their lives. Many had low confidence, no experience or multiple barriers to employment, yet employers across Northern Ireland were willing to give them a chance. Their faith in those participants has paid off: 96% of previous employers were satisfied with the scheme, and many have found excellent employees.

Many participants did not have the confidence to find employment on their own; indeed, the participants who are now working in my Department told me that they thought that they would never get a job in the Civil Service. When those young people arrived, they struggled to make eye contact with anyone, and their confidence was low. What a difference a training plan, a patient line manager and a supportive team make. My Department recruited nine young people at the end of the first JobStart scheme. Two years later, they are thriving in their roles. Their confidence levels are through the roof. One has already secured a promotion.

As is the case with the programme that I am launching today, the previous schemes were open to the public sector, the private sector and the community and voluntary sector, and there are many good news stories. Let me share a couple. A 16-year-old who was not in education, employment or training was placed in a local GP surgery, supporting the team in an administrative role. She tells us that JobStart helped her find a job that she truly loves. It uncovered skills and qualities that she did not know that she had and gave her the confidence to come out of her shell. She said that the belief that was shown in her gave her hope in herself. Her employer was so impressed by her performance that she secured a permanent role on the team two months before her placement was due to end. Another participant was a new mother. Following her involvement in the JobStart scheme, she shared how it gave her access to a wide range of training, built her confidence and provided her with the experience that she needed to apply for future roles. She also told us that JobStart had not just helped her professionally but helped her become a financially stable new mother. That is the power of high-quality employment support.

I want to see more people have those opportunities to participate in work, to develop and build new skills and to have a better future for themselves, their families and their communities. I am committed to delivering long-term, sustainable solutions to poverty across Northern Ireland. The Executive's anti-poverty strategy identifies work as one of the most effective ways out of poverty for working-age people.

The programme that I am announcing today promotes access to good, inclusive employment, particularly for those who face barriers in the labour market. The opportunity to participate in supportive employment improves people's health and well-being, protects them against social exclusion and provides them with income, an identity and a sense of purpose. It helps to drive us towards having a more productive and competitive economy. That approach is central to the third pillar of the anti-poverty strategy, which is to support people to exit poverty. It helps ensure that we tackle the root causes of poverty in a sustainable way. To all those who questioned the anti-poverty strategy, I say that that is just one of the many actions resulting from that strategy.

JobStart, Creating Work Opportunities opens today. We have employers already applying to offer the quality work opportunities to which so many of our citizens need access. I look forward to hearing about many more transformational experiences, and I commend my statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: We welcome any initiative to help people into work. The Minister says that this will build on the success of previous JobStart programmes: can the Minister qualify that success? Aside from some of the individual anecdotes, which we welcome, he tells us that 96% of previous employers were satisfied and that many found excellent employees. How many employees were satisfied and have found meaningful employment?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to get the exact figures from the previous schemes for the Member. I shared some of the data in the past with Ministers in the UK Government. I specifically remember sharing data with Liz Kendall when she was in post in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). She was shocked and surprised at just how successful the retention of people in employment had been. It was at over 70%, which is a huge percentage compared with that for some other programmes, so that is really positive. I can get the Member the specific information that he is looking for, but the reason that I have invested so much of my budget for this year in the programme is that it has previously been a success. It has worked. It is an investment in people that has paid off. That is why I will continue with it.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I also welcome the Minister's statement. The scheme is important. The Committee expressed regret when the previous scheme ended, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this forward.

Are there any measures over and above those in the previous scheme that might ensure the continued success of placements and greater numbers of people remaining in their employment after the scheme ends? Who will have strategic oversight of the scheme as it rolls out?

Mr Lyons: The Department will continue to oversee the scheme. There have been changes. One of the changes that might be most interesting to the Committee Chairman is the introduction of a new option. Previously, the scheme was for 25 hours' work per week, but we have now included a 15-hour week option, because it was seen as being quite a big jump for some people to go from not working, perhaps for many years, to working 25 hours a week. That is why there is a second option that allows people to work for 15 hours. Hopefully, that will be a stepping stone to further success.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for introducing the scheme. There has been criticism from others, but I like his focus on real-life examples and the people who are at the heart of the matter. It is not just about putting in money and about the numbers but about real-life examples and improving lives. I will speak specifically about the example of a new mother. Feedback from working mothers often relates to the barriers around childcare. Working mothers who are on benefits and are coming off benefits are trying to access childcare schemes. Will the Minister liaise on the anti-poverty strategy and the development of the early years and childcare strategy to ensure that working mothers get the best from the scheme?

Mr Lyons: That is an important point. I am trying to make sure that we break down barriers to employment. The Member is right to raise childcare as one of those barriers. That is why childcare is prominent in the anti-poverty strategy. The Member will be aware of the Education Minister's work in that regard, and we look forward to the publication of the childcare strategy soon. Childcare is an important element of the scheme, because we are trying to break down barriers to employment entirely. It is important that we highlight that barrier and take action on it.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the £12 million that you have announced, but will you clarify whether that money has to be spent within this financial year? How do you hope to roll it out this late in the year?

Mr Lyons: I believe that most people who will benefit from the scheme will start in this financial year, but there will be a tail from that. That £12·4 million will be spent over the next two financial years to keep them in employment.

Mr Allen: In his statement, the Minister referenced barriers on several occasions. He has highlighted to the Committee Chair the options around working hours. Will the JobStart scheme remove any other barriers that were identified under previous iterations of the scheme?

Mr Lyons: It is important that we do everything that we can to make the scheme more accessible for people. In addition to changing from having only one option of 25 hours to having another for 15, there will be a change insofar as all ages will be able to benefit from the scheme. The previous scheme was for 16- to 24-year-olds, and there was an over-55 pilot. Both of those elements have been changed. Having heard about the experience of the previous scheme, we have taken those further steps to make the experience more positive for those who want to take part.

Miss Brogan: In keeping with the previous debate, will the Minister outline how he will ensure that regional balance is factored into the scheme so that everyone across the North can benefit from it?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I want people across Northern Ireland to benefit from the scheme. That is why we have gone out to employers who were in the previous scheme and are looking for new employers to take part. I encourage everybody to take part. It does not matter where you are from: if you are looking for employment, if you want those barriers broken down and if you want a bit of support, we are here to help. I encourage people who want to avail themselves of the scheme, be that in the Member's constituency of West Tyrone or anywhere else, to apply through their jobs and benefits office (JBO) or work coach.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for the incredibly welcome £12·4 million investment in employment support. Will he confirm that that action is a result of the anti-poverty strategy, in spite of the fact that some people insisted that there were no new actions in it?

Mr Lyons: We heard people say a few times that there were no new actions. I pledged in a ministerial statement earlier this year and in the strategy itself that new actions would come forward. One of those was an employability programme, and this is the employability programme that we are bringing forward. I look forward to more actions being realised and bringing forward the action plan for the anti-poverty strategy so that we can put even more meat on the bones.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, given that there is evidence that community-led employability schemes have comparable costs and sometimes achieve higher retention, some people have implored us not to establish stand-alone government or statutory schemes but instead to scale up the voluntary and community sector-led employability delivery around the existing models that you have in your Department. Have you considered allocating new employability funding through existing voluntary and community sector networks, rather than developing new government-led schemes?

Mr Lyons: As the Committee Chairman said, the scheme was successful, and many people wanted to see it continuing. I do not see it as pitting one against the other in any way. The Member is absolutely right to say — I agree with her — that many good employment schemes are provided in that way, but JobStart served a specific purpose at that time, and we want to build on that success. Of course, I am always open to hearing other ideas about how we can use the budget that we have to even greater effect. This is one of the best ways in which we can spend the money that we have, because we get such a significant return on the investment, not just in pounds and pence but through the impact that it has on people's lives.

I have evidence from the previous schemes that I want to present to the Treasury, because I want to be clear with it that this is of huge benefit to it. I hope that we will be able to get something similar in place as we negotiate on welfare fraud and error, because we are going to great lengths and great expense to put the measures in place. The Treasury is the primary beneficiary of that financial benefit. I want to share that so that we can go even further and create more opportunities for people across Northern Ireland, including through some of the programmes that the Member mentioned.

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

Minister, will the JobStart scheme interact with the disability and work strategy that you announced earlier? Will disabled people be eligible under the scheme?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. In fact, the scheme is now available to all eligible benefit claimants. That has been flexed so that people of all ages can benefit from it. That was not previously the case. Of course, it absolutely ties in with the disability and work strategy that I announced earlier. In many cases, the people whom we have taken into the Civil Service and directly into the Department for Communities have a disability, and I want to see that continue.

The two are closely linked. One will continue to impact on the other. I certainly hope that we can continue the funding in the future, because it will make a huge difference to the work that we are doing and the target of getting 50,000 more disabled people into work over the next decade.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement, which is his second statement about delivery today.

Minister, who can participate in the JobStart scheme, and where can they apply?

Mr Lyons: I want to be absolutely clear that it goes further than the schemes that we had in place that were age-specific. We saw huge demand and interest from other age groups, so we have opened it up to all eligible benefit claimants, regardless of age. Those who are interested can apply through their work coach, via their local jobs and benefits office, if they do not have a work coach, or via the JobApplyNI website. I hope that that will be of benefit to people across East Londonderry as well.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your statement and the funding for the scheme.

You stated that the scheme will include more flexible options to respond to the needs of people who have additional barriers. What steps will be taken to ensure that rural employers and jobseekers can access the scheme equitably, given that there may be transport and digital connectivity problems?

Mr Lyons: As I said to the Member for West Tyrone Ms Brogan, I want to make sure that this has an impact right across Northern Ireland. The scheme is all about breaking down barriers. She is absolutely correct to identify that, for many people in rural areas, you will see barriers in respect of connectivity and transport and, sometimes, digital connections. That is why we will look at all those issues, together with their work coach, to see what needs to be done to help in those areas and to make sure that we can get as many people in as possible.

I encourage the Member to get in contact with the Department if she has constituents who are perhaps having some trouble or feel that additional support is necessary, because we want to hear about that and learn from it. I would love it to be a rolling scheme that meets the needs of people right across Northern Ireland, and I am happy to work with her on that.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It is very welcome. Will people who have been accepted on to the scheme be eligible for the Chancellor's right to try with regard to employment?

Mr Lyons: We still need to do some work on that to see what the connections between those are. We will work with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury, where necessary, to see what needs to be done. I can provide the Member with further information when we get that clarity. I just do not have it at this moment in time.

Mr Gaston: I feel slightly uneasy that, for the second time today, I get to my feet to welcome a statement from the Minister, but there we are.

A key component of the delivery and success of the scheme will be the ability of people to work 15 hours per week so that they can work around family life. Due to the cost of childcare, it is no longer financially viable for many of us to have households with two working parents. This is a £12·4 million investment. At this stage, can you quantify how much return the Treasury, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health will see at the other end? I know that it is early, and I know that you are going out, but do you have any idea what your investment will deliver on the far side?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy that the Member is in agreement with me twice in one day. We even had the Justice Minister agreeing with Phillip Brett today and vice versa, so something must be breaking out. We will see how long that lasts. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: I will not go that far, but the Member is right to raise the impact that this will have. We looked at some of the figures that were available, and I am not able to break those down by the impacts on Departments, but if you take someone who is not in work and bring them into work, on average, it saves £15,000. That is a direct financial benefit to the Treasury because of what will not be paid out in welfare and benefits and what the Treasury will be bringing in through National Insurance contributions and income tax. That is a considerable sum of money, but it goes even further than that. We know that if somebody is in work, they are better off. It is better for their physical and mental health, and I suspect that it has potential justice outcomes, education outcomes and health outcomes. Therefore, it is the right thing to do, not just because of the money that it will save and the benefit that it will have for the individuals concerned but because of the impact that it will have on society as a whole. That is an argument that I will be making very strongly to the UK Government. They need to invest more in programmes like this, not by pulling the rug out from underneath those who are disabled and need support but by helping those who can get back into work, whether they are disabled or not. This is a far better approach to take, and there are significant financial savings. I want to share in those so that I can do even more.

Ms Sugden: I really welcome the scheme. Businesses seemed to know that it was coming, and they seem really content about it. However, ultimately, it comes down to the people who will be employed. Minister, how are you promoting the scheme to help employers to identify talent and ensure retention? For example, neurodiverse individuals are proven to really thrive in the tech industry and the creative industries. How are you promoting this to those types of businesses so that we can get those people into those jobs?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is what we are continuing to do. You can see the success rates both for the individuals who have been employed and the companies that took them on and said, "This is absolutely brilliant". Earlier today, I told the story of someone who came to work in my Department. The individual has autism, and he absolutely thrived in the environment. He was in a data input job, and he was so well suited to the role because he knew exactly what to do. He was able to tell me what other people were doing wrong, and how he was able to correct some of their mistakes. He thrived in that environment, and I loved hearing his story. He has got a promotion. He has talent, ability and potential.

There are so many other people out there — some who have a disability and some who do not — whose talent and potential is untapped. We are spending this money to help them to get into employment, and we should promote and celebrate that. I will do everything that I can to promote the scheme to employers and potential employees, and I hope that other Members will do that. The programme has made a real difference in the past, and I believe that it can continue to make a difference. I hope that everyone will join me in making sure that it is a success.

Mr Kingston: I join others in welcoming the Minister's announcement of the new £12·4 million initiative. Will the Minister tell us more about the differences between this JobStart scheme and the past programme?

Mr Lyons: Above all, there are additional flexibilities in place in this programme that were not there in the past. I have already mentioned the two different strands. The previous scheme was for 25 hours per week, and that option is still available, but there is also a 15-hour-per-week option. The scheme is open to everyone, regardless of age. One of the previous scheme's limitations was that it was age-specific: it covered the 16-24 and over-55 age groups. However, the scheme has been successful. We are creating additional flexibilities. We will continually monitor the scheme to see whether anything else needs to be changed to make it even more accessible. We have listened to the feedback from stakeholders, and that is why the changes have been made.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Members can take their ease while we make a change at the top Table.

Mr Frew: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Before I call the Member to open the debate, I remind Members to be careful not to stray into any specific cases where there are active legal proceedings and are, therefore, sub judice.

Please open the debate on the motion, Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the motion with genuine concern. The House should also be genuinely concerned, not from a party political stance but because of an absolutely damning report that was published in November 2024 by CJINI, an organisation that exists to inspect the criminal justice elements of the Department of Justice. The House should be concerned that, since that report was published nearly a year ago, very little, if anything at all, seems to have been done to try to improve the situation in our criminal justice system. That is damning in its own right. Not only do we have a report that is damning, but we have inaction from the Justice Minister on trying to improve things.

If a state cannot protect its people, it has a massive problem. One of the priorities of any state should be to keep its people safe. That is why the criminal justice system is so important. That is why it will always be a priority in a Programme for Government. There are two Programme for Government priorities in that regard: ending violence against women and girls, and safer communities. All the indicators for the safer communities priority are going in the wrong direction. On personal safety, there is no change. On worrying about crime: no change. Crime prevalence rates are worsening. Processing times for criminal cases: worsening. Safe town and city centres: worsening. That is the Programme for Government.

Then there is the CJINI report. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime, bring offenders to justice, protect the public, provide victims of crime with justice and ensure that justice is administered in a fair and just way. If that is going wrong, what is the point of a Department of Justice, or the Minister of Justice? She is presiding over failure. The Assembly must step up and take notice, which is why we have tabled this motion.

Change has been slow, and strong leadership is not there. The inspectors made three recommendations for improvement, including one at a strategic level, which is:

Where is that? Why has that not been done? It is now over nine months since that damning report was published. Where is the action? Where is the urgency from the Department and the Minister? We see none of it.

Another target that relates to the Department of Justice is:

Where is the action on that target? Why have we not seen it? Why has it not been published? Why has the Assembly not seen any purposeful action from the Minister of Justice and the Department? That is failure. Not only is the report from CJINI damning but the inaction from the Minister is damning. It demonstrates nothing but failure.

A lot of people criticise the Executive, me being one of them, for having a silo mentality and for parties working in different ways, but here we have a Department that is working in silos. The PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the courts, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI), the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) and the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) all come under —.

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

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Mrs Long: To correct the Member, the PPS is not part of the Department of Justice.

Mr Frew: I stand corrected by the Minister. Thank you very much for that education. I would, however, like to hear from you what actions you have taken as a result of the CJINI report. I see nothing being done. That is damning. That is why I stand here today asking the Minister to bring forward her plans to try to fix the justice system.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: No, I will not give way, because I am going to run out of time. Where are the Minister's plans to do away with the silo approach? All those organisations play a fundamental role in the Department of Justice and in everyday life. They deal with victims of crime, yet the Department and the Minister are letting those people down. We know that criminal justice is not easy to address. We know that things are really difficult and challenging in the criminal justice field, but it seems that no work is being done to address the findings of CJINI's report. The report basically states that we are presiding over failure: a failure to transform the criminal justice system.

Technology has moved on, and it should be being used for the benefit of victims, witnesses and everyone else associated with the criminal justice world, but it is not. If anything, there is a perverse realisation that technology is slowing down and thus hurting the criminal justice system. It is wrong that the technology that is in place to make things efficient is being used incorrectly, thereby creating inefficiencies. That is how perverse the situation is, and it should not be the case. Something is going badly wrong. We want to be assured that the Minister of Justice has things in hand, has both hands on the steering wheel and is delivering the transformation that everyone, including CJINI, wants to see, yet, we are seeing nothing happen.

It is therefore really important that the Minister of Justice spell out today to the Assembly what moves she has made and is going to make in response to the CJINI report on transforming the criminal justice system. It is unforgivable that parts of her Department do not work well together or do not come together to create efficiencies. The buck must stop with the Minister, however. She must be the one who is held accountable for the failures of her Department. That is what we want to hear from her today in the House. It is what the public and all the people who are caught up in the criminal justice system waiting for their day in court or all those who are on remand and need to get through the system want to hear.

It is really unfair on victims when they finally get to court and realise that, even though a sentence has been handed down for a criminal act, that person can walk free because of the time that they have spent on remand. Even when people are on remand, they do not get the support from the Prison Service that they need for rehabilitation and justice for the crimes that they have committed.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: No, I will run out of time, Minister, but you will have plenty of time to address the House and the points that I make.

The report is damning. I hated reading it. I read it, and it is damning. I want the Minister to bring to the Assembly proposals that will improve things. It is on the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice, and it is about time that the victims of crime saw results.

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

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I acknowledge the core point that the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice here made in November 2024:

We all know the pressures on our justice system, and the pressures on delivering timely access to justice are well known. As of the week ending 19 September, our total prison population was 2,102. That is over 200 higher than the comparative total for last year. Our overall average daily prison population, average daily custody population and remand population have all increased by over 10% on the previous year's data, and 40% of our prison population are in prison without having stood trial or received a conviction. Our case-processing times remain concerning, with the average time for a charge case to be dealt with at the Crown Court being 542 days in 2024-25 and 630 days where the case relates to a sexual offence.

To deliver transformational change in justice, goodwill is not enough. A focus on internal improvements in our justice partners is not enough. We need our justice partners to no longer operate and make decisions independently. That is not good enough. Siloed working will only ever be capable of delivering the status quo. However, the transformational change of our justice system is not just within the remit of our Justice Department and justice partners; it is the responsibility of every Department and will require a collective, coherent and coordinated approach in conjunction with our justice agencies, organisations and legal representatives.

I therefore commend the Programme for Government commitment to:

Our reoffending rate stands at 17·4% and has remained largely static at 16% to 18% over the past decade. There have been some excellent projects for reducing reoffending rates and easing some of the pressure on the justice system, which I welcome, such as a pilot rehabilitation project with the Nexus crisis de-escalation service for survivors of domestic abuse. We have had innovative prison rehabilitation projects with community benefits, a cross-departmental commitment to addressing chronic homelessness and strengthening restorative justice efforts through projects such as Complex Lives. Those are welcome developments.

As members of the Justice Committee, we have witnessed the expansion of remote evidence centres and advances in technology using live links to courts. We have had upskirting and cyberflashing laws coming into effect and the launch earlier this year of an advice scheme for child sexual abuse victims. We need to work further to deliver a much stronger child-centred justice system, but, as the report acknowledges, some fantastic work has been done by the Youth Justice Agency.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Miss McAllister: Does the Member agree that there is a direct contradiction when it comes to Lakewood and Woodlands? Young people in Woodlands are treated exceptionally well and given all the resources that they need, but the young people in Lakewood, who are there for their own safety and mental health, do not get the vital resources and help despite the dedicated staff there. It has been said in the public forum that young people are better off in the criminal justice system than in our health system. That should not be the case, but it should be applauded.

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

Ms Ferguson: I agree with the Member. I have heard many parents talk about the accessibility of support in the community and say that support in our Prison Service is more readily available. As the Minister will be well aware, I have submitted questions to her on a Barnahus model for the North, which would bring together a multidisciplinary team of professionals from health, justice, education and child welfare all under the one roof to prevent re-traumatisation and enhance access to justice for children.

Additionally, we all know too well the significant links between adverse childhood experiences and offending, as evidenced in the landmark study that was published at the beginning of the year. I want to emphasise that it is important for Departments such as Communities, Health and Education to work collectively with our Justice Department and the range of partners in the justice sector, because, given their remit, they have a significant role to play in breaking the cycle of crime and disadvantage. We all have important work ongoing with the Justice Bill, which includes proposals for legislative change to criminalise the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images and to improve services for victims and witnesses.

I look forward to ongoing work to improve opportunities for our children and citizens and to enhance public safety, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what support and assistance is coming forward from our Communities Minister, our Health Minister and our Education Minister to support our justice partners in securing transformational change in our justice system.

Ms Egan: Shared goals and a shared vision across all criminal justice agencies is essential for delivering effective public services and building safer communities in Northern Ireland. Any transformation or change to our criminal justice system must have the needs of victims and the public at its heart. That is how we will ensure full confidence and trust in the system for years to come. I and my party sympathise with the elements of the motion that embody that perspective. However, Alliance is not in a position to support the motion as it stands. It does not encapsulate the full picture of progress at hand. A motion entitled "Failure to Transform the Criminal Justice System" is one that focuses on blame rather than on the real-time progress that is being made.

Inspections are about continuous progress and improvement and building on the learnings of the past to ensure a better future. That was emphasised by the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice when I met her earlier this year. The work that her office completes is vital for proper assurance for the systems that govern criminal justice.

The CJI report that the motion references intends to provide a high-level strategic overview of transformation work across the criminal justice system. Its publication was welcomed across the spectrum of parties in the Assembly, including my party, Alliance. It also reiterates what so many of us already know, namely that silo working across government or partners of government can contribute to problems with its effective functioning. Justice agencies that are unable to be consistently funded to the level of actual need can create delays and long-lasting damage that cannot be undone in one Budget cycle. The report also shone a light on examples of where collaboration and shared goals have persisted and where improvement has occurred: for example, modernising systems through impactful digital platforms or the transitioning to the youth justice strategy.

Following the publication of the Criminal Justice Inspection's report, it is on public record that the Minister and her officials carefully considered the recommendations and, in May this year, accepted the strategic recommendation that iterated the need for shared strategic priorities across the criminal justice sector. That acceptance shows the Minister's willingness to reflect on the expertise and findings of the inspector and shows her Department's dedication to delivering real transformation. The Minister is also on public record on numerous instances stating that the work is under way and will be shared when complete. However, that work can take time, particularly when it involves consultation with operationally independent bodies that have competing work priorities, all with their own needs and budgetary asks. Whilst it is work in progress, good work is being done.

As it stands, the Criminal Justice Board is brought together by terms of reference rather than through a specific, shared vision piece as the report recommended. Therefore, whilst it does not have executive decision-making powers, it has an excellent foundation of positive relationships between senior leaders across justice agencies. Their openness to collaboration with each other and with the DOJ has resulted in action where cross-system response is most needed. A particular example is the Department's work on speeding up justice, as in the Programme for Government, to enable efficiency and deal with the delays that the motion mentions.

The report also outlines some of the difficulties that the criminal justice system has experienced since the devolution of policing and justice, none of which should sound particularly unfamiliar to any of us. Some of those noted include Executive collapse, which resulted in gaps with no ministerial leadership; the Department of Justice's historically lacking budgetary position; and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. What do all those difficulties have in common? It is that they also rely on the actions and agency of other political parties across the Chamber. The motion seems to neglect that. If we really want to commit, as an Assembly, to transforming the criminal justice system, there should be a commitment to staying in government to give all this work the best chance at success.

I want to be clear. The motion does not come across as a criticism of the Justice Minister or the Department of Justice as a whole, but in fact of all justice agencies that sit on the Criminal Justice Board. It neglects the specific progress that has been made, as referenced in the report, or others, including the unannounced inspection of Hydebank Wood Secure College, which was published in the same month and highlighted Hydebank as "an impressive institution". I do not accept that the report is damning, as the proposer puts forward. As such, Alliance will not vote in favour of the motion.

Mr Burrows: There is a grave crisis facing our justice system, which is now the softest and slowest in the United Kingdom and which lets down victims. A dangerous culture has emerged that puts perpetrators first and victims last. I will particularly look at violence against women and girls, sexual violence and domestic violence against women. This is a case study of what is wrong in our justice system.

I say at the start that you cannot have transformational change without transformational leadership. That will not be delivered by the current Justice Minister, who has failed to grip the issues at hand. Let me talk about domestic violence for a moment. Delay is described as anathema to justice, but when it comes to domestic violence, delay is deadly for women. At every point where there is a delay in a domestic violence case, the chance of the woman dropping out of the case increases exponentially. Suspects in domestic violence, as a tactic, plead not guilty until the very last moment, hoping that the victim will drop out. It is also the case that the judges give bail to people because the case is so delayed that they cannot justify holding them on remand. So you have a case where either the victim drops out or the suspect, who has terrified the victim, gets out and kills the victim, as has happened numerous times, or else the victim drops the case.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: If we are talking about reform and transformation of the justice system, does the Member accept that the trial that has been done about using the remote evidence centre for domestic abuse contest cases has been an outstanding success, with well in excess of 95% conviction rates, because the victim is empowered to turn up, as they would not have been before, there is often a guilty plea immediately on them doing so, and those who have been asked for their views of how it has worked have said that it has been very impressive?

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

Mr Burrows: I am afraid that, for many, it is too little, too late. I have been calling for these things for years. The Minister needs to take responsibility for her —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree with me that, in one example recently, it was released by the Justice Department that one case in particular has been waiting to go to trial for 15 years?

Mr Burrows: It is unjustifiable and beyond refutation that we have a slow criminal justice system. However, instead of dealing with it, we have talked around the edges. Here is how you deal with it. You change the sentencing guidelines to make it the case that, if you do not plead guilty until the last minute, you get no credit. In fact, you should get an exemplary sentence so that everybody knows —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way again because my time is short.

Delays are anathema. We are also the softest justice system in the UK. Consistently, the figures show that our sentencing is soft and getting softer. The number of sexual crimes has gone up by 50%, but the number of those who are found guilty of those crimes and end up in prison has gone down by 50%. There is a clear trend. Again, victims of domestic violence or domestic assault not only say, "Look, this is going to be a long trial" —.

The Justice Minister is chatting while I am speaking, but these are really important issues, Justice Minister. We do not see you often in the Chamber, so it would be good if you listened about domestic violence, because it is a really important issue. Sexual assault —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, will you make your remarks through the Chair, please, and restrict them to the terms of the motion?

Mr Burrows: I apologise. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are getting softer, and victims see a long process with very little outcome. That dissuades victims from making statements and staying the course. These are things that we can change. Often, the PPS sends things to the wrong court. Time and time again, the PPS sends things to the Magistrates' Court that belong in the Crown Court. I have seen cases where the maximum sentence available by law is 14 years, and a prosecutor sends it to the Magistrates' Court, where, to begin with, you start with a one-year sentence.

A culture has crept in whereby the perpetrator comes first and the victim comes last. The PSNI is affected by it. Just today, it has announced that it will not release the mugshot of someone who was convicted of rape and is on the run. Why? It is because the human rights aspect has been interpreted wrongly. It is the same with smoking in prison: long after it was banned in Great Britain, our prison officers' lungs are subject to passive smoking, because the Northern Ireland Prison Service has not banned smoking; it put the prisoner before the prison officer. That is what is wrong in our system. It needs transformational leadership, and we are not going to get it. It is time that we stood up for the victim and made people pay for their crimes.

Mr McGlone: We welcome the motion and the opportunity to highlight concerns about the criminal justice system and the experiences of victims and witnesses of criminal activity, since the devolution of policing and justice. The DUP motion, as we now expect from a motion tabled by another Executive party, blames the Justice Minister for almost everything. However, it is, ultimately, the Minister's responsibility to set the agenda and to ensure that strategies are in place to achieve her vision for her Department. Perhaps that is where the problem lies, because the criminal justice system is in need of transformation. Like the Executive, it is not entirely working.

The Police Service is understaffed and underfunded, and is not representative of the community. There have been systematic abuses of police surveillance powers, and arrests often seem arbitrary. Prosecutions take too long to go to court, and, when they do get to court, sentencing often appears to be unduly lenient, even to the Public Prosecution Service. The Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science all face staffing and resource pressures. The Minister's promise in 2020 to address hate crime as a priority was suspended along with the Executive. The stand-alone hate crime Bill, which was proposed in Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation, has been dropped, as the Minister informed the Assembly in September 2024, because of a lack of time and resource. Over a year later, the Marrinan recommendations that she is bringing forward remain in draft form. That is not the new start that was promised by the Good Friday Agreement, and certainly not the new start that was promised when policing and justice were eventually devolved. All that has an impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system, and that is the responsibility of the Justice Minister.

As the motion points out, it is more than nine months since the publication of the recommendations in the Criminal Justice Inspection report. That report made recommendations for system-wide improvement. It called for the Minister to agree, along with the Criminal Justice Board, a shared future vision and strategic priorities to deliver change across the criminal justice system. To date, it has not happened, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. Until the shared future vision is agreed, the corresponding strategy, objectives and actions cannot be properly developed. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain where any current disagreements on the future vision remain.

The Minister previously stated that the CJI has been informed of and accepted her position on the timescales. The Minister has, of course, argued that, given the scale of the ambition and the complexity of the system, it is important to do it right, and so it is. Again, I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how that intention is going, as it is the Minister's role to lead.

Transforming the criminal justice system needs a Minister who is determined to drive the necessary transformation, convince others of the need for reform and get agreement on the way forward. That is where the Minister is failing in her duty to the Assembly and the public. There is as yet no shared future vision, action plan or strategy. There must be no more delay. The Minister needs to explain what her vision for the future criminal justice system is. She needs to explain to the Assembly what she plans to do to reach agreement with the Criminal Justice Board on that vision and when. Then, and only then, can effective strategies, objectives and actions, to which my party and I look forward, to achieve that vision can be properly developed.

Miss Hargey: I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Sinn Féin believes in a justice system that works for all in a timely manner and that is human rights-compliant and, importantly, victim-centred. We also believe in effective rehabilitation in order to build healthy and safe communities, where reoffending and crime are reduced. Our engagement at a constituency level and our work on the Justice Committee show that many people in our communities believe that the justice system is too slow in delivering fairness, timeliness or accountability. That undoubtedly impacts on public confidence. We all have a duty to address that issue collectively in the Chamber and outside it.

The CJI report last November was timely, as the Justice Committee had been looking at those issues and raising concerns around delays in the system, the impact of that on victims and witnesses and, of course, the ongoing dispute around legal aid. It is important to restate, however, that the report also recognised that, with the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, it also:

Those included delays, access to justice, rehabilitation and the impact on victims and witnesses. At that time, the transfer was not matched with the adequate resources to tackle those historical gaps that were left under direct rule.

It is also concerning that, as the report laid out, we have seen limited improvements in performance and, more importantly, little or no improvement in the experience of victims, witnesses or front-line staff. Those areas must be a priority, and we want to work with the Minister to address them. I know that she is bringing legislation forward in this mandate in that area.

The report rightly highlights long police investigations, slow decision-making by the PPS, cases arriving in court that are not ready to proceed and continued issues around legal aid. Those issues are not new. They have been raised time and again by the legal profession and, more importantly, by victims and families. We have seen the development of a number of strategies since 2010, but the report, rightly, highlights that, despite those changes, change has often been slow. Despite areas of investment, outcomes have been static. That needs to change.

The real concern with all that is a lack of joined-up thinking or a clear coherent strategy and, importantly, an agreed strategic vision. We know that CJI gave the Department six months to allow for the development of a shared future vision. The Committee has been asking for updates on that. I am keen to hear from the Minister about a timeline for the publication of that vision. As others stated earlier, a lot of that work includes recognising the importance of cross-departmental working, whether it is the Health Department, the Education Department or the Department for Communities. Slippage in any of those areas in relation to housing or access to a social worker further feeds the delay in the justice system.

One of the most concerning issues highlighted in the report is the delay in establishing a proper needs assessment service for victims and witnesses. The consequences of that can be devastating. Not only are victims left re-traumatised by drawn-out, complex processes but there is the knock-on effect of a growing lack of trust in the system.

Notwithstanding those challenges, it is important to recognise that last year's CJI report identified areas of improvement and key achievements, such as the reform of youth justice, a reduction in the numbers of children in custody and in the Youth Court and, of course, the importance of investing in data sharing across the agencies.

Sinn Féin stands ready to play our part in building a justice system that reflects the values of fairness, equality and accountability. We will work with the Minister and across the Chamber to deliver that. Consistent access to justice, including legal aid, is a core public service, not a privilege. We must ensure that the justice system is properly resourced and that the agreements that are being negotiated with the profession are implemented as soon as possible. Defending the rights of all in the justice system is important, so —

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

Miss Hargey: — we are keen to work with the Minister, and —

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

Miss Hargey: — I am keen to get the update.

Mr Kingston: As a new member of the Justice Committee, I am doing a lot of reading to better understand the operation of the various agencies in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a complicated structure, and, it has to be said, our justice system is not performing efficiently compared with justice systems elsewhere in the UK.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Speeding up justice: avoidable delay in the criminal justice system' stated in 2018:

Those figures have not improved. DOJ figures for 2024-25 show that Crown Court cases in which someone had been charged with an offence in Northern Ireland took an average of 542 days to complete. That is still over twice the UK average of about 225 days. Summons cases in the Northern Ireland Crown Court last year took twice as long again, an average of over 1,200 days, to complete.

Our motion focuses on the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System', which was published in November last year. The report was certainly critical of our criminal justice system. Chief Inspector Jacqui Durkin wrote in her foreword:

The executive summary begins by describing the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland as:

It is now 15 years since justice was devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly in 2010, so the inspectorate and the public will rightly ask what improvements have been made to reduce delays. The inspection report, however, states that there has been:

The report concludes that the Criminal Justice Board, which, I understand, the Minister chairs, is:

The report is helpfully brief. It makes just one strategic recommendation and two operational recommendations in order to focus minds. Its single strategic recommendation is that, within six months of the publication of the report last November, the Criminal Justice Board, which the Minister chairs, should agree:

There are two operational recommendations. One of those is for the PSNI's strategic transformation board. The other is:

and various chief officers "should review" various elements of the criminal justice structure

In other words, an efficiency drive.

Now that it is 11 months since the report was published, our motion asks the Minister what progress has been made, whether the recommendations have been achieved — if not, why not — and what the action plan and timescale are for achieving:

I am astonished that Alliance has said that it will vote against the motion. Does it reject the CJI report? The actions called for in our motion are the actions called for in the CJI report. Scrutiny, criticism and recommendations are the pathway to improvement. When criminal justice does not perform effectively, there is a significant impact on victims, defendants, witnesses and their families.

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

Mr Kingston: We all, and the Minister —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No, your time is up, Mr Kingston —

Mr Kingston: We have a duty to deliver that strategic change.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — and I call Nuala McAllister.

Miss McAllister: There is an urgent need to transform public services across the board in Northern Ireland. I am all too well aware of that from my role as a member of the Health Committee. The criminal justice system is not exempt from that need, and the CJINI 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland' report was welcomed by Alliance when it was published last year. We recognised the need for timelier progress to be made in the areas that were highlighted in the report.

We are concerned that the proposers of the motion have missed some of the important content of the report. There is some irony there. Members might not like its being referenced on page 18 of the report, but the fact is that, since the devolution of policing and justice in 2010, this place has spent one third of its time in collapse. The report highlights and criticises that fact. We are well aware that responsibility for that falls not just at the DUP's door but at Sinn Féin's.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Kingston: I listened to what the Member said about the Assembly being down. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the current Justice Minister has been in post for all but 16 months of the time since January 2020. That is over 75% of the time. That is my reading of the dates: she has been Minister for three quarters of that time.

Miss McAllister: The Member will be aware that the Minister was a caretaker Minister for some time. Those figures are not correct, but I will move on to highlight some of the positive things that were done in those years.

If parties are to be serious about supporting the Department in its work to progress the recommendations of not only the CJINI report but any report or strategy related to the Department of Justice that the Minister has accepted, resources and commitment from all Executive parties to the funding that is required to carry out the work must follow. Just 0·5% of the Department's budget is discretionary: that is the money that is left over after everything for which funds are tied up is dealt with.

I will, however, highlight the positives that the Minister has achieved with just that 0·5%. It is also important to highlight the fact that, during the years in which the DOJ budget started to flatline and then decline, a DUP Finance Minister was in a position to allocate those resources. Despite that, the Minister and the Department have shown willingness to make progress, and I will touch on some of that progress, particularly for victims and survivors.

Some Members mentioned the progress on digital strategy and youth justice, but I will highlight victims' issues. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 are just three pieces of legislation that are the outworkings of this mandate. Just last week, at the Policing Board, the PSNI highlighted positive figures from being able to use those new powers. In almost 200 instances — not 200 victims, but instances, although some, not many, would have involved the same victims — officers were able to protect victims because of the powers handed to them; all those powers at a time when we see instances of domestic abuse increasing.

We know and the PSNI has said that we are one of the safest places in Europe. However, we do not take our eye off the ball, and we do not forget about victims. I thank the Minister for calling for a review of the Jonathan Creswell case, because, when other parties were calling for apologies and criticising other Members for scrutinising and holding to account the very people and institutions that failed to protect a young girl, my Minister stood up and said, "Something went wrong, and it has to be sorted".

I also want to mention the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC), which nobody else in the Chamber has mentioned.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I clearly called out that mistakes were made in the Creswell case. He was a wicked and evil man. However, it was inappropriate to name John Caldwell, a victim of terrorism, as having done something wrong when the ombudsman found no wrongdoing by Mr Caldwell.

Miss McAllister: I will say that the Katie Simpson investigation is not finished, and we need to see the outworkings of the Creswell review and everything that comes out of the Policing Board and PONI.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There should probably not be reference to any live case. Even more importantly, it is necessary that we now return to the terms of the motion.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will just highlight that the Katie Simpson case is finished, and, unfortunately, the perpetrator evaded justice. I accept the Deputy Speaker's point.

There is no denying that the pace needs to speed up. That was why, when it comes to MARAC, it was my Minister who forced others to get on board to change the system. Other Departments, particularly under the UUP, have failed to protect victims in that regard. There is no denying that the pace needs to change. However, there is also no denying that Alliance does not just talk about action and let strategies gather dust on the shelves. The Justice Minister takes action and protects victims. She has put her money and priorities where her mouth is. I welcome the change in tone from the proposing party and other parties that have criticised and said that their Departments need all the funding. I look forward to when they put pressure on the Finance Minister and the whole Executive to allocate adequate resources to the Department of Justice.

Mr O'Toole: I will try to speak briefly to the motion. As my colleague Patsy McGlone said, the SDLP will support it. My party does not agree with the DUP all too often, but it is a totally reasonable motion. The point of its being reasonable is made ever so starkly obvious by what, it has to be said, has been, frankly, an intemperate response from members of the Alliance Party to a reasonable motion. We just heard the spokesperson from the Alliance Party referring to something called "my Minister". We were told about "my Minister". I did not realise that, when the Justice Minister took the Pledge of Office, she was pledging to be their Minister. They have all come here to —.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. They have all come here to do justice to their master's voice. It is a completely ridiculous way, frankly, to do government and politics. The motion —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: Sorry: I am in the middle of my speech. Do you want an intervention? OK.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the point that has just been made, I would be grateful if you could review the transcript because it seems to suggest that I dictate what party members ought to say on the Floor of the House. I also do not appreciate the reference to "their master's voice", because it is certainly not how we operate as a party. Those disparaging and personal remarks are inappropriate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): It can be checked and reported on.

Mr O'Toole, you have an extra minute.

Mr O'Toole: First — I am not in the Chair — I am sure that that was not a point of order, but the Member is entitled to stand up and make it.

The Alliance Party has demanded, effectively, the privatisation of the Justice Ministry for the past decade and a half while devolution has been in operation. Sorry: I am afraid that that is a fact.

Mrs Long: It is not.

Mr O'Toole: It is a fact. It was funny to hear Alliance members stand up and talk about —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, may I intervene briefly? You are one minute and 15 seconds into your time — now more than that, in fact. I do not think that you have referred to the wording of the motion at all. I ask you to address it.

Mr O'Toole: I have, actually, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will not challenge your ruling.

What I will say is this: the Criminal Justice Inspection report came out in November 2024. It was clear that it wanted a vision document published within six months. That is at the heart of the motion. That has not yet been published. A written answer was given to Miss McIlveen, a DUP Member, just a couple of weeks ago. It was a long answer, but it offered no clarity on when that vision would be published. That is why the motion is here today, and I recognise that there are certain Members in the Chamber who do not like accountability. We as the Opposition do accountability without fear or favour, and it has to be said that Members from across the Chamber have simply asked today for accountability on a vital matter of criminal justice policy.

It is true to say that, since the devolution of policing and justice 15 years ago, there are real structural problems that have not been resolved and, in many cases, have got worse. Mr Kingston referred to the time that it takes to get through Crown Court cases. The most famous aphorism of all is that justice delayed is justice denied. When Crown Court cases take twice the length of time of those in other parts of the UK, that is a fundamental structural problem in our criminal justice system. It is why we need to see a response from the Department and clarity. I acknowledge that it is cross-cutting and that it involves other Departments and Ministers from other Departments supporting the Justice Minister. That is, why, frankly, I was pointing out that it was so absurd to hear phrases such as "my Minister" when you are, on the other hand, calling for cooperation.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take a point?

Mr O'Toole: I will take a point briefly in the spirit of constructive debate.

Miss McAllister: It is not really constructive. Does the Member accept that we often just say things like "my Minister"? It is all our Minister. The Minister is my party leader, but it is a rather petty issue to get at. I remember you doing the same on social media many times.

Mr O'Toole: I am delighted that my social media content is so popular. We will move on from that point and go back to the main thrust of the motion, which is about criminal justice.

I mentioned the delay in Crown Court cases, and there is also the matter of reoffending rates. I can genuinely say that the Justice Minister and her party are committed to rehabilitation and to reducing reoffending. I think that they are. Our reoffending rates are not coming down. Adult reoffending rates are actually slightly up from where they were when justice was devolved. I think that youth reoffending rates are slightly down. Those are things that we are entitled to hold the Minister accountable for. Given that, for the whole time that policing and justice has been devolved, in large part one party has held that post when devolution has been in operation, it is not churlish or unreasonable to ask for accountability on that, specifically when that transformation report called for it within six months and that was nine months ago.

It is a fair point, made by Alliance Members, that the DUP, as always, and, indeed, Sinn Féin talk about delivery on these things and then collapse the institutions. That is why I want to see reform of the institutions. I share that with the Alliance Party. Last February, that should have been —.

A Member: Will the Member take a point?

Mr O'Toole: I am afraid I do not have time to take an intervention.

That is why it should have been a priority for the Alliance Party when it went back into the Executive. It appears that it was not, but I am sure that it can account for that.

I share with others in the Chamber a desire to see the justice system improved and what was called for in the CJINI report reflected on. That is why we support the motion, and I hope that it can be taken forward in a constructive spirit.

Mr Gaston: This evening has been insightful. There has been insight into the mindset of the Alliance Party. As well as hearing "my Minister", we have now found out that the Justice Minister appears still to be in caretaker mode. If the Member for North Belfast wants to tell her that caretaker season is over, we can now get a Justice Minister who will take control of her entire Department, instead of passing the buck at every opportunity that she gets.

The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report that was published in November 2024 raises a litany of serious and significant issues, none greater than the delays in the justice system. Ecclesiastes chapter 8, verse 11 reads:

Therefore, I believe that there is a direct correlation between delay and an increase in lawlessness. Despite or perhaps because of 15 years of devolved policing and justice and despite countless strategies, endless policy papers and millions of pounds spent, the report makes it plain that there has been limited improvement. It catalogues systemic failure to deliver.

We have a justice system that is plagued by delay at every stage. Criminal cases now take on average 769 days to complete; that is up from 527 days just five years ago. It means that victims wait two full years for justice. Delay is not a neutral matter. It has real and dangerous consequences: victims wait in anguish; witnesses lose faith; and public confidence evaporates. In the midst of that failure, alleged serious offenders who should be held in remand for public protection use the delays to argue for bail. For others, by the time that their case crawls to a conclusion, they have effectively served their sentence already. The perverse outcome is that our justice system rewards delay rather than punishing wrongdoing. That is not justice; it is dysfunction.

The report also lays bare how victims are treated. Too often, they are left in the dark and not informed about key decisions or changes in bail conditions. They feel forgotten by a system that was supposed to stand with them. A justice system that cannot deliver for victims is a justice system that fails its most basic moral test.

What has Stormont done in response? Another round of strategies, more working groups and more transformation proposals on glossy paper that will never materialise in practice. One of the key problems is that we have a Justice Minister who, when asked about areas within her remit, is only too keen to say that it has nothing to do with her. The caretaker role very much suits this Justice Minister. She fobs off MLAs in the House in a manner not seen in any other Department. She hides behind operational independence as a convenient shield against scrutiny. When Members ask legitimate questions about how her Department functions, she points them elsewhere —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Come back to the motion, please.

Mr Gaston: — telling them to contact agencies that sit directly under her Department. That is not accountability.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter of accountability mechanisms in the Chamber and those that lie elsewhere has been ruled on by the Speaker in the past. I ask that the Speaker reviews the comments that have just been made with respect to my accountability to the House. They are wholly inappropriate and disingenuous. They also misrepresent an established rule by the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, we can take note of those comments.

As for your continuation in the debate, Mr Gaston, will you go back to the terms of the motion, as I have asked you to do previously?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I trust that that will —

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

Mr Gaston: — be taken as an intervention and an extra minute will be applied.

That is not accountability, and it is time that the Minister renounced her throne. I will vote in support of the DUP motion because the failures that it highlights are real and serious. However, I must ask this: for all the warm words and all the bluster coming from the Benches about Mrs Long's failures, do you still have confidence in her? Is this another motion and another social media post with no meaningful action? I put it to the DUP and the Ulster Unionists that, if they feel that what they have outlined today is a resigning matter —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, what you are referring to —

Mr Gaston: — and that there is no confidence in the Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat.

Mr Gaston: — I trust that they will sign my motion of no confidence, and I thank them for their —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Stop. You know and I know that what you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with the motion in the Order Paper. You left it to the end deliberately, but it will not wash with me.

I call on the Minister to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report, 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Overview', which was published in November 2024. I acknowledge that it provides a challenge to the justice system to reflect on our pace and approach to change and transformation. The report, however, also acknowledges the difficulties that the system has faced in making such progress, including the inheritance of issues that existed prior to devolution, such as delay, access to justice, victim and witness care and the effective rehabilitation of offenders. The combined absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly for prolonged periods, poor annual budget allocations year-on-year and the challenges of business continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic added to the challenges that the criminal justice system has faced in recent years. It is worth noting that work to speed up justice was starting to reduce the time that it took for cases to proceed through the Crown Court in the first two quarters, until COVID hit in 2019.

It is also important to acknowledge that the CJINI report highlighted a number of notable achievements in recent years, including the reform of youth justice, which reduced the number of children in custody and the number of cases prosecuted at Youth Court. That, in particular, will have long-term implications, because a reduction in youth offending among our young male population will feed through the system. We know that young people will graduate from one part of the system to another, so that is critical. The achievements also include the continued development of the Causeway system to facilitate the electronic sharing of information on criminal cases between key justice agencies and the use of live links, to name but a few. The use of live links is critical when it comes to discussing not only the speeding up of justice but the impact on victims and witnesses.

It is also important to note that the nature of the crime that the criminal justice system is dealing with is not standing still. The Chair of the Committee asked how we can have all of this technology and not make efficiencies. Of course, the criminals also have access to all of that technology, which makes the investigation of many offences much more complex and time-consuming. I would have thought that that was apparent without my having to spell it out. Cases are becoming ever more complex. The increasingly digital world in which we live is reflected in investigations, where, often, technology is used in the commission of offences and digital devices need to be analysed for evidential material that may be relevant to deciding whether to prosecute. Those are significant challenges that create pressure across the system.

I will look back slightly further. Since devolution, a number of measures have been introduced to help improve the system. New measures were introduced to simplify the summons process and to encourage earlier guilty pleas. I will come to the issue of early guilty pleas, because, of course, there is a court ruling that constrains the amount of credit that a judge can give, depending on the timing of the guilty pleas. That is something that we are actively looking at. More proportionate forensic reporting and the first phase of committal reform have been delivered. It was not thanks to the Chamber that we got there on committal reform, because, in 2015, the first attempt by an Alliance Minister to come forward with committal reform was shot down in the House by one of Mr O'Toole's colleagues at the time and Mr Gaston's colleague. However, we managed to get there eventually. Its removal for victims and witnesses meant that they would not have to give oral evidence more than once during committal proceedings.

Measures were also introduced to divert low-level cases from the formal criminal justice system through the use of penalty notices in 2012 and community resolution notices in 2016. However, despite efforts to date, the number of cases prosecuted in court remains relatively high, which is having an impact on the finite Justice resources and contributing to pressure on the system. Of course, that is not helped when people make a clamour and say that every case must go to court, irrespective of whether it is serious or otherwise or when people argue that every criminal must go to jail, because anything that is not jail is not effective. All of that noise affects the risk appetite of justice partners in the system. It does not affect my risk appetite, because I recognise that it needs to happen.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will indeed.

Miss McAllister: Does the Minister welcome the comments made by the Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable last week at the Policing Board, when they welcomed the options on out-of-court disposals, including those for lower-level offences and, furthermore, highlighted that they were a key contributing factor in developing the proposals?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. They led the working group that led to the proposals on which I am now consulting on behalf of the Criminal Justice Board. We try to be collective, but some people will try to unpick even that.

The long-standing and ongoing funding challenges for Justice are also well articulated in the Chamber. They will, undoubtedly, impact on what can be delivered. To be clear, I cannot do everything with nothing. I either have the resources or I do not, and that will have an impact on what the Department can achieve. The DOJ's share of the Northern Ireland block grant has fallen continually over the past 14 years. It has fallen from just under 11% in 2011-12 — I would argue that that was not sufficient, given that there was no anticipation that we would still be dealing with the overhang of legacy at this remove — to just over 8% in 2025-26.

That underfunding continues to hamper efforts to transform the justice system, as funding is, quite rightly, prioritised to demand-led, front-line activities, including policing, prisons and courts. It is also in contrast with the Department of Education and the Department of Health, which have seen massive increases in the proportion of the block grant that they get, yet they have delivered precious little by way of transformation.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Long: That leaves the system with less than 0·5% of discretionary spend, making it extremely difficult to engage in meaningful transformation and to sustain that transformation. Although we have an appetite for change, it is only now, through successful bids and through initiatives such as the public-sector transformation board that we can find the significant funding that is needed to sustain our endeavours.

It is important to raise those issues for context, but I want to focus on key developments in the Department and in the wider justice system that I believe will address the questions posed and allay some of the concerns that have been raised, assuming, of course, that Members raised them in good faith.

I, along with colleagues across the criminal justice system, recognise that long-term sustainability is dependent on reform and modernisation in order to enable the optimisation of resources to deliver a more efficient and timely service. In response to the strategic recommendation in the CJINI report, my Department is leading on work to develop a criminal justice vision that will be used to define system-wide strategies, objectives and actions. The shared vision and priorities, when finalised, will be communicated and embedded in justice organisations' planning in order to provide a shared sense of direction.

CJINI recommended that the work be completed within six months. Given the scale and significance of the ambition, however, combined with the complexity and independence — yes, independence — of independent parts of the system, it is important that it be done properly, that we do not encroach on their independence sphere by bringing it forward and that they all buy into the vision. That work is therefore ongoing, and CJINI is aware of that work and is being engaged as part of the wider consultation process to develop the shared vision. It is important that the process be collaborative and inclusive but also that it recognise the independence of the constituent members of the justice system.

Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Not at this point. CJINI accepts that position, and we will have the work finalised in the coming months. The vision will be key to embedding a collaborative, cross-justice approach to issues affecting the criminal justice system.

The Chair of the Committee also asked about the review of the purpose and membership of boards and fora aimed at reducing duplication and freeing up capacity. That was undertaken in May, and no significant issues emerged as a result of the review. Most people felt that the work that was being done by the boards that they sat on was sufficiently different and distinct from the work of some of the other boards that it would not be —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will not at this point. As I was saying, they felt that their work was sufficiently different and distinct from the work of some of the other boards that it would not necessarily be appropriate to make changes to them, but we are revisiting some of the review's findings at the moment.

The CJINI report also noted a lack of cross-justice investment in and development of technology and that individual organisations did not always consider the impact of specific changes on other organisations in the system. In the coming months, my Department will publish a new digital justice strategy to tackle those issues. It is a pivotal initiative that aims to support the delivery of a modern digital justice system.

In this age and at this time, we recognise the necessity of providing secure, trusted and user-friendly technology to support those working in the justice system and those who need to engage at any point with justice organisations. It is a cross-justice strategy that has been developed in partnership with stakeholders right across the system and aims to ensure that technological developments are used to enhance processes and access to services and to embed a culture of digital transformation in years to come. In addition, we are continuing to progress work across a range of topical issues that the report highlighted as being long-term issues for the system.

Delay is one of the biggest challenges that the justice system faces, and it has been identified as a key priority by me as Minister and, indeed, by the Criminal Justice Board and other justice agencies. Delaying criminal cases has a negative impact on those who come into contact with the system, as well as on wider confidence in the community. The speed with which cases progress is of huge importance to victims, witnesses, the accused, their families and wider society.

The delivery of a speeding up justice programme is a Programme for Government commitment under the safer communities priority. The programme is a joint, cross-justice, collaborative effort under the direction of the CJB, on which senior leaders of the criminal justice system are represented, including me, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service, as well as a number of senior officials, including the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, who, I believe, has to be at the heart of transformation because of my personal commitment to ensuring that the system services victims.

The programme takes a whole-system approach and focuses on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviours. It also aims to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and the communication between justice organisations and the public. Earlier this year, the Department successfully secured £20·5 million of transformation funding to support the programme's delivery. That has already been used to accelerate ongoing work in the early engagement and out-of-court-disposals projects. It is a significant boost to progressing the important programme of work, but, ultimately, progress will be dictated by decisions made in the House, and whether those decisions are based on evidence or populism will be a test for the Assembly, not solely for the Department.

The Department is also finalising the new victims and witnesses of crime strategy. Our mission statement is:

In recognition of the fact that victims and witnesses are impacted on across many areas of justice, the strategy and action plan that are currently in development have been planned in collaboration with criminal justice organisations, Victim Support NI, the NSPCC and the Commissioner for Victims of Crime and will complement and inform related work streams, including tackling delay, which, I believe, will support ongoing system-wide improvement. As I pointed out, significant improvements have already been made as a result of the remote evidence centres, which I also championed. It is important to recognise that that breakthrough technology will allow people to have their cases heard and to get the outcomes that they want.

I recognise that delays in the justice system can contribute to pressures elsewhere in the system. For example, long case-processing times can result in individuals spending longer in custody on remand, awaiting trial. That not only puts a strain on our prisons but can have a detrimental impact on the individuals involved, the victims, their families and, indeed, those who are on remand.

Contrary to what was said, the Prison Service does not deny support for people who are on remand. It is not the case that there is no support. In fact, on the contrary, the Prison Service strives to encourage individuals who are held on remand to engage in purposeful activity whilst they are in custody. However, the reality is that the engagement can often be seen as an admission of guilt, and many fear that it will impact on their court outcomes. That, combined with the long case-processing times, can lead to individuals being released with their time having been served on remand with little to no rehabilitative work completed. We cannot compel people to engage when they are on remand. They are not guilty until the point of conviction, so we cannot compel them, but the offer is always there if people want to take it up. It is also a driving factor to progress the speeding up justice projects at pace, and I welcome the work that has been completed to date. That is why I am also keen, where it is appropriate and possible, to offer the judiciary viable alternatives to remand in custody, including a new bail support scheme that we hope to pilot in early 2026. That will initially support women to remain in the community while awaiting trial and will provide them with wraparound support to live independently while addressing their offending behaviours.

It is notable that, despite that backdrop, some of the best prison inspection results that we have seen have happened in the past number of years. Our prisons, which were treated as basket cases and were among the most dangerous prisons in Europe, are now among the best. They are seen as exemplary, so let us not say that things have not and cannot change.

A key priority for the Department is the reduction of offending and reoffending. I am more than happy to go to the Committee and give an account of the work that we are doing in that space.

A significant range of measures have been implemented over recent years to contribute to the transformation and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Undoubtedly, challenges remain, not least in light of the funding challenges that we face. However, at the end of the day, money that is invested in other Departments is not invested in Justice. Every time a Minister makes a call for additional resource, that is money that could go into the justice system to speed up justice, improve outcomes and give better support to victims and witnesses. When people come to the House, make demands and want to see things change, I hope that they will also go to their colleagues in the Executive and make it clear that the funding needs to follow what we want.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response to the debate. I now call Maurice Bradley to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my best not to take the full 10 minutes. It has been a lively debate, and sometimes a wee bit fractious, but that is the nature of politics.

I return to where we began: the uncomfortable truth that, 15 years after the devolution of policing and justice powers, Northern Ireland's criminal justice system remains mired in the same systemic failures that we were promised would be fixed. The Criminal Justice Inspection's report of November 2024 could not have been more stark. Its verdict is that there has been "limited improvement". Those two words capture a decade and a half of drift. There has been limited improvement in performance, outcomes and the lived experience of victims, witnesses and staff alike. If that is the best that we can offer after countless reviews, strategies and transformation programmes, something deep in the system is badly broken. We have been told again that leadership is lacking, that strategic vision is missing, and that siloed working, overlapping work streams and fragmented digital investments have produced a justice system that is inefficient, inconsistent and, too often, unjust. I give credit to the Minister for saying that her Department is vastly underfunded, as is the PSNI. That is a matter for the Executive as a whole. However, the Audit Office warned us in 2018, and CJINI warned us again in 2024. The pattern repeats: recommendations are made and strategies are launched, but outcomes remain unchanged. Transformation has become a slogan, rather than a standard.

In closing, I echo the questions that still demand clear answers: where is the shared vision? When will a fully aligned, cross-sectoral strategy be published, with measurable goals and timelines? When will the Assembly and the public see not just promises —?

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Does the Member concur that it is concerning that, although the Justice Minister frequently says that she cannot answer something because of operational independence, she revealed in an answer to a question that I submitted that she has never once sought legal advice about what operational independence involves and what the boundaries of it are?

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for that intervention. That is —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw to your attention the remarks that have just been made, which, again, directly challenge the advice that was provided to Members by the Speaker on the matter. It is a challenge not to my authority — I know where the boundaries are, and I can read the legislation — but to the ruling of the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. That can also be checked by the Speaker's Office, and Members can be given the advice if appropriate.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for answering the question that Mr Burrows asked me. That was very kind.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does it not alarm the Member that, when the Minister had the opportunity during her 15 minutes' speaking time, she did not even outline a deadline of when her vision, which is her operational responsibility, will be finished?

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for that intervention. I mentioned that that vision needs to be produced. We all need to see it. We look forward to it.

Finally, I call on the Minister to make three firm commitments before the year's end: publish the criminal justice vision and digital strategy; align all justice partners, including the PSNI and the legal profession, under a single accountable framework; and centre every reform on victims, witnesses and public confidence, not as an afterthought but as the very test of success. Members, transformation cannot be another word for delay. Justice cannot be something that we continually promise but never deliver. The public, and especially victims of crime, deserve better. I commend the motion to the House.