Official Report: Tuesday 07 October 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, before we begin today's business, I want to briefly return to our rules and conventions in relation to the authority of the Chair. You may remember that, on 9 September this year, the Speaker reminded Members:

The Speaker made clear that there is no discussion to be had on the issue. The Speaker also pointed out that there is a precedent for Members not being called to contribute to further business if they continue to challenge the authority of the Chair. If that is clear, I will move on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise continually in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement.

The Speaker previously reminded Members that Members' statements are for a single issue and not for a series of issues. Members have previously been reminded of Standing Order 24A, which states:

should not

Members should be mindful of that when making their contributions.

I also remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not be taking any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Miss Brogan: I take the opportunity this morning to raise the very serious issue of inadequate car parking and drop-off points and facilities at St Conor's Primary School in Omagh and to urge the Education Minister to support the school in its efforts to resolve the matter. The issue is causing serious safety concerns in the area, particularly for the safety of schoolchildren attending the primary school but also for local residents and pedestrians in the area.

St Conor's is an excellent, thriving primary school, with a bustling school community of around 450 pupils. It is located between two very busy through roads that are used by many drivers to bypass Omagh town, causing increased traffic. Both roads are lined with housing developments that have hundreds of residential properties. There is huge disruption in the morning and afternoon when parents drop off and pick up children. Many parents end up parking at the side of the road, blocking other road users and even blocking access to some homes.

The issue has been ongoing for some years and has been a matter of great frustration and worry for the school leadership, staff and local residents, who are impacted on by the huge volume of traffic in the area. It is obviously a serious concern for parents too, who worry about the safety of their children going to and from school. The school leadership has worked incredibly hard over a number of years to find a solution to the issue and to ensure that pupils are safe. It has worked alongside Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, local residents and local elected representatives to highlight the serious risks that are associated with the issue to the Department of Education, the Education Authority (EA) and DFI and to urge all involved to find a solution quickly. It is my understanding that the council and the school have identified a suitable area of land that the Department of Education can develop into a safe space for parents to drop off and pick up children from St Conor's.

I again urge the Department of Education and all relevant stakeholders to work together and to make the necessary changes so that children can attend the school safely and residents do not face that level of disruption on a daily basis. The council recently invited the Education Minister to St Conor's to see for himself the disruption that is faced there daily. Unfortunately, he has been unable to attend so far, but I again extend an invitation to him to come to the constituency and see for himself the risks that are involved.

Mr Clarke: When I looked at the tweet last night from the Alliance Party, its content reminded me of the Oompa Loompas from 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. On a more serious note, it is disappointing that the Alliance Justice Minister choose that attack on policing, given that, because of the numbers, it is vulnerable at the moment. If the Minister, who is attacking the DUP, thinks that we are wrong to stand up for policing, we are wrong. However, we will continue to stand up for policing, whereas the Minister has let down policing in Northern Ireland.

There are some who claim that the collapse of devolution was the cause of the decrease in numbers. What utter nonsense. Had the Minister left the Department in good shape, the trajectory would have been that police numbers continued to increase. Let us look at the record of the Minister. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland has come out and taken a shot, and it has not missed in what it said about the Minister. It has rebuked the Minister, because she is utterly wrong. Utterly wrong.

Let us look at the record. The current Chief Constable has been vociferous in his fight for policing and has made the strongest possible case for numbers, because the Minister has failed to do anything. The Chief Constable made that case directly to Downing Street. What happened to him for that? The Minister and her little helpers rebuked him, but, of course, he ignored that, because he wanted to put the police in the strongest possible position.

I and my party will not take any lectures from the Minister, who is normally missing in action. She comes in here merely for Question Time and is not seen amongst us for any other debate. However, she puts out tweets and Facebook posts claiming that we are responsible for the decrease in police numbers. Of course, the Minister has been back in post for a considerable time, but the numbers have not gone up. The Chief Constable is now at risk of overspending the budget, because he took the pause off recruitment. He started recruiting on the basis of a funding package that was promised by the Minister but that he still does not have. The Minister promised more money in the next monitoring round, but that has not taken place. The Minister references her "business case". She has no business case. The business case squarely belongs to the Chief Constable, who has made the case and fought for policing, while the Minister has been absent.

Mr Donnelly: All Members should agree that a winter preparedness plan published on 31 December 2025 is not just slightly delayed but a complete failure, yet, by the Department's own metric, according to the business plan that it presented to the Committee for Health last week, publishing the plan on the very last day of the year will still be marked amber and considered to be experiencing some delays but still on track to be met for the end of the year. That is a system that is designed to tick boxes, not to save lives. I know that the Minister of Health is probably sick of hearing me raise this, and, to some, it may sound inconsequential, as it is just another delayed plan, but I have lived the impacts. I have seen them at first hand, and I am telling him that it is not just a delay on paper. It will potentially lead to loss of life and to a loss of workforce. That is real.

Last year, the winter preparedness plan was not published until mid-November, and the Minister will be well aware that pressures had started long before then. At the time, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine judged it as being "too little, too late". Publishing a plan at that stage of the year is simply inadequate. How can one claim to be preparing for a storm when already standing in the eye of it? We were promised a winter preparedness plan in August, then in September. It is now into October, and still there is no plan. Can we really trust the Department's commitments when that is the case, or are those commitments just vague promises that are designed to give the illusion of progress, when, in truth, targets are being missed and people are being harmed?

The Minister disagreed with me yesterday when I said that delays in publishing the plan will have an impact on workforce retention. As a nurse, I must wholeheartedly disagree with him. Every consultation, every review and every report highlights the same challenges, and workforce is always one of the biggest ones, coming up again and again. Does the Minister really believe that the delay is not contributing to the problem? Does he really believe that leaving staff without a plan by publishing it late is not adding to the already crippling pressures on the workforce and pushing nurses and other healthcare staff out of the service? It may be just one issue from a long list of issues, but it still has a very real and damaging impact that should not be dismissed.

Perhaps the Minister does not believe that the delay impacts on staff, but what about the impact on loss of life? The Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimated that 818 excess deaths in Scotland last year were linked to long A&E waits. For Northern Ireland in 2022, it suggested that more than 1,400 excess deaths had occurred. We are two years behind on the data, and Scotland has three times our population, yet excess deaths here are approaching double what Scotland's are now. The resulting excess deaths and dangerous delays cannot be dismissed as just a late policy paper. This is not about paperwork or process, as the delay has real and hard-hitting consequences for our health service, our healthcare workers, our patients and the people whom we are here to represent. Every week without a plan means that patients are waiting longer and that staff are being pushed further, and that is resulting in unnecessary loss of life. Something needs to change, and I encourage the Minister to act with urgency.

Dr Aiken: On 7 October 2023, 1,189 Israelis and people of other nationalities were murdered by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. A further 251 were taken hostage in Gaza. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which could hardly be credibly described as being supportive of Israel in any way, reported that there was considerable evidence of murder; torture; sexual violence; the rape of men, women and children; mutilation; beheading; burning to death of children, of old and young and of men and women alike; and other horrors that are too graphic to relate to the Assembly.

There is no justification under any terms for such attacks, none that even the most anti-Israeli or antisemitic of commentators could justify having read the UN report. Day in, day out, however, we still hear calls for support for the global intifada, and how often do we see and hear on our streets, "From the river to the sea"? Both mean death to all Jews everywhere. The fact that that barbarity can occur in the 21st century is not a surprise. Similar horrors, including actual genocides, are happening in Darfur, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria to the Yazidis and the Druze, as well as in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Equally appalling acts of humanity have occurred and are occurring there. There is, however, never a cheep or even a tweet from the anti-Israeli brigade at any cost to them. Remember that if it is not about Jews, it does not count.

There is a prayer that our Jewish friends say for the dead called the Kaddish. There are a few of us here, so, in accordance with Jewish tradition, I ask you to bow your heads and join me in prayer, commemorating the victims of 7 October and asking for a more tolerant nation:

Shalom, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Ms Hunter: I rise to speak passionately about play and the provision of play parks in my constituency. I call on the Communities Minister to work closely with our councils on the provision of sport and play. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that every child has the right to access play. Play is not a privilege; it is a right.

Regrettably, however, across our towns and villages in East Derry, from Limavady to Greysteel, from Castlerock to Coleraine and beyond, we have seen that play parks have been left to fall into neglect and disrepair. I think particularly of Kylemore in Coleraine. Parents there tell me of broken swings and rusty slides, and glass and litter that have been thrown across play areas that once brought joy but are now overrun with vandalism. In Mountsandel, residents have said that the park is unchanged since they were children, and, sadly, we saw a complete absence of a play park in Greysteel for a number of years. I have particular concerns about the lack of play provision for our children in rural areas.

The play park beside the Mall car park in Coleraine, which is just a few yards from my constituency office, was described by one constituent as "unusable". From my observations, it is indeed unused. That is what happens when play parks are treated as an afterthought and as something that is nice to have, should budgets allow it, instead of the core part of our community life that they are. We would not leave our roads, schools or libraries to rot, yet we do that with our play parks.

We need to fundamentally rethink how we approach play and play parks and where they are placed across our council areas. Every child in every community, regardless of whether it is urban or rural, should have access to a modern, fun, safe and inclusive play park within a reasonable distance of their home. That requires strategic thinking and proper investment. For all those parents who have children with additional needs, inclusive design must be the standard, not the exception. Every play park should be accessible to all our children. I call on the Communities Minister to work very closely with all council areas on those matters.

Mr Boylan: Last week, I met staff from St Patrick's Grammar School in Armagh. That school has a long history in Armagh, as it was established in 1838. The school building has been developed and added to over the years. It is now home to over 850 pupils and 120 staff. However, with any long-standing building come issues to do with maintenance and upkeep. St Patrick's is no different. Both the original school building and the two-storey wing that was added to the school in 1907 are uninsulated. Therefore, they are having an adverse impact on the school's interior. Areas of the external render are cracked, and moisture has subsequently been trapped and sealed in the walls, causing issues internally with dampness. The school's windows and heating system are in much need of major attention. The heating in the school is primarily a one-pipe system, and it is inefficient to operate. The boiler and pumps are far away from the 1907 block, and it requires a large volume of water to be heated and fed through the system. Staff tell me that the radiators never get hot; they are tepid at best.

Following the meeting on 26 September 2025 with the architects, the design team and the Education Authority (EA), it was noted that the team had explored various options that will be issued to the DE for consideration. I am therefore using my Member's statement to call on the Education Minister to urgently review the recommendations that have been made and to work with the school to overcome the issues that it faces.

In closing, I commend the staff for their best efforts to ensure that the issues do not affect the learning needs of their pupils, who deserve a safe and healthy environment to learn and study in. The need for the Department and the EA to provide a comfortable environment is paramount, and I will continue to work with the school to achieve that development.

Mr Frew: Like Steve Aiken, I stand in reflection on and remembrance of the day two years ago — 7 October 2023 — that changed the world of every Israeli citizen and every Palestinian in Gaza and sent shock waves through the world. My heart goes out today to all the people affected by that terrorist attack and the war that ensued. They have my sincere, mindful thoughts and prayers at this time. That Hamas attack on innocent civilians has absolutely no comparison to anything that it has done in its history, which is saying something. That terrorist organisation used barbarism on a new scale — an evil that had no limits and absolutely no control. It was barbarism all unbound, and it brought destruction on so many people, so many who were living peacefully in their kibbutz and so many young people who were attending the Nova music festival.

I had the honour of visiting the Nova festival site six months after the atrocious attack. It was impactful for me, my experience and my world view to see all the young faces stand tall in remembrance and reflection, each one of them having lost their life. What struck me that day in that mournful scene was that, in each of the images of those who, I knew, had left the scene at that time, every face was smiling. Hamas took not only their lives but their dreams and hopes and not only their dreams and hopes but those of their families. Every day since then, there has been a missing person, an empty chair around a dining table and a member of the community lost who put in so much effort in their kibbutz. It was a surreal experience and one that will never leave me. I stand here today in solemn remembrance of all those who lost their lives in that atrocious terrorist attack and the war afterwards.

Mr McGrath: Once again, we find ourselves in the deeply regrettable but, frankly, avoidable position in which our nurses, the backbone of our health service, are forced to consider strike action. The Royal College of Nursing has begun balloting its members on whether to take to the picket line not out of choice but out of sheer frustration and necessity. It is a disgrace that, six months into the financial year, our nurses still wait for their pay uplift. They have cared for us through crisis after crisis, through the pandemic and the worst winters in living memory, yet here we are again, watching the Executive dither and delay while those dedicated professionals are left wondering when they will be paid what they are rightly owed.

I recently wrote to the First Ministers to ask for an update on the pay award: I never received a reply. I asked the Finance Minister for an update on the pay award: he was cautiously optimistic. I asked the Department of Health permanent secretary, who was hopeful. In the Chamber yesterday, I listened carefully to the Health Minister's response to my question. I wanted to hear a clear answer — a date, a commitment, a sense of urgency — but there was none. That silence speaks volumes. At this rate, with the way that the Executive are going, we will be in the next financial year before nurses see a penny of what is due to them this year. That is simply unacceptable.

Should it come to strike action, let no Member from an Executive party have the gall to stand on a picket line. They cannot preside over the delay, dither and indecision and then turn up for a photo opportunity to show their so-called solidarity. Nurses do not need empty words or sympathetic tweets from the Executive; they need fair pay and action. It is time that the Executive stopped making excuses and started making payments. If the Executive truly value our nurses and want to avoid strike action, they must pay nurses what they are owed — what they have worked for and what they have been promised — and they must do it now.

Mrs Mason: We all know that a school is so much more than a building; it is the hub of childhood memories; Christmas plays fill the assembly hall; fundraisers bring the school community together; and lifelong friendships begin within the school gates. St Malachy's Primary School in Kilclief is the perfect example of that. It is so much more than just a school. It sits at the very heart of village and parish life. Generations of our families are connected to it. The potential closure of St Malachy's has, therefore, come as a great shock to the parents, staff and, most important, the children who call it their school. Recently, I met parents and the principal of St Malachy's. It is clear that they are deeply committed to securing its future. Their message is very simple: the school matters not just to Kilclief but to the wider community; it provides high-quality education in a caring community setting; and its loss would be felt far beyond the school gates.

Following those discussions, I wrote to the Education Minister and the Education Authority (EA), urging them to work with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and the school to ensure that every possible option is fully considered before any decision is taken. One option is to have specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) on the Kilclief site. The school has already made it known to the Education Authority that it is willing to host such provision, but, to date, has received no response. That is simply not acceptable, given that the EA seemingly blames schools for not stepping up, and it is particularly not acceptable given that the Downpatrick area has been identified as one of the areas that is most under pressure from need for special educational needs placements. At a time when children have to travel to Belfast to access specialist support, it makes absolutely no sense to overlook a school that is just a few miles up the road and has the space, the facilities and the willingness to help. Let me be clear: SPiMS should never be used solely as a mechanism by which to keep a school open, but is that not common sense? It is a child-centred solution that could address a clear need in the system.

Rural schools such as St Malachy's are the backbone of communities across the North. Once they close, they do not come back. We must do everything in our power to protect them and to ensure that decisions are based not on numbers alone but on people, potential and community value. I will continue to stand with the parents, staff and children of St Malachy's Primary School in their campaign to keep their doors open. I will continue to make sure that their voices are heard.

Mr Gaston: Tomorrow, the European Parliament is expected to pass an amendment to a Bill that would ban the use of meaty terms for vegetarian products. If that should come into law, companies would no longer be allowed to market things such as vegetarian sausage rolls or veggie burgers. That has real consequences for Northern Ireland.

Under the Windsor framework, EU regulations continue to apply here. That means that Northern Ireland producers could soon be banned from calling a vegetarian sausage roll a vegetarian sausage roll, while the exact same product made in Great Britain could be sold under its familiar name; in other words, the famous Greggs vegan sausage roll would remain perfectly legal so long as it arrived via the Windsor framework screened lane. Assuming that the amendment is, indeed, passed, the same roll baked in Belfast would need a new name — perhaps it could be "plant-based pastry tube" — to satisfy EU sensitivities.

That neatly illustrates the democratic deficit and commercial distortion created by the Windsor framework. Once again, Northern Ireland finds itself bound by rules that it did not make and subject to decisions on which no one in Northern Ireland has a vote. While the European Parliament debates what a sausage roll can be called, businesses here must brace for yet another layer of regulation that applies in Belfast but not in Birmingham. That is not the unfettered access that we were promised. It underscores how the so-called green lane is, in fact, a border within our own country. If the amendment passes, it will be one more reminder that the people of Northern Ireland are governed by laws that are made elsewhere, right down to what we can write on a bakery label. Even in our own Stormont canteen, the famous beetroot burger faces the chop. That may seem a small matter, but it speaks volumes about sovereignty, equality and common sense, all of which are missing from that arrangement.

Ms Forsythe: Last night, my constituency of South Down was severely affected by a council decision. The majority of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council voted that Newry city and our district should become a city and council of sanctuary. Out of 41 councillors, the five DUP councillors have stood firm throughout in their opposition to that, alongside the single UUP councillor. However, they are hugely in the minority.

The process by which we have arrived here is shameful. Time and again, we have seen the legitimate concerns of local people on issues surrounding immigration being disregarded, ignored and, in fact, openly mocked in council last night, which was another episode in an unfortunate series. The council decided to progress on that path. It did not provide answers or clear information to local councillors with concerns. There was no public consultation. The public learned of it in the press and had many questions. They went to councillors and Council Direct and received nothing. The council then issued a scant "frequently asked questions" document answering the questions that, the council decided, needed to be answered, not those of the public. The people arranged a public meeting in a local place, inviting the council to outline the plans and what they meant. The council blocked the meeting, and it did not occur. The people then took to the streets of Newry city to voice their concerns. Only two DUP councillors went along to speak and share the concerns of the wider public.

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council needs to be honest about the practicalities and costs of what it means for the people of the district. We need to have the details to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by many. Where people are ignored and silenced, trust is lost. Our DUP team has significant concerns about what the charter might mean for encouraging illegal immigrants to come to this country. It could create a barrier to lawful and justified removal of those who come here illegally. The fact is that legitimate concerns are ignored and swept under the carpet time and again in the House and throughout councils. The lack of respect serves no good end. It is commonplace in our Sinn Féin-dominated council, where our unionist councillors, who are severely in the minority, are, time and again, shut out, cast aside and shown a huge lack of respect. Council needs to tread carefully. A council that ignores genuine concerns and local people is one that is destined for a difficult path.

We in the DUP will always speak up on that, even if we stand alone. We will speak up for common sense and for the ratepayers of our district, who have legitimate concerns. They deserve to be heard.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane. That ends Members' statements. Members, take your ease while we change the top Table, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs 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 Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the recent suspected case of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at a commercial poultry premises outside Omagh, County Tyrone. A veterinary investigation was instigated on Friday 3 October 2025 at a commercial broiler breeder poultry premises outside Omagh, County Tyrone, after a number of mortalities. Samples were taken for testing at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Following the preliminary results from AFBI, which indicated the presence of HPAI H5N1, the Chief Veterinary Officer took the decision, based on a number of factors, including the preliminary results, clinical signs and the epidemiological picture, to establish two temporary control zones (TCZs) centred on the infected premises. A 3-kilometre TCZ A and a 10-kilometre TCZ B were introduced on Sunday 5 October 2025, effective from 9.00 am. It is the first suspected case of HPAI in a commercial poultry premises in Northern Ireland since the last confirmed case on 24 February 2025. I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is devastating news for the premises owner concerned and for the wider industry. The last confirmed case of HPAI H5N1 in a wild bird that was collected in Northern Ireland was on 24 July 2025. England continued to have cases of HPAI in poultry premises throughout the spring and summer of 2025, with the most recent case confirmed on 28 September 2025 in a commercial poultry premises in Cumbria.

Avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu, is a highly contagious viral disease affecting the respiratory, digestive and/or nervous system of many species of birds, and it is essential to emphasise that failure to report it constitutes an offence. The advice from the Public Health Agency (PHA) notes that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds and that the risk to the general public’s health is very low. The advice from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) notes that avian influenza poses a very low food-safety risk for UK consumers and that properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat. Northern Ireland relies heavily on the wider agri-food industry as a source of employment. Poultry and egg production contributes significantly to the agri-food economy and is valued at over £600 million, and it is vital that we protect that industry.

I will outline the actions and measures that are being taken by my Department in response to the incursion. My Department commenced a full depopulation of the site on Tuesday 7 October 2025. I put on record my thanks for the engagement and cooperation of the flock owner during a time that, I recognise, is incredibly difficult for them, the staff and their families. My Department has also implemented disease control zones around the premises, and the necessary surveillance activities are ongoing. All flock keepers within the disease control zones will be contacted with information on the restrictions and the requirements that have been laid down by my Department for the moving of poultry and poultry-related products. A movement-licensing centre has been established to facilitate those movements. My departmental officials, including the Chief Veterinary Officer, remain in close contact with colleagues across the other jurisdictions and will keep key stakeholders in the industry updated.

On the next steps and communications, I will keep in regular and close contact with my colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I will ensure that updates are provided as necessary to my Executive colleagues and, very importantly, to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee in the first instance. I will be happy to return to the House if there are any further significant and serious developments in the time ahead. My officials will continue extensive ongoing engagement with officials across all jurisdictions. They will also ensure regular and timely updates to all our key stakeholders. My Department will also continue to deploy wide-ranging communications, reminding all flock keepers of the necessity of adhering to high levels of biosecurity.

Comprehensive biosecurity guidance is available on the DAERA website, and adhering to that protects against disease spread. It emphasises the importance of maintaining high biosecurity standards to help to reduce the risk of transmission of those diseases. Continued vigilance is paramount, and it is essential that private veterinary practitioners and flock keepers remain alert to any unusual symptoms and immediately report such symptoms to a veterinarian or directly to DAERA. Further detail, including photos of clinical signs, is also available on the DAERA website.

We must continue to convey clear messages of maintaining high biosecurity standards and promptly report any unusual symptoms in order to help protect Northern Ireland's farms and the wider industry. At this time, I request that Members assist us in disseminating key messages about maintaining vigilance and high biosecurity standards and about the need for farmers to report any unusual symptoms immediately. Taking such steps will further help ensure the protection of our livestock and of the agriculture sector, which is vital to our economy.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his statement. Our hearts go out to any farming family affected by this particular outbreak, or by any outbreak that affects their flock or herd, as the reinstatement of their business will take a number of months. There was a particular anomaly previously, whereby, from notification to verification of the disease, there was a lapse period in which compensation was not necessarily available to the farmer. Has that anomaly been rectified?

Mr Muir: As I outlined, this has been reported to the House as a suspected case, because we still need to get the results back from the National Reference Laboratory (NRL). We therefore have to follow a process. If, however, a notifiable strain of avian influenza is confirmed on a premises, compensation, based on current market value, will be payable for all poultry culled at the Department's direction.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Like the Minister and the Member who spoke before me, I say that the depopulation of the farm is happening as we speak. Our thoughts are with the farmer, because that will have wide-ranging implications.

The Minister said that this is the first outbreak in Northern Ireland since February 2025. There have, however, been outbreaks in England and in other jurisdictions. Can the Minister outline whether any cross-jurisdictional intelligence gathering is going on to try to prevent outbreaks and to better coordinate earlier identification of outbreaks in other jurisdictions?

Mr Muir: Significant engagement occurs North/South and east-west by veterinary service colleagues in the Department. I reassure the Member that that engagement is ongoing. I have also contacted my ministerial counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, and I spoke to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers on Sunday at the Anuga conference in Germany, so there is significant engagement ongoing. There is a real need for us all to accentuate the importance of biosecurity, because that is our best protection method against the risk of avian influenza.

I echo the comments made so far about our concern for the affected premises. In some ways, it is an exemplar premises, practising the best biosecurity methods. That, however, emphasises the challenges that we face, the impact that an outbreak can have and the need for us collectively to do what we can to try to protect agri-food in Northern Ireland from avian influenza.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. As a rep for the local area, I have been speaking to poultry farmers, who are extremely concerned about the outbreak and the potentially devastating consequences that it will have. I note from your statement, Minister, that a full depopulation commences today that may involve up to 20,000 birds.

I will double back to support measures. Can you confirm that financial support will be provided to the farmer affected, given the huge and devastating impact that the outbreak will have on that farmer's business and livelihood?

Mr Muir: There will be compensation payable for the birds that are culled at the Department's direction. We will also cover the cost of the initial disinfection that takes place. The depopulation will start late this morning. Approximately 23,000 birds will be depopulated, but I repeat the assurance that we will cover the cost of the birds that are being depopulated at our direction and also the initial disinfection cost.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he detail the budget that he has available to deal with this type of outbreak? What departmental mechanism is in place to deal with crisis incidents and to support financially those who have been adversely affected across sectors, be that the horticultural sector, the poultry sector, the fishing sector or others?

Mr Muir: The budget position in-year in Northern Ireland is extremely challenging. I understand that there will potentially be only one monitoring round coming up, which will be in December, so the challenge will be to meet the costs out of that. I give the Member and the House an assurance, however, that we will meet the costs. That means that it will be tough for us internally, but it is important that we meet the costs of compensation, because there is a significant impact on the premises holder.

The veterinary service is adept at responding to such crises and has been very prompt in dealing with this, to the extent that it was meeting at 8.00 am on Sunday to deal with the issue, and it will continue to work through this. It is important that the Department, collectively, supports the agri-food industry. I am proud of the veterinary service and the work that it does, but it is important that Members accentuate the importance of biosecurity.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. I am also thinking of those impacted on at the infected site; I put that on the record. However, will the Minister inform us or remind us, as the case may be, whether there is a legal requirement for all bird keepers to register their birds and whether there will be ongoing communications about registration?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. It is a mandatory legislative requirement that all keepers of birds, except keepers of pet birds that are kept in the owner's home, must be registered with DAERA. That registration enables DAERA to communicate with bird keepers quickly to manage potential disease outbreaks. Registered keepers will receive important information on biosecurity rules and disease outbreaks to help protect their flocks from the threat of avian influenza. Having information on the location of all susceptible kept birds also allows for more effective surveillance in disease control zones and, for trade purposes, enables disease-freedom requirements to be met following an outbreak of disease in Northern Ireland. The message is that, if you are not registered, do it today.

Miss Brogan: I thank the Minister for his statement. As he will know, I am a representative of Omagh. This is, obviously, concerning for our poultry farmers and farmers across the constituency, so I am glad to see that swift action has been taken.

The Minister mentioned two temporary control zones: one of 3 kilometres and one of 10 kilometres. Diseases do not understand borders, so I am glad that the Minister is working with his counterparts in the South on this. Are the temporary control zones still in effect since Sunday? How long will they be in place?

Mr Muir: They are still in effect. We will take advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer on any movements to relax those restrictions. There are two zones in place, and it is important that we manage movements in the area so that we can restrict the spread.

Avian influenza does not respect borders. That is why it is important that we cooperate North and South. The Chief Veterinary Officers from the North and South are cooperating on it, and I have reached out to my counterpart in the South. They have issued messaging around the issue down South.

It is important that I came to the House to update Members on the issue. If the issue occurs again, I will write to the Committee and keep it apprised. As we move into the winter months, there is a likelihood that we may see more of this, so it is important that we accentuate the importance of biosecurity.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, this is a serious issue. How can the spread of disease be minimised?

Mr Muir: The spread of the disease can be minimised primarily through the biosecurity measures that I have outlined. They are available on the DAERA website. The premises that have been affected have excellent biosecurity, to the extent that anyone coming in and leaving the premises has to go through relevant checks. It is important that that is done at all premises. People also need to be conscious of the risk of ingress that can occur during storms. It is important that people evaluate their premises now, when storms are not occurring, to make sure that they are protected against water ingress and access from rodents. They are key issues on which we can take action.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. How does DAERA intend to escalate disease control measures, if the outbreak intensifies? Supplementary to that, how will those steps ensure that the wider poultry industry is not affected?

Mr Muir: We can take a number of steps in addition to those that I have outlined. We will take advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer. There are additional actions that we can take to make Northern Ireland an entire control zone. We have done that previously. We can take that step, but we need to do so in the context of the risks that we face. We can also issue a housing order. We can step through those. I will be advised by officials in that regard, and officials will continue to engage with industry on the issue.

I am conscious of the impact on the industry. That is why we continue to engage with it. The best thing that we can do collectively is to accentuate the important point around biosecurity and, as a Department, fulfil our duty regarding compensation for the birds that are culled at our direction.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I share Members' concern, and I think of the producer affected.

Minister, the vaccination of poultry and most captive birds against avian influenza is not currently permitted. Why does DAERA continue to prohibit avian flu vaccination for poultry in Northern Ireland despite the threat of outbreaks and the economic importance of the poultry industry?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. It is DAERA's policy not to permit the vaccination of birds outside of zoos as an immediate disease control response. Stamping out is the most effective means of controlling an outbreak. A high standard of biosecurity, separation of poultry from wild birds and careful surveillance for signs of disease also remain the most effective means of controlling the disease and protecting other animals. Due to the role of zoos in global conservation, the vaccination of zoo birds is permitted in Northern Ireland. To date, no zoo birds have been vaccinated.

The UK continues to invest in avian influenza research. We monitor current vaccine usage in Europe and globally, as well as the effectiveness of any disease control measures taken, including vaccine deployment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), in conjunction with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, will continue to monitor the development and availability of vaccines for their utility in preventing and responding to avian influenza outbreaks as they are put forward for market authorisation by vaccine manufacturers. Any future decisions on disease control measures, including vaccination, will be based on the latest scientific and veterinary advice.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what signs of avian flu should a keeper of birds look out for?

Mr Muir: The main clinical signs of HPAI in birds are a swollen head; blue discolouration of the neck and throat; loss of appetite; respiratory distress; diarrhoea; fewer eggs being laid; and increased mortality. Low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) is usually less serious. It can cause mild breathing problems, but affected birds will not always show clear signs of infection. The severity of LPAI depends on the type of bird and whether a bird has other illnesses.

Mr Gaston: Minister, we know that HPAI is caused by an airborne virus. Concerns have been raised with me that it has taken the Department until today to cull the remaining birds on-site. The delay may have allowed the virus to spread, especially during the storm, due to the ventilation in poultry houses. Poultry farmers tell me that the Department is short-staffed and slow to respond. Why has it taken four days to depopulate the remaining birds on that site?

Mr Muir: Mr Gaston, gas has arrived on-site, and depopulation is occurring this morning. I thank veterinary service staff for their work on that. The situation on the affected site is challenging, but depopulation work is under way.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. My thoughts are with the farmers involved. While farmers will be compensated for their birds, there is no compensation for loss of income, which is a big issue for them. Loss of income can be very detrimental to a business.

Given that there have been no outbreaks of bird flu in Northern Ireland since February 2025, do we have any idea of the source of infection? For instance, are there any outbreaks in the neighbouring jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Muir: On compensation, we are guided by the Department's legal vires. As I have outlined, we will compensate farmers for the birds that are culled at our direction and for the initial disinfection of premises.

The wider issue of how the outbreak has occurred highlights the challenges posed by avian influenza. It is a real issue for us. Biosecurity is important, but businesses operating an exemplar premises with the highest biosecurity can still be affected by the disease. The veterinary service will continue to investigate the outbreak, and we will continue to do our work of depopulating the site. Collectively, we can send a message that biosecurity is important and it is important to adhere to the advice that is issued.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. We will take our ease for a few moments while we find the Chair of the Finance Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule (SR).

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As Members will be aware, the order seeks to extend powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months from 24 September 2025 to 24 March 2026.

The specific powers included in the order concern the way that the registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or stillbirth remotely. Although they can opt to come to a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do it over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between doctors and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members.

It will be clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when their services were, sadly, under significant pressure.

In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic and efficient, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most important, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, it is right that we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like a small thing, it can make a big difference. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, more modern and more efficient.

Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should make the temporary powers permanent rather than continue to depend on the Coronavirus Act. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which recently completed its Committee scrutiny, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme that recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Today's extension order will consequently provide the time required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and, I trust, make permanent the temporary powers of the Coronavirus Act.

In bringing the extension order, I recognise that it is not desirable to continue to depend on the powers of the Coronavirus Act. However, I hope that the Assembly will be reassured by our determination to end the use of the orders by the work that is under way to make the relevant powers permanent, and that they will look favourably on the motion. Should the extension not be approved today, the existing powers will fall, requiring a return to pre-COVID death and stillbirth procedures. Relatives would again be required to attend registration offices, irrespective of their personal circumstances, and to transport paper forms between doctors, registration staff and undertakers. As set out in earlier debates on those matters, that would be a retrograde step that is not in the interests of the public, the registration service or funeral directors. I hope that the Assembly will concur.

I consequently recommend a further extension of the powers included in the order. They have enabled the provision of a modern, empathetic registration service over the past five years. By extending the provisions today, we will be able to continue to provide that service, which has been welcomed by stakeholders and creates space for permanent legislation to be put in place. I commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will reflect on the Committee for Finance's deliberations on this secondary legislation. The Committee has had written and oral briefings on the legislation and the Department's work on several occasions in the past. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which relate to recording deaths and stillbirths. I note that the extensions, provided for by the statutory rules, will be rendered unnecessary, as the Minister said, when the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill receives Royal Assent. I am delighted to confirm that the Committee has completed its report on the Bill. Hopefully, the Minister will give us the date for its Consideration Stage. The Committee is keen for that to be brought to the House as soon as possible.

On 10 September 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed statutory rule and to extend the temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act until 24 March 2026. The Department has indicated that the Bill will have completed its legislative process by that time, and no further extensions will be required. The Committee considered the statutory rule on 1 October 2025. The Examiner of Statutory Rules recommended that the rule be approved by the Assembly.

As we hope this is the last time that the regulations will be brought to the Assembly, I thank the departmental officials for keeping the Committee abreast of the laying of regulations and the development of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I put on record a particular acknowledgement of our erstwhile colleague Mr Paul Frew MLA, who is most assiduous in following these matters, to put it diplomatically, and it is somewhat strange that he is not here to debate the rules. I thank him for his contribution and the close attention that he has paid to these matters over the past number of years. Hopefully, we will have primary legislation on the statute books very soon. I acknowledge the good collaborative working between the officials, the Minister and the Committee to progress the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. It is a positive piece of legislation, particularly as Baby Loss Awareness Week starts either tomorrow or on Thursday. It is a positive example of the Committee, Minister and officials working together. The Committee supports the motion to approve the regulations.

Ms Forsythe: I will make a point that, as the Chair said, has been consistently made by my colleague Paul Frew — we are thankful for his time on the Finance Committee, and he has moved to Chair the Justice Committee — which is that we are disappointed that, some four years on from the pandemic, we still operate under the rules of coronavirus regulations, and we would like to see them removed as soon as possible. It is disappointing to be here for another extension. However, we fully accept that the regulations for the electronic registration of deaths and still births are good, practical law, which, as the Minister outlined, helps to keep the process efficient and reduce the trauma for families at a difficult time.

I thank those who have worked in the Minister's Department and the General Register Office for bringing forward the legislation at pace and being available to the Committee at every opportunity. Also, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, it is great to see an extension to include the baby loss certificates when the legislation passes. We remember all those lost babies and pray for the families throughout this week, and we are there for them throughout the rest of the year.

The DUP supports the extension in the expectation that it will be the last one. We welcome the fact that permanent legislation has been brought forward.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. As other Members have said, it is progressive legislation that was brought in during COVID, and its functions will be made permanent because of the moves that the Minister has made. It is just that the moves have taken place during Baby Loss Awareness Week. The Committee heard a lot of the lived experience of parents who have suffered the loss of a baby, and the addition to the permanent legislation, which will include a baby loss certificate scheme, has been welcomed by those parents and, more generally, the public. It is good that we have progressed to this stage, and I hope that we will see the progressive legislation made permanent without further delay.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Members who commented on the order, and I welcome their remarks. I also thank the Chairman and the members of the Finance Committee for scrutinising the order.

As Members reflected, our objective in bringing forward the order is to continue to provide a registration service that meets the needs of the public and allows time for the permanent legislation, in the form of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, to replace existing Coronavirus Act provisions. The Chair asked when the Bill's next stage will take place. I expect Consideration Stage to take place later this month. How we move forward will then be in the hands of the Assembly, but, with a fair wind behind us, I hope that the Bill's legislative journey in the Assembly will be completed around December.

As many Members commented, it is fitting that, as we enter Baby Loss Awareness Week, we are moving forward with legislation that will help families in those awful times to mark the loss of their baby.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Minister's taking an intervention. You mentioned Baby Loss Awareness Week, which begins on Thursday. Will the legislation provide for backdating to ensure that mothers and families who lost babies in the past are able to get a baby loss certificate? Will that be at least considered as part of the legislation?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that will be part of the legislation. It is only right and proper that we do that.

In conclusion, a number of Committee members thanked Mr Frew. I thought that you were going to say that you were thankful that he had moved on. [Laughter.]

Maybe you were just thinking it. I also thank Mr Frew for his contribution to the Committee. He always had clear views on the use of the Coronavirus Act. I share some of those views. We have to move beyond the Coronavirus Act in that regard, and the legislation is now in place to do so.

I commend the order to the House.

Ms Flynn: I beg to move

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

Órlaithí, please open the debate on the motion.

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

The motion calls for the urgent establishment of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit (MBU) here in the North of Ireland. It is about compassion, equality and the basic right of every woman to access the specialist care that she needs during one of the most vulnerable and transformative moments of her life. It is about ensuring that no mother ever again has to recover from birth in a psychiatric ward without her baby by her side.

Bringing a child into the world should be a time of joy, safety and dignity. It should mark the start of a hopeful new chapter in a mother's life, not one defined by fear, isolation or trauma. Sadly, however, for too many women in the North, that is not the reality. No mother should ever be separated from her baby in the days and weeks after birth, yet that remains the reality for women in our communities who experience acute perinatal mental illness. Those women are separated from their newborn babies and placed in general psychiatric wards. That is not compassionate care. Rather, it is a system that is failing women at their most vulnerable.

Let me be clear about the severity of what we are dealing with. One in five women will experience mental health problems during pregnancy or after birth. That is very common. In the North, around 1,000 women each year will develop a severe postnatal illness, which can include postpartum psychosis, severe depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Devastatingly, suicide is the leading cause of maternal death here, but with timely and appropriate care, such deaths are preventable.

I am thinking today about a particular family in my constituency of West Belfast who, tragically, have already experienced that type of loss. They lost a loved one to suicide not long after she gave birth to a baby. I try to put myself in that family's shoes and think about how they are feeling. As time passes, there is bound to be frustration about the lack of progress made on the establishment of the MBU. I therefore hope, for that family and all the families who have lost loved ones in that way and who are struggling, and for all the families who have gone through the experience of having someone placed in a psychiatric ward without their baby, that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister may give them a wee bit of hope about what comes next.

Women who have experienced postpartum psychosis have described themselves as feeling like prisoners, having been abandoned in a psychiatric ward without their baby. They have spoken about enduring isolation, confusion and trauma at the very moment that they should be bonding with their newborn child. To illustrate that point further, I will share some testimony. A young mother from Belfast reached out to me in the past week when she saw that today's debate was coming up. Her name is Leah, and I had not spoken to her before. She reached out to me to share some of her experience. Leah's case is very current, as she began going through the process a short number of months ago and is still going through it. I send her and her wee baby my best wishes. When she reached out to me, she explained that, very recently, when her baby was just three weeks old, she began to experience severe postpartum depression. She was told that it was just the baby blues and that she would be fine in a few weeks. A few weeks came and went, and, instead, her condition deteriorated. She became suicidal, lost the precious bond that she had formed with her baby and was admitted to the mental health unit at the City Hospital. That was the first time that she had ever been apart from her newborn baby.

In her own words, she described being forced to choose between stopping breastfeeding and starting to pump every four hours. Having to make what may seem like a very small decision, either to stop breastfeeding or to start pumping, imposes an unimaginable emotional burden and takes its toll on a woman who has just given birth to a baby and is already dealing with mental illness. That is on top of being separated from her baby.

She told me that the staff were very kind and very good to her. That is an important point to make. I know that the staff in that unit are very good to their patients, and that has to be recognised. Not all of them, however, are trained or equipped to manage a postpartum mental health crisis specifically. The Assembly's all-party group (APG) on women's health has heard from numerous mothers who had been through the similar experience of being placed on a general psychiatric ward. I previously spoke about the matter at Members' statements. They were placed beside a smoking area and did not have access to the one of the basics that a woman deserves, which is proper bathing facilities to get a bath after going through childbirth.

In 2025, the island of Ireland, North and South, remains without a specialist mother-and-baby unit. Not one exists anywhere on the island, and that is a shameful distinction when compared with England, Scotland and Wales, which provide dedicated therapeutic spaces where mothers can recover alongside their babies, supported by teams of perinatal psychiatry specialist nurses, nursery nurses, psychologists and occupational therapists. That is what best practice looks like, and it is what women here deserve.

We have been told — I am sure that we will hear an update on this from the Minister — that the Belfast City Hospital site has been chosen for a mother-and-baby unit and that work on the business case is well advanced. It is my understanding that the draft business case is now with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), which is very welcome, but I am hoping that we hear from the Minister and the Department today about a more definitive time frame for delivery. Women cannot wait for another five years. We heard of 2030 as a possible opening date, and that is simply indefensible. We remain cautious about short-term interim units, and we will get into a discussion on that with the UUP amendment. However, you do not want a short-term interim unit to become a good enough long-term solution. That is the problem with calling for that. What is clear is that we need to see some of that sort of action now to prevent further trauma being inflicted on women in those situations.

The Exeter MBU featured in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme shows how a temporary unit, although not perfect, can provide safe, specialist care that keeps mothers and babies together during recovery. Hopefully, that can be put in place while plans for a permanent facility progress. Interim measures are welcome but cannot replace a properly resourced specialist mother-and-baby unit. Anything less continues a legacy of neglect that we should all be determined to end.

There are legitimate questions about whether our system is meeting clinical and ethical standards of care for women with severe perinatal illness. Training remains inconsistent, especially among GPs, emergency staff and first responders. Equally concerning is the lack of reliable data. We do not know how many women in recent years have experienced postpartum psychosis or tragically died by suicide during or after pregnancy. That gap is not just a failure of record-keeping; it is a failure to fully value women's health and lives. We cannot change what we refuse to measure. Furthermore, we need to take a wider all-island view. Progress that is similar to ours is being made in the South. Their business case for a mother-and-baby unit at St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, is more or less ready to go but has not made it to the next stage, so we are still without a unit anywhere across the Thirty-two Counties.

We now have an opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to do things differently. This issue sits within a broader picture of delay and underinvestment in women's health. We have multiple debates in the Chamber on women's health issues. It was endometriosis last week or the week before. We have had conversations around gynae stuff. Hopefully, there will be good announcements around that, and we look forward to hearing those. This is basically about giving women, and mothers in particular, the dignity, safety and care that they deserve after having their babies. It is so important for a mother and baby to have that period to nurture and bond. Mothers and their wider families deserve that type of healthcare.

I acknowledge and thank the groups and campaigners who have kept this issue to the fore, including clinicians, advocacy groups and family members. I am thinking of the maternal advocacy and support (Mas) project, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Action on Postpartum Psychosis, and journalists such as Marie-Louise Connolly, who continues to expose the reality that is faced by mothers. Their determination has ensured that this issue remains on the public and political agenda, but they should not have to fight so hard for something so basic. We now have the opportunity to put things right, to deliver a mother-and-baby unit on this island and to build compassionate perinatal mental health care.

Mr Robinson: I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion. I will speak on the need for a regional mother-and-baby unit.

Bringing a child into the world is often described as one of life's most fulfilling, joyful experiences. I can think of the happiness of my wife and I when our little girl was born on New Year's Eve in Causeway Hospital. It is an emotion that I recall well of being overwhelmingly joyful, yet, for some mothers, it can also be a time of overwhelming emotional turmoil, fear and isolation. Postpartum mental health challenges, including the deeply distressing and frightening condition of postpartum psychosis, can arise suddenly and with devastating impact. Indeed, every year, around 35 women in the Province experience this condition. No mother should have to face such a crisis alone, and, crucially, no mother should be forced to choose between accessing life-saving treatment and staying with her baby.

We in this region remain the only part of the UK without a dedicated MBU, with us being told that an MBU will not be operational until at least 2030, even though it is a topic that has been recognised as a need as far back as 20 years ago. As of 2023, there were 22 accredited units in the UK — two in Scotland and one in Wales. You could therefore safely say that this is a shortfall in our healthcare system. Mothers here deserve the same level of support that is afforded to families elsewhere. My understanding is that there is no MBU in Ireland also, but work is under way. However, it appears that they too are no further forward than we are.

A mother-and-baby unit is a place where mothers can receive specialist expert inpatient care while remaining close to their babies, preserving that vital bond that is central to maternal recovery and infant well-being. Research states that some women feel lifelong trauma and guilt as a result of being separated from their newborn baby. Other research found that women who have been treated in MBUs recover better and feel more satisfied with their care, keeping mums together in a safe and supportive environment. The status quo, where mothers are placed in acute psychiatric wards separated from their newborns in settings that are neither designed nor resourced to meet their unique needs, just is not fair. Indeed, it is estimated that around 35 women will require hospitalisation every year for postpartum psychosis. It is deeply tragic for those women. The death in 2018 of Orlaith Quinn, who took her own life on a ward at the Royal Jubilee, saw the coroner call for an MBU in 2022. We cannot see another tragic case such as that.

I look forward to the Minister updating the Assembly on the current status of the business case for establishing a mother-and-baby unit at Belfast City Hospital. We submitted an amendment as some members of a local peer support group support the need for the Minister to put in place an interim measure that will provide specialist care while the unit is being created. Some others would prefer women to travel to the mainland for gold standard care, but an interim measure cannot be a replacement for the funding and building of a specific MBU. Some others suggest that a dedicated ward, properly staffed and properly treating conditions like postpartum psychosis, would be better that what we currently have on offer.

Mothers deserve better than what is currently offered, families deserve better, and our newborn babies in their first few days in this world deserve better.

Mr Chambers: I beg to move amendment No 2:

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

Mr Chambers: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic and to once again place on record my party's strong support for the establishment of a regional mother-and-baby unit here in Northern Ireland. As the motion states, bringing a new life into the world should be among the most joyous and fulfilling experiences that a person can have, yet, for some women, that joy is reduced by the devastating impact of mental ill health. Poor mental health during pregnancy or after birth is not particularly rare and, thanks to the efforts of some people and organisations, there is now much greater awareness, but, for a small number, the symptoms are so acute that they require inpatient care. It is for those women and those families that a unit here in Northern Ireland would be so important.

There is not an MLA in the Chamber who believes that giving new mums the impossible choice of either being admitted to a general mental health ward and separated from their baby or travelling much further afield to access specialist support is really the right or even humane thing to do. Either option is deeply distressing and compounds trauma at a time when those new mums are already fragile. That is why such a service cannot come a day too soon.

To be fair, progress has been made, and it is right to acknowledge it. Under former Health Minister Robin Swann, the Department of Health delivered a regional perinatal mental health service. That was a major step forward that brought specialist community teams into each of our health and social care trusts. For the first time, we had a dedicated structure of expertise and care specifically for women who were experiencing perinatal mental health difficulties. That service is now well embedded, with professionals providing invaluable outreach and support across maternity and mental health settings. It represents a tangible, life-changing improvement. I pay tribute to former Minister Swann and the many clinicians, campaigners and families who championed that cause for years. Today, under the drive of the current Health Minister, that foundation is being built upon. He has made clear his determination to complete the journey to ensure that the regional service is complemented by an inpatient mother-and-baby unit that is capable of providing the highest level of care when community support is no longer sufficient.

While I note the call for "interim measures" to be developed, which I would dearly wish to see if they were deliverable, in reality, the clinicians who are the experts in this field have already said that there is no way to do that. It is not just a case of repackaging a few beds or a ward and putting a new sign outside the front door. This is an incredibly complex and sensitive area of healthcare, and a wholly inadequate or wrongly located unit could even prove to be worse than no unit. In that regard, I will listen to the experts.

We should keep an open mind on how to do things more swiftly, where it is safe and feasible to do so. That is why we have tabled amendment No 2, which asks for a rapid review of all options. The way that I see it, there are only two possible outcomes: ether a chance to do something different will emerge, or the assessment will tell the Minister to stay on the current track. Either option will not see time lost, but, crucially, might see some time gained. We have seen, in recent years, that progress is possible. Now, we must deliver this final but important step of a regional unit as quickly as we can, whilst always keeping the safety of mums and babies to the absolute fore.

Ms Mulholland: It is lovely to hear a nod to how motherhood can be joyful and fulfilling. That sometimes gets lost in these discussions. I thank Ms Flynn for recognising it.

I speak as a mummy of three, who was one of the one in five, and also as an MLA for North Antrim, where too many mothers face this time with fear rather than joy because specialist help is either too far away, too hard to reach or simply not there at all. In February 2024, I used my maiden speech in the House to highlight the lack of an MBU; in May 2024, I highlighted the issue of perinatal mental health during Mental Health Awareness Week; and, in March 2025, I engaged with the Minister about this very issue. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what has changed and what improvements have been made.

Addressing perinatal mental health is not just about adequate medical care; it is about ensuring that mothers and their babies receive compassionate, comprehensive support during such a vulnerable time, and there has to be equity with what is available in other regions.

The motion is simple, humane and about human beings, so I will ground my contribution to the debate in lived experience, about which I have already engaged with the Minister. I have a constituent called Laura who gave birth to a healthy baby girl in February 2023. Two days later, she was detained to a general psychiatric ward. She would not spend a full night at home with her daughter for over seven weeks. On the ward, communication was fragmented. So many teams were involved that it was often unclear who was responsible for the decision-making, who could authorise visits and who could tell Laura whether she could take a short walk outside.

Visits with her baby were supervised, limited to one hour and sporadic; they were not routine. That is not how to help a mother bond with her child, especially a mother who is in the grip of a mental health crisis.

Breastfeeding became an exhausting obstacle course. She had a lack of access to sterile pumps, no proper storage and no process for accessing basic equipment. At one point, Laura was sterilising her own kit in a staff microwave, albeit whilst being supervised. She had to call the trust breastfeeding support team herself to get help during visiting hours. She was given the wrong supplements, or her supplements were forgotten on medication rounds, because they just did not think of the postpartum supplements that a mother needs.

The physical recovery expected after birth, such as having access to a bath to help with healing and cleaning, a bin to dispose of used maternity pads and a clean space to change, became just a series of indignities, but Laura said that the hardest part of being separated from her baby was that it directly harmed her recovery. She struggled to build an emotional connection and learn the day-to-day skills of caring for her newborn. She felt that she did not know her daughter at all and that she was not fit to be her mother. At her lowest, she even considered giving up her parental rights. That is the very opposite of what is needed to help new mums with mental health issues. Those little babies need their mums, but mums also need their babies, especially during that time.

As things stand in Northern Ireland, if a mother becomes severely unwell after birth, she is likely to be admitted to a general psychiatric ward without her baby. The case for an MBU has been well established. It is evidence-based care. There has been progress, with all five health trusts now having a specialist community perinatal mental health team in place. That is a foundation that we should welcome, but mothers in crisis cannot wait for a capital project alone.

Minister, from Laura's experience, the measures that they need are practical and potentially life-saving, and not all of them cost money. For example, a dedicated warded space within mental health services where postpartum mothers are not treated as an inconvenience; routine — not rationed — visits with babies; safe, private space for feeding and family contact; baby-friendly facilities embedded in the ward environment; proper breastfeeding support on wards; a single point of contact for every mother to coordinate that care and reduce anxiety; and data that counts what matters. Postpartum admissions have to be recorded. They have to be reported so that services can plan and measure progress. Standardised reporting and recording within and across trusts are key to building up a full picture.

The motion is more about giving frightened new mothers the care that helps them heal and giving a tiny baby the secure bond that shapes a lifetime. Until that unit opens, we need to do everything that we can to make our existing wards kinder, safer and truly perinatal-ready, so that no mother is ever again asked to recover whilst apart from her baby.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today and thank Órlaithí for her continued work on the issue.

I am in firm support of the motion, because it is about justice, health, dignity and the future of mothers and babies across the North. Giving birth can rightly be one of life's most fulfilling moments, yet, for too many, it is followed by anguish, fear and crisis. Postnatal depression, anxiety and, in extreme cases, postpartum psychosis strike swiftly without warning and without mercy. No woman should face that peril isolated and unsupported, but today, we face a glaring failure in our system. Northern Ireland remains the only part of these islands without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit. That means that, when a mother suffers a severe perinatal mental health crisis, she may be admitted to a general psychiatric ward, separated from her newborn and placed in an environment without the specialist training or facilities to meet her needs.

We heard the story recently about Shelley Browne. She was admitted to a general ward and separated from her baby for five weeks — a deeply distressing example but, sadly, not unique. We also recall the tragedy of Orlaith Quinn, who died by suicide just two days after giving birth. An inquest called her death "foreseeable and preventable" and recommended the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland. Those stories, sadly, are not anecdotes to be glossed over; they are warnings, and they cry out for urgent action.

Let me be clear about what, the SDLP believes, must happen. First, the Department must publish the long-overdue business case for a regional MBU, with full transparency on timescales, budgets and risk assessments. Many organisations from Action on Postpartum Psychosis, whose tireless advocacy has provided vital awareness and support for families, to Aware NI have called for immediate action.

Secondly, the Department must immediately allocate capital and revenue funding, with clear delivery timelines, so that the facility moves from idea to reality.

Thirdly, we must institute interim measures now. Let me be clear: such measures cannot become long-term measures, but it is vital that we take the necessary steps to support mothers and babies in the interim. Mothers in crisis must never face separation or inappropriate care while waiting for a permanent unit. One option that the Department should urgently consider is repurposing an existing empty ward as a temporary mother-and-baby unit. That option may not be perfect, but it would at least allow mothers and babies to remain together, which is so important. We have seen that done before in Exeter, where a temporary ward was successfully set up while a permanent mother-and-baby unit was being built and created.

Fourthly, we need cross-jurisdictional cooperation on these important matters. Mental illness respects no border. I urge the Minister of Health to coordinate with his counterpart in Dublin to ensure that, once established, the unit can serve mothers and babies across the island as needed. Specialist mother-and-baby units have a strong evidence base. They improve clinical outcomes, reduce trauma and protect the mother-infant bond, which is so important. We know that such units save lives.

The issue also exposes a wider crisis in women's health in Northern Ireland. There is no reliable record of the number of women diagnosed with postpartum psychosis or admitted to psychiatric wards in the postpartum period. We really do not know how many mothers and babies have been separated. There is no record of severe adverse incidents (SAIs) relating to maternal mental health. Perhaps most shockingly, there is no reliable record of how many women die by suicide in the year after giving birth. Data collection is truly vital when seeking to adequately address sensitive issues such as the one that we are discussing. It is unacceptable that that information is not being collected; indeed, it is unfathomable. We cannot allow bureaucratic delay, a lack of political will or poor record-keeping to stand between a suffering mother and the care that she and her baby so desperately need. Women who are already vulnerable and terrified should not be told to wait while the machinery grinds.

Every mother deserves to heal in the presence of their child. Every family deserves the certainty of knowing that, should a crisis strike or arise, there is a safe, specialist and compassionate place of care in our jurisdiction. There can be no more delay or excuses. We must deliver the regional mother-and-baby unit that mothers across the region so urgently deserve. We must take immediate steps to protect mothers and babies across the island.

Mr McGuigan: Each year, 1,000 women develop a severe postnatal illness. It is estimated that around 35 women across the North experience postpartum psychosis: a severe, frightening and potentially life-threatening mental health emergency that devastates those women and their families. With the right treatment and support, women can fully recover, but getting that right treatment and intervention at the right time in the right environment is critical.

I acknowledge the ongoing work of the perinatal mental health care pathway. Its roll-out across trusts is a welcome development and a testament to the commitment of those who work in perinatal mental health. However, the second phase of that model — the establishment of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit — remains an outstanding commitment.

Postpartum psychosis is a mental health crisis that typically cannot be managed at home, especially when the mother is caring for a newborn baby. A dedicated mother-and baby-unit, with specially trained staff and integrated services, is crucial to ensuring that women receive the medical intervention and compassionate support that they need without being separated from their baby.

The recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme, 'Mums in Crisis', made the case for urgent action very effectively. I commend the courageous women and families who have spoken out about their experiences. Their voices have rightly brought the issue into the public eye and highlighted the devastating impact of inadequate support.

It is clear that the current system does not meet the needs of mothers in crisis.

Sinn Féin calls for the mother-and-baby unit to be delivered without further delay. We must ensure that mothers are not separated from their newborn babies while receiving mental health support. We need clear answers from the Minister today on the time frame for the unit's delivery. If, as previously stated, it remains a longer-term strategic objective, we must look at interim measures, such as having a dedicated ward with specialist staff, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate care now. As other Members have said, an empty ward could be repurposed as a mother-and-baby unit. Such a unit would keep mums and babies together in perhaps less than ideal conditions, but at least they would be together. Similar things have happened in Wales and in England, so, if the Minister thinks that that cannot happen, I really want to hear from him exactly why he believes that to be the case.

I commend Action on Postpartum Psychosis and other advocacy groups for the vital support and advocacy that they provide to women and families affected by the condition and highlight their call for tailored peer support to be embedded in care pathways. As other Members have said, we also need comprehensive data. It is essential that we capture data on the numbers affected and on treatments. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has said, the data gap needs to be addressed.

This is the second debate in just over a week on a serious illness that affects only women. As a man, I am embarrassed by that. In the North and, indeed, across the island, it is clear that we have a way to go to ensure that women's health issues are addressed and that women get the services that they desire. If the issue affected men, I suspect that the specialist unit would already have been built. That is a serious indictment of our health service.

I hope that progress on the mother-and-baby unit can be made in order to deliver that vital service, ensuring that women across the island of Ireland get the healthcare that they need and deserve.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the proposer of the motion for raising this really important issue today. I have been here for many years, so I know that we have had such discussions before. It really is time that we moved the subject on and time that women and their children received the appropriate care that they absolutely require. I fully support the motion.

We know that one in five women will experience mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year after birth. It is distressing to realise that we do not appear to collect and produce data on that. That is really important, so I urge the Minister to deal with that issue in particular. With Encompass, we have great new systems in place, so there is more than enough opportunity to ensure that, going forward, we have the data to put the appropriate provision in place.

Sian Mulholland mentioned Laura Orr and how she has bravely talked about her experience. I will also touch on Laura's experience, because it is really important that mothers' testimony be heard in the debate. Laura gave birth to her lovely daughter in 2023. Sian outlined much of what Laura has gone through, which is pretty horrific, and I will not repeat it. I will point out, however, that Laura stated that being separated from her daughter in a psychiatric ward was the hardest aspect of her experience and that the act of separation directly affected her recovery. She said that it was almost impossible to build an emotional connection, acquire practical parenting skills and navigate the new phase of family life with ease. Laura felt as though she did not know her daughter at all and that she was not fit to be her mother. She felt that someone else would be better placed to take care of her daughter and, at one point, considered giving up her parental rights. That is horrific. It is not what we want to hear or read about, but, unfortunately, it happened in the recent past: it is experience from 2023.

I will quote Laura directly. She said that one of the things that she found most difficult was not knowing:

Those are Laura's words. She continues:

It is important to put those words of a mother on the record.

I take the opportunity to raise another mother's experience: Alex Bartholomew. Her experience is from August 2018 — not very recent but the same problem in the past. Alex was admitted to an acute psychiatric ward. Her son was eight weeks old and still breastfeeding. During her time on the ward, Alex's symptoms worsened. Staying on a mixed ward heightened her anxiety, and it was unsafe for her children to visit. Throughout her three weeks on the ward, there was no safe place there for her to meet her children. Alex had been separated from her newborn son with no indication of when she might see him again. The baby was eight weeks old and had to be weaned overnight. Her toddler daughter asked daily where her mum was and has since undergone counselling for separation anxiety. In the first couple of days, she —.

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

Mrs Cameron: I will indeed. Those testimonies outline the importance of the mother-and-baby unit. I urge the Minister to act quickly on the issue to ensure that the services are put in place.

Miss McAllister: I thank the proposer for tabling the motion. She has spoken at length about the issue in Committee and asked questions on it, and there are Members from all our parties who have done the same. I thank my colleague Sian for taking it on for us, because it is important that it is addressed as a cross-party issue.

I speak as a mum who was separated from her baby when they were just six days old, not for mental health reasons but for physical health reasons. Difficult as that was for me, I cannot imagine how difficult it is for any mother who does not have an end in sight. Those of us with physical issues have an end in sight and know when we will see our babies again. It was not acceptable in my case, and it is not acceptable in any other mother's case.

I pay particular tribute to Shelley Browne, who was on the 'Spotlight' programme. I have read a lot about her circumstances. It is such a sad and emotive issue that it is hard, at times, to listen and to take it all in, because we are so affected by it. We have to listen to women and mothers, however, because they have been going through this for years.

The 'Spotlight' documentary stated that around 100 women a year in Northern Ireland are admitted to adult psychiatric wards without their babies for similar care. We cannot get hold of the exact figures from the Department. We have submitted questions for written answer but have not had answers for some of the trusts. I understand that there may be issues relating to Encompass, but we need to move past using that as a reason to not give the data, because data informs policy. We know that the trusts receive around 250 referrals for community service. At this time, I pay tribute, as many Members have done, to the perinatal mental health team, who do fabulous work and look after women. Even the team has approached us to say that it does not always work and that specialised inpatient care is needed. In September, we tabled a question asking on an update on the business case. I was glad that the Department wrote back and said that there was confirmation of a six-bed facility with the business case due for completion by 22 September. Hopefully, the Minister has a further update on that.

Many Members have mentioned a number of organisations today. I pay particular thanks to Action on Postpartum Psychosis, which has been in touch with Members over the past few weeks to ensure that we are aware of all the information behind the scenes about the women who feel that they cannot reach out individually to elected representatives — maybe it is too fresh, raw and new for them — but want to do something. That organisation has been leading on the cause for many years. In 2008, there was a visit to England to look at mother-and-baby units there, and we are no further on.

My party does not feel that we can support the UUP amendment, because we are concerned about the issue that there cannot be an interim arrangement. Some of that is due to what was exposed — "highlighted", I should say — in the 'Spotlight' documentary, in particular about Exeter. We want a bit more elaboration on what exactly the clinical advice is. It is important that we listen to it. From our understanding and research, it appears that the clinical advice is perhaps not coming from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If we are wrong, I am happy to be corrected. It is important that we get it right. There is a question around community treatment. Is that clinically the safest option, compared with interim measures? Those questions should be asked. Why are we asking those questions? We need to remember why we are talking about this: because mothers and their babies deserve the best care and resources and to be treated together and not miss out on those first crucial days, weeks and, for some, months.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for West Belfast for tabling this important motion, and I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. As we have heard, as many as one in five women experience mental health problems in pregnancy or after birth, and around 100 women are admitted to general psychiatric wards, with 35 being admitted for postpartum psychosis. In large part, that is because we do not have a mother-and-baby unit where women can receive the care that they need while pregnant or in the first 12 months of their baby's life. That is shameful. It speaks a lot to how we view and treat mental health generally and how women, in particular, are viewed and treated in the healthcare system and in society.

As has been stated, there are 22 mother-and-baby units in Britain, but Ireland has zilch. Successive Health Ministers have agreed that we need a mother-and-baby unit. Families have been waiting at least 20 years for that life-saving service, but, as with many things here, it is like waiting for Godot. It is an embarrassment and a source of shame that we have made no material progress. A mother-and-baby unit is a space where mothers can foster and build the mother-infant bond that would otherwise be harmed by separation. Separating women who need hospital admission for mental health from their young babies is inhumane. It is inhumane, yet that is what happens to dozens of women every year. Women have described that experience as "disorientating" and "traumatising".

As Members have said, the story of Shelley Browne, which was covered by 'Spotlight', speaks to that. Shelley was separated from her newborn baby and admitted to a general psychiatric hospital for five weeks. She reported feeling like a prisoner after giving birth. That is totally unacceptable. Other mothers refuse the hospital treatment that they need and instead rely on specialist community teams in order to stay with their newborn children. As has been mentioned, Orlaith Quinn died by suicide at the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital less than 48 hours after giving birth to her daughter. I believe that she had no previous mental health issues. Four years later, an inquest found that her death had been "foreseeable and preventable"; really cruel and shameful stuff. The same inquest also recommended that a mother-and-baby unit be established, yet, four years on, there is nothing.

The debacle of our absent mother-and-baby unit is yet another symptom of our mental health crisis. Our legacy of conflict, inequality and poverty means that people with poor mental health in the North suffer from more severe and debilitating conditions than in Britain and Ireland. Despite that well-known fact, we continue to spend less on mental health services than other regions, with £157 per capita spent in the North compared with £252 in England. Our mental health strategy needs £42 million of funding, but, last year, actual funding was just £5·9 million, a paltry sum. Part of that money delivered perinatal mental health teams across all five trusts, as has been stated, and the strengthening of those services is to be broadly welcomed. However, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance reports issues with it, including a lack of variation of services and a lack of implementation and funding of the mental health strategy. Each health trust receives more than 250 referrals for community perinatal services each year, but, because of staffing pressures, only 70 patients are accepted — women being failed again.

The interim temporary units are far from a perfect solution and are no substitute for a permanent mother-and-baby facility designed according to the needs of families, but an interim unit where mothers could receive the care that they need without being cruelly separated from their newborn child would provide some hope for mothers. Like the Member for North Belfast, I question the logic of the clinical advice that the Minister states for why they cannot be used. The business case for a mother-and-baby unit is almost a year overdue. I suspect that the Minister will tell us today that the case is finalised or close to being finalised but that any future funding depends on funding being identified. That is a line that is continuously rolled out by his Department. Strategies without funding are nothing more than abstract reports, and business cases without funding are absolutely meaningless. We do not need another review, however short.

Those who support families and newborn baby organisations, such as the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, the Maternal Advocacy and Support (MAs) project, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Action on Postpartum Psychosis and TinyLife, have been campaigning on the issue for decades. Women and families tell us that we urgently need a life-saving mother-and-baby unit. It is time for the Health Minister to deliver on it, and it is time for the Executive to fund it.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. A mother-and-baby unit is not overdue or long overdue: it is long, long overdue. Mr Robinson took us back 20 years: I will see his 20 years, and I will up it by 10. On 27 January 1995, my first son was born in the Royal Victoria Hospital. The first clinician to come in and examine his mother wanted to separate the two. They wanted to keep the baby, PJ, in the Royal and send Lynda to Knockbracken. I will never, ever forget the look of horror on her face. I found the strength from somewhere to call for a second opinion, and the two were not separated that night.

Sian Mulholland talked about the joy and the life-affirming experiences that women have when giving birth, and we should remember that. It is pretty joyous for dads as well, by the way. However, one in five is a huge number that we need to address. Please be in no doubt that I consider the absence of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland to be an absolutely glaring gap. As many Members have said, we are the only part of the UK without such a facility; indeed, there is none in the Republic of Ireland, and I will come back to that.

We have to go straight to the finances. Members are well briefed on the context in which I operate. The health service is under immense pressure, with unprecedented demand across all areas and resources stretched thin. The funding gap of £600 million is unprecedented, and, at the moment, I am finding it unmanageable. To establish a mother-and-baby unit, we will require significant capital and revenue investment, because it is not just about infrastructure; it is about staffing, training and ongoing service delivery. Let me be clear that I am fully committed to establishing a regional mother-and-baby unit.

We began with an outline business case, which was submitted to the Department by the Belfast Trust on 22 September this year. That led to economic and financial analyses. Normally, those are done first by the Belfast Trust and then by officials in my Department.

To minimise further delays, my officials are already working in parallel to review and assess the business case.

I want that to be done at pace, but I also want it to be done accurately. Members will be aware that the Department of Health and Health and Social Care have not exactly had a glowing record with capital projects in recent years. However, when the new, interim permanent secretary took up his post and came to see me, he asked, "What do you expect of me?". I said, "I will tell you in one word, Mr Farrar: urgency. I want to see urgency". My officials know that I do not believe that I have seen urgency — or sufficient urgency — in developing the business case for the mother-and-baby unit. One of the big delays was a debate over whether it should be a six-bed unit or a seven-bed unit. The conclusion is six beds.

The projected capital cost began at £11 million. As part of developing the business case, that has to come under review because we know that building costs continue to rise in the current environment. My officials recently secured Department of Finance approval to increase the delegated limit for capital projects. That involves hospital development, so the good news is that that means that time will not be spent on securing Department of Finance approval for the mother-and-baby unit project. However, following the announcement, in June, of the outcome of the UK-wide 2025 spending review, the Department of Finance has commissioned a Budget exercise that will determine the capital budgets for Northern Ireland's Departments for 2026-27 to 2029-30, so my ability to commit funding for any new capital projects will depend on my Department's capital allocation from that Budget process and the identification of sufficient additional recurrent funding to meet any additional resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) costs associated with a capital project. We do not expect the draft Budget outcome to be confirmed until later this year, but it will inform the development of the Department of Health capital investment plan, and that will set out the projects to be taken forward over the next 10 years. However, let me emphasise again that, in my assessment, a mother-and-baby unit is right at the top of that list.

The trusts and my other arm's-length bodies have identified capital funding requirements of around £3 billion over the next four years. That is more than £1 billion higher than the capital funding that we expect to receive. That suggests that the capital budget outcome may only be enough to address inescapable pressures. I simply want to manage expectations here. While I hope that the Budget outcome agreed by the Executive will also allow some partially committed projects, including the mother-and-baby unit, to be taken forward as planned, the possibility remains that there will need to be some form of delay. The position will be confirmed as part of the development of the capital investment plan, with a number of other important projects also to be taken into account. Those include the Antrim Area Hospital mental health inpatient unit, the Cityside Health and Care Centre in the north-west and Altnagelvin's new emergency department. However, before I finally commit to the proposed Belfast City Hospital site, I have asked officials to undertake a short, urgent review of possible alternative options. I want to be absolutely certain that we have considered all possible options, and I stress that that will not cause a further delay. It will be done as work continues on the business case.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, we all know the budgetary constraints that you operate under. In my communication with you on this particular case, I outlined some things and some changes that could be put in place that will not require capital. Is your Department considering those at this time?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, we are considering them. We are considering all options.

On an interim fix, I will first put on record the best practice requirements, as defined by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. A mother-and-baby unit should be co-located with a mental health acute inpatient unit; located close to an obstetric-led maternity unit; capable of facilitating a six-bed unit, which is the current plan; capable of facilitating all clinical services on the ground floor; have dedicated direct access to secured and exclusive outdoor space, desirably gardens; and offer easy access to wider public open spaces and amenities. As I have said, the Department received clinical advice, including from the SPPG, that there is no such facility that we can use as an interim location. If Members want to challenge that and say that they know of a location, I am all ears. If Members want me to overrule clinical advice, I am very nervous — very, very nervous.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I am not on the Health Committee, but I was previously. Has that evidence been publicly provided to the Health Committee? If not, can it be provided to the Health Committee and the Assembly?

Mr Nesbitt: For clarification, does the Member mean the best practice from the royal college?

Mr Carroll: The clinical evidence.

Mr Nesbitt: I can check whether the clinical evidence has been provided to the Committee. Maybe the Chair of the Committee knows. If it has not been, we are more than happy to provide it, as well as the criteria, as defined by the royal college.

As I say, we are going to look in order to be sure and potentially rule out any other long-term venues.

Ms Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Ms Flynn: Sorry, Minister, I do not want to take up too much of your response time. On the interim measures, have you looked at the model, which was referred to by a couple of Members, that appeared in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme — the temporary ward that was set up in Exeter? Have you or your officials looked at that?

Mr Nesbitt: What I have asked the officials to do is broader than that. I have asked them to look at whether there is any possibility of an alternative venue that could be an interim base for a mother-and-baby unit, and the answer that I have got back is, "No, there isn't". If Members wish, I will ask them to look yet again, because it is an incredibly important issue to me.

Several Members mentioned the fact that we are not trapping the data. A group has been set up to try to look at how we start to do that. There had been some coding issues. I do not want to get too technical, and I certainly do not want to hide behind technicalities, but it seems that Encompass should be able to help us in achieving that goal.

Transferring a mother and baby to a specialist mother-and-baby unit elsewhere in the UK under an extra-contractual referral has been considered for some cases. However, many mothers have talked about the emotional stress of being separated from their families, friends and local support networks. Often, those considerations outweigh the potential benefits of receiving care further afield.

Members talked about building a mother-and-baby unit that would accept mothers and babies from across the island. I have asked officials to check whether there is any legal impediment to a child being transferred into our jurisdiction. I am not entirely confident that there is a solid answer to that, but it is certainly something to be explored. I confirm to Members that I explored with the previous Health Minister in the Government of Ireland the possibility of working together and, perhaps, tapping into the Shared Island Fund to secure a mother-and-baby unit. Unfortunately, those discussions did not produce a positive outcome. We are, therefore, basically on our own in that way.

I thank Members who have acknowledged that the Department has been working to strengthen community-based perinatal mental health services across all five of our geographic trusts. We have invested in community-based specialist services, ensuring that mothers can access support close to home. Alongside that, we have been upskilling clinical staff, including midwives, mental health nurses and health visitors, so that they are better equipped to identify and respond to perinatal mental health issues. For my family, one of the saviours — I use the word "saviours" deliberately — was the community psychiatrist nurse, who was incredibly important in the journey that my wife had to go on.

I ask the Members who tabled the motion to exert their influence over their party colleague the Minister of Finance, because we need the money — not just the capital, as I said — to make the mother-and-baby unit a reality. It is not just a clinical necessity but a statement of our values and of the extent to which we value one another. The Chair of the Health Committee made the point that if the issue were to affect only men, we would not be talking about a 20- or 30-year wait but, rather, would be celebrating the fact that the unit is in operation and would instead be examining and scrutinising how well it is delivering.

I will finish where I began. The mother-and-baby unit is not overdue or long overdue but long, long overdue. If it is the will of the House, I see no reason that we cannot get on with it, but doing that will take time. If we can find a way of doing it somewhere else more quickly, we will do that. If there is a way of putting in place an interim arrangement, I am open to that idea. I will not go against clinical advice, but I will ask the clinicians and others to have one final look at providing an interim solution. I have no confidence, however, that the answer will change from being one of it is not possible. My focus is on making the mother-and-baby unit happen, because I have a vested interest. For 30 years, mothers have been going through the experience that I witnessed in January 1995, and that, by definition, is simply not good enough.

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

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for sharing so openly his familial testimony. It is not easy for anyone to share such testimony. We have also heard Members share testimonies today, particularly from constituents. Before I address the detail of the motion, I will take a moment to pay tribute to some of the people whom I consider to be the early champions of raising the profile of perinatal mental health. Long before it became a topic with which we wrestled more readily, they forced us to understand it better, stood their ground and demanded change, and the Minister has outlined where some of that change has happened in the past 10 years.

Back in 2016, a number of us were elected as MLAs, and we were collared — literally — by a determined group that refused to let perinatal mental health remain under the radar. They set sail firmly towards a future in which mothers in Northern Ireland could safely and humanely receive care without being separated from their babies and in which they would not have to fight for that clinical care. I acknowledge Lindsay Robinson and Nuala Murphy in particular, whose passionate lobbying from those early days helped shape the conversation on perinatal mental health, not just in the Chamber but across our health system and in communities. Their courage, persistence and honesty about their lived experience changed awareness for good. They allowed and gave confidence to pregnant mums all over Northern Ireland and more widely to speak up and demand better from us. I also pay tribute to Julie Anderson, the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for her partnership and leadership. Her steady guidance and professional expertise have helped keep the vision rooted in clinical best practice and compassion. Thanks to those early voices, we are no longer debating whether mothers should be supported to stay with their babies but, rather, how we make that a reality.

The level of awareness has changed, as has the tone, and the direction of travel is firmly set. I hope that the Minister's response to some excellent speeches today has given confidence that our amendment is not one of dither and delay. It really is not, because I assure Members that I would hold the Minister's feet to the fire on the issue. I think that I have some vires to speak about mental health. We need to establish the mother-and-baby unit, and we need to get it right, because we cannot fail those mums and their babies again. We tabled a common-sense amendment to a motion on what is a hugely important and sensitive matter. We really need to get the mother-and-baby unit done, but the direction needs to be rooted in deliverability and make clinical sense.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. For clarity, I think that I said that the interim advice came from the SPPG, but I misspoke. The interim advice came from the Public Health Agency. Its lead on those issues is a clinician.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Minister. Hopefully, that will help some of the Members who have asked questions.

I thank Órlaithí Flynn, in particular, from the Sinn Féin team for tabling the motion. Órlaithí has walked the path with me since 2016 and has been relentless. Some of us move about portfolios, but Órlaithí has been on this one from the start. I thank Sinn Féin, and I hope that it does not see our amendment as taking away in any way from its motion. I think that it adds to the clarity, the purpose and the deliverability of what we are speaking about, because it is far too important to take any chances.

I will give a shout-out to the guys: Alan R, Alan C and Philip. We recognise the impact on mums and their babies, but dads and the wider family are also impacted on. That awareness around young men as they grow up to be the fathers that they should be is really important. We talked about that being picked up in the RSE education piece, because the awareness around perinatal mental health still needs to be driven.

Thanks to Cara Hunter and Pam Cameron who spoke passionately and gave instances of testimony of those who have suffered and where their testimony is driving the change that, hopefully, we are going to bring about.

Nuala McAllister's questions were good. It is one of the debates where we drop the politicking, and the questions are absolutely fair. They bring a focus to the reality of the fiscal situation, the clinical guidance and getting it right first time. I think that the Minister has given enough in his response today to convince Members that the amendment brought by the Ulster Unionist Party is not only fit for purpose but worth supporting.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cheryl Brownlee to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Cheryl, you have five minutes. Over to you, Cheryl.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend every Member who has spoken in the debate. It is a such a serious and emotional topic for us all, and I feel that there is real, genuine compassion.

Speaking freely today about perinatal mental health is critical. For all mothers, the birth of their baby is meant to be the best day of their life, but, sadly, the reality and the statistics show that one in five women will have mental health problems during pregnancy and, for five out of 100, that will be very serious. It is important to say that birth is not easy. For many of us, it does not really work out the way that we have dreamed about or how we have seen it in the movies or on social media. When that happens, the right support needs to be there for women and their babies at the most vulnerable time of their life.

Today, one thing that has hit me the most is the horrific thought that any mother would be separated from their baby and not know when they would be reunited. I cannot imagine anything worse. In this day and age, as my colleague said, our mothers, babies, fathers and families deserve so much more than that. The fact that Northern Ireland is the only region in the UK without a unit is simply unacceptable.

Many very good points were made in the debate, and I will touch on a few of them. Órlaithí detailed the experience of mothers being removed from their baby and having to choose between stopping breastfeeding or pumping, even being placed beside a smoking area and not being able to wash or get a bath. The inability to have those simple things is just horrific, and no mother should ever have to go through that at their most vulnerable time.

My colleague Alan Robinson raised the lifelong trauma and guilt of being separated from your baby. Research has shown that mothers and babies who are kept together through those times have a much better recovery rate. We all agree that that needs to happen. It is not an "if", a "maybe" or a "but": it needs to happen now. He also noted the very tragic death of Orlaith Quinn, who sadly took her life while experiencing postpartum psychosis. The coroner is calling for the mother-and-baby unit urgently. Alan also talked about the success of the regional perinatal mental health service, the amazing work that has happened and how we need to get it right and ensure that it is safe.

Robbie touched on the amazing work of campaigners. When I was pregnant during COVID, the 'Have you seen that girl?' movement was something that I constantly looked at on social media. It helped me during that time to understand that what I felt was common, other parents were going through it, and there was support there. Women who have come out and given their lived experience is critical for all of us in moving forward and making sure that we do the right things.

Sian said that motherhood is a fantastic time and a joyous time, but we also have to make sure there are kinder and safer facilities. It is those small practical things that we can do, without massive costs, to make the experience a lot better for parents. Cara drew attention to the need for clear records and data, which is needed not just in the Department of Health but throughout the government of Northern Ireland. We need clear data and records moving forward.

I welcome the Minister's raw honesty. He came to the Chamber today having experienced that in his life, and he will obviously understand the genuine need and the passion of us all. We understand the budgetary concerns, but, in some cases, it is a matter of life and death to ensure that parents and their babies have the right facilities in Northern Ireland. There was a discussion about clinical advice, and I am not on the Committee, but it would be good to touch base to ensure that that information is provided to it. The interim unit in south Wales was discussed. It is not ideal, but it is safe and provides the high level of 24/7 care that is needed. One of the things about postpartum psychosis is that parents do not sleep, and they need constant medical supervision to keep themselves and their baby safe.

I thank everyone who has spoken today. The lived experience of mothers from across Northern Ireland shows that they need the support of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit. We should not be discussing the issue in 2025. I fully support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Linda Dillon. Linda, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate on the motion today. One of the sad things that we are saying is that women and babies are still being failed on this island. In 2025, mothers are still forcibly separated from their babies, and I do not say that for the shock value; I say it because it is the truth, and it is a sad truth. I do not doubt everyone's commitment to changing the situation. I thank Sian and the Minister for sharing their personal experiences, which is not easy, but it shows that it affects every single person. People in the Chamber are affected by all the things that we talk about. Sometimes people forget that, but we are impacted on, and we have very real and relevant experiences. It is important to acknowledge that.

My colleague Órlaithí Flynn, Robbie and others spoke about the advocacy groups, clinicians and families who have kept the campaign alive, and that is very true. I pay tribute to my colleague Órlaithí Flynn, because I do not remember — I think that Robbie mentioned this as well — a time when she was not raising the issue of perinatal mental health, and specifically the need for a mother-and-baby unit. Even before we were elected, when we both worked for the party, I remember being at Sinn Féin meetings, and Órlaithí was banging the drum about the issue at that time. I appreciate that she has stuck with the issue, no matter what brief she has been in, because she sees it as really important.

I will throw the safety issue back to the Minister, because it has been raised in the amendment. It is important to get an understanding of what is best practice and what is safe. I accept that an interim measure will not be best practice, because it will not be a mother-and-baby unit or what we have envisaged, and, more importantly, what the advocacy groups and the families who have suffered in the system want. "Suffered" is probably the right word, because it has not just been an experience: it has been suffering. We need to understand what can be put in place, which probably will not be best practice, but will be safe. I am making that challenge for positive reasons, and I am not criticising for the sake of it, because none of us wants to do that today.

I will go back to the point that was raised by Órlaithí and, potentially, Nuala about whether what is in place in Exeter and other places in England and Wales has been looked at as possible practice, if not best practice. I listened to Julie Anderson say this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster' that she is concerned that the unit will not be built during her time as chairperson. She did not talk about interim measures being unsafe. That does not mean that, if we looked at what is possible, we would find that they are not unsafe, but we really need to look at what is possible.

As Sian Mulholland and others said, the current fragmented, complicated service, or lack thereof, is causing additional harm to mothers, their babies and their wider families. We need to remember that, very often, in cases involving a mother and a baby, there are other children as well. Pam spoke about those other children. It is traumatic for a mummy to be separated from any of her children, not just her new baby. That is really difficult. I understand that best practice allows those children and that family connection to be part of the service. That is really important.

Órlaithí, Cara and others referred to the failure to collect data. They talked about it being a barrier to addressing the need for a mother-and-baby unit. I do not think that it is necessarily a barrier to that — I think that the Minister has accepted that we need a mother-and-baby unit — but it is a barrier to our understanding of exactly how many women out there are impacted on. We talked about the non-collection of statistics for women who die by suicide within the first year after having a new baby. That is a real problem. There are many women who suffered undiagnosed postpartum perinatal mental health disorders or postpartum psychosis — perhaps the medical profession did not even know about them — who may not be included in the stats that we are talking about today . They may not have taken account of serious adverse incidents in which mothers died. There is potentially a problem out there that we do not even know about.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Just to be technical about it, deaths by suicide is a matter for NISRA — the Statistics and Research Agency — rather than the Department.

Mrs Dillon: I accept that it does not all fall to your Department. It is also an issue for the Coroners' Court and others. There is a wider issue, but we need Departments to work together to gather that data. There will be an effect on your Department. Although others may collect the data, there will be a real issue for your Department.

Pam outlined the impact on the entire family and other children. Many Members also referenced the approach to women's healthcare. Over the past number of weeks, we have spoken about a number of areas in which, effectively, we have seen neglect in women's healthcare. In this case, that extends to the wider family, the children and the baby.

Minister, I am in no doubt that you see the need for a mother-and-baby unit. I accept what you have said about that. You said that you spoke to the previous Health Minister in the South, but I would like to see a conversation between you and the new Health Minister, even about interim measures. Is there the potential for all-Ireland interim measures? I do not know whether that is possible, but the conversation needs to happen. It is a challenge to see what can be done. We ask that your Departments, including the clinicians, work together and see what is possible.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for giving way. She will be aware that this issue has been raised at joint North/South Health Committee meetings here and down south, at which she spoke very well, and at the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association, where we had a day's worth of debate about it. There is certainly interest down south in working together on a shared solution. I hope that the Minister will take forward the view that that avenue is not shut off, and that we can explore it.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is right. At the end of the day, clinicians serve their patients; they want to do the very best for mothers, babies and their families. They do not care about borders or how the service is delivered; they just want to be able to deliver the best care. All that we are asking is that we look at the possibilities. I do not doubt that there will be challenges, but we all need to work together. We, as a Health Committee, will certainly support you, Minister, in that regard.

I ask the Minister to come back to the Health Committee, first, to tell us what "safe" looks like or why it would be unsafe now to provide an interim service. What conversations, then, can we have with counterparts in the South and across these islands around best practice? We have said that interim measures are in place in England and Wales, so we need to speak to people there to find out what a good interim measure might look like and what the best possible practice is, right now, for women and their babies.

I accept what was said about care in the community, and it is vital that we have that. We have talked consistently here, as has the Minister, about health inequalities and the shift left. It is really important that women get the care that they need closest to home when that is the suitable care. We know, however, that there are women who need 24-hour care with their babies, with all the services that have already been outlined, including support from different types of clinicians.

I have no doubt that the staff who work in our psychiatric units to treat women with postpartum psychosis and serious mental health episodes after the birth of their baby are doing the very best that they can, but they can only treat the mummy and the mental health disorder that she has at that moment. They do not have the expertise, the skills, the time or the resources to deal with her as a new mother or to deal with her baby and her family. I am asking that we do our best as soon as possible. If we cannot have a mother-and-baby unit soon, what can we put in place that looks after those mothers and their babies? I know that that is what everybody in the Chamber today wants. I ask that we all work together to deliver the best for them all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Linda. Such was the quality of the debate that I forgot to look at the clock. Thank you very much indeed for continuing. I apologise to the Business Committee.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The Question on amendment No 1 will be put after the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Questions 1, 2, 14 and 15 have been withdrawn

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): My Department's major project portfolio is complex, with a range of projects at various stages of development and delivery. Every project will have specific considerations, but, in common with all Departments, I am very mindful at present of the impact of the judgement on the A5 western transport corridor, which was extremely disappointing and against which I recently lodged an appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the judgement in detail while the appeal remains live. As my officials work extremely hard to prepare for the hearing, I will take the necessary time to consider carefully the potential impact of the judgement on other projects as they move through the next stages of their delivery.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I have said previously that current climate change targets are an act of infrastructural vandalism when it comes to delivering timely projects. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the A5 and her inability to speak specifically to that — I welcome the fact that there is an appeal — has the Minister, her Department or, indeed, her party given consideration to amending current climate change targets to ensure that, in the future, unrealistic targets are not a noose around the neck of infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the Member's comments. As I said, as the appeal remains live, that is the ultimate focus of my officials at present. I want to ensure that we submit an extremely robust case for that appeal to maximise our ability to succeed, get it over the line and get the road built at the earliest possible stage. However, I am mindful that nothing is guaranteed, so it is important that we have a contingency plan, which we are also working on.

Mr McNulty: Minister, according to the Mineral Products Association, the A5 could have been a low-carbon project if proper procedures had been followed. What procedures were not followed, who was responsible and what are the implications for other major road projects?

Ms Kimmins: I am aware of the comments from the Mineral Products Association, which I met recently. I acknowledge the views expressed by the regional director, but, respectfully, I would like to offer a different perspective. I have covered some of this in previous discussions in the Chamber and in response to questions for written answer.

Since its inception, the A5 scheme has adhered to appropriate procedures on carbon management and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments. Those procedures have consistently reflected the application of evolving relevant standards, best practice guidance and legislation. However, that did not conclude in a carbon-neutral dual carriageway. Those procedures instructed the assessment and reporting of climate-related impacts in the environmental documentation for public consultation and the identification of proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. However, on the basis of the size and nature of the scheme, it is expected that the construction and operational phases will generate emissions, as reported in the GHG assessments prepared by my Department.

To mitigate the impacts further in order to achieve full carbon neutrality through balancing the emissions from the construction, operation and use of the road by removing a corresponding amount of GHGs from the atmosphere would require extensive mitigations, such as vesting significant areas of additional land for planting etc. Such measures would be disproportionate when compared with the land that is required to construct the A5. Such an approach would be neither practical nor reasonable, and it would be unrealistic to achieve.

Section 7.3 of the departmental statement, "Carbon Management Process", has been developed in line with PAS 2080:2023, which is the industry standard for managing whole-life carbon in buildings and infrastructure. It sets out the requirements for the contractors, designer and asset owner, with the aim of achieving carbon reduction. That process aims to minimise the carbons associated with the scheme.

Ms D Armstrong: The issue of major infrastructure projects has been raised. I will raise again the major infrastructure for the people of Fermanagh: the Enniskillen southern bypass. Minister, what assurances can you give them that the project will be expedited as quickly as possible?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has previously asked questions on the subject. The A4 Enniskillen bypass, which is a £36 million project, will provide a new transport link to the southern side of the town and improve the connection for the A4 Dublin Road and the A4 Sligo Road. As the Member may be aware, the scheme is at the tender assessment stage, and I am taking the opportunity, as I do with all such schemes, to consider appropriately the impact of the A5 ruling on it before determining the next steps, because I want to be assured that we can move forward with the scheme with no further delays.

Ms Kimmins: Earlier this year, I gave a commitment to the House to provide updated private streets enforcement guidance to staff in an effort to reduce the risk of developments entering the Department's backlog of unadopted private street sites. On 25 September this year, I announced the introduction of the new private streets enforcement guidance. The guidance establishes a threshold for the initiation of enforcement action of two years, following 80% occupation of houses in the development. My Department also published new developer information that amends the bond release thresholds. That change will ensure that my Department has the funds to bring new development roads infrastructure up to an adoptable standard should enforcement action be necessary. The new guidance, implemented alongside the changes to the bond release thresholds, will protect homeowners by greatly reducing the risk of new developments remaining unadopted.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is welcome news that will be reassuring to many homeowners, particularly those living on sites newly built since 2024.

Minister, can you elaborate on what the changes to the bond release thresholds are exactly?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. I appreciate the Member's comments. I know that it is an issue that has a huge impact, particularly on residents who are greatly affected by unadopted roads. Many have been for many years, and I hope that, in some way, the new guidance will give them comfort that efforts are being made. I know that the guidance will not address all the outstanding issues for the many people affected, but it will hopefully make a real difference.

The bond release thresholds specify the volume of work that the developer needs to complete before part of the bond is released, and the historical bond release thresholds were 50%, 70% and 90%. We have now changed those thresholds. There will be only two thresholds, which are 50% and 90%. The developer is now required to complete all works that were previously within the 70% threshold in order to release 50% of the bond; in other words, my Department now holds more funding to complete potentially less work. That will greatly reduce the risk of new developments lacking the funds to complete the roads infrastructure. The 90% threshold requires the developer to have completed all roads infrastructure works, with the remaining 10% released following a one-year maintenance period.

Mr Clarke: Minister, your guidance does not go far enough. Many people who have been left abandoned prior to 2024 will be disappointed with the guidance. Can you not relook at the retrospective nature of the guidance, particularly for people living in private streets? There are hundreds upon hundreds of people across Northern Ireland who are living in private streets today, and your policy will make no difference whatever to them.

Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous answer, I recognise that people will be disappointed. That is unfortunate, but the responsibility lies with the developer. We are trying to work out some way in which to deal with the issues as best we can. As I said and as you reflected in your question, the new guidance uses the two-year initiation of enforcement action and the increased funding retained in the bond to complete enforcement action using external staffing resource, should it be required. Many of the developments that were started prior to January 2024 have been completed or have already received bond reductions in line with the old developer's information. That means that a greater proportion of the bond has been released, significantly reducing the funding necessary to engage that external research.

What I have done here is within my remit and within the serious financial constraints that I face.

I have tried to make the best use of the funding available to me to ensure that we make an impact, and I take on board and acknowledge the significant challenges that many of the homeowners face. I appreciate that not everyone will benefit from this, but I hope that the Member understands that we try to do as much as we can with what we have.

Mr Mathison: The Minister is aware that the issues of adoption also apply to sewerage infrastructure and that NI Water has no budget to carry out some of those works. I think of Magheraknock Park in Ballynahinch, which the Minister knows of. In the Minister's plans, where there is no developer to make liable — in that instance in my constituency, the developer has passed away — is there any scenario where she can see funds being released to NI Water to allow the works to bring sewerage systems up to standard?

Ms Kimmins: That is similar to the issue in the question asked by the previous Member. The bonds release will impact on all those schemes within two years.

I am familiar with that issue. If the Member writes in with specifics on that case — it is a very unfortunate case with unforeseen circumstances — I will provide a fuller response on what we can do on that.

Mr Burrows: My constituents in the Sourhill development of Ballymena have a problem with an unadopted road. Minister, can you understand their frustration? The developer went bust many years ago; there is an unadopted road; and trees are literally growing into their property. That will cause structural damage. It is causing health issues with mould, and nobody will fix it. The council will not cut down the trees; the DFI will not do it; and the Crown Estate takes no interest. Someone, through no fault of their own, will have to pay thousands of pounds to cut back trees that a bust developer has left.

Ms Kimmins: I completely empathise with those people. It is something that every Member of the House has had experience of. It is a huge issue. However, it is like many cases where we cannot just go in and start taking on issues that have been caused by a private developer. The updated guidance that I have recently announced goes some way to address it.

We have to balance that against how much we can do with the funding envelope that is available to the Department. If we start to deal with all the issues that have been caused by private developers, it will take a significant chunk out of a budget that is already constrained. That is notwithstanding the fact that I recognise that it is hugely challenging for all the people affected. However, the onus in those cases is on a private developer. I know that, in some cases, legal action has been instigated. There are potentially other ways in which the problems could be addressed. We have to remember that ours is public money and we cannot always fix problems caused by private developers.

Ms Kimmins: I recognise the benefits that late-night public transport services provide for the night-time economy and those working and socialising in the city. Members may be aware that I have been working with my Executive colleagues and other stakeholders, including Translink, to support the extension of late-night public transport services. The extension of night-time services falls beyond the current public service agreement between Translink and my Department, and those services are not currently funded in the Department’s budget allocation. Therefore, I have been working with Executive colleagues and seeking support for a collaborative funding approach and with Belfast City Council. Subject to the necessary funding being in place and confirmed, I hope that the services will commence later this financial year.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she elaborate on the expected benefits of the pilot for late-night transport?

Ms Kimmins: There are many benefits, and that is why I and the Economy Minister sought support from other Departments and the council. There are benefits across government and at local government level. Late-night public transport services are generally run in the lead-up to the Christmas period and prove to be popular with the public, with approximately 17,000 passengers using the services in 2024. The extension of the late-night bus service to all year round will also provide a safer and more reliable means of getting home for those working or socialising in the city. From speaking with local business representatives, local communities and elected reps for the Belfast and surrounding areas, I know that it will ensure that people can get home safely. They will have a guaranteed way of getting home, and it will encourage them to come into the city centre more often in the evening.

That will also benefit the growth of the night-time economy and could potentially add between £1 million and £2·5 million to the city's economy annually.

As well as that, from my Department's perspective, it has the potential to encourage and increase public transport usage and get more people out of private cars and using the services. One other thing that is important to reflect on — we have heard this from the taxi sector, which is already under severe capacity pressure — is that this will not impact on them in a negative way; it will actually complement their ability to deliver the services that they provide. There are many far-reaching benefits, and I hope that, once we get the funding in place, we will see this in place at the earliest possible stage.

Mr Brett: At the outset, I condemn the disgraceful attack on the Minister's constituency office yesterday. My thoughts are with the Minister, her staff and her family. I also thank the Minister for her commitment and support to this scheme; it is greatly appreciated. Can the Minister articulate the outstanding support from Executive colleagues that she requires to move it forward? I understand that a number of Departments have already signed up to it. How quickly can we start the process to ensure that this is in place before Christmas?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his very kind comments, and I think all Members across the House. The support over the past day or so has been really welcome, particularly for my staff and their families, who have been very shaken up by what has occurred. I reiterate the point that, as public representatives, we put our names forward to represent our communities to the best of our ability. For those who do not agree with us, we are happy to sit down, engage and talk through dialogue. However, that attack was not the answer. I really convey my thanks and appreciation on behalf of me and my colleague Dáire Hughes MP.

On Executive support, the Member may be aware that I have sought support of approximately £92,300, or about 14% of the total cost, each from a number of Departments, including Communities, Agriculture and Justice, as well as from Belfast City Council, and we are in the process of finalising that. A similar request has also been made to the First Minister and deputy First Minister's office. Minister Archibald and I have each committed to £94,900 towards the cost of extending the services, and that is based on the business case that was provided by Translink. There will potentially be a bit of a lead-in time because Translink will obviously have to get the operational issues in place. However, as soon as we can, we hope to get that operational, because we recognise how beneficial it is for the city centre, particularly coming into the Christmas period and beyond. It is a really good opportunity to enhance the existing service provision, but, for all the reasons outlined in my response to the previous Member, it will be beneficial right across the city and beyond.

Ms Hunter: I also offer my solidarity to the Minister and her colleague. No violence or threat of violence is ever acceptable towards elected reps.

I thank the Minister for her update on late-night transport today. For many women in my constituency, when using late-night transport, they often say that they feel unsafe due to areas not being well lit. Will the Minister share with the House today some steps that her Department is taking, recognising the role that she can play in making areas better lit and making sure that women feel safe when using late-night transport?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her comments. This is an issue that I have been particularly cognisant of, not just as a woman but with regard to our overarching work in ending violence against women and girls. For many, it will come as a surprise just how women think when they are out and about, trying to get from place to place, whether that is walking or using public transport. It is something that I have been working on with my officials, but also reflecting on what we have done around the late-night transport piece, working with other Departments to try to achieve the objectives that we have set out in relation to the issue.

The Member will know from some of the work that we have been doing on active travel that street lighting forms a key part of that, and that is exactly the reason why. It is one thing to put in new active travel routes that will encourage people to walk, wheel or cycle, but if they do not feel safe to do so, they will not be able to fully utilise those routes. That is a key component of those schemes, and that is why I am keen to see that they are properly lit so that they are accessible to all, and particularly women, given the challenges and some of the statistics we have sadly seen in recent years.

Ms Kimmins: The Department is actively exploring the creation of a flood forecasting centre. We recently completed a strategic outline business case, which demonstrated that it would provide benefit here. On that basis, I approved funding for this financial year to further explore flood forecasting capabilities here. That investment marks a vital first step towards building a state-of-the-art flood forecasting service that will strengthen our resilience and help to protect communities across the North. The next stage of appraisal is the production of an outline business case in the hope of securing the necessary financial approvals to advance to subsequent stages of development.

The development of flood forecasting services is complex, with several interdependent strands, including data requirements; new hydrometric infrastructure and IT systems, such as communication platforms; and forecasting model builds. For example, my Department identified the need to expand our existing hydrometric network in support of flood forecasting services. The network will collate data over an extended period to improve and validate data quality. A long period of records is required to understand hydrometric relationships and to be able to predict future forecasts with an acceptable degree of confidence. Given the frequency of flooding now in all our constituencies, including the Member's and mine, we know just how important the opportunity to plan and forecast and put responses in place is. That work will be critical.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you have been very supportive of residents in Newcastle and businesses in Downpatrick, which have been severely impacted on by flooding. Will you give us an update on the Department's collaboration with regional community resilience groups (RCRGs)?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. Thank you for your comments.

I met the Newcastle RCRG, which does phenomenal work in responding to flooding, particularly given the frequency of the incidents that they have experienced and the severe impact that those incidents have caused. My Department continues to work very effectively with all multi-agency partners, including our local councils and the RCRGs, to provide support to local communities that are affected by flooding. The RCRG, which my Department co-chairs with local government representatives, works with communities at risk of flooding to help them prepare for and respond to weather-related emergencies, including flooding. That work helps to build resilience in communities. It is not that the Department is stepping away from its responsibilities; rather, it is about developing an extra layer of support that is proposed for those who are impacted on by flood events.

It is really important to note that that work helps to ensure that we hear the real experience, expertise and thoughts of people on the ground, because they have become experts on those issues and the best solution. That grassroots approach to collaboration is really important, and we have seen the benefit of it.

At present, the RCRG is working with 50 communities to help them to improve their preparedness and resilience when it comes to severe weather. Another good example of that work can be found in Newry in my constituency. As a result of the flooding in autumn 2023, the Department established the very first business-led group with the Newry business improvement district (BID). That group is a real template of what else we can do. The impact on businesses cannot be overstated.

You mentioned the example of Newcastle, where the surface water flooding protocol by NI Water has been established and used in recent months. However, it is important to recognise the fact that residents in particular have some nervousness, because it is a temporary measure. NI Water is working on modelling to find a more permanent solution.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, I echo the comments of others in condemning the attack on your office. I know how busy your office is, given that it is in the heart of Newry and so close to Daisy Hill Hospital. It was unacceptable.

Minister, hearing those updates on what is happening with the flood forecasting centre on that wider scale is welcome, but I want to bring it back to basics. On Friday, when the storm was coming in, I was out and about in the Mournes area. Flash flooding occurred simultaneously between Newcastle and Annalong at Bloody Bridge and between Gamekeeper's Lodge and Moyad in Kilkeel, which made it quite difficult to access the entire Kilkeel area. A lot of that might have been down to drainage and run-off. Are those basic things being reviewed hand in hand with the higher-level strategy? Obviously, everything comes into play when we see severe storms.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her kind words.

Yes, they absolutely are, particularly in areas that are hotspots for flooding. I am aware of the impact of the flooding at Bloody Bridge. The key areas are drainage and gully cleaning, but I am happy to write to you with a more detailed response on the specifics to update you and, hopefully, give you confidence that the Department has been monitoring that and continues to do so, particularly as we head into the autumn/winter period during which such episodes are likely to be more frequent.

Flash flooding and periods of instant heavy rainfall can be difficult to manage. We see that across the board, but the higher-risk areas are monitored closely, and we work extremely hard to ensure that drainage and gully cleaning work is carried out regularly.

Mr McMurray: It is good to see you, Minister. You mentioned the outline business case (OBC) for a flood forecasting centre. Does that attribute a cost to the centre, and how confident are you of securing that, given that your predecessors' bids were unsuccessful in previous monitoring rounds?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, there will be a number of processes to go through, and we will get the costings at each stage. I am fairly confident that we will be able to secure the funding, because, regardless of what we in government do, flooding is a massive issue that is growing, and we all need to take it very seriously. A huge amount of work has gone into the development of the flood forecasting centre, which will help improve our resilience and our response to such issues. When there is a flood such as the one that we experienced in the autumn of 2023 — I know that your constituency was badly affected, as mine was — the impact and aftermath of that could cost a hell of a lot more than the cost of being more prepared and having foresight of it. We have a strong evidence base and a strong argument in the cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the funding is secured.

Ms Kimmins: My Department's road safety programme and actions are data-driven and are managed through an evidence-based approach, delivering engineering, enforcement and education initiatives to address issues that will bring the greatest road safety benefit. Officials use PSNI collision data and reports from the Department's analysis, statistics and research branch to set priorities, target high-risk locations and evaluate outcomes.

My Department's road safety strategy and accompanying action plan and targets have been developed following extensive research and consultation, and, indeed, the yearly action plan is refreshed following analysis of my Department’s annual road safety strategy statistical report. Officials also publish additional monitoring reports and problem profiles, focusing on, for example, excessive speed, pedestrian casualties and drink-driving.

Using those valuable pieces of research and working alongside our partners in the blue-light organisations, we have produced a forward-looking and strategic action plan with clear direction on how we aim to meet its key targets and address emerging trends and issues. The action plan is monitored and reviewed annually by the road safety strategic forum and is an important living document that keeps our focus on reducing the number of people killed or injured on our roads.

Trend analysis underpins the ongoing speed limit review and guides where education and enforcement, in conjunction with the PSNI and the road safety partnership, will have most impact. Once PSNI data is received, the Department completes an annual collision review that ranks sites and routes identified as being of concern and programmes local transport and safety measures to bring safety benefits to those locations. Post-scheme monitoring compares trends before and after collisions and feeds into the following year's priorities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gerry Carroll for a short supplementary question.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I echo everybody's comments. I am concerned that things are not matching up and that data is hard for MLAs and reps to get hold of. My understanding is that it is your Department's policy not to provide mirrors for people to see their way out of very busy junctions. Is the Minister interested in looking at that policy again so that people are not in a dangerous situation at junctions where traffic is heavy and there are a lot of collisions?

Ms Kimmins: I am happy to give you a more detailed response on that. As a constituency MLA, I previously raised the issue, because many people ask for that; however, I am confident that the rationale for not being able to provide mirrors stacks up, and I am happy to provide further detail on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We will move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I offer my solidarity to you, your colleagues and your staff following the planting of a bomb outside your office in Newry on Sunday night. It must have been terribly frightening for you and everybody involved. Thank God that the bomb did not go off. I hope that everybody is OK.

Ms Kimmins: I thank my constituency colleague for his kind words and support today and over the past 24 hours. That is welcome, particularly for my staff.

I refute the point that he made about Armagh city being forgotten. It is part of my constituency and is a city that I visit frequently, particularly for matches. I am very aware of the congestion issues and the frustrations felt by local people in particular, as well as those who travel to and from Armagh city.

The Member mentioned the rail link. He will be aware that we are considering the feasibility studies from the all-island strategic rail review for a rail link for Armagh. I hope to be able to publish the outcomes of that in the coming weeks. Traffic and congestion measures are constantly under review, and there are things that we can look at. I am happy to consider anything new, and the Department can look at that. We are cognisant of the challenge of congestion. We are working together on that, as well as looking at public transport options.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Last week, the Infrastructure Committee was updated on the progress of the A28 Armagh east link and A3 Armagh north and west link road schemes. It appears that those vital road projects, which could alleviate congestion in Armagh city, have been shelved and that there is no timeline for their delivery. Why is that? Will the Minister commit to getting those projects back on track and progressing them?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, those projects were paused some time ago, before I came into post, for various reasons, including lack of funding. As he was updated on the prioritisation of major road projects, he will know — I reflected this in my responses to other questions today — that the A5 judgement is having an impact on all road schemes at present. I have to consider that, in particular, for the projects that are already moving through the stages of delivery, while keeping under review all the other projects that have been paused, such as those that the Member mentioned. The impact of the ruling will ensure that I am responsible in my decision-making when progressing any such schemes so that we do not hit the challenges that we have at this point. It will be kept under review. When I have a further update, I will be happy to update the House.

Mrs Cameron: My thoughts are with the Minister and her staff, and I utterly condemn the actions of the small-minded people who sought to attack her constituency office.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her kind words.

As I have stated, I am absolutely committed to dialogue and to avoiding the unnecessary use of public funds for litigation, which, unfortunately, we currently see. The issue could have been resolved long ago. Unfortunately, however, we are going through legal proceedings, and, with that in mind, it would be remiss of me to make further comment until those proceedings conclude.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is clear that the Minister's decision on the signage at Grand Central station is cross-cutting, which, in itself, requires it to be referred to the Executive. I respectfully ask which part of the controversy around her actions convinced the Minister that her decision was not controversial.

Ms Kimmins: The Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the claim that my decision was cross-cutting or the claim that it was controversial. If I felt that either was the case, I would not have taken the decision. That is the bottom line. I stand over the fact that I could take that decision as the Minister for the relevant Department, and I will continue to do so. As I said, there is a legal case under way, unfortunately. Another Minister is involved in it. It is important that we allow the case to run its course.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. The ability of people who do not have a driveway to charge their electric vehicle (EV) is currently restricted, as it is an offence to lay a cable across the footway or road under the terms of the Roads Order 1993. Departmental officials have explored how cross-pavement charging solutions might be provided to enable electric vehicle owners without access to a driveway to charge their vehicle at home and access cheaper home tariffs.

Officials have identified two solutions. The first is the installation of a permanent channel, which involves the cutting and reinstatement of the pavement. That engineered channel, through the use of the street works licence process, can be used to facilitate the placing of permanent engineered channels into footways. A director of engineering memorandum has been finalised to provide engineering staff and applicants with guidance on the new process and to outline standards and specifications for channels. There is a cost involved with that option, with the total bill being approximately £2,393. The Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) offers a range of grants for EVs and EV infrastructure. The electric vehicle charge point grant for households with on-street parking can provide up to £350 towards the cost of installing a charge point at a property.

The second solution is the use of a temporary cable protector, which can be allowed under current legislation through an application process for consent that permits the Department to track usage. That is a cheaper option that will help meet duties under the Climate Change Act 2022, which requires just transition principles to be considered.

The solutions are being facilitated through a six-month rolling pilot, which I announced on 1 October, that will allow for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If there is evidence that the use of the solutions causes undue harm or that consent conditions are not being adhered to, consent will be withdrawn and the pilot stopped.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

Does she agree that any changes to decarbonisation must be in line with just transition principles?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. As the Member will be aware, the Department has identified its key policies for decarbonising the transport sector. In doing so, we have taken account of the just transition requirements in the Climate Change Act 2022. As transport decarbonisation policies and actions are further progressed, we will take into account the needs of all transport users, including those with a disability, and continue to engage with people with a disability and the key stakeholders who represent them.

Mr Irwin: As a fellow representative of Newry and Armagh, I add my condemnation of the attack on the Minister's office.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his kind comments.

In relation to road defects and their impact on road users, particularly where a vehicle has been damaged, it is my objective to reduce the need for compensation and, instead, see proper investment in our roads, including rural roads, which, as the Member will be aware, are a key element of our shared constituency. There is a need to invest better in order to have better road surfaces.

The Member will be aware that the Department is finalising the road maintenance strategy, which looks for smarter decisions to be taken that will result in more resilient road maintenance. That will hopefully address some of the issues that the Member and many others across the House have described. As I have said previously, it has already been piloted in one council area, and we have seen the benefits of that, including improved and more resilient road surfaces. My focus is on seeing that investment directed into the network, including for maintenance and for ongoing work on tackling the defects.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response. Can she confirm that, over the past year, over £5 million has been paid out to vehicle owners for damage?

Ms Kimmins: The figures for the compensation that has been paid are publicly available, and I have shared them with Members in response to questions for written answer. That is a huge amount of money, and I would rather it was invested in our road network. I am determined to see that happen in the time ahead.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member is a representative for Belfast, I would expect nothing else. As the Member will know, I recently announced some of the measures that I have been working on alongside many representatives of local businesses and communities across Belfast, following the hugely challenging situation that we saw in Belfast city centre last year. We were trying to learn from what happened and were listening to the people on the ground about how we can make a difference this year on traffic congestion and keep Belfast moving. That is the key message.

I announced the introduction of measures yesterday, and those will be aimed at improving bus reliability, including the extension of bus lane hours to provide them with enhanced priority. Extended bus lanes will be introduced on the first Monday of November in several of the key arterial routes to the south of the city, which were worst affected with traffic congestion in the run-up to Christmas last year. The roads where that will be introduced will include Ormeau Road, Botanic Avenue, Malone Road and part of Lisburn Road, and signs to alert the public to the new bus lane times that will operate from 7.30 am to 9.30 am and from 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm on both inward and outward journeys will be erected in advance of implementation. Where the buses share road space with general traffic, I am hopeful that the reopening of Durham Street, which is planned for before the end of November, will help to ease the general traffic flow around the city.

It is also important to say that, on the basis of the feedback that I have received from key stakeholders in the city centre and the surrounding areas, those measures will, I hope, go some way to alleviate congestion but will not eliminate it, because we are indeed coming into the festive period. A lot of people will start their shopping earlier than in previous years, and we have to remember that in the time ahead. We have implemented a number of measures, and I hope to see a real improvement.

Ms Flynn: I appreciate that update from the Minister. Does she agree that it is about getting the message out to people that those measures are genuinely about giving people an alternative to sitting in traffic and that that is the message that she wants to promote?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. If you are sitting in traffic and are seeing buses whizzing by you on the bus lanes, that means that the people in the buses are getting to their destination much more quickly than you are. I hope that the measures will encourage more people to use our public transport. We have quite good public transport services, particularly around the city centre, and I would like to see increased utilisation of that in conjunction with the late-night services that we hope to see in the near future. Those measures also help us to encourage more people to use public transport more regularly, and I hope that we can use them to see that going forward.

Ms Kimmins: In the past four years, Translink has provided £19,912 in financial support to the Belfast pride parade towards the costs of registration, branding and materials. The funding for each year is broken down as follows: 2022-23, £5,427; 2023-24, £4,375; 2024-25, £5,397; and 2025-26, £4,713.

Mr Frew: Given the political nature of the events and the problems that we have with our public transport, does the Minister think that that is a wise spend of money?

Ms Kimmins: Translink operates under a public service agreement with my Department that sets out service delivery expectations and performance indicators. As a public corporation, Translink has substantial operational independence, but my Department retains oversight through governance frameworks and performance reviews. My Department assesses value for money through key performance indicators, including customer satisfaction; inclusion and community engagement, which, I think, those events reflect; compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI' principles and corporate governance codes; and annual audits and financial reporting requirements. Whilst DFI does not directly approve individual event expenditures, it expects Translink to demonstrate that such activity aligns with its strategic goals, including equality, inclusion and public engagement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, your time is up.

That concludes questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. Just take your ease while we hand over the top Table.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): As I said during a motion in this place just a few weeks ago, I condemn the recent attacks that have forced victims of racist and sectarian intimidation from their homes. Everyone is entitled to live in peace and feel safe in their home, free from threat.

My Department, along with the Housing Executive and all registered housing associations, is committed to delivering a safer community for all. That includes ensuring that support and protection is provided for victims of race and sectarian hate crimes. In its role as the strategic housing authority for Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive has the responsibility for assessing those presenting as homeless due to sectarian or racist intimidation. Its duties can include the provision of temporary accommodation to ensure that people are safe and removed from any immediate threat. Normal housing processes — the assessment of need and allocation of points — come later, after the emergency.

The Housing Executive may make referrals to relevant floating support services to help address any particular support needs arising as a result of hate incidents. That can include information regarding self-referral hostels and referrals to floating support services. The Housing Executive recognises that some of those impacted by the recent disorder may not have eligibility for housing and homelessness assistance and is currently working with a number of partners to explore what additional support can be provided beyond any assistance that can be provided in line with homelessness legislation.

I reiterate my condemnation of the violence, which exacerbates our housing crisis by driving people from their homes. Intimidation contributes directly to housing need, increasing the number of families who have to resort to temporary accommodation to feel safe in their homes. It is not acceptable. I will continue to condemn such activity and push for greater investment in our housing stock to tackle the housing crisis and improve the standard of available housing.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I am sure that you aware that a 'Spotlight' programme will tell the story of a number of families who have been subjected to sectarian and racist hate crimes and forced from their homes over the summer. It has become clear that they sought emergency assistance and were given that. However, many of them have ended up in unsuitable accommodation, causing a great deal of stress and anxiety and, indeed, causing families to be under severe pressure. As the Minister responsible for housing, what have you done personally to support this family and other families who have been affected by the recent racist and sectarian intimidation?

Mr Lyons: I am not aware of exactly what was said during that programme, but I look forward to hearing all the details, verifying the timelines and seeing what else we can do. However, action has been taken by the Department and by Clanmil, the housing association responsible in that instance. It is important that, as a Department, we give the appropriate support. Immediately after the events of that time, officials were directly in contact to offer appropriate advice and support. Clanmil has been doing its best to help.

The real problem that we face, apart from the appalling attacks that have been taking place, is a lack of housing. We need to address that urgently. I hope that the Member will encourage his party colleagues on the Executive and other Executive members to fulfil the bids that I make so that we can start making progress on the issue and make sure that we have enough homes. That will mean that, when people find themselves in that situation, accommodation that is suitable for their needs is available.

Mrs Cameron: What message does the Minister have for those who think that it is acceptable to intimidate, in any form or fashion, residents from their homes?

Mr Lyons: My message is clear. It is on the record, and it is on the record with Executive colleagues when we put out a joint statement. It is not acceptable; it never has been acceptable; and it never will be acceptable. People should not be intimidated from their home, full stop.

Ms Mulholland: When it comes to working with other agencies, particularly in emergency situations, what role do councils play? What engagement do the Minister and the Department have when situations such as those that we have seen over the past few months occur?

Mr Lyons: I am aware of no particular role for councils in this circumstance, but I am happy to clarify that if that is wrong. I believe that Clanmil was able to secure temporary accommodation for those who were affected. I can clarify that for the Member if that is incorrect.

Mr Allen: I echo the comments of others that intimidation is wrong. There never was a place for it, and there never will be a place for it.

I have been contacted recently by constituents who are concerned about the number of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). While it is important that we provide temporary accommodation for those who need it, there is concern in communities about the number of HMOs that are popping up. Where does the Minister see the balance between HMOs and the delivery of temporary accommodation? Ultimately, we want to deliver more long-term, sustainable accommodation, rather than having to place people in temporary provision.

Mr Lyons: I share some of the concerns that have been expressed about HMOs, because they have the potential to change the character and make-up of an area. We have seen that in places where there were traditional family homes but HMO processes have changed that. I hope to make a statement to the House in coming weeks about HMOs and where we go from here, because there is huge concern about them. It is appropriate that I set out what I can do and, importantly, the roles of councils. I look forward to doing that soon.

Mr Durkan: I express solidarity with all of the people and families who have been forced to flee their homes due to hate.

The Minister has made a virtue of coming down hard on benefit fraud. In extension to that, if a social housing tenant is found guilty of being involved in or, more so, orchestrating such intimidation, should it have implications for their tenancy?

Mr Lyons: Everybody should be treated equally under the law. If you have been found guilty of a crime, you should feel the weight of that and bear the consequences. I am more than happy to put it on record that I will treat everybody equally and hold everybody to the same standard, because we want to maintain the rights of people. If others breach the rights of those people, there should be consequences.

Mr Carroll: Unfortunately, this points again to the need for the reinstatement of intimidation points, which I have requested be in place umpteen times. Will the Minister clarify to the House — this is, obviously, connected — why, when loyalist paramilitaries have stated publicly to journalists that they will torch buildings and vehicles because there is Irish language on them, his party goes into overdrive to say —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — that no threat exists?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you can respond to that if you want. It is not related to the question. It is up to you.

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to condemn any violence or threat of violence, wherever that comes from. Unfortunately, not everybody in the House has done that in the past, but it is certainly my position.

Mr Kelly: Minister, as was mentioned by the previous Member who spoke, intimidation points were done away with in, I think, March. I agree that they were being abused, but, in situations such as the recent case, in which it is obvious that there was intimidation — indeed, the police have said that the UDA was involved in such intimidation — and a specific threat, is there a method of accessing housing? Obviously, we need the points process for everything else, but I am worried that, having removed intimidation points, we have nothing with which to replace them.

Mr Lyons: Removing intimidation points was the right thing to do because they were being abused. Everybody will now be treated equally. I have spoken to the housing associations about intimidation points, and they were fully supportive of the move that was made. I am determined to make sure that everybody has access to the accommodation that they need and am working towards that.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the Minister's reiterating his condemnation of the acts of intimidation and violence that have occurred. We will all agree with that. I met affected families this summer and with Clanmil, in particular, pushing for rehousing to be done according to those families' wishes. Clanmil tells me that it is working hard but that rehousing depends on the availability of social houses in the desired areas. Does the Minister agree that, as a point of fact, the more restrictive people are about where they want a new social house of the appropriate size, the longer it is likely to take to meet their requirements?

Mr Lyons: Yes. That is part of it. Flexibility is the key to getting permanent accommodation.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to our need for more social homes across Northern Ireland. Even in circumstances such as the ones that have been highlighted, it is difficult to get suitable accommodation that is available. That is why we need to significantly increase the number of social homes that are built in Northern Ireland, and it is why I appeal to colleagues to ensure that we in the House speak with one voice and call on my Executive colleagues to make sure that we have the funding that we need to meet our social housing targets.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I condemn racism in all its forms. The violence that we saw against some people in Ballymena and other areas was a disgrace. The victims have now been moved out of the area because of that attack. Following on from Mr Gildernew's comments, what housing have the victims been placed in? You said that some of them were not eligible for housing help: why?

Mr Lyons: I do not think that I said that at all. I did not mention any individuals. I talked about the assistance that is available more generally, because Mr Gildernew's question was not specific to any incident. It was a wide-ranging question about the help that is available, which is why I outlined that. I have not commented on the individual circumstances of those whom the Member has mentioned.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you will know that many families have been forced from their homes. Why have many of them not been offered appropriate accommodation? Will you explain that, and do you have an estimate of how often that happens?

Mr Lyons: It is simply because we do not have the supply right now. If we could do more, of course we would do it, but, given that the social housing is not available, there is nowhere for us to place people. That is why we have such extraordinarily long lists for social housing and such high bills for temporary accommodation. Again, I urge all Members to get behind my appeals to Executive colleagues to make sure that we have the funding in place to build more social homes.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. I can only imagine the trauma of being forced out of your home on the basis of your religion or race, so to hear the universal condemnation of that is good. Will the Minister ensure that rehousing offers dignity and safety and not just a roof over people's heads?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Miss Brogan: The Minister will know that it is not just about one family. Many families have been victims of racist and sectarian intimidation. Has he held regular meetings with the Housing Executive about those families? Has he personally met any of the families affected by intimidation?

Mr Lyons: I have not, although I regularly speak to the Housing Executive about the issues. I have spoken in particular to Clanmil, which is the housing association that is involved. I have offered to meet those who have been affected, and, tomorrow, I will meet some of the staff who have been dealing with the issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, everyone. That concludes this item of business.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Table and before we go back to the votes.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your ease while we move to the next item on the agenda.

Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Kellie. 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. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Kellie, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise not just to propose the motion but to issue a call to action, because, behind every statistic on fuel poverty, there is a person; behind every cold, damp wall, there is a child doing homework in a coat; behind every outdated boiler, there is a pensioner rationing heat to make ends meet.

The motion recognises this simple truth: we cannot afford to keep building homes that belong in the past. The homes that we construct today must be fit for the future, energy efficient, affordable to heat and resilient in the face of climate change. Let us be honest: we have known for years that our housing stock is among the least efficient in the islands. We know that retrofitting is expensive and disruptive and can be slow, and we know that every home that we build today is a retrofit waiting to happen at a cost that we cannot afford, so why are we still building homes that will need fixing? The motion calls on the Minister for Communities, the Minister who is in charge of housing, to bring forward proposals that will embed higher energy-efficiency standards and renewable energy integration into the fabric of our social housing. Those should be the foundations that inform the next building regulations, because that is where real and lasting change happens.

Alliance believes that we will continue to fail to deliver the housing that Northern Ireland needs unless leadership is shown. I am calling on the Minister for Communities, as the Minister responsible for housing, to stop dithering and to take forward actions. Whilst I appreciate that the Departments of Finance and Infrastructure would take forward the building regulations, there is an opportunity for the Minister for Communities to be proactive and drive changes by producing a blueprint for what people require homes to include. We have the technology and the expertise. What we now need is the courage to lead. By raising standards, we can slash energy bills for families who most need it. We can cut carbon emissions to meet our legal obligations under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. We can create thousands of skilled jobs in construction, green technology and energy services, and we can build homes that are warm, dry and dignified, not just for today but for generations to come.

This is not about insulation and solar panels; it is about social justice, fairness and ensuring that social housing tenants, who are often the most vulnerable in society, are not left behind in the transition to a low-carbon future. I went to Four Winds to look at a private development that is up to Passive House standard. In that development, the average general running costs for a month is £80, and that is for a four-bedroom home that charges electric cars. Heat, light, everything — £80. How much would it help vulnerable families if they had to pay only £80 to run their household? We cannot continue to treat energy efficiency as a luxury. It is a necessity, and it is a right. Let me be clear: this is not about adding cost; it is about adding value. The upfront investment in better standards pays for itself many times over in lower bills, healthier homes and a cleaner environment. We have a moral obligation to act, because every delay means more families trapped in fuel poverty, more emissions locked in and more public money spent on retrofitting homes that should have been built right the first time.

Imagine a Northern Ireland where every new social home was a model of sustainability, where our buildings delivered energy efficiency, ensuring that fuel poverty became a problem of the past, and we were known not for lagging behind but for leading the way. That vision is within reach but only if we choose it. Instead of building homes that are obsolete on the day that they are finished, let us build homes that are warm, affordable and future-proofed. Let us pass the motion and ensure that the next building regulations reflect the ambition, urgency and compassion that our citizens need. Those building regulations need to be driven by communities, as they know what people who live in those homes need.

I do not want to have to look back in 10 years and regret the houses being built today. Let us not have to explain to future generations why we chose short-term savings over long-term energy security and sustainability. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. Indeed, today, at the launch of the Simon Community report 'Childhood Adversity and Homelessness in Northern Ireland', it was confirmed that we can no longer afford to have the housing system that we currently have. We are going to be the first Assembly that will see 100,000 people on a waiting list for a social home. That is shameful. That is a record-breaking shame. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. I do not think that we can. It would be shameful if the only things growing in this mandate were waiting lists.

We need to ensure that what we build is sustainable, and, Minister, this is where you have to act. I do not want to hear, "Building regulations are not my responsibility". I want to hear how you are making sure that the significant investment being made in new homes is on residential properties fit for the future and not based on out-of-date standards. It may fall to another Department to take forward the regulations, but surely Communities should be driving the need for better housing standards and design. If the Assembly agrees the motion, it will send a clear message to the Executive to work to shape the next building regulations with ambition and ensure that every home that we build is a promise to keep to our people, to our planet and to the future.

I will make a comment about the amendments that are before us today. I cannot accept the DUP amendment because it shows lack of courage and a lack of ability to accept the law that is already in place about climate change. I cannot accept the Ulster Unionists' amendment because, to be honest, it is so far away from the initial intention of the motion that I have no idea why it is there — perhaps another motion on another day. I can accept the SDLP amendment because it talks in the same frame as Alliance, and the SDLP may as well have lifted the wording from the presentation that we got at Committee last Thursday, so well done on that one. That is it, Principal Deputy Speaker. It is over to the House to debate.

Dr Aiken: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Steve. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Steve, please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. The importance of this amendment is to talk to the cross-cutting example of the issues that we have before us. I welcome the Minister's being here, but the main issues will also refer to the Minister for the Economy, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Executive. These are all cross-cutting issues, and if we are to be able to deliver what we need to for the people of Northern Ireland, we need to work across Departments.

We cannot talk about energy at home without identifying the interconnectivity of all these issues, and we need to be able to recognise some very significant points that, unless we deal with them, we are never going to get there, as Ms Armstrong kindly pointed out. There is considerable vulnerability in our grid infrastructure, and, on several occasions, our party has written to the Economy Minister and stated that these are problems that need to be resolved if we are to sort out or move towards a more electric economy. Unbelievably, the Economy Minister has written back to me on several occasions, stating that there were no problems, yet we have the example of what happened when the permanent secretary went in front of the Economy Committee and identified the fact that we nearly reached a "dark amber" condition for our electricity market. That sounds like "red" to me, which means that we are about to have systemic failure.

We keep on talking about this, but we are missing some of the fundamental points, because we get to a point where we have electricity grids that are ready to fail because there are too many single points of failure in the system, including Coolkeeragh, which is owned by the NIE parent company ESB and always seems to be down for maintenance. You would wonder why nobody is taking any particular interest in this. We know that what we need to do is sort out these cross-cutting problems, but we also know that the Executive recently had an emergency meeting — or should I call it an urgent meeting? — to deal with the fact that the lights were about to go out.

Very much to the fore in the main motion and what the Alliance Party has brought forward before is the fact that all Ministers had to agree to a significant increase in the amount of carbon derogations just to keep the lights on. If that is not germane to this debate, I have absolutely no idea what is.

We need to understand that it is well beyond time that we had an independent review of the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and NIE Networks's failure to invest properly in our grid. We talk time and again about small-level electricity and the ability to use, in particular, photovoltaics (PV) and other technologies to make things work. However, we cannot do that if we do not have a grid that is capable of withstanding the amount of PV energy that is likely to go on it. Equally, we cannot do that with a grid that has extremely large connection charges to meet up with it in order to try to make it work.

Pardon the pun: this is not rocket science. It has been done successfully in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Devon and the Republic of Ireland. What lessons have the Executive taken from the process and what we are trying to do? What lessons are we taking on investment in the grid? The questions that we have to ask are fundamental. We need to undertake an independent investigation into the costs of doing those things. We hear you say, quite rightly, that we need to invest heavily in our housing stock in order to bring it up to net zero standards, but why would a contractor do that in Northern Ireland when, with the same materials, planning constraints and contractors, it costs two to three times as much in Northern Ireland as it does in Scotland, England and Wales? Why are we not investigating that? That is a part of our amendment. Do you not think that that is germane to what we are discussing in this debate? It is fundamental to what we are trying to do. It is not about saying, "I do not understand why the Ulster Unionist Party is raising this issue. It should have been raised under something else". That is pathetic.

We also need to look very closely at how we can add to the process. It is not just a question of reducing the amount of emissions that are required to keep our homes warm. It is also very much about how we can use the rest of the systems that we have. The Alliance Party talks time and again about getting towards net zero carbon and the approaches that are needed for that. There is great opportunity to do that. We can look at things such as anaerobic digestion and injecting green hydrogen into the grid, but then we would need changes in the regulatory process to increase the amount of green hydrogen in the grid, which would enable us to have a much more dynamic power system altogether. We should be in a position where people can self-generate electricity and sell it to the grid. Again, that needs grid to make it work. Of course, unless we have a grid that works, all the things that the Alliance Party talks about will have no impact whatsoever, because if you cannot import or export power, it just does not work.

We also need to look closely at pricing and pricing structures. We are part of the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM). If you listen to people who talk about the I-SEM, you will hear them say time and again how important it is for energy security in Northern Ireland. Anybody who understands electricity — it is a pity that Mr Frew is not here — will tell you very clearly that the I-SEM is a virtual-only market. We are not connected North/South. We are connected east-west, because every time that there is a power outage or shortage in the Republic of Ireland, it imports energy from Wales, and every time that we need to keep the lights on, we have to import power from Scotland.

One of the most important things that we need to be able to make any form of reliable energy and get towards net zero carbon in our housing stock is another interconnector. There is a large volume of cheap or even negatively priced renewable energy in the GB market. We cannot get that for two reasons. First, we do not have sufficient interconnection, which is vital to what we are discussing here. Secondly, we have a monopoly in Northern Ireland. We have a monopoly from ESB and EirGrid, aka Northern Ireland Electricity Networks and SONI. Our prices are fixed by the ability of the infrastructure to deal with the systems that we are dealing with. Unless we can sort that out, we will not get anywhere.

Our party is fully supportive of doing everything that we can to improve our housing stock, insulating homes sufficiently and fitting them with PV. However, unless we sort out the grid infrastructure, it is absolutely pointless. It will just be window dressing. It will just be greenwashing. Rather, we need to be able to make everything work. That is why I am being encouraging instead of listening to the rhetoric of the Alliance Party, which would rather just bash unionists, but that seems to be its modus operandi at the moment.

Ms K Armstrong: Really?

Dr Aiken: Really. Why did you say what you said when I explained why it is vital —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I ask that comments be made through the Chair, please.

Dr Aiken: Certainly. Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If you do not mind.

Dr Aiken: I do not mind at all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Dr Aiken: I do not mind at all making that remark about Alliance. That is why I recommend that Members accept our amendment, because it will significantly improve part of the motion.

Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Pam. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The DUP amendment aims to bring a sense of balance and realism to the debate, particularly in light of the serious infrastructure and affordability challenges facing Northern Ireland.

I begin by saying that I fully recognise and welcome the intention behind the motion. We can all agree that fuel poverty is a very real and pressing issue and that poorly insulated homes place an unfair burden on families. The call to improve the energy efficiency of our social housing and to explore renewable integration is sensible and timely. Every one of us wishes, for every constituent and even for ourselves, for homes to be energy-efficient, to be as environmentally friendly as possible and to be warm and healthy.

Our amendment reflects growing concern that some of the emissions targets and central objectives set out in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 may simply not be deliverable in the time frame to which we have committed, given the very real infrastructure and financial constraints that we face. We have seen, for example, a decision to extend operating hours at Kilroot power station. That is a necessary step in order to maintain energy security but is one that involves increased use of fossil fuels. That points to the gap between policy ambition and operational reality, and it is something that we cannot ignore and, instead, must take seriously.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. As the Member will be aware, this is not the first time that that has happened with Kilroot power station. It has been an ongoing problem. Does there seem to be a lack of strategy to deal with the issue?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his intervention. Similarly, we have had the recent court judgement on the A5 project, which highlighted how climate targets have had unintended consequences. In that case, they are potentially delaying or even preventing vital infrastructure projects. We need to ensure that such flagship projects can still go ahead without our breaching emissions limits or putting other sectors under pressure.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I want to make some progress, if you do not mind.

Much of what we will be debating today relates to other Departments as well. For example, the responsibility for renewable energy sits with the Department for the Economy. We know that that Department has a statutory obligation under the Climate Change Act to ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption comes from renewable sources by 2030. Significant investment and reform are needed in that area, particularly around grid capacity, planning and skills development. I ask therefore this question: where are we with meeting those targets? Are they even achievable? Are we being disingenuous by not raising concerns over our ability to meet what are incredibly challenging targets?

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. It is because our houses are not ready to receive electricity. We poured £94 million worth of renewable energy away in quarter 1 and quarter 2 of this year. We did not use wind energy. We can do this.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her intervention. We also have to be —.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will.

Mr Brett: Does the Member agree that, in order to ensure the drawdown of that supply, a grid connection policy is needed? One does not currently exist.

Ms K Armstrong: Nor does a battery.

Mr Brett: Ms Armstrong wants to shout from a sedentary position about batteries. As such, does the Member further agree that the Alliance motion has not outlined a single cost of introducing its proposals?

Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for his intervention.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please do not speak from a sedentary position. It is disrespectful, and the shouting out is off-putting. Pam, maybe you will get through the rest of your contribution without any more interventions. Go ahead.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your intervention.

We must be mindful of the wider costs. DAERA's draft climate action plan has been estimated to cost a whopping £1 billion between now and 2027. That is, of course, an incredibly eye-watering figure.

Our amendment does not seek to weaken our commitment to addressing climate change; rather, it asks us to proceed with care and pragmatism. We really need to look at the issues through a realistic lens. We need to be honest about what we can and cannot achieve right now with the available resource. We must be sensible while seeking to achieve real and lasting benefits for Northern Ireland. I am sure that none of us wants to unintentionally place additional pressures on households, businesses and our ability to deliver key public services in what are already very challenging times. I encourage Members to support our amendment. It keeps intact the core of the motion, which is about improving homes and lowering bills, whilst acknowledging the complex and sometimes competing demands that we now face.

I ask the Minister in his response to the debate to update the House on the affordable warmth scheme and any plans that he has to upscale that scheme, which helps low-income households to improve energy efficiency through a range of measures. I also want to hear more on what social housing providers are able to do and what is happening around the Department's review of the decent homes standard. I respectfully ask the Minister to address where the private rented sector fits into all of that and what other schemes are in the mix and to update us on the progress of the fuel poverty strategy. I am aware that I am giving the Minister a lot of homework.

I will leave my remarks there, and I look forward to hearing more contributions from Members across the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister has got it all scripted there, Pam, so you are grand.

I call Mark Durkan to move amendment No 3.

Mr Durkan: The importance of a warm home —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Are you going to move the amendment, Mark? [Laughter.]

Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 3:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment Nos 2 or 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will be put on amendment No 2. If amendment No 2 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3.

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

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

As I was saying, the importance of a warm home cannot be overstated. We often talk about home as a place of comfort and warmth. Many of us look forward to this time of the year, as the darker evenings draw in and people think about going home and getting cosy. However, for a growing number of households in the North, the fall of autumn leaves signals not comfort but fear. It signals fear of the colder weather, higher bills and having to make that invidious and impossible choice between heating and eating. That is not the opening line of a Dickens novel but the grim reality that faces thousands of families across the North in 2025.

My constituency office is already inundated with calls from people seeking support with heating their homes. The latest data from National Energy Action shows that 40% of people here are living in fuel poverty. That is over 300,000 households. For those in social housing, that figure rises to 55%. Food prices are climbing, despite global energy costs stabilising, and the pressure on family budgets is relentless, yet we have seen very little in the way of leadership from the Executive on tackling those fundamental cost-of-living issues. The crisis has not gone away, you know, even if the term itself appears to have fallen out of fashion.

It is not just about energy bills. We also need to look at the wider picture of poverty and at the provisions that are already in place: what works, what does not work and what could work better. In my constituency, I have seen so many homes — social homes, private rented homes, homes of every kind — riddled with damp. Westway in Creggan is one area that comes to mind. Older Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock there has been left to mould and decay because necessary insulation works have been delayed time and time again. Tenants pay through the roof in a fruitless effort to keep their homes warm. Heat seeps through uninsulated walls and poorly fitted windows. Many of those whom I have spoken with suffer from persistent coughs, COPD or asthma. That cannot be a coincidence.

Over the past three years alone, 40,000 reports of damp have been made to the Housing Executive. That shocking figure does not include housing association homes or private tenancies, where conditions are often much worse. I recently got a photo of shocking damp, mould and leaks in private accommodation provided to a young mother and her newborn baby. Here is the kicker: I instantly recognised the property in the photographs, because, just last year, I had complained about the same property on behalf of a previous tenant. That family was moved out, but, instead of fixing the problem, another tenant was simply moved in. That is a disgrace. While Awaab's law, vital legislation to protect tenants in such conditions, is set to move through the House of Commons in the weeks ahead, the Communities Minister keeps referring my questions on the matter to a response that he gave me in March 2024. Since then, we have had no update and no progress, with no evidence of work being done.

Cold, damp homes can have serious health and financial implications that hit hardest at our most vulnerable and at-risk groups: children and older people. Of households here, 31% reported health and well-being impacts because of rising energy costs, and one in four people who died here in 2022 were in fuel poverty. That should shame every one of us into action. We also see failure in how resources are used. The affordable warmth scheme, which should be our front-line defence against fuel poverty, remains underfunded and overwhelmed. In 2023-24, the scheme received over 11,500 applications, just 24% of which ended up receiving support, despite millions of pounds in Barnett consequentials flowing from Whitehall's £3·2 billion warm homes plan. Why is that money not being ring-fenced by the Executive?

We need investment in our older stock of social housing, not just new builds; we need to fix what we already have. The cavity wall action plan launched in 2019 found that 63% of Housing Executive properties were not compliant with current standards. Only 9% of its stock was deemed to have sufficient cavity wall insulation. The scheme was designed to boost efficiency, yet underinvestment means that it has supported only 203 homes in four years, none of which are in Derry and Strabane — I point that out to the Minister — the area with the highest reports of damp and deprivation.

I hear from social housing tenants that their long-delayed and long-awaited switch from oil to gas did not include the installation of a combi boiler, so they still have to heat water separately, at greater cost to them and to the environment. If we are serious about energy efficiency, we must be serious about value for money and outcomes, not just ticking boxes on paper.

I turn to the Opposition amendment that was tabled on Wednesday, prior to the Communities Committee meeting; it is always refreshing to discover that the experts are on the same page as the SDLP. [Laughter.]

The ideas contained in the SDLP amendment are not exactly brand new; they are in our housing report, which was launched in February. The SDLP has long championed the green new deal approach: a comprehensive, low-carbon energy strategy that includes retrofitting, renewable integration and energy efficiency as central pillars. It is crucial that we have targets, timelines and accountability. Therefore, we will not support the two mutually exclusive amendments. Our focus — I am not saying that it is not other parties' focus — is steadfastly on solutions that deliver. We support calls for a just transition —

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does the Member honestly believe that the legal target set by the previous Assembly will be met?

Mr Durkan: I have no confidence that any target set by this Executive on anything will be met. Do I believe that it could be met with the proper ambition and investment and the correct attitude? I absolutely do. We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

We support calls for a just transition, one that ensures that low-income families are not left behind as we decarbonise. That means introducing a statutory fuel poverty target, such as those that exist elsewhere in the UK; a social energy tariff, so that those on low incomes automatically pay less for essential energy; and proper funding for retrofitting programmes. We cannot remain the only part of these islands without a statutory commitment to end fuel poverty.

As the Opposition, we are not here simply to oppose things or to be negative, as we were accused of being yesterday; we are here to offer solutions and to support the Executive to do better for the people we all represent. Every cold home, every child living in damp conditions and every pensioner who is afraid to turn on the heating represents a direct failure of policy and delivery. Let us change that and make warmth a right, not a privilege.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Members for tabling the motion, which is on a topic of huge importance. As we all know, over the past number of years, the cost-of-living crisis has had a particularly severe impact on family household bills, particularly food prices and housing costs. Perhaps one of the most punishing impacts of the cost-of-living crisis, however, has been the runaway increases in household energy costs. Although energy prices have mostly stabilised, the past few years highlighted just how volatile the energy market is and how global events taking place thousands of miles away can have a material impact on the standard of living that people experience here in the North.

One of the biggest knock-on effects of the energy crisis has been the significant rise in fuel poverty, particularly for those on low incomes. A 2024 survey by National Energy Action (NEA) found that roughly 40% of people in the North experience some level of fuel poverty. In practice, that means families having to choose between heating and eating; children sleeping in cold, damp bedrooms; and more stress and anxiety and a lower quality of life for all those who are impacted. Those statistics bring into sharp focus the urgent need for a modern, fit-for-purpose fuel poverty strategy that will make a meaningful impact on reducing fuel poverty.

We also need to see the urgent delivery of an ambitious anti-poverty strategy, as fuel poverty is intrinsically linked to wider poverty and one cannot be tackled without the other being tackled. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out timelines for both.

The Department consulted on a draft fuel poverty strategy earlier in the year. Sinn Féin responded to that consultation, and I was glad to see some positive proposals. It is vital that we make our current housing stock more energy-efficient. Poor insulation in homes is one of the key drivers of fuel poverty, and that is particularly true of older properties. In recent years, there have been uplifts to building standards, and they have reduced energy costs dramatically for newer homes while ensuring that homes are warmer. We must move forward with the next phase of the planned uplifts. It would be good if the Minister could give an update on when that is likely to go ahead.

We also need to see a retrofit strategy for older homes. Some older properties are so energy-inefficient that it will take considerable investment and innovative solutions to bring them up to modern standards. That will, however, benefit us all in the long run. Sinn Féin has called for an uplift to the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector.

At last week's Communities Committee, members received a briefing from departmental officials that included an update on the new warm healthy homes scheme, which is due to replace the affordable warmth scheme in 2026. The affordable warmth scheme has been a lifeline for many families in combating the worst impacts of fuel poverty over the past decade, with over 25,000 homes receiving upgrades at a cost of over £100 million. The new scheme needs to be even more ambitious and be open to more people. It would be helpful if the Minister could share some of the details of the new scheme.

We also need to see greater protections for consumers from energy companies. One of the lessons from the cost-of-living crisis is that price rises will always fall on the consumer, and energy companies often seem to take advantage of that by announcing unfair price hikes. Sinn Féin would like to see the introduction of an energy price cap in the North, as already exists in Britain, as well as price protections for home heating oil customers and social tariffs for the most vulnerable.

Before I conclude, I want to flag with the Minister a significant issue with the recall of home heating pumps in the South. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of that. If he is not, I will pass on information. I would just like to check whether there is any impact in the North.

Mr McHugh: Beidh cluasáin de dhíth.

Tacaím leis an rún, mar gur gruama í an fhírinne: tá na mílte teaghlach faoi bhochtaineacht breosla ag tithíocht shóisialta atá inslithe go dona agus go neamhéifeachtúil ó thaobh fuinnimh de agus is siocair í le billí teaghlaigh a bheith ag ardú.

Tá éagsúlacht idir na figiúirí. Sin ráite, áfach, deir an Ghníomhaíocht Náisiúnta ar son Fuinnimh linn go bhfuil 27% de theaghlaigh faoi bhochtaineacht breosla de réir an mheastacháin is déanaí ón tSuirbhé ar Bhail na dTithe 2016. Ar an drochuair, tá an teachtaireacht soiléir: tá rogha an dá dhíogha os comhair barraíocht teaghlach: iad féin a chothú nó a théamh.

I commend the tireless work of the community and voluntary sector and charitable organisations. Their advocacy, practical help and compassion makes a real difference to families who would otherwise have nowhere to turn. They are an essential avenue of support in our communities.

Tá a fhios againn go gcuireann an tithíocht go mór le hastaíochtaí carbóin. Chan amháin gur riachtanas comhshaoil é tithe a iarfheistiú le hinsliú, le córais téimh éifeachtacha agus le teicneolaíochtaí in-athnuaite; is riachtanas eacnamaíochta é. Léiríonn fianaise ón Roinn Pobal gur féidir le huasghráduithe fuinnimh na céadta punt a bhaint de bhillí tí gach bliain, rud a sholáthraíonn teas ar phraghas réasúnta do na háiteanna is mó a bhfuil gá leis.

Tá caighdeáin níos láidre á gcur i bhfeidhm ag comhairlí fosta trí phleananna forbartha áitiúla, trí bhéim a chur ar thábhacht fabraice maithe agus tithe á ndéanamh, trí shochar a bhaint as teas na gréine agus tríd an chomhtháthú in-athnuaite. Is féidir leis na beartais sin, atá fréamhaithe sa ráiteas beartais ar phleanáil straitéiseach, is féidir leo sin tithe a chur in éifeachtacht, ach iad a chur i bhfeidhm go réadúil. Ní mór fíorthairbhe a bhaint as beartais ar pháipéar do theaghlaigh.

Mar sin féin, ní féidir an bhochtaineacht breosla a laghdú trí bhearta tithíochta amháin. Tá athchóiriú agus caighdeáin níos fearr ríthábhachtach, ach is den bhochtaineacht féin an bhochtaineacht breosla. Tá teaghlaigh ag streachailt, ní hamháin de dheasca tithe a bheith faoi bhun caighdeáin, ach de dheasca ioncam íseal, obair neamhchinnte, costais atá ag ardú agus éagothroime chórasach. Sin an fáth a bhfuil straitéis fhoriomlán frithbhochtaineachta riachtanach le haghaidh a thabhairt ar na bunchúiseanna.

We cannot ignore those contradictions. Cuts to winter fuel payments or benefit entitlements undermine any effort to support vulnerable households. It is simply wrong to withdraw support while outdated homes remain unfit for purpose. In supporting the motion, we must combine higher housing standards with a broader anti-poverty strategy. Only then can we reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, meet climate change obligations and deliver dignity for families across the North of Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: Energy security is one of the defining issues that we need to deal with. Families across Northern Ireland feel the cost of energy in their pockets every single day of the week. That is one the biggest pressures that households face, and it becomes even more acute in low-income households. As an Assembly, we have a responsibility to act to deliver lower costs in order to help hard-earned money stay where it belongs, which is in people's pockets, and to insulate our economy from global shocks. We have seen the price of electricity, gas and everything else, whether it comes from America, Russia or China, rise recently.

Only last week, as has been referenced, members of the Economy Committee met the Utility Regulator, which told us just how close Northern Ireland came to an energy blackout very similar to the one that hit Spain and Portugal. That should be a wake-up call for us all. At present, we are dangerously reliant on two out of three of our power stations operating at any one time to keep the lights on. When faults occur, as they have recently, a commercially owned generator can effectively hold the public and the system to ransom. That is not resilience, and it is not security. Why has that happened? One of the biggest issues was not referenced at all by Steve earlier, and I will come on to the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment in a second. As we on the Economy Committee discussed with the Utility Regulator, the biggest single reason is the failure to deliver the North/South interconnector, which would connect the two markets. Every year, that delay costs every household in Northern Ireland around £100 in its bill.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Dr Aiken: He is correct. The North/South interconnector is the one fundamental failure of the whole I-SEM system. Without the North/South interconnector, it will not work. Burying the cable is being presented by some parties in the Chamber as a way ahead, but that is just going to put the cost up so much that it is never going to happen.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Honeyford: I will come on to the amendment, because that is factually not true. How confidently you speak. Last week, you told us, very confidently, that it takes seven hours to go to Dublin to get an aeroplane. That is nonsense as well. This is not a battle between linking with GB and linking with the South. The Ulster Unionists have a tendency to do that in every debate. We need an interconnector to Scotland, and we also need an interconnector to the South. The key difference is that the interconnector to Scotland, as we were told by the experts, will not give us stability on our network. We will still need power stations. To have stability on our network, we need the North/South interconnector to be delivered. We need to have that connection not only to save money but to make us more resilient and to give capacity and stability to our network.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Dr Aiken: I do not know where the Member gets the idea that we are against the North/South interconnector. I have been one of the strongest advocates for the North/South interconnector for nearly 10 years and, indeed, before that when I was the chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. I do not know where you are getting that from, but so what?

Mr Honeyford: I am expecting him to declare an interest.

The interconnector was not referenced at all. In fact, you have made it about having a Scottish one instead, when one would not be quicker than the other. This is about creating better for people. It is about delivering better stability and cheaper prices. Everywhere in Europe is connected, yet we seem to have a problem here. It is utterly ridiculous.

On the DUP amendment, I say that we cannot support moving away from the ambition contained in the climate targets. To move forward, turning back the clock is not the answer. We need to make up the time that has been lost, and the Department for the Economy needs to act with urgency in order to deliver on renewables.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I agree with him about the Department for the Economy, but why is no mention of that Department included in the motion that is before us today?

Mr Honeyford: The motion is to the Minister for Communities. That is the problem, and I raised it yesterday in the Chamber. Every issue that we deal with cuts across multiple Departments, and they all need to work together if we are to deliver any of this. That is a fundamental problem with the Assembly. We have one Minister in front of us, and I thank him for being here, but he is not in control of the energy side. A fundamental problem is that Committees cannot scrutinise all the issues. We have to listen to the science on where we are going, but we also have to look at the economic issues and be on the right side of them in order to deliver better and cheaper energy for everyone. We have constantly called for such reform, and that has to be the way forward if we are to allow change to happen and for issues to be scrutinised and delivered on.

This is not only about retrofitting existing homes but about designing for the future by building every social home to the required standards. On the Public Accounts Committee, we recently heard about the Strule campus in Omagh. We are building schools — we have not even started to build some of them — that already need to be retrofitted. That is bonkers. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be wasted because we allow things to proceed without their having that as its basis. My time is up, however.

Miss Brogan: The issues of housing, fuel poverty, energy costs and climate change are all deeply interconnected. That is why it is so important that the overarching, cross-departmental Climate Change Act was created. The truth is that there are very few issues here that are not in some way affected by climate change. Climate change is perhaps felt nowhere more acutely than in the home. Hotter summers and colder winters mean that older housing stock is simply not suitable for the current climate, with such houses requiring more heat in order to keep them warm. Energy producers are fully aware of that, yet they have been consistently increasing the cost of energy for years now, despite their record profits and huge windfalls. That has led to shameful situations in which low-income families and pensioners are having to choose between eating and heating. That is shocking and completely unacceptable.

Greater extremes of drought and flooding put more pressure on the family home, with, for example, insurance prices in flood-prone areas adding to the ever-mounting costs that people must pay in order to keep a roof over their head. People are paying more to be less comfortable and less secure in their own homes. That is why the steps proposed in various climate action plans are important. It is not just about reducing emissions, although doing so would help stabilise the extremes of climate change. As the producer of up to 14% of the North's total greenhouse gas emissions, housing can play a vital role in our fight.

The actions we take to reduce emissions will have other positive effects and open up new avenues of opportunity. Retrofitting will not only make our homes warmer but reduce energy costs. Moving to new ways of heating our homes, such as the use of heat pumps, will reduce our reliance on multinationals. Transitioning to renewable forms of energy production will free us from the volatility of the fossil fuel market. Embracing Ireland's abundant natural resources, such as wind and wave energy, can help reduce our reliance on imports. The shift to renewables can also open new avenues of economic opportunity for us, such as through the development of new, renewable technologies, which is something that we are already seeing happen as Ireland becomes an industry leader in areas such as zero-emission vehicles and wind energy.

That is not to say that doing any of that will be easy, but if we ensure that the steps that we take are founded on just transition principles, we can ensure energy safety, security and prosperity for generations to come, as well as benefit from the effects of having cleaner air, soil and water that accompany making such changes. Housing has a huge role to play, so there is an immense responsibility on the Minister for Communities to seize the opportunity and begin laying the groundwork to make homes safer, warmer and more affordable.

Mr Allen: I thank my Committee colleague for proposing this important motion. It goes to the core of an urgent social and economic issue, which is fuel poverty. We all know that rising energy prices have become unaffordable, pushing many households beyond the brink. They have also exposed a deeper problem: the poor condition of too many of our homes. When a house is cold, damp, poorly insulated or a combination thereof, people pay more to heat it, yet they still live in the cold. The result is predictable. It impacts on health and well-being and drives higher costs. While there have been slight reductions in energy prices, they remain far beyond what many households can reasonably afford, especially when combined with homes that are energy inefficient.

According to the Department for Communities' draft fuel poverty strategy, around 27% of households in Northern Ireland are in fuel poverty, but National Energy Action puts the figures much higher — about 40% overall, and over half of all social tenants. Those are not abstract figures. They represent individuals and families who are making impossible choices. One in 10 is cutting back on food, and over a quarter has gone without heating or electricity at least once in the past two years. The draft strategy reminds us that the energy efficiency of our housing stock is among the lowest in Europe. It also highlights why. A typical uninsulated home loses around 33% of its heat through the walls, 25% through the roof and another 10% to 20% through the floor. Add to that draughty windows and doors, and you will see that much of the heat that we pay for simply escapes. Poor insulation and energy inefficiency, which the motion references, trap people in a cycle of high bills and low comfort. The Department's stakeholder engagement report, which involved more than 365 organisations and individuals, reinforced that message. Participants were clear that we need sustained investment and a whole-house, fabric-first approach — one of insulating walls, lofts and floors, improving ventilation and modernising heating systems together, rather than in isolation. The consultation also proposes new standards that deserve our full support. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister today and in response to my question for oral answer, next week.

There are sensible and pragmatic steps that we can take, but they will need coordination across Departments. The strategy stresses the need for joined-up delivery, consistency and better public awareness so that households know what help they can access.

In June 2025, the UK Government announced £13·2 billion for their warm homes plan, bringing significant Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland. While I appreciate that that funding is not ring-fenced, it offers a crucial opportunity for the Northern Ireland Executive to invest in retrofitting and home energy-efficiency schemes. Boosting support programmes such as the affordable warmth scheme or its planned successor, the warm healthy homes scheme, would help more households, whilst cutting energy bills and carbon emissions.

Our amendment raises important points about grid infrastructure and energy regulation. A secure and affordable energy supply matters, and reform is needed, but the truth is that energy security begins at home. A strong grid and an ambitious renewables target are extremely important, but so too is supporting households that cannot afford to turn the heating on because the heat leaks straight out through the roof and walls. The two approaches — system reform and household efficiency — must go hand in hand. One without the other will not solve the problem.

Fuel poverty is not inevitable. It is the result of poor housing, high costs and years of underinvestment. The consultation and stakeholder report make clear what needs to happen. I believe that the will is there. We just need the funding to do it. Let us make sure that no one in Northern Ireland has to choose between heating and eating.

Mr Blair: I rise mindful of the fact that I was recently appointed chair of the all-party group on climate action. However, I speak primarily as Alliance Party spokesperson on the environment and to express my support for the important Alliance motion. The motion does not just prioritise urgent climate action but emphasises achieving a just transition, particularly for those in society who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change as well as energy poverty.

The housing sector, whether we like it or not, is responsible for a significant proportion of our carbon emissions, but addressing that challenge can bring wide-ranging benefits. By reducing emissions from our homes, we can deliver affordable warmth, lower household energy bills and improve the health and well-being of the most disadvantaged members of our community.

For example, introducing large-scale retrofitting schemes such as upgrading insulation, replacing fossil fuel heating systems with other, low-carbon technologies and improving the energy efficiency of windows and roofs can help alleviate fuel poverty while cutting emissions. Such interventions are essential in combating social inequality alongside achieving environmental goals.

As has been mentioned, we have a statutory duty set out in the Climate Change Act, which was supported by all Executive parties. The legislation commits us to ambitious renewable energy targets. Recent data from the Department for the Economy shows that Northern Ireland currently sources approximately 45% of its electricity from renewables. Whilst that is a commendable achievement, we cannot be complacent, especially when neighbouring regions such as Scotland have surpassed 60%. Northern Ireland should strive not just to meet but to surpass those targets by leveraging our landscape, which is conducive to clean energy innovation, to become a leading example for all of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Addressing those ambitions, Alliance will continue to urge the Minister for Communities to introduce comprehensive proposals for redesigning and constructing social homes to be fit for a net zero future. That means integrating higher energy-efficiency standards, which are vital for residents who are already struggling to pay their bills. That would also make a significant contribution to meeting our emissions targets. Hopefully, when the Minister responds today, we will hear more about current and future plans.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment No 1 fails to properly address the immediate threats posed by climate change. Amendment No 2 is similarly problematic, especially the claim about the "undeliverable nature of emissions targets" in the Climate Change Act, an agreement that was forged collectively by all parties here. We must uphold our shared commitments and not retreat from hard-won progress simply because implementation poses challenges. We must prioritise urgency, not half measures or backtracking. I read those two amendments, and I listened to them being proposed. I heard from Dr Aiken about the lights going out, and I read the amendments again. I concluded that the lights are on but there is nobody at home — not over there, at least, and not with that level of climate denial.

In contrast, amendment No 3 is supportable, because it preserves the core aim —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I am going to continue.

Amendment No 3 is supportable, because it preserves the core aim of the motion and especially its focus on bridging the gap between ambitious climate measures and assisting those who are most affected by rising energy costs.

I am happy to give way now, if Dr Aiken wants me to.

Dr Aiken: Speaking as the deputy chair of the climate all-party group, I remind its chair that we have advocated for a long time that we should get to net zero carbon as quickly as we can. Part of that is making sure that the grid works effectively and correctly. An Alliance Member said earlier that we are not interested in the North/South interconnector or an all-Ireland connection — I can point that way, too, John — but, in fact, that is fundamentally wrong. Will the Member correct that?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. I remind Members —.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, John. Just a wee minute. You have an extra minute. I remind everyone, and the two Deputy Speakers in particular, that they need to be sensitive and ensure that their points are political, not personal. Thank you. Go ahead.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention and congratulate him on his appointment as vice chair of the all-party group on climate. Hopefully, the sentiments, targets and aspirations of that group will be reflected in future motions.

In closing, let me be clear: any shortcuts that we make today will only increase the cost, both financially and environmentally, for future generations. We must act decisively to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland can be assured of a warm, energy-efficient home, affordable energy and a cleaner, greener future. I urge all Members to support the Alliance motion, to reject the amendments that I outlined as being incompatible with it and to consider the other amendment, which is probably compatible.

Mr Carroll: I support the motion and its call for social housing redesign and renewable energy integration. Not only do we need a mass expansion of social housebuilding, but those homes should be built to modern, energy-efficient standards with the lowest carbon footprint possible.

It has been referred to that Britain has a £2 billion green homes grant, while, in the South, there was a €90 million fund for retrofitting, but, once again, in the North, there is nothing. There is no plan or funding to make the massive improvements that are needed to provide energy-efficient homes and affordable energy bills.

It has also been stated that over 40% of people here are fuel poor, spending over 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs. Some 27% of households went without heating or electricity in the past two years as they simply could not afford the bills. That is an increase of 8% from the previous year. Every day, people are wearing coats indoors, staying in bed to keep warm, showering in work, skipping meals, taking out loans and getting into debt just to manage their energy bills. That is totally unacceptable. Everyone has the right to secure, warm, energy efficient and affordable housing. Unfortunately, that seems more like a distant pipe dream than a reality.

On the private rented sector and temporary accommodation, it should be noted that energy efficient standards in private rented properties are often exceptionally poor, and it can be argued that they do not exist at all. For example, 75% of housing association stock here is at an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of C or above. By contrast, in 2023, Ulster University found that just 25% of private rented properties have a rating of C or above. Not only are landlords ripping tenants off with extortionate rents, but they are content to let their tenants live in leaky, energy-inefficient homes. When those tenants report inevitable issues with damp and mould, they are often threatened with eviction or rent hikes. It is not just private tenants who are paying the price for energy-inefficient homes. Damp and mouldy single lets are bought or rented out from private landlords by the Housing Executive, Mears and other temporary accommodation providers.

Families are expected just to be grateful to have a roof over their heads and to stay silent about a house that is falling apart around them. Again, that is totally unacceptable. I have been contacted by a family with mould growing in their oven due to structural damp in the kitchen. Another constituent could not keep a wooden wardrobe in one of her children's bedrooms because the wood kept rotting. I have been contacted by multiple residents who are dealing with insect infestations due to persistently damp conditions. All those families are living in single-let temporary accommodation and spending a fortune on heating homes that are incredibly energy inefficient and probably need to be razed to the ground and rebuilt. When those tenants report to the Housing Executive or other temporary accommodation providers, they are told —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No, sorry.

They are told to keep the windows open, including in the middle of winter, or keep the heating on longer, without a thought for how a homeless family can afford to keep the gas running all day. That amounts to nothing more than victim blaming. Asylum-seeking people and migrant families are often met with institutional racism. They are told that they just do not understand the climate here. I have also been told directly by housing providers that people from the Middle East, in particular, have a cultural habit of just throwing water all over the place in their homes, when, in fact, it is that their homes are inefficiently protected and energy inefficient. That is just the definition of victim blaming and racism and is totally unacceptable.

With regard to price caps, in the absence of the Executive launching a mass social housebuilding programme, retrofitting homes across all tenures and cracking down on neglectful, exploitative, private landlords and temporary accommodation providers, which seems exceptionally unlikely at the minute, we need to tackle the problem at its source. It is profiteering private companies that are behind high energy costs. Our energy system has been privatised at nearly every stage from generation to supply. It is time that the energy sector was publicly owned. There should be a windfall tax on big oil and gas companies that pollute our planet, such as Shell and BP. Energy price caps should be implemented to cut out-of-control energy bills. That is clearly a matter for the British Government, but the Executive need to recognise the clear link between fuel poverty and corporate profiteering and to push Starmer's Government to do something about it and give more power to the Utility Regulator. Given our high reliance on fossil fuels and the fact that Coolkeeragh — I hope that I have said that correctly — is down for maintenance at the moment, I am concerned that Kilroot and Ballylumford, which are owned by EP UK Investments, are demanding £2 million per hour for the use of their equipment. The question is this: will the Department for the Economy pay that extortionate fee?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and brought it to the House today. There is much that I agree with in the motion; there is some I disagree with, which I will come to. My focus is on putting people first and making sure that we reduce fuel poverty across Northern Ireland. That is why I have instigated work on a new fuel poverty strategy, which I look forward to presenting to the Executive for approval by the end of the year, as I pledged to do.

I acknowledge the role that poorly insulated and low-energy-efficiency homes play in increasing costs for householders. We have all agreed on that today. Enhanced energy-efficiency standards will undoubtedly reduce heating costs, and that is crucial to tackling fuel poverty. The proposals for a long-term framework in the draft fuel poverty strategy are intended to improve energy efficiency in homes, reduce energy costs, support those in fuel poverty and ensure consumer protections. Of course, we know that warmer homes contribute to better health outcomes for physical and mental well-being, and the implementation of higher standards will stimulate the demand for skilled labour in the construction, retrofitting and renewable technology sectors, which supports job creation. I welcome the collaborative engagement across government to develop the strategy. We now have a real opportunity to address the scourge of cold, damp homes.

I recognise the need to improve the minimum housing standards, and therefore one of the three themes of the draft fuel poverty strategy is to make homes more energy efficient. The setting and enforcing of new standards appropriately will also help protect those most at risk from the costs and impacts of climate change, in line with the just transition principles. To support low-income households, my Department is continuing to deliver the affordable warmth scheme for low-income owner-occupiers and those in the private rented sector to provide energy-efficiency improvement measures, such as cavity and loft insulation, replacement heating systems and windows, where appropriate. Since the scheme began in 2015, it has supported over 30,000 households with an investment of over £136 million. When I was making decisions about this year's budget, £7·5 million was allocated to the scheme. However, I made a bid in the June monitoring round to the Department of Finance for an additional £3·75 million, but the bid was unsuccessful. I will continue to seek opportunities and press for additional funding to be made available for this vital scheme.

In addition, I have asked my officials to bring forward a new, more ambitious fuel poverty scheme: the warm healthy homes scheme. The new scheme will continue to offer low-income households a range of energy-efficiency measures, such as insulation. However, in recognising the need to move towards renewables, it will also include low-carbon heating solutions and renewable technologies. Of course, interventions should not cause a detriment to those who are less able to engage with or invest in the changes, and it should not cost householders more to heat their homes after the installation of renewable technologies and decarbonisation measures. As I have said, the new warm healthy homes scheme will be more ambitious than its predecessor, and it will require significantly more investment to ensure that it can balance assisting the households most in need while contributing to a reduction in emissions.

The private rented sector is a key component of a thriving housing market, but too many people who rent privately are falling into fuel poverty, and that is why consideration is being given to how any new energy-efficiency scheme could support that sector. The overarching themes are to reduce energy consumption, introduce lower carbon options for heating and raise standards, with policies and proposals being brought forward by my Department, along with the Economy, Finance and AERA Departments.

There is a responsibility on social housing providers to ensure that they have strategies in place for the long-term management of their homes, by maintaining and improving their stock. The work includes updating insulation, doors, windows and heating systems, which will contribute to increasing the energy efficiency of social homes and, consequently, reduce the energy usage and related cost for tenants. My officials are reviewing the Decent Homes Standard, which is a minimum standard for existing social homes and is designed to trigger landlord interventions.

That review will consider how an updated standard could enhance and improve the quality and sustainability of existing homes, improve thermal comfort for residents and potentially reduce their energy usage.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a 400-unit thermal improvement pilot under way. That £14 million investment from the Housing Executive's own income stream will be located across all three Housing Executive regions. The focus on improved energy efficiency measures includes low-carbon heating, the adoption of renewable technologies, electric tariff changes and improved household education. Of course, the Housing Executive is not the only social housing provider. The Housing Executive has invited registered housing associations to bring forward energy efficiency innovation pilot schemes for new-build homes through the social housing development programme.

I note the request to bring forward proposals for the redesign of social homes, incorporating higher energy efficiency standards and renewable energy integration. I think that we are all in favour of that. We want to see those higher standards. However, those come at an immediate capital cost. The Member may be aware of the homes that were constructed in north Belfast to Passivhaus standards In some cases, we are talking about an extra 25% to 35% cost for those houses. We had that conversation in the Committee before, and she said that that will pay off over time. That may be the case, but are we prepared to cut back on our social homebuilding in order to build homes to that higher standard? It is a legitimate point that she makes. I do not know whether she is calling for that today. I am happy to take an intervention. Is she saying that we in the Department for Communities should build all future social homes to Passivhaus standards?

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister very much for giving way. Minister, how many houses have been started this year when you have the budget? The answer is one. Can we just move something forward? If 2,000 houses were built to Passivhaus standards or to a level close to those, it would save tenants a clean fortune. People would have more money in their pocket to spend in the local economy. We need to be innovative and future-proof homes, and we need to build them to a better standard, or are we saying that people who live in social homes are worth less than the people who can afford a Four Winds home that costs £80 a month to heat and light?

Mr Lyons: No, but there are decisions to make. My principal concern is about the tenants to whom Mr Durkan referred. He talked about old Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock. Where do we put our resource? We should put it where it makes the most difference. Of course, we should set our standards as high as possible, but that comes at a cost. If there is a decision to be made, I would rather support those who are currently living in houses in which you can see mould and damp and the immediate health impacts of both.

I think that the Member underestimated the savings. The savings are far higher when you construct homes to Passivhaus standards. I think that only £3 or £4 a week was estimated for those homes in north Belfast. However, the residents whom Mr Durkan mentioned are not found in new social homes, which are already built to a high standard. Could they be better? Yes. However, each time that you raise the standard a little higher, huge sums of money are needed that could be better invested in the Housing Executive stock to retrofit some of the older homes.

Mr Durkan: Including the homes in Westway.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry?

Mr Durkan: On the street that I spoke of.

Mr Lyons: On the street that he spoke of. I can take you to Housing Executive homes in my constituency that are exactly the same.

Ms Armstrong talked about the houses that we will start this year. Are we better building the 1,000 homes that we are going to start — I think that that number will increase — to a relatively high standard, or do we build only 500 or 600 homes to a much higher standard? Those are the choices. When you sit where I have to sit day after day, those are the choices that you have to make. It is not as simple as saying, "Go ahead, get it done. Have a bit of vision. Show some bravery". It is about choices. It is about what we do with the money that we have.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister, for giving way. We should build social homes to the highest possible standards, because people deserve nothing less than the best. Why not build houses to the higher standards now, however, rather than spend more public money in five or 10 years' time to bring them up to those standards then? The current building regulations are of the past. They do not look forward. Why not design houses that will meet the required standards and pass the plans on to the Minister for Infrastructure or the Minister of Finance for one of them to make sure that future building regulations are at the standard that we want for everyone in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: We can do that, but doing so will come at a cost right now. You will be the first to criticise me when I do not meet my housing targets. Is it Alliance Party policy that everything should be built to Passivhaus standards? That is an interesting one, but a balance needs to be struck, because I am genuinely concerned about the people who are languishing on housing waiting lists or in temporary accommodation.

The issues are complex, and Members on the other side of the House are often experts at making complex issues sound simple. People come here with plenty of platitudes and only a spoonful of substance. There are real decisions that need to be made. Frankly, we have to be honest about cost. The Member therefore accepts that we will have to have fewer social homes.

Ms K Armstrong: I do not.

Mr Lyons: She says that she does not. I am sorry, but my social housing development programme budget could be trebled, yet the same issues would still be there. Are we going to build fewer houses to a higher standard? That is a perfectly legitimate argument, if the Member wants to make it. Alternatively, are we prepared to build homes to a slightly lower standard but be able to build more homes? That is the question in front of us. There is a middle way, however. I am not giving up on meeting those higher standards to achieve more energy efficiency — Members can see the work that we are doing — but my focus will be, first and foremost, on retrofitting homes that are absolutely appalling, in which people live in horrific conditions and spend huge amounts of money just to keep their home at a barely warm temperature.

I struggle to support the Alliance Party motion, because it contains a contradiction. I strongly disagree with what has been said on the other side of the House. I agree with my colleague Pam Cameron about the targets in the Climate Change Act 2022. Yes, those targets were agreed by all Executive parties, but remember why that was the case. They were agreed in the face of even worse legislation from the Green Party that spooked Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin into going against the advice of the Climate Change Committee (CCC). We were not prepared to accept that. Yes, a compromise was made at the time. Kellie Armstrong shakes her head, but the Assembly went against the CCC's advice at the time, and, as a result, we are now tied down to targets that are simply not achievable. Here is the thing: everybody knows that those targets are not achievable and that it will be impossible for us to meet them as they stand. I have been clear and will say in the Chamber that they need to be reconsidered.

Do I believe that we need to move towards a new future? Do we want to proceed along the path to net zero? Absolutely.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way in a second. My fear is that, by going at this speed along that path, it will come at people's expense. We will sacrifice people in order to meet targets. We will be more interested in getting as fast as we can down the road of achieving targets than we will be about looking after our population.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. How does he propose that we build social housing if half the city and half the country is under water?

Mr Lyons: I assure the Member that what we do in Northern Ireland will make no difference whatever to the climate worldwide. We are responsible for such a tiny proportion of the world's emissions. Should we do our part? Yes. Should we harm ourselves in the process? Absolutely not. I am putting people first, but the policies that the Member advocates will do more damage to people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Climate deniers.

Mr Lyons: I will do what I can to make sure that we support those who are in need. We will retrofit where we can. We want to have homes built to the highest standards, but I will not hurt people along the way.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you, again, to the Members who tabled the motion and to colleagues across the Chamber for their contributions to what has been a constructive debate. We may not agree on all the details, but there is quite a lot that we agree on, and that, in this place, is something to grasp hold of.

Much of what was said reflects what I have been hearing in my constituency, namely that fuel poverty, poor insulation and rising energy costs are not an abstract policy issue but the lived realities for far too many of our constituents. Members on all sides will agree that the condition of our housing stock is simply not good enough and that tackling that has to be a priority if we are serious about climate action and tackling poverty.

A number of Members highlighted the importance of driving down energy costs through renewables and energy security. That is vital. As others pointed out, however, if the heat generated is simply escaping through poorly insulated windows and walls, we are setting people up to fail. As an MLA for South Down, I see that every day. A moment during one of the colder elections has stayed with me. I spoke to a woman who, due to being so cold, was wrapped in two blankets, and she begged me to take her gas canister with me when I left because it was doing absolutely nothing for her. The real issue was that her windows would not close properly, and any heat in the home was simply escaping. That was a problem not of poor heating but of poor insulation and shoddy housebuilding. As many Members will have heard in their constituencies, that story is not unique.

Several colleagues rightly drew attention to the longer-term impact on health, poverty and economic inactivity. We know that prolonged exposure to cold contributes to illness. It keeps people out of work and locks families into poverty. That is why the SDLP tabled its amendment. What we are calling for is clear: it is cross-departmental working, because this is not an issue for one Minister alone. It demands cooperation between Communities, Economy, Infrastructure and Finance, and it demands more than words. It demands a credible, low-carbon housing road map with measurable targets for retrofitting, improved standards for new builds and targeted support for low-income households. The amendment that we have proposed is based on detailed proposals set out in the SDLP's 'Building Firm Foundations' paper on housing, which was a plan to deliver warmer, more affordable and more sustainable homes across the North. It reflects our approach as a serious and constructive Opposition, one that brings forward new ideas and credible policy solutions and not just criticism.

Some Members spoke about the scale of the challenge, and they are right: it is absolutely enormous. In 2021, the UK's Construction Leadership Council estimated that it would take 20 years and cost around £525 billion to retrofit Britain's 29 million homes. Those figures underline the scale of what is ahead but also the scale of ambition that we must bring to the issue. While the North is, of course, smaller in scale, the challenge here is just as urgent.

I want to echo points made by others about the future. The reality is that we are still building the houses of the past even as we move into the future. Grainia Long of the Housing Executive has been absolutely clear:

I urge Members to support the amendment. Now is the time to set out a credible, coordinated and ambitious road map for low-carbon housing to give people homes that are warm and affordable and to show that, in tackling the climate crisis, we are also tackling fuel poverty, economic inactivity and inequality. This is not just about climate policy: it is about dignity, health and the futures of the people whom we all represent.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Phillip, you also have five minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The public, when they hear debates in the Chamber, are used to parties — normally us — being accused of gaslighting them, but we have just had people stand and read scripted remarks that, they know, are factually incorrect.

Let us introduce some facts into the debate. We are getting lectured by the Alliance Party on meeting legal targets by 2030, but, just last week, that party's own Minister approved 1,000 additional hours of fossil fuel production. The Alliance Party now comes to this Chamber, lectures the DUP and calls the DUP climate change deniers. The ones who are continuing —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that it was Gerry Carroll who called you that, Phillip. I do not think it was the Alliance.

Mr Brett: Actually, it was a Member from the Alliance Party, but I appreciate your commentary, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, during my remarks.

The Alliance Party's position on this is clear, but let us introduce some facts. What is the current percentage of renewable energy produced here in Northern Ireland? I will give way to the proposer of the motion if she knows the answer. See, she does not know the answer. The current position is that it is 43%.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I gave you your opportunity, Ms Armstrong. You did not take it.

The Alliance Party is now saying in this motion today that we are going to get to 80% in less than five years. What is the great solution that the Alliance Party is putting forward to achieve that? It is going to redesign future social homes. Ms Armstrong went on to articulate how we are going to do that, and it is by putting a battery in the roof of those homes. Therefore, the Alliance Party's action as to how we are going to double our production of renewable energy is to change building regulations, which do not even come under the remit of the Minister whom it is attacking today, and put a few batteries in the roof of homes. That is not a sustainable position, and the party needs to be honest with the —.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I think that the Member is trying to misrepresent the motion that has been laid before you today. We need homes for the future that will help people living in Northern Ireland, not in fantasy land. We dumped £94 million of wind renewable energy in quarter 1 and quarter 2. Why was that not pumped into the homes of people who are living in the most vulnerable conditions?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: I wholeheartedly agree with the points that you make in relation to the grid connection here in Northern Ireland and the ability to draw that down, but your motion does not mention any of that, because that falls under the Department for the Economy. I am not a climate change denier, but I am going to set out why we are not going to meet the targets. It is because our energy policy in Northern Ireland is an absolute basket case. We have no renewable energy support scheme. It was promised that the legislation would be introduced this year and that the auction would take place. That has been delayed. We have no long-term storage policy for energy, which the Member has articulated the need for but does not mention in the motion. We have no grid connection policy, so, even if we do produce that energy, it cannot be drawn down. We have no socialisation policy, which was promised last year, and that means that, even if we do try to build those new homes, they could not even benefit or connect to it.

Let us deal in facts. This was a perfect opportunity. Mr Honeyford gets this issue, and he had a really good opportunity to bring forward a cross-cutting motion that we could all have supported that called for the Minister for Communities to play his role, the Minister of Finance to play his role in relation to regulations, and the Minister for the Economy. Mr Honeyford and I bang our heads off the wall at Committee week after week. This is a complex issue. Dr Aiken gets criticised by Members in the House, but he gets it. Putting a battery in a roof or changing the future design of houses is not going to meet this target. When we do not meet these targets in 2030, it will not be this party that lied to the public.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not think that you should accuse anybody of lying, Phillip.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Can you outline who I accused of lying? I said that this party did not lie. I did not accuse anyone of lying, so I ask you to withdraw that remark.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I appreciate you saying that, but, in keeping with the debate, you should not really say it. That is fair enough. You have said it now. It is on the record.

I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Diana, you have five minutes.

I remind Members that, when Members are speaking, they must be heard.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments and those who have contributed to the debate.

I emphasise that the debate addresses a matter of energy security. Amendment No 1 strengthens the crux of the motion and the underlying structural issues that must be addressed to ensure affordable and secure energy for all. Yes, the motion is about affordability and fairness to households and businesses, which is critical to address fuel poverty, but the UUP amendment speaks to the reality of energy constraints across Northern Ireland.

We cannot continue to accept vague reassurances from the Department that there is no problem with our infrastructure. Recent security of supply issues at Kilroot suggest otherwise. We have long acknowledged the importance of tackling fuel poverty whilst reducing emissions, but we cannot achieve that if our grid remains outdated and underinvested in. It is unfit for the scale of renewable energy that we need, and, in the process, it is failing consumers.

The call for an independent review of SONI and NIE Networks is not about apportioning blame but about ensuring that the infrastructure that underpins our energy system is robust and delivering value for money. We must understand the disparity in the connection costs between here and Great Britain and why our progress on grid updates continues to lag behind. The public is forced to bear the brunt of the costs. They deserve transparency on the state of our grid. Our amendment highlights the need for clear incentives for green hydrogen and anaerobic digestion. Those technologies require a route to market and a framework that supports the innovation.

I thank Members for their contributions.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: I want to ask the Member one simple question. Amendment No 1 talks about joining Ofgem. Do the Ulster Unionists seriously believe that we would be better served by going to the regulator in London, which looks at England, than having our own people look after us?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diana, you have an extra minute.

Ms D Armstrong: I do. Thank you for the intervention.

I thank Members for contributing to the debate. I urge you to support amendment No 1.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sian Mulholland to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sian, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I start by echoing the points made earlier, especially by my colleagues, that this is about fairness, social justice, value and the urgent need for leadership and co-working.

Before I wind up on the debate, I will address a specific point as a representative for North Antrim, which is one of the region's most rural constituencies. I see the reality of energy costs every week. Rural households face a double burden. The first burden is the fuel type. Nearly half the homes in Northern Ireland heat with oil, which is a far cry from the position in Great Britain. However, in rural areas, that figure is typically four in five homes. If they are off the gas grid, families have to rely on oil; there is no other option. Unlike gas or electricity, where you can spread the payments, perhaps monthly via a bill or on a metre, oil usually has to be bought up front and with a minimum order. The costs per litre of the smallest drum or in emergency top-ups are so much higher, and those often come with call-out fees. On top of that, prices swing with the global markets. As Mr Durkan commented, there is no social tariff for heating oil. There is no way to smooth those costs through a metre and no effective price cap. That is the very essence of a poverty premium.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes. Go on ahead.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. There was a degree of guffawing and laughter from your party when we talked about Ofgem. Ofgem insists on minimum and maximum prices. Would that not be appropriate for where we are?

Ms Mulholland: There is no laughter from where I am sitting, but that is fine. Thank you.

It is the poverty premium: the people with the least pay more and have the least secure form of heat.

The second rural issue is bricks and mortar. Rural dwellings are typically older, larger and far less energy efficient than their urban counterparts. Only a small fraction of rural social homes achieve the top EPC ratings. The motion rightly recognises the link between poor insulation, rising energy costs and fuel poverty. In rural constituencies such as mine, that link is painfully clear. The redesign of social homes has to be about not just bricks and mortar but fairness; the ambition and innovation that we talked about; and delivering the most affordable warmth to those who need it most. I look forward to hearing more about the Minister's warm healthy homes scheme at Committee, and how ambitious it is. I hope that a tangible impact will be seen by those who need that intervention the most.

The human impact of all this is measurable. Where I come from, I always try to bring the human element of things to everything that we talk about, because, at the end of the day, it is the people we represent who matter the most. Warmer energy-efficient homes are linked to better physical health and better mental health, especially for vulnerable households. Local retrofit evaluations show upgrades that keep average indoor temperatures at around 21°C, cutting energy bills by about one third and reducing household emissions by about two thirds. Fabric improvements and low-temperature, continuous heating can reduce the damp and mould that Mr Durkin referred to. However, if improvements are not rolled out on a wider scale, it will end up costing the public purse in the long run. Cold homes mean more pressure on health and social care services, and while that scale of improvement is not within the gift of the Minister's Department, it is in the gift of the Assembly with joined-up-working approaches.

As Kellie highlighted, the upfront investment in better standards is not just a luxury; it is a necessity that pays for itself many times over in lower bills and better health outcomes overall. We know what works. The Housing Executive and the housing associations have trialled retrofits, and with proper insulation, airtight seals, triple glazing, air source heat pumps and solar PV, tenants have seen their bills fall. Scaling that across the province will not only cut our bills and emissions but will create good local jobs, joined-up government and fairness for every constituent, no matter where they live.

I want to make a couple of references to the Climate Change Act. Yes, it sets binding targets, but, unfortunately, we cannot move away from those ambitious targets — we simply cannot. As David Honeyford said, they are ambitious targets for a reason. The Minister has said in the past that he would rather avoid targets than risk missing them. My party and I believe in setting ambitious targets and ambitious goals because, if we do fall short, we are still moving forward. That is the point. If we inspire effort, we drive progress and achieve so much more than we would by playing it safe. You are shaking your head, but it is the same thing with child poverty. We talk about the risk of missing targets. Why not aim for more? Why not aim for ambitious targets and actually achieve more than just playing it as we have always played it?

In reference to Mrs Cameron's comments about the climate action plan financial assessment, there is an overall neutral financial impact from the policies and proposals that are outlined in the draft climate change plan; that is anticipated, so an overall positive and social economic impact with minor effects is to be expected. Northern Ireland is actually predicted to make a net saving by the fourth carbon budget. Is that not worth continuing to strive for, if we can actually start to make a net saving? The reality is that the climate change actions are a spend-to-save exercise. We cannot afford, on so many levels, to walk back from those targets, not just financially but for our society.

I am not sure that I would go quite as far as Mr Carroll in saying that half of the properties will be underwater. That is perhaps a doomsday position, but there is some risk there, and, as someone who lives on the coast, even more for me. For us, the target is not an abstract number. There are commitments to protect people from the actual cost of inaction because if we fail to meet energy efficiency and renewable goals, it does not spare people: it just leaves them colder, poorer and further behind. It is my belief that we have to commit to two tracks in parallel.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Are you going to talk about houses being underwater, Gerry, because I am not sure that we need that right now? [Laughter.]

Mr Carroll: That was very Deputy Speaker-esque of you — no offence — in general. [Laughter.]

The point that I was going to make is that the Minister said earlier, basically, how can we build homes and build homes that are energy efficient? Does the Member agree that we could, maybe, do that if we reduced rents over time? Obviously, there is a lot of money going to landlords through universal credit and support systems through housing benefit.

Ms Mulholland: There are ways that we can look at it. I am not entirely sure that what the Member has outlined would be the best way forward, but there are ways. Again, for me, it is about working together. It is about the joined-up nature of work across Departments. For me, it always comes back to one of the failings and weaknesses of this place, which is that we work in silos. So often, Ministers are scrutinised only for their Department's actions. However, when it comes to things that are so cross-cutting, such as fuel poverty and saving money for people in poverty, scrutiny is difficult because of how the Assembly is made up.

On the two tracks that I mentioned, we have a choice. We can retrofit the homes that we have, particularly those that are coldest and costliest to heat and, from my point of view, the rural stock. We can also build the new social houses that people need to be low energy and renewable ready from day 1. As Kellie said in proposing the motion, and as I always mention when we talk about poverty, it is not about whether we can afford to do both things; it is about whether we can afford not to do them.

On the spend-to-save model, I understand what the Minister said about the budgetary constraints that his Department is under, but is there not a way to do it? We are asking for him to work across Departments to look at where savings can be made right across the board. It is not just about the Minister's Department. I understand that that is the only scrutiny that we can do, particularly those of us on the Committee for Communities, but there has to be a joined-up approach to all that. That is where there is a missing link.

If the Assembly passes the motion, it will send a clear message to the Executive about the need to align budgets, work across Departments and improve skills and procurement so that retrofitting and new builds can both move forward. That will turn fuel poverty into affordable, safe, warm homes and waiting lists into house keys in pockets. I look forward to the warm healthy homes scheme that the Minister will bring forward, and I implore Members to support our motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sian.

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the Adjournment debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Justin McNulty to raise the matter of supporting the apple-growing industry in Newry and Armagh. Justin, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this Adjournment topic before the Assembly today on a matter that is close to the heart of many families and communities in Armagh, and that is the future of our apple industry.

I am standing here beside a Derry girl, and Diona Doherty, another Derry girl, spoke on a recent podcast about a most enjoyable experience with her family picking apples in an "Orchard County" orchard.

I fully agree with Diona, as, just a few weeks ago, my son and I joined the McGleenan family on the Tullysaran Road near Blackwatertown to help collect a few tons of Armagh's famous Bramley apples. Doing so was wonderful for the mind, the body and the soul, and I also enjoyed some of the apples that we picked, which were uniquely fresh, with a distinct taste.

We are proud to call Armagh the "Orchard County". It is a name steeped in heritage, having been built on generations of hard work, skill and care. Armagh can trace its relationship with apples back as far as 1,000 BC, because there is evidence that they grew close to our historic Navan Fort. For centuries, families across our county have planted, tended to, harvested and sold the finest apples in Ireland. Armagh's Bramley apples hold protected geographical indication (PGI) status, which they share with Comber potatoes, Lough Neagh eels and champagne.

Despite that PGI status, 90% of the apples consumed here are imported. Just 10% are home-grown. Anyone can import apples, but not everyone can plant, grow, nurture and harvest them and then bring them to market. That takes experience, patience and a deep local knowledge. It is part of the culture. It is a proud tradition. The apple orchards are an integral part of whom we are in Armagh. Today, however, our apple growers are struggling, not because of a lack of passion or skill but because they have been left behind by a system that gives them no support. In the Republic, apple growers can access between 20% and 40% grant aid. They also receive support for plant and equipment. That assistance is helping the Republic's growers and processors expand, modernise and stay competitive. In the North, however, there is no equivalent support. There is zero. Our growers have been forced to compete on an uneven playing field. Some of our growers are even planting new orchards in the South simply because the support is there and not here. They are upping sticks and moving to the South. That cannot be right.

Minister Muir met growers and industry representatives, and I acknowledge the engagement that took place, but, since the positive words, there has been no progress, action or tangible support. Meanwhile, the pressure on our growers is only increasing. Minister, where is the support for new orchards? Where are the incentives for new entrants to the industry? Supermarkets across Ireland are crying out for Irish-grown produce. There is a massive appetite for local apples, but our producers simply cannot meet the demand, not because they do not want to but because they cannot afford to. They are crying out for help. Many of our local orchards, which gave us our heritage, need to be grubbed out and replanted. The market has changed. There has been a generational shift. People are not baking apple tarts any more. The cider market, which many relied on, has dropped off dramatically, with Clonmel now taking only 30% of what was expected from the 2025 harvest. The juicers and dicers need only so much.

Years ago, a grower could get £100 for a bin of apples, but they are now lucky to get £50 or £60. That is not sustainable. One grower told me recently, "Justin, I could plant 1,000 acres of Gala apples and still not have enough". The potential and the ambition are there, but, without support, our growers simply cannot make it happen for them. Setting up even a basic grading and flotation system can cost three quarters of a million pounds, and that is out of reach for most small, family-owned orchards. The apple-growing industry section of DAERA is, in the industry's own words, the "forgotten section". The research capacity in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has effectively downed tools when it comes to orchards and apple production. There is no pipeline of innovation or technical support to sustain, modernise or reinvigorate the industry. When we compare the support structures in the North with those in the South, the difference is stark. If a storm hits in the South, there is an immediate relief fund set up, but there is nothing provided here. Even the paperwork for getting support from Invest NI is so complicated and cumbersome that many small agribusinesses take one look at it and say, "Sod this. I will try to figure out a way to raise the money myself". That is not how to encourage growth or innovation. It is disappointing that the Economy Minister is not here to hear the debate.

Ireland is far too small an island to have two completely different regimes when it comes to agriculture and agri-food support. Minister, what are you doing and what is the Economy Minister doing to mirror the regulatory and support systems for farmers, growers and associated agri-businesses? A "little North" status quo approach will not save an industry that is on its knees. The truth is that the apple industry in Armagh, which was once vibrant and financially sustainable for the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of growers and producers, is now struggling to survive. It does not have to be that way. We need a clear policy shift: a strategy to move from an over-reliance on Bramleys to eating different apple varieties, which will ensure that our growers can compete fairly across this island. We need DAERA and the Minister to engage seriously with the industry to put in place targeted support, grants, research, investment, and growing and production assistance to rebuild confidence and capacity in that proud sector.

I say this to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Economy: please think big. Please demonstrate some vision. Please show some pride in our people and place. Please support an indigenous industry that is just waiting to take off. Give people, businesses and families hope. Can you imagine Armagh apples glimmering freshly on the shelves of every supermarket in Ireland and beyond? That is the potential. That is the BHAG — the big, hairy, audacious goal. It is achievable if this place, for once, ignited a spark of hope that could reverberate through the generations. How do you like them apples, Minister?

It is not about just apples; it is about sustaining family farms, rural communities and a piece of our cultural identity that has shaped Armagh for generations and centuries. Let us make sure that the "Orchard County" lives up to its name, not just in memory but in reality.

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

Mr Boylan: I thank the Member for bringing the issue to the Chamber today. Those of us from the "Orchard County" know that apple-growing here in the North has huge potential not just for our economy but for our environment. Local orchards are part of our rural heritage, and they can play a real role in tackling the climate change crisis through carbon capture and reducing food miles. I and my party also recognise the challenges that come with the conventional farming methods used by the apple industry, such as pesticide use and nutrient run-off. That is why more and more growers are turning to sustainable practices, such as integrated pest management and organic methods, to protect biodiversity and improve soil health. Therefore, I welcome the recent announcement from the AERA Minister about the £300,000 investment that is headed for Armagh. I also welcome comments that were previously made by the Minister about his Department's working with the apple industry through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) in the delivery of industry training and knowledge and technology transfer to meet its needs.

I know from conversations that I have had with those working in the industry that labour shortages are impacting on them at present. One person with whom I spoke put it simply: the shortage of labour since Brexit has been a disaster for the sector. There must be a concerted effort to support the industry to recruit the workers needed to ensure that the industry thrives.

I want to see the apple industry in Armagh and across the North flourish. We in Sinn Féin will continue to support farmers and orchard owners, who are leading the way in building a cleaner, fairer food future. I look forward to the comments from the Minister.

Mr Irwin: With between 4,000 and 5,000 acres of orchards dedicated to growing apples in the Armagh area, it is clearly an important local element of the horticultural sector in the region. Unfortunately for me, boundary changes moved about 90% of apple growers into my colleague's constituency. [Laughter.]

That having been said, securing PGI status for the Armagh Bramley in 2012 was hard worked for and very welcome. That has been a valued and unique selling point, not only for the Bramley variety in the Armagh area but for apples generally in all their varieties, as well as apple-based products. Whether it is the unique and very tasty Bramley apple tart, or the various apple juices and ciders that are produced in the area, I wholeheartedly commend all those who are associated with the sector for making their apple produce such a success.

Of course, many difficulties and challenges exist for the sector, as they do in all food-related sectors, and market forces play a very important role in the profits and losses that are associated with the apple harvest each season. I recall from my discussions with growers that last year was a reasonably good year. There was high demand for the produce, and with that came a return for the growers. Their efforts associated with the harvest saw

for the crop. This year, the crop is significant, with the very favourable growing conditions that were enjoyed throughout the summer. That has had a major impact on the market, with an abundance of supply meaning that prices have taken a downward turn. That has undoubtedly caused concern for producers. The Bramley variety is only one of the three products in Northern Ireland that has achieved PGI status. Whilst that status is very welcome, it is very important that a massive amount of work, energy and resources is put into growing and harvesting apples. The vast majority of apples are processed by a number of local processors and sold in the UK mainland market and in the Irish Republic to bakeries to produce tarts and the like.

The Minister has previously referred to support schemes, including the farm sustainability transition payment and the sustainable agriculture programme. He has highlighted the moneys that are paid against land and area that is registered as commercial orchards. There is a concern — I have heard it directly from growers — that this year's harvest, whilst plentiful, will be of a much lower value than previous harvests. That is a worry for growers, and I ask the Minister to explain to the House what measures he can deploy in order to assist growers in what is a challenging time.

Mr Blair: As Alliance AERA spokesperson, I sincerely thank Mr McNulty for highlighting this important and overlooked industry by securing this Adjournment debate. Our local growers and horticultural sectors must always be recognised amid large-scale production, as they are essential for local communities as well as the local economy. I observed that first-hand during a recent AERA Committee visit to a farm garden in Carrickfergus, which underscored the significance of locally produced, sustainable food for consumers and chefs in that region. There are examples of that, of course, across Northern Ireland.

County Armagh in particular is renowned locally and internationally for its world-class apple orchards. Those apples are essential ingredients in products such as ciders, juices and sauces. They support countless local families, sustain many small businesses and preserve cultural traditions that span generations. The orchards also serve as a major tourist attraction and are central to festivals such as the Armagh Apple Blossom Festival. This vital industry faces significant challenges, however. Climate change is altering rainfall patterns and increasing extreme weather events. Rising input costs are also a challenge, as are labour shortages, and market fluctuations strain the sector further.

The Ulster Farmers' Union reports that over 75% of Northern Ireland's apple growers saw reduced profitability in 2023. I know, however, that the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is dedicated to promoting and supporting local produce, as shown by the funding that was recently allocated to the sector through the sustainable agriculture programme, as well as through his ongoing commitment to nature-friendly farming schemes. I look forward to hearing more details from the Minister about the efforts that are being made to support this sector, which is so vital to our economy and our environment as well as to biodiversity, in particular.

Apple growing is not just fundamental to our rural economy; it is key to food security and ensuring that high-quality, home-grown produce reaches tables across Northern Ireland. Too often, we overlook the journey that our food takes and the dedication of those behind the scenes.

Thanks again to the Member for raising the matter and for giving us the opportunity for this important reflection. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Mr Buckley: I had not planned to speak, but, as a proud son of the "Orchard County", it would have been remiss of me had I not added something to the debate. I thank the Member for Newry and Armagh for bringing the debate. Like me, he probably has many fond memories of growing up in the "Orchard County" and knows how important the apple has been to our county for generations and how symbolic it is of our county. Mr Irwin alluded to the fact that about 90% of apple growing now takes place in my constituency of Upper Bann. I have effectively lived among the orchards all my life, and they are a cause for immense pride locally. North Armagh has certainly demonstrated its worth in its growing potential, and its fertile ground has sustained many generations. I have picked apples, and my father and grandfather picked apples. It was an infamous task among local families at this time of year. I think of the many farmers who are performing such a task even as we speak.

Apple growers face significant issues. The big one, which we in the Chamber cannot solve, is weather conditions. The industry suffers from weather volatility, which can affect crops and prices year-on-year. It is hard for apple growers to have a steady and sustainable income when there is such volatility. We have price volatility based on demands elsewhere. It was alluded to that, whilst we produce a large tonnage of apples locally, we are largely susceptible to global forces when it comes to the import of apples.

The age of orchards is also an issue. When I was growing up, there were orchards everywhere in and around my home area. Some of them were old by the time that I grew up and have, therefore, been replaced. The problem is that many in the industry took the decision not to replace old orchards with new orchards, and farm diversification has led many away from the sector. However, many proud families are still determined to ensure that the industry survives. Much good work has been done locally to enhance the tourism opportunities related to the apple, particularly the Bramley, including the Apple Blossom Sundays and accompanying tours.

My wife is from Lisburn. She had never seen an orchard until we started to court and she came down to County Armagh. I thought to myself, "That's very strange", because I could not have imagined life without them, given my locality. In recent times, the attraction for people across Northern Ireland of coming to orchards to view what produce they have to offer and the spin-offs such as cider production has been a source of real encouragement. Wildlife has prospered in many areas due to the significant presence of orchards.

Before the debate, I spoke to apple growers and asked them, "If one thing could be done to help you, what would it be?". My colleague alluded to the variety of support schemes that are in place or could be in place and the need to integrate something related to the planting of orchards into the single farm payment. We know that planting trees has a significant positive spin-off for wildlife and the environment. There is a significant case to be made that such an intervention should be targeted at those who replant orchards for the benefit of the apple industry. There is also a great need to get that small number of producers together in a room — I know that that has happened previously — to try to ensure that the processors do not have the whip hand when it comes to setting a price for their product. That is important and is certainly something that government can do to help.

I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I again thank the Member for securing the debate. If we are to ensure that the industry not only survives but thrives, there must be tangible support packages in place to benefit the growers who will stick with the industry.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Minister, I am very aware of the importance of the apple harvest to growers in County Armagh and the positive impact that it delivers for the economy, the environment and biodiversity in the region.

Before taking up this post, I often visited the "Orchard County". I have bought apples from the "Orchard County" and made apple pie and apple crumble. In 2020, I planted an apple tree in my garden, and those apples have been used for consumption at home, in an amazing apple crumble that my mum made, but they have also been given to Hydebank Wood Secure College for consumption by the horse on site, and they have been eagerly taken up. Therefore, I am very aware of the benefits of apples. I have been down to Armagh as Minister and have met the producers and processors. I understand the importance of the industry to agriculture, the local society and the economy.

I want to outline that land use for the commercial production of apples is eligible for financial support under my Department's farm sustainability transition payment. It will continue to be eligible as the scheme transitions to the farm sustainability payment within the sustainable agriculture programme in 2026. On 1 September this year, my Department commenced the 2025 farm sustainability transition payment to farm businesses. A total of £299,388 was paid against land in County Armagh registered for use as commercial orchards. That includes payments to commercial apple growers. Since 2015, funding totalling £123,758 has been awarded for projects delivered through my Department's Northern Ireland regional food programme for promotional activities associated with the annual Food and Cider Weekend, which I enjoyed recently. That funding has supported a wide range of activities, all of which focus on celebrating the region's PGI status for the Armagh Bramley apple. As part of this year's Food and Cider Weekend festival, as I said, I recently attended the apple spirits tasting masterclass in Armagh, and I was pleased to learn more about the journey of the apple from the orchard to a range of finished products. This year's festival was awarded £14,100 from the regional food programme.

My Department is also working with the apple industry, through CAFRE, in the delivery of industry training and knowledge and technology transfer to meet its needs. The support includes disseminating modelling reports to growers on the influence of environmental conditions on pest and disease risk. CAFRE's Loughry college also helps the top-fruit industry by providing technical support, advice and training relating to the processing and packaging of apples and apple products.

Commercial apple growers who hold a category 1 or 2 farm business ID can also avail themselves of support through the horticulture pilot scheme. The scheme, which will be delivered as part of the sustainable agriculture programme, comprises three pilot subschemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme; the growers training and support pilot scheme; and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. Public awareness sessions to publicise the scheme are ongoing and have included sessions with apple growers.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way and for highlighting what potential support is there, but will he accept that, whether it is the farm sustainability transition payment or others, the feeling among the industry is that the support available is far below the costs associated with both production and price volatility and that, if we want to ensure the growth and sustainability of the industry, there needs to be more intervention? Is that something that the Minister will consider or has considered during his time in office?

Mr Muir: I have, and I am coming on to that.

Applications for the sustainable sector growth groups and growers training support schemes will open on 31 October. In addition, under the sustainable agriculture programme, my Department is developing the sustainable farming investment scheme, which will provide financial support for equipment and technology to improve environmental performance and business efficiency. It is proposed that the scheme will be open to all primary production sectors, including apple growers. I have been engaged with the Minister of Finance about funding for the new scheme. More information will be announced in the coming months.

Mr McNulty referred to arrangements in the South of Ireland, and perhaps that gets to the core of his contribution. I will peel back that issue and highlight the point that, while I am aware of the support schemes that are available in the South, if Members have noticed the Budget from the Irish Government today, they will know that the South struggles with surpluses, whereas we struggle with deficits. The financial position in Northern Ireland is challenging. I continue to engage with the Finance Minister so that we can deliver support, most particularly through the sustainable farming investment scheme. As Minister, I will continue to engage with the sector. I understand the importance of doing so and am keen to see apple-growing expand. Armagh is indeed known as the "Orchard County", and we should celebrate it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, and thank you, everybody. That concludes the Adjournment debate.