Official Report: Monday 20 October 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we begin business today, I return to some issues that arose last week. Members will be aware that our general standards of debate are those of good temper, moderation, courtesy and respect. Members can have robust debate to challenge and scrutinise the points of others, but that can be done with good manners and by focusing on issues, not on the Member who is raising them.

I will give two specific examples from last week. First, using the term "Grow up" or similar terms, including, "Shut up", whether during a contribution or from a sedentary position, cannot be considered temperate or respectful. That is particularly the case when the House is discussing the serious issue of Members' having experienced being the subject of threats. It was not just the words that were said; it was the time at which they were said. It was entirely inappropriate.

Secondly, I encourage Members to avoid using swear words, even when quoting someone from outside the Chamber. The circumstances in which that could be considered by the Chair to be absolutely necessary are rare. If the common use of swear words in the Chamber were to become gratuitous, it would coarsen our debate and undermine the seriousness of the business that we are here to do.

I do not intend to revisit specific instances from last week further, but Members should take heed of my ruling on those matters for the future.

I have observed that there has been an increase in ill-tempered debate in the Chamber over the past few weeks, involving a number of matters being raised with the Chair and a number of Members taking issue with the decisions of the Chair, which is clearly out of order. I note public comment that that is a sign that we have entered a pre-election period. However, there is significant business to be done in the House over the next 18 months. Therefore, we do not want there to be disorder, which could distract from the debates at hand.

I make it clear to the House again that I will uphold the right of all Members to exercise their role of scrutiny and to challenge opposing arguments, but robust debate does not mean disorderly debate. Members can make their points on issues without being personal or disrespectful to other Members.

Miss Dolan: I take this opportunity to highlight the serious and growing pressures on domiciliary care services in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area, particularly in Fermanagh. Every week, families contact my office about the difficulties in securing home care packages. Demand for domiciliary care is increasing as our population ages and people live longer with complex health needs, yet the Western Trust is facing a severe shortage of carers, which is having a direct impact on those who are most in need of support in their own homes.

We now have long waiting lists for care packages, and many hospital discharges are being delayed simply because care is not available in the community. Older people are waiting weeks — sometimes months — for the support that they need to live safely and with dignity in their own homes. At the heart of the problem is a shortage of domiciliary carers. The Western Trust and independent providers are struggling to recruit and retain staff, and those who remain are working under huge pressure, travelling long distances, covering extra calls and often working beyond their contracted hours out of sheer compassion for their clients. Those carers are doing incredible work under immense strain. They deserve far better.

If we are serious about tackling the crisis, we must properly value and support our care workforce. That means fair pay and conditions, paying for travel time and mileage, and offering secure contracts rather than zero-hours ones. It also means creating clear career pathways, providing opportunities for training and progression, and investing in carers' well-being. The new carers' support hub in the Fermanagh and Omagh area is a positive and welcome development, but that must be part of a wider strategy: one that promotes the role of carers, invests in their well-being and makes domiciliary care a valued and sustainable career choice. Above all, carers must be recognised as the vital professionals that they are: the backbone of our health and social care system. By investing in them, we can ensure that older and vulnerable people in Fermanagh and across the Western Trust area receive the dignified care that they deserve and can remain in their own homes, surrounded by their community, for as long as possible.

Mr Brett: One year ago, I rose in the House to raise the case of my constituent Mr Daryl Clarke, who was excluded from the Commonwealth Games because he is a Protestant. I vowed then to fight that case. Today, I welcome the 24-page report by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which justifies every single word that I said in the Chamber. The review of the Ulster Boxing Council is not merely another report; it is a damning, but necessary, mirror held up to the structures that have, for far too long, failed the Protestant boxing community in Belfast and beyond.

Some Members in the Chamber claimed that anti-Protestant sectarianism did not exist in boxing, some tried to make me shut up on the issue, and others believed that it would go away. The report not only disproves them but shames them for the remarks that they made in the Chamber. It shines a light on the painful truth that young Protestant men like Daryl Clarke and others before him, such as Lewis Crocker, were denied opportunities and subjected to treatment that no athlete should ever endure. It was not because of their talent or ability but because of their background. The report lays bare what many have whispered for years: that, in local boxing, anti-Protestant bias has been allowed to fester. It tells us that the structures that govern the sport have not been fair, transparent or inclusive. While boxing has long been hailed as a sport that unites people, the report shows that boxing has been used to divide our communities.

I pay tribute to Daryl for his courage in standing up and saying, "This is not right". It has paved the way for change that will benefit generations to come. Daryl's fight should just have been in the ring; instead, it was for respect, fairness and equal treatment for every young boxer, regardless of their religion or identity.

The Equality Commission's findings are clear and uncompromising. It calls for a transparent and merit-based selection process for the Commonwealth Games; demands the creation of an independent oversight panel to ensure that those reforms are no longer delayed and a code of conduct to which all clubs must sign up; and finds that, for far too long, Protestants have been denied a space on Ulster Boxing Council governance committees. It will mean that Protestant voices are finally heard and respected. Let me be clear: the report is a turning point. The days of looking the other way are over. The culture of exclusion of Protestant boxers is over.

We on these Benches will look very closely at how the Ulster Boxing Council responds and will ensure that our Minister makes comments in the coming days that ensure that Protestants have the same rights as anyone else.

Mr McMurray: I will speak on the flooding that affected Newcastle, specifically the Sunningdale area and the Tullybrannigan Road. It is really important that I thank all the agencies that were involved. All reports stated that the Department for Infrastructure and other statutory agencies were out on the ground, as, I am sure, were council staff. Unfortunately, it is all too often left to locals to be the first line of defence and resistance, with people volunteering hardware.

We also seem to speak about the matter all too often, and here I am again raising the issue of flooding in my constituency. The residents who have been affected need to be listened to now. They need to be engaged with in order to determine the cause of the most recent flooding and how best to treat it. The Newcastle regional community resilience group has been very active on that front for a number of years now. The group needs to be listened to, because it is finding it more and more infuriating that, at times, actions taken on the ground are not necessarily marrying with what had been discussed. That having been said, everyone on that group is very keen to help.

As you referenced earlier, Mr Speaker, we can sometimes get very rumbustious in here, and political divisions are often brought into sharp focus. Members will know this, as we are all on the same WhatsApp groups, but, at times over the weekend, people from different parties were out attempting to do what they could to address the situation. There is therefore a uniform sense of desire from all parties to help sort out the matter.

We have spoken about flooding in South Down before. It could be in Ms Forsythe's Kilkeel or more towards Ms Ennis's end in Killowen. All too often, weather events are demonstrating that infrastructure has failed. Ultimately, whatever way we frame the climate change debate, our oceans are getting warmer. That means that we have more intense storm periods and are getting them more and more often. That bears highlighting. We are still chasing our tails after storm Éowyn. We have since had storm Amy, and now we have had what was only a yellow weather warning that produced a month's worth of rain between early morning and early afternoon. One dreads to think what an amber or red weather warning could have brought.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms D Armstrong: I express my deep outrage at the so-called Jim Lynagh Winter School event, which took place in Lisnaskea over the weekend. It was held, unbelievably, in the grounds of a former place of education, St Eugene's Primary School. It is utterly shameful that a man such as Jim Lynagh, the ruthless and violent leader of the Tyrone/Monaghan brigade of the Provisional IRA, should be commemorated in any way, let alone in a former education setting. Lynagh was no hero. He was a man responsible for some of the most brutal acts of terrorism during the darkest days of the Troubles. Let us be absolutely clear about whom Jim Lynagh was: he was a key architect of a campaign of murder and destruction and was responsible for multiple attacks on members of the security forces and innocent civilians alike.

Among his many crimes was the heinous attack on Ballygawley RUC station that led to the brutal murders of two dedicated police officers, George Gilliland and William Clements. Both served with courage and commitment, protecting communities in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Their loss is still deeply felt by their families, colleagues and all who value peace and justice. To glorify or romanticise Jim Lynagh's actions is to dishonour the memory of every innocent life destroyed by the Provisional IRA's campaign of terror. It sends a dangerous message to our young people that violence can somehow be justified, that terrorism can be excused and that murderers can be heroes. That is not the way in which for Northern Ireland to move forward. The truth is this: Jim Lynagh's elimination at Loughgall in 1987 saved countless lives. It brought to an end the murderous ambitions of a man who showed no mercy and sought only to spread fear and division.

As a representative of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and someone who believes deeply in the rule of law and peace, I find it abhorrent that any organisation would host or facilitate an event that seeks to rewrite history and glorify terror. Our schools and community buildings should be places of learning and reconciliation, not platforms for the veneration of those who took innocent lives. We owe it to the victims, men like officers Gilliland and Clements and every family that still bears the scars of IRA violence to speak out firmly against that revisionism. There can be no moral equivalence between those who enforced the law and those who waged war against it. Let us continue to honour the true heroes of our society: those who upheld peace, served their communities and gave their lives to protect others. Let us reject completely and unequivocally any attempt to glorify terrorism in our schools or anywhere else in our shared society.

Mr O'Toole: We entered opposition 21 months ago, and we pledged then to be a constructive Opposition, to work hard and to improve the way that politics is done in this place. Sometimes, it feels, for our Members, like a lonely furrow, but it is an important job, and we are proud to have done it.

Before the end of this year, we hope, the Executive will publish their first multi-year Budget in more than a decade. That is a critical moment for the people of this region. They will finally be able to see whether the Executive, with all their fallings-out, chaos and backbiting, are able to set a long-term Budget to deliver on the things that matter to them. That means a three-year Budget that is matched to getting waiting lists down. It also means a four-year capital Budget, we hope, that is matched to building social homes for the people who need them in our society and that delivers on critical infrastructure, including all-island rail, the A5 and other critical road, rail and, indeed, waste water projects. That, hopefully, will be set out not just in the three-year Budget but in the investment strategy.

That is the context for what we as the official Opposition have done today, which was to write to the Finance Minister. Along with other Opposition parties in Dáil Éireann, such as the Social Democrats and the Labour Party, the Finance Minister's party enjoys the right to access costings from the Finance Department there. Today, as the Opposition in the North, we ask for the same right from the Finance Department here. We would like, ahead of the multi-year Budget later this year, the right to have our proposals costed by departmental civil servants. We would like them to mark our homework, because we are serious when we talk about providing an alternative and improving politics here. Often, the question is thrown back to me in the Chamber, "Where is the Opposition's alternative?". We have produced many alternatives and many papers, so much so that I am thinking of printing them and putting bows on them for Christmas presents for some of my colleagues from all parties in the Chamber. However, if we are to move to the next stage of providing a real alternative for people here and to improve the quality of our debate here in Northern Ireland, we want the same rights that are applied to the Opposition in the South of Ireland: proper, rigorous costings of our proposals.

We are doing lots in the Chamber to fall out and prove to the public that they cannot expect anything from Stormont. Let us finally prove to them that we can be mature, we can move on and we can genuinely build something better here. We will put our proposal forward to the Finance Minister, and we hope that he and other parties in the Chamber will agree to it. Unlike others, we are serious about improving the quality of our politics and proving to the public that there is a point in their voting for a Government at an election and that the Opposition will be constructive and robust. I commend our proposal to colleagues.

Ms Ferguson: I rise to speak on the urgent need to invest in our community and voluntary (C&V) sector. If we do not invest in our community and voluntary sector, the truth is that we will lose not only the vital services that each of us know are critical to strengthening and supporting local people on the ground but the very fabric that I think holds our communities and people together.

As someone from the north-west who has worked in the community and voluntary sector for over 20 years, I know only too well the invaluable power of sustainable investment in community development and community infrastructure in strengthening community relations; helping to tackle inequality and disadvantage; empowering and building the capacity of local people who become active participants in shaping their future and the future of their communities; improving health and well-being; and building strong resilient communities where everyone can thrive. Community development increases participation in local community life, and it strengthens social networks and civic engagement, which are the cornerstones of a resilient community.

Likewise, our social enterprises are a significant part of the economy. They employ thousands and generate substantial revenue. Investing in their capacity helps scale and diversify the sector, particularly in deprived areas. There is the community wealth-building approach: on Wednesday, we had a local conference in the city, led by Development Trusts NI. It was fantastic to see a packed hall with great ambition. That approach redirects wealth back into the local economy and keeps it circulating in local areas, which provides economic stability and growth. That is where we need to invest — our social enterprises and community development organisations — to help build strong, resilient communities.

As we are well aware, there have been serious and ongoing cuts since 2009 in our C&V sector. It is critical, now, when looking into the long term, that all Departments, be that Health, Education or Communities, focus on core community development and our social enterprises and invest for the long tem to build, support and strengthen our communities and build resilience.

Mr Buckley: I remind the Chamber what it means to be the Economy Minister for Northern Ireland. It is a role that comes with serious responsibilities — responsibilities to promote investment, support job creation and grow sectors that sustain our economy. It is not a platform for advancing narrow political ideologies, nor is it a position to unilaterally decide what international trade relationships Northern Ireland should or should not have. Yet that is exactly what we have seen from the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who last week instructed Invest NI not to support companies that are involved with Israeli defence contracts. They have even suggested that Northern Ireland should be excluded from any UK-Israel trade talks. On the one hand, Sinn Féin parades about as a responsible custodian of the Northern Ireland economy but, on the other, blocks businesses' routes to market, and it cannot resist the temptation to promote a bitter, twisted ideology that has resulted in it not being able to publicly welcome 1,000 jobs from Bank of America and in blocking other investment. It is the politics of the student council, not a serious party of government.

Let us be clear: the decision was made without any consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. It was made without transparency and without regard for the 9,000 people employed in our aerospace, defence and security, and space sectors. The decision was both controversial and cross-cutting. Those are industries that generate in the region of £2·2 billion for our economy. They are real jobs in real communities, and they deserve better than to be treated as pawns in a political game with no regard to people's livelihoods.

No one should stand by and allow such matters to go unchallenged. Our wider economy is being undermined to appease a small section of anti-Israel voices. The role of the Economy Minister is not to act as Sinn Féin's foreign affairs spokesperson; it is to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and that means supporting economic growth, not stifling it on the basis of partisan politics.

Mr Dickson: The findings of the Equality Commission on boxing remind us once again how symbols and expressions of identity can either build inclusion or create exclusion.

The way that we present and display our identities has a real impact on who feels welcome and who does not. No young athlete should ever feel that their background, accent or community affiliation will determine the opportunity to compete. Sport should be open to everyone. It should be defined by hard work, talent and merit, not by a flag or someone's community background. I echo the Equality Commission's recommendation for:

That kind of accountability is essential if we are serious about building inclusive sporting environments that work for everyone. Equality does not belong to one tradition or community: equality belongs to us all. Respect for identity should never come at the expense of someone else's sense of belonging. The more we create environments that reflect fairness and openness, the stronger our shared society becomes.

My colleague Paula Bradshaw has submitted a private Member's Bill on the display of flags and emblems. The purpose of the Bill will be to establish clear and fair standards that protect freedom of expression, while ensuring that our shared spaces remain genuinely welcoming to everyone. It is not about taking identity away from anyone; it is about ensuring that identity is never used as a barrier or a weapon and that everyone can feel equally accepted in this place that we call "home". When the Bill comes before the Chamber for debate and scrutiny, I trust that all Members, including those in the DUP who have spoken passionately about inclusion in sport, will bring the same energy and commitment to creating inclusive environments through a fair and transparent framework. If we can show leadership in this place, we can help to change the tone beyond it towards a Northern Ireland in which identity is respected, opportunity is impartial and equality truly belongs to everyone.

Miss Brogan: Rinne muid Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Aistriúcháin a cheiliúradh an mhí seo a chuaigh thart. Tugtar seans dúinn an lá sin leis an obair thábhachtach, fhiúntach a dhéanann fir agus mná teanga ar fud an domhain a cheiliúradh.

Nuair a dhéantar teanga amháin a aistriú go teanga eile, cuirtear leis an chumarsáid idir daoine, cuirtear leis an tuigbheáil atá againn dá chéile, cuirtear leis an tsíocháin agus cuirtear leis an chomhar agus leis an dáimh atá againn le chéile.

Ní bagairt teanga. Is cuma cén teanga í. Má deirtear nó má scríobhtar friotal as Béarla agus sin a aistriú go Gaeilge, go hUltais nó go ceann de na teangacha nua ar an oileán seo, an Úcráinis nó an Araibis, ní bhíonn duine ar bith thíos leis. A mhalairt atá amhlaidh: is fearrde dúinn é. Tugann sé seans do na daoine a bhfuil na teangacha sin acu a gcuid a bheith acu den tsaol anseo agus a bhuíochas sin ar na haistritheoirí agus na hateangairí.

Tá an t-ádh orainn go bhfuil aistritheoirí agus ateangairí sa Tionól seo, go díreach mar atá sa Dáil, sa Senedd sa Bhreatain Bheag agus sna céadta eile Parlaimintí ar fud na cruinne. An áit a mbíonn an t-aistriúchán, bíonn faill ag polaiteoirí óráidí a thabhairt nó ceisteanna a chur sa teanga is fearr a oireann dóibh. Neartaíonn an áis sin an díospóireacht agus, dá bharr sin, an daonlathas. Mholfainn do Chomhalta ar bith anseo a chuid Gaeilge a chur chun a caite oiread agus is féidir agus tairbhe a bhaint as an tseirbhís atá againn.

Mar sin de, a Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na haistritheoirí agus na hateangairí uile go léir, bíodh siad ag obair in institiúidí polaitíochta nó amuigh fríd na daoine sna hotharlanna agus sna cúirteanna. Is annamh a théann a luach orthu, ach tá sé ar shlí a ráite nach mbeadh teacht againn gan iad.

Ms Forsythe: Yesterday, the good people of Newcastle were once again subject to unacceptable scenes of flooding, and it has been devastating. There was a warning for heavy rainfall, but the scenes that emerged yesterday were absolutely shocking and terrifying.

We saw fast-flowing water pouring down the roads in the Tullybrannigan area like waterfalls. I am incredibly grateful that no one was hurt, but I have serious concern over how that scale of flooding happened there.

A major clean-up operation continues. I was there this morning, and I thank all those out working on it, including the various agencies and community-based volunteers. The amount of debris is frightening. We can see from the clean-up that diggers are needed, which is really terrifying. We need an urgent investigation of why it happened.

There has never been flooding like it in the area. My family lives just down the road, and, in my lifetime, I have never seen anything like it. It has been widely described by others as the worst in over 40 years. Residents are absolutely shocked and frightened about whether it will happen again.

The weather warning was yellow, not amber or red. For a relatively short few hours of heavy rainfall to have caused such flooding is really concerning. Local people deserve to know what happened and what actions will be taken to prevent it happening in the future. Many were trapped in their homes for some time.

Flooding is not new to Newcastle as a whole, with flood alleviation schemes in place, but I ask that the new schemes are part of an investigation. We need to understand whether they have made things better or have moved all the problems to a different part of Newcastle. There needs to be a solution.

Ongoing concerns about the maintenance of the rivers and gullies and the flaps managing the floodwater getting in and out of the Burren river are continuous. We need to see real action. We need a permanent solution. Temporary pumps help to address the consequences, but we need to see prevention prioritised. In an area at the foot of the Mourne Mountains, we understand that there will be surface run-off at speed from the mountains, but why can that not be planned for, the risks managed and safety put first?

We are only in October, and the local infrastructure in South Down is still suffering from the severe damage caused by the storms in 2023 and 2024, with major roads still not repaired. Our people deserve better. We want no more scenes of chaos and panic. I call on the Infrastructure Minister to prioritise an urgent investigation and to put in place a permanent solution to the flooding in Newcastle before someone gets seriously hurt.

Dr Aiken: First, I make a declaration of interest as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) and a long-standing member of committee B. Last week, our committee submitted a report on UK/EU defence and security cooperation post-Brexit. The committee consists of members from the Oireachtas, Westminster and the devolved Administrations, including members from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Scottish National Party. We conducted the inquiry through a series of evidence-gathering meetings and visits to key areas. The meetings included talking to the ex-chief of the Irish Defence Forces; Garda Commissioner Drew Harris; the European Union, including the European Hybrid Centre of Excellence; NATO, including the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence; the National Crime Agency; and cybersecurity experts.

The report, which I recommend to everybody — I will ask the Assembly Library to ensure that it has copies of it — is well worth the read. The key supplementary themes became apparent during the investigation. The first is that there is a clear and present danger to this island from Putin and non-state actors, including narco-terrorists and criminal gangs. Attempts to sabotage critical cables, other parts of national infrastructure and the near relentless cyberattacks in every aspect of our lives show that the hybrid war is raging, and the Irish Republic has a particular vulnerability. Secondly, evidence shows that Ireland's shores, air and cyberspace are, regrettably, defenceless. The lack of security for vast areas of sea, subsea, air and cyberspace are an open back door for those wanting to harm not only the Irish Republic but transatlantic trade, the European Union and NATO.

Sadly, there is a degree of hypocritical expectation from most Irish political parties, including the current presidential Sinn Féin candidate, that they pontificate about the UK and NATO for their so-called militarism and defence expenditure while doing absolutely nothing to defend themselves. Paradoxically advocating drone defences at Dublin Airport while bashing the only nations that can make effective protective systems is a case in point.

As we discovered at BIPA and as even the most myopic TDs or senators now know, NATO has other priorities. We in Northern Ireland, as part of NATO, have a defensive umbrella that is widely stretched but protects us. The Irish, with their minuscule defence spending, have little or no willingness or capability to defend themselves, with few or no guarantees.

Our committee has recommended joint UK/Republic of Ireland maritime patrolling and increased joint working. Without NATO membership, however, Ireland has no access to a military alliance that can secure its borders. Hoping for good luck, the goodwill of hard-pressed neighbours or the beneficence of the triple-lock nations, is, I am afraid, no security at all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Carroll: I present the petition on behalf of over 3,000 people who signed it to raise their objections to the ongoing industrial derating policy. I thank Roan and the team at Act Now, who gathered the signatures.

The petition challenges the fact that huge amounts of public money are going to major multinational corporations. The Department of Finance, no doubt, will tell people otherwise. Despite some of what we have heard today, that is money that working-class communities need. Nurses are being denied a pay rise, when they could have availed themselves of that almost £80 million. That money could go a huge way towards resolving the mental health crisis, the housing crisis and other crises in our communities. Every year, however, that money goes to multinational corporations. Companies such as Moy Park, Caterpillar and Coca-Cola do not need corporate handouts. They need to be human-rights compliant; they need to respect, protect and not pollute our environment; and those that are doing so need to not engage with or support the Israeli war machine.

The signatories to the petition have raised their objections to the fact that rates for homeowners and small businesses rise year-on-year. There is no derating process, handout or bailout for those people: they are forced to pay ever-increasing amounts for their rates. It is also worth mentioning that a similar policy was in operation for some time in England and Scotland, but came to an end in 1963 in the former and 1995 in the latter. It is clear that the policy is not only unfair and should not be in operation but is completely out of date and backward. Over the years, huge sums of public money that could have gone into the region — hundreds of millions of pounds — have been wasted on those companies, while they do not give a damn about their workers: they underpay them and exploit them.

Thank you for allowing me to present the petition in the Assembly today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thanks, Gerry. I will forward the petition to the Minister of Finance and send a copy to the Committee for Finance.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Dr Archibald: I apologise in advance: I might have a coughing fit in the middle of my speech, as I am getting over a bad dose.

On 22 September 2025, I provided the House with an update on the work towards the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, in line with the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and the Executive's agreement that the scheme should be closed. With your indulgence, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle,

I will speak briefly to that, as it sets the context for today's debate on the RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill.

My Department recently launched a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation is seeking views on the proposed approach to closure of the scheme, which will be set out in regulations. With closure, Ofgem will no longer administer the scheme or take quarterly readings. Participants are, however, entitled to a closure payment.

My Department completed a review of tariff levels and payments over the lifetime of the scheme. The period 2017 to 2019 represents the least distorted and fairest time frame of historical usage that is in line with the support scheme's policy intention. Payments are therefore to be based on that period. That model has been independently validated by Professor David Rooney. My officials have made themselves available to any Member who wants to go through the calculations in more detail. Once the methodology for closure payments is decided on, the next question is whether to provide a one-off payment or to stagger the payment until the end of each participant's original 20-year accreditation period. Staggering the payment has two benefits. First, it would allow us to use the unutilised annually managed expenditure (AME) sooner. Secondly, it would allow us to check that the boilers are still in use. I have therefore opted for staggered payments.

My Department is working urgently to introduce a set of regulations ahead of the coming winter period to apply the same tariff rate that will be used to calculate the closure payments. The proposals are out for public consultation from 29 September to 24 November and best balance the three objectives of closing the scheme, of fairness for legitimate participants and of fairness for the taxpayer. Indeed, no party has put forward alternative proposals.

The immediate matter at hand is the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The Bill is short and technical in nature and does not directly amend any aspect of the scheme. Rather, it will provide my Department with powers to make regulations that will formally close the scheme and establish a new framework for legacy payments. The Department's existing powers for the RHI scheme are set out in sections 113 and 114 of the Energy Act 2011. Section 113 enables the Department to establish:

The two sections do not, however, provide the Department with the powers to close the scheme. That is why the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill is needed. Without it, my Department is not in a position to deliver on the NDNA commitment or to implement the Executive's agreement to close the scheme. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will first speak on behalf of the Committee and then make some remarks in a personal capacity. I anticipate that members of the Committee will set out their views on the principles of the Bill during the debate. As to the next steps, I will await the outcome of the vote in the House this afternoon.

The Bill allows the Department to make regulations "to close, partially or completely", the non-domestic RHI scheme, to prevent anyone else from joining the scheme and to restrict or cancel aspects of the scheme, so it is kind of an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. That is to be achieved through regulation-making powers, including powers to make regulations to vary the sums payable by the Department to scheme participants until the scheme is completely closed. Those sums, as the Minister outlined, may be paid as a one-off sum, periodically or in installments. The Bill allows regulations to be made that may, subject to conditions, take into account:

based on how non-domestic RHI boilers were used in the past. The regulations will be used to determine future closure payments to scheme participants. Such regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, meaning that they will have to be debated and passed by the Assembly. All of that can happen as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Further to that, the Department advises that regulations flowing from the Bill could be applied retrospectively from 1 April 2026 should the Bill's passage be delayed. The date is key, because, as the Minister outlined, Ofgem will withdraw its administrative support from the RHI scheme at that point.

While the Assembly is considering the Bill, the Department is consulting on the related closure regulations, as the Minister mentioned in her speech. Although those regulations are not the subject of today's debate, they give an indication of the Department's intention for how the non-domestic scheme will close. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, given the retrospective nature of the closure regulations, the Committee will seek an extension to the Committee Stage until the end of February 2026.

That will allow its members to gauge the feedback from that consultation before making up their minds on the Bill. I will save any further comments on that for now.

I will deal briefly with the proposed closure regulations. They would make an annual payment to scheme participants based on records of average historical heat usage from 2017 to 2019. Those records are to be obtained from the energy heat output recorded by Ofgem during that period. The Department seems to have advised that that is in response to the tariff cut in 2019 and the COVID pandemic, which may have led to a distortion of or reduction in boiler usage by operators. The closure regulations will therefore no longer require participants to continue to record and submit quarterly meter readings. However, participants will still have to keep some records of their boiler use. The revised closure tariffs are a lot more generous than the current tariffs and will also be indexed annually to the consumer price index. The payments will be made annually in arrears, as articulated by the Minister, and will continue until 20 years after the original accreditation, provided that boiler installations continue to be utilised in line with the scheme regulations and subsequent guidance. As new applications to the scheme stopped in February 2016, all those payments will therefore end in 2036.

The closure regulations will require participants to make a declaration in respect of whether the boiler continues to be used in its historical mode. If that is the case, participants will receive 100% of their historical payments at the new tariffs. If the boiler is operated at just over 50% of the historical usage, participants will still get 100% of the payment. If the boiler is used for less than 50% of its historical usage but more than 5%, the participant will still get a 50% payment equivalent. If the boiler is used for less than 5% of its historical usage, the participant is to get a de minimis payment equivalent to 5% of its historical use.

The Department will not take meter readings but will carry out inspections and request evidence of heat production, such as, for example, records of eligible fuel purchased. Inspections will check that installations remain in use, declarations are accurate and participants are complying with scheme regulations and guidance. Participants will be notified in advance if they are selected for inspection. Officials seem to have advised that there may be, on average, one or two inspections per installation in the remaining 10 years of the scheme. The Department advised that non-compliance may lead to suspension of payments, recovery of previous payments or exclusion from future payments. The cost of the staggered closure appears to be around £196 million in capital AME plus £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) over the next 10 years. That means that the annual AME cost of the scheme has likely more than tripled from £5 million to £17 million per year.

The Committee was advised that the proposed regulations appear to have been designed following engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland (RHANI) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and that they align with the cost models devised by Professor David Rooney at Queen's University Belfast. Officials advised that the new tariffs will generate an internal rate of return of 12% over the 20 years of the scheme and thus are compliant with state aid requirements.

The Department assured the Committee that Treasury had agreed to the increase in costs for the scheme. Given the Executive's previous experience of misunderstandings with Treasury over what will and will not be paid for, it is perhaps not surprising that the Bill includes an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. However, the Bill and the proposed regulations generate a lot of questions to which the Committee would like answers, and I hope that the Minister will provide some answers to those questions. First, why do this at all? Why not just continue as we are and let the contractual arrangements with RHI boiler owners run out in 10 years' time? Is it the case that the new arrangements will require renewable energy boilers to be run while also allowing the release by Treasury of approximately £15 million per annum of support for other renewable energy schemes that is presently going unused? Secondly, if running the boilers is important, why abandon metering completely? Why not install RHI smart meters, as the Department will do in every household in Northern Ireland? Those meters could be monitored remotely and likely at low cost. Payments could be made on the basis of the heat that is actually generated, and the Department could do inspections to ensure compliance. Thirdly — to digress slightly — can the Minister explain the reason that underpins the banding of the payments? Some members indicated that it made no sense to award a 50% payment when the boiler may only have been used for 6% of the time and, indeed, to award a 100% payment when the boiler was in use for just 51% of historical levels. That appears to be a strange arrangement. The cost saving associated with not metering would surely be outweighed by the association of the loss of transparency.

The anticipated closure regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, and, as you are aware, it was demonstrated this time last year that the Assembly has the ability to vote down the regulations. The consequences of such actions may be adverse for stakeholders, as was the case for good-faith boiler owners last year. In order to avoid that, I ask the Minister to undertake that, when regulations are developed, a meaningful draft is brought to the Committee as soon as possible. That will allow members some time to understand the challenge and the tariff suggested by the Department.

There are, of course, two sides to the non-domestic RHI story. On the one side is the UK taxpayer, who does not want to be on the hook for millions of pounds of unnecessary expenditure and those who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, I ask the Minister how we can ensure, under the closure arrangements supported by the Bill, that heat will be generated for useful purposes only. I said that there are two sides, and we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for those who entered the system correctly. The Committee will be keen to hear evidence from those participants.

The fifth and final question that the Committee raised during our initial deliberations was how we can be sure that, once the Bill has passed, the Department has the means to shut down the scheme and that there will be a fair and equitable settlement for those good-faith owners. The Committee has already sought and received some answers. If the Second Stage is passed, it will look at that in more detail.

I will now make some personal remarks. I welcome the fact that we now have a Bill before the House. The Committee and, indeed, the House were informed 18 months ago of Ofgem's decision to withdraw from the scheme. From a personal point of view, it has been disappointing that it has taken until this time for the Bill to arrive on the Floor of the House. As I articulated on behalf of the Committee, we are now on a very tight timetable to have the Bill passed and the closure arrangements in place before Ofgem withdraws from the scheme on 31 March. Given last year's debacle, it is vital that the Department has engaged with those sectors to ensure that there is widespread support for the new arrangements.

In her opening remarks, the Minister said that she was committed to utilising the underutilised AME from the scheme. I am keen to know what work has been done by her officials to bring forward a new scheme. When officials were before the Committee just a few weeks ago, we were informed that no progress had been made on utilising the remainder of that funding. If the position is that that funding is in place to meet the targets set by the Assembly of 80% by 2030, surely the underutilised AME in this budget will be vital to that.

Tomorrow, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) will pass its judgement on the Department's ability to implement its energy strategy. It is not for me to speculate on what may be in that report but, to date, the performance of the energy section in the Department for the Economy raises serious questions for the House.

I support the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage and look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions raised on behalf of the Committee.

Ms McLaughlin: The Bill represents an important step towards closing a scheme that has cast a long shadow over public confidence in government. We recognise that the legislation is also intended to bring a fair and lawful conclusion to the involvement of those who entered the renewable heat incentive scheme in good faith. Businesses and individuals who followed the rules made genuine investments in renewable energy and have lived for years with uncertainty. They deserve fairness and clarity as the scheme is brought to a close. For that reason, the SDLP supports the principle of the Bill that the non-domestic renewable heat incentive scheme should be formally and finally closed.

While we support those principles, we have serious concerns about how the process has been handled and the lack of clarity about what will follow. Once again, the Assembly finds itself dealing with major legislation at the last possible moment. The Bill has been introduced under intense time pressure, with a live consultation still under way on the regulations that will give it effect and with a hard deadline approaching in April 2026, when Ofgem will withdraw from its role in administering the scheme. That timeline means that scrutiny of the Bill and the subordinate legislation will be compressed into a matter of weeks. That is not how good governance should work. It is not the careful, transparent and considered process that the public expect, especially given the history of RHI. We all remember what went wrong the last time, and we all remember how public trust was damaged. Anything bearing those three letters now must be handled with absolute care and transparency.

Fairness must also be extended to the taxpayer. We have a duty to ensure that every pound of public money is used properly, is monitored effectively and is capable of standing up to close scrutiny. That balance between fairness for participants and the protection of public funds is essential if we are to build public confidence.

We must be realistic about the implications of not supporting the Bill. If the Assembly were to reject or delay it, the Department for the Economy would not have the legal powers to transfer the scheme's administration once Ofgem steps back next spring, which is pretty close in the calendar, in order to put in place the arrangements that must follow. Without those powers, there is a risk of a legal and administrative vacuum — essentially, it will be in limbo — and there will be significant uncertainty for participants and the public purse. That is why the SDLP will support the principles of the Bill. We are not convinced that the Department's current approach or, indeed, its capacity are yet sufficient to deliver a smooth and credible transition. Given the Department's historical role in the scheme, there are legitimate questions about whether robust, independent oversight should form part of that process.

Our position is clear: we support the principle of closure, but we have real concerns about the process, the timing and the arrangements that will sit beneath the legislation. We will continue to undertake and push for proper scrutiny in order to secure an approach that is fair, credible and accountable and protects public funds. This place cannot afford a repeat of past mistakes. We must close the scheme properly, with fairness for participants, value for money for the public and confidence for all.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak briefly in support of the legislation. I welcome the support for the Bill from the Members of other parties who have spoken already. The closure of the scheme was a commitment in NDNA. At that stage, all the main parties that signed up to that were clear that they wanted to see the scheme close. The Minister is trying to do that in a way that best suits the public purse and the people who entered the scheme in good faith, who, in some ways, have been collateral damage in the fallout from the mess that was made of the scheme at the beginning. It is important that we bear that in mind.

As the Bill goes through the Committee, we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the fine detail. I welcome the commitment from the Minister that the team who are working on it will make themselves available. It will be positive to see the Bill pass its Second Stage today. We will progress the legislation and work together to deliver the best for everyone involved.

Mr Honeyford: I will be clear from the start: we in Alliance support the principle of completely closing down the RHI scheme and bringing that sorry chapter to an end. RHI has been an absolute disaster from the beginning. It effectively collapsed the Assembly, because it was conceived and implemented without oversight and managed with arrogance.

It was a textbook example of greed enabled by government failure. That happened under the DUP's watch. They were, apparently, under the belief that, "Treasury will pick up the Bill, so what does it matter?", so here we are today.

That approach led to reckless decisions that cost our public finances dearly. More importantly, however, as is often emphasised, it shattered public confidence in the institutions and continues to cast a shadow over the Department. We see and hear that every time the Department comes before the Committee. It has massively delayed progress towards net zero targets and energy security. In dealing with renewable energy, it has caused there to be caution in moving towards any new scheme to secure the future energy of the island — they come at a snail's pace, although we need them in place yesterday — whether utilising wind, solar, biogas or hydrogen.

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, where, all the time, I can see, from various Departments, although most pointedly from the Department for the Economy, that RHI single-handedly further destroyed Civil Service confidence in taking any decisions, limiting creativity within the Departments and thus holding us back from entrepreneurship or creative ideas to tackle today's problems. By continuing to do the same thing over and over again, we continue to deliver the same outcomes.

We in the Chamber have to be honest: it was the DUP Minister of the day who oversaw and brought us RHI. The damage to politics in Northern Ireland that followed was a direct result of their political negligence. It now passes to us all — it is our collective responsibility — to bring RHI and this chapter to an end and to do so in an orderly, transparent and fair way. This should have been sorted out years ago. The fact that we are talking about it today illustrates the failure of successive Economy Ministers, alongside stop-start government, to bring this to an end and deal with it. That is a disgrace. This action has been forced by Ofgem: the timeline is being controlled by Ofgem, not by the Minister or the Department. The Ofgem deadline has created the circumstances that have brought us here today.

I will tease out my core concerns. The Bill is short. It grants the Department the power to make regulations, without any of us or the public being able to scrutinise those regulations in their final form. Effectively, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque to the Department that originally delivered the RHI scheme and to trust that, this time, the detail will be right. That is not good enough for me, and it is certainly not good enough for those who expect us to have learnt lessons. We need a Bill that brings confidence that bringing this to a close enables learning and allows us to move forward with confidence, free from the shackles of RHI.

On the subject of the proposed regulations and fairness, the Department's consultation proposes that payments will be based on the figures for historical generation, from 2017-19. There is a question over why those years were chosen. The Minister addressed that today, and we were also given an explanation at Committee. We are told that the level of payment at that time was fair, but why, then, has the number of users halved since then? How can the data from nearly a decade ago accurately reflect the current usage, the current technology or our environmental targets? If the Department truly intends to close the scheme, why does it propose that it will continue payments for another 10 years, running out the original 20-year term from 2012? Surely, that is an extension of RHI rather than an end to it. That does not sound like closure; it sounds like running down the clock on a flawed system.

Can the Minister confirm absolutely, today, that the Treasury has signed off on the plan and that it agrees with the regulations that are to come and with the approach that the Department has taken? Can she confirm that it will enable the Assembly to, at last, access central funding for other renewable schemes that has been denied to us over the past years? It is critical that we hear the answers to those questions and that we can actually move forward.

We need to a clear explanation of how the Bill delivers value for money and how it delivers on our climate objectives. Confidence in renewables starts with confidence in governance. Frankly, we cannot build tomorrow's energy on yesterday's mistakes. I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that the environmental benefits that come from the scheme will not be lost; that we will not have another decade of delay dressed up as delivery, which we cannot afford; and that the Bill will ensure fairness for all those who participated in good faith but will not allow others to take advantage.

The proposed payment model also raises plenty of questions. Paying for heat that is not generated is not reform; it is repetition of previous mistakes. If I produce 51% output but get 100% payment, or if I produce 6% output but get 50% payment, how does that deliver value for money to the public purse? That is not policy; it is paying for inactivity. How can the public have faith in a system that rewards outputs that do not exist? Those who invested in good faith deserve fairness, not a fudge, but fairness cannot mean overpaying for boilers that are not running to the percentage for which payment is being made or are not even running. The Department cannot claim that lessons have been learned if the new model still rewards inefficiency and penalises integrity. The rate has obviously been too low for some time: is backdating payments to pay for heat that has not been generated the way to go?

When it comes to oversight, fraud and inspection, the Department says that it will remove the need for quarterly meter readings and will rely instead on an annual declaration and occasional inspections. Given the advancement of technology since the RHI scheme came in, why are we moving backwards? Why did the Department go for fewer checks? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer to that. Surely there are now digital solutions, as Phillip mentioned — simple solutions that can easily monitor usage in real time and would cost less than creating a new inspection regime to make visits. The entire RHI scandal was caused by a lack of proper monitoring and oversight. If we remove even the few checks that remain, how can we be confident that the fraud will not creep back in? We have been told that there will be a new fraud policy, so I would like the Department to spell out clearly what that will look like.

At the Committee a while back, we heard that every boiler will be visited once over the next 10 years. If you think that through, you realise that, if a boiler is checked next year, the owner can be pretty confident that it will not be checked again for the entire 10 years of the scheme. How will that work in practice? Why should we believe that the control this time will be different from the first scheme's control, which failed so comprehensively? Moreover, we have seen no evidence that the Department has resourced the necessary inspection regime to ensure that the boilers are still in genuine use or that the heat generated is being used for the purpose for which the boilers were installed. Previously, the headline was "Cash for ash": we must be absolutely confident that we do not see a repeat of that.

Today is 20 October. Why is this being done now? We have been told that closing the RHI scheme is urgent, yet we have had years in which to do so. If it is urgent today, it was urgent years ago. The Minister could have introduced the Bill at any time. Given that it is two and a half pages long, no Member will believe that it has not been drafted for some time. If it has been, why was it not introduced before now? We cannot wait until the process has almost timed out. The consultation was launched only at the end of last month and will close at the end of November, yet the Bill is before us today. This time last year, I asked a question about the Bill at Committee and was told that it would be introduced in the new year. Everybody in the room was pretty clear that "new year" meant January or February. Technically, nobody misled the Committee. Technically, officials answered correctly — it is still 2025 — but, by goodness, introducing the Bill at the end of October, almost a year later, is stretching the understanding of what was said. Stretching that understanding stretches the trust that we have in the Department, so I look for things that the Department is hiding. If the Department could have brought forward tariff adjustments or closure arrangements any time sooner, I am left wondering why it did not. Why did it take 18 months of behind-the-scenes work to consult with just three groups and arrive at a proposal that leaves many unanswered questions? That leaves me with a feeling that introduction may have been deliberately left to the last minute to try to bypass Committee Stage and force through the Bill regardless of anyone's opinion. If that is the case, it will be a new low and another push against the trust that the Committee has built up, working together to deliver better for people.

We are being asked to trust a Department that designed, oversaw and defended the original RHI scheme. Such trust must be earned, but it has not been. The Department has done little to change that opinion and given little reassurance that it is on top of this.

Alliance supports the principle of the scheme's closure, but it must be done in the right way. I am disappointed at how the Bill has been rushed, thus limiting Committee and Assembly time to debate it. Given that we had a similar debate a year ago, during which we were told that the Bill would be introduced in the new year, the measure should not be hidden behind departmental regulations and definitely should not come at the expense of fairness and transparency. We will not give the Department a blank cheque. We will not endorse a process that risks repeating the failures that caused the scandal in the first place. We cannot end one scandal yet create the conditions for the next one. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer the questions that have been raised and to having her reassure the House that the Department is in control and has the ability to deliver what it says that it will.

In moving forward, our constituents from across the region deserve to know that the lessons from the mistakes of RHI have been learnt and that a process is in place to make sure that they are never repeated. Our constituents also deserve a Department that does not live under a cloud because of the ghost of RHI by progressing a Bill that is simply a quiet extension of the scheme under a different name. Legislate properly and openly, and let us finally bring that sorry chapter to an end in a way that commands the respect of everyone in the House.

Ms D Armstrong: I support those Members who have sought reassurances and expressed concerns about the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The UUP supports the scheme's closure in principle. I share the Chair of the Economy Committee's view that the Bill may prove contentious. Fellow members of the Committee have already outlined some of their worries and concerns.

The messaging around the Bill needs to be clear and concise and give the assurances that the public seek. The public and many others will struggle to understand how the Bill can be presented as a scheme closure when the Department admits that payments will continue until 2036, and, in some cases, at an increased rate. If we extend payments for another decade, we will be not closing the scheme but rebranding it. The Bill looks more like a legacy payment scheme than a genuine closure scheme. The Assembly must be honest and transparent with the public, particularly when confidence remains at an all-time low following the legacy of RHI. My question to the Minister is therefore this: are we achieving financial savings, or is it just a case of rebranding and rebadging the scheme?

Members will recall that the original RHI scheme collapsed because controls were too weak, oversight was inconsistent and accountability was blurred. Under the Department's current proposal, however, metering will end, quarterly readings will stop and some inspections will even be announced in advance. It feels as though we have not learnt lessons, because that risks setting us up for failure and potentially another scandal.

Today, I seek assurance from the Minister that the Department will ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to guarantee that boilers are genuinely in use, not sitting idle while payments continue. Others have referred to the payment tariffs. Such safeguards include unannounced inspections and independent verification of annual declarations. Good-faith participants should have no objections to that. The Department has said that it does not have the capacity to carry out meter readings, now that, from April 2026, Ofgem will step away, but that is not an acceptable reason for weakening safeguards. Rather, it is an argument for strengthening internal capacity. If, as I asked in Committee last week, we could measure heat output between 2017 and 2019, why can the same mechanism not continue to be used? The technology and the data exist. Without ongoing metering, independent verification and advance notice of inspections, the system risks reverting to the same complacency that led to previous failures. I await the Minister's comment on that.

Clause 1(6)(a) allows the Department to alter the scheme "from time to time". That acts as a potential get-out clause, meaning that, after the Bill passes, the Department could continue to adjust payments or conditions without returning to the Assembly to seek a fresh mandate for doing so.

Officials insist that any changes will follow due process, but we have seen how due process can become a tick-box exercise rather than real accountability. If the Bill is to grant such broad regulatory powers, I request that the Minister show how it could also include statutory reporting requirements and Assembly oversight to match.

We cannot overestimate the reputational damage that ongoing RHI payments continue to inflict on public confidence in government in Northern Ireland. As other Members have said, the term "RHI" still provokes public anger and mistrust, and the Department should fully assess the reputational risk of maintaining payments under that name for another decade.

It must be stressed that many boiler owners joined the scheme in good faith. Under the leadership of the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, the Department of Agriculture organised 60 workshops up until the end of 2015 to explain the benefits of the scheme. Indeed, the scheme ensured tangible benefits by producing heating for poultry houses, which improved environmental conditions for chickens, reduced infection and improved performance. Many farming families who were encouraged to attend the workshops were innocent participants, and they are the same farming families who are constantly under the cosh today. We owe it to them to ensure fairness and transparency in bringing the sorry saga to a close. Therefore, I ask the Minister why the Department cannot reconstitute any legacy arrangements under a separate mechanism with a new governance model to help rebuild trust.

Before the Assembly grants the Department new powers, we must be satisfied that the lessons of the RHI inquiry have been fully implemented. Were Sir Patrick Coghlin's recommendations fully considered when drafting the Bill? The public deserve assurance that the Department is not simply repeating history. The Department's documentation shows up to a fourfold increase in tariffs for small and medium biomass boilers; for example, a lower medium tier-1 tariff is rising from 2·2p per kilowatt-hour to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. What justification exists for such significant increases, and how can the Minister assure the Assembly that it will not, once again, deliver excessive rates of return to participants? The target return is 12%, yet there is no clear evidence that it will be achieved consistently or that outliers will not benefit disproportionately.

The total projected cost of closure payments up to 2036 is £213 million: £196 million in scheme payments and £17 million for administration. That mirrors the cost of simply keeping the scheme open, so where are the savings? A cost of £17 million for administration, including inspections, compliance and IT systems, is a significant amount for a Department that is still rebuilding public trust after the previous RHI scheme. I ask the Minister what measures will be in place to ensure that the compliance regime delivers value for money and operates independently of those who managed the original scheme.

An important consideration is whether, on the basis of this RHI scheme, any future new renewable energy scheme will find difficulties in attracting participants and whether, should there not be enough uptake of such schemes, we will continue giving money back to Westminster. I urge the Department to seriously consider anaerobic digestion as part of the food and energy security debate. I would welcome the Minister's views on anaerobic digestion as a solution for agri by-products and renewable energy targets.

The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the need to move on from RHI but will not support a process that simply rebrands it. There must be clear reporting obligations, independent auditing by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and a statutory duty of transparency that requires the Department to publish annual data on payments, inspections and administrative costs. Only then can we say that we have truly learned the lessons of RHI and begun to rebuild the public's confidence in how Northern Ireland manages its energy policy. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the principle of closure but will not support a process that reopens old wounds. The Bill must deliver closure in substance, not just in name. If the Assembly is to pass legislation in the shadow of RHI, that legislation must restore trust. That means openness, accountability and fiscal discipline, not another blank cheque for a Department to manage behind closed doors.

Ms Finnegan: Is geal liom deis bheith agam labhairt ar son an Dara Céim den Bhille.

I commend the Minister for her clear and determined leadership in bringing the legislation before the Assembly. The Minister has rightly focused on fairness, value for money and the need to protect public finances, but, from an environmental perspective, the legislation also represents an opportunity to reset, refocus and build something better. We know that decarbonising heat is one of the most complex and critical challenges in our journey to net zero. It requires innovation, investment and a clear policy framework. The legacy of the RHI scheme has made that harder, but the Bill begins to clear the way.

I emphasise the importance of ensuring that any future scheme is designed with climate impact front and centre. That means supporting technologies that genuinely reduce emissions, prioritising energy efficiency and ensuring that the support reaches those who need it most, including our rural communities, low-income households and small businesses. We must also learn from the past. Any new scheme must be robust, well regulated and built on clear principles of sustainability and fairness. It must support our climate targets, stimulate local supply chains and contribute to a just transition for workers and communities.

The Bill gives the Department the powers it needs to close the current scheme and begin shaping a better future for renewable heat policy in the North. I fully support the legislation, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the Assembly to ensure that what comes next is ambitious and credible and delivers for people and the planet.

Ms Nicholl: Without rehearsing the arguments of the past number of years, it is really important to say at the outset that RHI has been an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland. It has been detrimental to our economy, to taxpayers and, ultimately, to faith in our politics and these institutions. It is a buzzword for failure, poor governance and collapse. The damage to public trust is perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the RHI saga; it continues to plague our discussions around this Bill and the wider effort to close the scheme.

It is right and proper that good-faith boiler owners have a fair settlement that ensures that they are not unduly punished for the failures of the scheme as a whole. However, a lot more clarity needs to be provided on the banded nature of the proposed payments. The Department calls the system "a common-sense approach", but, as several Members have set out, there are questions to be asked about the way in which the bands have been broken down. Under the proposed system, when an installation is operated for less than 50% but more than 5% of its historical heat output, the payment would be for 50% of the historical heat output. That means that someone using a boiler for 10% or even 6% of the time could be eligible for payments covering 50% of usage, as my colleague set out.

When officials came to brief the Committee on the Bill, I said that my main concern with the process was to do with trust. We all agree that the RHI scheme needs to close, but we need to assure ourselves that there is sufficient trust in the system and the Department to deliver a rational, fair and efficient closure of the scheme. The Bill gives significant power to the Department without much clarity on what exactly it is going to do with that power. My colleague David Honeyford set that out in detail. Without the regulations in front of us, it is difficult to understand how the Department expects us to pass the Bill as it stands. I welcome the reassurance that the regulations will come to the Committee. It is on that basis that I am happy to support the Bill at this stage. We will need the Minister to provide the clarity that we need in the Committee and in the Chamber to give us confidence to move forward. Trust needs to be rebuilt to allow us to vote for this legislation. Although we support the passage of the Second Stage, there remain questions that must be answered at Committee Stage.

Mr Gaston: When considering the closure of the RHI, one must remember that there were and are many legitimate participants who signed up to the scheme in good faith and with the correct motivations. Legitimate boiler owners have been left high and dry, including the owners of the 304 accredited systems in North Antrim. Instead of bringing clarity, the Bill raises more questions than it answers. Like many other Members, I am concerned that the Bill risks repeating the very mistakes that led to the RHI scandal in the first place.

Recently, those flaws were spelt out in an article by someone who literally wrote a book on RHI: Sam McBride of the 'Belfast Telegraph'. We are being asked to pass a Bill that empowers the very same Department that helped to make that mess to make the regulations to close the scheme. Clause 1(7) gives the Department powers to determine how closure payments are calculated. We know that the tariffs are currently out for consultation. However, the Bill does not specify any methodology, leaving it entirely to the Department to decide whether payments are based on actual usage, estimates or some other approach. Ofgem's stepping away offers no excuses for us to step away from actual meter readings. Will the Minister confirm what safeguards will be included in the regulations to prevent overpayments or abuse? We have heard from the Chairman of the Committee that it will look at banding for payments. Why then do the regulations not require actual meter readings? From what I have heard today, payments will be based on guesses, as Sam McBride has warned.

The Bill allows for periodic payments until the scheme is completely closed under clause 1(6)(a). Clause 1(7) gives the Minister erroneous discretion. Does that mean that participants could continue to receive large payments for years to come while the public are told that the scheme is closed? The Department's consultation suggests that closure payments may be based on historical output from 2017 to 2019. Will you confirm, Minister, the rationale for that period being chosen? It is not realistic when compared with the actual usage by the boiler owners today. Will participants be allowed to challenge those calculations, if they believe that the baseline is inaccurate?

Then, there is the question of oversight and anti-fraud measures. Clause 1(8) and clause 1(9) allow the Department to enter into agreements and make administrative arrangements, but there is no requirement for meaningful inspections or enforcement. Will the Minister assure the House that she will not simply rely on the light-touch oversight that, history tells us, is woefully inadequate for the scheme? How many inspections will there be, and how will they verify that the boiler owners are using the boilers to produce heat rather than to generate profits from subsidies? Does the banding of payments not encourage boiler owners to do that?

We also need to see the Bill giving retrospective effect to payments or obligations under clause 1(10). Will the Minister confirm that no regulation will penalise participants for actions taken in good faith under the existing scheme? Will there be explicit protections for those who acted responsibly?

Finally, there is the question of fiscal control. The consultation and, indeed, the media coverage suggested a potential cost of £196 million, but the Bill gives no statutory cap. How can the Minister guarantee that public money will be spent efficiently and not rise further, given the Department's record on the scheme to date?

Minister, I ask you for clarity on each of those points so that Members can be confident that the Bill delivers real closure and not another decade of mismanagement. Until that assurance is given, I will remain deeply concerned about the Bill and the regulations that it will enable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy. I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill. Whilst the Bill does not make any changes to the scheme directly, it is an important step towards fulfilling the New Decade, New Approach commitment, which was endorsed by the current Executive, to close the scheme.

It provides the Department with the powers that will be needed to bring forward regulations under the draft affirmative process, setting out arrangements for closure. As I said in my opening speech, those arrangements remain under development. The public consultation is currently seeking views on the proposals to ensure that closure is implemented in a way that achieves fairness to participants and, more widely, to the taxpayer.

I will try to respond to the various points that Members made in the debate, and I will start with the Committee Chair. If I do not cover all your points, feel free to come in. Why not allow the scheme to continue as it currently is at the level that it currently is? The Member will be aware of previous court proceedings, where the judge indicated that the tariff needed to be amended. We have worked alongside industry experts to develop the proposed tariffs. Those have been modelled and described by departmental officials and Professor David Rooney to ensure that where we are proposing to go with the tariffs is the correct way forward.

As for metering, if we continue to meter, we are not effectively closing the scheme: we are not giving certainty to what the payments will be on an annual basis. Certainty on what the payments will be annually is key to unlocking the AME. That brings me to another of the Committee Chair's points: why are we taking this approach? It is because we want to ensure that we finally deal with the RHI scheme in a way that is fair to participants and taxpayers and will also give us the ability to access AME funding that we are currently unable to access and to put it to good use.

As for the regulations, I am happy to commit to the Committee Chair that, when we have those, we will share them with the Committee so that it has the opportunity to scrutinise them appropriately. Obviously, the Bill that we are debating today gives the Department the power to develop regulations, but those regulations are still subject to the scrutiny of both the Committee and this Chamber. There is an opportunity for the Chamber to do as it did last year and vote the regulations down because a draft affirmative process is in place for the regulations that are to be developed.

How we will monitor the use of the meters has been described, both in the consultation and when the officials attended the Committee. There is an intention to have an inspection process in place. Those will be physical inspections, and the participants will be required to sign an annual declaration and provide information that confirms that the installations continue to be used for useful purposes. I think that I have dealt with the Committee Chair's questions, but if he wants to intervene, I am happy to take his intervention. Go ahead, Phillip.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Minister, for covering those points. I know it is not within the scope of the Bill per se, but I have questions about the underutilised AME. First, can you confirm to the House what that figure is, currently; and, secondly, what work are your officials doing to advance a scheme that can draw down that funding? Obviously, if we are going to close the scheme, and this Bill can pass by March of next year, we need to have a new scheme ready to rock, so I would like to hear some views on that.

Dr Archibald: Yes, I thank the Member for reminding me of that question. Mr Honeyford raised a similar question in relation to the AME. We have to have the RHI scheme closed and certainty on the way forward for it in order to engage with Treasury about the AME that will then be accessible. Treasury is aware that that is what we intend to do and is content to engage with us on using that AME for a purpose that is in line with the original intent of the scheme: renewable heat. The Department will bring forward proposals on how we will make use of that.

Emma and Sinéad were both broadly supportive of the direction of travel, although I do note Sinéad's caveat in her comments. I know that Sinéad will scrutinise the legislation as it goes through Committee. I dealt with some of David's points in response to the Committee Chair on the question of why we are keeping the payments going.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Archibald: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: I want to clarify that. You are saying that participants will run at either 100% or 50%. Is Treasury happy that somebody who runs at 60%, say, will get full payment — that they will get paid for heat that is not generated? Can I clarify that, once this moves forward, we will be able to access the funds for the rest of the renewables sector?

Dr Archibald: On what Treasury has agreed to so far, it is aware of what was proposed in the business case and is content with that. We will have to re-engage with Treasury about accessing the AME that will be freed up. Treasury knows that it is our intention to do so. I am sure that the Member and all other Members will know that, when you deal with Treasury, it wants to know what your exact proposals are before it will give you a commitment about whether or not you can access the funding. We need to be in a position to know what amount of funding will be utilised out of the existing AME. That is why it is important that we have certainty on what the annual payments will be. The process that we are setting out on "deemed" heat as the way of calculating the payments allows us to have that confirmation of what the required funding envelope will be. That gives us the ability to know what excess AME we will have to access to introduce an additional scheme in line with similar principles.

The Member raised some questions around why, on the one hand, we were continuing to pay participants over a number of years but how, on the other hand, we can make sure that they are using the heat for useful purposes. If we did a one-off payment, there would be no ability to ensure that the heat is being generated for useful purposes — that the appropriate safeguards are in place. That is one of the reasons why we are taking the approach that we are taking — to have such an inspection regime in place; to have the declaration; and to have the requirement for records to be shared annually — to releasing the payment. We are trying to strike a balance where we give certainty about the funding that will be required to allow us access to the AME and where we are fair to both participants and taxpayers about what we are doing.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way and for articulating answers to some of the questions. I want to push on the timeline for the new scheme; let us call it that. Treasury will not engage until a new proposal is on the table, and officials will not fully work up a new proposal until there is certainty. Given that it is likely that the Bill will move into Committee Stage, that can now advance. Can the Minister outline to the House when she expects officials to have a concrete alternative proposal that we can scrutinise and then all get behind and back its going to Treasury for support?

Dr Archibald: As I set out, Treasury has advised that it will need to review the detail of any future proposals to ensure that they are in line with the original policy intention, which, obviously, as I mentioned, was renewable heat. Heat pumps, for example, were part of the original RHI, so that will be consistent with the work that the Department is progressing and in line with the original policy intention. I imagine that a new support scheme will need to be consulted on. We hope to do that in 2026 and be in a position to spend in the 2026-27 financial year.

Mr Honeyford also asked why we have introduced the Bill at this point. Obviously, we had to get Executive approval for our proposals. A lot of work has been done by officials and participants' representatives over the past number of months to get us to the position where we have a set of proposals that has the broad endorsement of those who will be in receipt of the payments. That was important work for us to do in order to get the Bill to this point. We then had to engage with the Executive on agreeing a way forward. Thankfully, Executive colleagues have endorsed a way forward. Once we have consulted on the regulations, we will return to the Executive to seek final approval.

I will respond to Mr Gaston's comments, albeit some have already been dealt with in my responding to other Members'. He mentioned participants having the ability to appeal and asked whether there will be enforcement. The regulations will include both elements, and they are currently being consulted on. He also raised the issue of cost. The projected cost of £196 million is the maximum cost and is based on all participants taking up the offer of payments. That applies certainty to the amount that the proposed scheme is going to cost. As I said previously, it also gives us the certainty to be able to engage with Treasury about utilising the unused AME.

I am grateful to all those who contributed —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Archibald: Go ahead.

Mr Gaston: Minister, while you are here, I will push you further on the use of historical data from 2017 to 2019 to make payments and the comments that we have heard about banding. What protections can you put in place for such times as a boiler owner, who knows exactly what his output was during that period, sets his dial to use 55% of his output but then secures 100% payment? What safeguards can you put in place to ensure that that is not done and that people are not driven to maximise what they can get out of the scheme?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said, tariffs to be paid to participants have been developed based on the period that was deemed to be most fair. The Member will be well aware of the trajectory of the cost of fuel post COVID and beyond. The 2017-19 period therefore represents what is considered to be the best period for fair usage. It is after the time at which the unfair tariffs that resulted in overpayments had been corrected, and it represents a time at which there was a fair price. That is why that period has been used to predict the way forward with payments.

The payment that will be made will cover the production of heat, but maintenance and the cost of fuel will also be taken into account. As I said to other Members, there will be an inspection regime, a declaration and a requirement to provide information and records annually in order to ensure that the heat that is being generated is being used for useful purposes.

I ask Members for their support to agree the Bill's Second Stage so that it can be referred to the Committee for the Economy for more detailed scrutiny. I am sure that officials will be happy to engage on the questions that Members posed throughout the debate. I assure the House that my Department will provide whatever support the Committee requires in order to complete the Bill's Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Butler: I beg to move

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

Mr Butler, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of fact that, this year, Northern Ireland has been subject to a series of increasingly severe storms. Those storms have left a trail of damage and destruction that is both physical and deeply human. Families, farmers and entire communities have faced fallen trees, toppling poles, flooded roads, the danger of aquaplaning vehicles and, in many cases, community and individual isolation. The extreme weather has exposed our vulnerabilities. It has reminded us painfully that we are not adequately prepared. The time for reaction is over, and the time for preparation must begin. Storms will inevitably come again, and it is our responsibility to act together now to build long-term, effective solutions that will protect lives, homes and livelihoods.

I express my support for the residents of County Down, particularly those in Newcastle, who endured heavy rainfall and flooding over the weekend that left many fearing for their lives and the safety of their homes. I am sure that many if not all of us have seen the pictures and video footage of the properties that were damaged. I think particularly of the Tullybrannigan Road area, which was cut off, leaving residents feeling trapped and helpless. The fact that much of that was predictable and, to an extent, preventable makes it all the more frustrating. With better planning, coordination and communication, we could make a difference. That is why this debate is not just necessary but urgent. We must close the gaps in our storm preparedness and put in place permanent or long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes.

Rural areas, as always, tend to suffer most. When storms hit, they are often the last to be reconnected and to receive help. I am often asked, "Are we the first to be forgotten?". Limited infrastructure and stretched emergency services mean that, when trees fall or flooding occurs, small villages and farms can be entirely cut off. During storm Éowyn, many rural homes, farms and businesses were left without electricity for weeks, and MLAs across the Chamber worked tirelessly to get people reconnected. People faced devastating losses of livestock and property. Better rural connectivity and stronger infrastructure are absolutely key if we are serious about protecting those communities.

The threat to life posed by extreme weather is not fully recognised, even after the devastation of storm Éowyn and storm Amy. Too often, we focus on the visible damage — the fallen trees, the flooded roads and the power outages — but we sometimes forget that behind those stories are people whose lives are genuinely at risk. We need much stronger collaboration between councils, emergency responders and national agencies, and I thank the people who respond. Communication is crucial, not to create panic but to educate and empower communities to act early and stay safe. Those improvements could literally mean the difference between life and death.

I turn briefly to our modern healthcare system. More people than ever rely on medical equipment at home, such as oxygen machines, ventilators and other devices, where an interruption to electricity or broadband is not merely an inconvenience but can be life-threatening. We must give those people consistency, assurance and protection.

The recent storms have also raised serious questions about the efficiency of our emergency systems. Take, for instance, the late notice from the Education Authority regarding school closures on Friday 3 October. Many parents and staff were left scrambling at the last minute, while public transport had already been suspended. That confusion was unnecessary and avoidable. The early activation of emergency plans with clearer coordination can prevent panic and help keep people safe.

Our power network remains outdated and vulnerable. It is fragile, and every major storm exposes that weakness. Despite repeated opportunities, we have not yet fully embraced renewable resources, such as wind, solar, hydro and anaerobic digestion. Doing so would not only strengthen our energy security, which needs to become a serious matter for debate, but decentralise generation and move us towards a more sustainable and resilient future.

We should also look outward. Other countries have faced even harsher weather. From the Netherlands to Australia, we can see cases where they have shown what can be achieved through investment and, in particular, resilient flood defences and community-based preparedness. In Australia, for example, flash flood response relies heavily on education and local drills. Northern Ireland can and should learn from those international examples, adopting what works, adapting what does not and building a strategy fit for our unique landscape.

As we look to the future, we must also ensure that our ambition for green, energy-efficient communities goes hand in hand with building storm-proof, resilient communities. Sustainability and strength must be integrated; it is not one or the other. We need to create homes and neighbourhoods that are as efficient as they are robust.

Let us act with urgency and focus on collaboration. Let us ensure that every community, whether it is rural or urban, is not just ready but empowered when the next storm arrives. We owe it to the people whom we represent and their communities to let them know that they are not defined by tomorrow's storms and that the Chamber is speaking about it today, and we are going to act.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Phillip Brett, moving the amendment.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We do not underestimate the importance of having a strategic focus on Europe as our closest neighbour. Following Brexit, our officials continue to explore how best to engage strategically to manage the challenges of our new relationship as well as maximise the opportunities that it presents. That work has been considered as part of the development of the new overarching international relations strategy, and it will intersect with broader Executive and departmental strategies and actions.

We live in an increasingly interconnected world, one where developments and decisions elsewhere impact on us directly. If we are to drive prosperity and tackle disadvantage across our communities and deliver on our Programme for Government ambitions, we must engage with key international partners. That will be important in setting out our longer-term approach to global engagement.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, First Minister, for your response. Regardless of Brexit, our relationship with the rest of Europe has become more complex and difficult. As citizens and businesses, it is essential that we engage positively and productively with our European neighbours. Will you commit to advancing a strategy so that there is something concrete in place before end of the mandate?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We are moving closer to finalising an international relations strategy, which will focus on all our international relations but, in a post-Brexit world in particular, our relationship with Europe more generally. Certainly, there is a recognition that Europe remains one of our most significant partners for trade, investment and cultural exchange.

Our international relations strategy is going to be supported by thematic and regional delivery plans, and that is all going to be important. We are engaging constantly with an ever-increasing number of ambassadors who are choosing to visit here and to talk to us about building relationships. That is going to be really important. I am hoping to come to the House in the near future with a new international relations strategy.

Mr Kearney: Minister, I turn to the economic element of our relationship with Europe. In your Transforming Communities for Inclusion (TCI) global conference speech, a few days ago, you said that the North can now boast that Titanic Belfast is one of the most attractive visitor experiences in Europe, that we are now looking at cruises to this destination becoming more popular than in any other part of Europe in a relative sense, and that, in the context of the all-island economy —

Mr Speaker: Question, Mr Kearney.

Mr Kearney: — our exports are growing. Therefore, Minister, do you agree that now is the time for us to maximise our access to the dual-market economy?

Mrs O'Neill: In short, yes, absolutely. You mentioned the TCI conference. That was a conference last week that I and the Taoiseach spoke at. The theme of the conference was clustering and how we work together. I took the opportunity to talk about the manufacturing and engineering growth and advancement (MEGA) network, which is a fantastic example of advanced manufacturing companies coming together across my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. That is a really good example of how, collaboratively, we can work together.

You mentioned our having dual-market access, and I spoke about that at the event. The fact that we have unique access for local businesses to trade freely with the EU and British markets — two of the world's largest — gives us access to more than 500 million customers and a net worth of £6 trillion. That is why it is important that we continue to reach for all those opportunities to create jobs and grow our economy. We have that unique selling point, and we have to maximise it. That is at the heart of the work of the Department for the Economy through Dr Caoimhe Archibald.

With regard to international relations more generally, in the past month, we have met a considerable number of ambassadors who are choosing to visit here to talk about areas of partnership and areas where we can engage and grow international trade. We need to continue to grab on to the dual-market access and maximise it to our benefit.

Ms McLaughlin: The UK Chancellor recently announced plans for a new youth mobility agreement with the EU. Have the Executive made any formal representations to ensure that young people here are included in that scheme?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, we raised that issue at a recent meeting with a British Government Minister whose name escapes me just now. We had a discussion about youth mobility. Clearly, there is a whole new strategic focus, with a new partnership arrangement between the British Government and the EU, and the youth mobility scheme is built into that. Our young people should be afforded the opportunity to have that freedom of movement, so we will continue to make that case.

Mrs O'Neill: Recent comments quoted in the BBC 'Borderland' podcast are a matter for those who were interviewed. Our Department has been representing the interests of victims and survivors for many years. We remain committed to ensuring that their needs are met. A key commitment in the victims and survivors strategy is to provide support for victims and survivors and their families as they move forward from experiences of the past. The strategy also recognises the importance of truth and justice and the need to work towards greater societal recognition of the hurt, loss and trauma of our past. We will continue to provide support for victims and survivors in dealing with the legacy of the past and will take a flexible approach to deal with changing needs and circumstances.

Mr Gaston: The front page of 'The Irish News' today has a story about revelations in a podcast about the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre. Does the First Minister agree that the IRA was guilty of murder? No weasel or honeyed words, First Minister: was Enniskillen an example of mass murder; yes or no?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows — I have said it on many occasions in the House — there were many injustices and tragedies in our past. Our job is to try to heal the wounds of the past. Our job is to try to ensure that we support victims and survivors. Many people have been impacted on by the conflict here. We should not be selective. Equally, we should not try to pawn victims for political point-scoring in this place. Let us work together to support all victims and survivors.

Mrs Dillon: First Minister, I know that you have previously acknowledged that every death during the conflict years left a deep legacy of suffering and trauma. Given the deep suffering and trauma carried by so many families and victims across our society and beyond, how can we ensure that, in the Chamber, there is less petty politicking, and using and abusing of victims, and that we conduct ourselves in a manner that is about acknowledging all loss, with everyone taking responsibility for what was done in their name?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for her question and also for the tone in which she presented it, because it is important that we reflect on the fact that at the heart of this conversation are people who have been impacted on and hurt by conflict. We must never forget all those who lost their lives or were injured or, indeed, families who still deal with grief. I have said in the Chamber many times that I regret every single loss of life in the conflict, and I will work every day with others to ensure that we continue the work of reconciliation and continue to support our victims and survivors. The Member is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the pain of victims and survivors should never be used to score points in this place or to reopen old wounds time and time again, week after week. We would be much better working together in this Chamber to try to heal the wounds of the past and build a brighter and better future.

Mrs Cameron: The First Minister has previously said that there was no alternative to IRA violence, and her party colleague Michelle Gildernew has now stated that murder was justified. How can victims have any confidence in the First Minister and her party to represent their interests?

Mrs O'Neill: I set out in my original answer the work that we are carrying forward in our Executive Office to support victims and survivors, and we will continue to do that work. Comments made by other commentators in a podcast or any other public forum are for them to answer for.

Ms Bradshaw: Given the change of focus of the new legacy proposals that are put forward in the joint framework, what work will your Department do with others to ensure that we see delivery of sustainable, long-term reconciliation on this island?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will be aware that, towards the end of last week, the British Government published the legislative text. I think that we are all taking a look through that to ensure that it does what it needs to do, which is command the support of victims and survivors. Equally, we want to ensure that it is human-rights compliant. Through legislation, there is an opportunity to help all those people who have been affected by conflict, but it has to be the right legislation. It has to meet the tests and command the confidence of victims and survivors.

Reconciliation is the work of all of us who are elected to the House. Through that work, we should all step outside our comfort zone, reach out to one another and do everything that we can to build a better future. I will continue to lead the way in that regard, and I know that many others in the Chamber are committed to doing so as well.

Mr Burrows: I was on 'The Nolan Show' last week with the First Minister's former colleague Francie Molloy. He said that anyone with information about republican atrocities such as the Enniskillen bomb should give it to the police for them to undertake a criminal investigation. Does the First Minister believe that anyone with information about crimes committed by either loyalist or republican terrorists should give it to the lawful authority in order to support a criminal investigation? Yes or no?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said previously, I do not comment on how others choose to conduct themselves in a public forum. I also encourage the Member not to be selective in what he chooses to pick out. It is important that we deal with the past holistically, that people with information come forward and that we find a way in which to heal the wounds of the past, but we will do that only if we work together instead of point-scoring.

Mrs O'Neill: The international relations strategy is under development and will intersect with broader Executive and departmental strategies and actions. The strategy will be important for setting out our longer-term approach to global engagement. Our officials have engaged extensively with partners in local government on its development. They host quarterly discussions with representatives of each local council to ensure a shared awareness of incoming visits and the work of our overseas offices. That encourages local engagement on the development of our international relations policies and on the design of programmes for visiting delegations. Our officials work to ensure that delegations can visit all our local councils and witness at first hand the varied sectoral expertise, tourism offering and opportunities for investment. We continue to take every opportunity to show that we are open to having partnerships that support our economic growth and that deliver outcomes for all our citizens.

Mr Carroll: I thank the First Minister for her answer. She is aware that, earlier this year, Belfast City Council passed a motion, with the votes of Sinn Féin councillors among others, that expressed objection to the use of Belfast International Airport by US warplanes. At least 60 of them have gone through Aldergrove this year. Will she give an update on conversations with Belfast City Council on that matter and any action that she has taken as First Minister to express, I presume, her opposition to that fact?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, we share a position on that. There will, however, be no joint Executive Office position on the issue. The council will therefore not get joint Executive Office correspondence. We received a letter from the council to let us know about the motion and to invite comment from us.

The reality is that international relations are not a devolved matter but an excepted matter for the British Government to deal with. As I said earlier, we conduct ambassadorial engagements, but the operation of military aircraft and their use of airports is not devolved to here. Personally, I concur with the position that Belfast City Council adopted.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the First Minister expand on what the Executive Office does to build international relations?

Mrs O'Neill: As I have already referred to, even in the past month alone, the deputy First Minister and I met the ambassadors of Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Belgium, Finland and Estonia, as well as the EU ambassador to Britain, Pedro Serrano. Through all such engagements, we take the opportunity to promote trade, tourism, higher education, digital industries, cybersecurity and fintech, as well as our unique access to both markets.

We have our offices in Washington DC, Brussels and Beijing, all of which play a key role in promoting our interests as we continue to strengthen our reputation as a world-class destination in which to work, live, invest and study. Moreover, we have 25 Invest NI offices in key locations globally. Looking ahead, our new international relations strategy will build on all those engagements and look at the changing picture in a post-Brexit world. Given what is happening internationally, there is a lot on which to reflect. I hope that, in the coming period, we will be back here discussing our international relations strategy.

Mr Durkan: First Minister, given the potential for international partnerships to drive investment and tourism, will you outline what practical role Invest NI and Tourism NI have played in shaping the international relations strategy?

Mrs O'Neill: There has been considerable engagement across all those bodies, because it is important, as I said, that we join up all the dots. A lot of work is happening at an Invest NI level and a tourism level. We are in 25 key locations globally with Invest NI, and we have our three offices in Brussels, the US and Beijing. You have to overlay all those areas of work, and that is what you will see as the product and the outworking of the investment strategy itself.

Mrs O'Neill: Through the NSMC joint secretariat, our Department supports the delivery of all activity under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. The North/South structures are fully operational, with Ministers regularly meeting their counterparts in the Irish Government to take forward activity that benefits both jurisdictions. Just last Friday, we attended the thirtieth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. We had a very good agenda for that meeting, and we discussed topics including business and trade; infrastructure and investment; emergency planning and preparedness; and ending violence against women and girls, all of which are areas where there are opportunities for us to work together with the Irish Government to deliver better outcomes for our people. We will make a full report on that meeting and the NSMC institutional meeting that took place on the same day to the Assembly in the near future.

Looking forward, arrangements are in the process of being finalised for a full series of NSMC sectoral meetings that will take place before the end of the year. At those meetings, Executive colleagues will engage with their opposite number in the Irish Government to discuss the various areas where we can work together for mutual benefit.

Mrs Mason: First Minister, you mentioned that Friday's meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council was, indeed, the thirtieth plenary meeting. That is clearly a significant milestone. Looking ahead, will you outline how the Executive can build on the important work that has already been done to deepen cooperation across the island, particularly in the areas of health, infrastructure and the economy, and how that cooperation benefits people in both jurisdictions?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, in addition to the 30 plenary meetings, over 330 meetings of the Council have taken place. That shows sustained engagement across all the areas of cooperation. It is very much about laying strong foundations for closer engagement and collaboration and for planning. There is so much to be gained from working together on the practical, everyday issues and improving people's lives, be it across health or education. The new area that we are now talking about is how we can collaborate on ending violence against women and girls. We share that common cause, because it is such a huge problem across our island. We also talked about emergency planning and preparedness. If the pandemic taught us anything, it was that we need to have really strong collaboration across the island.

Looking ahead, I want to see that continue to strengthen. We want to continue to grow and expand those areas. We also have the Shared Island Fund, which the Member will know about, as it funded the Narrow Water bridge project in her constituency. So many projects are now being advanced as a direct result of that. That is really good, practical cooperation, and we can build on that in the time ahead.

Mrs O'Neill: Since we have been in post, attracting inward investment to help grow our globally competitive and sustainable economy has been one of the Executive's key priorities. As First Minister and deputy First Minister, we have taken an active role in promoting our region and all that it has to offer as a great place to live, work, study and invest. We have been working together with the Economy Minister and other Executive colleagues to show that we are open for business internationally and to support our local companies that contribute so much to driving growth and innovation here.
In the past 18 months, we have taken that message to representatives of the world's leading economies, many of whom have come here to visit us to see for themselves just how far we have come. Just this month, we met the Italian and German ambassadors to explore closer links between our countries. In the past year, we have had similar conversations with Ministers and ambassadors from all sorts of areas, be it the US, China, France, India or Japan, as well as leading an academic delegation to North Carolina to build our reputation and attract inward investment. We had the Open in July, when the eyes of the world were very much on us. That promoted us among global business leaders and strengthened our reputation. We are very much becoming a destination of choice.

Mr Clarke: I suppose that I could be described as churlish for going back to the podcast on which the First Minister's party colleague made those comments. Of course, the First Minister would say that those were her colleague's comments and were not made on behalf of the party.

In response to her colleague from, I think, West Belfast, the First Minister talked about Northern Ireland being a world-class destination. How can we say, on the one hand, that Northern Ireland is a world-class destination and give the description she gave, which was glowing with regard to what Northern Ireland has to offer, while, on the other hand, her Executive colleague makes it difficult for the defence industry to invest in Northern Ireland. How do those two things square?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not agree with what you said. The heart of the economic plan, project and strategy that the Economy Minister has developed is very much about growing a strong economy. The Member can see all the opportunities that have been created over the 18 months since the Executive were formed. We will continue to create opportunities and jobs and grow the economy to make people's lives better. That is at the heart of the strategy. Regional balance, equally, is at the heart of the strategy, in order to ensure that prosperity is felt across the board. The really good examples of job creation that we have seen in recent days are to be celebrated, and there are many more to come.

Ms Sheerin: First Minister, creating a globally progressive and sustainable economy is at the heart of the Programme for Government. What work has been done to progress that?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, at the heart of the economic plan is a focus on productivity, targeting resources at seven high-potential sectors and using dual market access to drive export growth. Also at its heart is investment in talent with the launch of a new skills action plan. That will take time. When trying to harness those new investments, it takes a bit of time to see the positive impact of the approach, but we are already starting to see that coming through. In the two years since the Windsor framework came into effect, the export of goods has increased by 2%, compared with a decline of 9% in Britain. Cross-border trade between North and South has reached a record £12 billion, up by 7% in one year. That shows how much things are changing. Our overall economic growth is estimated to have been 3·5% over the past year, compared with a 1·4% increase in Britain. That is a strong performance in spite of the rising costs of doing business and uncertainties such as restricted access to labour, the introduction of the US tariffs and the constraints on public investment that have been imposed by London. It is testament to the resilience and adaptability of our local businesses and to Dr Caoimhe Archibald's leadership of the Economy Department.

Mr Dickson: First Minister, you will be aware that the Prime Minister recently took university chancellors from around the United Kingdom with him on a business trip. What actions is the Executive Office taking to include our university vice chancellors in inward investment to Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: Just last year, we led an academic delegation to North Carolina. As part of the new international relations strategy, there will be an opportunity for us to work more collaboratively. We are in a small part of the world where we all know one another. Our strengths include our connectedness and agility. For example, where industry has a need, we can work with our local universities and have a partnership between academia, government and industry. That needs to be at the core of the new international relations strategy, and we need to look for opportunities to collaborate and do things together.

Mr O'Toole: I do not doubt — no one doubts it — that there have been lots of photo ops and warm words, but the people who are going to make decisions on investing in this place want to know what the Executive are doing to build road and rail and to invest in our crumbling waste water infrastructure. All the meetings and engagement in the world amount to nothing if those people do not understand that. When will the investment strategy be published? It has been promised since the Assembly came back, but there has been no sign of it. When will we see that document?

Mrs O'Neill: An immense amount of work has already informed the key themes that are set out in the current draft of the investment strategy. Those themes were shaped by over 400 engagements. There was wide-ranging engagement through formal public consultation, findings from equality and needs impact assessments and extensive engagement with Departments and wider stakeholders. Some key considerations still need to be worked through to finalise the strategy. It remains under consideration, but we hope to bring it to the Executive in the very near future. The timeline for its approval and publication will then be a matter for the Executive.

Mrs O'Neill: We have made substantial progress in advancing and agreeing a new Programme for Government and have secured £1·3 billion of new funding from the Treasury. We have launched the childcare scheme, saving working parents £8 million and expanding support from 15,000 to 24,000 children through a £55 million investment. We have delivered over 100,000 additional outpatient appointment diagnostic tests and inpatient procedures via waiting list initiatives, passing the 70,000 target for the mandate. We have invested £45 million via the regional balance fund to boost regional growth and over £20 million in the skills fund, supporting over 9,000 individuals and 1,000 employers through a range of training initiatives linked to our economic priorities. We have committed £3·2 million to community-led initiatives under the ending violence against women and girls strategy; delivered 14 of the 37 actions to protect and restore Lough Neagh; allocated £129 million through the transformation fund to reform public services; and established an office of AI and digital to drive innovation. That includes £61 million to expand primary care multidisciplinary teams over the next five years, supporting an additional 680,000 people.

We have undertaken a range of engagements to see at first hand how the Programme for Government priorities are making a difference and are progressing on the ground. It is encouraging to see the progress to date. However, we have much more to do to continue to do what matters most in driving positive reform and transformation and improving people's lives.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat

First Minister for that detailed response. I note that you referred to the launch of the childcare scheme at the end of your response. Do you agree that we still need to do much more to deliver high-quality and affordable childcare for parents?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We have made good progress by identifying that area, and we are making a difference by investing £55 million in early learning and childcare for 2025-26, but, of course, we have much more to do. We want to deliver more and support more parents. Up to this point, we have delivered £8 million in savings to parents. That makes a big difference across the board, but we want to do more. We have expanded preschool education and will expand it even more in September 2026. Incrementally, we are making a difference. I want us to be as ambitious as we can be to support working families. Childcare is one of the things that become the biggest bill in the house and is so challenging for so many people, but we have made progress in that area. The Minister of Education will publish the childcare strategy and bring it to the Executive. It is important that that has the chance to be aired, and it is important that we see how much more progress we can make.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Ms Reilly: Tá mé sásta a chur in iúl go bhfuil an próiseas earcaíochta maidir leis an stiúrthóir agus na baill eile den Oifig um Fhéiniúlacht agus Léiriú Cultúrtha, maidir leis an Choimisinéir Teanga don Ghaeilge agus maidir leis an Choimisinéir um Thraidisiún na nAlbanach Uladh agus na mBriotanach Uladh ag teacht chun críche agus go ndéanfaimid fógraí a chur amach in am agus i dtráth.

Ms Ennis: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Irish Language Commissioner's role will be vital in promoting best practice standards on the use of the Irish language in the provision of our public services and by our public bodies?

Ms Reilly: Absolutely. My stance, as someone who was born and reared with the Irish language, will shock nobody. I know, see and have learned the incredible importance of an Gaeilge, but, of course, it is so important that best practice standards in the use of an Gaeilge are promoted across public services and, indeed, across our society. More and more people use the language gach uile lá

. They go for coffee as Gaeilge and go to youth clubs, play sport, do their messages, sing songs, watch films and TV shows and live their lives through the medium of Irish. Those are people of all ages and at all stages of their language journey. I think of my nephew, who is five years old, in primary 1 and completely fluent, and of my mother, who learned the language later in life and was able to gain employment in the Irish-medium education sector. Supporting the language properly and making it visible in public services and provisions is essential to building a society that is representative of the richness of culture that exists here. That is a society that is built on fairness, equality and justice.

Mr McGlone: A Aire, dúirt Uachtarán Chonradh na Gaeilge le déanaí go bhfuil an-díomá uirthi faoin mhoill atá ar cheapachán na gcoimisinéirí teanga. Cad é go díreach an chúis leis an mhoill ar na ceapacháin sin laistigh den Choiste Feidhmiúcháin?

Ms Reilly: Níl cúis ar bith le moill ar bith ar na ceapacháin sa phróiseas seo. Tá súil agam, mar a dúirt mé, an fógra oifigiúil sin a dhéanamh go han-luath. Tá an ról a imreoidh na coimisinéirí seo ríthábhachtach lena chinntiú go ndéanfaidh ár n-iarracht chomhroinnte meas a chosaint agus go gcuirfear sin ar aghaidh go dtí na glúnta atá le teacht. Tá mise ag dúil go mór le ceapachán na gcoimisinéirí sin agus ag dúil go mór le bheith ag obair leo uile nuair a bheidh siad sa ról sin.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Casement Park remains a flagship project of the Executive and we are actively working to make it happen. The project must be built for all the reasons that the Member is only too aware of: there is the economic benefit from the construction, and the investment in Gaelic games is long-overdue. I assure you that I continue to work night and day to ensure that it is done.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I asked you not whether you were working night and day but whether construction would begin before the end of the mandate, so I would like a specific answer to that question.

More broadly, is the Environment Minister right to say that the Executive are sliding into backbiting and what he calls, "A battle a day"?

Mrs O'Neill: There are two different questions. Yes, Casement Park will be started, and yes, Casement Park will be built. I will work night and day to ensure that that is the case.

When it comes to Andrew Muir's comment, "Battle a day" are words that he decided to use. There is no doubt that the Executive arrangement is challenging, but we are in there every day, fighting the good fight on behalf of the people; we are in there every day, taking on the challenges; and we are in there every day, trying to deliver for people whilst others stand on the sidelines and just bicker.

Mrs O'Neill: There was a glimmer of hope last week with the ceasefire announcement, and we very much welcome the return of the Palestinian and Israeli political prisoners and hostages and their being reunited with their families. However, that needs to be built on, and eternal vigilance is needed because we all watch on in absolute horror and dismay when we see Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people. That is an outrage to international opinion; it is a flagrant breach of international law; it is state-sponsored famine; it is ethnic cleansing; it is displacement of people; and it is the biggest humanitarian disaster of our time. Israel has very much weaponised hunger, relentlessly slaughtered women and children and forcibly destroyed the majority of Gaza, making it uninhabitable.

The devastation that we have all witnessed for the past two years is completely inhumane, and the absolute priority — you are 100% right — has to be getting aid to those people by allowing through the aid, support, equipment and everything else that is required to help the Palestinian people.

Mr McGuigan: I completely concur that what has happened is inhumane. Further to the First Minister's touching on a glimmer of hope that needs to be built on, does she agree that the impetus for a lasting peace must be grasped?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We have already seen a lot of volatility, even since the ceasefire was announced. Absolutely, I urge all sides to faithfully implement the ceasefire agreement and, in doing so, to negotiate in good faith. That must mark a turning point not just for the people of Palestine but for people across the entire Middle East and guarantee a durable peace process for the Palestinian people and the wider Middle East, including an independent Palestinian state. We need to see a two-state solution.

The root causes of the decades-long conflict between Palestine and Israel, which we all know, must now be addressed. This opportunity must be taken. The solution has to include the total withdrawal of the Israeli military from Gaza and the West Bank, and an end to the illegal occupation and apartheid. The Palestinian people always had and continue to have the right to determine their own future. I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end. I sincerely hope that everyone involved will play a constructive role in securing peace and justice.

Mrs O'Neill: Those are not my words. They are not words that I would ever use. My job is to try to build a more prosperous society here; to create opportunities and employment; to make this an inclusive society; and to work with others to govern in the best interests of people. That is very much my focus as everybody's First Minister.

Mr Frew: Will the First Minister then disown her party colleague for the words that she used?

Mrs O'Neill: I have been very clear in saying that I do not concur with those words. They were her words, and I will not answer for someone else's words.

Mrs O'Neill: We launched our strategy in 2024. It is one of the areas in which the Executive are very much united. Ending that scourge is a top priority for all of us around the Executive table and for all Executive parties. As the Member knows, our strategy is based on prevention and early intervention. Some of the work that we have seen thus far is making a real and positive difference. The change fund has invested over £3 million to empower community and voluntary organisations that are working, at grassroots level, to tackle the root causes. The Power to Change campaign has been really powerful. It was launched by TEO, Justice and the PSNI to challenge unacceptable attitudes and reduce harmful behaviours among men and boys. Far too many women here — it happened as recently as last week — are losing their lives in what is a deeply ingrained misogynistic society. We are making progress, but, of course, we have an awful lot more to do. It will take all of society working together for us to be successful.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the First Minister for her answer. That is a really good example of where this institution works well: identify a problem, develop a framework, put resources in and work with partners on the ground to deliver it. In light of that, my local community development organisation, Brantry Area Rural Development Association, is rolling out a programme to almost 40 young boys and girls in association with White Ribbon. Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister accept an invitation to come and visit that project and see the impact of its work?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I would be delighted to visit the Brantry Area Rural Development Association, because it is projects like those that make a real difference. They get right into the heart of the community: they talk to young guys about their role in this; help them to understand everyday misogyny; assist them to make the right decisions; and show them that they have a role in turning the tide. I would love to visit. The benefit and beauty of how we have rolled out the strategy is that it filters down to a community level, so, yes, I will take up that invitation.

Mrs O'Neill: As I said earlier, the success of any legacy arrangement is predicated on the confidence of victims and survivors. The British Government's publication of the new Bill will begin to test the credibility of their approach with regard to the framework and how it is translated into text.

Perhaps, the deputy First Minister and I will not have the same opinion, but, certainly, in my opinion, the inclusion of a clause to change the law and block compensation for former internees is an act of bad faith. That approach was ruled unlawful in 2020, yet here we have the British Government reintroducing it. I am also concerned about the national security veto. What will that mean for people getting access to information? That will now be firmly at the discretion of the British Secretary of State, and I do not see how that sits well in having a process that people can have confidence in. In addition, the bar for the re-establishment of inquests appears to be so high that very few will be reopened.

Those are all concerns at this stage. We are still working our way through the framework. The glaring omission from what has been published so far is that of the Sean Brown public inquiry. The High Court has ruled five times that there must be a public inquiry, but the British Government seem to be deaf to those legal calls. We are not going to give up on that. We will continue to push the case and stand with the family.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your answer, First Minister. The PSNI's Chief Constable and, as you said, the domestic courts have also called for an inquiry into Sean Brown's murder. Do you therefore believe that the needs of victims should be at the core of the wider process?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, because they are whom it is all about. Victims and families have been waiting for far too long — some have waited for longer than five decades — for access to truth and justice. We have to have in place a process that commands confidence, that is human rights-compliant and that will enjoy the support of many victims and survivors. Any process has to earn people's respect and confidence and then retain that respect and confidence. All of that will be tested in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Mrs O'Neill: The announcement earlier this year that two commissioners, including an Irish language commissioner, will be appointed in the North represents a huge step forward. The Irish language commissioner will play a central role in promoting Gaeilge

across public services and in everyday life. As the junior Minister said earlier, the language continues to flourish at the heart of communities and community life right across the North, including in schools and youth centres. In general, it is about enriching people's lives. Many people, like the junior Minister, have been reared and educated through the medium of Irish. It is therefore important that those people notice the language visibly around them. It is also important that they have a commissioner who will stand up for them. The appointment of the commissioners is imminent.

Ms Flynn: I thank the First Minister for her response. Will she commit to continuing to do everything that she can to build equality and to protect language and cultural rights for everyone right across our society?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. It is about having an inclusive society, about building a place in which everybody is comfortable and about ensuring that the energetic revival of the Irish language continues at pace. Those are things that I very much welcome and encourage. No one has anything to fear from the growth of the Irish language right across our community. It is about respect, inclusivity, parity of esteem and our culture and identity. It is very much about whom we are. The Irish language also very much enhances our society.

We should therefore embrace the fact that we have a rich cultural tapestry here. No one has anything to fear from the identity, culture and beliefs of others. They are something that we should celebrate. We should work day and night to try to create that type of society. I will certainly work with other Ministers to try to build that inclusive society. I want us to work across the Executive to expand, support and celebrate cultural diversity, which is a very positive thing in any society. We need to create opportunities for all our people to learn and engage with their history, identity, culture, language and other things that are important to them.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member asked me a similar question a number of years ago, and I invited her to come and have a conversation with me.

Let us sit down and talk about the past. That is the way in which we heal and try to move forward. My door is open to you at all times to come and sit down and have a conversation. I will never ask anybody to move on, but, if we are to move forward, we need to have an honest conversation about the fact that there were so many injustices and that so much hurt was caused across our society on all sides. Many lives have been trespassed against. Let us try to find a way in which to heal. I am more than happy to sit down with you to discuss that even further.

Mrs Dodds: Once again, the First Minister cannot condemn the actions of the criminals in the IRA. That is part of the problem here: she talks about an inclusive society, but she does not want to include the innocent victims of terrorism. Do you understand the impact that the eulogising of IRA terrorists has on innocent victims?

Mrs O'Neill: If we are going to talk about the past, we must do so honestly. It is important that we recognise that many people out there caused hurt in our society. You cannot cherry-pick. You do not get to pick who, you think, is and is not a victim. There were many injustices in the past. There were many people involved, including the British state, loyalists who donned the Ulster beret — your party would know a lot about that — those who ran weapons and state agents. Let us not be selective. Let us honestly find a way to recognise that there are different experiences and different narratives of the past. That is the first step towards reconciliation. Let us use all our efforts to build for a better future. That is what I am focused on. I believe that the majority of people in this society are also focused on that.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to questions to the Economy Minister. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while the Minister takes her place.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 8 and 11 together.

Local economic partnerships (LEPs) represent an entirely new approach in how the Department works with local government and other local stakeholders. It takes time to instil genuine partnership. The three-year programme allows for the flexibility required to establish LEPs and bring forward action plans that address local economic needs.

LEPs have been established in all 11 council areas. Progress varies across the partnerships, with some still refining economic priorities while others are finalising action plans. Newry, Mourne and Down LEP is the first to submit an action plan to the Department for approval. I anticipate that more will follow soon. On the basis of the latest estimates from councils, approximately £1·5 million of the regional balance fund will be spent in year 1, with the majority of funding being weighted towards years 2 and 3.

Mid and East Antrim LEP is currently refining its action plan with a view to submitting a final version to the Department for approval in the coming months. In September, I met Ards and North Down Borough Council to hear more about the LEP following the partnership's inaugural meeting. I know that the partnership intends to meet again in October to develop its priorities further and identify project proposals.

My officials and Invest NI colleagues will continue to support all partnerships in developing their action plans over the coming months.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. In your answer, Minister, you outlined the purpose of the partnerships, but, of course, the real measure of success will be delivery. You mentioned that £1·5 million is to be spent by the end of this financial year: is the lack of spending a failure by you and your Department?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. No, I do not think that it is a failure. It was necessary to give the partnerships time to establish themselves and come up with their priorities. We want the partnerships to be genuine. Therefore, they require different lengths of time. Some councils already have good relationships and similar arrangements in place on which their partnerships can build. Others are starting from further back and will take longer; hence, I suppose, the difference in where councils are with their action plans. We have ensured that the spend is spread over the three years and that we follow the trajectory of the spend, with the lesser spend in year 1 meaning that spend works its way through years 2 and 3. We want to make sure that they will deliver for people on the ground.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, can you outline what types of project are coming forward?

Dr Archibald: There is a wide range of actions being brought forward by the partnerships that are intended to address identified local economic needs. Proposals include business support and mentoring, workspace development and tourism initiatives.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be aware that 89% of Northern Ireland's businesses are microenterprises, many of which operate in our town centres. How does the Minister envisage the LEPs supporting town-centre regeneration and the growth of the small businesses that are so vital to the local economy?

Dr Archibald: The benefit of the LEPs, the positive about them — the beauty of them, so to speak — is that they are devolved to local areas to come up with what, they feel, are their economic priorities. If there is a particular initiative that they want to take in respect of town-centre regeneration, that is for them to include in their action plans. The funding allocated to each of the LEPs is designed to support them to leverage additional funding from other Departments. We encourage them to build those relationships across Departments, as well as working directly with us and our officials.

Mr Dunne: The Minister may be aware that the latest figures from Invest NI show that zero jobs were created by external investment in the Ards and North Down area for the fifth consecutive year. Can the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to address that worrying trend? Does she believe that the LEP can be an effective part of the measures addressing that regional imbalance?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The increased focus from Invest NI on indigenous businesses and the subregional economic plan is a good vehicle for trying to address some of the challenges that he has outlined. The LEPs represent an opportunity to ensure that there is more investment and job creation and that the priorities of each of the LEPs are being taken forward. It is up to the partners around the table to bring forward their priorities and to develop an action plan to support those. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to meet Ards and North Down LEP just after it was established, and progress is being made. It is incumbent on us as elected representatives to engage with the LEPs, to advocate on their behalf and to make them aware of the priorities and projects that other LEPs are developing so that there can be a sharing of knowledge. I would encourage that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you were previously Finance Minister. Your colleague the current Finance Minister has been engaged in a long-running consultation on changes to rates. There is no crystallisation on what those will be. Are you advocating specific changes to the rating system to get more properties back on the high street and businesses to engage back on the high street? Are you making that specific case, and when will we see those coming forward?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He is right: I published the rates review, and one of the things that I said at the time was that I would be inclined to look at non-domestic vacant property rate relief. That would be a useful vehicle to incentivise businesses back on to our high streets but only if it was done in partnership with regeneration. There is a real opportunity to work cross-departmentally on that issue as to how we revitalise and rejuvenate our high streets. The rating system is the main lever that we have to generate revenue, so we have to carefully balance when we are trying to make changes to it.

Dr Archibald: Go Succeed is an important part of the business support landscape and provides essential advice and guidance to anyone looking to start or grow a business. It is a council-led service and is funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). It was expected that the successor of that funding would be transferred to the Executive following the British Government's spending review announcement in June. I met Enterprise NI in September to discuss the future of Go Succeed. While I am ready to establish a co-design group to consider improvements to the service, clarity is needed on its future funding position. I am concerned that the new local growth fund appears to be heavily skewed towards capital, with only 33% resource funding. That is significantly lower than for the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was 75% resource-based. That risks significant harm to projects such as Go Succeed that are delivering important services currently funded using resource under the SPF. I am keen to ensure that there is continuity of service and that any disruption to businesses and entrepreneurs due to a gap in funding is avoided. My officials are urgently coordinating with the Department of Finance, councils and other stakeholders to determine next steps.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her response. From her response, I am sure that she will agree that it is unacceptable that such an important service is facing uncertainty five months from now, given how vital business support schemes are to economic development. Can the Minister tell us about any work that the Department is doing to prepare for a scenario in which that business support ends in 2026?

Dr Archibald: I agree with the Member. It is absolutely regrettable and disgraceful that we are in this position again. When the European social fund (ESF) ended, there was a cliff edge, and we said that we did not want to see that again. I have consistently made that case, as has my colleague the Minister of Finance, to the British Government, and I know that there is unanimity around the Chamber on the issue. My priority is to ensure the continuation of the funding of Go Succeed from the local growth fund. It is vital that the service is not interrupted or delayed because of the lack of information that is available to us. Therefore, I continue to engage at ministerial level, as I said, to ensure that such a scenario is avoided.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the Minister's response and the fact that her priority is to see no interruption to services. Will she give her assessment of the impact of Go Succeed to date?

Dr Archibald: Since its launch in November 2023, Go Succeed has demonstrated a significant impact across the North, empowering entrepreneurs and small businesses with tailored support and expert guidance. It has helped thousands of individuals to turn ideas into viable enterprises, contributing to local economic growth and job creation. It has had a transformative effect at local level, and I am particularly pleased to see strong engagement from female entrepreneurs who have been supported through the service. I have had the opportunity to visit and meet businesses that have been supported by Go Succeed, and I have been really encouraged by the feedback that they have provided. The mode of delivery, working alongside councils, local enterprise agencies and other partners, is a really good example of collaborative working. It is the type of initiative that the local economic partnerships are based on and is a demonstration of how successful that approach can be.

Dr Archibald: We have numerous existing tourism products that embrace the opportunities that America250 brings, and we recognise the links between America and those of Irish and Ulster-Scots heritage. Those, as well as their links to the story of America, are showcased on the America250 page on Tourism NI’s websites. Among the relevant key attractions are the Ulster American Folk Park, Hillsborough Castle and the Ulster Folk Museum as well as the Siege Museum and the Tower Museum in Derry. Both Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland are represented on the America250 working groups along with a number of partners including PRONI, DFC, the Ulster-Scots Agency, National Museums and local authorities. That collaborative approach will ensure that plans for America250 are tourism-focused, using visitor interests such as Irish and Ulster-Scots heritage, genealogy, music and literature, sport, screen and US presidents. Tourism Ireland will also use this opportunity to encourage more US visitors to come here to explore shared ancestry, history and heritage.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her response. Given the unique links between America and Northern Ireland, including the many in the constituency that the Minister and I share, will she engage with Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland to make sure that the Ulster-Scots story features in the branding and promotion next year?

Dr Archibald: There are opportunities to be garnered from America250 and the clear linkages across this island with people who emigrated to make a better life in America and whose descendants have come back and want to find out about their history and heritage. I am happy to engage on whatever opportunities and initiatives there might be.

Mr Kearney: It is clear that the American market is a very important asset in the promotion of tourism here. What more can be done to optimise the promotion of our tourism offering here — on an all-island basis — within the United States?

Dr Archibald: The US market plays a vital role in tourism in the North. Statistics from NISRA show that, in 2024, US visitors took 189,000 overnight trips to the North, spending £67 million. There is a significant opportunity to work with Tourism Ireland across the island on marketing and promotional activities that will be effective in building on the continued trend of US visitors coming here.

There are a number of key opportunities across the year — St Patrick's Day, for example. There is also a campaign under the branding of "The Home of Halloween" — obviously, we have a significant asset in that regard in the city of Derry. There is a significant opportunity to build on the success that we already have in attracting visitors from the United States.

Ms D Armstrong: Will the Minister provide an update on the Mid South West growth deal investment in the Ulster American Folk Park in Omagh and the role that that attraction will play in the upcoming celebrations?

Dr Archibald: I am not sure that I have the information that the Member is asking for in front of me, but if she wants to write to me, I will be happy to furnish her with an update on that project.

Mr Gaston: Individual councils appear to be making their own plans to mark the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence. What work is the Minister's Department doing to ensure that there will be an overarching and joined-up approach to ensuring that our landmarks with links to the United States of America in such villages as Dervock, Cullybackey and Coagh are being marketed to ensure that their story is also being told?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In some regards, councils are best placed to develop specific initiatives for local areas, because they will understand exactly what attractions they have and what initiatives can be developed. Tourism NI has a suite of marketing support and business development tools that can be utilised by businesses and others to focus on the specific messaging around America250.

Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland have already outlined their promotional plans for the year to the America250 partner teams. The Minister for Communities has announced funding to support activity that is intended to draw out and promote the historical connection between the North and the United States. There are therefore opportunities to work across councils to develop a promotional offering.

Dr Archibald: My Department regulates the minimum quality standards for visitor accommodation across the North. It makes regulations to set standards for such areas as cleanliness, maintenance, essential facilities and comfort that operators must meet.

Airbnb is a marketing platform, just as Tripadvisor and Booking.com are, and is used to advertise a range of accommodation types. Most properties that use the platform fall within the scope of Tourism NI's statutory certification scheme. Under that scheme, Tourism NI ensures compliance by inspecting all new accommodation establishments before they begin operating, and re-inspecting existing businesses at least once every four years. My Department and Tourism NI recently completed a review of the scheme's statutory criteria. That review highlighted how our world-class tourism offering has evolved over recent years. In response, I recently launched a public consultation on proposed changes to future-proof the tourism industry's minimum standards and improve visitor satisfaction.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your answer, Minister. What else is being done to control Airbnb rentals in areas of high housing demand?

Dr Archibald: Any property owner who wishes to use their property as a short-term let or an Airbnb rental must apply for a change of use through their council's planning department. The council can then assess the impact on local housing supply when considering whether to grant that change of use. Tourism NI has a formal data-sharing agreement with Belfast City Council to facilitate exchange of information about the certification of tourism accommodation. That ensures that both parties are aware of potential legislative breaches and can progress appropriate enforcement action on both sides as necessary. Tourism NI is working to put in place similar data-sharing arrangements with all other local authorities.

Mr McMurray: Minister, there are a number of Airbnb rentals across my constituency; there are approximately 100 in Newcastle alone. How does the Minister propose to balance the contribution that they make to the economy with the need to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the market?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I am familiar with that issue in my constituency. It cuts across a number of Departments. The Communities Minister is bringing forward our housing supply strategy, and he intends to launch research to understand the impact of short-term lets on the local housing market. That research will help inform all the Departments involved about the types of measure that they may need to take to regulate and control the proliferation of Airbnb rentals that we are seeing.

Mr Brett: Does the Minister believe that the current eight statutory categories of tourism accommodation are sufficient, or would she support expanding them to include new types of developments, such as glamping pods, which would further cover what Airbnb provides?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I mentioned, in my initial answer, the public consultation that we have just launched. We are looking at accommodation categories, such as budget hotels, aparthotels and glamping pods, to ensure that different types of accommodation are regulated and able to access support. I know of examples in my constituency where people wanted to access support for glamping pods but were ineligible for such support. There is a good opportunity for people to respond to the consultation so that we can make the appropriate changes.

Mr Durkan: Has the Minister considered introducing legislation to ensure that booking platforms verify that all listed properties are properly registered as short-term tourist accommodation?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As new and emerging trends continue to develop, it has become evident that some accommodation falls out of the scope of our regulatory remit and certification scheme. The consultation that I have referred to proposes the creation of a new stand-alone category called "alternative accommodation" in order to better support the providers who offer or wish to offer new types of accommodation and to regulate that accommodation. We are also engaging with booking platforms to encourage them to engage with us on new applications as they come forward. That is work in progress.

Dr Archibald: The 'Childcare Providers Targeted Business Support Market Research' report was published on 24 September 2025. My Department, in agreement with the Education Minister, is leading on recommendation 1:

My officials are working closely with Invest NI to develop a costed plan to deliver the service. I recognise the importance of ensuring that the service is accessible to all types of childcare providers, including voluntary organisations, community providers, childminders and childcare businesses. It is equally vital that the service operates continuously, enabling us to better assess the sector’s financial requirements. That ongoing approach will allow us to adapt our support to meet the evolving needs of childcare providers over time.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she be working in partnership with the childcare sector to design that service?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is really important that we work in partnership with the sector, so I have asked my officials to ensure that the new service is designed in partnership. An initial pilot is being considered to allow meaningful engagement during the early stages of the service's development.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for coming to answer questions today when she is clearly so unwell. She is such a trooper.

Childcare businesses tell me that there is a chronic shortage of applicants and that the recruitment process is lengthy and complex. Much of that is because of the minimum standards of review, which is to do with the Department of Health. What engagement is your Department therefore having in order to speed up the process, because it is crucial that childcare businesses overcome those barriers?

Dr Archibald: The Member is quite right. There are challenges in the childcare sector that cut across a number of Departments. The Minister of Education leads on the childcare and early learning strategy, and a cross-departmental group engages on the specific issues.

My Department has the remit for skills development of those working in childcare and in the childminding sector to address shortages. We currently facilitate a range of training and qualification pathways through further and higher education, as well as through apprenticeships and traineeships. This year, I secured over £350,000 to support FE colleges to develop accredited online micro-courses that focus on supporting individuals who have children with additional needs. Further funding has also been provided for research into the barriers to managerial recruitment in the sector.

Mr Speaker: I call Cara Hunter.

Dr Archibald: A second collaborative shared skills academy in the early learning and childcare sector has also recently been launched to support participants with the training that they need in order to obtain entry-level roles in the childcare sector.

Ms Hunter: The Speaker is keen to hear me speak extra soon. Minister, thank you for coming here to answer our questions today. We share a very rural constituency that has a number of childcare providers that face unique challenges as a result of being rural. Those include Appletree Childcare in Glenullin. What engagement have you and your Department had with representatives in those areas who face such challenges?

Dr Archibald: In conducting the research, significant engagement took place with the sector. We encouraged responses from across the childcare sector to ensure that we got the best representation possible. Officials found it challenging to get input from across the sector, however. One of the things that we hope that the advice service will do is to give us a better understanding of the sector and its needs. Getting the pilot up and running and having somebody who is tasked with engaging with the sector will be really important for understanding the type of support that could be needed.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I was just checking to see whether this has happened before, and it has not, but if you want to take some time out, I am happy to facilitate that.

Dr Archibald: I am OK, thank you, but I appreciate the offer.

Dr Archibald: I am committed to delivering a more regionally balanced economy and to supporting the power and impact of our social economy more widely. Community wealth building is an important element of that. Last week, I announced £300,000 of joint funding from my Department and the Department for Communities for two community wealth-building partnerships in the north-west region and in Larne. Each will receive £150,000 to pilot community-led economic and social development initiatives.

As part of the pilot, over 100 people attended a community wealth-building conference in the Playhouse in Derry last week. The conference formed part of the north-west pilot and is a great example of how the initiative brings people together to share ideas and learn from one another. Both pilots will explore how local places can assume a lead role in designing and delivering new approaches to economic development and how the framework contributes to creating resilient local economies and supporting long-term prosperity.

In addition to those pilots, I consulted recently on proposals to strengthen the credit union sector. I intend to introduce legislation in this mandate that will modernise the credit union sector and provide a strong basis for continued growth.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. How has the Department progressed the other recommendations of the 2022 community wealth-building report, which comes under DFE's remit?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. My Department has progressed many of that report's recommendations. We have grown our support for social enterprises, and we published our three-year social enterprise action plan last December, which continues to be implemented in a collaborative way by my Department and the social enterprise co-design group.

Another recommendation was to explore the potential for worker cooperatives and employee ownership. This year, I made almost £100,000 of funding available to Employee Ownership Ireland, which will help to increase awareness and understanding of the employee ownership trust model and support businesses as they explore transition as an option. In addition, I funded Trademark Belfast and Co-operative Alternatives to conduct a six-month education and awareness programme to showcase the benefits of the cooperative business model and raise awareness of how to start a community-based cooperative.

Ms Brownlee: I very much welcome the fact that the pilot will take place in Larne, which is in my East Antrim constituency. Will the Minister provide some more detail on the scheme and what it will mean for local people?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I had the opportunity to visit the Local Economy Development Company (LEDCOM) with the Communities Minister and hear about the pilot. It was one of my first visits as Economy Minister. The north-west pilot brings together Development Trusts NI, Trademark Belfast and Enterprise North West to promote the north-west region and community wealth-building across it. Trademark Belfast will focus on worker buyouts for business succession and economic resilience, while Enterprise North West will connect stakeholders and highlight the benefits of community wealth-building. It is also working to improve social value in procurement and will help local enterprises to access credit union finance. LEDCOM will coordinate the Larne community wealth-building partnership pilot. Its plans include investigating the creation of a life sciences cluster, developing the business case for the Willowbank 2 innovation hub and collaborating with the port of Larne on logistics upgrades and port decarbonisation.

Mr Speaker: I will suspend the sitting until 3.25 pm in order to give the Minister a few minutes to rest her voice. I can see that you are struggling, Minister, whether you want the assistance or not. We will resume in seven or eight minutes at 3.25 pm.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. On Friday past, at the North/South Ministerial Council, I had the opportunity to have a bilateral meeting with my counterpart in the South, James Lawless. We launched the first all-island apprenticeship in accounting technology on Friday, which is a tangible demonstration of the opportunities to work on an all-island basis. We are also working to improve student mobility across the island, and there has been recent work on the Central Applications Office (CAO) points system. We are also looking at how we can better align the likes of the results announcement dates from the CAO and UCAS. We can look at all the opportunities that there are, particularly through the Shared Island Fund, and, in respect of apprenticeships specifically, we want to take up the opportunities to develop further areas of study. Mobility is a particular focus for us.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that. Workforce mobility across the island is critical to addressing persistent labour shortages. Do you support the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry's call for an all-island mobility task force, and what active steps are you taking to establish and contribute to that initiative?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I spoke at the NI Chamber's workforce conference summit on Thursday, but, because of my cough, I was about as successful as I have been in my attempts to respond to questions today. I set out at the conference that I support the idea of a workforce development agency. There is an awful lot more for us to do in this mandate, and I indicated to the chamber that we will likely be into the next mandate before we are in a position to set that up. However, that does not mean that we should not do the preparation work at this point.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. What I set out last week was in response to a report that was undertaken by Invest NI on its investments. In response to that, there is a moral duty on us to ensure that we are not facilitating the genocide that is happening in Gaza. Israel is a regime that is illegally occupying and imposing apartheid in Palestine. It is carrying out a genocide, and there is a legal obligation on all Governments to take action to prevent genocide, including by not arming or providing financial support to those who are committing genocide. That is what I set out in my statement last week.

In respect of memorials and other things across the region, as the Member will be well aware, there was a report by the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT), and it is not my party that is blocking the taking forward of recommendations in that.

Mr Middleton: Minister, you gave no answer whatever about the republican memorial that is near your constituency office. It is my understanding that a consultation was carried out with elected representatives on the removal of that shrine. Will you confirm whether you responded to that consultation? If so, what did you say?

Dr Archibald: I do not have a recollection of what the Member is referring to, but I am happy to correspond with him on that.

Dr Archibald: I was delighted to be at the TCI conference last week, which was hosted in Ireland for the first time, jointly between InterTradeIreland, Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland. It is a flagship event on clusters and innovation ecosystems, and the island of Ireland was chosen to host the twenty-eighth global conference, which marked a significant milestone for it because it is the first time that it has been held on a cross-border basis.

The conference welcomed 250 delegates from more than 25 countries to the island. Cluster tours took place in Dublin, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Dundalk, Belfast and Newry, showcasing the innovation and strength of our current ecosystem in fintech, cybersecurity, life sciences, maritime and advanced manufacturing.

Clusters are a really important part of our economic policy, and it was a fantastic opportunity for us to talk about what we are doing and to learn from what is happening internationally. We have work ongoing through the Shared Island Enterprise Scheme, where InterTradeIreland has taken the lead in the work across the island in partnership with Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland.

I commend the work of InterTradeIreland in organising that truly global conference and providing an opportunity to demonstrate and showcase the world-class clusters that we have on the island.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Manufacturing and Engineering, Growth and Advancement (MEGA) Group Mid Ulster, which is a cluster of engineering companies in the mid-Ulster area, is one of the best local examples of clustering? Does she agree that that is exactly why we need to listen to engineering companies about what we need and how we can work together with universities, local schools and the industry to ensure that the skills base required to keep our engineering companies going will be there in the future?

Dr Archibald: I absolutely agree. MEGA is a standout example of effective clustering in the North. I gave it a shout-out at the conference because it was the first real-life example that I had come across of clustering and industry working together. It brings together key players in advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors and fosters collaboration, innovation and skills development. The strength of MEGA lies not only in its industrial impact but in its commitment to nurturing talent and supporting local businesses and the local economy. It is a model that other regions and sectors could certainly learn from. It points to the impact that clusters can have. They bring economies of scale and enable specialist expertise and capability to be leveraged for the benefit of all businesses, large and small, in the cluster. MEGA is an excellent example of how working together — businesses in partnership with government and academia — can help our economy to become more resilient, innovative and productive.

One of the other things about clusters is that they can help us to capitalise on one of our key strengths, which is the fact that we are small and are interconnected. Everybody knows everybody. Because we are a small region, people in business, academia and government are already well connected and that helps us to collaborate really well. There are many successful examples of that.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I do not happen to have that information in front of me, but I will be happy to furnish the Member with it.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her brief answer. What message do your actions in the last week send to the 9,000 people employed here in our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors, including those who live in my constituency? The sector is worth over £2 billion to our economy. Will you outline any work undertaken by your Department to assess the potential risks to jobs and further investment as a result of your actions?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The message that is sent by the statement that I made last week is that we will have no part in supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza, and, as I outlined to Mr Middleton, we have a moral duty to ensure that we are not doing that and a moral duty to hold to account the Israeli Government for the actions that they have taken. We have a moral obligation to take actions to prevent genocide. I have made it clear that it is my expectation that public funding will not go towards supporting genocide. That is what I set out in my statement last week.

On the wider economy, I work every day to support the betterment of our economy, create jobs and attract investment. We have sectoral action plans that we work on in partnership with businesses to support them to thrive, grow and create jobs. I will continue to do that work.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree: it is an important step forward in supporting our night-time economy. It is a pilot. We want to understand its impact and evaluate it at the end of the year in order to decide whether we should continue to take it forward and whether it can be applied elsewhere across the North. We undertook research on the night-time economy that looked not just at Belfast but at Derry and Enniskillen. Learning can be garnered from the pilot and applied elsewhere, as I said. There will be an evaluation process. The Department for Infrastructure is leading on the initiative, but we are looking at what exactly will be included as part of the evaluation.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer. I suppose that success will be shown in how well the businesses respond to it. What further support will you provide directly to the businesses and in collaboration with the night czar, Michael Stewart, to make sure that it is a success?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. One of the important things about the pilot is that it has a cross-departmental approach. A number of Departments, as well as Belfast City Council, have invested in the pilot, so there is an opportunity to look at how we can jointly support its success.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, we undertook research. We are waiting for the report to be published. We will look at the recommendations that come out of that report to see what more we can do to support the night-time economy in Belfast and more widely.

Dr Archibald: My Department will regularly review skills provisions to meet the evolving needs of the economy, which are aligned with departmental strategies and the economic vision. That includes the Irish-medium accreditation and learner support systems. In the near future, we will commission research to identify barriers and potential solutions to issues that are faced by those who want to achieve Irish-medium accreditation, the findings of which will be published later in 2026. A key piece of research will include the benchmarking of accreditation and learner support models across comparable sectors.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she outline how the skills action plan will enhance all-island working?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I responded to Sinéad in a similar vein. As I mentioned, there are many opportunities for skills development through the all-island skills task force, which will oversee the delivery of PEACE PLUS cross-border skills provision and the PEACE PLUS youth programme and will enhance and contribute to the all-island skills ecosystem in collaboration with partners in the South. My Department and officials will seek to collaborate on an all-island basis, as I mentioned to Sinéad, in order to reduce the cross-border barriers to North/South student mobility, including exploring Shared Island funding as a potential vehicle for further collaborative work across the apprenticeship sector in particular. There are areas that we will want to look at in particular in which there are opportunities for us to gain from what is happening in the South and for our counterparts in the South to gain from what we are doing through our successful delivery model. There are particular areas of demand for skills. I think, for example, of green skills, for which there is a clear need to develop new pathways and curricula. We can do that jointly on an all-island basis and share resources. We want to look at that in particular through the Shared Island funding opportunities that are coming up.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Time for questions to the Minister for the Economy is up. Members should take their ease while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I published the overarching winter preparedness plan on Thursday 16 October. It had been my intention to publish it at the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Care (NICON) conference on the Wednesday, but I took a decision to delay by one day, because I wanted to allow for further consideration of the publication of the individual trust plans, trusts being the operational leads on emergency departments (EDs) and hospital flow.

The plan published last week includes a series of measures to help mitigate the additional pressures experienced across Health and Social Care (HSC) in the winter months. I stress the additionality, because those pressures are now experienced 365. The measures include tackling ambulance handover delays through a new approach to collaborative working between the trusts and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS); vaccination programmes against diseases such as influenza, COVID-19, shingles and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV); Community Pharmacy initiatives such as the Living Well and "Stay well this winter" campaigns; the provision of Pharmacy First services across community pharmacies, including the sore throat service, which offers advice, clinical assessment and treatment of sore throats without the patient having to wait for an appointment with a GP; additional assistance for GP practices, with the provision of 10,000 medical care plans for patients in nursing and residential care homes and over 8,000 additional sessions to help manage winter pressures; improving mental health and learning disability bed pressures to reduce demand on EDs by ensuring that the right care is available in the right place; supporting social care delivery in the community and improving system flow from hospitals; and avoiding ED attendance and admission for end-of-life care for those who have a preference to be at home.

I reiterate that the publication of the plan was not the starting point. Planning for this winter started many months ago. In many areas, the actions in the plan have already been implemented. I point to some of the recent progress made on ambulance turnaround times as an illustration of that. To navigate the upcoming winter period successfully, it is vital that we all play our part in making sure that HSC services are ready and available for those who need them the most.

Mr Donnelly: To me and others, it appears to be a rushed and uncoordinated paper that does not contain much that is new. It was published at short notice on social media before it was even sent to members of the Health Committee. Why did the Minister not think that it was worth taking the time to consult the organisations that represent healthcare workers in Northern Ireland — the very people who will be charged with delivering the actions — before he published the plan?

Mr Nesbitt: The point is that, back in January, as the Member may recall, in reacting to last winter's additional pressures, I said that I wanted all the stakeholders in the room with a blank page. I asked the Chief Nursing Officer and the Chief Medical Officer to lead a series of events. It was not just a one-off; it was a series of four big discussion meetings about the whole system flow. Each meeting was oversubscribed, so I am confident that every section of Health and Social Care was consulted about the plan.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, the success of any healthcare plan, particularly one such as this on winter preparedness, depends a lot on the workers in our healthcare system. As you know, morale in some sectors is low. Nurses and other healthcare staff are waiting for a pay uplift. The living wage that was promised in January to domiciliary care workers has yet to be realised, which impacts on the system flow that you mentioned.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question, Philip.

Mr McGuigan: Yes. Some healthcare workers are disappointed that they have not been offered the COVID vaccine, as their counterparts in the South have, which could impact on days off due to sickness. Minister, will you address those three issues, which will help to improve morale in our health workforce?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that we follow advice on vaccinations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), and we stick with its advice. It has changed a bit on the availability of the COVID-19 vaccination in particular.

I am disappointed that I have not been able to action the real living wage as yet, but that is a function of the £600 million pressure on the Health Department's budget. On pay, the Member will be aware that the Executive are releasing £100 million, which is approximately 50% of what I need to fulfil the two pay recommendations for Agenda for Change staff and for doctors and dentists. I need to find £100 million. I have asked officials to urgently work up options, and I hope to meet the Royal College of Nursing, the trade unions and the other professional bodies perhaps as early as tomorrow but, certainly, as soon as possible. I intend to say to them, "This is the situation. Here are one, two or three options". I want to do the one that suits them the best, because I want to demonstrate to them how much I value their presence. As I often say, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicine, but, unless you have the workforce with you, all the rest is as nothing.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, in four weeks' time, we will really be in the throes of winter pressures, so the plan is late. It is underpinned by very little additional funding. Most importantly, it contains no outline of how you want to deal with delayed discharges. Will a winter pressures plan that does not address the issue of domiciliary care stop people — elderly, frail people — from lying in corridors this winter or lying in hospital beds when they could be at home?

Mr Nesbitt: I accept that the flow through a hospital is determined largely by the lack of community capacity in domiciliary care packages and care home beds. I absolutely accept that and have never questioned it. You cannot magic up that level of resource in a single month or year. It therefore remains a problem, but I assure the Member that it remains a focus for me. The four workshops that I talked about — the big discussions — were very focused on practical steps that could be taken this winter, into 2026, and in preparation for winter 2027. The Member rightly identified things that are missing, but it would be wrong to put them in the plan and raise expectations that they can be dealt with within the existing workforce and resources.

Miss McAllister: On the specifics regarding the domiciliary care and social care package, we are not seeing anything new in this plan. By our calculations, the recycling of hours amounts to roughly 3% of the hours. Is there anything innovative or new that the Minister and his Department can actually do in the next two to three months that will move people from hospital or keep people at home? Were any new options explored by and with those in the sector?

Mr Nesbitt: I say two things in response to the Member. All trusts review domiciliary care packages frequently to ensure maximum efficiency. Sometimes, somebody who has a domiciliary or home care package needs it to be enhanced because their condition has deteriorated, but, at other times, it is possible to claw back and redistribute some hours. That is the first thing. Secondly, as the Member will be aware, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust has not, to date, had a Hospital at Home service. A total of £845,000 is being made available to the trust to establish such a service, which will help.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that strong uptake of available vaccinations would make a huge contribution to reducing pressure on health services during the winter period? Will he encourage HSC staff to avail themselves of vaccinations for their well-being and to minimise staff absence in the workforce?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. Where a vaccine is available, I encourage everybody to avail themselves of it. I have looked at some of the uptake percentages. Overall, they have dropped year-on-year over the past three years, and they are particularly low amongst the workforce. I have asked for a piece of work to try to understand the reasons for that. It would be easy to say that it is about vaccination hesitancy, and, if I had to make an informed guess, I would have put that at number one, but I suspect that, when we have bottomed it out, that will not turn out to be the case. However, if it is about accessibility, for example, care homes get vaccination offers at their front door, so, for staff, particularly those who are on duty on the day, it could hardly be easier. There are some fundamental issues that I do not yet understand about low uptake, particularly among the HSC workforce.

Mr Durkan: Winter comes every year, and winter pressures in the health service get worse every year. What lessons from last winter's performance have been captured, and how are those lessons being applied this year to ensure improved resilience and patient care?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member is quite right: we need to learn year-on-year. The lessons have been trapped in the seven actions that have been identified. Action plan 1 is:

Number 2 is:

That is probably about boxing smarter rather than introducing additionality.

Number 3:

will be informed by the Committee's report on palliative care.

Number 4 is:

which is about learning from past experience.

Number 5 is:

We need a pathway for that, because it is particularly important — I have just been upstairs, hearing about osteoporosis — to reduce deconditioning, but we also want to avoid unnecessary conveyance following falls.

Action plan 6 is on advance care planning, and number 7 is a specific one:

Those actions are all things that we have learnt and that came out of the four seminars that made up the big discussion.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you talked about the domiciliary care packages, and I appreciate the challenges that we have with them, but I raised with your officials at the Health Committee the week before last the need for a review of direct payments. We need to see a different process for direct payments. The process does not work. It puts an awful lot of pressure on families who are already under severe pressure from trying to look after the people whom they love to ask them to become an employer. I know that IMPACT provides a very good service —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Linda?

Mrs Dillon: I thank them for that, but we need to have a new process.

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. I went out and met some social workers — I think that it was in Altnagelvin — who made the point to me that the regime and the criteria for direct payments are overcomplicated. That is one of the many areas in which we have overcomplicated the delivery of health and social care. I have asked for a review to see whether we can do it more effectively and in a more patient- and service-user-centred way. Some of the examples that I was given involved unfavourable comparisons with how things are managed in the Republic of Ireland. If there are lessons to be learned from the South, they will be learned.

Mr Robinson: To allow for the extra GP sessions that are referred to in the plan, what additional funding has been allocated for GP services this winter? Is that new money or a reallocation of existing resources, and how does it differ from last year?

Mr Nesbitt: Funding of £2·5 million has been made available to support GP practices to increase their capacity to meet the anticipated increase in demand this winter. We anticipate the delivery of around 10,000 medical care plans for patients in nursing and residential care homes, and over 8,000 additional sessions to help manage winter pressures in general practice. We have also engaged on the development of the Northern Ireland local enhanced service to manage winter pressures for 2025-26. The £2·5 million is, I understand, fresh additional money.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, what is your assessment of the benefit of the new NIAS target for ambulance turnaround times? Do you agree that that target will help ensure that more vehicles and crews are freed up to respond to patient needs?

Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, ambulance handover times have to be a key focus because the ambulance handover is, basically, the start of the flow through the hospital setting. We have to get the whole thing working in tandem. The trusts and NIAS had a visit to a hospital in London to learn from its approach to releasing ambulances more quickly and, because of that, were asked to adopt a similar model. To support that, £12 million has been allocated to trusts to implement targeted interventions by the end of the month, and this is the twentieth of the month. Our immediate goal is to eliminate ambulance delays of over two hours by 1 December. All trusts signed up to that goal at the workshops, and once that milestone is achieved we will move towards a much more ambitious 15-minute handover target. It is a system-wide challenge, and I have tasked my Department with leading the coordinated action that is required to deliver those improvements. That will have a profound effect on outcomes and on patient satisfaction because the longer that they wait in ED, the more frustrated that they get and, indeed, the more likely it is that a less-than-ideal outcome will be delivered.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, given that every day there are very serious pressures on our emergency departments, particularly at Altnagelvin, which often resembles a scene from your worst possible nightmare, what assurances can you give today in the House that your plan will actually do something different and prevent the crisis from deepening, particularly for people who are very anxious about having to present at emergency departments over the weeks and months ahead?

Mr Nesbitt: I have visited the emergency department at Altnagelvin, and I recognise absolutely the need for a new-build ED in Derry. It is the oldest of the type-1 EDs, and it looks it. However, some of the performance statistics that I looked at this morning suggest that its performance is not the worst of all the type-1 EDs. That is a testament to the staff and the workforce who operate that ED because they are operating in far-from-ideal circumstances.

On an assurance that the plan will deliver, all I can say to the Member is this: we had four workshops at which we brought in representatives from every nook and cranny of the health and social care system. I am not about to say that they do not know what they were talking about, or that they do not know how to do things better. That is the foundation of the plan.

Mrs Cameron: One of the main themes of the plan is to care for the elderly and those with complex and ongoing illnesses in their own home, which requires a functioning acute-care-at-home service, to which the Minister referred. Given that the Northern Health and Social Care Trust has no such service but is hoping to commence, within the next few weeks, an initial service to only 10 patients, how can the Minister claim that that is on a scale that will prevent elderly patients from lying in hospital corridors in Antrim ED this winter?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not making such a claim. I expect that the additional winter pressures will result in people's waiting for far too long in emergency departments to be seen. I do not think that we will eradicate the idea of corridor care this winter. I do not think that we will do away with the fact that, if you were to walk into an emergency department, you would meet people who have been in a chair of some description for 12 hours, 24 hours or, maybe, even longer.

The Member can certainly say that it is only 10 beds and is only the introduction of Hospital at Home, but I welcome it, because it is a start. It is something that we are going to build on. I have seen Hospital at Home in operation and have spoken to patients who get it. They much prefer it to spending time in an acute bed or elsewhere in an acute hospital. It works financially as well; it is cost efficient. It is a good thing. I accept that it is maybe just the start of something, but at least it is a start.

Mr McNulty: Minister, my office was contacted last week by a lady who was distressed enormously by the fact that she spent multiple hours waiting in an overcrowded emergency department at Craigavon Area Hospital, where corridor care is the norm. After 26 hours' waiting to see a doctor, she walked out; she just could not wait for any longer. What does it say about our health service that a woman decided to leave an ED because she gave up?

Mr Nesbitt: I am very sorry to hear that. It is probably not a unique experience in our type 1 emergency departments. I simply say this to the Member: if we were to go across the water, we would see the same. When I was in Washington in March, I visited MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. I believe that it was built in 1947, but an extension has just been added, at a cost of over $800 million. The emergency department is comparatively massive, but every corridor had trolleys with patients on them. We are not outliers; we are struggling, just as many health services are struggling. I am doing whatever I can to try to get to a position in which no patient walks out because they have had enough of waiting.

Mr Gaston: Minister, earlier today, I was contacted by Kerry O'Neill, who, at the weekend, was in the South West Acute Hospital. Unable to sit, and, in the absence of a trolley or bed, she was reduced to lying on the floor. It is concerning to see that happen in the same week that you launched your winter preparedness plan. That is unacceptable and shambolic, much like how you launched your winter plan in late October. What will you do to ensure that that will not happen to anyone else in the coming weeks?

Mr Nesbitt: I very much regret the experience of Mrs O'Neill. I cannot say anything that will satisfy the Member.

Mr Carroll: Minister, given that there is an outstanding pay award for health and social care staff, and that half the money is clearly not all the money, how will it be possible to implement the winter plan if health and social care staff remain underpaid and their demands are not met?

Mr Nesbitt: The answer is that it will not happen. If they are not paid what they are due, I expect them to continue to ballot for industrial action. I expect them to take strike action. As I have told the House before, the Royal College of Nursing has made it clear that, this time, there will be no derogations. The Chief Nursing Officer has told me, effectively, that she is not sure how we could possibly manage that. That is why, as we sit here, I have officials working on a small number of options to restore pay parity. It is my ambition that health and social care workers will get their payment and that the only disadvantage that they will face this year will be a delay in that payment.

Ms Brownlee: Minister, your plan indicates that 258 additional beds can be opened in an emergency. However, given staff shortages, and the pressures that nurses are already under in overcrowded wards, how do you propose to staff those beds?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry to say to the Member that nurses and other hospital staff are well accustomed to looking after more patients than they are supposed to look after. It has happened previously: it happened last winter, and it does not just happen in the wintertime. They manage. I am very grateful to them for managing, but I wish that it was different.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): A report from a member of the public of an Asian hornet in the Dundonald area of Belfast led to the location of a nest by Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officials. The nest was treated and successfully removed on Saturday 18 October. The nest has been delivered to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) for analysis to determine what stage the hornets were at in their breeding cycle. Genetic analysis to obtain clues as to their origin is also being scoped. NIEA is continuing its monitoring and trapping programme in the Dundonald area to ensure that there are no further nests.

There will be some residual activity from hornets that were not in the nest when it was treated. That is normal. Those hornets will either be trapped or will die off. I urge the public and beekeepers to remain vigilant and report any suspect insects, ideally with a photograph, to DAERA via the Asian Hornet Watch app or the Centre for Environmental Data and Recording (CEDaR) online recording.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Understandably, there is worry amongst local beekeepers. With that in mind, what specific engagement has DAERA had with local beekeepers to raise awareness and ensure that sightings are reported promptly?

Mr Muir: Officials engaged with the Ulster Beekeepers' Association upon the first sighting of an Asian hornet. They will meet the association again tomorrow. As Minister, I will seek to engage with the association on the issue as well. The main thing for us to do is to raise awareness and encourage people to report sightings. Through the vigilance of members of the public, we have been able to track the Asian hornets, locate where the nest was and treat it. I thank people for reporting it, and ask people to continue doing that.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer the question. As this was unforeseen, I imagine that no budget had been allocated for the work that is being carried out in respect of Asian hornets. What is the estimated cost of that work? Is any potential bid likely to include support for beekeepers and compensation in the event that hives are lost?

Mr Muir: We are working through the situation and will seek to absorb the cost within the budget in year. The budget is extremely tight. My Department is also dealing with avian influenza, which puts a budget pressure on us. As the situation develops, we will look at how we support the beekeeping industry in Northern Ireland and continue that engagement. The most effective way in which to deal with the situation immediately is for people to be aware of it and to report any sightings of Asian hornets to the Department so that we can track them.

The vigilance of members of the public allowed us to locate the nest. I thank the officials who worked very quickly to locate the site of the nest. They moved in at dusk on Friday to apply a powder before removing the nest on Saturday. It was a very quick response.

Mr McMurray: Given the recent sightings of the Asian hornet in the greater Belfast area, will the Minister provide an update on the role played by the Shared Island initiative?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. The Shared Island initiative was key to our response, because it has allowed the sharing of expertise and knowledge about the two nests that were found previously in Cobh and Cork. An individual who is involved in the Shared Island initiative lives quite close to the site where the Asian hornets were spotted and from where the nest has been removed. That was very useful.

I spoke to my ministerial counterparts at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting at the end of last week about the situation, and I thank them for the Shared Island funding and support. That shows why we need to cooperate on the issue and what the benefits of such cooperation are.

Mr Butler: The Minister will be aware that the Asian hornet is not the only threat to bees. Earlier in the year, there was a series of questions asked about there being no chief bee inspector. Can the Minister give us an update on how the Department is furnished for bee inspection?

Mr Muir: My Department is responding to recent reductions in staff available for bee inspections. Recruitment competitions are under way to increase the number of inspectors who are available to carry out a range of duties, including bee inspections.

Mr McCrossan: This is a very important matter for the Minister and the Department. Minister, you said that you are in the process of putting in place a plan to ensure that there is a rapid response to the issue. How much will it sting you?

Mr Muir: We already have a response plan and are implementing it. We will review it in light of the situation that we have experienced and any lessons that we have learnt from it. Having shared knowledge through taking an all-Ireland approach is important. It is also important that I set out that, to date, there have been around 500 sightings of Asian hornets across the UK and Ireland, but those sightings had been in North Yorkshire and Cheshire, so the fact that sightings have occurred in Belfast and that a nest was discovered is of concern to us. It is therefore important that people report sightings to us in order to enable a prompt response. We will seek to manage the pressure in-year. It is important that we do that. As the situation unfolds, it is really important that we get on top of it and allow people to report sightings as soon as possible.

Mr Irwin: In the Armagh area, there is a large concentration of bees in the apple orchards, as the Minister will be aware. Is there anything that beekeepers can do to help protect their bees?

Mr Muir: The point that I made about awareness of the matter is that dissemination of information, followed by reporting, is critical. The reason for that is that the Asian hornet is a highly effective predator of insects, including honeybees, wasps, hoverflies and other important pollinators, so it is really important that reports of sightings be made in order to allow the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to respond to them, because the Asian hornet threatens our native insect biodiversity and pollination services more widely.

Mr Blair: The Minister referred to 500 sightings of Asian hornets in the UK and Ireland. Will there be continued analysis carried out and information sharing among officials in those jurisdictions?

Mr Muir: Yes. That is part of the remit of the British-Irish Council, because the Asian hornet has been identified as a risk. The Channel Islands have also had sightings of the Asian hornet. That is why the nest found here is with AFBI for analysis. It is therefore important that we analyse what we have found in order to allow us to respond. The fact that the Asian hornet has been found in Belfast is unprecedented. How the first one got here is not entirely clear. There is a possibility that it could have arrived through a delivery as a stowaway, but it is really important that people report sightings. As I said, the nest was treated on Friday night and removed on Saturday, but it could be the case that, on Friday night, some hornets were not in the nest and will therefore still be in the locality, so it is important that people report any sightings to us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes this item of business. Members, please take your ease until the next item.

Mr Brett: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the amendment in my name and that of my colleagues. I will give some context for why we tabled the amendment. It relates to the importance of ensuring energy security and security of supply.

Mr Deputy Speaker, from the way in which some Ministers handled the issue, you may not have known that, less than two to three weeks ago, Northern Ireland was just days away from a blackout. The context for that related to our three power plants. As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Ballylumford power station was damaged in the recent storm Éowyn and, as a result, has been offline. Coolkeeragh, one of our other power plants, has been down for maintenance. That resulted in Kilroot power station approaching the point of running out of its permitted hours to provide electricity to Northern Ireland. We required two emergency Executive meetings and a written statement provided by the Minister for the Economy to address the issue. EP UK Investments (EPUKI), which owns the Kilroot power plant, is now involved in a court action against the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).

That is the first time that that situation has been outlined and articulated to the House, which is a shame. It took the work of my colleagues on the Economy Committee to interrogate the Department for the Economy and the Utility Regulator in order to find that out. Members across these Benches should have been informed by both the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy that we were only hours away from a blackout in Northern Ireland. The reason why that situation was not articulated to Members was that it does not suit the narrative of the current climate change targets.

It is clear that the current climate change targets, which were set in place by the previous Assembly, are not achievable and are undermining our energy security of supply. We look forward with anticipation to the report that will be produced by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) tomorrow in relation to our journey to net —.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Brett: Happily.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, if we do not do something about climate change, we will continue to have worsening storms? We are having such weather events because we did not address climate change.

Mr Brett: I was just about to go on to that point, Ms Dillon. We have a moral duty to tackle climate change, but that should not be at the expense of being hours away from my constituents — and yours, Ms Dillon — being in a power blackout. We heard the proposer of the motion speak about the importance of ensuring that our schools receive timely notifications. If our schools do not have electricity, they will not receive those notifications. If our hospitals do not receive the power that they need, a result of the storms, Ms Dillon, will be that people will be placed in huge and real danger. That is why the House needs to take serious action and look at the consequences of the energy figures that we are trying to meet. As I made clear in a debate in the House two weeks ago, the Members who were proposing our climate change targets could not even tell us the current rate of our renewable electricity targets, because they are more interested in climate change extremism than in the reality before us.

We need leadership on the issue, and that will not be found in the Minister for the Economy or the AERA Minister. It needs to be taken forward by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Our amendment calls for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to prioritise above all else energy security and security of supply to the people of Northern Ireland. The duty of any Government is to protect their citizens and ensure the safety of those who live in Northern Ireland. There can be no greater requirement on government than to ensure security of energy supply. Thankfully, the previous crisis, which could have engulfed Northern Ireland, was avoided, but it could be repeated or come back, should Kilroot power station win its court case against the Department of Agriculture. We need strong leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister to look again at the targets that have been set by the previous Assembly. It is clear that we will not reach the 2030 targets, and we need to stop kidding the public and ourselves that we will.

Today is an opportunity for the House to commit to energy security and supply and to ensure that the focus of the Executive is on providing basic services, not on trying to reach unreachable targets.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, I inform the House that the Speaker's Office has been made aware of ongoing legal proceedings relating to Kilroot power station. Therefore I remind Members about the requirements in Standing Orders in relation to matters that are sub judice. Members must respect the distinct roles of the courts and the Assembly when commenting on active legal proceedings.

Mrs Mason: The need for all Departments to tailor their responses to the frequency and severity of storms and extreme weather events is increasingly clear, and the motion is timely. I am sure that everyone has seen yesterday's flooding in Newcastle in my constituency. It caused concern and panic for the local community. Many households were only millimetres away from their homes being flooded once again. I acknowledge the strength of the local community, particularly the Newcastle Regional Community Resilience Group, which provided vital communication throughout the day, and the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, which brought a hiker down to safety. Upwards of 1,200 sandbags were made available and distributed to prevent flood damage to households in the area. DFI Roads and DFI Rivers officials were on the ground monitoring water levels at the Shimna river and clearing large stones and debris from the roads. They were elevating the seismic water run-off, which equated to three days' worth of rain across the course of the day, from the mountain. I welcome the fact that advice from the Department was consistent and that immediate action was taken to prevent extreme flood damage to homes. There are, of course, lessons to be learned to ensure that flooding can be avoided and, in worst-case scenarios, households protected.

Lessons must also be learned from the Education Authority's delays in closing schools during storm Amy. They caused deep frustration and fear among parents and guardians. The lack of clear and timely communication caused chaos for schools and families. Schools in some counties were told to close early, but the lack of direct communication from the EA to schools on county borders caused confusion for parents. Schools were left to handle the resultant miscommunication, and that diverted focus from ensuring pupil and staff safety.

Failing to close schools on time, with appropriate notice, put the safety of children and schools at risk.

The Education Authority said that, as of 11.30 on the morning of the storm, 18 schools had reported storm-related incidents to its maintenance service. Those mainly involved damage to roofs and fallen trees. With no alternative transport provided, parents had to collect their children during a storm warning, which placed parents and families at risk, despite the advice to avoid unnecessary travel. There should have been much better communication and coordination between the Department of Education, the EA and the Met Office. The Department and the EA should have listened to the advice in advance and instructed accordingly. When Departments and statutory agencies fail to work collaboratively, it leads to unnecessary disruption. Working together delivers stronger results for our communities.

The flooding in Downpatrick and Newcastle in 2023 was devastating for the local area. Despite extremely challenging circumstances, the resilience of our small and family-run local businesses and the remarkable community spirit shone through when everyone came together to support one another. The interventions that followed the floods showed us how we are at our best when everybody works together. Former Economy Minister, Conor Murphy, announced the flood support scheme, which was a huge relief for our small and family-run local traders and assisted them with restoring their premises and allowed them to continue opening their doors to the community.

I also acknowledge the work that was undertaken by former Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, which laid the groundwork for his successor, the current Minister, Liz Kimmins. The First Minister and the then Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, visited Downpatrick to meet the affected organisations and residents and view at first-hand the sites that had been devastated by the flooding. Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, has also met the residents and businesses in Newcastle and Downpatrick to listen to their concerns, and she is working on their behalf to help prevent such devastating events.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. Notwithstanding the fact that some good work happened when the Ministers were in place, does the Member agree that some of the things that we are doing are not working and that we need to think slightly differently? Someone from Newcastle commented this morning that some of the flood alleviation measures in one area perhaps just redirect the water in a different way. As I said at the start of the debate, some countries are already leading the way in that space, and we need to think outside the box.

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

Mrs Mason: I agree with the Member's comments, which is why I am trying to reiterate that it is best when we all work together and form a response from all Departments.

In responding to storms and extreme weather, every Department must play its part, not only by delivering the interventions that are needed to prevent damage but by stepping in to help communities recover and rebuild when disaster strikes. We are better when we work together. When it comes to storm and extreme weather responses, we need every Department to step up, work together and play its part, not only to deliver the early interventions that are required to prevent destruction and damage but to intervene and help communities to recover and rebuild after disaster strikes.

Mr McMurray: I thank Mr Butler for his remarks and the sentiments about Newcastle at the start of them. I also thank Cathy Mason. I reiterate that there was a yellow rain warning: the consequences of an amber or, indeed, red rain warning do not bear thinking about. Certainly, I agree with the general intent of the motion. There is a:

The emergency response systems and communication on the ground can certainly be strengthened as well, and that must include putting in place a community emergency resilience network that can work with agencies to deliver local support during future storms. Thinking back to storm Éowyn, some of the community resilience that was on display in my constituency involved GAA halls, Orange halls, church halls and community halls coming together to create space. Mr Butler raised some points about medical issues, and those were experienced in my area. The County Down Rural Community Network is, I am sure, well known to everybody — it is certainly well known in south Down — and has a network in place that can put together responses. There are simple things that can be done, like putting adaptors on the outside of fuse boxes in houses to enable portable generators to be linked up. That is one of the ideas that could be adopted, and it would be really good if it was.

We need to strengthen our infrastructure through better maintenance and new technologies to make it more resilient to extreme weather events. In our part of the world, those events tend to involve high winds and heavy rain.

Given the rain that we saw over the past weekend, it would be good to see the flood forecasting service developed, enacted and put forward, because the flooding events are stark.

I am not sure that we can fully avoid every road closure, public transport disruption and power cut in the future, but we have to accept that we are seeing climate change play out exactly as we predicted, with massive storms causing extensive damage.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Yes, certainly.

Mr Butler: The Member is right, but there are things that we can do to future-proof it. We are all engaged in the ambition to plant more trees, for instance, but where we plant them is important. For instance, if we do not plant them at the edge of roads, they will not fall across the road. There are steps that we can take to prevent road closures and so on, if we think long-term about those things.

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

Mr McMurray: The Member makes an interesting point, and we have to accept that the way in which our tree strategy is enacted will play a big part in tackling climate change, not least with mixed woodland areas and suchlike, to prevent some of the rainfall hitting the infrastructure.

Coming back to the point, it is simple when you think about it, really. We are seeing warmer seas. Warmer things create more energy. That is creating more energy in our weather systems, which means that we see the weather events that are happening. If one or two days' rain falls in a matter of hours, we cannot expect our infrastructure to cope, but those weather systems are becoming more the norm.

During storm Éowyn, there were over 2,300 reported obstructions on the road network, including hundreds on our motorways. Train lines suffered significant damage, substantial resources were poured into the clean-up and people worked extremely hard around the clock to remove the trees. Even so, it took a long time simply due to the sheer extent of the devastation. That is how climate change differs from weather. That is why climate change really is the problem.

Short of removing all trees that are growing in the vicinity of infrastructure, which Mr Butler referred to, little can be done to prevent massive storms that result from climate change having an impact on people's lives. We need to step up our efforts to combat climate change. The AERA Minister is doing what he can, and so must his colleagues. We must ensure that climate change is a chief consideration when planning new infrastructure. We are already obliged to do so by law, and courts are enforcing that requirement, as we have seen.

Mr Brett is not here, but I am concerned about the amendment. It is trying to twist and turn the motion into an attack on our renewable energy targets, and there is an insinuation about their impact on energy security. The truth is that the 80 by 30 target is nothing short of essential to our energy security. There is no cliff edge. Nothing will be switched off before sufficient renewable alternatives are in place, even in the unfortunate case that we miss the 2030 target. We can always put more units back on if need be.

We are currently at the mercy of international gas markets, which comes with significant geopolitical risks. We saw some of that play out in the price spikes after the invasion of Ukraine. Our dependency on fossil fuels that are not generated locally also means that our energy consumption largely benefits other countries when offshore renewables could bring an economic bonanza to our economy around ports such as Warrenpoint, Ardglass and Kilkeel, which are in my constituency of South Down. I want to see my area not only driving the green economy but providing its own energy security, with the financial and energy perseverance that comes with it. The response should not be to slow down renewable deployment but to increase it, so that we have a more diverse portfolio that is not dependent on mostly old gas plants. The sooner we are energy-independent, the sooner we will become energy-secure.

Mr McNulty: I rise today to speak on the motion calling for strengthening storm resilience and infrastructure preparedness. I agree that strengthening our infrastructure and resilience to better protect against storms is critical to the public and for community safety. However, the motion does not advance any specific actionable recommendations to tangibly address the matter.

To best achieve the goal of storm resilience and infrastructure preparedness, the Executive must put forward specific and detailed plans to tackle the issue in areas where there are the greatest vulnerabilities and susceptibilities to flooding. Aligned with the construction of infrastructure protections, the Executive must put forward more supports and resources into community resilience groups to combat storm-related issues. Communities are best equipped to know the intricacies of an area, such as where vulnerable people live and where vulnerable places lie. Given that local expertise, communities should be empowered and supported and given the necessary tools to plan for and respond to adverse weather conditions. The Cushendall Community Resilience Group, for example, demonstrates how such organisations can operate. Instead of relying on emergency services, those groups have emergency plans that are tailored to their community needs, and they work in partnership with the rescue services as necessary.

The flood resilience group in Newry is another example of a community-led group. Along with Newry business improvement district (BID) members, it has ensured that Newry is at a much more advanced state of flood readiness. That is crucial, as we all know that, in 2023, Newry experienced flooding that devastated local businesses. On 2 October 2025, Maydown bridge, which connects Tyrone and Armagh, suffered a partial collapse due to heavy rainfall, causing huge disruption to locals. When will Maydown bridge be repaired or reconstructed?

Infrastructure issues that are compounded when we experience flooding, such as that in Newcastle at the weekend and in Newry two years ago, show that we have not taken enough concrete steps to prepare for adverse weather conditions. We talked about the problem then, and we are talking about it again two years later, without the Executive having taken any meaningful action. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to provide specific details of plans on how to build storm resilience through the involvement of community groups such as those that I have mentioned. It is also an absolute no-brainer that we should have a coordinated approach to school closures when we experience storm conditions of a certain level.

Mr Boylan: Each of us knows all too well about the increase in the number of severe weather events, including storms, and the impact that those events have across our communities. Prevention is key, and, while the Department for Infrastructure has been hindered by its budget in the level of day-to-day maintenance that it can provide, I commend the Infrastructure Minister for recognising the importance of such works and backing up her recognition by allocating further funding in order to deliver additional cleaning and maintenance of drainage lines and manholes. The Infrastructure Minister has shown that her Department takes a proactive approach in preparation for storms. In advance of storm Amy, the Department undertook culvert screening maintenance work in a bid to ensure that countless homes were protected from flooding. Preventative actions, such as gully emptying and culvert screening, have also contributed to ensuring that disruption to public transport is minimised. The work of the Department for Infrastructure has shown that it is intent on ensuring that public safety is a priority, as well as on maintaining an efficient transport network during storms, particularly for some of our most valuable workers who rely on public transport to get to and from work.

While preparation is key, I commend the workers in the Department for Infrastructure, NI Water and the Loughs Agency and others who go above and beyond in order to ensure that the effects of a storm are dealt with as soon as possible. As my colleague said, recently, during storm Amy, 2,000 sandbags were delivered, and committed staff worked over the weekend to clear the unavoidable debris that that storm left behind. With 1,500 incidents having been recorded across rural and urban areas, it is clear that, with every best effort of the Department and other agencies, getting roads cleared of trees and debris is done as quickly as possible. It is also important to recognise the good work that is done by local community resilience groups in flood-risk areas. I know of the hard work that those groups do to manage the effects of severe weather and storms.

As with everything, however, there is always room for improvement and new ways of working. Additional resources would enable the Department for Infrastructure to do more. Legislation that the Minister is progressing will assist with managing water entering the network, and advances in technology could enable new ways of working to be developed.

I again commend all who work hard in our communities and in our agencies to plan and prepare for significant weather events and appreciate the huge body of work that is required in the clean-up afterwards.

Mr Mathison: I will speak on the issue from an education perspective, as schools are referred to specifically in the motion. My colleagues will cover some of the wider issues.

I made a Member's statement on the handling of school closures during storm Amy, and much of what I will say today will reflect those comments. I want, however, to correct the record. I said in my statement that an amber weather warning was in place from 1 October. It has since been drawn to my attention that, in fact, a yellow warning was issued at that stage, with the amber warning not kicking in until the evening before the storm. That undoubtedly impacted on the planning considerations that would have been in play in the EA, so I feel it important to put that on record, as EA officials raised that issue with me directly. If you err on a point of fact, it is important to note that.

As Members have already said, the motion refers to "delayed and inconsistent messages" being delivered to schools about closures as a result of storm Amy. I concur that lessons need to be learned. Pupil and staff safety is key, of course. Robbie Butler highlighted the critical issue of the risk to life that is associated with storms. That must always be the priority when we consider such matters. It cannot be denied, however, that communications to schools about storm Amy came too late, and that did not help anybody in providing the right response. The timeline that was in operation for arriving at the school closures placed unnecessary pressure on school leaders and parents.

The key was the appropriateness of when the notice about closure was received by the affected schools. For many, it was at the very moment that children were being brought in through the school gates and parents were driving away to their workplaces that emails landed stating that schools needed to close. That was at a time when many principals were nowhere near their email accounts and were instead at the school gates bringing children in to start the school day. That created an entirely unacceptable level of pressure, with principals then being tasked with reaching parents almost immediately after they had left school premises to go to work. Parents then had to arrange childcare and get back to the school. School leaders needed time to manage the closures, so it is hard for me to understand why a call could not have been made the previous evening to give schools the time to plan and communicate clearly and effectively with parents.

Breaking down the closures by county, which has also been highlighted, undoubtedly created confusion. Parents were uncertain where Belfast fitted in. Despite the Met Office's warning map not covering all of Country Antrim, the EA closure notice gave blanket effect to the whole county, which caused further confusion. That could have been avoided through earlier and clearer communications.

The communications on transport and school meals were also slow, often not landing until after the closures themselves had kicked in. The delay in communications appearing on social media also added to the confusion. Again, early decisions the previous day could have avoided all of that. The effect was pressure on school leaders and on parents. School leaders reported a sense of communication overload. They were being bombarded with contact from parents on social media, by email and by phone and were then having to try to navigate the internal processes of the EA.

In short, when we have time to make decisions earlier, we should do so. Of course, there is always the risk of being damned if you do and damned if you do not. It is sometimes hard to call it right, but, when we have it, we should be in a position to give our officials and school leaders the appropriate notice.

I concur entirely with the motion. Lessons should be learned, and I welcome any improvements that can be made to the timeliness and effectiveness of communications with school leaders about storm closures. I note that the Minister of Education has already requested a short, sharp review of the internal processes in Education, and I hope that that review will deliver improvements quickly and effectively. It is welcome, but, if a wider, cross-departmental view could bring about better alignment, I would welcome that. I hope that we see progress on cross-departmental working on the issue, and I am content to support the motion.

Ms Murphy: In recent weeks and months, we have all witnessed the growing severity and frequency of storms across the island. Those storms wreaked havoc on homes, businesses and our rural communities and caused widespread disruption to electricity, broadband, transport and community infrastructure. Whilst no area has been left untouched or has not been impacted on, the acute impact has been felt mostly in our rural areas, where long distances, vulnerable connectivity and rugged terrain amplify the challenges when bad weather strikes. When severe storms hit, power lines are brought down, roads are blocked and broadband, as well as signal, drops. For too many families, that means days without heat and light, with no way to access vital information.

During storm Éowyn, some of my constituents in Rosslea were without power for more than 10 days. Most of them were elderly, but some were young families who have children with additional needs and life-limiting conditions.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that, given the fact that NIE made £181 million in profits in 2024, it could well afford to have a better system in place to provide generators to those on the critical care list, particularly those at the end-of-life stage, who potentially have to be removed from their home? Those people chose to die at home. They are moved into hospitals that can ill afford to take them, but it is more that those people did not want to go into hospital: they wanted to die at home.

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

Ms Murphy: Yes, I concur with the Member. The point of the motion is about better cohesion, which we especially need to see between NIE and the health and social care trusts across the North.

We have all, no doubt, been contacted by constituents who have lost power. I think particularly of those constituents who are vulnerable. Some children rely on nebulisers and ventilators. Losing power leaves our rural residents isolated and vulnerable, as well as leaving farms unable to operate and businesses unable to open.

One area that clearly requires attention is the role of Forest Service when it comes to fallen trees and electricity outages. Time and time again, major power cuts in rural areas have been caused by trees, be they privately owned or owned by Forest Service, bringing down power lines, yet the response to remove those hazards has been far too slow. The Forest Service and private owners should work with utility companies, DFI and NIE to identify areas of high risk, undertake pre-storm assessments and ensure that trees near power lines are properly managed. A more proactive approach, one that prevents outages rather than simply reacting to them, would make a significant difference to rural residents, farms and our local businesses. It is simply unacceptable that homes are left in darkness and cut off from society for days on end because of delays in clearance works.

Those experiences highlight the urgent need to strengthen our civil contingency planning. The Executive's civil contingency framework sets out a system of cohesion between Departments, councils and agencies. However, recent events have shown that communication between those bodies can be slow, inconsistent and confusing, and that means that delivery on the ground is delayed. Rural communities deserve a commitment from all bodies that guarantees fast action on the ground when they need it. We cannot continue to rely on goodwill and ad hoc coordination when communities are cut off. Strengthening our storm resilience is not just about repairing damage. It must be centred around prevention, planning and partnership to ensure that all agencies and utility companies work together effectively to protect our rural communities.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the motion. It is undeniable that extreme weather patterns are increasing with devastating effect, as we saw at the weekend in Newcastle. My thoughts are with the people of Newcastle, who, today, are clearing up and suffering the after-effects of the destruction.

The recent storms have exposed a critical weakness in our energy infrastructure that demands immediate attention. We would all struggle to name someone who, this year, has not been affected by outages caused by either storm Éowyn or, to a lesser extent, storm Amy. Our infrastructure was simply not able to cope, and many of us were left without electricity and broadband to operate businesses and farms and to communicate with colleagues and our loved ones. Many in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone were concerned in recent weeks when school closure notifications were delayed, leaving parents unsure as to whether they needed to call at the school to collect their children.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed for giving way. Does the Member agree that it is an absolute scandal that the likes of NIE and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) have made considerable profits on those networks even though they have not invested in them at all, despite the fact that "severe weather events" have been signalled for quite a long time by agencies such as the Met Office?

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

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for his intervention. He makes a good point. I will come on to something else to do with NIE at a later point in my words.

In my rural constituency, good infrastructure and planning are as vital as they are anywhere else, yet it is rural places such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone that bear the brunt of our infrastructure failures. The Economy Committee recently met the Utility Regulator, who worryingly confirmed how close we came to a Northern Ireland-wide blackout due to a single point of failure. Further engagement with the Utility Regulator by me and my colleague revealed that Coolkeeragh was offline due to maintenance, and Ballylumford was also offline, leaving Kilroot as the only fully functioning station, effectively making Northern Ireland wholly reliant on a single supplier. We quite simply cannot risk reliance on a single provider of energy.

There will be concern in Northern Ireland around the vulnerability of our supply, as recent storms have shown that we simply have not been able to cope. Furthermore, when things go wrong, response times for maintenance have been inadequate. For example, we saw after storm Éowyn that some Fibrus customers were left without broadband for as long as three weeks. In a day and age when we all rely on the internet for working from home or communicating with family, that is simply unacceptable. In addition, the stability of our electricity supply requires urgent solutions, but time is not on our side. A fourth power plant would take five years to build, and the indications are that the North/South interconnector will not be ready until 2031. Lessons need to be learned, and we must not allow our energy security to be compromised by delays or over-reliance on a single provider.

Additionally, in Northern Ireland, we have no framework in place for storm damage compensation, as the guaranteed standard of service for electricity supply typically does not apply during exceptional weather events. That means that not only did many face a loss of earnings as a result of outages, but they failed to be adequately compensated for their loss of electricity supply. That situation highlights the urgent need for clearer contingency planning, alongside the better coordination between Departments and agencies that other Members have mentioned. The Education Authority must also improve communication with schools and parents to avoid the confusion that happened during the recent storm and to develop mobile alerts for all schools, with urgent out-of-hours information going directly to the management boards of schools.

We support the call for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve emergency response systems and strengthen infrastructure resilience, thus ensuring that communities and essential services are better protected. We also call on the Minister for the Economy to provide assurances that vital public services will not be placed at risk as we transition to renewable energy. Northern Ireland cannot afford to be left vulnerable, so we must act now to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient against future severe weather events.

Mr Honeyford: I will just speak on energy security, the line taken by the DUP and what has been said in the Chamber.

The line on energy security is fair. We all want a reliable, resilient energy system. However, the amendment veers right off the road when it tries to insinuate that renewables are actually the cause of the risk. Recently, the issues were with Ballylumford and Coolkeeragh, not renewables. That view is, at best, misinformed.

Diversifying our sources of energy by hitting 80 by 30 renewable targets is not a risk to our energy security; it is the route to it. Clean, renewable energy that is homegrown and produced here gives us control over future security. It reduces costs for hard-working families in the long term. Every household has seen its energy costs more than double in the past couple of years since the onset of the Ukraine war, when fossil fuel costs rose sharply.

Alongside the cost, renewables are important in meeting those climate obligations. Achieving structural change in our energy production needs targets to aim for. We should not oppose goals or create doubt. Everyone needs targets to work towards.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. Will he outline where in my amendment I say that renewables undermine energy security? Does he believe that we will reach those targets? Who is correct on that: me or him?

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

Mr Honeyford: The Member spoke about net zero being the basis for the amendment. What is said in the first bit of the amendment about energy security is fair, and I said that at the start. The implication is in what is said in the next part.

We need to have security of energy supply here, but that needs a whole-system design. The issue that I have is that we are still too developer-led. We leave the power on renewables with developers and people who own power stations. We do not have an overall plan. I have raised that many times here. We need a master plan, led by the Department, that sets out how renewables, storage and interconnection fit together. We need a central approach that gives us a clear direction and a final design that we can work towards. Energy security depends on a strategic, whole-system approach rather than piecemeal decisions.

Critical to the delivery of all of that is the North/South interconnector. When we met the Utility Regulator, we were told that that is at the heart of the issue. Delivery is key to our overall system. The interconnector will finally give us that all-island system. We have an all-island market, but it is made up of two smaller systems that sit side by side and are not fully connected. The interconnector will change that. It will unite the two systems and allow electricity to flow between the North and the South, creating the all-island system that has been promised for so long and reducing costs for consumers. It will also remove the risk of a single point of failure by providing flexibility. The system has been designed to ensure that, when we are connected across the island, we will need only one power station to function at a time in Northern Ireland. That needs to happen. I ask the Minister for the Economy to commit unreservedly to delivering the interconnector as planned.

The North/South interconnector is essential to allow us to bring in more wind and solar power and all the other renewables without curtailing generation. Connection to Scotland is also important, as are the connections between Dublin and Wales and between the South and France. We need all of it. Yes, we want energy security, but let us be really clear: that will be achieved through a master plan, interconnection and investments in renewables, not by scaremongering about net zero and clean energy.

It is really disappointing but not entirely surprising that a misinformed amendment has been tabled. I am surprised, however, that Phillip was the person from the DUP to deliver it, because we work really well together on this. I am not shocked that the DUP is burying its head in the sand, is allergic to change and cannot see the effects of climate change that are around it. You can see from the amendment and from what has been said here that, when it comes to climate and energy, in the DUP there are not too many lights on. Alliance cannot support the amendment, because we fully believe that Northern Ireland's future energy system must be clean, secure and planned.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: I am about to finish, but go for it.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does he concede that it is not only the DUP that has outlined its concerns about the climate change targets, given that the Climate Change Committee said in its 2021 report that we were going beyond what was required to ensure that the UK hit net zero? In fact, going too far too fast can have problems for Northern Ireland. So, it is not just we who have said it; it is the experts, whom his party ignored.

Mr Honeyford: To say that we ignored the experts is some stretch, to be absolutely frank. We have just had a weekend of rain, yet there is complete denial that the climate is changing. What I said is absolutely correct: when it comes to climate, energy and net zero in here, there are not many lights on. We need to stop causing division and uncertainty and using any excuse —

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

— to continue to drive us backwards.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members who wished to speak. I call on junior Minister Aisling Reilly to respond. Junior Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their important contributions to the debate. I thank the proposer of the motion for giving us the opportunity to highlight the work that is under way across the Executive and local government to prepare for, respond to and recover from severe weather events. Members referenced other Departments and Ministers, and I will try to touch on them as much as I can. If I do not cover them all, I am sure that the Departments will be happy to respond to Members' specific queries.

Given where we sit on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, we are not unfamiliar with severe weather conditions. As a result, we have well-exercised response arrangements in place. However, it is clear that recent storms such as Darragh, Éowyn and Amy have tested the resilience of our systems, our infrastructure and our communities. Additionally, we saw the local impacts of a low-impact rain warning on our communities in Newcastle this weekend, with 90 incidents reported to the Department for Infrastructure. I echo the comments of others in the Chamber in saying that our thoughts are with those who have been affected by that. The Minister for Communities has just left the Chamber, but I have been told that the scheme for emergency financial assistance, which is operated by his Department, was activated this morning and that local government environmental health staff have begun to arrange visits to those who have been affected. If Members are working with anybody in those constituencies, I point them in that direction to make sure that those who have been affected are supported.

Those weather events have required a whole-of-society response, and it is only right that we continue to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of our front-line staff, emergency responders and local volunteers who stepped up in very challenging circumstances.

The saying goes that you cannot predict the weather, but, as the proposer of the motion noted, we have seen more frequent and more severe weather events here over recent years. That places even greater importance on preparations and the need for us to expect the unexpected. With severe weather events come impacts that develop across society, causing disruption to everyday life. There will be times when, because of measures to mitigate any immediate risk to life, we will be inconvenienced by temporary closures of facilities, businesses or schools or impacted on by transport delays. For the most part, those inconveniences are unavoidable, but the measures are to keep people safe.

Of course, the impacts are felt more strongly when they disrupt essential utilities such as electricity, water supply, internet access and mobile phone networks — utilities that have become indispensable in modern life and are seen as being a lifeline, particularly for our rural and isolated communities. They are heavily relied upon, and any disruption is acutely felt. We acknowledge that the security of the electricity supply is a key priority for the Department for the Economy and that its officials are working closely with SONI and the Utility Regulator, who also have statutory responsibilities for security of supply through the real-time operation of the power system, and who continually monitor the situation and provide regular updates.

Despite an increase in renewable energy generation and the additional clean capacity that it provides, the electricity system remains reliant on conventional fossil fuel generation to make sure that it can meet fluctuating electricity demand and maintain the stability of the electricity system. There is more work to be done, and it is being done alongside and in partnership with the private sector to make sure that all our essential utilities services are resilient and can be relied on by all in emergency situations.

I will turn to the most recent storm: storm Amy. It should be noted that, while it was a named storm, it was not declared to be a major incident by any of our blue-light organisations. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, which is outlined in our civil contingencies framework, the response was managed at the operational level by local government, the Department for Infrastructure, NIE Networks and other key stakeholders. The decision to close schools in the areas covered by the weather warning was taken by the Education Authority, which holds the operational responsibility and duty of care for pupils and staff. As we are aware and has been mentioned, the Minister of Education commissioned an internal review, following storm Amy, which will consider the communication methods used by the Education Authority and assess the planning and decision-making processes that were utilised.

As is highlighted in the motion, it is vital to consider the way in which we communicate with the public during emergencies. We share the view that communication and coordination have to be clear, timely and effective. In that regard, we are progressing a review and revamp of the content of the nidirect platform in order to improve communications and make sure that clear, accessible and timely information is available to the public in preparation for, during and after emergencies.

Our primary duty is to protect those who live here, although that duty is not ours alone. I refer not only to the Executive; there is a role to play for everyone, far beyond the Executive — for MLAs, local government, public bodies and the community itself. We want to empower communities and individuals to prepare for, respond to and recover effectively from emergencies when they strike. That means fostering and supporting stronger community networks in which neighbours support one another and local organisations are empowered and equipped to respond. By strengthening personal and community resilience, we will enable the Executive to focus their resources where they are needed most, to protect the most vulnerable, restore essential services more quickly and minimise disruption across society. That is a shared endeavour that demands leadership, collaboration and a renewed commitment to preparedness at every level. The Executive are committed to delivering that leadership and promoting that collaboration. All Departments, strategic stakeholders and operational partners are working together across the civil contingencies risk landscape to make sure that operational plans that respond to any emergency are not designed and delivered in isolation. Through the civil contingencies strategic risk management project, work is ongoing to identify where all those interactions occur and to act as a catalyst for even closer cross-departmental working in the space.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate how many of the actions contained in the motion are already under way, but that does not mean that we rest on our laurels. We are not and cannot be complacent. We are continuously learning and adapting, and we will continue to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, junior Minister, for that response. I call Gary Middleton to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I will wind on the DUP amendment.

In recent months, Northern Ireland has faced a series of serious weather incidents that have caused disruption across our communities, whether that be storm Darragh, storm Éowyn or, more recently, storm Amy. Those storms exposed the vulnerability of our infrastructure, our emergency response systems and our communication networks. We have seen at first-hand the impact that the storms have had on homes, leaving people without power and water and cutting communities off from mobile and broadband signal. Of course, it is not just an inconvenience for people; it is about people's safety. It is also about ensuring that, when the next storm hits, people across Northern Ireland are not left in the dark, literally or figuratively.

The amendment rightly highlights the alarming situation at Ballylumford power station, where storm damage, combined with planned maintenance at Coolkeeragh, left our electricity supply dangerously exposed to a single point of failure.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard a lot about grids and access to renewables. One thing that we have not heard about is synchronicity and inertia, which are vital. Does the Member agree that, in any future discussions, we need to make sure that we have enough conventional or nuclear supply to have synchronicity and inertia, or else the system will not work?

Mr Middleton: Absolutely. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to respond extensively, but I support the Member's sentiment.

Northern Ireland cannot function without a reliable power supply. Our hospitals, emergency services and schools very much rely on it. Road safety has also been highlighted, which is another major issue as surface flooding and debris on the road make travel dangerous. DFI is responsible for gullies, and they should be unblocked. Roads should be prepared for potential storm incidents as well.

Our amendment calls for clearer contingency planning and better coordination between Departments. We also call on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that her pursuit of renewables does not jeopardise energy security. There must be a balanced and responsible approach.

I will summarise some of the Members' comments. Mr Butler, who moved the motion, expressed sympathy, as did many other Members, with those affected by the flooding in Newcastle. We share those sentiments. He also spoke about the need for long-term solutions and stronger collaboration.

My colleague Mr Brett highlighted the concern over the near-blackout situation and the shameful way in which we found out about that. He said that we have a moral duty to recognise the climate change that is happening but that we must also be realistic about how we can respond to the challenge. He called on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to focus on providing strong leadership and on ensuring that basic services are provided.

Cathy Mason spoke about the response in her constituency and welcomed advice from DFI but highlighted the lessons that should be learned about school closures. Andrew McMurray spoke about his constituency and the need for the flood forecasting service to be strengthened and expanded. Justin McNulty wanted specific plans put in place for empowering communities. Cathal Boylan gave DFI much praise for its response and commended all the staff who work to support those affected by flooding.

Nick Mathison spoke from an education perspective about lessons that need to be learned. The Minister has since committed to reviewing the situation. Áine Murphy spoke from a constituency perspective about the need to support rural dwellers. Diana Armstrong talked about the need for joined-up working.

Mr Honeyford broke with the consensus across the Chamber. At present, the Alliance Party is sensitive to criticism and particularly touchy when it comes to being challenged. I can assure Mr Honeyford, however, that, in our amendment, there is none of the commentary about which he raised concerns.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Middleton: Unfortunately, I have no time to do so.

We know that the Alliance Party supports the green agenda. This is not an orange and green issue but, rather, one that we can all get behind, so I urge Members to support our amendment.

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

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion is indeed timely, and debating it is exactly what our constituents and communities want to see us doing, which is deal with practical issues that have an impact on them, with less drama and more delivery for the people of Northern Ireland.

The motion is very important. Before I turn to it, we should acknowledge the work that our emergency services and community volunteers do. Whatever else we do or do not do in this place, we often send out messages saying, "Don't make journeys unless they're urgent" and, "Don't leave the house", yet there are men and women who have to leave the house, because their journeys are urgent. They take a risk on our behalf, often at considerable danger to themselves, so I recognise them.

What we need is an adverse weather strategy: one place to which people can go to see that the Executive Office has an overarching plan for how to deal with adverse weather incidents. End to end, that would make life for people in Northern Ireland so much better, because it would join up all the Departments and agencies and the 999 services so that there is a clear, robust and resilient plan to deal with adverse weather incidents. When we have such incidents, the same issues repeat themselves time and time again, and I am not convinced that there is a structured way of learning from each incident and continually improving our response to the next one.

Any strategy that is worth its salt begins with preparedness. Let me give Members a simple example of what a strategy would deliver. There would be an ongoing information campaign for the public about how households prepare for adverse weather incidents. There are some very simple things that people can do, such as making sure that their drains and gutters are clear and buying from Amazon, or other providers, wind-up radios, power banks and flasks so that they can have hot water.

When an adverse weather incident is coming, there should be something that we can pluck out in advance to communicate to people, such as, "In two days' time, when this hits, here are the five or six things that you need to do" and, "Identify two or three vulnerable neighbours or family members to check in with". That is the practical advice that should be got out there, and, because such incidents repeat themselves in a weather cycle, we could have it ready to go now so that it can be sent straight out when needed.

The public can then say, "Here is the kit that I need." I have it in my house — the batteries are charged up, and the torches are ready to go — because I am a bit of an anorak in that way, but the public need guidance.

That was the first thing about preparedness, but prevention is always better than cure. I do not want to get into the ideological debate about climate change, but I will say two things. As I said in my maiden speech, we are in an arm-wrestle, because we are trying to look after our climate in the long term and get things done in the short term. However, this is what is difficult to sell to the public: we talk about climate change when we are discussing flooding, yet they walk out and see a flooded street, and — do you know what? — the storm drain is not draining because it is full of debris. We cannot persuade people to change their lives, if we cannot clear the drains. There are simple things that need done across Northern Ireland, and part of the key to prevention is doing the simple things well, such as planting trees.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr McMurray: Does the Member agree that our infrastructure is not equipped to deal with a month's worth of rainfall in an afternoon, regardless of how well the drains are cleared? Is that not what needs to be communicated to people about climate change?

Mr Burrows: It absolutely does, but you have to do the simple, basic things well. If you do not do that, you cannot get buy-in for the grand project on climate change that we are trying to do. It is unforgivable that those things are not done. Also, when anyone goes out walking after a storm, they see all the power lines that have come down, and they can clearly see that the trees had not been cut. They might think, "Clearly, if that tree was going to fall, it was going to bring a power line down". That simple stuff needs to be done, but it is not.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Butler: Does the Member agree that one of the disappointing parts of the debate was the disagreement about the fact that you can have ambition for climate measures and assurance on the energy supply? Does he agree that you can do both at the same time?

Mr Burrows: Absolutely, and that is where we need that pragmatism to steer a course through the matter, which is, of course, what the Ulster Unionist Party does best.

Dr Aiken: Hear, hear. [Laughter.]

Mr Burrows: Planting and trimming trees are the things that the public need. However, that would be driven forward better if people could refer to one document that shows the strategy and mitigations. Those simple things can actually help people when there are difficulties.

An adverse weather strategy would affect every nook and cranny of what we do in public life. It would affect planning. You would be able to say, "How can the planning process make sure that planners or developers build more facilities that encourage better drainage and more solar panels?", because, of course, if people have solar panels and batteries, they would be less caught out if there was a power cut. All those things should be driven by one central strategy.

Communication is usually where things go wrong. No matter what you do, if you do not communicate, it will be a failure. I will raise the issue of the Education Authority's communication about storm Amy, and I will do so without judgement. When we have problems, we need to have the mindset that we are looking for learning and solutions, because then we will not be so resistant to those solutions or defensive of our own Ministry or whatever. The Ulster Unionist Party came out and called for a debrief after storm Amy, so that concrete learning could take place. That has to happen after every major adverse weather incident. Someone needs to chair a meeting to ask, "What are the three or four things that went well, what did not go well, how do we distil the learnings, and how do we improve?". That is why we called for a debrief, and I am glad that the Education Minister is doing it.

The communication also has to be up to date. Storm Amy is a very good example. A decision was taken at 8.00 pm that meant they were likely to call for school closures the next day, but the parents and schools knew nothing about it. Then, when the decision was taken at 8.00 am, parents and schools knew nothing about it. An email was sent, which sort of takes me back to the '90s. Someone typed out an email and pressed "send". That email might have landed in inboxes at 8.57 am. I have spoken to many principals, and the first thing that they do when they go into school might be to go to the school assembly or to the school gates with parents. They are not, however, checking their emails. That meant that, at 9.45 am, principals still had not checked their email, and then, suddenly, they had to do something.

Even if the decision that was made at 8.00 am had been communicated, it would have made a world of difference. That is why we have asked for a mobile communication system to allow, at one press of a button, the EA to communicate with every principal in every school to say, "The school is closing today". If that had bleeped in pockets at 8.00 am, there would have been an entirely different response.

If you had a strategy, you could see in advance the things that you need to do. You would, for example, have a contingency and be able to say, "Well, if schools close because of an adverse weather incident, one of the things that you have to factor in is free school meals". I spoke to many principals — three in one day — who told me that children went without free school meals that day. In the busyness of responding to a late email, that had not been considered. If you were to plan in advance, that would be considered. If you had the email or communication earlier, the caterers would know, and they might make a packed lunch or whatever the case may be.

One of the problems that I have when we plan for major incidents like this is that sometimes Departments talk about public safety. I am convinced that public safety is about risk aversion and moving a risk from yourself to someone else. I worry that the Education Department simply moved the risk from itself to schools. The reality is that, for many children, the risk went up, not down. Instead of being in a well-managed school, children were sitting at bus stops in the elements. Their parents were battling to get back from work, and the children were sitting out. I spoke to one child who did not want to go back to school in case they missed their bus, but their bus was not coming. They were probably at more risk than if they had stayed in school.

We need leadership. We need an end-to-end adverse weather strategy that makes things better, prepares people, has prevention and mitigation and, at the end of everything, has a debrief so that we learn and keep improving our response. We should not get involved in ideological wars or a blame game.