Official Report: Tuesday 21 October 2025

Ms Reilly: A comhghairdeas mór

to everyone at Naomh Eoin Cumann Lúthchleas Gael on bringing the Antrim Senior Hurling Championship title back to the Whiterock Road in west Belfast after a 52-year wait; an incredible achievement for the players, management and every single person who is connected to the club.

Of course, we know that a win like that does not happen overnight and does not come out of thin air. It is the result of years of behind-the-scenes work from generations of Naomh Eoin Gaels. Those who trained on a wet night, stood on the sideline or lifted a hurl for the club have played their part in that win. Naomh Eoin, like all GAA clubs, is more than bricks and mortar; it is a family and a cornerstone of our community. As a proud member of Naomh Pól, I am acutely aware of that. With volunteers and coaches at all levels, from "babymentals", Gaelic4Mothers&Others and social teams right through to senior level for boys and girls, the GAA plays a vital role in the lives of so many people.

What is even more special about Sunday's win is the legacy that it will leave behind for the next generation of young hurlers and camogs who are coming up through the ranks. They will look at that team and know that, through hard work, belief and resilience, anything is possible. Maith sibh, a chairde. Comhghairdeas.

. I wish the team every success in its Ulster campaign. The whole community of the Whiterock Road and west Belfast is behind you. Maith sibh.

Mr K Buchanan: I rise to express my deep concern about, and unequivocal condemnation of, a recent event that was held in south-east Fermanagh that sought to commemorate Jim Lynagh, a man whose legacy is steeped in violence, terror and murder. Let me be absolutely clear: there is nothing thought-provoking about the campaign of destruction that he orchestrated. His actions were not political discourse: they were calculated acts of terror that were designed to instil fear and inflict suffering. Jim Lynagh was not a freedom fighter: he was an architect of terror.

Before being killed by the SAS in the Loughgall ambush, he helped to plan a brutal bombing attack on a police station as part of a wider campaign to destabilise and murder. His legacy is one of bloodshed, not bravery. For any right-thinking person, reflection must centre not on the perpetrator but on the innocent victims whose lives were stolen. We must remember the people who went to work, protected their communities or simply went about their daily lives and never returned home because of Lynagh's campaign of terror. Those are the individuals who deserve our remembrance and respect.

It is beyond belief that such an event could be hosted in the grounds of a former school; a place once dedicated to learning, growth and community.

To purpose such a place for the glorification of terrorism is not only deeply offensive; it is a betrayal of the values that bind us together. No matter where such events are held, we must be vocal and unequivocal: no terrorist should ever be celebrated.

The organisers of that commemoration have inflicted renewed pain on a community still scarred by the ethnic cleansing of Protestant people. The decision to hold such an event in south-east Fermanagh, or anywhere, is not just insensitive but simply wrong. It speaks volumes about their disregard for reconciliation, healing and basic human decency. Let us reject the glorification of violence and ensure that history remembers the truth — the actual truth — and not a revisionist fantasy that seeks to sanitise terror.

Ms Egan: I welcome the Housing Executive's first ever Domestic Abuse Awareness Week. Its aims are vital: to raise awareness of the connection between domestic abuse and homelessness; to highlight the support services that are available to those experiencing domestic abuse; and to echo a message that, I am sure, all of us across the Chamber agree on: "home" should mean "safe".

Data released last month revealed that, from July 2024 to June 2025, 29,740 domestic abuse incidents were reported in Northern Ireland; that is 15 per 1,000 in our population. Last December, the Housing Executive shared that, each year, it helps over 1,000 households who present as homeless due to domestic abuse. Startling though they are, we know that those numbers are not a true reflection of the scale of domestic abuse in our communities. So many victims and survivors refuse to come forward out of shame or fear for their safety. It is an inescapable fact that domestic violence has permeated the fabric of our society, be it physical, psychological or financial abuse; coercive control; sexual violence; or any other intimidation or threat.

The Housing Executive has organised various opportunities for people to come together and reflect on the victims of violence and the survivors who have suffered, including a candlelit vigil in Lisburn last night, which my colleagues attended; a panel to reflect on the impact of domestic abuse on our society; and progress on initiatives such as the Housing Executive's Sanctuary scheme.

Abuse can be experienced by anyone, no matter their gender, in a range of different types of relationships and circumstances. In many cases, support services, such as Women's Aid, Nexus and the Men's Advisory Project, are left to pick up the pieces.

There has been real momentum behind the campaign to connect homelessness and domestic abuse in the past year. In March, I had the opportunity to attend a legislative theatre event on homelessness and domestic abuse. That was a unique opportunity to listen to the lived experience of those who have found safety and support in the system and also those who feel that they have been failed. It was a powerful way of connecting policymakers, support organisations and victims and survivors to collaborate, share ideas and take forward actions to improve services.

Everyone across society has a role to play in tackling domestic and sexual abuse. It is vital that we all step up to the plate. I look forward to learning about how this inaugural Domestic Abuse Awareness Week Northern Ireland progresses, and reiterate the essential message: "home" should mean "safe".

Mr Stewart: This week marks the official launch of the 2025 Poppy Appeal by the Royal British Legion, a campaign that holds a special place in the hearts of people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entire United Kingdom. Each year, as we approach Remembrance Day, the poppy becomes a symbol of remembrance, gratitude and our shared commitment to support those who have served and sacrificed for our freedom. Since 1921, the Royal British Legion has stood by the armed forces community, providing vital welfare and financial and emotional support to serving personnel, veterans and their families. Whether it is helping someone to find a new career after leaving the forces, supporting a family in times of hardship, or offering a listening ear to those who are struggling, the legion continues to make a profound difference every single day.

In East Antrim, we are fortunate to have some of the most dedicated and energetic branches anywhere in the country. I pay tribute to the members, committee members and volunteers from our branches in Larne, Carrickfergus, Whiteabbey and Whitehead. Their tireless efforts, year after year, ensure that the Poppy Appeal thrives in local communities, and I am sure that I speak, on behalf of all Members, to each of the local branches across the country. From organising remembrance parades and coffee mornings to standing in town centres in all kinds of weather collecting donations, their commitment is nothing short of inspirational. Those men and women give freely of their time and energy, motivated not by recognition but by gratitude to those who have served and a desire to ensure that the legacy endures.

As the 2025 local Poppy Appeal begins, I urge everyone across Northern Ireland to support it. Buy a poppy, attend a fundraising event, volunteer for a few hours. Every contribution, large and small, helps the vital work of the British Legion in supporting our veterans and their families.

As we wear our poppies this year, let us do so not only as a symbol of remembrance but as a promise that we will never forget the sacrifice and service of those who defended our freedoms and that we will continue to stand by our veterans and their families.

Ms Hunter: I rise to speak on the important issue of the lack of access to interpreters in our healthcare service for those who are in the deaf community. I recently spoke with a young woman who spoke about how both of her parents are deaf and have struggled profusely to get appropriate access to the NHS and to their local GP. That really is due to the challenges and the lack of training that we have seen for some of our healthcare workers. She highlighted the fact that, sadly, that is a common issue across the deaf community and across the North, and she raised with me the fact that, many times, deaf parents have to rely on their children to make important phone calls on such things as mortgages and banking issues. She said that, right across the public sector, we really struggle with appropriate email services and in ensuring that we are reaching out to those in the deaf community.

She highlighted one incident from a few weeks ago where her father, who has type 2 diabetes, was very ill. They rang ahead to the local hospital to ensure that a BSL interpreter was provided, and, when they landed at the hospital, they became aware that, sadly, there was no interpreter and that, again, it would fall on the shoulders of both children to try to interpret to healthcare staff. I really think that that is absolutely unacceptable. Lots of time was given for the arrangements to be made, and, sadly, it was three hours before an interpreter arrived at the hospital. I have to highlight that concern as a matter of equality. We all have a right to equal access to healthcare. She also noted that the signposting and awareness of and public messaging on BSL interpreters was minimal. Access to interpreters for different languages for newcomers to our community was highlighted, and she felt really strongly that BSL and sign-supported English were not adequately signposted or that the public messaging was not appropriate.

Following her father's attending hospital, she reached out to her GP to try to get things set up there for a BSL interpreter. The family was told that the GP did not know who to call or how to access that, and, again, it fell on the shoulders of the children to interpret for their parents. I am asking the Health Minister to reassess how we go about supporting people in the deaf community to access healthcare to ensure that each and every citizen — every constituent — has an equal right when getting the help that they so rightfully deserve.

Mr Kearney: Is é Oireachtas na Samhna an t-imeacht lán-Ghaeilge is sine ar an oileán seo. Beidh sé ar siúl ón 29 Deireadh Fómhair go dtí an 2 Samhain i mBéal Feirste. Déantar an Ghaeilge, na healaíona agus traidisiúin na hÉireann a cheiliúradh ag Oireachtas na Samhna, agus beidh díospóireachtaí, scannáin, ceardlanna chomh maith le himeachtaí eile ar siúl le linn na féile.

Níor chuir sé iontas ar bith ormsa gur roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le féile na bliana seo a óstáil. Leoga, tá Béal Feirste ar thus cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na Gaeilge. Is léiriú ar an cheannasaíocht é an beartas nua Gaeilge atá comhaontaithe ag Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste.

Ina theannta sin, roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le Comórtas Péile na Gaeltachta, Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann a óstáil ar an bhliain seo chugainn. Is deis den scoth é sin leis an dul chun cinn atá déanta le déanaí a léiriú. Táthar ag súil leis na mílte Gaeilgeoirí as gach cearn d’Éirinn, agus níos faide i gcéin, i mBéal Feirste don fhéile. Tá deireadh seachtaine na n-imeachtaí á eagrú ag An Oireachtas i gcomhar le Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste, an Roinn Pobail, gníomhaireachtaí turasóireachta agus grúpaí Gaeilge, lena n-áirítear Conradh na Gaeilge.

I measc na n-imeachtaí, beidh díospóireacht ar siúl faoi "Ról na nGael i dTógáil Éire Nua", díospóireacht ina bpléifear an tábhacht a bhaineann le Gaeilgeoirí in Éire nua a thógáil. Ba chóir leas a bhaint as gach deis le bheith ag ullmhú don aontacht, don todhchaí, agus d’Éire nua.

Tá mé cinnte de go gcuirfear breáthacht Bhéal Feirste i lár an aonaigh sa dóigh a rachfar i gceann an fhéile a reáchtáil anseo. Tá mé ag tnúth go mór lena thaispeáint go bhfuil an chathair seo i gcroílár athbheochan na teanga. Taispeánfaidh sé gur teanga í an Ghaeilge a bhfuil stair shaibhir aici agus go bhfuil sí bríomhar agus faoi bhláth inár láthair, agus go leanfaidh sí ag fás léi amach anseo. Beatha teanga í a labhairt. Guím gach rath ar an Oireachtas agus é i mBéal Feirste agus tá mé ag súil go mór le bheith páirteach sa chraic, spraoi agus cultúr le linn na féile.

Mr Clarke: I will speak on funding for policing and, for the first time, not blame the Minister of Justice for the debacle that is unfolding before us. First, I will say that my thoughts are with the men and women who, every day, put on their uniform and go out to serve our community. They are caught up in a debacle through no fault of their own and, I dare say, through no fault of any Ministers in the Executive.

This week, it has been shameful to hear, through a leaked report from the Treasury — I suggest that people were briefed — suggestions that it will not give additional funding to the PSNI. It is shameful that the Secretary of State is not standing up for the PSNI. Indeed, he enjoys its support and protection every time that he flies into Northern Ireland on a whim.

He said that such things should have been planned and budgeted for. I say this to the Secretary of State: I am not sure how any Minister, be that the current or any future Minister of Justice, could have planned for things that happened in our past. I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I have an insight into some of the things from the past and their cost to the Northern Ireland purse. I am talking primarily about legacy. If the Secretary of State were to quantify what legacy has cost since the formation of the Assembly and give us that money, it would remove the difficulties that we face with the current funding cycle in which we are stuck.

We can look also at the Government's immigration policy and asylum policy, both of which we had no say on. Some in the Chamber support having asylum seekers here, but asylum seekers have brought with them problems — some of them unforeseen — for the police by way of protests and riots. That has been through no fault of the Assembly. Rather, it has been the fault of the current Government and their policies.

The report talked about planned events. No one planned for the data breach. The data breach was unforeseen and clearly not planned. I do not know what planet the Treasury is living on: it must be cloud cuckoo land. No one went into work that day to leak information about all those officers and their families. It was an accident. I see the Member opposite shaking his head. It was a mistake that is going to cost tens of millions of pounds, however. Early indications from the Treasury were that it was going to support the payment of compensation, but it is now running away, as it does from everything else.

Ms Bradshaw: I feel a deep sense of frustration over the continuing delay in dealing with historical clerical child abuse in Northern Ireland, which needs to be dealt with urgently. At the start of the summer, the long-awaited commissioned research on that abuse was submitted to the Executive Office. I have been contacted by a member of the survivors' reference group to say that the group is very concerned that a meeting has not yet been convened between the chair of the interdepartmental working group and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The concerns that the representative raised with me included the fact that nine of the 10 recommendations associated with that research relate to safeguarding.

We cannot overestimate how important it is for us to get it right going forward. I have written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister through their private office to request that the meeting be set up as soon as possible.

We have seen delays in this place, in Northern Ireland, around supporting those impacted on by historical child abuse and delays in support for those who went through the mother-and-baby institutions. We have to learn from that, because we cannot let down a new cohort of victims and survivors of historical clerical child abuse. I hope that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will convene the meeting, publish the research with the associated recommendations and bring to the Assembly a ministerial statement on how they intend to take the work forward. I will submit Assembly questions to that effect this afternoon, but we need political leadership from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

Mr Frew: Men's Sheds are community initiatives that positively impact on the health and well-being of their members, their families and the wider community in which they reside. Men's Sheds promote social connectivity among their members and give attention to physical and mental health. They are spaces in which to learn and share skills, and they provide environments to combat social isolation and loneliness. They are vital for the men who use them.

Men's Sheds are set up and run by volunteer members who support each other shoulder to shoulder and direct health information and personal development opportunities to the people who need them most. They provide significant social value and, by supporting one another, help to ease the burden and strain on the health service and other care systems and providers.

Some of the most successful Men's Sheds in the country are in the North Antrim constituency and include Harryville, Ballycastle, Cloughmills, Portglenone, Martinstown, Cullybackey and Ballymoney. They are all supported by Groundwork NI, which, whilst it is based in north Belfast, supports Men's Sheds across the country. Men's Sheds not only offer traditional, skills-based activities, such as woodwork, and now technically advanced processes, such as laser cutting, as demonstrated by Harryville Men's Shed, but the Men's Sheds in North Antrim have active community engagement programmes that reach directly into the community. They include promoting healthy living, organising health fairs, horticultural sessions and food-growing initiatives through the gardening projects and polytunnels. They have established links with organisations and charities to bring further help and awareness on issues such as first aid courses and mental and emotional well-being sessions.

The Men's Sheds, supported by Groundwork NI, provide platforms to collaborate on activities that engage with nature, sports, festivals, heritage, arts and culture and, importantly, fun. It is also important to recognise that Men's Sheds have become vehicles for change in our society, promoting inclusivity and cross-community action that is often overlooked by us all.

Men's Sheds in North Antrim survive on the generosity of their members, community donations, small funding opportunities and charities to help them out. Groundwork NI, supported by the Public Health Agency, will continue to support the Men's Sheds in North Antrim, helping to build and grow the Men's Shed ethos and model to help others. Groundwork NI offers developmental training, funding and internal support to over 100 Men's Sheds in Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: The Union Customs Code (UCC) defines the legal framework for customs rules and procedures in the EU customs territory. It was introduced across the European Union in 2016, but, because of its complexities, a transition period was set to run originally until 2020 and has now been extended to a final date of 31 December 2025. The revisions of the new Union Customs Code will apply to Northern Ireland by the end of the year. The rules are mandatory, as detailed in the Community Customs Code Council regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. That is 72 days away.

The existing provision of the customs rules, which covers every good in the single market, is not, to put it mildly, well understood by companies in Northern Ireland or GB companies that trade into this part of the United Kingdom. The extensive reports by Lord Murphy and the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee have made it clear that there is limited understanding and knowledge about how the Windsor framework should work. The Federation of Small Businesses was much starker: the reality is that the Windsor framework is not working, even in its current form.

The Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee decided, for once, to be curious about the UCC. Bearing in mind the time available before it was introduced, we asked to speak to the head of our Northern Ireland Bureau in Brussels. We know how important it is for all of Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that we are about two months out. We were scheduled to speak to him this week. Anybody studying or looking at European trade bodies, think tanks and parliaments knows how seriously the changes to the UCC are being taken everywhere that the single market applies, except here. Inexplicably, OFMDFM has refused to sign off on the head of our Northern Ireland Bureau coming to speak to us. Our meeting on Thursday to discuss those vital changes has now been cancelled. Why?

We complain about being denied information to conduct our scrutiny in the House, and it is beyond acceptable that our Executive think that they have more information and understanding than the House, particularly about the Windsor framework. Spoiler alert, Members: as the Windsor framework debacle has shown so far, they do not. It is 72 days and counting, and we are not doing well.

Mr Honeyford: Today's Audit Office report on energy strategy is a timely wake-up call for us all and sets it out in stark terms that, while the ambition is really strong, we are failing to deliver. Today's report highlights what I have been calling for and what Alliance has been consistently raising, which is that progress towards the 2030 target remains far too slow and we need to use it as a stepping stone to the wider 2050 targets. Our goal is to reach 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and, importantly, to reduce overall energy use by 25%, yet there is no clear line of sight between those targets and the action that has been taken to achieve them.

Anyone wanting to remove the targets, give up or peddle a right-wing Trump/Farage anti-net-zero narrative should remember that this is about people's lives and livelihoods here. Every family in Northern Ireland has felt the shock of rising energy costs. Every family continues to pay the cost of that every month. Since 2022, bills have more than doubled, and the long-term answer is cheaper, cleaner, home-grown energy that we can control and that protects us from volatile global energy markets. Energy security, affordability and climate targets go hand in hand. I continue to call for that master development plan to sit alongside the overarching councils' local development plans, giving direction that will stop people literally paying the price for this.

However, there are positives, and we should build on them. We have the potential to lead on the issue. We have a community of world-class engineers and expertise, and we have an opportunity to create hundreds and thousands of skilled jobs in clean energy, retrofitting, biomethane and hydrogen. Our North-South interconnector, energy storage and renewable projects can all deliver not only environmental benefits but real economic growth, reducing people's costs. Crucially, we have an entrepreneurial business community to deliver that. It just needs the support, direction and will of the House to give it confidence that we are serious.

My message today is one not of blame but of urgency to seize the opportunities that are in front of us. Now is the time for us to close the gap, build public trust and deliver an energy system that is secure, affordable and sustainable for every household in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: I want to address something that has become all too clear in the House: the complete lack of accountability from those who claim to lead. Yesterday, we witnessed two appalling examples. During Question Time, I asked the First Minister a simple question about the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre: was Enniskillen an example of mass murder? Among those murdered were a nurse, a teacher and pensioners. They were ordinary people cut down by the IRA for the crime of remembering the fallen and those who gave their lives for freedom, yet the First Minister for all, the person in charge of victims' issues, could not bring herself to say that those men and women were murdered. That is a shameful situation.

Then we had the Health Minister's non-response. Moments before coming to the Chamber, I read an email from Kerry O'Neill. I watched a video of her lying on the floor of the South West Acute Hospital. I told her that I was coming to the Chamber to raise her case. The Minister's response was not one of compassion or concern but the words:

Kerry heard those words, and her response was this:

Indeed, she was right. Whether it was the First Minister dodging the truth about Enniskillen or the Health Minister dodging, in his cold response, an answer to a woman who lay suffering on the floor of a hospital at the weekend, the attitude from both was beneath contempt.

Stormont's problem is not a lack of money; it is a lack of honour and truth and a complete lack of accountability. I would like to think that the Health Minister, on reflection, will contact Kerry directly to offer the dignified response that he should have given me in the House yesterday, accompanied by a sincere apology. It does not matter who the messenger is: a constituent's case was raised and deserved a dignified response.

I am disappointed by what the House experienced yesterday from the First Minister and the Health Minister. It shines a light on how they treat some of us in the House — with contempt.

Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Mr Speaker. What does it say about our society that, with the passing of another year, there is another attempt at a strategy to deny our health and social care workers the pay that they are owed? How many times do health and social care workers need to be strung along by political parties and be told, "We get it", "We are with you" or "We have got your back", while Budgets are passed again that refuse to include the money set aside for those health and social care workers while continuing to slash our public-sector budgets?

In the absence of their pay being forthcoming, health and social care workers are totally correct and justified in taking strike action. The blame should not be placed at their door for having the temerity and the gall to stand up for themselves, for their communities and for future public-sector workers across the board. The blame should be placed at the door of the system and of the Executive, who give rates handouts to multinational corporations and landlords whilst telling health and social care workers, "Sorry, the money is not available".

The last time that there was a political crisis in this place, politicians promised health and social care workers safe staffing legislation and proper, fair pay. The Executive have categorically failed on both fronts, and people are right to rail against them. The Health Minister tells health and social care workers that there is no money to pay them, but his Department has paid over £400 million not to the independent sector but to the private health sector. That is a disgrace.

It is time to stop taking advantage of all those who work in health and social care. It is time to stop exploiting those workers and making below-inflation pay offers that amount to less than those made to healthcare workers in the South and in England, Scotland and Wales. It is time to pay health and social care workers what they are owed and what is due to them.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the enforcement and licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). In recent months, there has been an increased focus on HMOs, with concerns being raised about concentrations of that type of accommodation in certain areas. I am also aware of reports about overcrowding and about the operation of unlicensed HMOs. The purpose of my statement today is to address those concerns and provide clarity on the licensing regime for HMOs that operates in Northern Ireland and the responsibilities for enforcement.

Let me first clarify what HMOs are. An HMO is a property or part of a property where three or more people from more than two households live and share washing or cooking facilities. HMOs are useful in some circumstances, for example, when it comes to student accommodation or for those on a low income. Indeed, the benefits system presumes that single people under 35 will share accommodation and normally limits housing benefit and universal credit to a shared accommodation rate on that basis. We must acknowledge, however, that that type of housing carries higher risks in safety and standards and can have wider community impacts. We must ensure that those matters are managed responsibly while maintaining the right balance across communities, ensuring that housing needs are met without creating undue pressure or changing the character of neighbourhoods.

Controls on the numbers of HMOs are necessary to ensure that any detrimental effects on neighbouring properties or the environmental character and qualities of residential areas are minimised. Unfortunately, it is recognised that over-concentrations of HMOs were allowed to develop in some areas, which left some challenges to be addressed. The Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 provides councils with a key statutory tool to prevent future over-concentrations of HMOs through the over-provision test. That means that when considering an application for a new HMO, councils must have regard to the number of HMOs that are already in the locality. Councils should also have their own policies on HMO provision and set restrictions on numbers or percentages of HMOs in certain areas.

Regrettably, there are many inconsistencies of approach, and some councils have not exercised their powers to the fullest extent when it comes to that legislation. For that reason, I can confirm that I will be writing to all council chief executives, outlining their obligations and my expectations under the legislation. Councils have powers to investigate, enforce and punish those landlords who are acting outside the law. I expect councils to implement their own HMO policies, including setting a limit on the percentage of HMOs in a certain area.

Immigration is an excepted matter, and the lead Department with responsibility for legal obligations to asylum seekers across the UK, including for accommodation, is the Home Office. Where an individual has been accepted by the Home Office as a refugee and given leave to remain in the UK, that will, in most cases, bring an entitlement to access public services, including housing assistance, for which my Department is responsible in Northern Ireland. Approximately 250 HMOs are in use by Mears across Northern Ireland to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees. I have raised concerns on several occasions about the Mears accommodation issues, and I do not plan to rehearse them all today. It is, however, the case that the system is not working and that current policies are failing communities across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

There are higher risks associated with HMOs, and they often have a negative impact on neighbourhoods and the balance of a community. Councils, however, have substantial powers under the Act to manage issues that are reported about that type of accommodation, including powers to obtain information and enter premises. Councils also have powers to issue fixed penalty notices and fines and proceed to prosecution if necessary. The most serious offences carry fixed penalties of £5,000 and fines of up to £20,000. Between April 2019 and early September 2025, there were only 77 fixed penalty notices issued, two successful prosecutions for the operation of unlicensed HMOs and one successful prosecution for exceeding the licensed occupancy. The operation of the HMO licensing scheme is funded by the licence fees that are paid by landlords. I am, therefore, increasing the maximum amount that can be charged for a HMO licence application to ensure the adequate resourcing and operation of the licensing scheme.

The private rented sector in Northern Ireland is under strain, so it is important that landlords who decide to break the law are held to account. Therefore, I can confirm that I have written to the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, requesting that they extend the right-to-rent scheme to Northern Ireland. That would ensure that landlords in Northern Ireland have a legal obligation, as landlords do in England, to ensure that prospective tenants have legal status to reside in the United Kingdom.

I have always said that I will do what I can with what I have. Today's statement sets out the clear expectations that I have of every council in Northern Ireland to ensure that they exercise the powers available to them. I have also demonstrated my support by increasing the fees to landlords, which will support councils and the HMO unit to carry out their responsibilities, and I will continue to engage with His Majesty's Government on bringing the right-to-rent scheme to Northern Ireland. I encourage anyone who has concerns or suspicions about unlicensed HMOs, or knows of other issues with HMOs, to report those to their local council or the HMO unit for investigation and action. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: I have raised issues regarding HMOs on several occasions in the Chamber, but I have a real concern that, from the statement, we can infer that there is a hierarchy of HMOs: if they are used for students, they are good, but, if they are used for immigrants, they are bad. The Minister laments the low number of penalty notices and prosecutions over the past six years. Does he accept that, given the evidential threshold and definitions that exist in legislation, adequately resourcing the HMO unit may not be enough in itself to address the issue and that he may have to look at legislative change, or is he content to just pass the buck and pass the blame?

Mr Lyons: First of all, I am happy to look at any legislative change that may be required, but I would rather use the powers that are available to us and to councils right now, because my understanding and feeling from talking to elected representatives and others on the ground is that they feel that councils are not taking the appropriate action to deal with the problems that many people face.

I make no apology whatsoever for making the statement today. I make no apology for setting out the powers and responsibilities that are there. I can highlight many cases where this issue is having an impact on people and is changing the residential nature and make-up of an area. It is right that councils put in place policies that can ensure that those areas are protected and that, when people are doing something illegal, action is taken and fines are used. It is those fines that will fund the HMO unit, which can take that enforcement action.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): It appears, Minister, that elements of the statement scapegoat migrant families. However, the statement is only in, and the evidence for that will become clearer in due course. How does the Department intend to balance legitimate demand for affordable shared housing, including for students, low-income workers and refugees, with community concerns about neighbourhood change and the safety risks that you flag in the statement?

Mr Lyons: The Member must be reading a different statement, because I have not scapegoated anybody at all. I have set out clearly the powers that are available to councils. I hope that councils will use those powers in determining HMO applications but also in taking enforcement action against people who are here legally and people who are here illegally. Those powers are available to deal with those landlords.

Ultimately, how do we deal with many of the housing issues that we face? We deal with them by building more homes. I encourage the Member to speak to his party colleagues who are in the Executive, because I want to make sure that we can meet our housing targets, including our social housing targets. I hope that his Executive colleagues will join me in ensuring that the necessary finance is available.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House this morning. It is very welcome. This is a big issue in Northern Ireland. The housing shortage is certainly a problem that affects every MLA in their constituency. Minister, why are some houses in multiple occupation allowed to operate without proper planning permission?

Mr Lyons: They should not be operating without proper planning permission. I have had a number of reports of that happening — various examples have been brought to my attention — particularly in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area. Those have now been reported to the council and are being investigated. HMOs require planning permission. If they are operating without that planning permission, that should be reported to the HMO unit or to your local council's planning authority so that we can do what needs to be done to make sure that people are adhering to the law and that, if they are not prepared to adhere to the law, they receive the necessary fine and punishment.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, are you aware of research from the UK Government on their evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme and research by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which shows that the right-to-rent scheme has led to racial discrimination against lawful tenants? What analysis has your Department undertaken to assess those risks in Northern Ireland, in our context, before you attempt to bring in the right-to-rent scheme here?

Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be for the UK Government to bring in and consider all the evidence. I take a simple position on this, which is that those who want to rent a property should have the legal right to do so. That should not be a controversial statement. We do this in all aspects of our lives. We make sure that people are legally entitled to a good or a service before they are able to get it. If there is racial or any other sort of discrimination, we should use the law to tackle it, but we should not ignore another part of the law. I think that most people in Northern Ireland and beyond think that it is perfectly reasonable and credible that, if you want to rent property in Northern Ireland, you must have a legal right to be here.

Mr Allen: In his statement, the Minister mentioned writing to the chief executives of councils to set out the expectations and obligations placed on councils by the respective legislation. Will he share a copy of that correspondence with Members so that we are clear as to the position of the Department with councils?

Mr Lyons: I have largely set out today what I said in that correspondence, but, if the Member would like to see it, I am more than happy to share it with him and others. I will arrange for it to be placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr McHugh: To what extent has the Minister consulted councils on the problem? Is he prepared to provide additional resources to councils? The increase in the fee will penalise those who already adhere to the law, but it will not impact on those who do not even register.

Mr Lyons: Additional work comes with the administration of HMOs, and it is right that those who benefit from it pay a contribution towards it, which is why I am increasing the fee. Also, there is the ability to get income from penalising those who act outside the law. That is how this will be funded, and most people find it reasonable that the money that comes from those who operate illegally is paid so that we can continue the work of cracking down on that behaviour.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the Minister's statement and that he will write to council chief executives to outline their obligations under current legislation.

The Minister will be aware that there are many cases of negative experiences of HMOs as a cause of antisocial behaviour in local communities, in particular excess waste and dumping, noise nuisance and over-occupation. To which statutory agencies should residents report such concerns, and will the Minister highlight that to councils?

Mr Lyons: If residents have concerns with those issues — that has been my experience as an elected representative — members of the public can report concerns either directly to the Northern Ireland HMO unit, which is based in Belfast City Council, or to their local authority so that appropriate action can be taken.

Mr Dickson: The vast majority of people who are in HMOs have been given leave to remain if they were originally asylum seekers. What action do you take to ensure that those who accommodate them provide the best quality and standards of accommodation, bearing in mind that most of those people are highly vulnerable and find it extremely difficult to articulate their complaints or are scared to make them?

Mr Lyons: That is one of the reasons why there are higher standards for HMOs. It is set out in the Act, and landlords are subject to more stringent standards because of the nature of those who may need to use HMOs. Additional concerns can come from local residents in those areas about the proliferation of HMOs. That is why higher standards are already in place. Of course, they can be reviewed if necessary.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for his statement. HMOs have presented issues for well over a decade, particularly in areas such as the Holylands in South Belfast and in other inner-city communities. However, I am concerned with the Minister's framing of the question. He looks at one small area that is not reflective of the concerns that those communities raise: concerns about the economic system that drives profit in housing over the needs of communities. I know that, because of the restrictions on HMOs in, for example, the Belfast City Council area, landlords are now switching to temporary let accommodation. Minister, if you want to build a fairer housing system, what work is being done to address the issues more broadly to ensure that we can deliver housing for people, no matter what their community background, ethnicity, religion or gender is?

Mr Lyons: Again it seems as though Sinn Féin has a different statement from the one that I read out. I have been clear that there is an issue and that there are concerns. I have made it clear to the House today what powers are available to councils to put in place measures to ensure that the right policies are there to determine whether a HMO should come into existence in the first place and that, if HMOs are there, be they legal or illegal, landlords adhere to their responsibilities and, if they do not, there will be the threat of a fine.

The Member is absolutely correct to say that we have issues with housing. That is why I am seeking more money from the Minister of Finance, and I am sure that that will be forthcoming in due course. It is also why we are looking at other measures to improve housing provision. I am, of course, taking forward the measures in the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, with which the Member will be familiar, and that work will continue.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for taking action. Despite what Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance think, there is a hierarchy of housing access in Northern Ireland that often works against local people. The Minister knows the issue that the concentration of HMOs has caused in my community in Portadown, where their proliferation has changed the character of the town in which I live. One of the bigger issues, however, is dispersal rates, with Belfast having the second-highest rate in the entire UK of asylum seekers who have been dispersed from hotels into accommodation. Does the Minister agree that those who have concerns are not far-right or racist and, indeed, that the issue has added to housing stress in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I agree with the Member. There are others in the Chamber who continue to bury their head in the sand and say that the UK Government's policy on housing and immigration has not had an impact on housing in Northern Ireland: of course it has. This Government and the previous Government accelerated the rate of their decision-making on right-to-remain applications, changing it from being a UK Government responsibility to being the responsibility of the Housing Executive and, ultimately, my Department. That is one of the reasons that we have seen an increase in temporary accommodation, which has resulted in additional housing stress.

I hear tuts from around the Chamber, but that is not opinion but fact. It is having an impact, and that is why we need to take the issue seriously. It is not the only issue — of course it is not — but it absolutely contributes.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure, Minister, that you will agree that the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council planning committee took a common-sense decision last week in response to the application in Larne. Planning committees and planning offices across the country seem to be taking different approaches. How concerned are you about the different approaches that are being taken and the different interpretations? What more can be done to apply consistency when processing such applications?

Mr Lyons: That is one of the reasons that I made the statement today and that I wrote to council chief executives. I did so to make them aware of the powers that they have available to them. Some councils' local development plans have no provision at all for HMOs. That council took the right decision last week. There will be different approaches taken. It is up to councils to decide on their approach on the basis of the particular circumstances in an area or even on a street. It is right that councils have the ability to take decisions in accordance with what is right for an area. My concern, however, is that there is inconsistency, in that sometimes no policies whatever are in place. That is what councils should seek to rectify.

Mr Speaker: I call Stephen Dunne.

Mr Dunne: Sorry, but I do not have a question, Mr Speaker.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. My constituency colleague just mentioned the planning decision taken by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. There was overwhelming concern from the community about that decision. Minister, how are communities' feelings and concerns about HMOs being taken into consideration, particularly in sensitive areas where residents are extremely concerned about how that will change their future?

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely right that councils consider local people's views on the proliferation of HMOs on certain streets or in wider areas. That is why it is important that councils have policies in place and adhere to them as part of the planning process. Of course, it is absolutely legitimate for people to raise concerns and say, "I have concerns about what this will do to the residential nature of this area and that it is transforming it from a family area into an area with more HMO accommodation", or that they raise concerns about other associated issues such as the provision of waste water infrastructure or parking, which are particularly pertinent in the example that the Member referred to in our constituency. That is why it is important that councils do the work, put the policies in place and ensure that local people have a say.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your statement, Minister. You said that you will write to councils to outline their obligations under the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. I think that council officers know exactly what their obligations are. I have worked very closely with residents in the Holylands over many years, and they feel that the legislation is not fit for purpose. Will you undertake a wider review of the legislation to establish whether it is fit for purpose and a proper consultation with those who are impacted on and may feel that their community is changing?

Mr Lyons: First, it is clear to me that some people do not understand what their responsibilities are. Secondly, there is never any harm in reminding people or, indeed, in telling the House, because I have received numerous questions for written answer on the issue, and not everybody has been clear on the rules. As I said in my answer to a previous question, we are happy to look at the legislation and at whether additional legislation is required — a review of the Act was done in 2021 — but it is important that people use the powers that are available to them and make sure that local people have their say.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. In response to a previous question, the Minister referred to inconsistencies of approach taken across councils to HMO provision. Can he be more forthcoming on that? Where is it done well, and where is it done wrong? What policies need to be put in place?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to repeat, for the Member's benefit, that there is an inconsistency in approach, especially to local development plans (LDPs). Some councils have those plans in place and some do not. It would be appropriate for councils to be very clear in those plans about what is acceptable for HMOs and what additional measures need to be in place for HMOs to get the necessary approval and consent. That is where I see an inconsistency in approach.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his leadership on the issue. People look to this party on these matters, whilst other parties have been silent for many years.

In my constituency of Foyle, we have concerns about how landlords manage some HMO properties. What is your assessment of whether landlords are meeting the required fire, safety and maintenance standards?

Mr Lyons: I need to be clear with the House that all HMO properties are subject to a physical inspection as part of the application process for a licence to ensure that the property meets the required standards of space, safety and facilities for the number of occupants. Inspections are also carried out when a licence renewal application is made and in the case of any reports of a breach of a licence. Those reports need to be made, however, as councils and the HMO unit can take action only if we have the reports. I encourage people, if they have concerns — I know that there are concerns — to contact their local authority.

As I said, in part, in answer to a previous question, it is important that we highlight the powers and sanctions that are available, the fact that we take the issue seriously and the fact that we do not think that landlords should break the law. It is important that we say that it is right that things are done legally and to the required standards, and it is important that, if people think that they can step outside what is required of them under the law, there is sufficient punishment for them.

Ms Nicholl: The Minister will be aware of the increasing anti-immigrant narrative in Northern Ireland. What assessment has he made about how his statement feeds into that, and how does he reconcile it with Christian values, particularly when Jesus commanded us to welcome strangers and treat those with the least with compassion?

Mr Lyons: The statement is not anti-immigrant; it is anti the landlords who are willing to take advantage of those people. It is not about those who are housed in HMOs. The responsibility lies with those who often take advantage of people and do what they should not do. I do not make any apology for wanting to make sure that the law is upheld and that those who are in breach of the law are dealt with. It is right that we take that approach and highlight the powers that are available.

On her other comment, it is right that we are seen to uphold the law. That is also a Christian principle. I am more than happy to have a further conversation with her about that, if she wants, and talk through some of the theology on it.

Mr Brett: It is a good day, because, once again, it exposes those in the House who have no concern for the genuine issues that HMOs cause across Northern Ireland. It is also a good day for my North Belfast constituency, parts of which are being destroyed by HMOs. Does the Minister agree that working-class communities, particularly those in inner-city areas, bear the brunt of the negative impacts of HMOs and that, had HMOs been erected in the more salubrious areas in which more people in the House seem to be interested, they would soon be knocking on his door about taking action?

Mr Lyons: Yes, that is absolutely the case. Time and time again, working-class communities bear the brunt of many of those issues. I am a little bit frustrated with the approach of some people in the House today, because I am making a very reasonable statement. It sets out the fact that people should adhere to the law and that policies should be in place to ensure a consistent approach across Northern Ireland to determining whether or not an HMO should be in place. Those who cause issues, break the law or do not adhere to the terms of their licence should be dealt with, because there are real-life implications. Sometimes those implications are for the people who live in the HMOs, and, sometimes the implications are for the people who live around the HMOs. It is entirely reasonable and proportionate that we set out what the law says and what we will do to enforce it. A lot of people here seem to have a problem with that today.

Mr Butler: Irregularities and inconsistencies to do with HMOs and planning, as the Minister pointed out, have long occurred across councils. Minister, you have rightly pointed out the powers that councils have. Will you outline what powers you have or steps you might take if councils do not react to your letter?

Mr Lyons: I have power over policy and legislation relating to the issue. Largely, the issue of HMOs lies with councils, particularly the HMO unit at Belfast City Council. If we get to the stage where councils are not using the powers or where additional powers are required under legislation, that can be looked at.

Mr Frew: Can the Minister provide any further detail on the right-to-rent scheme, and has he had any response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Home Office since my question on that issue last week?

Mr Lyons: The right-to-rent scheme is a UK Government scheme that requires landlords and letting agents in England to check that tenants have the legal right to live in the UK before renting a property. To comply with that, landlords must verify a tenant's immigration status and right to reside by checking original documents before the tenancy begins. The scheme applies to all properties in England but not in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to ask that they extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. I have not had a response from either the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr Brooks: The proliferation of HMOs is a cancer in our communities, largely caused by greedy, profiteering speculators. It has been interesting to hear equivocation by parties that are, supposedly, on the left, as well as some theology from a member of the Alliance Party, who is concerned about Christian values. How many unlicensed HMOs have been identified, and what actions are being taken against landlords who operate illegally?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am happy to confirm that 77 fixed penalty notices have been issued and paid. The fines totalled £343,800, which helps us to fund the HMO unit that operates in Belfast City Council. There have also been two successful prosecutions for the operation of unlicensed HMOs and one such prosecution for exceeding the licensed occupancy.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for taking action on the matter. How can we stop HMOs in areas where there is a high number of them?

Mr Lyons: The number and over-proliferation of HMOs are increasingly a concern for communities across Northern Ireland. It comes back to councils, which have the power to limit or cap the percentage of HMOs in an area, even down to the level of streets. Planning permission, which takes into account issues such as parking, water and waste, must be sought for new HMOs. Those are the ways in which we can prevent further HMOs being approved.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. When questions about HMOs are brought up, those on the other side of the House are, much of the time, quick to blame the Communities Minister and shout at his decisions on housing. The agenda has become clear, and it is entirely inappropriate that the Minister's religious beliefs have been challenged in the House.

Minister, I welcome the clarity in your statement. You outlined councils' powers in existing legislation: do you feel that councils are sufficiently resourced to inspect according to the regulations?

Mr Lyons: The enforcement of HMO legislation is funded from HMO licence fees and income that is generated through fixed penalty notices and fines. The licence fee is kept under review by the Department and has been uplifted in regulations to allow the scheme to continue to operate on a cost-neutral basis, with no additional cost to ratepayers.

I assure the Member that it does not concern me one bit if people want to question me, my integrity or even my faith. I am more than happy for people to make those comments. As I have said, I will have those conversations with anyone, and I am happy to discuss the matter further.

Mrs Dillon: Has the Minister engaged with the migrant and refugee community or the organisations that represent its members, in order to understand their perspective? If we take at face value his saying that the issue is landlords, he should engage with the community that is affected. I know that Kate Nicholl has held a number of such meetings, and I am sure that she would welcome the Minister to attend one of them to gain an understanding of that community's perspective.

Mr Lyons: I am not sure whether she would welcome it, but I am more than happy to do so. I have not had that direct engagement, but my Department and the Housing Executive often meet interested groups. It is absolutely about dealing with those who are intent on breaking the law. Responsibility lies with the landlords, not with those whom they may try to exploit.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I welcome your statement, and, from raising local issues with you, I know that you are well across the concerns that illegal HMOs have caused in my constituency, particularly in the Clonavon area of Ballymena. If it is believed that illegal HMOs are in operation in an area, does the legislation allow applications to be paused by the council while investigations take place? In Ballymena, only nine legal HMOs are listed, which shows the depth of the problems that we experience in Ballymena alone. Will you clarify whether Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has the right to pause new applications while concerns are investigated?

Mr Lyons: It is up to councils to take those issues into consideration and to determine their policies, but a planning committee, in looking at the issues, would take such factors into consideration when making a determination. Regardless of that, if fresh applications are made, it will be up to councils to consider any pertinent factors.

Mr Carroll: Minister, any attempt to clamp down on rogue landlords or those who are exploiting people through high rents is welcome. I am not sure that that is what this is; it seems to be a non-subtle way to try and stick the boot —. [Interruption.]

Mr Carroll: Be quiet. You have had your time.

It seems to be a non-subtle way to try and stick the boot into asylum seekers and refugees. It is poor housing, a lack of regulation and extortionate rents that are upsetting the "balance of a community", not demographic changes as you are alleging. My question was referred to earlier but it was not adequately addressed. In 2019, the British High Court ruled that the right-to-rent scheme was racially discriminatory and had "little to no effect" on controlling immigration. Minister, it sounds like you did not do your homework on this one.

Mr Lyons: My goodness, the Member is some craic, is he not? [Laughter.]

He really likes what I am saying, but that is a problem for him because he does not like to agree with what I am saying. He wants me to crack down on rogue landlords, but not in this way. It looks as if he is just looking for something to disagree with or argue about. I make no apology whatsoever: people should adhere to —.

Mr Carroll: Answer the question.

Mr Lyons: It is OK. I will come to it.

Mr Speaker: Remarks through the Chair, please.

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, I will come to it if the Member gives me the opportunity to speak; I am more than happy to do so. This is about making sure that we enforce the standards that are there. It is about making sure that HMOs only get a licence if they meet the criteria. For those who are breaking the law, operating illegally, operating without planning permission or operating beyond their licences, there are penalties, and I have put them in the letter to the councils. Fines of between £5,000 and £20,000 can be issued for the 21 offences in the HMO legislation that are punishable by fixed penalty notices. It is all in there.

On the right-to-rent scheme, I say this again: I do not understand why people would have an issue with making sure that someone who wants to rent a property in Northern Ireland has a legal right to live here.

Ms Sugden: Minister, I appreciate that you recognise that HMOs are useful in certain circumstances. One of the biggest threats to the Causeway Hospital is recruitment. People do not want to take jobs there because they simply cannot find places to live. My concern with the statement is that we could actually add to the housing crisis, which is particularly acute on the north coast, if we do not make the distinction that needs to be made.

Mr Lyons: First, there is a housing crisis, and we are bringing through a number of policies to try to help deal with that. That is why it is so important that we have policies in place that work for HMOs, and the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council could put in place a policy that works for it, taking into consideration all the necessary factors that need to be considered before the granting of a HMO licence. The need for workers and the economic benefit that those workers might bring is something that could feed into that process, but it has to be balanced against the rights of local residents and the residential nature of the area that may be changed. Again, that is why we need to have a consistency of approach in the policies that are in place, whilst ensuring that they can be adapted for local areas.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister, and Members. Please take your ease while we change personnel at the top Table.

Ms Sheerin: Molaim an rún.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Emma, please open the debate on the motion.

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

The motion relates acutely to Brexit. There have been many debates about Brexit in the Chamber, across the North and beyond in the run-up to the decision that was made by the UK Government to pursue that agenda and since. We will have different narratives as to how that has played out, which is fair enough. Some people had a clear perspective on the issue of leaving the EU and decided that they wanted to support that and were comfortable with it, but the issue that we are discussing today is a clear example of how that decision has been objectively bad for the North. Leaving the EU has left us with serious economic consequences, most acutely through a loss of funding. Across the North, we were net benefactors from the EU. As a rural MLA who represents Mid Ulster, I see numerous examples across the board, including the LEADER approach, the rural development programme (RDP) and the common agricultural policy (CAP), of funding streams that we have lost and have thus had to scramble to replace.

The motion refers to the European social fund (ESF) and the replacement funding that was supposed to come but did not come in the way in which we would have liked. That is having real-life implications for the people whom we all represent. There are groups in the Assembly today, including the Workspace Group from my constituency; I see Alex and Adele up there watching on. I know from meetings with them and the people who benefit from the schemes that the Workspace Group and others run that this is having a real impact and is causing real anxiety for our constituents.

We were told that, when we left the EU, we would not lose out and that all of the funding that we had would be replaced. That has not been the case. We had a cliff edge almost three years ago, when there was an awful lot of concern because we did not know whether the programmes would be extended. We have had some replacement funding, but it has not been to the level that it was. Studies have been done to ascertain the exact value of the shortfall, but the estimates of £20 million per year give you an idea of just how critical it is for those whom we represent.

The Go Succeed programme is run by the Department for the Economy and supports local small businesses and allows people to start up. I know that that is supported by the likes of the Workspace Group in Mid Ulster. If that is not extended, there will be real implications for the people who have been able to benefit from it and who are trying to plan for their business, which might want to avail itself of such support. There are programmes for people with learning difficulties and disabilities who need that wee bit of help to get into employment. They have been supported thus far, but there will be knock-on implications for those people and their families and for the people who employ them. We talk every day about supporting people with complex needs, including through work that needs to happen in our schools around special educational needs (SEN), and that is a real, tangible example of actual support that allows people to get into employment. It needs to be extended.

This is not a debate about the pros and cons of Brexit. I have a clear perspective on that. My party has been consistent on the harm that has been done here as a result of that decision, which was not of our making. The debate is about what we can do now. We need to have a united voice in going to the British Government and asking for replacement funding and for certainty now. We want to see our businesses, local enterprise groups and support networks and agencies being given certainty so that they can plan for the future. That is what the motion calls for. I hope that we will speak with one voice across the Chamber today — that we will have universality — in passing the motion and asking for a clear message to go from the Executive to the British Government that we want to see that delivered now.

Ms Forsythe: As chair of the Assembly's all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, I am a champion for the sector. I recognise the huge value of its contribution to society and our public services. This morning, I was pleased to join members of the sector with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), the Finance Minister and colleagues on the steps of Parliament Buildings to show my support.

The voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland continues to deliver front-line services to the public, filling gaps where public services do not reach, especially in response to crises such as the recent storms. Members in every corner of the Chamber will, no doubt, testify to the impact that those organisations have in their constituencies. It is vital that our voluntary and community sector feels valued for the work that it does. Ensuring stability and sustainability for its services and volunteers is critical to ensuring that the support infrastructure is there for those who need it.

It seems that Sinn Féin has copied its motion from September 2024. My party's position remains the same as it was then. The DUP believes that the UK Government have a responsibility to provide clarity on the future of the funding without delay. It is appalling that community and voluntary organisations that are doing essential work have been left in such an uncertain position, with NICVA reporting that nearly 24,000 people, including people with disabilities, women, lone parents, carers and young people, face losing access to life-changing support. We want to see the previous spending power under the EU structural funds replicated and enhanced. The UK always paid in more to the EU than it received back under structural funding. There can be no excuse for any shortfall in funding now. The DUP does not accept that that was, in some way, inevitable as a result of our exit from the EU. Ultimately, previous Governments made promises that they did not honour.

My party is also of the view that long-term multi-annual budgeting for replacement EU funds should be a priority. Over the past three years, we have repeatedly sought clarity on when the funding would be available, how it would be administered and the degree of input that would be afforded to local Ministers. It is clear on all those fronts that the engagement of the previous Government was severely lacking. We want to see that remedied. Just last week, in the House of Commons, DUP leader Gavin Robinson MP raised that directly in questions to the Secretary of State.

We have always been clear that the aims and funding objectives of the local growth fund must align with the Executive's agreed plans for economic growth and social inclusion. We cannot be in a situation again where funding that comes from the UK Government duplicates aims that are already covered by the Executive programme or where Northern Ireland's circumstances are not reflected in the development or administration of the funding. Equally, the DUP does not believe that providing a more meaningful role for the devolved Administrations in deciding how and where the funding is targeted needs to be at the expense of retaining a national approach to providing greater economic and social cohesion between different parts of the United Kingdom.

It should be noted that, even under the framework of previous EU structural funds, there was a role for the UK Government working in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. Given the tough decisions that need to be taken by Ministers in coming weeks and months, my party, on balance, does not believe that it would be prudent or constructive to provide greater uncertainty to the community and voluntary sector and add to the challenges facing our Departments by devolving responsibility for those schemes solely to local Ministers. We do not want to see political ideology stymie growth in Northern Ireland. It is evident to many that Sinn Féin's ideological opposition to defence issues risks holding Northern Ireland back from investment, growth and job creation.

The establishment of the East-West Council provides a constructive platform for the UK Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together to address the issues that have hampered the realisation of the full potential of replacement EU funding to date. We support the replacement funding, but we do not support devolving full power to local Ministers. Today, we will stand with the sector. As was said by the previous Member, across the House, we want to see a quick solution to the matter because the voluntary and community sector deserves better.

Mr Tennyson: The community and voluntary sector has always stepped up where government has fallen short, plugging gaps in vital public service provision and working with people and communities who are furthest from opportunity. The benefits of the European social fund and the European regional development fund (ERDF) in supporting that work was clear. Between 2014 and 2020, those funds collectively provided an average of £65 million a year to Northern Ireland. That money helped tackle economic inactivity, promote social inclusion, enhance the competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses and support research and development.

In my time as an MLA, I have been privileged to meet many of the organisations that deliver projects on the ground. Their work is second to none. European funding, however, was cast aside as collateral in the reckless and ideological pursuit of a hard Brexit, with those organisations treated shamefully and left peering over a financial cliff edge as a result. I found the contribution from the Member who spoke previously to be galling. To claim that the situation was not inevitable or foreseeable and to believe that, after leaving the EU, money would not be clawed back to be invested in England is the height of naivety. We were sold a pup by English nationalists in the Conservative Party. The DUP in particular owes the organisations that it sacrificed on the chopping block an apology for its conduct over the past 10 years. Nobody who has taken the position that the Member has can credibly claim to be a champion of our community and voluntary sector. Eventually, it has to be said, a replacement fund emerged in the form of the Shared Prosperity Fund, but, far from being the like-for-like replacement funding that was promised, the scheme failed to live up to its predecessors in either quantum or design.

Despite the setbacks and frustrations, our community and voluntary sector stepped up and responded with agility, often by submitting consortium bids in order to preserve as many of the services that they offered as possible. Between April 2023 and March 2025, £57 million was committed to Northern Ireland, with 18 projects supported. Almost 24,000 people were supported in that period, with 5,000 moving into employment and almost 8,000 moving into further education or training. Despite that clear success, those organisations are now peering over another cliff edge and facing another funding crisis, as the Shared Prosperity Fund is due to come to an end in March 2026. That will jeopardise 650 jobs and the progress that has been made, as well as the position of individuals who rely on those organisations' support.

I am deeply concerned about the UK Government's approach to the Shared Prosperity Fund's proposed successor, the local growth fund. The majority of the £46 million allocated in the spending review to that fund is capital money, which clearly will not meet the organisations' resource needs. It is shameful that, once again, promises that were made to those very organisations are being broken, with uncertainty looming large. That uncertainty hits our community and voluntary sector harder than any other sector in our economy. Staff have to be placed on notice and preparation has to be undertaken to deliver services differently or to cease delivering them altogether. Once staff and vital services are lost, it is almost impossible to replace them. That will result in a false economy, heaping yet further pressure on our public services, which are already struggling.

It is particularly shameful that the Government profess to care about economic inactivity while simultaneously gambling with funding for organisations with a proven track record of getting people into work and education. The least that we can do for the sector and its service users is to deliver sustainable funding to support the positive change that they make in our society.

We need urgent confirmation that the Government will deliver targeted employment support for those furthest from the labour market. We need to ensure that any scheme builds on the successes of existing schemes, that funding is at least maintained at current levels, adjusted for inflation and rising costs, and that contingency plans and transitional arrangements are in place to avoid any service disruption in the interim. Alliance has consistently raised those issues with the Secretary of State. Today, parties, despite our different perspectives, have an opportunity to unite to send a clear message that those organisations and their vital schemes must not be abandoned and to reaffirm our commitment to build an economy and society that works for all, in which everyone, regardless of background or ability, has the chance to belong, contribute and succeed. I hope that all parties will support the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the signatories to the motion for highlighting the concerns of the community and voluntary sector. Northern Ireland was long a beneficiary of European funding. I agree with the proposer of the motion's comments on how valuable that funding was. We have seen at first hand how it transformed communities and gave opportunities, particularly to disadvantaged rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The EU regional development fund supported entrepreneurs and small businesses, while the European social fund supported the valuable fabric of our society, the community and voluntary sector, to give people a real chance to live improved and purposeful lives.

After Brexit, as other Members have noted, the British Government introduced the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement for the European social fund and the European regional development fund. However, closer analysis shows that the totality of the Shared Prosperity Fund has not matched what was delivered through the EU structural funds, delivering £127 million over three years: an average reduction of £23 million a year compared with the EU funds.

Despite the shortfall, the Shared Prosperity Fund delivered tangible results. Between April 2023 and March 2025, £57 million was committed to helping Northern Ireland tackle economic inactivity and promote opportunity. It was effective. It supported almost 24,000 people over two years; 6,500 people moved into employment; 3,445 jobs were sustained for at least six months; and almost 9,000 individuals progressed into further education or training. Those figures demonstrate the profound difference that properly resourced initiatives can make in transforming lives, strengthening communities and boosting local economies.

Now we wait to see whether the successor to the SPF, the local growth fund, will deliver. We are told that it will support at the same cash level as the 2025-26 SPF allocation: £45 million a year. Beyond that, there is no clarity about the local growth fund, and the absence of detail on how the fund will operate is leading to an atmosphere of deep uncertainty for many community and voluntary groups that rely on that support to deliver essential services. Without clear guidance, those organisations are unable to plan or retain staff, leaving Northern Ireland once again in limbo. This is not simply about funding being delayed by Westminster; it is about real people, real progress and the ongoing support for those in our communities who need it most.

The UK local growth fund must include a dedicated regional fund for Northern Ireland beyond 2026. By comparison, on 14 October, it was announced that Wales is to receive £500 million from the local growth fund. The delivery plan for that funding will be developed and led by the Welsh Government, with local authorities, community organisations and other stakeholders being involved in determining how the money will be used, alongside a full public consultation. That model provides transparency and accountability, ensuring that local voices are heard in shaping how the fund delivers meaningful outcomes. It is exactly that type of model that needs to be replicated in Northern Ireland, where it can be most effective.

The local growth fund will be vital to the groups and organisations that carry out such incredible work across our communities, supporting those with disabilities and others into employment, skills and social cohesion. With only a handful of months left before 2026, when the Shared Prosperity Fund will be replaced by the new growth fund, time is quickly running out for clarity and planning. The Labour slogan, "Things Can Only Get Better", has yet to ring true for Northern Ireland; in fact, for many community organisations, the opposite seems to be the case. What we need now is not more rhetoric but decisive action, genuine engagement and a clear plan that ensures that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of funding, with local decision-making at its core. Words of praise for our region's valuable services, as expressed by Rachel Reeves on her recent visit to Belfast, need to be matched by a solid undertaking to match EU funding in full and support the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the motion on the future of funding to replace the European programmes that sustained so much good work in our communities for decades, and I acknowledge and welcome the presence in the Public Gallery of Celine McStravick and others from the community and voluntary sector.

I have said before that I was proud to be at the heart of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, and, while people here voted to remain, we were dragged out of Europe against our will. I do not want to dance around all that again, but it has to be said. The value of that membership, particularly in the European regional development fund and the European social fund, continues to be seen across our region every day. We can see the legacy of the regional development fund in infrastructure in our towns and cities, the growth of our local businesses and social housing delivery. Those projects remind us of the tangible benefits of EU membership and what it brought to each of our communities.

The European social fund's impact was quieter, but vital. It helped people rebuild confidence, gain skills and move much closer to work. It underpinned much of our community and voluntary sector, and it transformed lives.

The community and voluntary sector is one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths. It employs over 53,000 people across 7,400 registered charities, and 73% of those working in the sector are women — many in part-time roles. Those organisations hold communities together, often on insecure funding, yet with unshakeable dedication. At a time of enormous pressure in our health service, they are essential in supporting older people, families and those facing poor mental health, addiction and isolation. We all know the pressures that our health service is under. If we did not have the community and voluntary sector, it would be on life support. We are not far from that, but it would be, because the sector is providing core functions in our communities. It is often the only support when statutory services cannot cope. In Derry, the loss of the European social fund saw such support organisations as Women's Centre Derry and Derry Youth and Community Workshop lose staff, skills and capacity, along with vital services.

It was not only Westminster that pulled the plug. European funding relied on partnership, with local Departments providing match funding. Since 2016-17, the Executive contributed tens of millions in statutory match funding. When European funding disappeared, so did the match funding from our Departments, with real consequences for organisations and the people whom they serve. Virtually the same motion was debated here almost a year ago and was passed, yet the sector still lacks clarity about the future of funding. The Department of Finance is the lead Department for developing the fund for Northern Ireland. It committed to engaging with the sector, including through the hosting of an event, on 18 June, and agreed to produce a report outlining the Executive's position, yet that report still has not been made available. That adds to the uncertainty that is faced by the community organisations. I would like to hear about that from the Minister in his response.

The NI Can't Wait campaign warns that almost 24,000 people could lose vital support unless urgent action is taken. Those are people with disabilities, lone parents, carers and people with health conditions. They rely on community organisations to move closer to employment. The British Government say that the local growth fund will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026, but serious concerns remain about its design and accessibility. It cannot become another overly centralised fund that is out of reach for community organisations.

NICVA's message is clear: groups across Northern Ireland need leadership, and they need it now. The SDLP believes that the Executive must take action and must take matters into their own hands. We cannot continue to go to Westminster with a begging bowl, come away with nothing and have no solutions closer to home. We need leadership at home that explores such funding as social finance, which allows organisations to leverage private capital for social and environmental good. Departments must also provide stability for our organisations to deliver essential services. The community and voluntary sector has carried this region through some of its darkest days — through conflict, austerity and political collapse. It deserves certainty, sustainability and respect, and as NICVA rightly says —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — Northern Ireland cannot wait.

Mr Gildernew: Tubaiste amach is amach don Tuaisceart a bhí sa chinneadh an tAontas Eorpach a fhágáil. Tá beagnach deich mbliana ó shin, thug Sinn Féin rabhadh go mbeadh anord eacnamaíochta agus polaitíochta sna hoileáin seo de dheasca an tAontas Eorpach a fhágáil agus go mbeimis uilig thíos leis ó thaobh airgid de. Mar is eol dúinn go léir, d’aontaigh formhór mhuintir an Tuaiscirt le Sinn Féin, ach má d’aontaigh féin, tarraingíodh amach as an Aontas Eorpach muid in éadan ár dtola.

Tá iarmhairtí an chinnidh úd ag tosú á nochtadh féin anois, áfach, fiú don té ba dhíograisí ar son an Bhreatimeachta. Leoga, níor bhréag a rá go bhfuil aithreachas ar an té sin anois. D’admhaigh Rialtas na Breataine, faoi dheireadh, go ndearna an Breatimeacht dochar "tromchúiseach fadtéarmach" do gheilleagar na Breataine agus gurb é is mó is cúis le cuid mhór den dua eacnamaíochta atáimid a fháil inniu.

Ba thubaisteach mar a chuaigh caillstean maoinithe ón Aontas Eorpach i gcion ar an Tuaisceart, go háirithe ar ár n-earnáil pobail agus dheonach. Gheall Rialtas na Breataine go soláthródh siad féin iomlán an mhaoinithe a cailleadh, ach, mo náire iad, níor chomhlíon siad an gealltanas sin. Mar shampla, bhí Ciste an Rathúnais Choitianta, a mbeidh deireadh leis i mí an Mhárta, bhí sin £20 milliún níos lú in aghaidh na bliana ar an mheán ná na cistí struchtúrtha Eorpacha ar tháinig sé ina n-áit. Ar an drochuair, d’fhág an t-easnamh maoinithe sin an iomad grúpaí in áit a gcarta agus d’fhág a n-inbhuanaitheacht fhadtéarmach faoi amhras mar aon lena gcumas na seirbhísí a sholáthar a bhfuil géarghá leo.

D’fhógair Rialtas na Breataine i mí na Bealtaine go dtabharfadh siad isteach ciste an fháis áitiúil in ionad Chiste an Rathúnais Choitianta. Ach is tearc sonraí atá ann ó shin faoin dóigh a n-oibreoidh sé. Caithfidh Rialtas na Breataine a chur in iúl dúinn gan mhoill cé acu a bheidh an ciste fáis áitiúil i bhfeidhm sula dtige deireadh le Ciste an Rathúnais Choitianta nó nach mbeidh. Faigheann na mílte daoine anseo fostaíocht san earnáil pobail agus dheonach, agus tá cinnteacht de dhíth san earnáil chéanna ionas go mbeifear in ann bheith ag pleanáil don am atá le teacht. Tá daoine san earnáil sin dubh dóite den éiginnteacht leanúnach agus de na fógraí a thig ag an bhomaite dheireanach. Caithfidh Rialtas na Breataine a shoiléiriú fosta an mbeidh aon ról ag ár n-institiúidí cineachta sa Tuaisceart i gcistí a leithdháileadh ar thionscadail fhiúntacha.

Gealladh i bhforógra Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre urraim a thabhairt do na hinstitiúidí cineachta. Caithfidh siad cur lena bhfocal agus a chinntiú go mbeidh cead cainte ag polaiteoirí áitiúla in aon chiste fáis feasta.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Go raibh maith agat, Colm.

Mr Kingston: The Democratic Unionist Party is deeply concerned about the lack of clarity on the new local growth fund, which is supposed to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, itself a post-Brexit replacement for the European social fund. Last week, a response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to a question for written answer asked by our party leader, Gavin Robinson, provided no real new insight. Hilary Benn stated that his Department:

There are reports that 70% of the new fund will be allocated to capital, which, if true, will greatly reduce revenue support for voluntary and community sector programmes that aim to level up society. Throughout my time on the Committee for Communities, I have raised concerns about the future of community-based employability projects that support economically inactive people into employment or training for employment. I firmly believe that such community-based projects have the ability, contacts and appeal to reach people whom statutory services are less likely to reach. With just five months of funding left until the end of the financial year, there is no certainty that those projects will continue. As it stands, the staff will receive protective notice before Christmas. It is appalling that those dedicated staff are once again in that uncertain position.

One such group is the Prosper NI consortium, which operates in 10 of the 11 council areas in Northern Ireland, helping disabled people into vocational training and sustainable employment. Prosper NI reports that, since April 2023, it has enrolled 2,158 economically inactive participants, of whom 874 have achieved qualifications and 753 have progressed into paid employment. Those are economically inactive and disabled people who have gained confidence, skills and independence, and local employers have benefited from additional motivated staff.

With the unemployment level among those actively seeking work in Northern Ireland at a record low — around 2% — it is all the more important that we have projects that help us to address our high level of economic inactivity. Around 27% of adults are not working and are not actively seeking employment. That category includes those with long-term sickness or disability, those with caring responsibilities, full-time students and people who are in retirement. Extra investment, support and outreach are required to assist such people into employment.

Belfast Works Connect is a consortium of five community-based groups across Belfast, covering the north, south, east and west of the city and the Shankill. It supports people who are economically inactive due to ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, early retirement, complex needs etc. Those people are considered to be furthest from the workforce. Between 2023 and 2025, the consortium has enrolled 5,244 such people. That is 112% of its target. Of those, over 3,000 have achieved a qualification and 850 have been helped into employment — again, exceeding the target — 651 of whom are now in sustained employment lasting over six months. That shows the important work that those groups carry out in our communities.

On a day when all parties should unite in support of our voluntary and community sector, the comment from the Alliance Party Member was an indulgence and regrettable. We will take no lectures on the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland from the Alliance Party, which called for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and was left with a red face when the EU agreed to change it due to the stand taken by the DUP. We continue to campaign to restore our place in the UK's internal market. As for his comment that my colleague Diane Forsythe is not a champion for the voluntary and community sector, the Alliance Member clearly knows nothing about her work, including as chair of the all-party group, but ignorance is no excuse on his part.

Ms Mulholland: Wow. For decades, voluntary and community sector organisations have been at the heart of our society, forming that crucial backbone and stepping in where the state has faltered. They have consistently delivered vital services, especially during turbulent times, including Executive collapses caused by parties around the Chamber, and amid chronic underfunding from the UK Government. Their value cannot be overstated, and I echo the welcome to them to Parliament Buildings today.

My perspective in the debate is shaped by my experience as an MLA more recently and by my previous life as a youth worker and a worker in the voluntary and community sector. I have seen at first hand the lifeline that those organisations provide. We have heard today how they face a funding crisis that is not of their making but arises from ongoing delays and, crucially, uncertainty from the UK Government. Despite their resilience and dedication, those organisations now operate under constant threat of financial instability, forced to survive on short-term contracts and unable to make meaningful long-term plans. That goes for the staff, who are unable to get mortgages because of their lack of full-time and permanent contracts, and the organisations.

The sector has felt like it has been in continual free fall since the removal of EU funding. The NICVA economic inclusion paper makes clear the scale of the problem that the sector faces. With reduced funding, increased reliance on short-term arrangements and a climate of ongoing uncertainty, it does not look good for those organisations.

There is still no confirmed delivery plan or timeline. That is no way to treat a sector, especially one that has given so much to our society.

Without decisive action, the sector stands at yet another funding cliff edge. According to NICVA's NI Can't Wait campaign, many of the thousands of recipients of those programmes — whether they are individuals with disabilities, carers, women who are returning to work, young people with criminal records, older people or rural people who are without access to sustainable employment — have already been failed by the system. We have heard already that we have some of the highest rates of economic inactivity — as much as I do not like that term — in the UK and the lowest employment rate amongst disabled people. If you strip away voluntary and community sector support, there is no alternative to absorb the impact. Vulnerable groups will be further marginalised; pressures on our health and social care system will increase; the justice system will come under greater strain; employers who are already struggling to find workers will face further challenges; and, ultimately, inequality will deepen and opportunity will shrink. Those are the consequences.

Another element is that, if the funding cliff edge is not addressed, not only will the thousands of people whom we have discussed lose support every year, but around 650 skilled staff will be at risk. That expertise and dedication cannot be quickly or easily replaced; it is institutional knowledge that we simply will not get back. We have seen that before when funding has been removed en masse from the community and voluntary sector.

Right now, the sector's call is clear: clarity and contingency agreements and arrangements are urgently needed. NICVA and its partners are seeking a bridging arrangement and an extension of the current funding in order to avoid being plunged off a funding cliff. Furthermore, the Government have to confirm that the local growth fund will be delivered through a regional programme that is tailored specifically to Northern Ireland, with community and voluntary organisations at its core. There has to be a genuine co-design process, which draws on evidence and local knowledge and expertise, to shape the fund's operation. Crucially, as the previous contributor mentioned, the proposed ratio of capital allocation has to be revised. Northern Ireland needs stronger revenue funding to sustain people-focused programmes, not just investment in infrastructure. We have consistently raised those concerns at Westminster. The Alliance MP, Sorcha Eastwood, has persistently lobbied that a local growth fund that is tailored specifically to Northern Ireland and co-designed with the sector has to be on the table.

The sector is calling for the swift creation of a task-driven, time-bound co-design group, involving the Department for the Economy, local councils, Invest NI, Enterprise NI and local enterprise agencies. That group should deliver, by the end of November, a fully costed and improved enterprise support model that will be ready for implementation in April 2026. The UK Government have to end their piecemeal communications and provide the certainty that the sector so desperately requires. The people of Northern Ireland, especially those who are furthest from work and opportunity, deserve nothing less.

Miss Dolan: Almost a decade after we were dragged out of the European Union against the democratic wishes of the people of this region, Brexit's harmful legacy continues to reverberate here, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. It was no surprise that the British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund failed to deliver on their promise to replace all EU funding to community and voluntary organisations here. A reduction of tens of millions of pounds in financial support in recent years has had a detrimental impact on groups that do vital work in our local communities, such as supporting people to gain new skills, providing employment opportunities and creating initiatives to tackle poverty. One example of many in my constituency is Action Mental Health New Horizons in Enniskillen, which does phenomenal work but is a victim of that reduction in funding.

The Labour Government who were elected 15 months ago may have decided to implement a new successor programme to EU funding, but it appears as though that will continue to fall short of the arrangements and support that we enjoyed prior to Brexit. Unlike the EU investment that was managed by the Executive, who are directly elected representatives of the people here, there is no such input for local representatives into what the British Government have ironically labelled a "local" growth fund. That represents a clear democratic deficit that prevents local Ministers from being able to use their knowledge, expertise and interaction with communities here to create programmes that are tailored to meet the needs of our people. A clear illustration of that is Whitehall's intention that 70% of the local growth fund will be steered towards capital investment. That will lead to a significant reduction in resource funding, which will have a further detrimental impact on voluntary and community groups here that have also had to cope with other decisions that were taken by the British Government in recent years, such as the increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

I welcome the commitment by the Minister of Finance to meet the British Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the case for more flexibility on the new funding programme as it is crucial that elected representatives here are a strong voice on behalf of our community and voluntary sector.

Mr Middleton: I join other Members in support of our community and voluntary sector, which continues to deliver vital front-line services across Northern Ireland, often stepping in where other public services tend to fall short.

Every Member will be able to point to organisations that have made a positive impact in their constituencies. It is essential that the sector feels valued. It is evident, however, that many community organisations do not feel valued. Stability and sustainability for their services, their volunteers and staff must be priorities. The uncertainty surrounding the future of funding, particularly from the local growth fund that is to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026, is deeply concerning.

Having spoken to many organisations over the past 15 years as an elected representative, I see first-hand how stressful it can be for staff and volunteers but particularly for service users, who are at the forefront of the minds of staff and volunteers. On each occasion when funding is once more at risk, it causes deep distress. To that end, the UK Government must provide clarity without delay. It is unacceptable that organisations doing that essential work have been left in limbo once again.

We want to see the spend that was available under EU structural funds not only restored but enhanced. That was a commitment made by the UK Government, and there is no excuse for any shortfall now. There should be a balanced approach, one that gives the Executive a meaningful role in shaping funding priorities whilst maintaining the national strategy and perspective that promotes cohesion across the United Kingdom. As my colleagues said, promises were made by the UK Government, and they must be honoured. We also call for a long-term approach through multi-annual budgeting to provide certainty and allow organisations to plan more effectively.

We must also use all the structures available to us, by using our voices not only in the Chamber and in Westminster but in the East-West Council, which can be used to ensure that funding delivers real impact here in Northern Ireland. Although EU funding accounted for an important portion of the sector's income, further threat lies in the pressures on core government funding. Many organisations and groups in my constituency are familiar with the cliff edges, year in, year out, so the Executive must act on that front to protect the sector from further harm

I pay tribute to all community and voluntary sector organisations in the Foyle constituency and across Northern Ireland and to the work of the all-party group on voluntary and community sector, particularly my colleague Diane Forsythe, who so ably chairs that group and has brought many people together. The people whom I meet in the community and voluntary sector do not want petty party political point-scoring: they want a Chamber that stands together on these issues. I look forward to us all working to that end and to seeing the community and voluntary sector get the funding and support that it deserves.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion because it speaks to a growing concern in communities across Northern Ireland, namely the uncertainty that community and voluntary sector organisations are facing and the real fear about what happens when the funding runs out.

In my 10-plus years as a Member, those organisations have been treated as an optional extra because they have never been supported in a way that is sustained and continuing. Yet they deliver services, which government depends on but cannot provide because it does not have the capacity, that range from employment to training, mental health, family support and tackling loneliness.

Those organisations reach out to people whom public services cannot, and they do so with compassion, expertise and knowledge of those people. Their goodwill can go only so far, however. Staff and volunteers are exhausted and fed up. They are trying to plan from year to year, with no certainty about their future. In my 10-plus years as an MLA, I have heard every year about organisations putting their staff on protected notice because funding certainty just does not exist. Beyond the loss of jobs and community services, gaps are being left that government is not filling. If anything, those gaps are widening, because budgets across the board are being cut.

In my constituency, I see every day the difference that organisations in the community and voluntary sector make. Indeed, when I became an MLA, I identified as many of those groups as possible and set out to meet every one of them, and there were hundreds. Regrettably, since COVID, we have lost some of the strength in our community and voluntary sector, so funding is more critical now than ever. We hear every day about older people feeling lonely and about people in rural communities not being able to access services, meaning that they do not even try to access them. For a region in a Western democracy, it is not good enough that people feel that they are not being served and that they just have to get on with it. Unfortunately, they cannot do that.

Those organisations support families, provide training opportunities, promote well-being and create spaces where people can connect. I feel that, to an extent, we are losing our communities because we are losing those organisations. As a mother of a two-year-old, I know that it takes a village to raise a child, but that village is our community and voluntary sector. We want to understand why people have mental health problems and why we have issues with parenting and behaviour right across society. The reason is that we are losing our sense of community. The support does not exist any more. The Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government really need to return to the issue, because it is indicative of some of what we are seeing in society.

More often than not, groups in the community and voluntary sector are not paid the attention that they deserve, simply because they quietly work away in their communities doing the things that, unfortunately, do not make the headlines. Their good work is not talked about enough. I join others across the Chamber in expressing how grateful I am to the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, but I fear that, if we do not start funding it appropriately and in a sustained way, we will lose those groups and no longer be able to talk about them. Today, we are debating the importance of various funds, the benefits that they provide and, indeed, the shortfall that will be created if we do not find some form of replacement funding. Perhaps we are not appealing to the right Minister today and should instead have the Minister for Communities responding to the debate. We need to recognise our community and voluntary sector and the services that it provides.

I support the motion. Although I am calling on the British Government to take action, I also call on our Executive to start taking responsibility, because we cannot keep blaming London every time that such issues arise. We have not meaningfully supported and invested in our community and voluntary sector in the way in which we should have done this year. That is one issue, but it is one of many. I encourage the Minister of Finance and the Executive to look to the community and voluntary sector, if for no other reason than to balance the books, because the Minister does not have the money to provide the services that the sector offers. We should therefore be supporting it. It is a case of invest to save, Minister, so it is over to you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I fully support the motion and welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. Many Members have rightly recognised the positive contributions that the European social fund and the European regional development fund made in supporting the community and voluntary sector over many years. Those EU funds were central to tackling economic inactivity, promoting inclusion and building resilience in our communities, as well as to supporting local businesses and rural development. Their loss in the aftermath of Brexit was deeply felt, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government presented the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement fund for those lost EU funds, but it was never an adequate solution.

Although there have been some benefits from it, the Shared Prosperity Fund has failed to match the ambition and scale of the EU programmes that it replaced. There was a reduction in scope and funding. We received an average of £65 million a year of European funding, with local delivery coming via Departments.

The Shared Prosperity Fund — the intended replacement — was a reduction of, on average, £35 million a year, with centralised Whitehall delivery. That did not respect our unique system of government or our equality legislation.

Despite its limitations, it provided vital support, particularly to our community and voluntary sector. Through its interventions, it also supported the work of the Department for Communities, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. From data gathered by NICVA, we know that, over the 2022-24 period, that funding enabled 18 projects to deliver economic inactivity interventions in every council area, and 64 organisations to deliver tailored community-based interventions and support to almost 24,000 individuals. Those projects focused on those furthest removed from the labour market, those with disabilities, health conditions and caring responsibilities, older people and young people facing multiple barriers to employment. The figure of almost 24,000 people is not just a number: it represents lives changed, futures rebuilt and communities strengthened. The funding also supported 650 staff who delivered person-centred, wrap-around support in every council area.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government implemented a transition year in 2025-26 so that the vital services that were funded under the Shared Prosperity Fund could continue, while, supposedly, a replacement programme could be developed. The lack of clarity from that Ministry regarding the local growth fund is creating deep uncertainty, particularly for the community and voluntary sector, which faces another impending cliff edge in funding due to the lack of certainty and the reduction in funding. After the spending review in June, it was announced that we would be allocated £46 million a year over three years. We were also told that the Executive would be a partner in delivering the local growth fund. Unfortunately, that partnership has not materialised nor have the Labour Government honoured their manifesto commitment to restore control over structural funds to local representatives.

Despite sustained efforts, we are back to a situation that has been deeply depressing and all too familiar in recent years. I secured an Executive position on the future local growth fund in March this year. We explored some of the shortcomings in the Shared Prosperity Fund approach and how the local growth fund could be better. That position detailed a number of principles: funding must be long term and sufficient in value; there must be co-design with partners; structures must be efficient and accessible; interventions must be in line with our Programme for Government; importantly, lessons — positive and negative — must be learned from what went before; and time is critical. We needed to be able to move quickly to prevent another funding cliff edge.

Those principles were shared with British Ministers in March but have not been factored into decisions taken in Whitehall. Despite months of pressing the Government, I still have little information about the local growth fund. The scant information that I have does not paint a promising picture. The £46 million a year will be heavily skewed towards capital funding. The Shared Prosperity Fund was three quarters resource funding, but the local growth fund will be only one third resource funding.

Earlier this month, I met representatives of the community and voluntary sector. I listened to their concerns, and their message was clear. The significant reduction in the resource budget for this funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. Resource funding is needed to deliver interventions, including for economic inactivity, through the community and voluntary sector. That shift will disrupt or potentially end the very programmes that have employed 650 staff and helped thousands into work and training. Co-design and proper, meaningful engagement are vital, and the British Government need to engage contingency arrangements.

I note the recent announcement that the Welsh Government will be provided with the spending power to use the local growth funding according to an investment plan delivered by the Welsh Government. That is a good outcome for Wales. It clearly shows that there is no structural barrier to fulfilling the commitment made in the Labour Party manifesto: to restore control of this funding to devolved Governments. I found myself in full agreement with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, when she stated:

The same principle applies here. Decisions about spending are best made by people who live here.

A fully local fund would have been the optimal solution, but Whitehall has run down the clock. What comes next must be managed carefully to mitigate, as far as possible, negative impacts on the community and voluntary sector. That will require hard work, good faith and close cooperation here and in London — the partnership that we were promised. Frankly, it does not make sense for Whitehall Departments to implement, manage and run such funds here. It creates duplication, adds a further layer of bureaucracy and does not align well with our priorities. It is not the way to get best value for money, especially when the Treasury itself tells us that money is so tight.

When I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, on Friday, I raised the issue of lack of recognition across Whitehall of the different needs in the North compared with those in Britain. I also spoke about our different governmental landscape and how that requires bespoke arrangements. I outlined the need for resource funding to achieve local growth and pressed him for flexibility to allow the Executive freedom to spend the local growth allocation in a way that best meets our needs. Earlier this month, I met Hilary Benn and stressed the urgency of the issue. I was very clear that economic inactivity is a significant barrier to local growth here and that resource funding is needed more than capital funding to tackle it. During our meeting, Hilary Benn undertook to seek a joint meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. As a result, I will meet him and Steve Reed tomorrow. I will be pressing Mr Reed to work towards a sensible outcome.

To conclude, the Assembly can today send a clear message to Westminster that our communities deserve better. The community and voluntary sector has proven its value, its reach and its impact. It must not be left behind due to Whitehall indecision and funding redesigns that ignore local realities. Our local communities deserve local solutions that are aligned to local challenges and local priorities. If the British Government do not provide us with clarity, flexibility and more resource funding, we risk losing front-line jobs, vital services and the infrastructure that connects our most vulnerable citizens to opportunities. That is not an acceptable position.

I stand firmly behind the motion. I encourage fellow Members to do likewise and send a united message to the Government that the time for dithering and delay is over. Clarity is needed, and needed now. Our community and voluntary sector and our communities deserve better.

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

Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

At the outset, I pay tribute to the community and voluntary sector, particularly those members who join us in the Gallery today — I am sure that others are watching online — because they provide a vital service every single day right across the North. They are out in our communities helping young people into work, helping families through difficult times, providing mental health support and bringing communities together. As has been acknowledged right across the Chamber, much of that work happens quietly, often without recognition, but it provides the backbone of our society.

For many years, that work was sustained through the ESF — a fund that changed lives and gave people hope, opportunity and dignity. The loss of that funding has created real hardship: groups that were already stretched now face impossible choices; staff have lost their jobs or have been placed on protective notice; projects have closed; and, ultimately, people who depended on those services have been left without that support. I thank the DUP for highlighting our consistency on this issue, because Sinn Féin has been consistent on it. We have been consistent in defending the right of the community and voluntary sector to funding in order to provide support to people and enhance support services in our community.

When the British Government promised that every penny of EU funding would be replaced, that commitment gave communities a degree of reassurance, but what we have seen since then is broken promise after broken promise. The funding does not match what was lost: it is lower. The process is more complicated, and, critically, the decisions are made in London rather than here. I am glad that most parties here today have acknowledged that. John, Jemma and Sian have acknowledged the need for co-design and local knowledge, which is vital. To a certain extent, I disagree with the SDLP's position and its talk of "a begging bowl", because saying that lets the British Government off the hook. It allows them to shirk their responsibility, and it reinforces the reality that people in the North are picking up the pieces for a British Government who refuse to stand up and defend those rights and who have left us poorer in terms of funding and —.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Delargy: I do not have time, sorry.

They have left us poorer in terms of funding and in what the community sector can offer.

In my constituency, organisations that, for years, have helped people to get back into training and employment have been forced to shut their doors. In the north-west, where deprivation levels remain among the highest of any on these islands, that has been devastating, not just because of the loss of money but because of the loss of experience, relationships and trust that have taken years to build.

The motion is about fairness and respect. It is about fairness for the organisations that have delivered incredible outcomes for decades and about respect for the principle of devolution. Decisions about our communities should be made in our communities by those who understand them. As John highlighted, that understanding is about our unique situation. The funding should meet local needs; it cannot be uniform.

We call on the British Government to fulfil their commitment to replace the EU funding in full and to provide clarity beyond 2026. The uncertainty that hangs over our community and voluntary sector cannot continue. Organisations need time to plan, they need to retain their staff, and they need the assurance that they can continue to deliver vital services in our communities. We also call for decision-making and structural funds to be returned to the Executive. Local expertise, local accountability and local delivery work. Westminster cannot and should not decide the future of our community development programmes.

The Assembly needs to send a clear and united message that we stand with the community and voluntary sector, that we will hold the British Government to account and that it is time for the British Government's promises to be honoured in full so that a locally designed replacement fund is in place by April 2026.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and Gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum was completed in June 2025. The review, which was undertaken by Lucy Crehan, provided a focused, time-bound evaluation of the current Northern Ireland curriculum. The review was clear that Northern Ireland needs a new curriculum that is:

It should ensure that every child enjoys an ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum that develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner.

On 27 August, I announced the establishment of the curriculum task force advisory committee, which will oversee, direct and lead the reform of the Northern Ireland curriculum. The committee, led by Christine Counsell with Lucy Crehan as deputy chair, includes those with a wealth of experience in curriculum design, classroom practice, evaluation and implementation. Its role is to guide the development of a new, coherent and knowledge-rich curriculum framework.

Work is under way to establish a series of subject working groups, made up of teachers, academics and subject specialists, which will draft the reformed content for each subject area from Foundation Stage to Key Stage 3. I expect those groups to be operational in November. A new framework will be presented to me in March 2026 in advance of a public consultation. My ambition is for the new curriculum framework to be implemented for September 2027.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his update. Minister, do you accept that scrapping AS levels and coursework would narrow learning for pupils and pile more pressure on those who have to undertake a high-stakes exam, albeit only one exam?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question, because it is relevant. That matter is out for consultation, and we are seeking feedback from pupils, practitioners and educationalists. One of the driving concerns that a lot of people have is that a lot of our young people undertake formal statutory assessments and tests in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. With those come controlled assessments, which contribute to teacher workload. Evidence shows that moving to that more linear approach can be more beneficial to academic outcomes. I have put the issue out for public consultation because I want to hear the feedback on it. There are principals who have very strong views in advocating for that change, but I have not taken a decision on it. I genuinely want to hear the feedback from the relevant stakeholders, and the consultation exercise is the opportunity to do that before final decisions are taken.

Mr Mathison: Minister, it would be helpful to understand in detail why RE was not included in the strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. Was that a missed opportunity to get robust assurances that what all children are learning in RE is fit for purpose and appropriate, given that it is not subject to the normal inspection regime as other subjects are?

Mr Givan: The Member just highlighted the reason for that. The way in which you would commission a review of the RE curriculum is not the same as the way that you would commission one for other subjects. Obviously, the Churches have involvement in that. The Churches are not involved in respect of any other subject, but the approach to RE is different. However, as the Member will know, we await the UK Supreme Court reading down a judgement about RE. We will reflect on the judgement's contents, which may well lead to such a review being carried out.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his update on the review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. Minister, will you share any insights that you have into the international experience of knowledge-rich curriculums?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I have been very keen to ensure that Northern Ireland looks outwardly towards international experience, as well as making sure that we reform our education system so that it is tailor-made for our local community and reflects our Northern Ireland context. To ensure that the Northern Ireland curriculum remains aligned with international best practice, we need to look at providing for a knowledge-rich and well-structured approach. A number of jurisdictions, including Sweden, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand and, now, some Australian territories have reviewed the former approach to curriculums, which was primarily skills-based, due to concerns about a lack of specificity, commonality and core knowledge.

Internationally, there is a revival of the importance of knowledge in education approaches. It has re-emerged as a prerequisite for improved learning, critical thinking, problem-solving, reading and comprehension and as a facilitator for collective discourse. That evolution is backed by a greater understanding of cognitive science, which now very much indicates that, with detailed knowledge, you empower yourself to develop much greater skill.

It is not an either/or, skills-versus-knowledge situation. Rich, detailed knowledge and mastery of a subject area allow you to deploy the skills, so you need that knowledge. It is about ensuring that we have both.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority (EA) has advised that the rationale for the review of the teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools is that the current scheme has been in operation since 2016 and has not been subject to substantive review or engagement since a post-implementation review took place in 2017. The EA is of the opinion that, whilst the current scheme provides a framework for the completion of teaching appointments, there has been learning about what areas could be improved. The Education Authority is therefore completing a review of the scheme to provide a proposed improved and more flexible framework for the delivery and development of the appointment of teachers to controlled schools. A draft teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools has been prepared, and consultation with controlled schools, governors and wider stakeholders is ongoing. That work is expected to be completed early in 2026.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. I declare an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Nendrum College in Comber. The proposals in the consultation would see the role of governors diminished. In the appointment of principals, the voluntary chair could be replaced by a paid, independent chair, and teaching appointments could have the input of only one governor. That would not happen in any other sector, which shows exactly why controlled schools need their own dedicated managing authority. Will the Minister engage with the EA on that as a matter of urgency and support the role of governors?

Mr Givan: I first thank the Member for taking on her role as chair of a board of governors. It is hugely commendable to take on that responsibility. Membership of a board of governors is voluntary, and those who take on the role of chair are to be commended, because I know the high levels of work that are involved for anybody who engages in that.

I can confirm that departmental officials have already been in discussions with EA officials on some of the proposals outlined in the revised teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools that is out for consultation. My officials have highlighted to the EA the fact that its proposals, if implemented, would see the role of governors diminished. The EA consultation on the revised teaching appointment scheme is ongoing and is expected to be completed early in 2026.

I agree that that would not happen in any other sector, nor is such an approach proposed for any other sector, and that controlled schools need a dedicated managing authority. That is why, last week, I launched a public consultation on proposals to establish a new organisation dedicated to supporting controlled schools across Northern Ireland. The consultation will run for eight weeks. It seeks views on the role, structure and functions of the proposed organisation ahead of legislation being introduced.

Controlled schools are the largest and a most diverse sector in our education system. They play a vital and distinctive role in communities across Northern Ireland. The independent review of education and feedback from school leaders and the controlled schools task force have highlighted clear shortcomings in the current support arrangements.

Mr Givan: Whilst I recognise that forest schools can play a significant role in the education of our children, the financial position for the Department unfortunately remains extremely challenging, which means that funding is not available for projects to develop outdoor space at present.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his recognition of the value of outdoor learning and his commitment to that. The Minister may be aware that my constituency is home to a flagship forest school site, based in Clandeboye estate. What support is available to schools and school staff who wish to become involved in forest schools, of which there are quite a few across the country, and will he agree to visit the Northern Ireland Forest School Association at Clandeboye with me?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for highlighting that project in his constituency. I have visited quite a number of schools over the past 18 months, and a number of them have forest schools. Undoubtedly, they enhance the environment in which those young people learn and give them that outdoor experience. I certainly commend that approach where it is possible.

Schools in Northern Ireland are free to work with a wide range of voluntary, community and private sector organisations, including forest schools. The Education Authority has produced a series of teacher professional learning videos on outdoor learning that are accessible on its supporting learning website. My Department provides a range of discretionary funding streams to schools, such as extended schools programme funding and targeting social need resources, which schools may direct toward forest school provisions if they wish. I will certainly seek to accommodate the Member's request to visit.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I will be bringing a draft strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration in the coming weeks, and, if agreed, it will be subject to public consultation. The strategy will build on the significant investment of £80 million already allocated by the Executive, which is already making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers.

Some of the £80 million went to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, a scheme that initially helped families with preschool children but which I extended it to include school-age children from 1 September this year. That has put money in parents’ pockets with a 15% reduction on registered childcare costs and potential savings of up to 32% because it is combined with the tax-free childcare system. It is meaningful and tangible. When fees started to rise, they were offset as I acted again to increase the subsidy scheme in April by 10%, raising it to £184 per month per child, and I raised the administrative payments to providers.

In addition, I have already funded the increase of 2,400 more preschool places to full time, with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children. It means that 50% of preschool places are now full time, with further increases planned for September next year. Add to that the additional funding to support children facing disadvantage via Sure Start, Pathway, Toybox and a range of programmes to support children with additional needs or disabilities. Those early actions are the foundation on which the early learning and childcare strategy will be built.

I will be bringing more proposals to the Executive as part of the draft strategy to further support our children, families and the early learning and childcare sector.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. I declare an interest as I avail myself of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme and acknowledge that significant work has been undertaken in that space. Will the Minister give assurance that, when the childcare strategy comes to the House, it will come with a fully costed action plan alongside it, so that people can see the actions to be delivered?

Mr Givan: I am glad that the DUP is delivering for the Alliance Party and it is benefiting from the hard work of a DUP Minister. Unfortunately, that support was not available for my three children, who are beyond the age of eligibility.

The Member is right. The Executive have already invested £80 million and have put in place new schemes and stood them up, all before we had a strategy. Often, Departments and Ministers spend lengthy periods developing a strategy. We got on with delivering the schemes while taking forward the development of a strategy, and that is important.

The strategy needs to be fully costed, and, certainly, as I bring it forward, we will know how much its implementation will cost. It will be, however, subject to the funding that is available. That should not limit the ambition of what a comprehensive strategy should look like, but I need to caution Members that there will be reality around what funding is available to implement the strategy once it is finalised. That has not curtailed me in making sure that we have an ambitious, comprehensive strategy that will be brought to the Executive very soon.

Mrs Mason: Minister, as you said, your Department has spent over £80 million on early years support and childcare, but, according to a NISRA survey, only 26% of households say that childcare is affordable. What measures will you build into the childcare strategy to ensure that costs are kept down?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right to say that the cost of childcare is a huge financial pressure that many hard-working families have to face; we hear that in all our constituencies. That funding is a start. I have a much greater level of ambition, but that ambition very much depends on the resources that we have available. The funding does not sit in my Department, as the Executive ring-fenced it to protect it from the pressures that all Departments face. Those pressures have been well documented today. Delivery of the strategy, once it has gone out to consultation and is finalised, will therefore be subject to the allocation of funding. That is a wider collective decision that will need to be taken, because the funding sits outside my Department.

The Member should be assured that we have been able to make a positive impact by delivering the new schemes. Where I am empowered to do so by the wider Executive, I will continue to deliver. I agree entirely with the Member that many families struggle to meet childcare costs. The Executive have made a start, but there is much more that we need to do.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his work on childcare. It is an example of a DUP Minister delivering against DUP commitments. My question follows on from Ms Nicholl's question: how long will it be before we see the strategy implemented?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and his question. As I indicated, I intend to publish a comprehensive implementation plan alongside the finalised strategy following the consultation process. Although the strategy is ambitious, it will, as I said, be realistic about what can be achieved, through taking account of the funding available and recognising the capacity that exists in the sector and the ability to deliver. It is important that we take those considerations into account. Ultimately, it will be for the Executive to decide how much funding they are prepared to allocate to the strategy. That will then dictate what can be achieved.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned resource issues. The Northern Ireland qualification audit highlighted some significant gaps in the early years workforce's qualifications. What concrete steps are you taking to fill that gap in order to develop what is a particularly important sector?

Mr Givan: The Member is right. As I said to Mr Brooks, as we seek to provide support, we also need to support the sector so that it can develop its capacity. We have an ambition to provide more support, but not just financial resource but human resource needs to be available in order to do that. Some funding has already been provided to the Department for Communities. Through an academy, it is helping people working in early years get qualifications and accreditations. We are therefore looking at how we can support organisations in that regard. While I have primarily led on the delivery of the strategy, other Departments are involved, and I am grateful to the Minister for Communities for stepping forward to facilitate that aspect of the plan.

Mr Givan: My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant nationally and internationally. While the main consultation is an opportunity for students to inform the proposals, my officials have also been engaging directly with students and young people in a range of settings over the course of the consultation. That engagement has included holding focus group sessions with school students and speaking directly with young people in years 11 to 14.

Officials have also met representatives of the Secondary Students' Union of Northern Ireland (SSUNI) and, in collaboration with the EA, have designed a children and young people's version of the consultation questionnaire. That has been shared with youth organisations in order to allow young people the opportunity to share their views.

Ms Egan: Minister, it is extremely important to have youth engagement on any changes to examinations. As, I am sure, you are aware, many young people have raised concerns about the move away from controlled assessment towards higher-stakes examinations. What will you do to ensure that any changes to qualifications will benefit learners of all abilities?

Mr Givan: It is a really important question. That is why we are asking for feedback, particularly from pupils. The engagement that we have already had indicates that there is high pressure when you go into year 11, because, where you are carrying out the modular approach in some subjects, you are formally tested in year 11. The more linear approach is year 12. The evidence shows that academic results are better for those who follow the linear approach rather than the modular approach. We need to look at what the evidence shows about which approach to follow for the best educational outcomes.

The high levels of testing that our young people face are also well documented, and many Members have rightly talked about that. There is a high level of testing in lower sixth. I declare an interest, because I have one daughter who has gone through her AS levels — she does not necessarily agree with the proposal, I have to say — and I have another one who has to do them. I know the pressure that it puts on them. Thousands of young people will repeat the exams that they have just sat in lower sixth in order to try to improve their result in upper sixth. Quite a number of weeks of valuable teaching time is lost. Young people can be off school for a number of weeks to carry out revision and sit mocks, and then they are off for a number of weeks to sit the exams. Some young people in lower sixth may not be in school learning for up to seven or eight weeks. There is a balance to be found between how much learning time there is and how much focus there is on testing and qualifications. I am open to hearing people's views on that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I hope that you will listen to the responses to the consultation that you are undertaking — you are already saying that, in your own house, there has been some robust feedback — because the real concern is that pursuing a clear, possibly ideological position will create more high-stakes pressure, particularly for vulnerable kids and, indeed, kids from working-class backgrounds. It is also the case that removing the AS level would make it even harder for Northern pupils to get the requisite points to get into Southern universities. Will you bear both those points in mind when coming to a conclusion?

Mr Givan: Yes. The Member mentioned the points system. I have concern that access to universities in the Republic of Ireland is very difficult for young people in Northern Ireland. There are challenges. Work needs to be carried out at the higher education level to remove those barriers. Many young people would be willing and want to study in the Republic of Ireland, but the barriers to access are challenging.

I have said that the view that is emerging from the evidence base is that that approach would be a better one to follow. However, I also hear the conflicting messages that come particularly from young people around the issue. We just need to hear that feedback properly and carefully consider all the responses that we get from the consultation. I encourage teachers and pupils to very much engage in the process. It is a consultation for a reason: it will inform the decision-making process that will then flow after that. I have not reached a firm view at this stage.

Mr Brett: Can the Minister say when a decision is likely to be taken, bearing in mind that he will take into consideration all the evidence that is produced before making a final decision?

Mr Givan: The consultation is open until 13 November. When it closes, there will be a period of analysis that officials will carry out. We will draw on that analysis and other evidence. I then intend to confirm my policy framework intentions early in 2026. Once that process has concluded and I have taken decisions in respect of it, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Previously, that process has taken a minimum of two years prior to the roll-out of new specifications. Again, I will just emphasise that I have not made decisions in respect of those matters.

Mr McMurray: As the father of a red-headed daughter as well, I make no comment on fathers disagreeing with daughters. On a serious point, how will young people feed into the consultation on the change? Will the Minister listen to the young people who feed in, especially if they show a bit of, let us say, disagreement with the Minister in that regard?

Mr Givan: I did not realise that we had that in common.

There is stakeholder engagement for young people to feed in their views. The consultation is open to everybody to do that, and of course that will all be taken into account and considered.

This is not the first time that I have had some disagreement in my house. The mobile phone policy was another one on which I had interesting debates in my house. By way of example, I visited St Ronan's College in Lurgan, one of our largest schools in Northern Ireland, which is participating in the mobile phone pilot scheme. Some of the pupils who had had apprehension and did not agree with the scheme are now very much advocates for it. I appreciate that sometimes people cannot see what benefit the change will deliver until they have experienced that change. That certainly has been the experience of those pupils at St Ronan's in respect of the mobile phone pilot scheme that is being rolled out there. Therefore, that will all be taken into account, where young people can feed into it. However, I appreciate that, until you feel and see that change and the outworkings of it, there will be an apprehension about what it means.

Mr Givan: The pilot bursary scheme for initial teacher education represents a strategic investment in our education system and economy. It is designed to address critical teacher shortages in key post-primary subjects, namely mathematics, chemistry, physics, computing and technology and design, and in Irish-medium education. That substantial financial support totals £8·2 million of investment over a five-year period. It will fund over 130 places and is a key commitment in delivering my TransformED strategy.

From September 2026, eligible students on the postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) courses will receive up to £17,000 a year, while Bachelor of Education undergraduates will have their tuition fees paid each year in full at a bursary value of approximately £20,000. By supporting teacher recruitment in those key subjects, we are safeguarding the future in STEM education and ensuring that our young people have access to the full breadth of learning opportunities, as well as supporting post-primary Irish-medium education more generally. The pilot scheme will be subject to a full evaluation, and future strategic workforce planning will continue to monitor teacher supply across all subject areas. That will inform any necessary adjustments to ensure that the scheme remains responsive to evolving needs.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. I declare an interest as the father of children who have been educated through the Irish-medium sector.

Minister, on the topic of staff shortages, a comprehensive workforce strategy is needed to underpin the growth of the Irish-medium sector. Can the Minister confirm whether he intends to support any prospective Irish-medium education teachers with bursaries or other financial assistance?

Mr Givan: Forgive me if I have not quite followed the question. I can be corrected, but, if the question is about providing support to those who are already in the teaching colleges, the answer is no. These are for new teachers. It is in order that, where there are shortages — the shortage in the Irish-medium sector relates to post-primary, and that is why it applies to post-primary — we can try to make sure that we attract people. The reason that the key subject areas are being supported is to try to attract where there is a challenge attracting people in. I appreciate that those who are currently in teaching colleges would want it to apply to them, but we have to target our limited resources to where there is a critical need. The way to ensure that the scheme works is to recruit new people into the teaching colleges in those key areas.

Mr McNulty: Minister, what measures will your Department adopt to ensure that universities and colleges are accountable for encouraging and obliging bursary recipients to complete their courses and enter teaching in STEM or Irish-medium subjects? What penalties will apply if they fail to deliver?

Mr Givan: That is a good question, because that is often an issue. We provide financial support, but how will we keep the young people who have gained the qualification so that they will, so to speak, pay it back to society, which has helped to pay for the course? We are very much looking at that. I believe that I have a legal pathway to make that a condition on which someone would be granted eligibility for such a bursary. The legal side of that aspect is being worked through, and I believe that we will be able to get that condition, which will be for a minimum of two years.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I will be keen to hear the exact evidence that the Member has sought to frame and characterise in the way that she has done. Addressing special educational needs is a huge challenge. We have published a reform agenda and a delivery plan, all of which have been worked through. We had the SEN end-to-end review, which we have taken forward with the other delivery plans. We have secured funding of £27 million through the transformation budget. Although that is not sufficient, it will allow us to make progress. Securing placements for a lot of children with special educational needs has been increasingly difficult over the past two years, but, through an incredible amount of work and willingness by schools to engage, we have been able to do that.

I have also published the SEN capital programme and have placed it on the agenda for the Executive. It is a £1·7 billion, 10-year plan. It not only addresses the short-term, responsive challenge but looks to how we meet the long-term plans. That paper has not yet been approved to be on the agenda. The deputy First Minister has approved it, and I certainly would like it to be approved for the Executive to support, because that would demonstrate our commitment to supporting those, and especially our teachers, who are involved in providing that critical work for children with special educational needs.

Ms Hunter: Perhaps I will expand a little further. The SENCO said that it took one hour and one minute on hold for her to be put through to a support worker to provide support for a child with complex needs, only to be told that the staff member was not at their desk. At the same time, Minister, parents are being taken to court in Northern Ireland because a child with special educational needs is not attending school. They are not getting the right support. Do you think that the work that you have done is acceptable? What are you going to do about it?

Mr Givan: I have just outlined the work that we have been doing, and I commend that response to the Member. Having met a number of principals and SENCOs in schools, I agree that the time that SENCOs have to spend in completing educational statements and advocating for resources to be provided to children is excessive. That is a process issue with the Education Authority. I therefore very much welcome the Education Committee's looking at that area, because I have sought to shine a spotlight on how I can make improvements and support those in the education system. It is a welcome opportunity for the Education Committee to carry out that work. That will help me, and, more importantly, it will help the children and young people.

There is another piece of work on special educational needs on which I will take a paper to the Executive. Increasingly, principals can demonstrate that, where they have flexibility in the allocation of resources for the employment and recruitment of the appropriate staff, there are better ways of doing so than the current system allows. We need to find ways to empower schools to take those decisions in a more timely way, and we need to make the processes that need to be followed to secure additional support less bureaucratic. Ultimately, that will lead to a better educational outcome for the children. The best interests of the children and young people that we have to support should drive the processes around special educational needs, and I will shortly bring a paper to the Executive on how we can do that.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. Members will note that a decision was made by the High Court not to grant leave for a full judicial review of my decisions on the development proposals for the two Bangor schools that wished to transform to integrated status. The court's comprehensive judgement answers many of the questions that Members raised at the time concerning my decisions and the criticisms that were made of them. It also confirms that I acted within the law and the powers given to me under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and Alliance's Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, as I am required to do, and that my interpretation of the law, particularly around the requirement for reasonable numbers of pupils from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds, was correct. I cannot approve a proposal for a school to transform to integrated status unless I consider it likely that reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic pupils presently exist or will be achieved. That was confirmed in the judgement.

I did not want my decisions to end up in court, and I am disappointed that they did, particularly given the fact that the judge observed that the judicial review, when carefully examined, was an attempt by some proponents of integrated education to effect a reversal of the realistic stance that was taken by me. Nevertheless, I welcome the clear and comprehensive ruling by the High Court, and I remain committed to encouraging, facilitating and supporting integrated education as defined in the law. The ruling sets a significant precedent for future integrated education proposals and reaffirms the importance of legal and evidential rigour in shaping Northern Ireland's educational landscape. The full comprehensive judgement is available to read on the Judiciary NI website.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, your critics have been loud and dramatic, but completely and shamefully wrong. Minister, have you received an apology from any of the Members who were critical of your decision in January?

Mr Givan: I have not yet received an apology, but I have no doubt that when those who commented earlier in the year have the opportunity to read the full judgement, they will be in touch. Professional courtesy demands no less. However, I assure those Members that I will accept any such apologies, and I will not then take every opportunity to point out their errors. If Members are unclear about who is required to apologise, they should feel free to speak with me, as I have compiled a comprehensive and extensive list.

Mr McCrossan: Name them.

Ms Hunter: Name and shame.

Mr Givan: I do not want to single out MLAs today, but one suggested that they were disappointed at my misreading of the Act. Mr Speaker, you would be surprised if you heard who said that, given their role in drafting the legislation, or, perhaps, you would not. Another said that the Minister seemed to have got hung up on one particular criterion. To say that those comments have not aged well may be regarded as something of an understatement.

Mr Givan: Yes, but the Member is tempting me to criticise in particular my good friends in the Alliance Party, although there are others. I am going to resist that temptation today. Rather, I will quote directly from the summary of the High Court's decision. It states:

— in this case —

Mr Brett: Minister, given the clear judgement, will you articulate to the House when you will set out your future policy decisions on reasonable numbers so that we can ensure that there are no further erroneous, politically-motivated court cases, which waste taxpayers' money, to cover up for a terrible Bill that was passed by the Assembly, having been railroaded through by the Alliance Party?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Consideration of reasonable numbers is guided by the legislative framework set out in the Education Reform Order 1989, the Alliance Party's Integrated Education Act 2022 and the principles of integrated education. As a general principle, my Department will expect schools transforming to integrated status to demonstrate the ability to attract at least 10% of their year 1 or year 8 intake from the minority religion in the first year of transformation. Alternatively, schools should aim for 15% of the combined number of Protestant and Catholic pupils in year 1 or year 8. Evidence must also be provided that the proportion is likely to increase over the next seven years, with the aspiration of achieving a reasonable balance between the two groups.

While flexibility will be applied to account for local circumstances, I highlight the fact that the underlying rationale of integrated education is to ensure a reasonable balance that promotes equality. The aspiration remains to move towards the 40:40:20 balance of Protestant, Catholic and others over time, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), although it is acknowledged that that might not always be immediately achievable. I refer Members to the written ministerial statement in which I addressed the issue of reasonable numbers. A written ministerial statement about the court judgement will be issued to the Assembly imminently.

Mr Givan: Not only have those two organisations withdrawn, but health organisations have withdrawn. It is really disappointing that they have withdrawn. When people walk away from the table and no longer wish to engage, it does a disservice to the people affected by the important issues that we are trying to deal with.

It is a very sensitive issue. I have often heard about the challenges that some of our young people face, but I have also heard about the very difficult challenges that many staff in our school settings face. Trying to strike the right balance will be grounded in human rights — but that is the human rights of all those who are impacted on. The Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Children's Law Centre and others should not have withdrawn. That is a matter for them to explain, but it is a retrograde step that I certainly do not support.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra,

even though he did not answer the question that I asked. The RCN has now joined the Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre in withdrawing. Those are organisations that deal with children's rights, and they have accused you, Minister, of ignoring human rights and exposing children with SEN to potentially unlawful use of force. Is it not now time for you, Minister, to accept that the process has lost all credibility and legitimacy?

Mr Givan: I do not accept that at all, and nor do the school principals and the teaching professionals who take a different view from that of the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and the RCN. They do not agree with that analysis either. Has the Member listened to the teaching profession? Has he listened to those who have to give operational effect, in their school settings, to the very difficult circumstances that they face? I would be very interested to know the Member's position if he listened to the principals and made the same comments to them as he has made in the Chamber today.

The issue is difficult to navigate. We need to find the right balance. Those who operate the system need clarity, and, therefore, it is my intention to produce guidance.

However, that guidance would have been much better informed by health professionals, the Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre being engaged in the process rather than withdrawing from it and running to the media to make commentary. Instead, they should have remained engaged. That would have resulted in a better outcome for the final guidance that I will publish.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the time for questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Finance. 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 O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. It remains my view that the exceptional, unavoidable nature of the costs meets the conditions of our reserve claim.

People and families have been impacted by the data breach, and we all need to be mindful of the effect that it has had on them. Significant information was supplied to support their case for access to the reserve. That included outlining the extremely challenging budgetary position that the Executive face and how having to meet the costs will add further to the pressures that public services are currently under.

As recently as last Friday, at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (F:ISC), I pressed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on that. I will continue to press the Treasury to reconsider the decision. Executive colleagues have been kept informed of the position and remain committed to working with all Ministers to consider how that financial pressure will be managed. It is not clear when the cost will crystallise, given the ongoing legal proceedings. Once those are concluded, I will be able to consider the budgetary implications along with my Executive colleagues.

Mr O'Toole: It is clearly right that our first thoughts are with the affected PSNI officers and staff, but let us be absolutely clear: this is another shambles; in fact, we only found out about it because a letter was leaked to the media. Presumably, your Department has known about it for weeks. Is it another example, like the A5, of basic work simply not being done on your watch? Your predecessor got a "no" to the reserve claim a year ago. What happened in the subsequent year to make your Department think that the answer would change? When will we have clarity on how the costs will be met? At the minute, it is a shambles.

Mr O'Dowd: What is required from the Chamber today is unity of purpose and a unified approach to sending a clear message to the Treasury from the Chamber and elsewhere that the Executive should have access to the reserve, that the bid meets the requirements of a reserve claim and, given the substantial pressures that the Executive are under, the reserve claim should be met. There will always be a bit of party politicking in here — it is the nature of the game that we are all involved in — but, if we have a unified voice today, it will be much more beneficial to the Executive and broader public services in ensuring that the claim is met.

I informed my Executive colleagues on the day that I was informed of the Treasury bid, which was 1 October. I have been working since then to get the decision overturned. I was conscious that I was meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Friday in person, and I wanted to make sure that I engaged with him then. It was my intention to inform all members of the Committee on Monday. The fact that it got into the press is not of my making. That is for others who leaked the letter. I do not know who leaked the letter to the press. That is for them to respond to, but let us have a bit of political maturity about this one and keep focused on the objective.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

The Minister knows that this is much wider than a data breach. I think that he pointed out at the beginning that the police are vastly under-resourced. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to support the Justice Minister and Chief Constable's call for additional funding for the PSNI?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that the PSNI was included as part of the Executive's discussions and decisions on public pay last Thursday in order to help meet the PSNI pay bid. I have also indicated and made it clear that it is my intention, as part of the three-year budgetary cycle, to make a recommendation to the Executive as part of that Budget that the PSNI's sustainability plan is fully funded. That will amount to around £200 million over a number of years. The Department of Justice submitted a business case to my Department, and it has been cleared. It meets the required criteria, and I hope that Executive colleagues will support me in that bid to fully fund the PSNI's sustainability plan.

Mr Clarke: It is disappointing to hear the leader of the Opposition politicking on the matter. He is not genuinely concerned about the officers and is clearly trying to score political points on that basis.

Minister, it was surprising to hear today, given what you said in your initial answer, about the quantum of the claim. Where did the UK Treasury's figure of £760 million come from, given that some claims have not been settled at this point?

Mr O'Dowd: The figure of £760 million in the Treasury letter refers to the provisional out-turns from Departments in relation to the pressures that they face. Those pressures will rise and fall as the financial year goes on. Executive colleagues and I, as Finance Minister, have a responsibility to manage those pressures, and we will continue to do so.

It was unfortunate that the Treasury took that angle of approach as part of its response to me. The PSNI data breach claim stands on its own and is exceptional. It is simply not possible for us to manage that in-year at this stage. That situation has not yet crystallised, however, and I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues and make the case to the Treasury for that reserve claim to be met.

Miss McAllister: The additional security funding that is provided by the UK Government is currently not enough, despite there being a slight increase, to even meet a fraction of those costs. Is there any indication from the UK Treasury that there will be another increase in that additional security funding?

Mr O'Dowd: Given the fact that the claim has been turned down, what we are witnessing is further proof of the significant economic pressures that the British Government are under. Some of that, it has to be said, is of their own making. They are operating within defined Treasury rules. The margins are so tight that I am incredulous that a sovereign Government cannot access £119 million in this instance. I am not expecting any increase in spending in any area from the current Government. We will have more information in that regard when we approach the Treasury. There may be examples where it will improve funding, but, at the moment, the situation in the Treasury is so bad that we should not be optimistic about anything in terms of increased funding.

Mr Beattie: The data breach was an unforeseen mistake, and I cannot understand why the Treasury cannot see it as an exceptional circumstance. We are all talking about the money for compensation. Have you had any discussions with the Justice Minister to find out the cost of welfare for those officers, their staff and families, including children who may have had to move school, who have been affected by the data breach? What is the cost of all that?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no direct conversations with the Justice Minister in that regard. My understanding is, however, that the Chief Constable has admitted liability in this case. I am not directly involved in the legal proceedings, but mediation is ongoing in relation to the scale of the compensation for each officer, as well as for PSNI staff. I assume that that will take into account all the issues that the Member has mentioned in considering the impact that the breach has had on PSNI officers and staff.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I heard your response to Mr Beattie on a specific question about the welfare of officers and their families. What discussions have you had or what preparations have you made, if any, with the Minister of Justice in the past 12 months on the matter?

Mr O'Dowd: The Justice Minister and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions in person, in correspondence and at the Executive table. There have been ongoing conversations and discussions between me and the Justice Minister and at official level in my Department.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what representations were made to the Treasury in relation to the data breach?

Mr O'Dowd: We submitted an application to the reserve claim that contained substantial information as to why we believed that it met the criteria for the reserve claim, setting out the unexpected nature of it and the uncertainty as to when the costs would crystallise. I am of the view that it meets the criteria. Unfortunately, I think that it is a financial rather than a procedural decision in the Treasury, because it is in such a stringent position, some of it through its own making and its own rules, which it has been sticking to rigidly. A strong case has been made to the Treasury in writing and verbally.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to respond to the question. The unfortunate media narrative today is fuelled by confusing a number of issues regarding the PSNI. We have the £200 million sustainability plan, PSNI pay and the cost of the data breach. I echo what the Minister said, which is that it is important that we unite and show that the Assembly supports the PSNI.

Minister, have you any idea how much of this will crystallise in 2025-26, and is £119 million a cautious estimate or a realistic one?

Mr O'Dowd: It is the best estimate at this moment with the business case that we received from the Department of Justice. I simply do not know when it will crystallise. Engagement is ongoing at a legal level. My understanding is that there is another court hearing on these matters in November. Colleagues will be aware that, when legal engagement takes place, it may take more time than was expected around these matters. I will await the crystallisation of the figure and then continue to engage with Executive colleagues on how we find the funding for it.

Ms Egan: Minister, this is a disappointing day for the PSNI. Will you elaborate on the justification that you received from Treasury? What did it put forward as to why it rejected this? Also, what are your next steps, particularly if you are not successful in convincing the Treasury to overturn the decision?

Mr O'Dowd: The Treasury position is that we should have set aside moneys for the claim on the basis that we knew that a claim had been lodged. That is somewhat contradictory to the rules under which we operate, because we cannot hold a reserve. Given the financial constraints that all Departments find themselves under, I and the Executive thought that it was only right and proper in May to issue a monitoring round and help Departments to face the pressure that they are under. That is the rationale that the Treasury has given me for not supporting the bid, although I believe that it is simply in such stringent times that it speaks volumes about the state of the economy in Britain.

How will we find the funding for it? That is part of the process of discussions that I and my Executive colleagues will have to have once the figure crystallises. I am conscious that it is coming at us. I am engaging constantly with my officials about what we can do and what options are available to us, but we first have to wait for the figure to crystallise.

Mr Chambers: Recently, I asked the Minister of Justice what her options were for securing the money for the compensation. She said that in no circumstances could her Department's budget meet it. She said that she would continue to engage with the Department of Finance to try to get additional funding from the Executive or HM Treasury. It now appears, however, that the Treasury has slammed the door in the face of the Minister and the Assembly, and it is having a devastating effect on the morale of the PSNI.

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

Mr Chambers: I ask the Minister —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Good man.

Mr Chambers: — where we go from here.

Mr O'Dowd: I will continue to press the Treasury on the matter. I will also engage with Executive colleagues on contingency plans.

However, if the Executive have to find the funding, that will lead to significant challenges for other public services. We will have to work our way through that and see how and when we can deliver the funding.

Mr Durkan: The situation will indeed prove challenging for the Executive, but it cannot have come as a complete surprise, given that the answer was no last year, and I am not sure how the landscape will have changed this year. In his response to Ms Egan, the Minister referred to feedback. Was that feedback on the discrete data breach element of the bid, or was it a blanket ask and a blanket answer?

Mr O'Dowd: The only bid that I made as a reserve claim was for the PSNI data breach. There was no broader bid regarding other elements and pressures facing the Executive at this stage. The only response that I got was to the question that I asked, which was this: can I access the Treasury reserve to pay claims resulting from the PSNI data breach? Thus far, the answer is no.

Mr Gaston: In a meeting last week, the Assistant Chief Constable outlined that the estimated collective cost to deal with the data breach will be in the region of £110 million. Due to the money not being available, it is now estimated that it will cost between £220 million and £330 million, if claims are taken individually. Is the caretaker Minister of Justice making any provision this year to deal with such claims, or, as per usual, are the Executive solely adopting the Oliver Twist approach and putting the hand out for more?

Mr O'Dowd: We are adopting the approach that other devolved institutions and Whitehall Departments adopt when making requests to access the reserve. All those bodies take the same approach. It is not helpful to bandy figures around and say, "It might be this or it might be the other". It might not be any of those figures. It might be more. I have to deal with the reality that is in front of me, as do the Executive. There is ongoing mediation between representatives on both sides, and I will wait until those mediation processes are complete and a figure is given to me as Finance Minister or to the Justice Minister. The Executive will then have a job of work to do.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the Executive cannot hold a reserve. That is true in a literal sense, but, for the record, the Executive can hold items centrally in their Budget for specific projects. They do that all the time, so it is not correct to say that there was no means of holding that budget. However, I accept that the preference would have been for the Treasury to provide the money.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, that is not a point of order, and the Member knows that it is not a point of order. We will have to get a Standing Order for showboating.

That concludes the item of business. Members, please take your ease. Thank you.

Ms Forsythe: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rates are the main lever that the Northern Ireland Executive have to raise revenue. The rates bill is well known to every home and business across the Province. It is a necessary pain to all, in that it is required by law to be paid to bring in around £1·5 billion a year to pay for public services.

A great deal of effort goes into valuing homes, setting rates bills and determining policies on relief. After the bills are set, taxpayers in Northern Ireland expect Land and Property Services to make every effort to collect everything that is owed to the Government. However, the figures on rate collection continue to be disappointing, with £18 million of unpaid rates written off in 2024-25. That brings the total amount of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million. That is a terrible statistic that requires urgent action.

Departments are operating within highly constrained budgets, with huge financial pressures on our public services. Even a small proportion of the unpaid rates that are not recovered by LPS could be used to fund projects and maintenance across the country. It is unfair that law-abiding people pay their rates whilst others fail to pay and have their slates wiped clean.

As of September 2025, LPS reported that the amount of rates arrears carried forward was £145·4 million. The Finance Minister reported that £73·6 million of that is still being examined for potential legal action. It must be asked of the Minister and LPS why it is deemed acceptable to deprioritise recovering almost half of the total unpaid rates in Northern Ireland to date.

People are clearly struggling to pay the rates bills that they already face. Businesses are closing and many sectors are on their knees. The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and again. As we continue to support the squeezed middle, who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which financial pressures can be met is by raising the rates cap and ending the early-payment discount. Those measures will increase the burden on many households and punish those who sensibly make preparations to pay their rates each spring, whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that have already been billed to them. That is a concerning message to the public and leaves many frustrated. Uncollected rates debt is a barrier to us maximising the funding that is available for vital public services in Northern Ireland.

It is welcome that the vast majority of rates are collected on time by LPS. However, the commitment by LPS to see 93% of the total rates bill being successfully collected is frustrating. The target should be 100% always, or, at the very least, as close to it as possible. Why would you not target full collection of the bills that you have calculated using such a comprehensive method? Why would you not choose to show the public that you are committed to achieving full collection and set an aspirational target? For example, in the 2024-25 financial year, when the target was 93% collection, if the total rates charged and due were calculated to be approximately £1·5 billion, setting out with a 93% target collection rate meant that £105 million was already expected to not be collected. What sort of tone does that set?

We need to pause and look at the significant values. We see write-offs of £82 million, huge arrears of £145 million and, operationally, we begin the year expecting to fail to collect in the region of £105 million. Those numbers are huge. Think of those, and then of the financial pressures that we see facing the Northern Ireland Budget. What would those tens and hundreds of millions of pounds do for our public services or for people?

We are under no illusions that, in the current economic climate, many hard-working people, families and businesses right across Northern Ireland are encountering challenges in paying their rates. We are not unsympathetic to those concerns, but for those who repeatedly or wilfully fail to meet their obligations to be effectively let off the hook, sends out a message that we should not send to the thousands of hard-working ratepayers across Northern Ireland. The collection of rates should be on a level playing field, with every household and business treated fairly and equitably.

We call on the Minister of Finance to tangibly increase the target figure for gross collectable rates, the system for which is operated by Land and Property Services. We also call on the Minister to present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off over the next five years to address people's key concerns. Those include: can the Finance Minister provide evidence that his rate recovery action plan is working; will he commit to increasing the number of cases that are pursued through the courts; has he any plans to review the current criteria for write-offs; and does he intend to benchmark future collection targets against those in other jurisdictions? I also ask how the Minister will ensure that there is regional balance in unpaid rates recovery, given that, in some constituencies, the level of unpaid rates arrears appears disproportionate to the size of the population and, in others, the reduction in arrears has been stagnant. The collection of rates in every corner of Northern Ireland should be on a level playing field, with every household and every business treated fairly and equitably.

I welcome the Minister's progression of the strategic review of the rates system in Northern Ireland. It is long overdue. We need to see a common-sense approach to how individuals and businesses are charged rates. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a fair system. I look forward to seeing how a difference will be made to many people and the economy here. However, a 10-year span is too slow. We need to see change now, or there will be no businesses left open in some sectors. Strong voices from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Retail NI, Hospitality Ulster, Community Pharmacy and many more are shouting loudly about how the rates that they are charged impede their trading or how they operate, and it is devastating for them.

We tabled the motion to note our serious concern about the high levels of unpaid rates that are written off or sit as arrears and call on the Finance Minister to take action now, as we in the DUP continue to support the hard-pressed middle, who are trying their best to pay their rates. The Finance Minister's approach to tackling the financial pressures is unfair as it continues to increase rates bills for some, while appearing to turn a blind eye to others who are not paying their rates bills. It is time that we saw a change. I commend the motion to the House.

Miss Hargey: I thank the proposer of the motion, which raises important issues. Sinn Féin fully recognises that rates are a vital source of public revenue. They are the only form of taxation that is available to us here, and that means that we have to look at this critically. We have to get the system right and ensure that rates are collected fairly, efficiently and in a way that supports rather than burdens families and local businesses. That has been the Minister's priority.

Years of Tory austerity have seen public services ripped apart and stripped of vital resources and funding, and global economic uncertainty and failures have contributed to increased pressures on many households here in meeting their essential needs, particularly as we are going through another cost-of-living crisis. Many businesses have also faced difficulties, while some have failed. Like households, businesses have struggled under the pressure.

The Minister of Finance is taking real and practical steps to tackle those challenges and is ensuring that the most vulnerable are not further impacted on. First, the 2024-25 period saw the highest-ever level of rates collected here in the North. That is a positive note that reflects the focused work of the Department and LPS to improve billing, collections and recovery. In the previous financial year, £1·63 billion in rates was collected. The Minister has also ensured that support for those who need it most has been maintained and strengthened. That includes the continuation of rural ATMs to help sustain that important local service in rural communities, which we as a Committee have heard about in recent months; ongoing rates relief for low-income households; and protection from excessive burdens for the most vulnerable in our communities and families.

The Finance Minister has overseen an overview of the strategic review of the rating system that examines the system in its entirety and looks at the forms of relief that are offered, vacant property charges and other issues. The Finance Committee has had briefings on the reform programme in the past couple of months and even in the past week. The Finance Minister has also engaged with the Committee and is due in front of it again before the Christmas recess.

Sinn Féin welcomes the Minister's forward-looking approach, which recognises that, while the system for collection of rates must improve, it must also be fair, transparent, adapted to the realities that ratepayers face and must ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. Those with the broadest shoulders have a responsibility to bear some of the burden, and there is a question to be asked about how to go about that in a fair and balanced way: those with a bigger income and bigger home need to pay higher rates, and we need to look at more mitigations for those who are struggling to meet their bills.

One of the most important points that I will make today is about balance. As the Minister outlined, nearly £13 million is currently being repaid through active payment plans, helping people to meet their obligations in a manageable way that can be responsible for government pursuing what is owed without punishing people who are already struggling. It is simply unfair that many families and businesses pay their rates on time, often under great financial pressure, while others avoid that responsibility. That undermines confidence in the system.

Not all unpaid rates are the result of avoidance or unwillingness to pay, however. It can be down to some of the realities of the cost of living that people face, which I spoke about, and to the impact that the interventions that the British Government have made have on our small and medium-sized businesses. There must be a balanced solution that includes enforcement and recovery, where appropriate, but also compassion and support, putting in support measures for those who struggle to pay. That is the approach that Sinn Féin sees and that Minister O'Dowd is delivering.

When we look at the full picture in context, we see that the numbers tell a different story. Over the past six years, more than £8 billion has been collected, with uncollected amounts totalling around 2%. We are aware that arrears are reducing. As I said, last year, we saw the biggest increase in rates collection. That shows that the interventions that are being introduced work.

Addressing the issue of unpaid rates is not about blame; it is about responsibility and solutions, recognising that progress is being made. We all want to build a fairer and stronger rates system that supports public services and, importantly, treats people with dignity.

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

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

Mr Tennyson: Domestic and non-domestic rates revenue is a crucial source of income and the most significant of all the levers that are available to the Executive to raise funding for front-line public services. It has generated around £1·6 billion in the past financial year alone.

The increase in unpaid rates in recent years is, undoubtedly, the result of a challenging economic environment, with the higher cost of living and doing business weighing heavily on many ratepayers. It is, however, a welcome fact, which must be acknowledged that, as of the end of August, the volume of unpaid rates carried forward in that year had fallen, with £59 million moving through legal recovery panels, almost £74 million being examined for potential legal action in the current rating year, and almost £13 million being the subject of active payment plans.

LPS must be robust and rigorous in pursuing those who refuse to pay, including through the courts where necessary. That is particularly pertinent in the context of the increased financial pressures facing our public services. It is also essential that LPS continues to offer affordable longer-term repayment arrangements in cases where households and businesses are genuinely struggling to pay. Otherwise, we could see some of those businesses go to the wall, which would cost more to the public purse in the long run.

We have to make a distinction between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay, with a fair and proportionate response being taken as a result. Whilst some unpaid rates relate to avoidance, others are legitimately the result of businesses going to the wall. The proposer of the motion mentioned the £82 million that has been written off over the past six years. I am curious whether the Minister can set out any more detail on the composition of that £82 million. I suspect that a significant portion of it has resulted from businesses that have gone bankrupt, where there is nothing to legally recover.

The level of unpaid rates is, undoubtedly, a serious issue that needs to be tackled, but it is not the core source of our financial challenges as an Executive. That is why Alliance has continued to call for a short, sharp, independent and holistic review of rating relief in order to ensure that the system is progressive, fair, fit for purpose and able to support the needs of our public services alongside economic growth. The 10-year strategic review of rating policy that was announced by the previous Finance Minister clearly falls short of that aim.

The lack of independence will impact on confidence in its recommendations, the piecemeal approach will impact on its ability to recommend meaningful change, and the long timeline invariably means that the socio-economic environment will have changed dramatically by the time the review is complete. It is clear, based on the number of businesses that are struggling, that there is a need for additional support in key sectors, such as hospitality, retail, leisure and, in particular, childcare.

It is a missed opportunity that even the most modest reforms to our rating system to make it fairer and raise additional revenue for public services have not been achieved since the Assembly was restored. As a progressive politician, I believe that those with the broadest shoulders ought to bear the greatest burden. We have to take steps that protect the most vulnerable whilst raising the investment that our public services need. It is not good enough for parties to simply come to the Chamber and bemoan the lack of investment from Westminster whilst refusing to take any responsibility or take action with the powers that we have.

I acknowledge that, in fairness to the Minister, consultations have been undertaken and proposals have been brought to the Executive that were not supported. It is not necessarily for a complete want of trying by the Department on this occasion. What hope is there for any serious transformation of our finances or, indeed, any greater fiscal devolution if we cannot achieve political consensus about even the most basic change to our rating system?

Alliance will support the motion, because we absolutely support the need to tackle unpaid rates in Northern Ireland, but that has to happen in the context of much-needed and long overdue reform to our rating system.

Mr O'Toole: Like others, I am sure, we will support the motion insofar as it goes. We have no profound issues with clamping down on the level of unpaid rates. That should be obvious.

Some Members in their contributions have lambasted, as it were, the LPS and the Department. I will not defend them, but I offer a plea in mitigation: not all — in fact, very few — authorities that collect taxes, rates and revenue target or achieve 100% in the collection of payments. In broad terms, the tax gap in the UK is about 5%, so I do not think that we should assume that not believing that we will get 100% is necessarily evidence of a profound failing by the Department. That said, there is a significant stock of uncollected rates. It has come down significantly from, I think, £180-odd million to about £110 million since we first returned last year and discussed the issue.

I have no particular issue in supporting the motion. However, my party and I will make the broader point that the debate is happening in the context of us not taking the power that is at our fingertips. As a progressive centre-left politician and someone who believes in devolution and, ultimately, in the exercise of power on this island rather than from Whitehall in London, I believe that we should take more power over the revenue that we raise and use every opportunity that we have to exploit and maximise the powers at our fingertips in the here and now. To be honest, we simply are not doing that at all.

The motion effectively says that we should stretch ourselves a little bit more to collect a little bit more of the revenue that we are owed. That is grand; I have no issue with that. In fact, there are loads of instances of rates reliefs being applied totally inappropriately, including in my constituency. I have mentioned in the Chamber multiple times the preposterous situation in the preposterously named Tribeca site in the middle of the Cathedral Quarter. Properties there have been left to fall into dereliction, but the property owners been given rates holidays by LPS. That was undone only after questions were asked by me and others.

When it comes to the powers that we have, we have pressed consistently for more ambition from the Minister on getting more fiscal devolution and local revenue-raising. That is not because we love the idea of taxation for its own sake; it is because we believe in taking responsibility here. In the Chamber, there is a huge amount of blame-shifting and responsibility-shifting. Members say, "Someone in London has to do something" or, "Another party in the Executive needs to do something". Someone somewhere else is always to blame for something. The public want us to take responsibility. I want us to take the ultimate responsibility and build a new Ireland on this island, but, until then, I want the Sinn Féin Finance Minister to explain how he and the Executive will take more power over revenue.

At the moment, we have something called a rates "review cycle" over a 10-year horizon. That is completely preposterous. It is preposterous that we are talking about waiting a decade before taking any meaningful steps. I know that the Minister has taken some steps towards changing the rating system. I would like to hear when that is going to be discussed at the Executive. We understood there would be a discussion, last week or this week, specifically on measures to change non-domestic rating and, on domestic rates, early repayment and the cap. Can he give us an update today on whether that discussion is happening and when we are going to get a clear decision? Will that happen in time for the multi-year Budget later this year and therefore for the collection of next year's rates bills?

Furthermore, I also ask when we are actually going to get a coherent plan for revenue raising and fiscal devolution in order to meet the challenges in our public services —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, the motion relates to uncollected rates.

Mr O'Toole: — and our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We should confine our comments to that.

Mr O'Toole: I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, as Mr Tennyson also made clear, these things are inherently linked. How we raise revenue and the amount of revenue that we have available to spend are inherently linked to the amount of unspent rates. The point that I am making is this: if we want to deliver against a set of priorities, rescue our public services and invest in our infrastructure, we are going to need a plan. We will hopefully have a multi-year Budget and investment strategy at some point this year.

We assume, because we hear it constantly in the Chamber — it is right — that London does not give us enough money and that our financing model is broken because we have to go to London for reserve claims and to get our funding. I do not want that in the long term, and I know that the Finance Minister does not want that either, but, in the short and medium term, why do we not take more power here? Why do we not raise more local revenue? Why do we not have a bit more ambition about taking power into our hands? That is a noble aspiration and a practical imperative. Let us hear from the Finance Minister what he intends to do to raise more revenue locally in the short and medium term, and in the meantime, by all means, let us collect the unpaid rates.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for returning to the topic of the motion in the Order Paper. Members will note that some latitude is given; they may wish to note also that such latitude may not be extended to two thirds of their speech.

Miss Dolan: As has been said, rates are a vital source of revenue that the Executive and our councils use to support the delivery of public services. Given the limited taxation levers available to us as a devolved Assembly, I welcome the strategic review of rating, which is looking at measures such as increasing the maximum rates cap from £400,000 to £485,000. That would generate more income in a progressive way. Despite the challenging fiscal circumstances that we face, the Finance Minister has been able to maintain considerable rates support, such as through the Back in Business scheme, which encourages the use of retail space in our towns and villages, and the rates exemption for rural ATMs, which continues to play a significant role in maintaining access to cash in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

I am conscious that many families have faced extremely difficult financial circumstances in recent years due to numerous factors, such as the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. Those circumstances will undoubtedly have contributed to the unpaid rates bills that we speak of today. Despite that, in 2025, the overall amount collected in rates increased to a record £1·6 billion. While I believe in compassion and rates support measures that support those on low incomes and encourage investment in businesses and jobs, it is imperative that LPS proactively works to recover, in a fair manner, all the rates that are owed and that legal action is taken against those who continue to refuse to pay.

Mr Harvey: I join my party colleagues in bringing this motion to the Assembly today. It highlights a significant issue as part of the wider conversation on revenue raising. The figures outlined in the motion, which were supplied by way of previous answers from the Department, are astounding, particularly when viewed in the context of what it takes to operate some of our front-line public services across Northern Ireland. The current landscape of our public finances was acknowledged in the Programme for Government, which highlighted the fact that there is not enough funding for services to meet the needs of people here and that our ability to deliver on all our priorities is dependent on the availability of funds.

In light of that, the Department has engaged in a review of rating and has been consulting on proposed changes. It is unfortunate that similar industry has not been procured to address the issue of recouping unpaid rates. To do so would be to provide a much fairer and more sustainable means of increasing revenue without placing additional burdens on those who already meet their obligations.

The Finance Minister and his predecessor have pointed to favourable trajectories in the past for annual recovery figures. However, the Department has published little by way of new, concrete proposals to systematically combat the issue. As of 31 August 2025, £145 million remains unpaid. If the Department and the Minister are to get serious with those flouting the law and significantly reduce that figure in the coming years, we must see a doubling down on processes and procedures and tangible actions, such as an increase in the target figure for gross collectable rates for Northern Ireland, which remains considerably lower than that in other jurisdictions at 93% compared with, for example, 96% in England, as has been highlighted.

I would also be interested to hear from the Minister on the disparities across council districts, where disproportionality appears to exist between the level of unpaid rates and the population data, and on how the Department intends to combat such regional imbalance. Sinn Féin made much of austerity in the past. We all know the impact that the cost-of-living crisis continues to have on our citizens, yet the Department seems more interested in crippling ordinary, decent people with even higher bills than in getting tough on those who think that the rules do not apply to them. Scrapping the early payment discount, raising the rates cap or removing business support should not be our primary focus until uncollected rates debt has been sufficiently addressed.

Let me be clear: the DUP will fight for hard-pressed working families. Those who prepare for and pay their bills on time should not be required to pick up the tab for those who do not.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Harvey: I am almost finished, but I certainly will when I come to the end.

Those who repeatedly and wilfully fail to meet their obligations to the LPS should not be let off the hook. There is an onus on the Minister to show good governance and equality on the issue, to ensure that every possible effort is made to collect what is owed to the Government and to tackle the scourge once and for all.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I absolutely agree that everybody should pay their rates, but does the Member agree that some of those who have been unable to pay their rates are hard-working, decent people who have just been unable to pay their rates?

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

Mr Harvey: I agree with the Member that there surely are those cases, but, in effect, there are things that cater for that. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Principal — or Deputy Speaker, should I say? I elevated you there.

The motion is topical, as the Executive scramble to solve some of their money woes and we approach the point of struggling to keep the lights on and services functioning. For me, the motion touches on four groups of people who give context to the problems that the Department faces in trying to recover this money.

I think of my constituent in Cullybackey who owns her home and who, through no fault of her own, had to retire early from her job. Sadly, that lady cannot gain employment and, due to having a small private pension, does not qualify for universal credit or get help from personal independence payment (PIP). Until she reaches state pension age, she will have to continue to stretch her money as far as she can to pay a little of her rates bill to keep the wolves from the door, while choosing every day between paying all her rates, heating her home and having food in the cupboard. If she had not worked all her life, she would be entitled to universal credit and would qualify to get her rates paid for her.

The second group is of people who, through unforeseen circumstances, have been unable to pay their rates bills and whose debt has spiralled to the point at which the only option is bankruptcy. I presume that that is the group that is most responsible for the £82 million of debt that was written off.

The third group is of people who have moved out of their homes due to the poor condition that they have got into and have stopped paying their rates as a result. Even though those houses are now empty, the rates remain payable until the houses are either toppled or become so badly dilapidated that they cannot be repaired and are condemned.

That brings me to my fourth group of people: those who have the resources but, through poor financial management, have not paid their rates bills. The Department needs to use all the resources at its disposal to ensure that those rates are paid in full as a priority.

The best example that I can give relates to an office in my constituency that was recently highlighted in the local press. Shockingly, over a 13-year period, that property was the subject of repeated arrangements, court summonses, bounced cheques and what were politely described as "oversights", none of which successfully settled the rates account. I will take the House through the facts of what the Department has faced. In 2012, Land and Property Services sent its first debt recovery letter. In 2013, when the bill remained unpaid, a court summons was issued. Only then did the office request a copy of the bill to arrange payment. In 2016, LPS was assured that there would be payment by mid-August, yet there was still nothing four months later. A second court summons was required before payment finally came. In 2017, another summons was issued. A post-dated cheque was offered, but it was rejected. In 2018, a six-month payment arrangement was agreed, yet the cheques — one for £3,000 and a second for £1,000 — bounced. In 2020, pre-court letters were issued before payments were made. In 2021, LPS again had to threaten court action. In May 2023, a final red-letter warning was issued. In March 2025, more than £5,000 was still outstanding. Shockingly, that property was the constituency office of the former MP and now united Irelander, Ian Paisley Junior. The property was held by the Ballymena Advice Centre, which is a corporate entity linked to the Paisley family, with the DUP a passive beneficiary.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Ms Sugden: The Member has outlined the extensive process involved in collecting the rates bill, setting aside the particular individual at whom it was directed in that case. Does that bureaucracy in and of itself add to the cost and the challenge with rates collection that we are discussing?

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

Mr Gaston: The case goes to the heart of the problem that the Department is facing. In that case, the money would have been covered by public money if somebody had managed their budget and their resources right. Mr Paisley was the tenant and was legally responsible for paying the rates.

The DUP now calls for the stricter enforcement of unpaid rates, demanding higher collection targets and new proposals to tackle arrears. Unpaid rates are unfair, a burden to ordinary citizens and a threat to public services. However, if the DUP truly wants to lead by example, perhaps the first step is simple: ensure that your own offices are fully up to date on their bills before lecturing the public. Only then can the public take seriously the call for fiscal responsibility and take lectures and guidance from the Benches to my right. Until that happens and until the Church Street account is finally settled, there should be no lectures —

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

Mr Gaston: — from the DUP on the issue.

Mr Tennyson: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call —.

Mr Tennyson: Well said.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. I call Claire Sugden.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I prepared a speech that took the issue at face value, in that £145 million sits outside the system. When the general public hear that figure, they think of the debate that we had prior to this one and the £110 million that we are not paying in relation to the police data issue. They also think of the money required for the holiday pay claim and the millions that, the Health Minister says, we do not have in our budget to pay nurses. I appreciate, Minister, that it is not as easy as transferring money across Departments.

However, the public are trying to understand. They see that huge £145 million shortfall and are trying to understand: is it due to Stormont incompetence or does the fact that the system is just too bureaucratic — I mentioned that in my intervention to Mr Gaston — mean that it is almost not worth recovering it, because to recover it in an efficient way may cost more?

That takes us into another conversation about how we collect rates and what the issues are, and even Linda Dillon's point about the fact that people simply cannot afford it. That, in itself, is an issue, because the rates system is one of the few ways in which Northern Ireland can raise its own revenue. As budgets get cut, as services seem to cost more and as public services haemorrhage money, we need to find it from somewhere. To be honest, the only way in which to do that is through rates and, ultimately, by increasing them. We can point to the successes of recent years and the money that has been brought in by Land and Property Services, but, ultimately, that has been because you are raising rates. I appreciate that we need rates, at local, council function level and at Northern Ireland function level, because we just do not have enough money to go across all services. I am a little bit concerned that that, in itself, is what is increasing our rates generally. We need to have an honest conversation about why the system is there and what it is for.

Earlier, I mentioned that I have been in the Chamber for 10 years, and that we are talking about the same issues that we talked about a decade ago. Rates is one of those issues, particularly non-domestic rates. More often than not, any business that challenges its rates bill will win that appeal because the system is so convoluted that it cannot really justify itself, and LPS will probably have no option other than to agree with the appeal.

I do not want to rehash what others have said: I am trying to be a bit more thoughtful about the contributions because they point to the general concerns around the system. We need to see reform. We need to look at what we are doing there. Maybe we need to look at other ways in which to raise revenue so that rates are not the only opportunity for us to get more money for the services that we all use.

The person who cannot afford to pay their rates will not pay them, and will then go through a lengthy accountability process. I suspect that the Minister has regular conversations with the Minister of Justice about the challenges and pressures that the Enforcement of Judgments Office faces. Is that an issue as to why we are unable to collect rates better — that, again, the system is so bureaucratic and convoluted?

We need to have an honest conversation. I admit that I came at this by seeing £145 million and saying, "Wow, that is a huge shortfall", particularly when we put it into the context of the many millions of pounds that we need for other services. Minister, I encourage you to look at the system as a whole and speak to your Executive colleagues about this. I expect that you will stand up and tell us all the reasons why that figure exists, and it may not be as simple as some of us would have assumed at the outset. However, the fact is that there is not enough money and our system is not efficient enough to address services in a way that can justify the figures that we have to present to the public.

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

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In a very straitened financial operating context, the revenue from rates is key to the provision of much-needed public services, such as health and education, not to mention the many services that are provided by councils to support local communities. That is why, as Minister of Finance, the issue of the collection of rates is high on my agenda. Land and Property Services has a strategy for improving rates collection that is focused on making it easier to pay while balancing compassion for those who are struggling to pay. Indeed, Members write to me asking for such compassion for their constituents. The constituents for whom they write to seek compassion are included in the rates figure that is before us. I assume that the Members who write to me are not suggesting that I do not show compassion to the people for whom they make representations.

Last year, my Department collected £1·63 billion in rates revenue, the highest ever amount of rates that was collected in a single year, which represented an increase of over £90 million from the year before. Even with that level of performance, of course, there will be outstanding rates that have not been recovered, including unpaid debt that has accumulated over a number of years and is carried forward. We have faced, and continue to face, extreme fiscal pressures in our society and economy, yet my Department continues to strive to increase the amounts that are collected year-on-year.

For context, the value of uncollected rates of £145 million, as mentioned in the motion, represents less than 2% of the £8·261 billion collected over the past six years. So far this year, we have collected almost £1 billion and driven down arrears from April by 20%. Whilst good progress has been made, I am, of course, focused on the balance remaining. Recovery of the £145 million remains a priority. Significant efforts are ongoing to ensure that as much of the revenue owed is paid as quickly as possible.

It would be useful to Members if I broke down the £145 million figure further: £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, enabling further legal action to be taken while rates continue to remain unpaid; £12·8 million is currently being repaid through active payment plans or agreed arrangements with Land and Property Services. That money is being collected over an extended period, reflecting a flexible approach that supports ratepayers. I am confident that no Member of the House disagrees with the principle of allowing ratepayers who want to pay the additional time to do so.

As was pointed out by Linda Dillon, many of those people who find themselves in difficulty are honest, hard-working people who want to do the right thing. Some of the language in the motion referring to "law-abiding businesses and households" who pay is disappointing. Others who are law-abiding find themselves in difficulties where they cannot pay, so let us not paint everybody with the same brush. The challenge for LPS is that it has to deal with each individual circumstance on its own merits. That can be complicated, convoluted and difficult, at times, as Mr Gaston pointed out in relation to one case, which, I believe, is ongoing, so I will make no more mention of it.

It is important to understand that the approach contributes to the overall amount of rates still outstanding. The remaining balance of £73·5 million is under review to obtain payment or progress through legal action within this rating year. Within that balance, there are rates that are not suitable for legal recovery, such as rates pending valuation appeals or settlements of probate on estates following bereavement.

It is important that I am clear on this point regarding write-offs: the writing off of rating debt is a legitimate provision that accepts, under certain prescribed circumstances, that collection is simply not viable. My officials cannot simply decide to reduce debt balances through write-offs. There are agreed checks and balances in place to ensure that any such action is in accordance with the legislation and good governance. Write-off is the final step taken after all recovery options have been pursued. On the figure of £82 million in write-offs over the past six years, 80% of the amount written off — that is, £67 million — was due to what is referred to as "legal reasons". Those are not discretionary decisions but are obligations under law that prevents further recovery, often involving businesses that have ceased trading or have gone into receivership.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister giving way. On this occasion, I agree with him. In my family, I have experience of what happens when a small business owner cannot continue because of a serious illness and has rates liability. Does the Minister agree that it is often the case in small towns that, sometimes, a liability remains a liability because the ratepayer, perhaps for reasons of stigma or a feeling of obligation to other creditors to whom they owe money in their local town or wherever it is, feel that they do not want to seek write-off? That liability stays there. Therefore, it is important not to stigmatise and simplify those issues, particularly when it comes to small business owners.

Mr O'Dowd: That is an important distinction to make. Broadly, there are two sets of people when you come to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay to find a way for them to deliver their liabilities. That is the broad breakdown of where people are at.

Going back to the collection figure of £1·63 billion last year, the significant efforts by my officials to collect and recover rates owed should not be underestimated. Calls have been made to increase the Department's collection rate, with one previous point repeated here today: the mooting of 100% collection targets. The prospect of collecting the full amount of rates revenue owed is one that we all support. However, regrettably, that prospect is not realistic. During the debate, several Members alluded to why that is not the case.

The current target that I have set of 93% is a considered position, setting a standard that measures collection performance against all collectable rates and strikes a balance between ambition and deliverability. The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving, and I have to say that comparing our collection rate to that of England and elsewhere does not necessarily simply match. It is a very complex process to match both over and go back on forth on those. I have engaged with my officials on that on a number of occasions, and I am satisfied that the target that we have set is comparable with other regions when you look at all the facts and at what you are measuring.

The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving. There are necessary elements of process that, together, combine to make the administration of collecting revenue challenging. We must recognise that there is a cost in money and time in recovering rates, and we need to accept that there are times when it is uneconomical to do so. Many Members will have first-hand experience of asking Land and Property Services to provide support for constituents who are struggling to balance household and business bills. Not all ratepayers are able to pay what is owed, through no fault of their own. In those cases, officials have a responsibility to be understanding and support the ratepayer to come to a payment agreement that is affordable and sustainable. On the other hand, there are those who can make payment but wilfully choose to avoid doing so. Those cases require relentless recovery and enforcement action and can often take years to resolve. It is fair to say that, sometimes, distinguishing clearly between those who cannot and those who will not is challenging, and my officials work hard in managing the demands in handling both.

I am pleased to say that good progress has been made in the year to date in rates recovery, and I am looking forward to a positive end-year out-turn against the target set. I am in no doubt about how difficult it is to maintain those levels of collection in a very challenging operating environment; however, I am committed to striving to do more. Land and Property Services has a revised strategy for improving rates collection over the next three years. Supporting the principles that I have endorsed in the road map for rating, the strategy is built around three key aims: making it easier for ratepayers to pay; supporting those who need help to pay; and taking effective action against those who will not pay. My Department has set out not only a clear ambition to increase collections but the approach to achieving that ambition. Key deliverables for this year include new digital services that will enhance ratepayers' experiences through, for example, online billing and flexibility in managing payment options as well as using data-driven insights to strengthen decision-making on enforcement action.

My Department is committed to maximising rate collection, and I think that the £1·63 billion that was collected last year demonstrates that. I commend my officials for their performance to date in very challenging circumstances. I also recognise that there is always a need to do more, and a process is under way for, amongst other things, my plans for rating policy reviews and a rate collection strategy. However, let me be clear: the overarching approach is to not lose compassion and understanding for the circumstances that people find themselves or their businesses in. That is why making it easier to pay and setting up plans to recover in slower time remain the top priorities for me as Minister. I could ask my officials to have a more ruthless approach, for instance, with businesses and to pursue them more rigorously, but that will put more and more businesses out of business each year. We will collect more rates, or maybe we will not, because, once they are declared bankrupt, we might not be able to get the rates at all. You have to give the freedom to officials to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, working within an agreed framework. I believe that the framework that we have agreed and that will be presented to the Committee and others is the best way forward for what is a hugely complex and, at times, difficult process to be involved in. However, I believe that we are making significant strides in the right direction.

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

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all who contributed to the debate on the motion, and I thank those who indicated their support for our motion and those who have made other observations. It has been an interesting debate. I think that everyone has agreed that the pressures and demands on the public purse in Northern Ireland are vast and are well known to us all and to the general public. Many Members pointed out that the only means by which the Assembly can raise taxation for public services, in addition to the block grant that we receive from His Majesty's Treasury, is through the rates as a property tax on residential and commercial premises. Therefore it is essential that we ensure that everyone pays their fair share, in view of the need for public finance and fairness to everyone.

In the previous financial year, £18 million of unpaid rates were written off. That is a substantial amount — £18 million in one year. Our motion notes with concern that, over the past six years, the total written off was £82 million. That is a shocking statistic when we think about the need for those public funds. Our motion asks for two actions from the Finance Minister. First, to:

which is currently 93%, and, secondly, to:

The Minister mentioned some measures, and we would be interested in seeing those in writing. The bottom line is that, as the motion states, it is unfair that law-abiding people pay their rates while others fail to pay and, ultimately, have the slate wiped clean.

A number of Members spoke of the need to be aware of the value of repayment plans and support where people have difficulty paying their rates. Absolutely: they should be in place when people are in financial difficulties, rather than seeing businesses go bankrupt and, therefore, lose. Anyone who is involved in a business will know that, at some stage, debts have to be written off. At a time when proposals have been brought forward for charging ratepayers more, the public expect us to exhaust all avenues to ensure that the rates that are due are being paid, and paid fairly by all.

My colleague Diane Forsythe said that half of the £145 million that has been carried forward from previous years is being examined for potential legal action. Why only half? We have to ask that question, and the public will ask why it is not a larger amount.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Kingston: I will, yes.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the Minister addressed that directly in his response?

Mr Kingston: I heard a number of things about people who are having difficulty paying their rates, but the question remains: why is more not being done to collect? The distinction between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay is too arbitrary. There are people in the middle who are reluctant to pay, and people need to be put under pressure to pay, in the interest of fairness and the public purse. Certainly, measures might need to be put in place over time, but if people are swinging the lead, that should not be tolerated.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Far be it from me to agree with the Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston, but on the topic of swinging the lead, and given that it has been widely publicised that rates are unpaid on the constituency office of a former DUP MP in North Antrim, will the Member be pursuing his colleagues in respect of those unpaid rates? Or is this a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do" from the DUP?

Mr Kingston: Mr Gaston mentioned a number of cases in which he would be sympathetic to people having difficulty paying their rates, and he highlighted one case in which a significant rates bill is outstanding. That is unacceptable. That case should continue to be pursued and the rates brought in for it — there is no doubt about that.

We stand by our view on the 93% target. I heard the Minister say that he did not feel that it was comparable to England, where the rates collection rate is 96%. It is our duty to push to increase the 93%. If that was what was raised, we would have £105 million not collected each year, so we are actually exceeding the 93%. Therefore, why not increase the target? Why have a target that is below what is actually being collected?

Do I have 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is that correct?

Deirdre Hargey and Gemma Dolan pointed out that the £1·63 billion of rates collected last year was the highest amount ever. They said that measures needed to be put in place to support those in financial difficulty, so that people are not pursued with unnecessary rigour if they are unable to pay.

Eóin Tennyson also commented on the increase in rates collection in recent years. That shows the importance of setting targets. He wanted to distinguish between those who will not pay and those who cannot pay. He commented on the 10-year review announced by the previous Finance Minister and said that it is taking too long.

Matthew O'Toole expressed support for the motion and then spoke at length about revenue-raising powers. He finally returned to the motion's theme in his final sentence to support the concept that more rates should be raised.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: You had quite a bit of time to speak, and you did not really address the motion. Will you address it now?

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He mentioned swinging the lead and said that the LPS should be better able to decide between who cannot and who will not pay. Further to the point made by Mr Gaston and Mr Tennyson about how easy it is to draw the distinction, will the Member give his view about the DUP office in Ballymena? There has been repeated action by LPS. Does he think that the party responsible for the property, whoever they are, cannot pay or will not pay?

Mr Kingston: I have already commented that that rates bill needs to be paid and should be pursued rigorously. I thought that you were going to speak about the motion, but you have decided not to.

My colleague Harry Harvey said that funds are needed for all the actions and priorities in the Programme for Government and that, as we know, every Minister is crying out for more funding to enable those ambitions to be met. He also said that the 93% target is too low and that, while other proposals have been put forward by the previous and current Finance Ministers on the maximum capital value of property and on reducing the early payment discount, first and foremost, the public expect to see us bring in what is legally due under the current system, and that must be the priority.

I thank Claire Sugden for her contribution. She wanted to see reform and more money for public finances.

In closing, I thank everyone for their contribution to the debate. We think that there is strong support for our central theme, and we hope that the motion will be approved by the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members can take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Kate Nicholl to raise the matter of improving infrastructure in Castlereagh South. Kate, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is my first Adjournment debate, and I am delighted to bring the topic to the Chamber, which covers a wide range of issues that are consistently raised with me and other Alliance representatives across the Castlereagh South, from Knockbreda right up to Carryduff.

It is a privilege to represent such a vibrant and growing area. The demand for housing is a particularly clear indication of its popularity, but it also brings a series of challenges and issues that must be resolved. That is what we are here to discuss. Housing alone does not make a community or a neighbourhood. When I talk about infrastructure, I do not just mean roads, public transport and planning, although they are all very important: I am also talking about community infrastructure. I want to address four key areas of concern and opportunity: green spaces and active travel; pedestrian safety and traffic; public transport; and planning and development.

The issue of green spaces is a major priority in Castlereagh South and is raised with me on every doorstep when we do outreach work in the area. It is clear that more land ought to be secured for future green space use and that that needs to be considered as part of future development plans. We want to see parks being developed and expanded. There are brilliant examples of really positive work, including at Carryduff Park. I have been able to work with our councillors, Paula, local schools and councils to support improved biodiversity.

The greenway is a separate project that needs to be progressed by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but it feeds into a much wider need for active travel routes and cycle lanes in the area. Simple things like footway clearing make such a real difference but are often neglected. There is also a need for upgrades to Lough Moss leisure centre. The people of Carryduff deserve so much better. The development of the walkway from St Ita's Primary School has been agreed. That is a real win, but I would be grateful if the Minister could look into it further and provide an update on the progress there.

Pedestrian safety and traffic comes up in my office time and time again. My office is on the Saintfield Road, and we are told that there is an urgent need for safe pedestrian crossings on the Saintfield Road, especially at the Church Road roundabout in Carryduff. The Church Road pedestrianisation is a recurring topic, and traffic volumes are extremely high and growing in the area.

I have spoken in the Chamber about the roadworks along the Saintfield, Knockbracken and Ballymaconaghy Roads. That is before we get into the anticipated impact of future roadworks related to the Glider expansion, if it happens, on the Saintfield Road traffic. The Four Winds roundabout experiences very heavy traffic volumes. There is positive work in relation to that upgrade, but I would appreciate an update from the Minister on that today if she can give it to us. Forestside traffic is a major concern, especially with the Lidl development coming into play. Entry and exit points are in need of improvement, especially at the roundabout as you come off the main road. Traffic there has such an impact on the arterial and commuter routes.

The Hillsborough Road pedestrian crossing at Lough Moss Leisure Centre is something that we have raised with officials and we know that they will be reassessing it. Residents are really keen to see results there. Parking at Hydebank playing fields and a controlled crossing on the Purdysburn Road for St Ita's Primary School have also been raised, as was parking in and around Cairnshill Integrated Primary School.

Regarding public transport, there is a really poor bus service to Four Winds and Carryduff, with frequent delays, overcrowding and no-shows. We have spoken to Translink about that, and we have written about it, but it is a recurring problem and there does not seem to be a solution. Buses frequently terminate at Forestside rather than go all the way up to Cairnshill. That has been raised with me on many occasions by constituents, especially during busy periods. In the run-up to Christmas, we really need to see improvements on what happened last year. When buses terminate early, it puts people off using them, which has an impact on moving people into active travel. There really is a need for improved connectivity between Belfast and Lisburn.

The final of the four points that I want to raise is around planning and development. Planning applications should include green spaces and play parks, and there should be greater focus on enhancing community infrastructure in housing developments. So many families are moving into areas where there is nothing for children. A lack of green spaces is really felt. Walkability and connectivity between developments should be prioritised, rather than there being a patchwork of developments. We need to create a sense of community and connection. I would be interested in knowing how the Department could facilitate that. There is a need for better linkages and walkways between housing developments.

Knockbracken Healthcare Park is on otherwise unused land. There have been discussions with the Health Minister. Could that land include a community centre? There is a real need for place-building for community development, and the Department for Infrastructure can play a role in that. We need to see commitment to, and the delivery of, the Carryduff public realm project. So many developments are coming up in the area. When issues arise with developers, it is difficult for MLAs to advocate for their constituents. What support can the Department give to residents who are having issues with developers and do not know what support they can get?

Castlereagh South is a brilliant, diverse, shared community that is growing and developing every day, but it cannot just be about housing. People are calling out for improved infrastructure that not just improves connectivity but supports community development and, ultimately, builds a stronger sense of neighbourhood. Alliance will continue to champion those issues. I am grateful to the Minister for being here. She is patient in answering my multiple questions and letters about the area, and I look forward to hearing her response to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Kate. It is good to hear your voice making speeches again in the Chamber. Welcome back. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately six minutes.

Miss Hargey: Thank you to Kate for bringing the Adjournment debate. Castlereagh South sits within the Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council area at the south-east side of Belfast. It is a growing community, particularly in Carryduff, Four Winds and Newtownbreda, with an increased demand for housing and the associated amenities. You just need to look at the council's planning portal to see the growth that has taken place and what is planned for the months and years ahead.

The area sits within the wider road infrastructure network for commuters and public transport users from outside Belfast. Thus, it acts as a key connector to more rural communities. The expanding nature of the area, with many housing developments agreed or progressing through planning, has increased demand for local infrastructure services, including greater access to public transport, walking and cycling. There are schools, sports teams and amazing community organisations in the area, so road safety is important, as is connectivity between each of those infrastructure elements and the housing developments that surround them.

I welcome the Minister's recent public transport announcement about the Glider phase 2 start — an investment of £48 million in south and north Belfast — and her commitment to see the full Glider project delivered. The number of users of public transport in Castlereagh South has increased over the past couple of years. That shows that, if the public transport is there, the local community will definitely make use of it. As the next iteration of the Glider scheme into the area develops, I ask the Minister to engage with Translink to look at extending the Metro service to Carryduff, so as to align with the Glider development.

The Minister's recent announcements about the late-night bus services pilot, which will see an increase in services into Castlereagh South, and on bus prioritisation over the Christmas period, are welcome. As Kate touched on, we have seen completed schemes at Purdysburn Road, Mealough Road and Ballynagarrick Road and the Saintfield Road and Knockbracken Road junctions, while works are ongoing at Ballymaconaghy Road. Whilst those schemes are welcome, it is about how they are sequenced. When roads are closed for long periods, residents get annoyed. Once the roads have opened, however, particularly Knockbracken Road, you see why it was important for the changes to be made.

Another key area of infrastructure is connectivity and pedestrianisation, and, importantly, linking local services and green spaces. That is why the proposed Carryduff greenway project is a game changer in the area. The Department previously provided the council with funding for a feasibility study and for design costs to work up the project in more detail. The council recently re-established the Carryduff working group to look at that project, and I am keen to see the proposals from that extensive work. Castlereagh South is an expanding area, and we must all ensure that it has appropriate infrastructure. I welcome projects that have been delivered so far and the important projects that are in the planning and design phase. As I say, the greenway and the Glider, along with enhanced Metro services, will be significant projects over the next period, and I want to work with the community, the Minister, the council and, indeed, with the local reps who are here this afternoon, and Edwin, who could not be here, to deliver and ensure that we build a safe, sustainable, accessible and connected transport and infrastructure system in the Castlereagh South area.

It is a vibrant area. We were at the Down county final on Sunday, watching Carryduff, and you can see how even one small sports team — we have soccer teams and others too — is playing a role and attracting young people. It reflects not only the vibrancy of that wider community but its hopes and aspirations to build a sustainable Castlereagh South that is connected and that intersects with other areas while also delivering for the needs of the residents, not just the current residents but the residents who will be living there in the next 10, 20 and 30 years. We need to ensure that the infrastructure investment that we put in now is future-proofed to meet those future needs. I welcome the Adjournment debate, and I look forward to working with everyone here to ensure that we deliver for the residents in that area.

Mr O'Toole: I am really pleased to be debating this issue today, and I thank the Member who brought the Adjournment debate to the House.

I am so proud to represent Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds — the BT8/Castlereagh South area. In many ways, calling it Castlereagh South is a bit of a let-down for the people who live there, because that is a council district electoral area (DEA). People who live there live in brilliant, shared communities, and one of them — Carryduff — is, in many ways, one of the original shared communities here in the North. There is a brilliant cross-community ethos and a brilliant set of community institutions, one of which, as Deirdre said, had a big moment on Sunday. Unfortunately, throw-in was delayed, and I could not make it down to the match, but Carryduff were unlucky again against Kilcoo. I hope that, next time, they will become the first Down county champions from the greater Belfast area. I think that they will get there — in fact, for the purposes of balance in the constituency, I should say either they or Bredagh will get there.

Carryduff is an amazing and growing community, as are Newtownbreda and Four Winds. The truth is that people are coming from all over Northern Ireland and further afield to make their home in BT8/Castlereagh South, which is a shared community with brilliant sports clubs and community facilities. To be candid, they have been failed for too long. I do not say that to be churlish; I say it to be honest. They have been failed at Executive level but particularly at council level. I will be quite pointed in my remarks about this today, because people in Castlereagh South contribute the biggest volume of rates revenue to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but, as the SDLP discovered through an FOI request to the council, they consistently get the lowest level of spending in that council area. That is unacceptable, because people move there to invest their future in that community and to invest their children's future in the brilliant schools there, such as Cairnshill Primary School, St Ita's Primary School, Carryduff Primary School and St Joseph's Primary School. Those are all brilliant amenities. People move there and spend money — sometimes a pretty penny — on a house, and, when they get there, they feel that investment has not been made in that community when it comes to public transport, the public realm and other things. Indeed, there is lack of broader spending in that area, and Lough Moss leisure centre has been mentioned.

I want to mention a few things that have already been mentioned that need to be resolved. I grew up in Downpatrick, and I now represent South Belfast, so a large part of my life, like the life of lots of people who live in that part of County Down, is spent driving through Carryduff and down the Saintfield Road. That is a problem, not because people are travelling to South Belfast — I want them to — but because it is treated like a motorway.

Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds are communities. They deserve to have a proper public realm and public transport all the way up the Saintfield Road and out to Carryduff, as part of the broader city. They do not have that at the minute. Will the Minister update us as to where things are?

We have no clarity yet on the Glider. We do not know when it will go all the way up the Saintfield Road. I know that that is the intention, but the last that we heard was a let-down: it had been discontinued, and the Glider is going only so far as just beyond the Ormeau Bridge. We do not know when it will extend any further. Apparently, the Glider has been ruled out for the foreseeable future for Carryduff, which is a shame. However, if we are to have more Metro services, I would like to hear when the expanded services will be delivered. People want to go into the centre of Belfast and to move about without feeling that they have to drive to get from one bit of Carryduff, Newtownbreda or Four Winds to another.

Lough Moss has been mentioned. It is not directly the responsibility of the Minister. It is a great facility, but it is now pretty careworn and old. If you are a family living in Carryduff and you want to take your kids swimming but you rely on public transport, you have to take two or three buses to get to Olympia or Lisnasharragh or to get the bus to Downpatrick to go to the leisure centre there. That is unacceptable. Why are people left with that quality of service in Carryduff?

The investment in the public realm is just not there. If you drive through, there is an unkempt whin bush in the middle of Carryduff roundabout. What does that say to people who are travelling through that community? People take great pride in the community, but they are simply let down by the statutory authorities.

Carryduff greenway has been mentioned. I welcome the fact that the working group has been set up again, but that has been going on for longer than 'The Mousetrap'. We need to have clarity from the council, in conjunction with the Department — a lot of this is on the council — as to when we will see action in delivering the greenway. There are issues around land ownership, but let us finally cut through them and deliver something for the people in that area.

People in the area look to the east and west and see things happening in Dundonald and in Lisburn. As a political party, the SDLP has no issue in calling out these things: we do not have as much representation in Dundonald or Lisburn. People wonder, "What the hell is happening here?". I hate to be pointed about it, but our party did not vote for a £50 million, £60 million or £70 million Ice Bowl in Dundonald, which is great but is a vast drain on ratepayer resource in that area. When people in Carryduff ask me why they are not getting more investment in the public realm, I am willing to tell them. Mr Brooks is obviously unhappy with me saying it: that is fine. I do not think that it is a justifiable use of ratepayers' money, given the amount of resource that comes out of Castlereagh South and into the coffers of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council.

People who have invested in their homes in Mealough and Baronscourt Green — the new developments that Deirdre mentioned — want to build an amazing community. Let us support them and back them with proper public transport and proper public realm. I welcome the fact that a further consultation happened recently on the public realm in Carryduff, but let us see proper delivery of that and proper ambition. Kate is right about road safety and allowing people to be pedestrians there, not just motorists. Let us properly invest in that community, because they have invested in it themselves. As of yet, they have not had the backing from statutory authorities. Let us finally get behind them. Our party certainly will not be found wanting. We have been tough in campaigning about this, and we will continue to be tough, because people in Carryduff, Knockbreda, Newtownbreda and Four Winds all deserve better.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Matthew. I am glad that you did not take us to three endings.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank my Alliance Party colleague, Kate Nicholl, for securing today's Adjournment debate.

I have represented South Belfast since 2016, and it has been such a joy to see the Castlereagh South area flourish during that time. We have seen retailers, small traders and hospitality businesses go from strength to strength, meeting the needs of the growing population. Membership of sports clubs, such as Newtownbreda Football Club, Carryduff Colts and Carryduff GAC, is growing and bringing people together to play, volunteer and socialise. Community organisations, such as Killynure Community Association, Carryduff Regeneration Forum and the Four Winds Community Group, all work with the statutory authorities, the council, the police and, of course, our elected reps to improve their local neighbourhoods. The schools are welcoming and inclusive, and they work collaboratively and effortlessly every day. Lastly, we have an area that is blessed with proactive and engaging church communities that do sterling work in creating community cohesion, giving local residents a sense of common purpose and addressing issues such as loneliness and poverty. Kate and I had a lovely morning just this weekend at the Cornerstone Methodist Church, which was making fundraising efforts for Chest, Heart and Stroke. They do great work not just for the community but for local charities.

Castlereagh South is an area to be envied. Its wards are ranked amongst the least deprived in Northern Ireland; in fact, the Carryduff West ward is the second least deprived. It has a healthy mix of people from different backgrounds, socio-economic groups and ethnicities. Some people have lived there for a lifetime and are now enjoying their retirement in their mature and well-manicured gardens, living cheek by jowl with families who have recently moved into beautiful new homes across the large number of housing schemes that have transformed Castlereagh South.

The consequences of the growing population in the Castlereagh South area are being borne by the people who live there. As has been mentioned, there are huge pressures on the road infrastructure. Most of the Members who have spoken so far have mentioned the south Belfast rapid transit route. I really would appreciate some clarity and information on that from the Minister this evening.

On the public transport issue, my colleague Kate Nicholl raised the issue of regularity of buses. Sometimes they do not turn up, and sometimes the information for commuters is out of date, both of which can be frustrating. However, that is just part of it. When we were out engaging with residents on Saturday morning, I spoke to a man who lives in Beechill Park Avenue, who said that he just wants to be able to walk to the Forestside area with his family but that his only route is down the Saintfield Road, where the speed of the cars and the urban grey jungle make it unappealing. I very much concur with others on the need to see progress on the Carryduff greenway. That would not be just for people who want to get to the shops but — again, the issue has been raised — for young families who want to encourage their children to walk and cycle to school. We need to see more work around trying to get our roads connected.

Linked to that is the perennial issue of speeding. Newton Park, Purdysburn Road and Cairnshill Road are three routes that are regularly raised with us as areas of concern. Yes, the police and community safety partnership (PCSP) moves the speed indicator devices (SIDs) around, and, for a while, people adjust their driving, but it is not long before they start speeding up again, so that is an issue of concern.

Matthew O'Toole raised the recent consultation on potential public realm works in Carryduff. The proposals are great. We need to be ambitious in their delivery, not just for cosmetic improvements but to address the public safety issues that remain there.

My colleague Councillor Bronagh Magee is working to ensure that there is a permitted route from the beautiful Lisnabreeny National Trust site in the Castlereagh hills. A new development is going to happen at Mount Ober, and she is trying to make sure that there is a permitted route through that development. Minister, you should maybe think about that as a policy area to ensure that, where there are new housing developments on the green belt, people are allowed to remain and have access to the green fields and beyond.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put on record some infrastructure issues that are not within the purview of the Infrastructure Minister. There is the need for a new swimming pool at Lough Moss. I know that the councillors will be given some options, but the people of Castlereagh South deserve that. We have only one post-primary school in the DEA: Breda Academy. We need to see more post-primary schools, not least — this is an Alliance Party ambition — an integrated one. Lastly, the broader issue of access to public services needs to be included in the debate, because we have far more families and far more businesses etc and are not keeping pace with the provision of GP practices and other health and social care provision. In summary, we need to keep pace with the growing population. There is a role there for central and local government. We need to ensure that the needs of individuals and their families are met.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): David, you have six minutes.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Kate, for securing the Adjournment debate.

First, as a Member for East Belfast, I will respond to my colleague across the way. As a Linfield fan from east Belfast and someone who works closely with Glentoran who is speaking in a debate about South Belfast, I understand your care about where you nail your colours to the mast for GAA teams. Secondly, from an East Belfast point of view, I would say that the Ice Bowl is a regional facility that benefits many of the Member's constituents as well as others across Belfast who use the facility, so everyone will see that.

People in Dundonald will be surprised to hear that they are privileged, given that they cannot even get a household recycling centre from the council. A lot of the issues that have been talked about today are similar to the issues facing people in Dundonald, and I hope to give voice to them. I can do that only because of the work of my colleagues. If I am honest, I am giving voice to them — Councillor Brian Higginson and the office of Edwin Poots, who is precluded from speaking in the debate because of his role as Speaker — and leaning heavily on their knowledge of the area.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the continuing issue of underinvestment in infrastructure in Castlereagh South. It is not a new problem. For years, residents have watched significant housing growth in the area without seeing significant investment in roads, transport, community facilities and essential services to match it. That issue is familiar from areas of my constituency too. The Castlereagh South area, which covers Carryduff, Four Winds, Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Bests Hill, has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet it remains an area where development has far outpaced delivery. Over the past 10 years, we have seen 1,200 new homes proposed or built across the area. Despite the scale of the growth, there is still no dedicated, council-owned community centre anywhere at the lower end of the DEA, and I think particularly of Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Four Winds. Beyond Lough Moss leisure centre and the emerging Killynure community hub, residents in other parts of the constituency have little access to local or council-owned community space. Pitch and recreational space is also extremely limited. The Killynure pitch and community provision has been delayed unnecessarily, and the Cairnshill and Hydebank football pitches are in serious need of investment and improvement if they are to meet the demands of local clubs and youth organisations. At the same time, school spaces are stretched, and there is little planning for future growth. Play parks are welcome additions, but they have been funded largely by developers or through small council grants rather than through long-term investment strategies.

We look at housing policy, but we also need to look at housing need. There are over 450 people on the social housing waiting list in Carryduff alone. That figure should serve as a wake-up call. Housing plans must include a stronger commitment to affordable and social housing provision and not just private development. With that private development and other development, however, there needs to be a focus on an overall master plan for the area. We have seen that in Dundonald, where developments grow the number of people living in an area and the pressure on services, often without oversight of what the overall area should look like. I have heard that those frustrations are shared elsewhere.

With regard to the transport network, residents from across the DEA face daily gridlock on roads, such as along the Saintfield Road corridor, where traffic from new developments funnels into Belfast with limited alternatives. We acknowledge progress where it has happened. We welcome the upgrade of the Knockbracken junction and the resurfacing of parts of the Saintfield Road, but those represent only small steps in addressing a much bigger problem. Road improvements were promised more than a decade ago, when new housing was zoned for development, yet those promises have not been delivered on. The proposed Saintfield Road relief road to connect the A55 at Belvoir to Cairnshill remains a concept, with no planning work having been undertaken. That situation is not unique to Castlereagh South but reflects a wider pattern from Kilkeel to Saintfield, where development has outpaced infrastructure. The strain is visible on roads, schools and essential services. Every morning, traffic from expanding communities feeds into the Saintfield Road, choking local routes and adding to residents' frustration. Without proper forward planning and targeted investment, that pattern will continue, and South Belfast will remain an area that carries the burden of growth without feeling any of the benefits.

If we are to be serious about connectivity, we need to have better public transport. Colleagues touched on that and talked about the need for enhanced bus services across the DEA and further into Carryduff in particular in order to give commuters real alternatives to the car. Public transport is a key part of the solution not only to congestion but to issues around sustainability and quality of life. The extension of Belfast Rapid Transit to Carryduff has been proposed, but we must recognise the issues raised by residents around that. Consultation with the local community will be key to any further proposals on it. We have the Glider in Dundonald, which Matthew touched on, but it is not an answer to all ills: opinion is divided.

In line with that, I record our support for the proposed Carryduff greenway that is being taken forward by the council. That is a worthwhile project that could greatly improve safety and encourage active travel. I call on the Department for Infrastructure to fully support that.

I realise that I am coming towards the end of my time. I am glad to have been able to contribute to the debate, and, again, I thank colleagues for their work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Michelle Guy, I remind her of the convention that Members are normally supposed to be in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, when the first speech is made. On this occasion, I am more than delighted to let you speak, Michelle, but you have just five minutes.

Mrs Guy: Thank you so much for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had not intended to speak, but I was passing the Chamber. I lived in and represented Castlereagh South for many years. It is something of a heartland for me, and it is where I cut my teeth in politics and public representation. I echo everything that my colleague said about the community and its strengths. It is a wonderful place to raise kids, but there are challenges, and there always have been. I am sure that the need for infrastructure to keep up with development is what has been highlighted. We have talked about public transport, safety around schools and greenway paths. All those things are absolutely necessary.

I only want to touch on one thing, so that I do not keep you very long. I pay tribute to the people who took over from me. Three fabulous councillors represent our party in Castlereagh South: Marty McKeever, Jamie Harpur and Bronagh Magee. They are dedicated representatives, and if anyone wants to know the secret of our success in the area, I can tell them that it is hard work. Those guys are continuing that hard work. I hope that the Minister listens — really listens — to some of the stuff that has been said today, because that community deserves the investment that people are asking for. As I think I heard Matthew say, it is a community that pays its rates and contributes to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but it has always felt a little bit on the edge of everything and it deserves to be supported. I thank everybody who spoke up for the community today. I hope that the Minister can give them some good news.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank Kate Nicholl for securing the Adjournment debate. Kate, it is great to have you back in the Chamber, and I hope that all your babies are doing well after your short maternity leave. I thank all Members who contributed. Their passion and heart for the area are evident. I am familiar with the area, as I previously worked in Knockbracken Healthcare Park when I started out as a social worker. I have some familiarity with the area, albeit from a number of years ago.

I welcome the chance to address you all on improving infrastructure in Castlereagh South. As many of you said, the area plays a vital role in the wider Belfast metropolitan area, and its infrastructural needs reflect the urban and rural challenges due its being located near Belfast and other areas that come into play. Castlereagh South encompasses a very diverse and growing community, as all Members strongly highlighted, including areas such as Carryduff, Knockbracken, Newtownbreda and Four Winds. It is served by the key strategic routes, including the A24 and the A7. Those routes are essential for connectivity, commerce and daily life. I recognise just how busy all those routes are and the impact that they can have on the local community.

As Minister, I am committed to ensuring that the people of Castlereagh South benefit from safe, sustainable and well-maintained infrastructure. The significant funding challenges that my Department faces are well rehearsed, and I know that Members are overly familiar with them, as am I. We know of the budget of £68 million for structural maintenance, which is, I think, a third of what is required to do what we need to do this year. That includes resurfacing, surface dressing, drainage and verge stabilisation. Some of the schemes that have recently been completed in Castlereagh South include those at Purdysburn Road, Ballynagarrick Road and Mealough Road, which were mentioned this afternoon. We are targeting investment at rural roads and prioritising those with high-risk defects to predominantly protect public safety. However, I recognise the frustration that is caused by potholes — we are all familiar with that issue — and deteriorating road surfaces. I am committed to finding ways to improve our road network as much as possible.

Looking ahead, my Department is preparing the eastern transport plan. That plan, which will cover five council areas, including Lisburn and Castlereagh, aims to rebalance the transport network in favour of more sustainable modes of transport: walking, cycling and public transport. Public engagement on the Belfast city centre and metropolitan area proposals is expected to take place early next year. As I mentioned, Castlereagh South falls within the metropolitan area. I encourage Members and their constituents to participate in that process to shape the future of transport in their community. It is obvious from the debate this afternoon that people want to have their say and that they have good ideas and suggestions on what will meet their needs in the community.

Many Members mentioned active travel, which is, as you know, a central part of our infrastructure vision. Officials are reviewing the submissions received during the public consultation on the active travel delivery plan earlier this year, and I hope to be in a position to publish the final plan by the end of the year. In Castlereagh South, as has been mentioned, we recently completed the active travel scheme on Alderwood Hill to improve access to St Ita's Primary School. The aim is to encourage more people to walk, wheel and cycle to school by making that safer, easier and more appealing. The scheme includes the installation of pencil bollards to prevent parking on footways, which, we know, is a huge issue across the North. That will help to create safer walking corridors for pupils. We have also seen the introduction of a zebra crossing to enhance safe access to the school and the provision of an additional lay-by to support traffic progression.

That scheme has been designed to integrate with a proposed Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council scheme to deliver a remote footway between Cairnshill park-and-ride and Alderwood Hill. That will provide a safe and attractive park-and-ride facility for parents, encouraging families to park away from the school gates and walk the short distance to school together. Just two weeks ago, I was in St Mary's Primary School, Greenlough, which provides a really good example of how to encourage pupils and families to park a little bit away from the school. Sorry, I mean that St Mary's on the Hill Primary School in Glengormley, not in Greenlough — that was last week — is doing something similar to what we are trying to achieve at St Ita's in Castlereagh South by making it easier for people to do that. It was so refreshing to hear some of the young people at St Mary's talk about how they are aware of the importance of doing that every day. We also heard from the principal and staff that the children are much more settled and ready for the school day because they have had a wee bit of physical activity before they come into the classroom, so the benefits increase tenfold.

Members strongly emphasised the importance of the proposed Carryduff greenway. Departmental officials work closely on that with Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council officials, and we have provided grant funding for the feasibility study and design of the proposed greenway. I appreciate that progress has been slow, but we are hopeful that the council's greenway investment framework will help advance that project. Future funding rounds will be available to support delivery when the council is ready to proceed. At that point, we will be more than willing to work with it to support the progress of the greenway.

A number of Members referred to local road safety measures. As you will know from Question Time and debates in the Chamber and from my responses to questions for written answer, road safety is a top priority for me. The road safety strategy to 2030, which was launched by my predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, sets out strategic interventions and actions to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, including targeted campaigns, engineering improvements and collaboration with partners such as the PSNI and the emergency services.

In Castlereagh South specifically, several local transport safety measures that relate to our intelligent transport systems have been or are about to be delivered. Those include traffic signal upgrades that have been completed at the Ballynahinch Road-Hillsborough Road-Church Road, Carryduff junction; the A24-Knockbracken Road junction, where the work is developer-led; and the Upper Galwally-Lesley Forestside shopping centre junction. Further work is planned to upgrade the junction of the A55 at Upper Galwally and Glencregagh Road. In addition, a new CCTV column and associated infrastructure will soon be installed at the Church Road-Comber Road-Saintfield Road junction in Carryduff. That will allow the Department to monitor live traffic, which is so important in ensuring that we can adjust signal timings dynamically. I am pleased to advise Members that that work will commence in the coming days. Those measures will enhance our ability to respond to congestion and improve journey reliability, which I know is important to many of your constituents.

We continue to assess requests for traffic-calming measures and safe crossings based on collision history and prioritisation criteria. Whilst funding constraints limit the number of schemes that we can deliver, we want to ensure that we continue to work to improve safety in areas with the greatest need. I have asked officials to prepare a paper, as Members will be aware, on permanent 20 mph speed limits in more urban areas, particularly near schools and residential areas, and also to look at national speed limits on rural roads.

With regard to planning, a lot of that is for the councils, but I recognise the significant residential growth in Castlereagh South that is either under construction or going through the planning process. As the statutory consultee, my Department assesses each application to ensure that road safety and traffic progression are considered with each new development. Some of the upgrades that I mentioned around junctions are examples of how we can advise and respond appropriately to ensure that it is taken into account through the development. We work closely with developers to agree on the appropriate road infrastructure improvements to minimise the impact of new developments and improve road safety for all road users, not just motorists but pedestrians and cyclists. Work has recently been substantially completed on the A24 Saintfield Road and Knockbracken Road junction associated with the Mealough development, which has approximately 350 dwellings. We are also working with two other developers to deliver further improvements on the Saintfield Road. In addition, substantial improvements to the Ballymaconaghy Road are under way, and the redesign of the Four Winds roundabout is associated with the new developments, which are delivering a further 300 dwellings.

Moving on to public transport and the Glider rapid transit service, I know that all Members have consistently been lobbying for that, particularly given the significant housing developments in the DEA. Public transport continues to be absolutely essential for reducing congestion and promoting sustainability.

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

Ms Kimmins: I will just finish this bit, with your indulgence. As Members will be aware, Translink currently operates three bus services between Belfast and Carryduff, with a combined peak frequency of 10 to 15 minutes and annual passenger journeys exceeding almost 460,000. The late-night services that we recently announced will help to address demand, with more services going in that direction. As well as that, the Glider project is moving well, and I am pleased with it. We were disappointed with the announcement back in February; however, I said that I am fully committed to seeing the full project delivered, and that remains the case. As we fully realise the project, we are keeping it under review until such time as the funding becomes available.

With regard to some of the concerns around the operation of public transport, those are operational matters for Translink. However, I am happy for Members who have any specific queries to put them to me in writing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, please draw your remarks to a close.

Ms Kimmins: Apologies that I did not get to answer all the questions; time has beaten me, but thank you, everyone, for the debate.