Official Report: Monday 03 November 2025
The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.
Mr Speaker: Members, you will be aware that I have selected two Matters of the Day and three questions for urgent oral answer to be added to today's business. The Minister of Justice has asked that we do not hear the question for urgent oral answer to her today, as she is unwell, so one of the questions for urgent oral answer will be delayed. It will now be heard tomorrow.
It is no secret that a number of those items of business are, to put it mildly, somewhat contentious. When Members speak, I therefore ask that they be reflective. They should get their point across, and forcefully if required, but I encourage them to do so respectfully. It is important that the House discuss matters that are contentious, because this is the place in which that should happen. It is for us to express our views on such issues on behalf of the public. Ministers should be scrutinised appropriately. That does not mean that we can be rude, however. We can be robust without being rude. I encourage Members to note my comments. I do not want to have to intervene, but if I have to, I will.
Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the not guilty verdict in the trial of Soldier F, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. All other Members who wish to speak can indicate to do so in the usual manner.
Mr Buckley: I welcome the not guilty verdict in the case of Soldier F, an elderly veteran who has been put through years of unnecessary turmoil for what can be described only as a show trial. Many years ago, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) made it clear that the evidence was confused and unreliable and was therefore unlikely ever to result in a prosecution or a conviction. That was not enough for some, however. Those determined to use the courts for political ends pressed on. They pushed for a judicial review (JR) and then went to the Court of Appeal, forcing the PPS to reconsider, and we therefore had the spectacle that many in the republican movement wanted and had long yearned for: a British soldier being brought before the courts.
Whilst I respect the desire and urge for every innocent victim to seek justice and truth for their loved one, we must be honest: this was never an attempt to get to the truth. It was about propaganda, pure and simple; an attempt to rewrite the narrative of the past; an attempt to recast the characters of hero and villain. In the version pushed by the parties opposite, our armed forces, which stood between terrorism and us throughout the Northern Ireland Troubles, were painted as the aggressor, whilst those who planted bombs, pulled triggers and murdered the innocent were portrayed as freedom fighters. Many of them sit in the ranks of the party opposite with the assurance of a letter of comfort from Tony Blair in their back pocket.
The evidence in this case was the same confused and contradictory evidence that had already been dismissed, so we must ask this: why did it go back to court in the first instance? Therefore, I say to those, such as Colum Eastwood and members of Sinn Féin, who have championed the process that the enormous public cost, the emotional cost and the damage done to the trust in our judiciary system lies on you. We will never allow the history of the Troubles to be rewritten. We will honour the truth; we will honour their sacrifice; and we will ensure that those who served with dignity —
Ms Ferguson: For more than 53 years, the Bloody Sunday families have fought consistently, courageously and collectively in pursuit of truth and justice. On that day, the British army indiscriminately murdered 14 innocent civilians, many of whom were teenagers, and injured at least 15 more, on the streets of Derry. Not one British soldier or their military and political superiors has ever been held to account for their actions. The decision not to convict Soldier F is a travesty. As is reflected on the Free Derry wall, that remains an affront to justice. It goes against the very principles of what justice is meant to entail: principles of fairness, impartiality and due process.
We have been proud to walk with the families for over half a century. In the wake of that most recent, deplorable decision, we remain ever more determined. We commend the determination, dedication and diligence of the Bloody Sunday families. The Bloody Sunday families can stand proud and undaunted in the full knowledge of the thought that reminds them that they have been and, on this day, remain on the right side of history. The Bloody Sunday justice campaign is a campaign led with dignity and carried out of love; the families' campaign for their deeply cherished loved ones: their sons and fathers, brothers and uncles. In 2010, they proudly achieved the first two limbs of the campaign's demands when the Bloody Sunday inquiry consigned the Widgery report to history and all the victims were declared innocent. The truth was set free.
Whilst the recent decision was a setback to their final ask — to hold those responsible for the murders and attempted murders of their loved ones to account before a criminal court — it is due to their bravery and resilience that they have reached that stage to date. They have met the British state's attempts to subvert justice and the rule of law head on. Despite this most recent setback, their quest for accountability and justice remains. We in Sinn Féin continue to stand with the families now as we did then and will do ever more in the days, weeks and months to come. We will support whatever decision they make on the next steps forward.
Mr Gaston: I welcome the acquittal of the veteran known as "Soldier F". There are fundamental questions of why the veteran was put through that ordeal, given the self-evident failings of the evidence. The first decision taken by the Public Prosecution Service to decline prosecution was, as the verdict demonstrates, correct. The later decision to proceed was completely wrong and only happened because of political pressure rather than any realistic prospect of conviction. Having pushed for Soldier F to stand trial, it now behoves those who demanded the trial to respect the verdict, including the MP for Foyle, Mr Eastwood. He must admit and recognise that Soldier F is now unquestionably an innocent man and does not have a blot on his record.
I welcome the vindication of a soldier who has borne the weight of years of scrutiny, uncertainty and the stigma of accusation. Secondly, I ask the Assembly to put emotion aside and reflect soberly on the process. If evidence is clearly inadequate, prosecution should not proceed. Thirdly, I call upon all parties to accept the verdict and allow Soldier F to now live in peace. I am shocked that some have sought to attack the fact that Soldier F had his legal bills paid. That criticism has invariably come from those who had nothing to say about the £200 million cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. In many cases, it also comes from those who continue to defend and justify the bomb in Enniskillen, where 12 innocents were blown up while remembering the sacrifice for freedom in two world wars.
There has been bloody Monday, when 10 Protestants were lined up and shot on the side of the road at Kingsmills; bloody Tuesday, when 11 soldiers were murdered in the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings; bloody Wednesday, when six off-duty soldiers were murdered at a fun run; bloody Thursday, when nine RUC officers were murdered in the Newry mortar attack; Bloody Friday, when 22 bombs exploded in 80 minutes, murdering nine and injuring 130; and bloody Saturday, when the IRA bombed the Abercorn restaurant, leaving two dead and over 100 horrifically injured. Yet Sinn Féin pollutes the air —
Mr Gaston: — in the Chamber. My goodness, it knows hypocrisy, and it knows no bounds.
Miss McAllister: I rise to mark the significance of the acquittal of Soldier F. This is an important milestone as we reflect on our past and our failure to deal with our dark and troubled past here in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the depth of feeling on the issue is felt right across the community in Northern Ireland, regardless of what side of that debate or community you feel that you sit on. Acquittal should not be a celebration. It is not a celebration by any. Justice should always be an option. It is possible and right to condemn the actions of the IRA on the streets of Northern Ireland and beyond during our Troubles and also condemn the actions of the military and those who served in the regiment.
We cannot forget the words of the judge. To paraphrase, he said that members of the Parachute Regiment had totally lost all sense of military discipline, that they shot unarmed civilians fleeing and that those responsible should hang their heads in shame. We should also not forget the Saville inquiry and the apology of the then Prime Minister. We cannot forget the reason why earlier investigations were flawed. We have to remember the humanity when it comes to dealing with our dark past. It is really important that, in order to move forward and become an inclusive society, we move forward with victims, we have justice and we have reconciliation. I pay tribute to the families of all those who were killed on Bloody Sunday. It has not been an easy time for anyone, but it is really important that, as we gather here today, we remember that, if we continue to fail in dealing with our past, we are doomed to repeat these conversations and these condemnations over and over.
Mr Beattie: When we stand to talk about such things, I am always mindful of the fact that we should do so with compassion and empathy. I am a military veteran of 44 years. Today, as I stand here, my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones or who were injured. It is important to acknowledge that.
One of the worst things about all this is that we always knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be, because there was not the evidence that was needed to secure a conviction. At times, the families were let down when people made them feel as though there would be enough to get a conviction. Clearly, there was not, and everybody knew that. It was not the army that was on trial, nor was it the Parachute Regiment. Those who tried to extrapolate the trial of Soldier F to cover all those are the people who created the feeling of a show trial, but that is not what happened. It was a trial against a lance corporal — a single lance corporal who was in charge of four soldiers out of thousands who were deployed on that day. He was found not guilty. Regardless of whether we like it — I know the families do not like it, but it is the reality of where we are — the individual was found not guilty. The families can now do as they wish to bring further charges of perjury — it is their absolute right to do so — but I am concerned that we are leading them down another road where we will raise their hopes and then dash them.
We had the Saville inquiry and spent £200 million. I am not complaining about that — it is a lot of money, but I am certainly not complaining about it, and I am not complaining about the £4·3 million that was spent defending Soldier F — but look at the Birmingham bombings. Twenty-one people were murdered and over 200 were injured, but victims and families have been told that they are not getting an inquiry. In many ways, we have to reflect on the issue in the round. I am happy enough to say that Bloody Sunday was wrong and that what happened on that day was poor — I am more than happy to say that: it was certainly nothing to be proud of — but carrying on down the road that we are going down now, and trying to tell families that they are going to get something that, clearly, they are not going to get, does not help anybody.
I started by saying that our thoughts should be with those who were killed, those who were injured and their families, but, in truth, they have had more than anybody else in Northern Ireland has had regarding investigations, inquiries and bringing somebody to trial. There are so many more people out there who have not had that. We need to reflect and remember compassion and empathy.
Ms McLaughlin: Last week's social media posts by the DUP leader and others that included the insignia of the Parachute Regiment following the acquittal of Soldier F caused deep hurt, particularly in Derry and especially among the families of those who were murdered on Bloody Sunday. For those families who have spent over 50 years seeking truth and justice through lawful and peaceful means, it was not only another political controversy but a painful reminder of the disregard that has been too often shown to their grief.
Let us be clear: the Parachute Regiment was responsible for shooting dead 13 unarmed civilians on the streets of my city, with a fourteenth dying later of his injuries. Lord Saville's inquiry report could not have been clearer: those killings were unjustified and unjustifiable. Judge Patrick Lynch reminded us of that truth. He said that the soldiers who entered Glenfada Park North had:
"totally lost all sense of military discipline";
"unarmed civilians fleeing from them";
"Those responsible should hang their heads in shame."
In that context, the DUP leader's decision to post the Parachute Regiment insignia suggests that he finds those actions acceptable, or rejects the judge's conclusions. Either way, it is indefensible and deeply hurtful for the Bloody Sunday families.
Those families have carried themselves with extraordinary dignity and restraint. They have always sought justice through the rule of law — never revenge. They have upheld the very best of Derry: compassion, persistence and faith in democratic institutions, even when those institutions failed them. That is why the DUP leader's post was profoundly wrong. Political leadership carries responsibility; it requires empathy and understanding, especially when dealing with wounds that run so very deep. When anyone in public life causes hurt, the right thing for them to do is acknowledge it and apologise. That is strength not weakness, and it builds trust and helps us to move forward. As MLAs, we owe it to the Bloody Sunday families and every victim of our troubled past to act with decency, respect and moral courage. Their struggle was for truth, and it is one of the most powerful examples of peaceful perseverance in modern times. They remind us that justice is not a slogan or a weapon in culture wars, but a principle that must apply equally to all.
I pay tribute —
Ms McLaughlin: — to their unwavering dignity, and to the people of Derry —
Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with a heart full of sensitivity and compassion for all the innocent victims of the Troubles, who never came home and left an empty chair in their households. It is with that compassion and sensitivity that I will speak today.
You could ask whether the soldiers were even supposed to be there on the day. That was a decision that was made by the Government of the day and the command of the army on the day. We are talking about putting an individual on trial, not a regiment or the British Army. We are talking about an individual, who, at a very young age and at the rank of lance corporal, was in charge of four soldiers who were part of a section of eight. He would have been trained for wartime conflict, not the restoration of civil peace.
On the streets of Northern Ireland at that time, fires were burning, and no one knew what the future held. The British Army served in that context in Northern Ireland, and we should not forget or shy away from that. The soldiers who served in Northern Ireland came from all over the British Isles and included those from the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment, later the Royal Irish Regiment, who lived here and served their communities with distinction. Each one of them went out every day to protect all of us from terrorist fire, and all we hear is hypocrisy from the parties opposite, which have, no doubt, used the families of Bloody Sunday over the decades to suit their political goals and objectives and to try to rewrite history. We do not hear the facts about the innocent victims of the Teebane, Enniskillen, Omagh, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills and Regent's Park attacks and the Birmingham bombings. Why are the parties opposite not campaigning for justice for those families?
That is a disgraceful comment.
Mr Frew: Why do they not hand over the information that they know? Martin McGuinness had an opportunity to do so, but because of the IRA's code of silence, he refused to give innocent victims the truth about the tragedies and the murder of their loved ones. That is hypocritical nonsense from the parties opposite, and we should call it out when it happens.
Mr Burrows: Bloody Sunday was an awful day for the people of Londonderry, and it was not a proud day for the British Army. Two things can, however, be wrong at the same time. Bloody Sunday was wrong — it was a catastrophic error by the British Army — but it was also wrong to prosecute Soldier F. That reflects the imbalance that is at the heart of how we deal with legacy in Northern Ireland. There is an imbalance in the prosecutions taken, the media reporting, the money spent and the condemnation expressed.
I was proud to stand in Guildhall Square on 15 June 2010 — there were only about three police officers there — when the Bloody Sunday families got to read the report. On the screen live was David Cameron, our Prime Minister at the time, and he said that Bloody Sunday was "unjustified and unjustifiable". That is the difference between the British state and republicans, who still say that what they did was necessary and noble and who still celebrate their patriot dead. That is the cancer that is at the heart of our politics and that creates so much divisiveness and polarisation. They should reflect today on the fact that, while our Prime Minister was able to say that Bloody Sunday was unjustified and unjustifiable, their leaders continue to stand and give orations about those who murdered people in cold blood, not in the heat of the battle but in actions that were planned; they sneaked under people's cars and planted bombs. One of their former leaders, Martina Anderson, planted bombs all across England and then went to Scotland and lay in a flat while she knew that they were ticking down. When she was interviewed and told, "It is not too late. Can you tell us where they are?", she did not, knowing that the bombs were planted in hotels in London.
As someone whose family served at Sword Beach and the Somme and whose father served for the entire Troubles, I can say that Bloody Sunday was wrong. The British Army acted wrongly, but the prosecution of Soldier F was wrong. There was no evidence. That is the invisible hand of the PPS, which takes the path of least resistance. Turning a blind eye to anything that would rock the boat is a culture that emanated from the peace process. That is why there are people who are not prosecuted when there is evidence, and people who are prosecuted when there is no evidence. We still live under the shadow of a guillotine, which is the threat of Sinn Féin.
I stand in solidarity with the families of Bloody Sunday. It was an awful day. I also stand with the thousands of victims of loyalist and republican terrorists who do not get the same voice. We, in this party, speak for all victims — innocent victims, even if the Alliance Party struggles with that terminology.
Mr Durkan: It had not been my intention to speak, but I feel compelled to, given the tone and content of some contributions from across the Chamber. Mr Buckley spoke of the years of "turmoil" visited upon poor Soldier F. That does not compare to the years of turmoil suffered by the Bloody Sunday families — and not just the Bloody Sunday families but so many families across Northern Ireland, from every community, who lost victims. To make that comparison does an injustice to all of them.
We are told that the trial is something that the republican movement wanted; no, it is something that the families of victims wanted. Mr Buckley spoke of the recasting of the roles of heroes and villains. There is no confusion as to who the villains of Bloody Sunday were, and there is no confusion as to who the victims of Bloody Sunday were and who the victims still are. The people of Derry always knew, and the UK Government finally accepted, finally admitted and finally apologised for that. Those murders were unjustified and unjustifiable, and the SDLP has always said that all the murders were unjustified and unjustifiable. The only rewriting of that particularly awful chapter in the horror story of our collective past is being done by the DUP, the TUV and others.
All victims deserve truth, and all victims deserve justice. You cannot stand and accuse others of hypocrisy, as hypocritical as they might be, while you are engaging in hypocrisy and gloating over victims. That is what is being done. You put a Para flag — a Parachute Regiment insignia — on your social media in the light of the trial. Catch yourselves on. It is absolutely disgusting. This is not about whataboutery; this is about victims, truth and justice.
Mr McCrossan: I, too, had no intention of speaking, because I thought that Members in the House would have learned well from the journey that our people collectively have been on and the hurt and pain that people have suffered. Just to be very clear to Mr Frew: our party was built on peace and on bringing an end to the violence and cold-blooded murder on our streets. It did not matter which shade that was. Omagh was wrong. Enniskillen was wrong.
All of those events were wrong. Bloody Sunday was wrong. It is not a case of "Go compare". Innocent people were blown to bits, shot up and killed and did not return to their families. Anyone in the House who dares to justify or attempt to justify any of those actions, regardless of whether they were carried out by the IRA, the UVF, the British Government or anyone else, should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Ashamed of themselves.
There needs to be a lesson learned here. Our people are suffering incredibly. These institutions were brought about to put an end to all of this nonsense, yet, even with issues such as this today, you find reasons to poke one another in the eye instead of acknowledging the pain and hurt that our people have gone through.
The SDLP was built on the foundations of peace and bringing an end to violence. Anyone in the House who dares to taint the memory of John Hume, Séamus Mallon or others who sacrificed themselves to a lifetime of brutal intimidation from all sides needs to think again carefully. We would not be here today but for the work and sacrifices of people who went long before us and created these institutions. I am absolutely insulted in the House not just for the people who work hard to bring about peace but for the families who, every day, have been seeking out peace, justice and simple answers to the questions that they have, should it be the families of the Disappeared, the families in Omagh or the Bloody Sunday families. There is no right or wrong answer to this.
It is clear that we have a responsibility in the House to show some leadership, and a new low has been struck today. This is not a game. This is about people's lives. Wake up and start realising that and, for God's sake, have some respect for the memories of everybody who is affected.
Mr Speaker: Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the election of Catherine Connolly as president of Ireland that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. All other Members will have up to three minutes to speak.
Mr Carroll: Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a dhéanamh lenár nUachtarán nua tofa, Catherine Connolly.
[Translation: I would like to congratulate our newly elected president, Catherine Connolly.]
The recent election of Catherine Connolly has given people hope, amidst the despair and rising sentiment of right-wing and racist ideas that are growing in Ireland and across the world, that things can be different. Catherine Connolly clearly stands on the right side for people here and across the world and lets us know that things can be different. In the middle of a housing crisis North and South it is important that we have a president who recognises where the blame should lie for that. We have problems with skyrocketing rents, landlordism and homes lying empty. Catherine Connolly has articulated a solution to the housing crisis that is positive and inclusive and that most people can get behind.
(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
In the middle of a genocide and the killing of at least 20,000 children and hundreds of thousands of women and men slaughtered by Israel, Catherine Connolly has been an ardent critic of Israel's actions for years and a stalwart supporter of the right to Palestinian self-determination. Members would do well to listen to her on that matter. As Governments make excuses, wring their hands and, on occasion, fund Israel, it is important that we have a president who stands up on the right side for citizens on the island. [Interruption.]
I sincerely hope that this is the last time that people in the North, including me, my family and my community, will not have a vote in a presidential election. It is a crying shame that people who live on this island, travel in it and contribute so much to it cannot play their part in voting for the figurehead of the state. Despite that, Catherine Connolly achieved a record vote. The Member to my right who shouted at me should listen to this: she received almost one million votes — the biggest vote in the history of voting for the Uachtarán, the president of Ireland.
It was fantastic to see the parties of the left come together to back Catherine as Uachtarán through the campaign. People are enthused and inspired by the realisation that we can have a different type of politics and that we can have a Government in the South without the civil war, right-wing, gombeen parties. People want a new hope, and, although her position is that of a figurehead, Catherine Connolly provides that hope in droves.
It was great to see Catherine Connolly at Cultúrlann McAdam Ó Fiaich in my constituency in the past week. I hosted her there a few months ago at the start of her campaign. It was great to see her back, meeting people, chatting to them and getting a bite to eat. It was fantastic to see her at the Oireachtas na Samhna this week, standing up as a Gaelgeoir for all Gaelgeoirí
[Translation: Irish speakers]
North and South.
The future is unwritten, but the cracks are starting to appear. Cracks of light are coming through, and Catherine will shine a torch brightly for everybody who wants to see a positive and different future. Comhghairdeas agus beir bua.
[Translation: Congratulations and good luck.]
Ms Sheerin: I am happy to join Gerry in congratulating Catherine Connolly, our new president-elect, and I was delighted to take part in canvassing for her throughout the country. This discussion is a stark contrast to the previous one. The election was an example of positivity rising above negativity and of good conquering evil, and that should give all of us in the House heart.
People talk a lot about labels and politics being ideologically separate at the minute, but Catherine Connolly is the epitome of what it is to be on the left. She is a genuine worker on the ground, and she understands the issues that affect the Irish people North and South. That is why the people felt such a closeness to her and voted for her in their droves. She reflects what it is to be Irish. We are known across the world for our soundness, and that is what Catherine is: sound. She understands the issues that are affecting working people and how we can address them when we work together.
Catherine's election is an indicator of support for Irish unity; indeed, Irish unity was a key theme of her campaign. I was struck by the number of people across the Twenty-six Counties who expressed almost sympathy with me as an Irish woman from the North who did not have a vote for my president. However, I will be proud to call her "my president" when she is sworn in, and, hopefully, our next presidential election will see that franchise extended to us all.
Catherine Connolly stands with the underdog and the downtrodden. She reflects the will of the majority of Irish people in standing with the people of Gaza as they suffer genocide by an apartheid Israeli state. She shows us on the world stage to be a compassionate country whose people care about others and have genuine charity and kindness in our hearts. Catherine rose above the negative campaign that was fought against her and showed that being true to yourself and honest in your politics can conquer any hate-filled drivel that comes at you.
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
[Translation: People live in one another's shadow.]
We all stand in one another's shadow, and the workers united can never be defeated. That is a lesson for us all going forward.
Mr Brett: The election of the Irish head of state is, of course, a matter for those people, but Members on these Benches and the vast majority of the unionist community will not miss Michael D Higgins as he leaves office. The former holder of the Irish presidential office brought that office into disrepute as he entered into unnecessary and unwanted political tirades. His antisemitism, which many in the House share, will be what he is remembered for.
This election will be remembered for these issues: how dare a Protestant run for the highest office in the land? How dare Heather Humphreys get above her station and try to be a Protestant woman who wanted to be the head of the Irish state? It was the same old story, and those in the House who continue to campaign to break up this United Kingdom may be sorry for what they have got. Unionists across Northern Ireland have seen that the so-called new Ireland means that Protestants should be neither seen nor heard and that the treatment of Heather Humphreys reflects how any unionist, Protestant or anyone in Northern Ireland who has any British way of life would be treated in a new Ireland.
Not that hypocrisy is something that anyone in the House would engage in, but, in 2018, the Irish president-elect visited Syria at the taxpayer's expense to see her friend Mr Assad. I am sure that People Before Profit's TDs in the Irish Republic will table a motion of no confidence in that office holder, but, given the fact that the people whom she visited were not Jewish, perhaps the views of People Before Profit will not stretch to doing so. We all know People Before Profit's views, because, when 1,200 people were murdered, the Member for West Belfast tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" —
Mr Brett: Unlike you, Mr Carroll, I do not read from a prepared script. Just you sit there in the corner and be quiet. We heard enough from you over the weekend.
We wish the president-elect well, but she has a difficult task. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will hold her accountable for her disgraceful support of a tyrannical regime.
Mr Honeyford: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I warmly congratulate Catherine Connolly on her election as president and wish her every success as she begins a new chapter in our shared history. President-elect Connolly has long been a voice for inclusion and compassion, which are qualities that will serve her well in her role of representing all the people on the island.
I will also mention Heather Humphreys. In defeat, her character was shown, even in her concession speech, which spoke to her integrity. She will always be welcome here.
I will take a minute to thank President Michael D Higgins, whose years of service have been defined by his generosity of spirit, leadership and unwavering belief in the power of empathy and understanding. I had the absolute pleasure of meeting him in Dublin earlier this year. I was struck by the warmth of his engagement with us in Northern Ireland. He reminded me of the strength of this island, which lies not in what divides us but in what we share. As we look ahead, the Alliance Party believes that there is a real opportunity and a responsibility to share this place across all communities, to deepen collaboration, to deliver better for everybody across our economy and our health service, to improve the lives that people live and to build a future that reflects the best of all of us.
We want to see an island that not just shares this space but replaces, with purpose and partnership, the politics of division, which we have heard this afternoon, and reconciles us to a lived space. There should be a shared now. It should not simply be spoken of as some sort of dream for the future but as something right now in which we live together and are reconciled.
As President-elect Connolly begins her term, the Alliance Party offers her our full support and best wishes. May her presidency help us continue on that journey towards building reconciliation and having a truly shared island that we can all call "home".
Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party recognises that President-elect Catherine Connolly is the choice of the Irish people, given at the ballot box, and has been duly elected. As a party, we respect the choice of the Irish people and will treat her, as we do all democratically elected heads of state, with the due respect that that office holder has. Be it the head of state of Ireland, the United States, the Ukraine or wherever, we treat them all with that respect.
We note with some concern, however, the president-elect's approach to Europe, particularly to peace in Europe. First, there are her comments on being ashamed at being part of the European Union led by Ursula von der Leyen. There is then the fact that she voted against virtually every EU treaty that has come through.
This is quite a strange one. President-elect Connolly spoke in support of former MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly when they refused to vote in favour of a tribunal to prosecute Vladimir Putin. She also refused to join in and clap Vlodymyr Zelenskyy in Dáil Éireann when he was there. That seems to be very partial. In her recent election campaign, she agreed with People Before Profit that NATO was warmongering and that Germany's move towards rearmament was equivalent to that in the 1930s, a clear reference to Germany's long-gone fascist past.
We also need to reflect on her remarks about defence spending in Ireland. We know that the Irish Republic is freeloading on its defence. Everybody from the United States and Europe — everywhere — has been saying the same thing. However, when Catherine Connolly says that Ireland does not need an army, navy or air force, just who, does she propose, will defend the Irish state? [Inaudible.]
Dr Aiken: Indeed.
Who will defend it from the drug smugglers, the narco-terrorists, the terrorists and just about everybody else? It is refreshing to see that some of her views are not necessarily followed by all the people who voted in her support, and there has been a degree of concern raised across the piece.
It is the Irish people's choice, and we recognise that. When she comes to Northern Ireland as the head of state, we will recognise that role and will bear it in mind that she is here in what is supposed to be a politically neutral position to represent the people of Ireland and is not here to be like President Higgins and interfere with the political process.
Mr McGrath: On behalf of the SDLP, I join in the congratulations to Catherine Connolly on her election as president. It marks a significant and hopeful moment in the story of our nation. Her election as president is a milestone for social justice, workers' rights and the inclusive, compassionate and new Ireland that so many of us strive to build. Catherine Connolly has long been a voice for fairness, equality and the dignity of every person. Her presidency will carry that same spirit, one rooted in courage, integrity and a deep commitment to the common good.
As we look forward, we in the SDLP want the Irish Government to look north, because this must be the last presidential election in which Irish citizens in the North are denied a vote for their head of state. The people of the island share one nation, one culture and one destiny, and our democracy should reflect that truth. As Catherine Connolly prepares to take up the mantle of the presidency, Ireland stands as a proud, progressive nation that is confident in who we are and hopeful about who we can yet become. She embodies a politics that will listen, that uplifts and that remembers that the measure of any republic is how it treats its people, especially the most vulnerable.
As we celebrate this new chapter, we pause to pay tribute to the outgoing president, Michael D Higgins. He was a poet and a thinker who was rooted in the shaping and forming of ideas, and he was a champion of human rights who inspired not only Ireland but the world. His time in office reminded us that leadership can be both principled and compassionate and that words, when used with care, can help to heal and unite.
Mr Gaston: Catherine Connolly's recent election as president of the Irish Republic is no great leap forward for an all Ireland, as some may try to portray it; indeed, it is quite the opposite. Ms Connolly's election is, in fact, a disaster for anyone promoting an all Ireland. She will be a toxic and divisive figure. She represents the most militant and ideological strand of Southern nationalism, and she will be deeply unpopular amongst unionists, even more so than her predecessor, which is an achievement in itself.
Far from advancing their cause, the nature of the election has set back the so-called agreed Ireland project. The campaign descended into open sectarianism, particularly after Sinn Féin entered the fray in support of the ultimate winner. The mere suggestion that her husband had, in the past, been an Orangeman merited front-page news in the Republic. Red, white and blue posters went up in a panicked response to the idea that anyone with even the most distant connection to Protestantism might be associated with high office. The treatment of Fine Gael's Heather Humphreys, who was targeted and abused because of her Protestant background, exposed the ugly undercurrent of intolerance that stills runs through Southern politics. If that is what inclusivity looks like, it will repel rather than attract.
Catherine Connolly may well become an embarrassment for the Republic on the international stage. Her far-left instincts, her hostility to traditional Western allies and her eagerness to insert herself into political controversies could put her on a collision course with key Western Governments. The turnout for the election was a mere 45·8%. Of those who turned out, 13% spoiled their ballots. Over 200,000 ballots were deliberately rejected. That level of disagreement and protest strongly suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system in the Irish Republic.
For unionists, the election changes nothing. If anything, it reinforces the conviction that our future lies securely within the United Kingdom, not a Republic that is increasingly defined by ideological extremes and cultural intolerance. Ms Connolly's election marks a moment of clarity. It reminds us why Northern Ireland's place within the Union must be defended with even greater determination.
Mr Frew: First, I state categorically that the presidential election in the Republic of Ireland is for the people of the Republic of Ireland. As a democrat, I will always support using democratic means to support a head of state, no matter where that state may be in the world. We need to be champions of democracy in all its ilks and in all parts of the world.
Looking on during the election in the Republic of Ireland, I was struck by the fact that a number of things happened that had not happened in quite a while, one of which was the spoiled ballots, as has been mentioned. Thirteen per cent of ballots were spoiled. That must be a first in the history of the Republic of Ireland. That lends itself to a discontentment among the populace of the Irish Republic that politicians down there should look to and be mindful of.
The second thing that struck me was the negative campaigning. As a politician and a democrat, I am scared to think about the level of negative and untruthful campaigning that went on. The way in which that practice played out does not bode well for the future of democracy, especially Western democracies. You can always deny a fake news story or negative digital campaigning, but what you cannot deny about this election is the naked sectarianism that was on display against candidate Heather Humphreys. What that did for most unionists in Northern Ireland, I suggest, is reaffirm how the Irish Republic is no place to be comfortable in if you are a unionist or even a Protestant. It pains me to say that. It harks back to a time when the Republic of Ireland — look at its extradition policies — harboured terrorists. It even harks back to the movement of a massive number of Protestant people who left what became the Republic of Ireland and ended up needing to go to England and gain support from the Government through schemes, because they were left homeless after being burned out of their homes. It was not only Protestants, mind you, but service people of all ilks who had served in the First World War. It echoes and harks back —
Mr Frew: — to a time in the Republic of Ireland that we do not want to see again.
Mr McCrossan: On behalf of the SDLP and as an Irish citizen, I congratulate our newly elected president of Ireland, Catherine Connolly. I also offer my best wishes to Heather Humphreys and her family on a powerful campaign.
It was a challenging election, with two powerful and determined women at the fore. That is a sign of tremendous change and is emblematic of the vital role that women play in society as leaders of our community. That, in itself, spoke to a lot of people across the island. I am happy for Catherine, and I wish her and her family well. It is disappointing that elements of the campaign were negative and that the media often portrayed some of the more difficult challenges that affect our society and did not, ultimately, focus on the opportunities that are ahead of us as an island and as a people.
I want to thank President Michael D Higgins. Michael D Higgins will go down, in my strong opinion and that of others, as one of the greatest Irish presidents that we have ever seen or will ever see. He made people in this House, it seems, feel uncomfortable because he spoke truth to power. He spoke up for people, which, unfortunately, does not go down well with some in the House.
Mr Gaston talks of toxicity, division and embarrassment: it sounded very much as though he was discussing his own party, the TUV, because it seems as though its mantra is to be toxic, divisive and embarrassing. Nobody in the House — certainly not Members on some Benches — can criticise anybody for being divisive or toxic. The sludge of toxicity in the Chamber today has been enough to turn anyone's stomach. People would do well to see beyond their own toes and recognise that Ireland has changed in a positive way. It is an inclusive society that welcomes people from all walks of life. It has a bright future.
I wish Catherine well in the important role that she will play, and I hope that she follows in a similar vein to President Higgins. I have just received a letter from him — just at this moment, actually. I am grateful for that letter, and I wish him and his wife well in their well-deserved retirement.
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.
Mr Sheehan: The term "scholasticide" refers to the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff and the destruction of education infrastructure. Over 20,000 children and 500 teachers have been killed in Gaza over the past two years. Tens of thousands of others have been maimed and injured. If that is not scholasticide, I do not know what is.
Anyone with an ounce of honesty or integrity knows that what is happening in Gaza is genocide. There are any number of reports and organisations that support that view, including the UN international commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Genocide Watch and Physicians for Human Rights. The Minister, however, prefers to parrot the propaganda of his Israeli paymasters; the genocidal regime, the leaders of which are wanted on international arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This morning, I listened to a young student outside here as he talked about his routine for going to school each day. He said that he does not have to worry about bombs dropping from the sky. He passes the hospital but does not have to worry about whether it will be there tomorrow. Likewise, he knows that his school will be there when he reaches the gate. That is not the case for children in Palestine. The Minister is oblivious to that.
This morning, against my better judgement, I listened to the Minister for 40 minutes.
There was not one word of empathy for the tens of thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed, maimed and injured. There was not one ounce of humanity or compassion. The Minister is a disgrace. He should hang his head in shame. He has shown that he is not fit to be the Education Minister, and we have no confidence in him. He should pack his bags and go now.
Miss McIlveen: Last week, the Ulster Farmers' Union, which is one of DAERA's largest stakeholders and a body that represents over 12,500 farmers and their families, took the extraordinary step of passing a motion of no confidence in DAERA. That extraordinary step was passed unanimously by the executive committee, which comprises around 150 people. It was not only an extraordinary step but an extraordinary vote, given the breadth of diverse views and interests in farming. The farming sector is worth £6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and is recognised as providing 25% of the UK's food supply. This is no small matter. The vote was a damning indictment of the Department and the course that the Minister has set for it. The buck stops with Minister Muir on that.
The Alliance Party may blame everyone else for its woes and drop as many dead cat arguments as it can, but the vote cannot have come as a surprise to anyone. We have repeatedly warned the Minister. We raised those issues time and again in the Chamber. The Minister has been told that he has been placing too much of the blame for and burden of climate change on farming and that he needed to be proportionate and even-handed in his approach. He has been told that a wildlife intervention was needed to tackle bovine tuberculosis. He said that that was in hand, but there has since been nothing. He pressed ahead with the nutrients action programme (NAP) consultation, which did not engage the sectors and was based on scientific assumptions that had not even been peer-reviewed. He was told that he needed sincere partnership working when developing his NAP proposals. He has been told repeatedly about action being needed on ammonia controls and how they are stifling betterment proposals and planning, but nothing has happened. He was told about the issues with generational renewal during the debate on the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. He and his Department were warned. The Minister has not been the critical friend that farmers have needed. He has set himself against the sector rather than working with it.
The Minister and the Department need to change course, whether that is on TB, NAP, ammonia controls, betterment proposals or climate change targets. His agenda of environmental purism is hugely damaging to our most important industry and threatens to undermine the very fabric of our rural economy and community. He has lost the trust of his biggest stakeholder. It is time that he listened.
Ms Nicholl: I was going to talk about Ballynafeigh School of Irish Dancing's success, but I will make my Member's statement on the House, because the past hour has been so deeply depressing. My six-month-old baby is in crèche at the moment. Just before I came back to work, I thought, "I am outsourcing the care of my kids because we are here to try to make this place better". That is how I justify it to myself: my six-month-old baby is being looked after by someone else — not me — because we have the privilege of trying to make this place better for everyone who lives here now and for future generations.
There has been so much politicking in the Chamber. I have noticed such a difference in this place in the six months from when I left to when I came back. We can make political points, and we can argue about things. We can disagree on things, and we will disagree on so many different levels, especially on huge moral questions. However, it has become so personal and nasty. Anytime that anyone stands up, there is a niggling behind them. Are we going to do that for the next 18 months? Are we honestly going to have to come here for the next 18 months and put up with that? Who is inspired by such discussions? Who is watching that and thinking, "Wow, those people really represent me. They will really make a difference". Who watches how we discuss things and feels hopeful right now? We disagree on so many things, but when we are in the corridors, it is human and personal. We are able to talk to each other, human to human. Please, can we do better?
I honestly do not know why I have come away from my children to be here if we are not actually going to make a difference to people's lives. We can disagree on things, but we can do so in a respectful way, not by constantly attacking one another's party in such a personal way. It is so personal. There is no humanity in politics across the world right now, but we have a duty to live up to this: people come to the Assembly every day because the Good Friday Agreement offers hope for how things can be better and how we can have huge differences but still sit in a room and think about how to make life better for people. They come here to learn from us, but what hope are they taking away right now? I just think that we can be better.
Sorry, Ballynafeigh: I will write you a letter instead.
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, when another Member is on their feet and speaking, it is really rude to talk over them. I ask you to be respectful, even for five minutes.
Dr Aiken: Last week, along with several colleagues, I visited Israel. As a declaration of interest, the visit was paid for by the Israeli embassy in London. I thank all those whom we met: those of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bahá'í and Druze faiths or of no faith; and those who consider themselves to be Israeli, Palestinian or Druze. The many people whom we talked to all mentioned the trauma and enormous suffering that happened on 7 October 2023 and the impact that that and the subsequent war are having on their lives. They all want a just and, hopefully, lasting peace.
The testimony that we heard directly from the innocent victims was in many, if not all, cases harrowing — so harrowing that, even as a military veteran, I find it hard to comprehend. The abuse, torture, sexual mutilation and violence and the pure brutality that occurred on 7 October are unfathomable. Far from being a victory to the Palestinian resistance, it was a horrific example of what I can only describe as pure, unadulterated evil. There was no attempt to hide what they did; in fact, they livestreamed it.
Some of the greatest horrors occurred at Kibbutz Nir Oz. That is, in the saddest way, ironic because it was known across Israel as the "peace kibbutz", where the residents went out of their way to help and support their Palestinian neighbours. That is where actual genocide was committed. Rita Lifschitz, a resident of the kibbutz, guided us around the burnt-out buildings. She walked us through the homes where the residents, many of whom were elderly or young, were murdered.
We then stopped outside what remained of the home of the Bibas family: husband, Yarden; wife, Shiri; Ariel, aged four; and Kfir, aged 10 months. The light was dropping as we gathered close to see where the shooting and grenades had left their mark. Outside, there was a washing machine and dryer with baby and children's clothes still in it. Beside it were children's toys, including a plastic house and swing. I have exactly the same toys in my garage for my children and grandkids. Yarden eventually came home, severely traumatised. Kfir, at the age of 10 months, was strangled in front of Shiri, and Ariel was murdered shortly thereafter. It is known from forensic evidence and Hamas's sick records that Shiri was alive to witness that. She was then murdered and mutilated, although it is uncertain whether all the mutilation was carried out pre- or post-mortem.
They were murdered that day, along with thousands of others, just because they were Jews. Everyone whom we met desired peace, but how do we make peace with people whose mentality is such that they sadistically strangle a child in front of their mother? The sad fact is that, on 7 October, the words "never again" became "now". Shalom.
Mr Gaston: I rise this afternoon to follow up what we have heard about the response to last week's cross-party trip to Israel. Of all the places where lectures on human rights and terror can be delivered, this Chamber has zero credibility; it should be the last place where such comments are made. Of all the people who can pontificate in the Chamber about such matters, Sinn Féin Members are close to the bottom, with Pat Sheehan not even making the list. Of all the people to lead the nationalist and republican alliance by the nose on human rights in the Middle East, the Member for West Belfast, who is not in his place, should be very last. Why? It is because the Assembly is founded on the principle that you reward terror. You grant terrorists, such as Martin McGuinness and Conor Murphy, and apologists for terror, such as Michelle O'Neill, positions in Government so that they will not do it again.
Let us not pretend that this controversy is about human rights. It is about selective outrage and political theatre. I remind the House that the lead party for nationalism here proudly publicised its meetings with Hamas in 2006, 2009 and 2016 — an organisation that then, as now, is recognised by the United States as a terrorist organisation. I remind the House of what happened on 7 October: Israeli civilians were being murdered, Israeli women were being raped and Israeli children were being abducted from their homes. While that was happening, Mr Carroll was sitting at a safe distance away, tweeting, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". Yet, today, he clicks his fingers and Sinn Féin, the SDLP and, now, the Alliance Party fall into line behind him, not because of any great moral principle but because the Education Minister visited a school.
The hypocrisy is nauseating, but we should also pause to reflect on what the saga reveals about the dysfunction of this place. In no other Government in the world would so-called coalition partners declare no confidence in each other one day and then sit around the Executive table the next. For the record, Mr Givan, yes, indeed, you are partners with Sinn Féin in government. This is not normal politics.
Mr Gaston: This place will never deliver normal politics.
Mr Kearney: In the coming weeks, Sinn Féin will be conducting a house-to-house canvas throughout the North to discuss the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, which will be brought before the Assembly in 2026. The Bill aims to introduce unprecedented improvements in all workplaces. Workers and employers will benefit, so it will be progressive and consequential legislation. Sinn Féin's grassroots political engagement will provide information about the proposed legislation and how it will advance economic productivity and shared prosperity.
As the all-island economy continues to grow, it is essential that everyone feels the benefits of prosperity, but that can only be achieved when workers are well paid and guaranteed secure employment. The proposals to expand trade union membership and strengthen collective bargaining rights are very important. The legislation will enhance the working environment for workers with parenting and caring responsibilities by guaranteeing rights to flexible working and parental leave. It contains family-friendly proposals, such as an introduction of additional leave and pay entitlements for working parents of babies in neonatal care, a statutory right to carer's leave, strengthened paternity leave rights and an extension of redundancy protections for pregnant women.
The 'good jobs' employment rights Bill will improve workers' conditions. It will guarantee that they keep their tips, strengthen the right to disconnect from the workplace and end precarious working conditions by introducing banded-hours contracts. The proposals in the legislation are expansive and transformative. Sinn Féin's constituency-based canvas will be aimed at maximising awareness of those important measures in the coming weeks.
Mr Buckley: On many occasions, the House has debated the conflict in the Middle East, and not unlike many democratically elected Parliaments across the world, we have differing views. That is the essence of parliamentary debate. That is the essence of democracy. We should all be able to agree that there has been an untold loss of innocent human life, but today's debate is not about that.
It and the past week's attacks on the Education Minister are barefaced and brass-necked. Why? It is because he had the audacity to visit the state of Israel and to visit a school in Jerusalem — an integrated school where Arabs, Christians and Jews are all educated together.
We all know what today's discussion is really about. Comrade Gerry Carroll has Sinn Féin by the nose and is dragging it to the leftist extreme, as he often does in this place. It was once said that when the herd moves, it moves. My goodness, it has moved this morning, because right on cue, their useful lackeys in the Alliance Party and the SDLP are right behind them to support an extreme leftist cause. Who are they supporting? Gerry Carroll used to say that he stood up to fascists; today, he stands with them.
Let us not forget that most disgraceful tweet, which, by the way, no Sinn Féin Member has ever once condemned or criticised in the House. What did he say? He said, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", with a fist in the air, whilst 1,200 people had been executed by Hamas. That was the reality. What about the hurt that was caused? There was no comment. Then again, Sinn Féin is used to coming to the aid of international terrorism. It has been the lapdog and fanboy of terror gangs across the world. Mr Sheehan had the gall to talk about his position — he, a convicted terrorist and a man who went to visit Hamas.
We will take no lectures. This party will not be dictated to about who our Ministers shall be. They are put in place courtesy of the electorate that votes for us, and Minister Givan will continue to represent —
Ms K Armstrong: I will bring the House back to something that is relevant to Northern Ireland and that affects so many of our constituents. This morning, National Energy Action Northern Ireland revealed research that confirmed that 27% of households in Northern Ireland are living in fuel poverty. That is 27% of our neighbours, friends and family who are living in fuel poverty. Now, you would think that we would have a plan for that, but our fuel poverty strategy still sits in draft form in the Department for Communities and has not seen the light of day. What is worse about it, and all should pay attention to this, is the fact that over 50% of our pensioners and over 60% of our people with disabilities live in fuel poverty. It is November. It is getting colder. While others are worried about everything else, they are failing to deliver for people who live in cold homes in Northern Ireland today.
The research that was announced this morning confirmed that our Government, and the Minister for Communities in particular, are failing to deliver for the people who are living here by allowing them to continue to live in cold homes in the social housing and private rented sectors. The House has agreed legislation stating that energy efficiency standards will be introduced. Where are they? They have not seen the light of day. What is the hold-up with them? We have heard waffle after waffle about when the fuel poverty strategy might come forward. It is November. We still do not have a fuel poverty strategy, and we have 27% of households here living in cold homes. We have over 50% of our pensioners living in cold homes. What are we doing, folks? Are we just here for a game? Today in Northern Ireland, people will go without heat in their houses. Sadly, the research confirms that people are not turning on their heat. They are not eating in order to have enough money to pay for oil heating. Where is our strategy to get rid of oil heating? For goodness' sake, we are so far behind the rest of the Western World on our heating programmes here that it is unbelievable.
Rising energy costs are harming people here today. That is not mentioned in the Programme for Government, and it is time that it were. If we do not have a fuel poverty strategy in place to influence the future three-year Budget, it will be a shame on the House and a shame on the Minister for Communities. Too many people are getting into debt or are sitting cold in their home because this place is not delivering. It is time to get to action, folks. I do not want any pensioner to die in a cold home on our watch.
Ms D Armstrong: I raise the issue of the significant data breach at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), in which farmers' personal details were inadvertently released through a freedom of information request. The incident raises serious concerns about data security in public bodies. Clearly, lessons were not learned from the PSNI's catastrophic data breach in 2023. At AFBI, proper safeguards and oversight measures were either inadequate or ignored. It was a careless and almost certainly avoidable failure that has placed hard-working farmers and their families at risk. The release of personal information has reportedly been exploited by activist groups to target and infiltrate farms under false pretences. Such behaviour amounts to vigilantism. Investigations into animal welfare must be conducted by the appropriate statutory authorities, not by politically motivated campaigners whose ultimate aim is the promotion of veganism and the destruction of Northern Ireland's agri-food sector.
Farmers who provide data to public agencies in good faith must be able to trust that it will be handled responsibly. Many now face sleepless nights knowing that their personal details are in the hands of extremists. I therefore call on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline urgently the full timeline of events, including when the breach occurred, when it was discovered and when affected individuals were informed. He should explain what steps have been taken to address the situation and to prevent a recurrence, confirm how many farmers have been impacted on and explain why it took nearly seven months for the information to come to light. I also ask him to detail what support or compensation will be made available to those affected. The incident has further damaged the confidence of the farming community in public authorities. Trust is at an all-time low, so it must be rebuilt through transparency, accountability and immediate action from the Department.
Recent reports citing investigations by those activist groups, based on illegally obtained information, have attempted to paint Northern Ireland's farming sector in an appalling light. It is deeply concerning that that narrative is being driven by clear ideological agendas rather than by objective, lawful and evidence-based oversight. Farmers deserve protection, not persecution. The Minister must make it clear that there is no threat to livestock or poultry production and that decisive measures are being taken to ensure the security of those who feed our nation.
Mr McCrossan: I will speak about something that affects every family across the region — mental health — and the shameful failure of the Executive parties to deliver on the commitment that they made to our people. In 2021, the Department of Health published a 10-year mental health strategy, which was ambitious, hopeful and long overdue. It promised a better system: one that would prevent crisis, deliver early intervention and finally give mental health the priority that it deserves. Almost four years later, however, that promise lies in tatters. The recent review of the strategy confirms that, as many of us feared, only £12 million has been invested in 14 actions out of 35. The original strategy required over £1·2 billion in order to deliver fully for the people most impacted on. That means that only a small fraction of what was pledged has been delivered.
Let me be clear that it is not a case of a funding gap but, rather, a failure of political will from the Executive parties. People across Northern Ireland are paying the price. Families are left waiting for months, and sometimes for years, for support. Some do not get any support at all. Young people in crisis turn up at overcrowded A&Es because there is nowhere else for them to go. The community and voluntary organisations that hold the system together are being left to survive from hand to mouth while the Executive hide behind excuses about budgets. Mental health services cannot continue to be the first thing cut and the last thing funded. They should be at the very heart of every decision that the Executive make. Indeed, it would serve the Executive parties well if they were to become as vexed about that issue as they are about some of the things that they use in the House to distract from their own failures.
Every week in my constituency of West Tyrone, I meet people who are crying out for help: parents whose children cannot get counselling, older people who are struggling with isolation and individuals who feel completely abandoned by the system. They are right to feel abandoned, because that is exactly what has happened. We cannot allow the cycle of strategy without delivery, promises without resources and words without meaning to continue. The Minister of Health and the Executive must fully fund and implement the mental health strategy as originally planned, not the watered-down version that we see lingering through today. They need to invest properly in crisis care, and they need to support the community and voluntary structures that are holding the whole system together.
Mental health is not a luxury or an optional extra: it is fundamental. Every life lost to suicide and every family broken is a failure of the Executive. The people of Northern Ireland deserve so much better. They deserve action, and it is high time that the Executive got their priorities in order and delivered in the interests of those who are suffering most.
Mr Givan: I associate myself with the remarks made by Dr Aiken and make a similar declaration of interest. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Israel and hearing the stories of human tragedy in that community. Today, I put on record some of the voices that I heard. Just as others seek to silence them and cancel them, I will make sure that their voices are heard.
The visit started at Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial for the six million Jews slaughtered during the Second World War and remembered at that centre in Israel, the only place and home where Jews can survive after centuries of persecution. I visited Malkia, a kibbutz in northern Israel that Hezbollah repeatedly targeted, year after year after year. I listened to Boaz, who recounted the horrors of many of the atrocities inflicted on his community. What was his message? "I just want peace, and I want the people of Lebanon to prosper". I visited Madjal Shams and the Druze community, an Arab sect of the Shiite variety, where 12 innocent children were killed by a rocket fired by Hezbollah. I visited Nir Oz, and Rita showed us around the site of one of the most appalling atrocities that took place on 7 October: 117 people from that very small village were either murdered or taken hostage, including an 84-year-old man, who was killed in captivity. I went to the Nova music festival site, where 378 young people were gunned down and 44 taken hostage. I listened to Yair recount how he managed to escape, but the trauma lives on. Those are just some of the voices, and that human story needs to be heard about what is happening in Israel.
That is why the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and I are appalled by the manufactured outrage of the extreme left, led by Gerry Carroll, who, on 7 October, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". He never once apologised, and, yet, he is now supported by the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin does not surprise me: terrorists supporting terrorists will never come as a surprise to me. However, I will continue to raise my voice for the innocents who were slaughtered in Israel on 7 October.
Some Members: Hear, hear.
That this Assembly, in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Stephen Wright as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.
Mr Allen: On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I ask the Assembly to support the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards to fill the current vacancy. On 8 September 2025, as the House is aware, the Assembly agreed the appointment of Mr Mark McEwan as Commissioner for Standards. The Speaker then wrote to Members on 16 September 2025 to inform them that Mr McEwan had submitted his resignation. The Assembly Commission would, of course, have preferred not to have returned to the Chamber on this matter so soon. However, it is recognised that the position of deputy chief constable of Surrey Police is a significant appointment for Mr McEwan, and the Assembly Commission wishes him every success with it.
The Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that the person to be appointed as Commissioner for Standards be:
"identified by fair and open competition".
The Assembly Commission undertook that function on behalf of the Assembly, and the House is aware that the recruitment panel comprised the Speaker, on behalf of the Assembly Commission; the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Cathy Mason; the Clerk/Chief Executive, Lesley Hogg; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at Westminster, Daniel Greenberg CB. The Assembly Commission previously thanked the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Daniel Greenberg for giving of their time to sit on the panel.
Following the completion of the recruitment competition, the Assembly Commission was able to identify a number of strong suitable candidates for appointment and is therefore pleased to be able to make a further nomination today. The Assembly Commission is today asking the Assembly to support the appointment of Mr Stephen Wright as the new Commissioner for Standards.
Stephen Wright has 30 years' service in the PSNI. The majority of his roles in that time have been investigatory in the crime department, including as senior investigating officer (SIO) for serious organised crime and head of the anti-corruption unit. He has also held other posts in the PSNI, including head of training, a brief period as head of human resources and, most recently, head of professional standards.
The primary role of the commissioner is to carry out investigations into complaints relating to the Assembly's code of conduct and ministerial code of conduct and to report the outcome of those investigations to the Assembly. Therefore, the role of commissioner is an important part of the framework to ensure that high standards of conduct in public life are upheld at the Assembly. The Assembly Commission believes that Mr Stephen Wright has the relevant skills and experience to serve the Assembly well as Commissioner for Standards for the period of five years set out in the 2011 Act. Therefore, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend to the House the nomination of Mr Stephen Wright as Commissioner for Standards.
Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges): I speak to the motion having sat on the Assembly's recruitment panel for the appointment of a new Commissioner for Standards.
As Members are aware, the commissioner is an independent officer who is appointed by the Assembly to consider and investigate complaints of alleged breaches of the MLA code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct. In fulfilling the role, the commissioner contributes to the overseeing and safeguarding of the ethical standards of MLAs and Ministers. The commissioner's independence is therefore essential to ensuring fairness, transparency, accountability and public trust in our standards regime.
The process for investigating complaints is designed so that allegations of breaches of the MLA or ministerial codes of conduct go directly to the commissioner for assessment of admissibility and, where applicable, for investigation. For complaints against MLAs, the Committee then considers the commissioner's investigation reports, determines whether a breach of the code has occurred and, where appropriate, recommends to the Assembly the sanction to be imposed. The commissioner, the Committee and the Assembly therefore exercise the complementary functions of investigation, adjudication and sanctioning respectively.
Each has a key part to play in ensuring that proper standards of conduct are upheld by Members. As such, it is important that the Assembly ensures that the office of the commissioner remains filled without undue interruption in order to safeguard the timely exercise of the commissioner's functions.
I expect that the other Committee members welcome the appointment of Stephen Wright, as I do, and look forward to engaging with the new commissioner in progressing the vital work of implementing the Assembly's ethical standards system. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.
Mr Gaston: The role of the Commissioner for Standards is important, and the commissioner should be an independent person who makes sure that all MLAs and Ministers are held to the same standards, which should apply equally across the House. That is a unique role that should not be surrendered to anyone else. If Stephen Wright fulfils that role, he will have my full support. I trust that Mr Wright will be permitted to do his job, and I trust that he will treat all MLAs equally. Sadly, that was not the case with a predecessor who adopted the, frankly, bizarre view —
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, I am not going to permit you to continue in that line of debate. You are well outside of the scope. If you want to return to the scope of the debate, which is the appointment of the new commissioner, you are welcome to continue.
Mr Gaston: I was going to raise the issue that a previous commissioner would not investigate Committee Chairs. Previously, you took great offence when I talked about the McMonagle sex scandal that happened in the Building —
Mr Gaston: — but I was going to try to keep my remarks to the debate today.
Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I welcome the appointment of a new commissioner. We trust that it will be a longer appointment than the one immediately previous to it, which, we understand, was short-lived due to another recruitment. As has been said by the Chairperson of the Committee, the commissioner has an important independent scrutiny role and reports to the Committee on Standards and Privileges with recommendations. Reports are considered by the Committee and, ultimately, brought to the Floor for debate on any sanction or consequence. I commend the work of the Committee. We look forward to working with the new commissioner in that independent role and ensuring that standards, the codes of conduct and the principles of conduct are upheld in the Assembly.
Ms Ennis: I thank Members for their contributions — their sensible contributions — to the debate. At the beginning of the debate, my colleague Andy Allen set out the circumstances that bring the matter back to the House and reminded Members of the arrangements for the fair and open recruitment process that was undertaken by the Assembly Commission. The role of Commissioner for Standards is crucial to upholding standards in the Assembly. It is, therefore, important that the Assembly Commission has been able to come back to the House relatively quickly, with only a period to complete the normal pre-appointment checks that are required for such a post.
The involvement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the recruitment process is vital. I thank the Chairperson, Cathy Mason, for confirming her support for Stephen Wright's nomination and for participating on the panel. I know that the Committee and the new commissioner will want to quickly form a strong relationship as he gets down to his work. The role of commissioner is important in giving the public confidence that any breach of the Assembly or ministerial code of conduct will be investigated and dealt with, but also in giving Members confidence —.
Ms Ennis: I will not give way. I could not listen to the Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle
[Translation: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker]
embarrass the Member again.
The role is also important in giving Members confidence that any complaints will be considered with due and proper process. Stephen Wright's experience means that he is entirely well suited to ensuring that any allegations of breaches of the codes of conduct are investigated rigorously and fairly. On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend to Members the nomination of Stephen Wright for appointment as the new Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
Question put and agreed to.
That this Assembly, in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Stephen Wright as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)
That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were affected by the failure; and calls on the Minister of Health to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again.
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. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.
Miss McAllister, please open the debate on the motion.
Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is there scope to wait for the Minister? It is important that he hears the points that will be made by the proposers of the motion and the amendment so that he can address them when winding up the debate. I am not sure if there is scope to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): There is no scope to do that because you have started the debate, and the proposer of the amendment is here. We have messaged the Minister and encouraged him to get here as soon as possible.
Speaking of that person, he has just arrived. Your point of order has been noted, Miss McAllister. It is on the record, and the Minister has duly arrived. Miss McAllister, over to you.
Miss McAllister: It is with great sorrow and frustration that we have brought the motion to the Chamber, which calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry into the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust.
It is not a political issue; it has brought together all the parties in the Chamber to support the women, who are still suffering with their families. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to those women. First, I pay tribute to the Ladies with Letters group for representing the 17,500 women who have been impacted on by the scandal. They have stood strong and been determined in their fight for justice and transparency. Anyone who has met the women involved cannot help but be in awe of the courage that they continue to show in a fight that is the result of traumatic failures by the Southern Trust and possibly other trusts in Northern Ireland. I thank them for all the work that they have done and continue to do. While we, as MLAs, can highlight the stories and call for accountability and transparency, there is no better way to show the damage caused than by hearing from the women directly impacted.
I also pay tribute to the ladies who tragically lost their lives as a result of the failures: Lynsey Courtney, a mother of one from Portadown, was just 30 when she died in 2018; and Erin Harbinson, a mother of four from Tandragee, was 44 when she died in 2024, after three of her smear tests were misread. We will hold their families, friends and loved ones in our thoughts as we continue to fight for justice and accountability.
Last December saw the publication of the reports from the Southern Trust on the cervical screening review and audit. Over 17,000 women were included in the review: 11 women required further treatment, and eight women were diagnosed with cervical cancer after their smears were misread. Despite those reports, whistle-blowers have raised concerns that there are still quality assurance issues. That does great damage to the confidence of women across all trusts in Northern Ireland in ensuring that they come forward to receive their smear tests. Health Committee members have discussed the outworkings of the reports three times this year. We have continually raised concerns about the quality assurance issues that occurred from 2008 to 2021 and the failures of the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency (PHA) after those issues were raised. It is deeply unfortunate that, on the majority of those occasions, we have not been able to ask questions of the people directly involved.
Concerns around screener performance were raised as early as 2009, yet the issue continued until 2021. The trust offered little training or support. Performance data was looked at year-on-year and siloed in each trust, rather than compared across trust areas and across the years. Those are among the major failings highlighted in the 2023 report from the Royal College of Pathologists. However, when a newly recruited consultant in the Southern Trust noticed the failures of two screeners immediately on taking up the role, he removed them from their duties in October 2021. I have been made aware that the issues were raised in a meeting with the PHA in February 2022. Despite that, the Southern Trust continues to maintain that the concerns did not reach their senior leadership team, through an assistant medical director, until July 2022. The Southern Trust reiterated that to the Health Committee. I again ask for evidence that that is the case. Surely there are minutes of that meeting in July 2022; indeed, surely there are notes from the meeting with the PHA in February 2022. I raise those issues because it is important for our confidence that, in moving forward, we can have true transparency and accountability. There was a six-month gap before the trust leadership took action and asked for a look-back exercise. Anyone who has had an unfortunate experience with cervical cancer or, indeed, any cancer will know the difference that six months can make.
At the same Health Committee meeting in July, officials from the Health Department noted that there were three outstanding pieces of work, including the peer review of external quality assurance arrangements by NHS England and the independent external review of the Southern Trust reports. At that meeting, they said that the publication of those reports would be imminent and that we were looking at it being in the short term rather than it being extended well into the autumn. Officials confirmed that the Health Minister had had sight of the peer review of external quality assurance since July, yet we stand here at the beginning of November with no indication of when the reports will be brought forward. We have heard musings that it will perhaps be some time this week. Meanwhile, women have continued to dutifully present for smear tests at their GP surgeries, often despite their nerves or fears.
For as long as the reports are unpublished, recommendations are unclear and action is not taken to ensure that our cervical screening arrangements are as robust and accurate as possible, we will continue to fail those women. I hope that the Minister can take the opportunity presented today to confirm to the House when the reports will finally be published. Perhaps more important, I hope that he will also make a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that the ladies behind the campaign "Ladies with Letters" will receive proper briefings in advance. It is important to note that, because we are aware of many communication failings that have occurred throughout the process. Women who are the subject of serious adverse incidents (SAIs) are being informed of sensitive medical failings in impersonal meetings in front of a panel of 10 professionals. The Department of Health can show that lessons have been learned and that concerns have been listened to by simply paying attention to those women in a respectful way.
A number of weeks ago, alongside other Members, I had the opportunity to meet the Ladies with Letters group on the front steps of Parliament Buildings. We spoke to a number of women who have had their SAI reports and are deeply unsatisfied with the information or lack thereof given to them. That is why we tabled today's motion. Those women do not have confidence in the current system. They do not have confidence that the three reports that are to be published, including the individual SAI reports — of course, with data protected — will contain all of the answers and assurances that they need.
I thank the DUP members of the Health Committee for their amendment, which we will support. It is important that we have cross-party support. Given the scale of the damage to trust and confidence caused by the events in the Southern Trust, the Belfast Trust and the Department of Health, we must act quickly to resolve the issues, particularly in the Belfast labs, so that delays and distress can be limited.
I will finish with the words of Heather Thompson, a retired nurse from Tandragee and member of the Ladies with Letters group, who said it best:
"The Health Minister ... has publicly committed to a Women's Health Strategy. What better way to demonstrate that commitment than by establishing a statutory public inquiry into these failings?"
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. The debate will resume after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Diane Dodds to move the amendment. By leave of the Assembly, I suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.
The debate stood suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 1.51 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.
(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The £2·6 million active travel improvement scheme along the A2 Clooney Road is part of my commitment to enhance and expand our active travel network across the North. On completion, the scheme will provide significantly enhanced cycling and pedestrian facilities between Ballykelly and Greysteel and is part of a long-term plan to improve active travel facilities in the north-west.
The scheme started on 4 January 2025 and is currently programmed to run for 52 weeks. By their nature, roadworks can be disruptive, and my officials have been continually working closely with the contractor to minimise disruption to road users, with the aim of striking a balance between efficiently progressing works and minimising disruption for the travelling public.
In response to concerns raised by motorists and the local community, temporary traffic management measures have been modified over the duration of the scheme. Lane closures are put in place only when required, works areas are kept as short as possible and traffic control has been changed from automated traffic signals to manually operated ones to aid traffic progression further. Moreover, on a number of occasions, works were suspended to accommodate major events in the area.
I fully appreciate that traffic delays are frustrating for motorists and that there have been additional delays in recent weeks as the works near completion. The temporary traffic management arrangements are essential for the safety of road workers and the travelling public. I continue to ask the public to allow extra time for their journeys and to comply with the measures in place.
Ms Hunter: Understandably, constituents are angry at the continued delays on that road. We know with roadworks that delays sometimes cannot be helped, but people feel that they are not being listened to. Will the Minister commit some time in the next month to come to Ballykelly, meet me and other elected reps and speak with constituents about the ongoing delays? People are missing health appointments, school and so much more.
Ms Kimmins: I have been in Ballykelly and met elected representatives in recent months. I do not underestimate people's frustrations. We have heard them right across the North when there are major roadworks. We are very cognisant of the impact that roadworks have, and officials have worked very closely with the contractor to ensure that any works that are happening are absolutely necessary and that we keep disruption to an absolute minimum.
I understand that, over the Halloween weekend, the volume of traffic was huge. It is brilliant to see so many people going to Derry specifically. I am aware, however, that various routes experience the same traffic congestion. It is a perfect storm on some occasions, but I assure the Member and the wider community in the area that we are doing our utmost to ensure that work progresses as quickly as possible and that we are doing as much as we can to keep people safe, particularly road workers and road users.
Mr Robinson: Given the number of times that Ballykelly traffic has been highlighted to her Department, how much weight is now being attached to progressing a bypass for Ballykelly village?
Ms Kimmins: I have said how much weight is being attached to it. Traffic is a constant issue, so we are always looking at what can be done to minimise disruption. The Department, as the Member knows, is in the process of developing the new transport strategy, which will help shape the vision and strategic priorities for transport right through to 2035 across the whole of the North. Once that is published, it will help inform the transport plan for the regional strategic transport network, which includes the A2 at Ballykelly. A preferred route for the Ballykelly bypass was announced in 2010. Since then, however, no further development work has been undertaken on the project. If that scheme is prioritised in the transport plan, the route will then be reassessed as part of the plan for scheme delivery. I discussed that with elected representatives when I was on-site in Ballykelly, because I know that the wider community is keen to see a bypass be progressed.
Mr Boylan: Will the Minister provide an update on the provision of a railway halt at Ballykelly?
Ms Kimmins: The Belfast to Derry route enhancement programme is a collection of railway infrastructure works that are required to be delivered in order to maximise potential and efficiencies of service on that key rail corridor, which maintains connectivity between Belfast and Derry. The programme aims to examine opportunities for greater connectivity on the route, increase journey frequencies on the Belfast to Derry line and potentially the provision of new halts at Eglinton, City of Derry Airport, Ballykelly and Strathfoyle. It is envisaged that that may require construction of passing loops and line speed enhancements, and Translink plans to submit a revised strategic outline case to the Department by the end of this year. In addition to demand, the location of any new halt or halts will need to consider the implications for the wider operational network, such as how stopping and starting will increase journey times.
Ms Kimmins: I fully recognise the need to address regional imbalance and to better connect our communities, including those in the north-west. As the Member will be aware, Translink submitted a revised business case in September this year for the provision of additional services on the north-west rail corridor to ensure that the predicted costs and revenue projections are up to date and accurate. My officials are considering that updated business case.
I am pleased that Translink has also delivered significant improvements to public transport in the north-west in recent years, including by creating over 46,000 additional seats by converting 232 rail services per week to six-car operations and by making improvements to Goldliner services. Since April 2024, when the A6 works were completed, Translink has introduced seven additional direct X212 services to and from Derry. The scheduled journey time on the X212 is one hour and 45 minutes, which represents a 15-minute improvement on the standard 212 journey time. Derry is the first city on this island to operate with a full zero emission bus fleet.
There has also been significant capital funding in public transport in the north-west, including a £27 million investment in the north-west transport hub; an investment of £59 million in zero emission buses, which I mentioned; and a £97·7 million investment in phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine project. As I just mentioned, I have also, in my 2025-26 budget, included ring-fenced funding of £5·79 million to allow Translink to progress phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine track renewal project. Work is continuing, including on the production of the detailed design of the required track improvements in preparation for the procurement phase of the project. It has also included the manufacture of railway sleepers in advance of the main works.
Ms McLaughlin: Minister, Translink first submitted a business case for rail improvements in the north-west over a year and a half ago, and, because of the Department's failure to act, it has had to submit an updated version more than a year and a half later. In the meantime, we just see chaos after chaos, particularly over the weekend, when people visiting Derry for Halloween were left stranded and were unable to get home because of the lack of rail services.
Ms McLaughlin: How can you possibly justify the continued failure to deliver a vital upgrade to the north-west rail line when your inaction is already leaving passengers —
Ms Kimmins: I do not agree with the Member that there has been a failure because, as I have said, we are considering the updated business case. I take this very seriously, and I recognise the importance of regional balance. I have set out very clearly that I am committed to that. There is no doubt that funding has been a huge challenge, and I am sure that the Member's former colleague will have found the same challenges when she was in post, as all previous and current Ministers in the Executive will have. However, I have met Into the West and other representatives from the area who are very keen to see this progress, and I really want to see that happening. We are looking at the updated business case, and I hope to be able to provide further information soon.
Mr Middleton: Minister, it is welcome that the north-west transport hub has been a game changer for my constituency. However, the frequency of trains is raised time and time again. Minister, are you actively seeking to address that issue? Will that be covered in some of the funding bids that you will bring forward to, hopefully, see this progress?
Ms Kimmins: Yes. As I said in my initial answer, one of the things that is included is increasing the frequency of journeys on that Belfast to Derry line. I recognise how important that is, and we are considering that. It is part of a package of measures that the Department is looking at as part of the Belfast to Derry route enhancement programme. There is no doubt that that would go a long way to being a huge benefit for the whole region.
Ms Ferguson: I very much welcome the close working relationship between Translink and the Department and the resubmission of an updated business case to progress service enhancements. Will the Minister provide an update on the proposed new rail link from Derry to Portadown?
Ms Kimmins: The all-island strategic rail review sought to provide a strategic vision for rail right across Ireland, including how rail could contribute to the decarbonisation of transport; promote sustainability and connectivity into and between major cities; enhance regional accessibility; and support balanced regional development. I have ring-fenced £1 million in Translink's 2025-26 capital budget to continue momentum projects that were identified in the all-island strategic rail review, including the Portadown to Derry rail link. Translink has submitted a feasibility study on the Portadown to Derry rail link to my Department, and I expect to publish the outcomes later this year.
Mr Honeyford: On the all-island rail review, the feasibility study on the Knockmore line was due to be published, but it has not been. Can the Minister confirm when that will happen and state why it has been delayed?
Ms Kimmins: I am not aware of there being any delay. As I said, I have proposed that the feasibility studies come forward very soon.
Ms Kimmins: NI Water invests in detailed modelling of catchments and collection systems, along with much more empirical data from advanced instrumentation, to better understand when storm overflows are operating and the impact on the receiving waterbody. Further investment in those areas will provide NI Water with a better understanding and potential control of its waste water networks to mitigate the number of discharges from its network into the water environment. NI Water is continuing with the roll-out of its event duration monitor programme. That will gather evidence and inform future investment plans in order to prioritise work to address poorly performing combined sewer overflows. NI Water also continues to invest and develop its pollution management strategy in order to improve its operational management and response to pollution incidents. In addition, NI Water reviews the cause of each reported pollution incident to assess the lessons learnt and establish the read-across to other assets.
My Department’s Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill contains enhanced powers for NI Water to deal with sewer and drain miscommunications in private infrastructure. Untreated discharges from miscommunications can pollute waterways and local rivers and potentially end up on beaches. These enhanced powers will provide NI Water with the capacity to repair drainage miscommunications and recover the costs associated with the work, if the property owner refuses to do the work.
My Department is also taking forward an urban drainage pilot project to retrofit a range of nature-based drainage solutions, such as leaky dams, attenuation ponds, rainwater gardens and swales to manage rainwater. We also need to integrate nature-based drainage solutions into future housing developments. On 22 September, I launched a consultation on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new developments. Both projects demonstrate my commitment to delivering environmental improvements, reducing flood risk and improving water quality.
Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for her answer. When the AERA Minister appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently, he was extremely critical of the Infrastructure Minister's inaction on the pollution of Northern Ireland's waterways by Northern Ireland Water, a company that is wholly owned by the Minister's Department. He said:
"the situation at the moment is not tenable."
"we need to have stronger regulation and enforcement around sewage pollution."
Miss McIlveen: What direct engagement has the Minister had with Minister Muir on those points, and what action will be taken as a consequence of those discussions?
Ms Kimmins: I have been working with Minister Muir. His comments were disappointing to say the least, given that I have shown a very clear commitment to working closely with him and his Department, for all the reasons outlined. I am keen to play my part in improving our water quality and addressing water pollution, which impacts on his role and affects Lough Neagh and other waterbodies. I have outlined some of the work that I have done with NI Water and what we are trying to do to address the ongoing issues that we are all well versed in. I met Minister Muir recently, and I will meet him again later this month to discuss his review of the statement of regulatory principles and intent with NI Water. I await his decision on the outcome of that review. My door is always open. I have been very keen to continue that work with him, and that will continue to be the case going forward.
Ms Finnegan: Minister, will the legislation on sustainable urban drainage systems help to improve water quality in our waterways?
Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. By integrating nature-based drainage solutions into future housing developments, we can lessen the demands on existing sewerage systems and, at the same time, lessen the impacts of climate change and potentially reduce pollution, thereby helping to protect water quality in our rivers and loughs. Earlier this year, as you mentioned, I introduced the Bill in the Assembly. It will provide enabling powers for my Department to regulate for SuDS in new developments.
In tandem with the progression of the Bill, on 22 September 2025, I launched the initial public consultation on nature-based SuDS in new housing developments. The consultation seeks views on the development and implementation of new policies and regulatory arrangements to ensure that nature-based SuDS such as grassed swales, rain gardens and detention ponds, which I have mentioned, are provided in new housing developments in the future. The widespread implementation of nature-based solutions will help to tackle the challenges of climate change and will help to manage flood risk, improve water quality and limit the impact of new developments on the existing drainage network. Recently, I had the opportunity to see that in action at Belmont Hall in County Antrim. I was hugely impressed by the work that has been done by the developer to take those measures on board, and I hope to see more of that.
Mr Blair: It is well known that waste water spills are a key factor driving water pollution. It is also known that our waste water infrastructure is at capacity and that SuDS alone in new developments cannot change the situation that already exists. How does the Minister propose to deliver the significant investment that is needed without undue delay?
Ms Kimmins: Sometimes, I feel as though I am saying this for the first time in the House. I have outlined repeatedly the steps that I have been taking, as did my predecessor, John O'Dowd, to find solutions. That is where I am: I am solution-focused.
At present, the Executive cannot provide the investment that is needed. That is a well-known fact. However, I am not prepared to sit on my hands. I have talked at length about the three-pronged approach. We have the SuDS Bill, which the Member mentioned, but I am under no illusion that it is a silver bullet. It is not the only solution. I look continually at everything that is available to me to ensure that we can make progress. We have seen good progress. I have been working closely with NI Water, which has been able to deliver an innovative solution. The pilot has been delivered in Newry, enabling capacity to be unlocked for the next 10 years. That has been really positive. I hope to see more of that in the time ahead. There are lots of other things that we can do, working with Executive colleagues to ensure that we can secure additional investment to keep this thing moving and to keep making progress on our waste water infrastructure. As well as that, the Member will know about the consultation on developer contributions, which closed recently. Hopefully, those contributions will help to supplement the money that is needed.
I am under no illusions that it is not challenging, but I am absolutely committed to doing all that I can and to working with anyone who wants to work with me to deliver, because it is not just about waste water infrastructure but about environmental issues, progress, housebuilding and the economy of this place. I will continue to do that. I hope to hear other suggestions from Members as time goes on.
Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. I can confirm that the developer responsible for the construction of the school is required to erect "safer routes to school" signage and appropriate road markings as part of the approved planning permission. I can also advise that an instruction to complete the required works was passed to the developer’s contractor in October. Officials will continue to work with the developer to ensure that the school signage is erected.
[Translation: Thank you, Minister]
for your response. Minister, is it possible to have a reduced speed limit in proximity to the school?
Ms Kimmins: My officials will carry out a speed limit assessment on Strahans Road at the school, in line with the Department's policy, to determine whether the existing speed limit remains appropriate. I can ask officials to keep the Member informed of the outcome.
Mr Buckley: The installation and maintenance of road signage is important to all road users. The Minister will be aware that a recent BBC report showed that dozens of "Londonderry" and "Welcome to Northern Ireland" signs have been damaged and vandalised. Does the Minister condemn that? Will she act urgently to ensure that they are repaired promptly?
Ms Kimmins: In 2015, the majority of planning functions, including the processing of local and major applications, transferred to local council planning authorities. The devolution of planning powers to local councils was intended to provide democratically accountable decision-making at a level where local knowledge and experience could be utilised. The display and control of advertisements are typically categorised as local applications and are subject to a consenting process by way of an application to the appropriate council under the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 2015. Any breaches of planning regulations are generally addressed under that legislation and, in most cases, fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant council.
My Department's Roads officials have a role as consultees on local council planning applications and will provide advice on advertisements if consulted, having specific responsibility for planning-related aspects of the roads network but not the overall application. As part of the consultation process, DFI Roads is consulted on planning applications for advertising hoardings when they are submitted that the Department assesses to ensure that no road safety issues will be caused by the proposal. A local council may have enforcement cases for signs or hoardings that do not have planning permission. As part of that process, it will consult DFI Roads for advice on road safety. The Department will assess and respond to the local council.
Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am glad that she pointed out the Department's consultative role and the road safety issues. Minister, given all of that and the fact that there is a sign in your constituency that is adjacent to a bridge and is prejudicing road safety, when will you instruct your officials to remove it from your land?
Ms Kimmins: The billboard to which the Member refers is mounted on five posts, some of which appear to be situated on my Department's land. The rest of them are on privately owned land, so the billboard is not fully on DFI land. The erection of advertising signs within the boundaries of a public road is an offence under article 87 of the Roads Order 1993. That article gives the Department the discretionary power to seek to have the advertisement removed or, if necessary, to remove it itself. The billboard in question is considered to pose a low risk to road safety, because it is set back from the road on an embankment, does not obstruct sight lines and is in a 30 mph speed limit area.
Mr McCrossan: Minister, are you aware of whether your party sought the necessary consent to erect such a sign on public or third-party land?
Mr McMurray: Minister, as you know, my colleague is working on a private Member's Bill that might deal with issues like that. Will you assure us that due process will be followed not only in that matter but in other matters that might arise across the board?
Ms Kimmins: As I said, the legislation is clear, and I have outlined how it is applied. I am aware of your party colleague's private Member's Bill on those issues, particularly flags and other issues that have arisen. We all deal with such things regularly. I have had meetings with the PSNI about the nature of some signs and other things that have gone up, particularly those that have had a hate or intimidatory aspect. I continue to work with everyone to find a sustainable solution to all those issues.
Ms Kimmins: I reiterate that my ultimate aim is to ensure the delivery of the A5 flagship project. I remain committed to doing all that I can to see that it happens and that no more lives are lost on the road. The most important point made by the court was the need for a new and safer A5 dual carriageway so that no other family experiences the huge tragedy that we have seen on the A5 over many years. That is my focus.
In the last financial year, my Department undertook a series of targeted road safety enhancements along the existing A5 corridor aimed at improving visibility, driver awareness and surface performance. Those works included refreshing white lines, replacing signs and catseyes and completing localised resurfacing. My Department has programmed further resurfacing work this financial year. My officials have recently provided me with a report highlighting the potential for further safety improvements on the A5, and I am considering the additional measures that we can implement in this year.
Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that some work has been done on the A5. While the new western transport corridor will be some way down the line, perhaps — we are not sure yet — has the Minister considered, for example, the installation of cameras on some of the most dangerous parts of the A5 for drivers coming on to and off it, which would help to slow the traffic at relatively low cost?
Ms Kimmins: Safety risks are routinely considered across the entire road network, including the A5, through analysis of the accident statistics available to us to identify significant accident clusters. Additional analysis is carried out to highlight any contributory risk factors, such as vehicle speed, road condition or road configuration. Provision of street lighting in localised areas is being considered to help driver and pedestrian safety through increased visibility, and consideration will be given to locations that would benefit from parapet upgrades by the introduction of vehicle restraint barriers. The location of any such safety interventions across the network is primarily driven by the data on accidents and collisions; however, other considerations, including consultation with the PSNI, information received from elected representatives and the public and engineering judgement, are also taken into account. As I said, that forms part of the ongoing work, and, when we have more information, I will be happy to update the Member.
Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you recently responded to a question for written answer from me in exactly the same vein, but do you consider speed restriction at accident hotspots to be an additional measure that can be implemented?
Ms Kimmins: As I said in my answer to your colleague further along the Benches, all that is being looked at in considering what can be done in the interim; however, I must reiterate that the ultimate aim is to get the road built. That is not to take away from the fact that we will do what we can in the meantime to make the road safer, but what will enable us to truly have an impact is delivery of the A5.
Mr McGlone: Minister, officials from your Department and DAERA met 13 times on proposals for the A5. My colleague's FOI request returned from DAERA with a series of major redactions that revealed little or nothing. In the interests of openness and transparency, do you support the placing in the public domain of the unredacted minutes of those 13 meetings so that people can see with their own eyes exactly what happened at them?
Ms Kimmins: The Member will be aware that an appeal is live and ongoing and that, at this point, we have to respect that process. We see FOI requests all the time, and redactions are made for a reason under legislation and guidance. Whilst I appreciate the frustration of Members and others who cannot access all the information, all of this will be considered as part of the appeal. We need to go through that process and get to the other side of it as quickly as possible.
Ms Kimmins: Following the introduction of the first residents' parking scheme in the North on Rugby Road and College Park Avenue in Belfast, my Department completed a review of the scheme and our wider approach to residents' parking. Whilst the review found that the scheme introduced on Rugby Road has been generally well received among the residents of the area, it highlighted how other such schemes have been difficult to implement. Challenges to progressing the schemes have included the resource-intensive nature of continuous redesigns of potential schemes and the inability to secure the appropriate level of consensus among local residents for a scheme to be implemented, which is a fundamental premise of the residents' parking policy.
Following the publication of the review, there has been a significant level of interest in the establishment of residents' parking zones across the North. Given the level of demand and ongoing budgetary and resource constraints, I have asked my officials to develop an application process for demand-led schemes and an assessment process for all potential residents' parking schemes to ensure that any requests can be appropriately considered. That process will take into account the findings and recommendations of the review and provide a streamlined approach for considering, assessing and prioritising requests. I am considering officials' recommendations on this, and I intend to make an announcement imminently on how future schemes will be assessed by my Department.
Ms Bradshaw: OK. Minister, you will have received a letter from Stranmillis Neighbourhood Association asking for a consultation on a scheme between Landseer Street and Ridgeway Street. When will you respond to that? When will that consultation open?
Ms Kimmins: As I have said, I am due to make an announcement on that, which will hopefully detail what steps are to be taken next.
T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure to clear up some confusion, given that, in response to a question for written answer, she said that, through adopting an innovative approach, she has freed up capacity for 400 units in Newry, which is wonderful and positive news, but to explain what she meant when she said in response to a Member today that NI Water has unlocked capacity for 10 years. (AQT 1711/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: Those were NI Water's words. I am just reiterating what it said, and, as part of that announcement, it said that it would look at 400 properties.
Mr McNulty: So, the Minister is saying that 400 units will be built in Newry over the next 10 years. That is not very ambitious. I am getting a different message on the ground from developers who cannot access the waste water treatment network because there is insufficient capacity; they cannot build on sites. There is a stalling of economic development and no housing for people who desperately need it. Minister, what is the story? No drains, no cranes. You are holding back development and holding back the economy. Can you show some ambition, please?
Ms Kimmins: To clarify, the 400 is for now, but it is unlocking capacity over the next 10 years. The original plan from NI Water was costed at £107 million. For £26 million, it has been able to unlock capacity for the next 10 years. That is what NI Water told me and what the announcement was based on. You can read the press statement that it delivered. However, I am not immune to the issues that the Member has raised. It is why I have been working with NI Water to find solutions, and I will continue to do so.
T2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for Infrastructure about the Dungannon to Portadown road in his constituency, which has become an accident black spot where, tragically, a number of young men have lost their life in accidents, and given the fact that there have been continual accidents along that stretch, whether she will commit to reviewing the criteria for setting speed limits on rural roads. (AQT 1712/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the Member in his constituency. Every life lost is one too many, particularly on our roads. I have been very vocal with my views on how we can collectively do more to ensure that our roads are safer, and that involves a whole range of things. However, since coming into post, as the Member will know from the recent tranche of 20 mph zones outside schools, which I know is not specific to what the Member is raising, my focus has been on rural roads because I recognise that most rural roads have 60 mph limits, which, in my view, are too high for some of the roads that people are navigating. As part of a wider review, I have already set out to look at the national speed limit roads right across the North for the reasons that the Member has outlined. It is something that we need to look at when considering how we can make our roads safer for everyone.
Mr Buckley: Thank you. Driver behaviour and, in particular, speed is the biggest cause of deaths on our roads. Minister, the current legislation is restrictive with regard to speed reductions on busy rural roads, and that urgently needs to be addressed. I welcome what the Minister said, but will she, please, indicate when we will see progress on the issue to ensure that fewer lives are lost on our roads?
Ms Kimmins: I completely agree with the Member about driver behaviour. It accounts for 95% of all road collisions. That is a fact, and I have been doing quite a lot of work and have had a lot of engagement with Road Safety NI and other organisations that are at the forefront of delivering that message. As well as looking at speed limits on our roads, I have been looking at road safety advertising, working with as many groups as possible and looking at vulnerable road users, who may be more at risk when out on the roads. The Member's colleague facilitated a meeting between me and the Motorcycle Action Group in recent months. That is another example of a vulnerable road user group that we need to be cognisant of. We are also looking at fitness to drive and other campaigns to try to ensure that we all, as citizens, are playing our part to ensure that everyone on the road can be kept as safe as possible. As I receive further information and updates on that review, I will be happy to keep the Member updated.
T3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister for Infrastructure what action her Department is taking to ensure that overhanging trees and overgrown hedges that obstruct footpaths and roads or visibility for drivers are being appropriately managed, particularly when there is confusion about who owns them, be it the property owner, the council or her Department. (AQT 1713/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: I can give plenty of examples where that has been an issue. When such issues arise, people tend to contact us, as elected representatives, first. Routine inspections happen on a monthly, three-monthly and six-monthly basis depending on the road category. If there are specific locations where overgrown vegetation is a particular problem, I ask the Member to feed that information into the Department, if he has not done so already, and I will ask officials to look at it urgently, particularly if there is a potential risk to road users or pedestrians.
Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I will be honest and say that, if I were to send you an email about every road or footpath issue that I have, I would be spamming you for days on end. The problem is that the overgrown vegetation on private and public land sometimes causes a risk to people. I know that your Department puts out enforcement action, but people do not take it and the Department does not follow it up. Can you do anything to start following up on the enforcement action that the Department puts out?
Ms Kimmins: I am happy to look at that. I know that it can be very frustrating, particularly where there is a risk. I will add the caveat that resources are limited. I feel that that goes through every response that we give, but it is a reality. Sometimes we have to prioritise things that are within our remit over things that, essentially, are not our responsibility. However, I take on board what you said, and I am happy to speak to officials to see whether we can do any more on the matter.
T4. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for Infrastructure, in light of the Unite ballot of Translink workers that she knows will open on Thursday on the intention to take industrial action, what her message is to those workers ahead of the ballot and potential strike action in the weeks before Christmas. (AQT 1714/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, the pay award is Translink's responsibility. I have met union members in recent months on the issue. My message is that everyone is entitled to fair pay. It is crucial that Translink engages properly and proactively with the unions so that a fair and equitable pay award can be reached.
Mr Carroll: I agree with that, Minister. Terms and conditions for workers that include fair pay are essential for services to be rolled out, including, of course, the night bus. Minister, have your officials looked at taking action to address the fact that drivers are stuck on buses, in some cases for up to five hours at a time, without any breaks? That is leading to a lot of anger, injuries and grumblings among workers in Translink in particular.
Ms Kimmins: I have not been aware of that specific issue, but, if the Member wants to write to the Department with more detail, I am happy to follow up on it with officials and with Translink.
T5. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after declaring an interest as someone who has lost a beloved family member to death on our roads, for an update on her review of speeding fines. (AQT 1715/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: I convey my sympathies. Many of us in the House will have had that tragic experience, so I know how impactful it is on many people when someone loses their life, particularly in a road traffic collision.
As I outlined, road safety is an absolute priority for me as we work to reduce the number of road deaths. As I said in a previous answer, one death is one too many, and we have to do all that we can to reduce the number of such deaths. I also think about people who get serious injuries. Whilst they may not have been in a fatal collision, the impact of that event will have been life-changing, and we have to be mindful of that. As I outlined, the Department is working on a number of interventions to improve road safety behaviour, including that of people who choose to speed. Officials are considering options for a review of penalty fines for speeding. Once I receive that briefing and advice from officials, I will consider the next steps.
Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I thank you for your answer. When I look to the South of Ireland, I see that people there can be fined up to €1,000 for speeding if they do not pay a fixed penalty within a certain time limit. That makes the fines here pale into insignificance. Our penalties for parking badly cost more than a speeding fine. Minister, will you commit to looking at the South of Ireland's speeding fine model to see whether it can be replicated here? The more that we can do to put people off and stop them speeding, the safer our roads will be.
Ms Kimmins: As part of the ongoing work on the matter, we will look at all other jurisdictions to see what works well. Any approach that is taken must be evidence-based. We can see the benefits of some of the examples that we talked about, such as 20 mph zones, specifically in Wales. I am keen to see how we can use that evidence to ensure that we do more here. We are also looking at the penalties for drug-driving and for the use of mobile phones and such things. As the Member might know, a consultation recently opened on mobile phone use while driving. I appreciate the Member's comments. As I get more information, I will keep her updated.
T6. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the long-overdue work to relieve congestion in the Larne west area. (AQT 1716/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: Unfortunately, I do not have an update in front of me, Danny. If you write to me, I can give you a more detailed update. I will need to speak to officials to get the specifics.
Mr Donnelly: The issue has impacted on residents for many years. I invite the Minister to accompany me to the site so that she can see it for herself.
Ms Kimmins: No problem. If you write to me to invite me, we can get that arranged.
T7. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the criteria for safe pedestrian crossings where there are no other options for them, particularly at roundabouts. (AQT 1717/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: I do not have the criteria in front of me. Members are asking very specific questions today. I would need to have the policy book in front of me in order to answer them. Every request or application for a pedestrian crossing is considered equally, however. There is a specific set of criteria to be met. Again, I am happy to respond to the Member in writing to outline the criteria more clearly. If there is a specific site that she is thinking of, we can look at it and give her more detail, including any previous responses. Alternatively, if it is something that needs to be looked at presently, I am happy to do so.
Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. I ask because, when it comes to the question of whether there is a pedestrian crossing, in responses from the Department and based on site visits, the decision that is made is often car-dependent rather than being about encouraging active travel. I want to see whether the Department can move away from that kind of car-dependent assessment and attitude and instead enable safe pedestrian access and active travel.
Ms Kimmins: The Member will appreciate — I know this from raising issues in my constituency over the years — that everything is prioritised on the basis of where the safety risk is higher. If it is a route that has a high volume of traffic, where it is difficult for people to cross the road, that route is probably more likely to be prioritised over somewhere where there is a lower volume of traffic. I completely take the point that the Member makes, however, about how we balance that against promoting active travel. Again, I am happy to speak about the criteria in more detail, which may answer some of her question. Alternatively, she may wish to put forward suggestions that we can consider in the time ahead.
T8. Mr Dickson asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that she should be aware of the long-running public campaign to access the shore at Jointure Bay in Greenisland in East Antrim, to meet him and local residents to help them understand why Northern Ireland Water continues to block access to the beach there, despite saying that it wants all its public facilities to be as open as possible so that the public can enjoy them. (AQT 1718/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: If the Member writes to me with the detail, I am happy to consider it. If it is something that is relevant to the Department, that is no problem.
Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister. I will certainly write to her to encourage her to take up my invitation. The issue has been a long-running sore for people who live in the area. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland Water is supported by some members of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which asserted that there should be a right of way but does not seem to want to take any further action.
Ms Kimmins: I am happy to consider that, Stewart. Thank you.
T9. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she has received the inspector's report on the A29 Cookstown bypass public inquiry, which was held last November. (AQT 1719/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: Not at this stage, but we are looking at the issue. I think that the recent announcement about the next stage of the Cookstown bypass was about what will happen in the coming weeks. As I get more information, I am happy to keep the Member updated.
Ms Kimmins: Once it comes to me, and I consider it, I will update Members accordingly.
T10. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she will engage directly with the Westminster and Irish Governments to push for a review of the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications to ensure that there are no legal loopholes that could allow disqualified drivers from the Republic of Ireland to obtain a valid licence in Northern Ireland and vice versa. (AQT 1720/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: The Member wrote to me recently about that. Perhaps he would like me to come back to him in writing, because I might not have time to fully answer his question. I feel as though I will be writing letters all week after today's sitting, but I appreciate that he has been raising that issue.
Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): We are progressing a number of pieces of work to improve transitions for autistic children as they move into adult services, particularly a new learning disability service model that is currently out for consultation. It is fully applicable for autistic adults with a co-occurring diagnosis of learning disability.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
In relation to transitions, the model sets out a framework to support people transitioning into day services, carers support, independent living, healthcare and specialist mental health services. In addition, a transitions protocol has been developed to standardise the planning process across the trusts. In the draft children’s emotional health and well-being framework, transitions are a key area of focus. I want to ensure that young people with a range of neurodevelopmental needs, including autism, are supported and prepared as they navigate the shift from child to adulthood. A public consultation for that framework closed on 26 September 2025, and responses are currently being collated and analysed. Transitions are a long-standing challenge, not just in the Department of Health.
Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. I recently met the Inner South Belfast parents' support group of Autism NI. It is a key issue for them, because they have been fighting their whole life for support for their children. Do you have any firmer timelines for when they will start to see the programmes being implemented on the ground?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I am not particularly keen on committing to timelines, because, as the Member may be aware, there have been a number of initiatives, such as the cancer research strategy, where we have said that we had put a timeline on it but then have not delivered on it, so I do not want to continue to raise expectations. However, in this case, particularly with adults — the Member mentioned adults — I meet parents of children with learning disabilities and parents of children with autism or ADHD, and one of the common themes that keep them up at night, as the Member will know, is, "Will they be OK after I am gone?", so it is a matter of urgency.
Ms Brownlee: Minister, parents and carers are really struggling. One of the main barriers that I hear about is access to support and access to direct payments. Can you provide an update on how that is progressing?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I was not particularly aware of direct payments when I took up post 18 months ago, but, very quickly, I was made aware that it is a pretty complicated process. It puts a huge onus on those who are receiving direct payments, because, effectively, they become employers. That is maybe the last thing that they want to do when they feel vulnerable. Therefore, I have asked for a review and am actively chasing that up. Members will know my view: the public sector — I include the Department of Health — is not necessarily built for speed on such issues, and, yet, if you are looking for help, speed is, of course, of the essence.
Ms Hunter: It is really important that we do all we can to support young people with autism. Minister, will you agree to establish a cross-departmental work group to address this cross-cutting issue? As I understand it, there are many sectors and aspects to the issue and to supporting children with autism from Communities and Education etc.
Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I will not dream up policy on the hoof. However, I certainly accept the logic of what the Member seeks to address. I hope that she knows that I am looking for standardised regional services that take a holistic approach and that we want to end the silos, whether it is over diagnoses, procedures or postcode lotteries. All those things need to be addressed so that we smooth things out and people know that, if they have to wait, it is not a longer wait than that of anybody else and, if there are difficulties that need to be overcome, they are not bigger difficulties because they have autism compared with some other condition.
Mr Nesbitt: The Department of Health facilitates access for patients to clinical trials through the work of the Health and Social Care (HSC) research and development division in the Public Health Agency (PHA). The division oversees participation in UK-wide clinical governance and trial approval processes. In addition, it funds core research infrastructure, which, in turn, supports access to clinical trials. That includes the Northern Ireland Clinical Research Network, a cancer trials network, a clinical trials unit, a clinical research facility and research offices in each of the trusts. Approximately 80% of clinical trials taking place in Northern Ireland also have research sites in other UK nations. However, I recognise that many clinical trials open only in a small number of sites around the UK and seek to recruit only a limited number of patients who have very specific characteristics. Therefore, not all trials will open in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Dickson: Thank you very much. Minister, how is your Department working with relevant stakeholders, such as universities, and the trusts to make Northern Ireland an attractive partner for UK-wide and international trials? Why has the Department brought about a great deal of confusion regarding EU rules, which, we were told, were blocking trials, with correspondence from you, Minister, last week saying that that was all wrong, there were no EU blockages and trials should be able to proceed? In reality, Minister, the blockage is in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust.
Mr Nesbitt: To be fair to the Belfast Trust, the Department of Health and our arm's-length bodies (ALBs) rely, on such occasions, on the advice of a UK-wide body, which is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It originally gave an opinion that we had to conform to specific EU regulations — the EU in vitro diagnostic regulatory conditions — and that therefore we could not proceed with the trial. It now appears that MHRA has reviewed its analysis, and we are good to go as long as we have the right governance structures locally through the Belfast Trust. That was unfortunate, because it has led to a delay, but I do not think that it has led to any patient safety concerns.
At the Patrick Johnston facility on the Queen's site in Belfast City Hospital, I have seen in action the ball that goes down the throat to look for Barrett's oesophagus. It is magnificent. It is so quick, it is cost-effective and it delivers better outcomes, so it is a matter of regret that we have had that one-year delay.
On how we tap into the rest of the UK, I was at the launch recently at the Ulster Hospital of the Northern Ireland commercial research delivery centre. That is a clinical trial centre. It is brand new, and it will link us in to a UK network. That is really good news, because we have clinicians who are incredibly passionate about clinical trials and Northern Ireland is of a size that is almost perfect for clinical trials. When we do them, we do them really well. I happen to think that we are missing a bit of a trick by not becoming global leaders or, certainly, UK-wide leaders in the field.
Mr Brooks: On the back of the Member's question, when will patients have access to those trials? For clarity, reiterating what the Member asked, can we be sure that the EU regulations will not be a barrier in future to patients accessing such trials?
Mr Nesbitt: I can be specific only about the clinical trials regarding that ball that goes down on a string for Barrett's oesophagus. The MHRA is now saying that the EU regulations do not apply, so we can go ahead. We cannot start it immediately, because we must make sure that we have the right governance arrangements in place in the Belfast Trust. I would like to think that they will now proceed at pace, because we should all be slightly embarrassed, although it was not our fault but that of the MHRA across the water. At that, it was a one-year delay that was unnecessary. Let us show the public that we will make up lost ground on that.
On the application of other EU regulations for developments in health and social care, I can give the Member no assurance. He knows my view: we came out of Europe without thinking through the consequences, and, sadly, some of the consequences impact on health and social care delivery.
Mr Chambers: I was pleased to learn recently that good progress has been made on the cancer research strategy, and I think that publication is imminent. How important was it to give the research organisations and individuals locally that further time to feed into the draft plan and allow them to work in partnership with the Department?
Mr Nesbitt: I will respond to the Member in a couple of ways. There is no point in having what, we think, is a solid strategy if it does not have buy-in from stakeholders. As well as the need for buy-in, we have to be sure that, if we are going to have a strategy, we will be able to follow it up not just with an implementation plan but with one that is fully costed and deliverable.
The Member will know that I pointed to the cancer strategy, rather than the cancer research strategy, and the mental health strategy as two gold-plated 10-year strategies that we cannot afford to implement in full. The feedback that we got some months ago was that some key stakeholders were not buying into the document as it was written up then, so it was important that we stepped back, re-engaged with them, listened to them and reacted positively. We have done that to the best of our ability, and I believe that all the key stakeholders are now relatively satisfied. They are not absolutely delighted: who would be? You cannot expect everybody to be delighted with a strategy. However, I believe that we have got to a place where we can have confidence that we are doing the right thing by the people whom we are trying to serve: the patients and service users for whom we are trying to deliver better outcomes.
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member will know, Professor Mark Taylor has become the first elective care lead in the history of healthcare in Northern Ireland. He is looking at waiting list initiatives, particularly, but, within that, we want to try to address some of the issues regarding clinical variation. Delivering consistent clinical outcomes across Northern Ireland is complex. My ambition is to get to a point where we deliver standardised regional services, whatever the service has to be. The action is also being led by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Professor Sir Michael McBride, so we have two really experienced people looking at this area. If we can start to make solid improvements, that will deliver better outcomes and address the idea of postcode lotteries and variance in clinical delivery. I am absolutely delighted to know that I have the right people in the right places looking at the issue.
Dr Aiken: Is the Minister confident that his appointment of Professor Mark Taylor as the clinical lead for reducing Northern Ireland's waiting times will serve as an important opportunity for a focus on why the number of procedures delivered on hospital theatre lists can sometimes differ from what are independently recognised baselines, such as those in Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT)?
Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely am. It is something that he is addressing. It is not a question of saying to somebody, "You've done really well", but to somebody else, "You haven't done quite as well" or "You're not doing what you should be doing". I spoke to Mark at some length before he went out on the ground, in post. The fact that he is a clinician and a surgeon is extremely useful in allowing him to engage with clinicians and surgeons across Northern Ireland. There is mutual respect. He is not saying, "Somebody's doing your procedure 10 times a day in another hospital, but you're only doing six. You've got to do 10". It is more a case of Mark saying, "This is the variance. Let me understand why there is a variance, and let me see how I can help you get up to the best that we can achieve".
Mrs Dodds: Last October, I think, we held a debate on breast cancer referral times and the 14-day target. At that stage, the Western Trust was 80-something per cent within that target, the Southern Trust 10% and the South Eastern Trust 6%. Now, it appears that, instead of offering equality with the creation of a regional list for breast cancer referrals, we are offering everything equally bad. What do you say to the lady who contacted me last week, who, 11 weeks ago, was red-flagged for a referral for breast cancer investigation and still has not seen a consultant?
Mr Nesbitt: I regret the fact that it is such a long wait, but I hope that the Member will understand the logic of what we did in bringing in a regional service.
She noted the variation, with the Western Trust having the best — or shortest — waiting times. What do I say to that person? I say that I am very sorry and hope that she gets the best outcomes when she is seen. What do I say to two people who are neighbours but, because the dividing line for the trusts runs between their houses, have had weeks of variation in their ability to get an appointment? That is not right either. To achieve what I wanted to achieve, we had to do two things. The first was to level up, which we have. Unfortunately, to drive down the longest waiting lists, the shortest waiting lists have to nudge up in the short term, but the two then equalise. The second was to drive down waiting lists across Northern Ireland towards the 10-day target. We have not yet achieved that, but we are working on it.
Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that the regional outworkings for trusts need to be fair across the board. That has to be the case. Does the Minister agree that true transformation is a key element in that and that the clinical variations need to come down to the outcomes? It is not just about waiting lists, but the particular types of services that are offered in each trust. For example, mental health services are great in one area and severely lacking in others.
Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. We are driving down the variation, which demonstrates that we can then turn to areas such as mental health. I want to get away from postcode lotteries and move to having consistent and standardised services regionally, so that nobody feels disadvantaged by their postcode. Postcode lotteries are in no way consistent with the idea of the founding fathers of the National Health Service.
Mr Durkan: I understand and, indeed, support the need for regional, standardised services that do away with the postcode lotteries. What services are being delivered regionally? Why have breast cancer assessments been used as a pilot? Why have you chosen the one lottery that patients in the Western Trust area had a chance of winning, particularly given that that area has the worst health outcomes overall?
Mr Nesbitt: I understand that the Member represents the west. I represent Strangford, as a constituency MLA, but I have to park that and perform the role of Minister of Health for the whole of Northern Ireland. It was made abundantly clear to me that the variation in waiting lists for breast cancer assessment was not acceptable, and I have done the right thing. It is a two-part move, as I have explained. I regret that people in your area may have to wait a bit longer, but hopefully that will only be in short term. That is a matter of regret, but I have to look at the big picture, which tells me that I am doing the right thing and to roll out the change.
Mr Nesbitt: The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) provides non-emergency transport for patients who, due to clinical need, cannot reasonably travel independently. The service operates under my Department’s transport strategy for health and social care services, which promotes safe, equitable, and patient-centred transport. Eligibility is determined by clinical need, including mobility, medical condition and any requirement for professional assistance. Once approved, transport is coordinated by NIAS in partnership with the health and social care trust. NIAS does not restrict transport by trust boundaries, with patients routinely being transported across regions to ensure continuity of care and timely access to treatment.
NIAS also operates a voluntary car scheme, which supports immobile patients who cannot use public transport. Additionally, Cancer Focus NI provides a free volunteer driving service for eligible patients, which is accessible via a referral from a health professional. Other charities may offer similar support, though availability varies by region.
Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer so far. Minister, as you are well aware, Mid Ulster is a vast, rural constituency, and it is therefore vital that all our residents can access the care that they need. I am dealing with a number of patients who have to go to Altnagelvin for radiotherapy treatment every day for six weeks, and they are unable to get transport. If we want to seriously look at delivering healthcare better and transforming healthcare, we need to ensure that the public have faith that, if something is not available in the hospital beside them, they will be able to access it elsewhere. Can you give an assurance today that, as part of any transformation, we will make sure that every person across the North has access to the services that they need?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I should have added in my opening remarks that we have a cancer support services directory and that, for those on low incomes, there is a hospital travel costs scheme that may provide financial assistance.
On the broader point, the Member knows that I consulted on a strategy that would create a hospital network for better outcomes. I believe that many people, probably including me until relatively recently, wanted every procedure to be delivered at their nearest hospital, whether it was an acute hospital or not. That is neither possible nor particularly desirable, given the fact that we have the potential to move to create hospitals that are specialists in particular procedures. If you need a procedure, and your local facility does it once a week, but a facility 30 miles away does it 10 times a day, five days a week, I think that I know where you will go. However, the question is whether you can you get there and back, and, therefore, transport becomes particularly important. It is absolutely essential for a relatively small percentage of the population. I think that the larger percentage can get there and back one way or another, but, for those who cannot, transport becomes critical. We are looking at all those schemes.
The Member may be aware that there are ongoing discussions between the Department of Health, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. A couple of months ago, we escalated that to being an inter-ministerial meeting, because we felt that there was not enough impetus. The focus will be on getting people to and from health and social care settings. It is very much on the radar.
Mr McNulty: Has the Minister considered working with the Department for Infrastructure and community and rural transport organisations to support this work? Rural transport organisations provide a life-saving transport link for the health service.
Mr Nesbitt: As referenced in my previous answer, the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are engaged. Officials have been tasked with looking at how we can help to get people who do not have their own transport to and from health and social care settings. That involves community organisations, such as community transport providers. They are looking at how we can work with those organisations to deliver better outcomes for patients and service users, so it is happening.
Mr Robinson: On the back of Mrs Dillon's question regarding cancer treatment, will the Minister update the House on what action he is taking to tackle the unacceptable breast cancer waiting times?
Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure how that relates to transportation. We are very conscious that cancer waiting times are getting longer, that that is not good and that it delivers very bad outcomes. The longer a patient has to wait, the less likely they are to get an optimum outcome. It is a very important issue, but it is not relevant to this question. I will write to the Member, because I was not expecting to be asked about that on a question on transport.
Mr Donnelly: We are all aware that getting a cancer diagnosis is an incredibly stressful time in someone's life and that attending for treatment is incredibly important. How many cancer patients in the past year either missed or had treatment appointments delayed due to transport issues?
Mr Nesbitt: I do not think that I have that statistic to hand. I am not sure whether we even trap that statistic, but I will certainly look out for it for the Member if we have it.
Mr Nesbitt: The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Learning and Development College in Cookstown represents a transformative investment in firefighter training, public safety and regional development. It is world class. I will repeat that, because we do not have many facilities that meet that criterion: it is world class. It has been operational for 11 months. Several benefits have already materialised, with further gains expected.
The college's state-of-the-art facilities provide trainees with multiple opportunities to experience realistic and repeatable training simulations in a controlled environment under expert supervision. That leads to personnel being better prepared than they were previously, and that, in turn, enhances the safety of the public and firefighters alike.
Mr Butler: As the Minister rightly points out, and I agree with him, the college is a world-class facility. In that vein, will there be opportunities for other services to use the facility, and will there be opportunities in the future to recover costs for running it?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, absolutely. The first thing to say is that the college being there has led to a reduction in costs for several training topics for the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service itself. Those include breathing apparatus instructor training, road traffic collision instructor training and hazardous material officer training. The college also has a flood facility, which is absolutely spectacular.
The college is primarily, of course, for the use of the Fire and Rescue Service here, but other emergency services, including the Ambulance Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are already making use of the site. The Fire and Rescue Service operates a cost recovery model for third-party usage, which, at present, remains under development, so its full potential is not yet fully known. The Fire and Rescue Service is, however, keen to optimise that in order to support the effective and efficient operation of the college. I know that representatives of fire services in the Republic have been to see it and that there has been interest from across Great Britain and, I believe, further afield.
Mr Nesbitt: All special education needs schools across Northern Ireland have community children’s nurses (CCNs) available to them in order to manage the identifiable healthcare needs of their pupils. For historical reasons, of the 40 SEN schools in Northern Ireland, only eight have on-site CCNs in place, who are split across the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust.
In the 2023-24 financial year, the delivery model in Knockevin School changed to an in-reach model, with CCNs providing assessment and care planning for children with complex healthcare needs. The nurses provided knowledge and skills-based training to key staff in the school and were available for queries and guidance as necessary. After engagement and discussion with the Department and the South Eastern Trust, the presence of an on-site nurse in Knockevin School was stepped up again in mid-2025, and, currently, a CCN is on site two mornings a week in addition to the presence of allied health professional colleagues.
Following last month's publication of the Public Health Agency's review of the healthcare needs of children attending SEN schools, officials in my Department have commenced work alongside colleagues from Education in order to ensure that all children in SEN schools have access to necessary healthcare.
Mr McMurray: Thank you very much, Minister, for the reference to Knockevin School. When will the full review of nursing provision in special schools be completed so that it can provide the necessary certainty?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. We have looked at the provision of CCNs, but it is imperative that we ensure that all children have safe access to education that is supported by the necessary therapeutic support. The Public Health Agency is leading a comprehensive analysis in order to identify what the assessed therapeutic needs are for children and young people who attend special schools. We need to know that the development of an effective model of therapy provision is being planned and that we have the associated workforce in development and planning. That will include a comprehensive scoping exercise to capture the assessed needs of children and young people in respect of occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy. To answer the Member's question, I expect to receive the completed review with recommendations by March 2026, with the usual proviso that, sometimes, our deadlines are not met.
Mr Nesbitt: The Department is currently leading on an ePharmacy programme, a central component of which is the electronic transfer of prescriptions (ETP) project, which will introduce a fully electronic system to replace the current paper-based prescription process. That system will enable the secure transmission of prescriptions from prescribers to community pharmacies and onward to the Business Services Organisation for processing and payment.
The Department has included the ETP project in its 10-year capital investment plan, with an indicative start date of 2027 at the earliest. Work is currently under way to develop an outline business case that will set out the strategic, economic and financial justification for the project. I remain hopeful that, subject to securing the required funding, the project can commence in 2027 and be completed by 2032.
Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. Will the Minister outline the potential benefits for patients of introducing that system? How can we safeguard against errors being made through the wrong medication being prescribed?
Mr Nesbitt: On the latter point, I believe that GPs and, indeed, community pharmacists are very aware of the need to check for unintended errors, so I do not expect that there will be any lack of focus there. An electronic system allows you to build in objective tests rather than to rely on individuals' subjective eyesight and thought processes.
Even though there will be potential benefits in the system for patients, I am very focused on the benefit that it will have for GPs. Every GP whom I talk to when we bring up the idea of paper-based prescriptions says, "That is so time-consuming. It would be transformational to have an electronic system."
I take five tablets per day on repeat prescription. When I need a repeat prescription, I go on the internet and fire off an email to my GP pharmacy, and it comes back and says, "Yeah, we got that all right". However, they print out a script, and the local pharmacist has to walk up the hill, collect the script and walk back down to the pharmacy. I do not understand this: if it can get from me to the GP, why can it not get from the GP to the community pharmacy, and why does it take so long? However, it does, apparently, take that length of time.
T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health whether, having just seen the completion of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, he agrees that it is absolutely abhorrent that we have some of the worst results in meeting detection and treatment targets anywhere on these islands. (AQT 1721/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I do agree, and I can only assure the Member that that is an area of focus for me. Introducing the regionalised booking service for breast assessment is not the beginning and the end of what I intend to do in that area.
Mr McGrath: Minister, your party has held the Health portfolio for most of the past 10 years, except for those times when, inexcusably, this place was down. In the past 10 years, however, the percentage of patients that are being seen within the14 days has gone from 84% down to 6%. Will you develop a specific plan to address that matter that, as Members detailed, is more than what you have been offering us, which is just regionalising the service and making everybody deal with long waiting lists?
Mr Nesbitt: On the substantive point, yes is the short answer. However, the context that the Member tried to place it in is deeply unfair. The Assembly, as he knows, was down twice during that time, and the only other person in recent years from this party to hold the position of Minister of Health was Robin Swann, who got hit immediately with a global pandemic, which became nearly his entire focus. He did manage, for example, to appoint a mental health champion and get out a mental health strategy, so he did do things. However, those were done under the most constrained circumstances that any Health Minister has faced since devolution in 1998. The context is not fair, but, as for the intent of doing better with cancer services, I am with you.
T2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Health, given that the Comptroller and Auditor General found that Northern Ireland health trusts spent in the region of £22 million on 12,000 restricted procedures during the 2023-24 financial year, what he is doing to ensure that such procedures are being carried out in line with government policy and that there is proper departmental oversight of them. (AQT 1722/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I was not aware that that was happening until that report was published, and I found it quite shocking. The range of activity and the scale of Health and Social Care are such that it is challenging to stay across every development. I did not welcome what I heard, because we are in very constrained financial times. The question then becomes — I do not have the answer to this yet — whether people are actioning and signing off on those procedures because they think that they are in the best interests of patients and service users or whether it is because people are not properly focused on the fact that we have that unprecedented and, frankly, unmanageable, pressure on our budget. I would like to think that it is the former, but, even at that, we have to review the situation and make sure that every penny that we spend is spent properly. Every pound that is misspent in the Department of Health is a pound that is not spent on education, on housing or on all the other areas that are in charge of the social determinants of ill health. We therefore have to spend every penny wisely, not just for Health but for everybody else.
Miss McIlveen: My supplementary question is also about spending money wisely. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that his Department's investment of £40 million a year in tuition fees benefits health provision in Northern Ireland?
Mr Nesbitt: I am pretty confident that it does, because the workforce challenges remain. Although we have invested heavily and increased the overall workforce that delivers health and social care, there are still major gaps.
Before coming to the Chamber, I was slightly delayed because I was listening to somebody in the Long Gallery who has MS. It was awkward for me to get up and walk out on somebody who was giving a personal testimony. His point was that we do not have enough workforce in neurological services. He said that we do not have enough psychological staff and that we do not have enough trained nurses and consultants. That is a common call that Members will hear made right across health and social care delivery.
To my mind, the Member's question is valid. Is the £40 million being spent to best effect? It absolutely is. We are pretty much there, but could we use £50 million or £60 million? Yes, we could.
T3. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Health, while acknowledging that he is aware of the huge pressures facing dental services, whether he has heard any concerns from dental practitioners about potential abuses of dental provision and wider social services that are available to asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1723/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any such concerns.
Mr Buckley: Minister, dental practitioners and social workers have been in contact with me to raise concerns that a number of asylum-seeker patients, who, in their professional opinion, are most certainly adults, are presenting as children when accessing dental treatment in Northern Ireland. They feel unable to voice their concerns for fear of being branded far right or racist. I therefore ask the Minister whether he acknowledges that, if that is happening, it is of huge concern and presents wider child-safeguarding issues for social services and their use? Moreover, will the Minister commit to looking into the issue, which warrants serious investigation, and come back to the House on it?
Mr Nesbitt: Again off the top of my head, I suggest that, if the Member holds such information, he should immediately pass it on to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and potentially to the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland.
T4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Health, given that he is quoted in the press as saying about the public health Bill, which has been removed from the Executive's legislative programme:
"I also fully recognise there were a number of genuine concerns raised, not least questions about how individuals' human rights would be affected by the introduction of any legislation",
whether he will outline to the House those concerns and to what aspects of individual human rights he refers. (AQT 1724/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: It was more of a broad acknowledgement that there was concern about human rights and about government being in a position in which it will potentially overreach into people's personal freedoms and decision-making.
Let me make a broader point to the Member, however. It was early in my tenure that I was asked to sign off on the consultation. Had I been in post longer, I might have come to the view that it was too soon after the COVID-19 pandemic to go out to public consultation on the proposed Bill, because that is the clear impression that I get from the 8,000-plus responses to the consultation and, indeed, from the reaction at the time.
A former leader of the Member's party used to say that Ministers do not go out to consultation until they have decided what they are going to do and that the consultation is only to see whether there are banana skins that they have not spotted. I do not take that approach, and that is why, for example, I put in mandatory vaccinations as an option. I did not support the proposal, but who am I to tell the population of Northern Ireland that people cannot even have an opinion on that? That is why I put it in, but I made it clear that, personally, I would not be supporting it. Overall, the 1967 Act contains some draconian measures, but people are not aware of that. It was in the context of it being so soon after COVID that I realised that we are making people fear for their civil, religious and human rights and liberties.
Mr Frew: I thank the Health Minister for that very honest answer, and I also applaud the fact that he has removed the public health Bill from the legislative programme. Minister, if it is wrong to have that Bill now, so soon after the atrocious decisions taken in the Department of Health during the COVID pandemic, why do you think that it will be right in 10 or 20 years' time?
Mr Nesbitt: It is because I do not accept the Member's assessment that there were "atrocious" decisions made in the Department of Health at that time. The Member and I clearly disagree absolutely fundamentally, and it is fine that we should do that. The 1967 Act deals only with infectious diseases. We are in the 21st century, and we need to consider all hazards and take in the biological, chemical, nuclear and all the horrible threats that have developed down the years. Although I am saying that we will not bring the legislation forward in this mandate, I have said to officials that we have to re-engage with people and try to make them understand two things. The first is the implications of what we have, which are some fairly draconian measures in the 1967 Act about how you can detain people. The Member will obviously be 100% against that, and I might agree with him on the one about mandatory detention of people without going to the courts to get permission. The second thing is to say, "Let us think about all the other issues that have arisen since 1967 that we do not have covered". I would like to think that, in the next mandate, we will do a new public health Bill that will be more to the Member's satisfaction — not entirely so but more so.
T5. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Health for an update on ambulance waiting times, particularly in relation to Altnagelvin, where some very worrying messages are coming out in the September review. (AQT 1725/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I will write to him on that, if he does not mind, because, while ambulance waiting times have been bad down the years, I am getting a hint that there is some really solid, positive Northern Ireland-wide news that includes Altnagelvin. I will listen to the follow-up question, but a focus is being put on that issue, and that focus is beginning to yield results.
Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister and look forward to that information. Minister, the situation at Altnagelvin has significantly worsened since the removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital, and you will be familiar with the phrase "double ED waits" for patients from that hospital. Those double ED waits continue. The Ambulance Service has outlined very worrying prolonged delays. Can you indicate what engagement you are having with the trust in that area about removing those double ED waits, which are discriminating against patients coming from Fermanagh?
Mr Nesbitt: Again, let me check exactly where we are with the double ED waits. It was the RQIA assessment of the impact of moving emergency general surgery to Altnagelvin that exposed to the public the idea of people having a wait for assessment in the ED in the South West Acute Hospital but then having to do that again when they get to Altnagelvin. I think that the trust was already on it, as it were, but had not cracked it. It was aware that it was an issue that needed to be addressed and that we did not have to have the double ED wait. Of course, under Encompass, instead of having to put a big physical file in an ambulance with a patient, you can say, "This patient will be with you in whatever time", and the incoming team can look at Encompass and see the diagnosis and all the rest of it. If double ED waits are still happening, I would be concerned about that. The Member is nodding to say that that is still happening. I will certainly take that away, because I was of the impression that we might well have seen that problem off by now.
T6. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Health to confirm how many social workers are trained in sign language across the Northern Ireland trusts, and in the Northern Trust area in particular, given that it has come to her attention that a number of people in her constituency from the deaf community have not been able to access a social worker who can communicate with them through any form of sign language. (AQT 1726/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: If the Member is looking for specific numbers, I will have to write to her. There is certainly a shortage of social workers and social care workers, so I am afraid that what she is telling me does not come as a huge surprise. I will have to get back to her in writing with the fine detail.
Mr Speaker: Cara Hunter has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should continually rise in their place.
Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education to outline the departmental resources used to promote his recent visit to Israel.
Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I had the opportunity to visit Israel last week. What I was able to bear witness to was intolerable suffering and loss of life at the hands of terrorists. Across the Middle East conflict in Gaza, Palestinians have suffered terribly and endured loss of life, with Hamas using and abusing its own population as human shields.
I was formally invited by the Government of Israel to participate in a delegation from devolved nations. No public funds were spent on the visit. The trip was planned and organised by the Israeli embassy. No departmental officials participated in the trip overall or in the visit to Ofek School that was organised by the hosts. The school visit was directly relevant to my ministerial portfolio and provided valuable insights into pedagogy and practice. In light of that relevance, I requested that the Department issue a factual press release to share the inclusive education practice that I observed. That communication was strictly non-political and focused solely on the educational aspects of the visit. No departmental resources were used to publicise any political message.
Ms Hunter: Minister, you have said that you were on a fact-finding mission, but here are the facts that you might not have been presented with while in illegally occupied territory: more than 50,000 children in Gaza have been murdered and injured by Israel. While your politics and your morality are ultimately your own and are a matter for yourself, it is clear, through public messaging, that departmental time and official platforms were used to promote what was your highly controversial trip. Minister, you said today that no public funds were used, but who hit "send" on the public messaging? Did you instruct your departmental officials to use official channels to promote what was clearly a very political visit and, in doing so, bring not only yourself but your Department into disrepute?
Mr Givan: I challenge the Member or any Member to point out in the press release what the political message was. There was no political message. The objection is that I visited a school in Israel. That is the objection from Members who are opposed to this. There is nothing in the press release that had any political connotation whatsoever. It is an integrated school where Jews, Arabs and Christians are educated together. Those who are opposed to the visit now manufacture this outcry. What I can say is that my permanent secretary and senior officials have carried out a review of my engagements on the visit. They have concluded that review and given a clean bill of health not just to me as Minister but to every civil servant in my Department, whose actions were entirely appropriate. That is the position of my senior officials and the permanent secretary.
Mr Martin: Minister, you just mentioned the permanent secretary in the Department of Education. Can you speak a little bit further about his assessment of the Department's role in either organising the trip or any subsequent publicity about it?
Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. As I said, my permanent secretary has assessed the role of the Department in assisting with the organisation of the trip. My private office liaised with the organisers to confirm travel logistics and to relay my travel requests. That support was minimal and administrative in nature, and, in total, it is estimated to have amounted to less than one hour of Civil Service time.
That limited involvement was deemed to be appropriate given the need to manage the Israel trip within my broader ministerial diary and to cancel other engagements. My permanent secretary reviewed the press release pertaining to the school visit that was published by the Department. He concluded that it had no political content and was directly related to my portfolio, and therefore approved my request.
Mr Sheehan: A significant number of highly reputable organisations are clear that what has been happening in Gaza over the past two years is a genocide. Those organisations include a UN commission, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Genocide Watch and B'Tselem, which is an Israeli organisation. Why can the Minister not accept the truth rather than continuing to peddle the propaganda of a genocidal regime, the leaders of which are wanted on international arrest warrants for crimes against humanity?
Mr Givan: I note that the Member, who is also the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, did not ask a question — not one question — about the Department. I am here to be held to account as Education Minister for the element of the trip that related to my Education portfolio. I am not here to be held to account by a convicted terrorist who supports Hamas terrorists. You will not hold me to account: I will hold you to account for your terrorism.
What has Mr Sheehan done in his past? He has met Hamas and been pictured with Khaled Mashal. What did Khaled Mashal say in respect of 7 October and concern for Palestinian lives? A member of Hamas, with whom Pat Sheehan has been photographed, said that lost Palestinian lives are a necessary sacrifice. Do not give me crocodile tears. You have been pictured with, and support, Hamas terrorists. Sinn Féin needs to get the message very clearly: it is the unionist people of Northern Ireland who have elected my party and put me in this position. I will never be dictated to by Sinn Féin, particularly not by the likes of Pat Sheehan. [Inaudible.] [Inaudible.]
Mrs Guy: Minister, I agree with your comments about 7 October. What happened was abhorrent and unjustifiable. However, you walked into this controversy with your eyes wide open. You understood how provocative and hurtful it would be for people to see our Minister of Education standing and smiling in an occupied territory, when, just miles away, Gaza lies in ruins, with schools having been destroyed and children killed in an act of genocide that has been sanctioned by the very Government who paid for your trip. Minister, you understand the difference between acting as an individual and acting as the Education Minister. In that context, is it not absolutely reasonable that people are asking whether you are suitable to be our Education Minister?
Mr Givan: The Member should listen to the Ulster Farmers' Union's position on her own party's Agriculture Minister and his suitability for that ministerial office.
Members have set a very low bar for passing no-confidence motions. Indeed, one Minister is elected, with cross-community support, by the Assembly, so be careful what you wish for.
The Alliance Party now allows Gerry Carroll to lead it. Maybe that is part of the internal discussions: we all know what is going on in the Alliance Party. It is now being led by Gerry Carroll, who, on 7 October, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". There has been no condemnation of Gerry Carroll from Michelle Guy — no condemnation whatsoever.
I have explained the basis of the visit. It is interesting that the Alliance Party, proponents of integrated education, are hostile towards a visit to an integrated school. When I was in Israel, I had the opportunity to meet a member of the Opposition in the Knesset. He talked about how, eight years ago, when he had responsibility for education, he brought 25 Arab principals and 25 Jewish principals here to gain insight into Northern Ireland. In Jerusalem, I witnessed people — Arab communities, Jewish communities and people from the Armenian Christian Church and Orthodox Christian Church — living side by side, navigating their differences, in a very diverse way. That is far from the malign intent of an "apartheid regime" in what is, indeed, the only democratic country in the Middle East. The Alliance Party would do well to remove the shackles of the extreme left wing and the likes of Gerry Carroll, who is leading them.
Dr Aiken: I declare an interest, because I was on the visit as well. Minister, will you comment on the fact that, when we went to the Ofek school, which is led by Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders, we had to have our meeting in a bomb shelter? Why would a school for children need to have a bomb shelter?
Mr Givan: I thank Dr Aiken for the question. I also commend him for going on the visit and making a Member's statement about it.
Mr Givan: When it comes to the visit, I know very clearly which side he is on. I commend and pay tribute to him.
When we visited the school, we heard how the children have to actively practise fleeing to the bomb shelter —
Mr Givan: — because of the rocket attacks that have been inflicted on them by Hamas. What does Hamas do in its schools? It indoctrinates its children to kill Jews, saying, "Death to Israel". [Interruption.]
It builds terrorist infrastructure and uses the children as human shields. That is what Hamas does.
Mr Givan: It was also interesting to hear on the visit that, as a result of what happened on 7 October, 45,000 children were displaced, because there were movements of people from northern and southern Israel. They all had to leave their schools.
Mr Sheehan: How many Palestinian children had to leave their schools?
Mr Givan: It was remarkable how the Israeli education system had established those facilities to try to react to that. Do you know what they said about the experience of those children when they came back to school?
Mr Sheehan: How many Palestinian children were displaced?
Mr Givan: Many of them could not talk because of how they had been traumatised. Children have been traumatised in the Middle East. They have been used and abused in Gaza and weaponised by Hamas terrorists, the very same terrorists with whom Mr Sheehan was photographed. [Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you have had your chance. I do not mind a bit of chuntering, but you have had a fair old crack at it.
Mr Middleton: The car-crash contributions from the SDLP leader and the People Before Profit MLA on the 'The Nolan Show' this morning exposed the true anti-Israeli sentiment towards your visit to Israel. Minister, is it not right that, as Education Minister, you look at educational aspects of schools in the Middle East and what is happening in Israel so that we learn from the educational experience in that country?
Mr Givan: It would have been very strange for us to visit Israel but not take the opportunity to visit a school. That visit was organised and facilitated by the hosts. [Interruption.]
Members, again, want to shout down the message. The tactic for the past four or five days has been to holler abuse
and drown out a different opinion because they do not like what is being said. It is interesting. If we lived in a truly liberal society, we would respect other people's opinions, but there is no respect shown by those who claim to be liberals. Instead, it is a case of let us have that domination of a contrary opinion. Suppress them so that they do not feel comfortable in saying it. Regrettably, for those opposite and others in the Chamber, I am not one of those people who yields to the kind of bullying and intimidation that I have witnessed from many Members in the House.
Ms Sheerin: I note that the Minister did not answer my colleague's questions. Why would B'Tselem state that a genocide is happening in Gaza if that is not true? Where is the Minister's humanity?
Mr Givan: The Member is interested in genocide. Why was the Chair of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Barry McElduff, in China last week? You are concerned about genocide: let us look at the genocide of the Uyghur community that is taking place in China? China has that community engaged in forced labour in camps. There are forced sterilisations, mass arbitrary detentions, cultural and religious erasure, surveillance and family separation. If we are to have consistency on genocide, where is her condemnation of her own colleague for going to China? [Interruption.]
That proves the double standard that we have become well accustomed to from Sinn Féin. We will not be lectured by Sinn Féin on such things.
Mr Givan: They just need to calm down. We hear the anger.
Mr Givan: You may have tried to bully other people in the past, but it will not work with me [Interruption.]
You may not like the answers, but you will listen to them from me today, tomorrow, next week, next month and next year [Interruption.]
Ms Nicholl: The Minister is entitled to his views. I know that we disagree on nearly everything, but I will support his right to hold his views. The issue, Minister, is that the school that you visited is in the illegal settlement of Ramot Alon. Please answer my question without deflecting it with things that other parties have done. Do you think that it was acceptable for a Minister to visit a school built on stolen land against international and UN rulings? Is the Minister aware that Priti Patel resigned as International Development Secretary in 2017 for having unauthorised meetings with the Israeli Government while she was on holiday?
Mr Givan: As I have said, it was entirely acceptable for me, Dr Aiken, a TUV councillor and the leader of the Welsh Conservative Party to visit that school. Members would have been critical of a delegation to Israel that refused to go into East Jerusalem, where there is a majority Arab community, and to experience what it has to live with. The same Members would have condemned us for not doing that. We went to listen. We heard clearly about what many people in Jerusalem and across Israel have had to experience.
Do you know what it was like in pre-1967 East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule? Jews were not allowed in. Christians were not allowed in. They were refused access to a lot of the holy sites in the city. Under Israeli rule, all the sites are open, irrespective —
Mr Givan: — of the religious differences in Jerusalem. The Member shouts, "Rubbish": I was there last week, so I have witnessed it.
Mr Givan: We know that other Members visited, but they went to visit Hamas [Interruption.]
That is what they did when they visited [Interruption.]
Mr Buckley: The public can see through this choreographed witch-hunt, orchestrated by the antisemite-in-chief, Gerry Carroll, propped up by those on the extreme left in the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The Minister has already said that his departmental officials knew about the trip. Will the Minister indicate whether departmental officials suggested to him at any time that he was in breach of any rules relating to his ministerial duties?
Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. At no time did departmental officials suggest to me that I was in breach of any rules relating to my ministerial duties. Opponents want my civil servants in the Department to have acted in a highly political manner when it came to the statement that was released. That would have been to invite them not to act impartially under the direction and control of the democratically elected Minister but to usurp the authority of those who are in elected office. I repeat it for the benefit of all Members and the media who have been listening that this has been reviewed by the senior officials in my Department, and the permanent secretary has given a clean bill of health when it comes to every civil servant who engaged with the visit and to my conduct as Minister.
Mr Tennyson: Unlike other parties in the Chamber, Alliance has been consistent in our condemnation of both Hamas terrorism and the genocide that is unfolding under the Israeli Government. Let us set aside the bluff and bluster, Minister. Were you there in a party political capacity, in which case it would have been inappropriate for departmental resources to be used to promote your trip, or were you there as a Minister, in which case you have potentially breached the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 by not having officials at that engagement? This is not about the conflict in the Middle East; this is about your obligations as a Minister under the ministerial code.
Mr Givan: I am repeating for, I think, the fourth time that it has been reviewed by my permanent secretary and senior officials, who have found that I and every official in the Department acted entirely appropriately when it comes to the visit. There are no issues to see here, despite those who want to manufacture them.
The Member said that the Alliance Party had been entirely consistent. I remember a time when the Alliance Party condemned terrorists. Now, the Alliance Party does not even know what an innocent victim of terrorism is. I remember a time when the Alliance Party used to find space to vote with DUP colleagues in the Chamber. Now, the Alliance Party walks through the Lobbies led by Gerry Carroll. When the vote on the no confidence motion comes, it will troop into the Lobby behind Gerry Carroll, the man who posted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". How far the Alliance so-called cross-community Party has fallen that it is now in the pretty appalling position that it has found itself in.
Mr Carroll: Rent-free in your head, Minister, I suggest. There has been widespread opposition to the Minister's recent whitewashing propaganda trip to Israel, which was political from the start to the middle and end. I commend the hundreds of people in Belfast who came out at the weekend and called for him to go. I commend the Mothers Against Genocide protest today, calling for him to go. I also commend the teachers who came out this afternoon from Colaiste Feirste and other schools and protested, calling for him to go. I commend the tens of thousands of people who signed a petition calling for him to go.
Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, please ask a question, as opposed to giving commendations.
Mr Carroll: The Minister is completely out of step with public opinion and completely out of step with the majority opinion in the House. Will he save himself further embarrassment and step down now?
Mr Givan: The Member is in lockstep with Hamas. That is who he is in step with, and that is who he was commending and celebrating on 7 October. Hamas, which has brutally murdered, raped and killed babies and children. The Member should go to Gaza and take his left-wing policies and ideology and see how he will be treated in Gaza. He might not get back out if he were to articulate the views that he has on Hamas and Gaza.
I note that Matthew O'Toole is not here. That is probably appropriate, because we now have the real leader of the Opposition, Gerry Carroll, leading Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. I give credit to Gerry Carroll: at least he is honest. At least he does not try to hide the antisemitic position that he holds. Others in the Chamber masquerade as being against racism. It is clear that the mask has truly slipped.
Mr Gaston: Minister, in your interview this morning and again this afternoon, you have rightly highlighted the fact that a delegation from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council was visiting China last week. Does the Minister have any concerns about the relationship between the Executive and the Chinese Government?
Mr Givan: The Member asks a very important question. In the past, questions have been asked about minutes and notes of meetings that have taken place when it comes to China. I know the position that I have when it comes to engaging with China: I do not. They are committing genocide. This, however, is the challenge: it is the inconsistency, particularly of Sinn Féin, and the inconsistent approach. If you are claiming to be against genocide in Israel, why are you not against genocide when it comes to China and the Uyghur community? It is the inconsistency and double standards. Let us see how principled Sinn Féin is in the days, weeks and months ahead when it comes to its engagements with the human rights-violating People's Republic of China.
Mr Durkan: On 13 October, we had a Matter of the Day debate in the Chamber on the Gaza ceasefire settlement. On that day, the SDLP again lamented the loss of life on 7 October perpetrated by Hamas and the genocide waged by Israel since. In an extremely rare contribution to a Matter of the Day debate by a Minister, Minister Givan spoke from the Back Benches and basically gave a sycophantic soliloquy about Israel, during which he thanked the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who had massacred tens of thousands of innocent people. Was that before or after he accepted an invitation to visit Israel, paid for by Israel?
Mr Givan: We met members of the Israel Defense Forces. Here is what we witnessed. We were in the outpost right on the Gaza border. Do you know what happened on 7 October? Hamas came into that outpost, took 19 unarmed females, put them into a room, rolled up tyres, set them on fire and suffocated the women to death. They burnt them alive. All that was left was their military dog tags for their families. The party opposite talks about gender equality and ending violence against women, but it does not worry about the violence by Hamas terrorists against women in Israel.
Mr Brooks: I declare an interest in that I was also glad to join the visit to Israel. It was a useful visit, and we learned much.
Does the Minister share my concern that the obsession and faux outrage about his visit to a school in another country, having been absent when he visited schools in other countries, are fuelled by the institutional antisemitism that is characteristic of the parties that are backing a vote of no confidence that is being led by a man who, on 7 October, tweeted a cheerleading tweet while Jews were being massacred in Israel?
Mr Givan: I agree with the Member, and I thank him for being part of the delegation. Members clearly do not like the report that we are bringing back on the devastation that happened in Israel. They do not like to hear the truth. Well, you are going to have to get used to hearing the truth. [Interruption.]
You can continue to shout me down; I will continue to give you back the answers that you need to hear. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Just a moment. If Members wish to ask questions, they should put their name down to ask one.
Mr Givan: Members opposite are shouting about those with international arrest warrants and criminal convictions. Am I living in a parallel universe? I ask the Members opposite this: how many of you were incarcerated in the Maze prison, in Maghaberry or in Crumlin Road because of your terrorist criminal convictions? How many of your family members were engaged in terrorism? You have the audacity to sit there and lecture me and others about this visit to Israel. Seriously? You may have been sanitised by others who in 1998 were weak on the Belfast Agreement, and you may be acceptable to the British Government, who have failed to deal with Sinn Féin's politics effectively, but we will continue to stand up to, expose and confront your politics, because that is what we have to do in the Assembly and in the Executive. Get used to it.
Mr McMurray: Minister, you visited Ofek School in Jerusalem, which deals with the top 2% to 3% of academic achievers. Do you agree that the focus should be on addressing the lowest achievers in Northern Ireland, which is what the people want us to do in the Chamber?
Mr Givan: Yes, absolutely. That is why I will continue getting on with the job. When I came into post, we faced a crisis in special educational needs placements, and we established thousands of extra places. This year, we had to establish thousands of extra places. Whilst others want to detract and take us away from those issues, my job is to continue to deliver, and I will deliver by creating those places. I have published all the details on area planning. I say this to the Member and to Sinn Féin: I brought forward a costed, detailed, 10-year strategic plan for children with special needs, but Sinn Féin still has not put it on the agenda. When will Sinn Féin put things such as that on the Executive agenda?
My focus is very much on helping children with special educational needs. I am also focused on ensuring that our teachers, who got a pay rise of over 11% under me, as Minister, which was more than under any other Minister in previous years, are represented. I will continue to represent those teachers and get on with doing my job while others just want to distract from it.
Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that the fact that his detractors have failed to articulate any coherent or relevant objection to his visit to Israel last week has exposed the fact that their only real objection is that it was to the state of Israel?
Mr Givan: I agree with the Member. What we have in evidence here is a mob mentality of shouting down and seeking to intimidate. That is not going to happen. I will continue to speak up for those who need to have their voices heard. I was in Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial centre. I will remember the six million Jews who were persecuted during the Holocaust. I will remember Boaz in the kibbutz of Malkia on the border with southern Lebanon, who has endured Hezbollah rocket attacks raining down on his community. I will remember the Druze community, which is an Arab community, in Majdal Shams, where Hezbollah killed 12 innocent children playing on a football pitch. I will remember Rita in the kibbutz of Nir Oz, where 117 people were either murdered or taken hostage on 7 October. I will remember the 378 victims at the Nova festival and the voice of Yair, who spoke about how, although he was able to escape, 44 other people were taken hostage and held captive. I will remember those people.
I can condemn violence on all sides. I can think about and have empathy with all innocent civilians. I will, however, not stand by and listen to those who have supported and promoted Hamas terrorism. Hamas has destroyed Gaza. The people of Gaza need liberated from those Hamas terrorists so that they can have a free Palestine without terrorists ruling it. That is what needs to happen. Members can therefore reflect on the stories that I have relayed to them. I await with interest their showing any concern at all for the people to whom I have referred.
Mr Mathison: The Minister is right to remind us repeatedly of the absolute violence and horror that was perpetrated on 7 October. There will be no equivocation on that point from the Alliance Party, but, as our Education Minister, who should have the interests of all children at the heart of the work that he does, will he take the opportunity also to express publicly sympathy and support for the children of Gaza, who have no schools to attend and who have been killed in their thousands since 7 October?
Mr Givan: I quite happily associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman of the Education Committee. I bore witness to how children in those schools in Gaza have been entirely indoctrinated. Hamas is not just a paramilitary terrorist organisation but the political infrastructure of Gaza. It controls the schools and the hospitals. It controls the social welfare system. Do you know how you get a better pension scheme in Gaza? The more Jews whom you kill, the bigger your pension scheme is. That is what the Hamas-run Gazan territory is about. Schools and hospitals are being used by terrorists as infrastructure and for tunnels. It is the terrorists who have abused the civilians and children of Gaza.
Mr Clarke: My only disappointment is that I did not get an invitation to join you, Minister. I am sure that other Members on these Benches would have welcomed the opportunity to join you to see at first hand some of the genocide that happened to the Israelis, as opposed to listening to some of the chuntering that we hear from the terrorist on the Back Bench.
That having been said, Minister, in accordance with the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, are there any records of your meetings?
Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. The legislation sets out specific obligations for Ministers concerning transparency, accountability and the conducting of official business. Those obligations apply only to relevant meetings, which are defined as prearranged meetings with third parties to conduct official business. Having reviewed all engagements during the Israel visit and consulted officials, my permanent secretary and I have concluded that none of them meets that definition. The visit to Ofek School was a tour rather than a formal meeting. It did not involve an agenda or agreed actions. The focus was on having the school leader share insights into educational practice while fact-finding, which is relevant to my portfolio. It did not constitute a meeting to conduct official business in the formal sense that is required by the Act.
Mr Speaker: That concludes all those who wish to ask questions.
Ms Hunter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a number of points of order to make. Regarding Standing Order 65, is it appropriate for the Minister to be laughing, sniggering and smiling when we are talking about the killing of thousands of innocent children? [Interruption.]
He is laughing like a Disney villain. On Standing Order 73, is it in order for the Minister to accuse many across the House of antisemitism when we have spoken passionately, condemning the violence of 7 October and strongly condemning antisemitism here at home? Standing Order 20 states that Ministers shall answer questions relating to matters affiliated with their Department. Is it appropriate that the Minister here today answered fewer than half of the questions from all Members of the House? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: I am happy to look at the points that the Member has raised.
Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to review the conduct of Madam Principal Deputy Speaker during Question Time today. When one of our Members asked a question, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker decided that the Minister would not answer it, and the Minister was not afforded the opportunity of deciding whether she wanted to answer the question during Question Time.
Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in light of the Ulster Farmers’ Union unanimous vote of no confidence in his Department, to outline the steps he will take to restore confidence in his Department’s leadership.
Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Last Thursday, I was disappointed to learn of the vote taken by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU). I am proud of our farm families and the role that they play, and I am proud of the international reputation that we rightly enjoy for the quality of the food produced here, and I am pleased to champion that on many fronts. My record of standing up for our farm families, whether on inheritance tax or on securing continued ring-fenced funding for agriculture, is clear.
Good leadership is not defined by running away from challenges; rather, it is defined by identifying and facing up to them. Here, in Northern Ireland, we face some very significant challenges, partly as a result of decisions taken by those who came before me. I fully agree with the Ulster Farmers' Union that previous policies in relation to bovine TB failed Northern Ireland; so too have our past approaches to addressing biodiversity and delivering the high standards of water quality and air quality that citizens rightly expect. Like others in these islands, we face new challenges around adapting to climate change that require us to reduce carbon emissions; a particular challenge, given agriculture and the role that it plays. I am committed to having a just transition for agriculture and ensuring a successful future for farming, whilst restoring our environment, improving air and water quality, and driving down rates of TB. That requires leadership. That does not involve backing away from inconvenient truths. It requires leadership that ensures that the law is complied with and that policy is shaped by evidence, not rhetoric. It requires courage, not timidity. It also requires all of us to work together. As Minister, my door is always open, and it will continue to be so. I have scheduled a meeting with the UFU president and chief executive in my office tomorrow. I look forward to seeing them both.
I will outline my real concern about the motion: it is a motion of no confidence in my Department. I am immensely proud of the officials with whom I am privileged to work, and I stand full-square in support of them.
Mr Gaston: The Ulster Farmers' Union's vote of no confidence last week is a damning indictment of the Department and its Minister. During Mr Muir's time in office, he has delivered a flawed nutrients action programme (NAP) consultation, delivered inadequate progress in combating bovine TB, allowed continued delays in planning decisions, overseen a data breach at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and overseen generational renewal schemes that are simply not working. Time and time again, Mr Muir prioritises environment over agriculture. When will you hold up your hands and resign, along with the caretaker Minister and your party leader in the Justice Department?
Mr Muir: Naomi Long is a colleague; she is a friend; and she is the Justice Minister. Both Naomi and I work hard for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. If you think that I am going somewhere, Mr Gaston, you have another thing coming. I have a job of work to do, and I do it across the whole remit of the Department: the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. If we are talking about what your party has delivered for farmers, you delivered one of the biggest negative impacts to farming in Northern Ireland, which was Brexit. Brexit has destroyed the UK economy, and it was one of the biggest betrayals of the people of Northern Ireland. You should own up and take responsibility for that.
Miss McIlveen: The UFU's unprecedented vote is a damning indictment of the Department but more so of the Minister and the Alliance Party, which have set the current policy direction for that Department. At the heart of this are the aspirational and unachievable interim climate change targets set by the Assembly. Does the Minister recognise that, if he is to restore confidence in both himself and his Department, he has to take the first step to look at introducing a workable and achievable suite of targets and quit demonising the agriculture sector?
Mr Muir: What I find strange about some of the questions from the DUP around this is that a lot of the policy that I am delivering is policy from my predecessor. The climate change legislation was passed by a DUP AERA Minister. It is farming policy that was initiated by a DUP AERA Minister. I am delivering on pledges previously made, and I believe in delivering on those. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to farming in Northern Ireland, and I am committed to supporting farmers on that journey on the road ahead.
Ms Mulholland: Minister, can you outline for us how you have secured public money for the benefit of farm businesses? Maybe we can start to learn a bit more about how you are delivering for farmers.
Mr Muir: We are delivering significant benefits for farming in Northern Ireland. I was the only Minister in the UK to secure ring-fenced funding of over £300 million for agriculture, agri-environment, fisheries and rural development. I also secured a just transition fund for agriculture. I am very conscious of the immense challenges arising from Brexit, which others championed. I engaged with the UK Government, and we agreed a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement and are now negotiating the details around that. We also got a blueprint agreed with all the stakeholders around the table on tackling the significant issue of TB. I have been standing firmly against the proposed changes on inheritance tax. We are delivering change on the ground. I do not underestimate the challenges that we face. Perhaps people need to be a bit more honest in facing people with regard to the issues and the decisions that need to be taken.
Mr McAleer: Minister, quite a number of the issues have already been mentioned, and we have been raising with you and lobbying you on the issues of TB and ammonia, the fact that there is no sheep scheme and the fact there is no replacement for the young farmers' scheme. While many issues, such as Brexit and inheritance tax, have been brought to us courtesy of Westminster, what, Minister, are you planning to do to reset relations with the UFU and the farmers that it represents?
Mr Muir: I will continue to engage, and I am at a meeting tomorrow. Today, I met farmers from the Nature Friendly Farming Network, and I will continue to engage with all people. It is important that we listen and engage and that we face up to and work together on these issues.
I am committed to doing that. If anyone were to read the first-day brief that I got when I became Minister, they would see that I inherited a complete and utter mess — a mess that was the result of indecision and wrong decisions. If they were to read the reports from the Office for Environmental Protection, they would see that the situation that I inherited was that we were acting unlawfully on ammonia, we had a failed judicial review in relation to bovine TB and we had all the problems coming from Brexit. I am working through those issues, and I am guided by making sure that we are doing that through respect for science, evidence and the law. I do not underestimate the challenges that have faced the farming community in the past number of years. They are significant, and they have been compounded by the changes to inheritance tax. I will continue to work night and day to work through those issues. They are significant issues, and I look across the rest of the UK on the issues that they are facing. I will work with people on those.
Mr Butler: Minister, you will be aware that the relationship with farmers across Northern Ireland has been fractious since you came into post. What steps have you taken since last year's meeting at the Eikon centre? I note that you say that you have an open door, and the UFU does not refute that. However, it does not believe you to be listening, particularly around planning and ammonia output, which you mentioned. When planning applications are going in, it wants you to demonstrate an improvement, and the Department, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), is refusing those. Is the Department, by default, now failing its own targets?
Mr Muir: The situation on ammonia is clear. If people read the report from the Office for Environmental Protection, they will see that it sets out the situation that we are in due to the fact that we were acting unlawfully. I have to find a way forward so that we can reduce ammonia emissions and allow replacement sheds. I am keen to do that. We consulted on the ammonia strategy, we are considering the responses to it and we will set out a way forward. They are significant challenges, because I have to stay on the right side of the law, but I also want to deliver for the farming community in Northern Ireland. They are difficult challenges.
It is not lost on me that Agriculture was the last Department that any political party wanted. People shied away from the difficult issues. I face up to them. I want to reiterate one thing: criticise me all you want, but I take great exception to the passing of a motion of no confidence in my Department. There are excellent officials with whom I am privileged to work. I am really impressed by their professionalism and their commitment to the job. Do not criticise them. That is wrong.
Mr McCrossan: Members of the DUP described the vote as "a damning indictment" of the Minister, but, on the same day, refuse to accept the criticism of their own Minister by the teaching unions and colleagues across the House and an impending vote of no confidence. Is that a bit hypocritical?
Minister, what will you do to reset your relationship with the Ulster Farmers' Union? Did you foresee the breakdown in relations, or did it completely catch you off guard?
Mr Muir: I will continue to engage on the issue. In my job as Minister, I see people playing politics with issues and looking for wedge issues because of their own drop in the polls. They do not understand the importance of respecting the difficult decisions that I face, and other political parties are desperate to divide and prevent us from working. I respect the Ulster Farmers' Union. I have FOI requests coming in and reports saying that I meet it too often. There has been criticism that there is too much consultation and too many meetings. I am engaging and being honest about the issues, and I will work through them.
Mr Irwin: Does the Minister accept that, in future, he needs to take on board stakeholders' concerns before making policy decisions?
Mr Muir: My job as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is to serve everyone in Northern Ireland. I respect the Ulster Farmers' Union. It is a representative lobby group. I will continue to engage with it, but I have to serve everyone in Northern Ireland. I have to get us to a position where we deliver a resilient and thriving future for agriculture while improving our environment. It is damn hard, folks. The lough has been green for the past three years. Come on. People need to focus on delivering for everyone in Northern Ireland. I am happy to take criticism — that is fine — but let us try to work together, because people are looking at this place and, frankly, they are despairing.
Mr McMurray: Does the Minister agree that the debasing of science and evidence undermines the agri-food sector?
Mr Muir: The future is clear for us. We see the situation that is in front of us. For people to refer to peer-reviewed science as "magical figures" and make other comments is very dangerous. We have to respect scientists and the evidence that is in front of us and work together on it. I am committed to doing that. Over the past number of days, many farmers across Northern Ireland have contacted me to say this: we know that it is a tough job, but continue the engagement and let us work together. That is what I am committed to doing.
Mr T Buchanan: The UFU is not playing politics; it speaks for the vast majority of farming businesses throughout Northern Ireland. In light of the unanimous vote of no confidence, do you not think that it is time to listen to and work with the farming community, whom you have ignored since coming into office, to deliver sensible and workable policies?
Mr Muir: I will continue to do that. I will go to the Committee, engage with people and be open around the issues. We all know the challenges. The difference is that I am just being honest about them.
Mr Dickson: How are agriculture and agri-food vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the real and present dangers of ignoring it?
Mr Muir: Whilst some want to engage in denial and scepticism or ignore the reality of it, the financial markets will look at farming and the challenges that it faces by way of nature, biodiversity and climate change and the need for us to take action on it. That is what I hear from farmers daily. That is why we are investing in delivering that resilience for farming. Without a thriving environment and resilient nature and biodiversity, farming does not have a future.
I want to nail some of the incorrect stories that have been told. The vast majority of farmers are doing just that. The small minority on social media do not speak for all farmers in Northern Ireland; they speak for themselves.
Mr Burrows: I am proud to represent North Antrim, which, in many ways, is the beating heart of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. I want to help the Minister restore confidence among farmers. If I set up a public meeting in North Antrim, will he commit to coming up to listen directly to the concerns of hard-working farmers there, who believe that he has a tin ear and is not listening.
Mr Muir: I am happy to consider any invitations, but I engage with farmers daily. I did it today; I am doing it tomorrow; and I will continue to do it. I will engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union and others through structured groups, and it is important that I do so.
Miss McAllister: Minister, you have previously outlined that it is important to listen to everyone, no matter which Department you represent. Do you believe that all Ministers have a duty to serve and represent everyone rather than one particular group, and that no group should ever be pulling the strings of an entire Department?
Mr Muir: There are significant ethical issues with how we make policy in Northern Ireland. We should ensure that we listen to different views, but we should base our decisions on the science and evidence not on the views of any particular group. That is something that I am keen to do, and it is important that I do it. We have a duty to serve everyone and to listen to different voices. That is something that I have been keen to do as Minister. We may not agree, but it is important to listen and take this seriously. As Minister, I will continue to do that.
Mr Buckley: Minister, your attempt to blame your predecessors is fooling absolutely no one. The Ulster Farmers' Union passed a motion of no confidence in DAERA, which is a Department led by you, not your predecessors. Minister, farmers are a patient and hard-working section of our society. They have concluded that you do not cut the mustard. Is that not a source of complete and utter embarrassment for the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland?
Mr Muir: We have the DUP talking about embarrassment. It is a party that does not even know what shame is.
Mr Blair: First, I thank the Minister for providing a reminder for those who are in need of it that he also covers environment and rural affairs. Is he as fed up as I am with the politicians who, mostly, sit on our right and line up every year to call for action on pollution and Lough Neagh when they see blue-green algae but then come to the Chamber and decry or vote against every practical, proportionate and essential measure that is proposed? They talk out of both sides of their mouth and deliver nothing in detail.
Mr Muir: The inability to take difficult decisions goes to the heart of the problem with these institutions. We debate issues, but people scatter when we talk about the difficult decisions. I have been open about the challenges that we have. I have engaged with everyone on those challenges and will continue to do so, but I will not be dishonest about them and my desire to work through them. We cannot just turn a blind eye or issue statements that are not followed up with action.
Mr Donnelly: We are all aware that, without reform, this place is only as stable as it was the day before its last collapse. Minister, what impact has the collapse of the institutions had on agriculture?
Mr Muir: The first-day brief that I got as Minister sets that out, if people care to look at it. If the DUP had not downed tools and walked away for two years because the going got tough, we would have had primary legislation in place for a TB intervention; we would have resolved the ammonia situation; we would have been able to make much more progress on climate change and had a climate action plan in place; and we would have been able to deliver a just transition fund for agriculture at a much earlier stage. There have been multiple impacts as a result of one party deciding that it did not want to go to work.
Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you talk about respecting the UFU. The 11,500 members of the UFU have been represented, and it is those very people, with their total of 26,000 farms, who contribute to Northern Ireland's world-leading agri-food industry. If you do not respond to those voices, how can you expect the industry to survive?
Mr Muir: I will continue to respond to those voices, as I have done since I became Minister. However, I also have a duty to respond to everyone in Northern Ireland, and I take that duty seriously as well.
Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).
That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 3 November 2025 be extended to no later than 8.30 pm. — [Mr Butler.]
Mr Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 8.30 pm this evening if necessary. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while there is a change in the Chair.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)
Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were affected by the failure; and calls on the Minister of Health to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. — [Miss McAllister.]
Leave out all after "Southern Health and Social Care Trust area;" and insert:
"acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were lost following the failure; notes with alarm the ongoing technical issues with equipment at Northern Ireland’s only laboratory for HPV screening in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; highlights that that has resulted in thousands of smear tests being sent to England for screening since 30 September 2025, creating the potential for further delay, backlogs and distress to the women affected; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently clarify when that vital equipment will be fully operational; and further calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, and throughout Northern Ireland, never arise again."
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.
Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I hope that all parties in the House will support the motion and the amendment. It is important that we have cross-community and cross-party support on the issue.
When I speak to those who have been impacted by the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, they all say the same thing: "This should never happen again". That is why it is important to understand what is happening with the Northern Ireland screening programme that is now run by the Belfast Trust. There is a clear need for transparency and answers in the House for women throughout Northern Ireland. Minister, I hope that you will be able to provide those answers today. Women in Northern Ireland deserve full transparency and a cervical screening programme in which they can have full confidence.
I first spoke about the scandal of the Southern Trust's screening programme at the start of devolution in 2024, shortly after the trust had recalled 17,500 tests for review. Since then, I have been privileged to speak to many of those who have been impacted on. Today, like others, I want to acknowledge Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson, both of whom were diagnosed with cervical cancer and are no longer with us. Children have been left without mothers, husbands without their wives and parents without their daughters. They need answers. Then there are those who have developed and are living with cervical cancer and have had to endure those very invasive procedures. They have had their lives turned upside down. They have endured worry and stress alongside a difficult diagnosis. They, too, deserve answers, Minister.
I also want to acknowledge a very tenacious group of women whom I have had the pleasure to work alongside. The Ladies with Letters group has been a support to those who need it, but it has also been willing to question the narrative and spend time creating a campaign that has highlighted this injustice. It wants a statutory public inquiry to uncover the truth and make sure that this can never happen again. We support that call, and I hope that the Minister can give us answers today.
We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to the very courageous whistle-blower who, when he came into post, saw the problem and took action. His actions saved lives. He risked his own position in order to uncover a very great harm. The trust should reflect on his subsequent treatment. Whistle-blowers need protection and, in this case, commendation.
At the heart of the scandal is a real lack of transparency, accountability and responsibility in health service delivery. The Southern Trust recalled 17,500 smear tests dating back to 2008. During that time, some screeners from the Southern Trust were underperforming in relation to those smear tests. Those screeners, some of whom were underperforming at a very substantial rate, were not sufficiently managed, nor was their performance monitored. Looking back at that, it now seems unfathomable that trust arrangements for the monitoring and performance of screeners were not robust.
It seems absurd that trust managers could find a colleague's annual performance to be inadequate but not want to know how that compared with previous years. It is quite simply extraordinary that when those who were found to be failing were provided with extra training, no one seems to have checked whether that made any difference to their work. It turns out that some were still not achieving adequate standards even after receiving additional support. That is a whole-system failure — a failure not just of the screeners but of the managers and supervisors who failed to recognise the problem.
Again, it is unfathomable that some screeners were not reported to their professional body by trust managers and supervisors. We have been advised that individual screeners who were found wanting have moved beyond the Southern Trust and that some are working in different disciplines while others have retired. What of their managers and supervisors, however, who were responsible for the service and were allowing screeners to work huge volumes of overtime, thereby jeopardising their efficiency? Do they continue in management and leadership roles in our health service? Minister, I hope that on Wednesday, when you publish those reports, you will be on the side of accountability and transparency. That is essential, but, so far, it has failed.
Our amendment seeks clarity on the Belfast Trust's handling of the new regional human papilloma virus (HPV) testing service. The Minister knows that I have asked many questions about the awarding of the multi-million-pound contract to the Belfast Trust. We know that the committee that was set up to advise on the awarding of the HPV screening contract advised that it be set up on two sites. The Western Health and Social Care Trust and the Northern Health and Social Care Trust were already accredited for HPV screening, yet, despite that and the committee's recommendation, the contract was awarded to the Belfast Trust. That seems even more bizarre when we consider that the Belfast Trust did not have accreditation for HPV screening. Indeed, it had its screening accreditation removed by the UK's screening accreditation service. One reason for that was the lack of record-keeping. We know from subsequent reports that important slides were lost and that some were found down the back of a filing cabinet somewhere. Surely, that would move us to action on the issue. That ultimately led to the resignation from the screening programme of two leading clinicians. The Public Health Agency (PHA) described the awarding of the contract as being in line with best practice, and it talked about the need to concentrate expertise and staff resources in one specialist laboratory. That is extraordinary in light of what we now know about the performance of the regional screening service.
At the very start of the contract, the Belfast Trust, which is a trust without accreditation, was sending tests to the labs in Gateshead, Newcastle. The result of that was extremely long waits for results, which extended to months. I have had an update on the figures since tabling the amendment, so we now know that, since 30 September, the Belfast Trust has sent 13,500 HPV tests to Gateshead. The trust said that that was due to an equipment failure. I would be interested, Minister, to know whether the 21-day target for the return of the results of those tests has been met. The specification for the new regional lab was to deliver 130,000 HPV tests and 23,000 cytology tests each year. Minister, how many of those tests has the Belfast Trust managed to deliver in the past year? What is the cost to the Belfast Trust of sending tests to Gateshead, and how is that cost being met? Will the Department recover costs from the trust for not meeting its performance targets? Have there been other times that are not in the public domain when tests have been sent to Gateshead? That is the information that is necessary for the House to judge the performance of the Belfast Trust and the new regional service.
In finishing, I want to return, Minister, to my theme of accountability. The Department of Health is responsible for the performance management of screening programmes and related diagnostic and treatment services. The PHA is responsible for maintaining the structures and systems that support quality improvement and coordination across screening programmes. Therefore, I hope that you can tell us today, Minister, what exactly the PHA is doing to hold the Belfast Trust to account for those failures. What is the Department doing to hold the Belfast Trust to account for performance management failures? You and your Department need to consider the future very carefully. Many women across Northern Ireland —.
Mrs Dodds: Yes, thank you. Many women across Northern Ireland need to have a service that they can have full confidence in. A public inquiry will uncover the truth.
Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment for bringing the issue to the Floor today.
I wish that we were not, but it is devastating to be standing here once again talking about another failure in women's health. Time and again, we are in the Chamber dealing with crises that have impacted on women and with preventable failures that have cost lives and eroded trust. That is not accidental. It is systematic discrimination, institutional misogyny and a deep-rooted failure to value women's health equally and to listen to women and to act when they raise concerns. It is a form of oppression that has been embedded in our systems for far too long.
As Audre Lorde, writer, poet and civil rights activist, once said:
"Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare."
For women, simply demanding to be heard, to be treated with dignity and to have their health taken seriously has become an act of resistance. On that basis, I support the motion and the amendment.
I acknowledge, as previous Members who have spoken did, the women and families who have been directly impacted on by the cervical screening failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. For too many, the review came too late. Lives were changed, and lives were lost. Again, I pay tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners, and all those whom they support, who have fought tirelessly for the truth, transparency and accountability that Members have talked about. They have carried the weight of those failures with courage and dignity, and they deserve answers.
As the motion states:
"The lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations"
by the Department and the trust have been deeply concerning. Women have again been left waiting for information, reassurance and leadership on the issue. That is unacceptable. We still await the outcomes of the three reports. It is probably a positive thing that we will hopefully get them together and thus be able to look at everything in the round, but there could have been more openness about the process and about the fact that there were going to be delays. That could have been done better. There could also have been better communication on the issue.
We now face further challenges, as outlined in the amendment, over the technical issues at the Belfast laboratory, which is the North's only HPV screening facility. Thousands of smear tests have been sent to Gateshead since the end of September. I want to know whether that has created any delay or backlog, because I want to be sure that women get their results in a timely manner. How can we be assured of the safety around their being sent there? We need clarity, Minister. We need to have urgent confirmation of when the Belfast lab will be fully operational. We need answers on the accreditation process. Were those issues previously highlighted? Were warnings known about but ignored? Who was responsible for oversight? Without clear accountability, we are doomed to repeat previous failures.
We also need oversight of the entire process, including of labs in England that are now handling tests for women from here. Women need to know how long their test results will take and what safeguards are in place to ensure accuracy and safety. On that issue, we need reassurance, direct communication with women and the restoration of confidence in a system that has let them down.
I take the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, despite all the failures, women must continue to attend their cervical screening appointments. As I have said before in the Chamber, it is not a pleasant process, but it takes a few minutes and could save your life. Those tests do save lives. The worst outcome would be that fear or mistrust keeps women from going to be tested.
I also take the opportunity to clarify a common misunderstanding, which is that cervical screening also detects ovarian cancer. It does not. I encourage women who are symptomatic of either ovarian or cervical cancer not to think, "I have had a cervical smear and am therefore OK". If a woman has any symptoms, she should go to her GP to seek help and to get the answers about what is going on with her body. She should trust her instinct, because she is usually right.
The scandal represents a profound breach of trust. The only way in which to rebuild that trust is through truth and accountability and by making sure that such failures never happen again. Women deserve better.
The other question to which I want an answer concerns the women's health action plan. Where are we at with that? All the issues that have been debated in numerous motions over the past number of weeks and months should be included in that plan.
Women deserve a health service that listens, that —
Mrs Dillon: — acts and that values their lives and their families.
Mr Chambers: I begin by acknowledging the women and families at the heart of the matter, in particular the two ladies who sadly and tragically passed away. We must never lose sight of the fact that, behind every report, process or statistic, is a woman whose life may have been profoundly affected by the issues that we are discussing today. Women's courage and resilience, particularly that of those who have spoken publicly and those represented through the Ladies with Letters group, deserve our respect.
This is undoubtedly a very complex and deeply concerning episode for our health service. The scale of concerns raised about cytology performance in the Southern Trust laboratory over a period stretching back to 2008 is incredibly serious.
The very essence of a screening programme is trust: trust that systems are robust, and trust that, when problems arise, they will be confronted swiftly and transparently. That trust was damaged, and it is right that apologies have been made, particularly when it comes to the previous finding of persistent underperformance in laboratory work, which simply had to be fully investigated. The enormous screening review, which involved looking at results from 17,500 women, raised the anxieties of many, but it had to be done. It was essential that the concerns were raised and acted upon appropriately. Whilst we all probably would have wished for it to conclude slightly earlier, given the importance of the issue and the scale of the concerns that were raised, it was better for the review to be done properly rather than hurriedly. I very much welcome the finding that the vast majority of results were sound.
Nevertheless, since the initial Royal College of Pathologists report in 2023, there have been a number of very important changes. HPV testing has been fully introduced, offering a more accurate and reliable primary screening system, with cytology acting as the secondary test. Of course, Northern Ireland is now operating a single regional laboratory service that provides improved oversight and consistency. Those are substantial reforms that put patient safety at the forefront. Further reports are due imminently that, I hope, will help us to understand not only what happened but how oversight failed, how warning signs went unnoticed and how we prevent anything like that from ever occurring again. I urge all colleagues to approach the reports responsibly and, especially, not through a political lens but with the seriousness that the women affected deserve. The Minister, in particular, will need to give the reports' findings very careful consideration, because, at some point in the coming months, a decision will be required to consider which of the various options available to him are needed to establish accountability and to ensure that such failures never arise again. Commissioning a public inquiry is, of course, one of those options, and I have every confidence that the Minister will not shirk his responsibility in picking the right option.
It is also critical that we protect the future, and that means protecting confidence in cervical screening. That screening saves lives. That is not an opinion; it is clear evidence-based fact. Screening reduces the risks of cervical cancer by detecting cell changes early, long before cancer develops. I cannot stress this strongly enough: I encourage every woman who receives an invitation to attend screening to do so. The improvements that we have made mean that the system is stronger now than before. We owe it to the women who have suffered distress to ensure that others are protected. When concerns are raised, it is essential that they are acted upon. There have been a number of reports already and more are expected. Each and every one will need to be read in its entirety to help to determine the next steps.
I again pay tribute to every woman and family involved, including those who have so bravely spoken up in recent years. Again, I applaud the commitment of the Ladies with Letters group.
Mr McGrath: In beginning my contribution to the debate, I want, on behalf of the SDLP, to recognise Ladies with Letters. Those women have shown extraordinary courage and determination. They have carried this issue from local communities through to councils and up to the Assembly, and they have rightly refused to be silenced or brushed aside at times when this place was collapsed or while it stands. Their persistence has exposed not only the truth of what happened in the Southern Trust but the deeper truth that, too often, our health service fails to listen until it is forced to do so.
This scandal has laid bare something far beyond the failure of individual screeners. It has revealed a system that is crumbling while we have watched on. No amount of whitewashing, spin or polished press releases from the Department can disguise that reality, and the public can see right through that. The women affected certainly see through it. The trust between patients and the health service, which takes years to build, has been shaken to its core. The families of Erin Harbinson from Tandragee and Lynsey Courtney from Portadown, whose lives were so tragically lost as a result of this scandal, also see through that. Those who developed cancer or had precancerous cells identified can see through it. We are told that the report will be published on Thursday, and all of us here welcome that. I pose this question to the Minister: if the report confirms that there were serious failings and shows that systems were broken, that warnings were ignored and that oversight was missing, what threshold will he set for supporting a full public inquiry into this most horrendous scandal? How bad does it have to be before we draw a line and say that the public deserve the full truth and not another internal review?
The DUP amendment is important. It highlights that, even now, we face further problems: technical failures at the Belfast HPV lab, thousands of tests being sent to England, more delays and more stress for women who are already anxious about their results. That is not just a technical issue. It speaks to a system that has lost resilience, that lurches from one crisis to another and that leaves women bearing the emotional cost of that bureaucratic dysfunction.
As a man, I will not fully understand the fear, the anxiety or the deep sense of betrayal that so many women have felt because of the scandal. However, that does not absolve me or any of us from a responsibility to make sure that we learn from it. It is precisely because I will never experience this directly that I have sought to listen more carefully, to speak more honestly and to act more decisively in standing with the women whom I have met as part of their campaign. The safety and dignity of women in our health service is not just a women's issue; it is a matter for all of us. If the Assembly is to mean anything, it must mean that we do not look away when systems fail those whom they are meant to protect. The women who were caught up in this scandal did not ask for heroism, but they have absolutely shown it. They have done what the system could not: they have stood up for the truth. Their courage and steadfast resilience demand that we now do the same.
I support the motion and the amendment. I certainly hope that, after we get the report on Thursday, we will see a public inquiry, if it is required.
Ms Finnegan: I begin by echoing the thanks already expressed to those who tabled the motion and, most importantly, to the Ladies with Letters campaigners. Their persistence and dignity have forced the system to face uncomfortable truths, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for that. As my colleagues have outlined, Sinn Féin supports both the motion and the amendment. Our focus throughout has been on truth, transparency and accountability, not just through inquiries but through the publication of the reviews that were promised months ago. Women are still waiting for the answers that they deserve.
I will use my time to focus on the public health side of the issue, reassurance and the need to rebuild confidence in the screening programme. As articulated by my party colleague Linda Dillon, although there have been failings, the message must be absolutely clear: women should continue to attend their cervical screening appointments. The HPV test is now standard across Ireland. It is a more accurate and more reliable form of screening, and it saves lives. Yes, there have been serious issues with oversight and delays, but the test itself is safe and effective. You have a 100% chance of cancer not being detected if you do not go for your smear. That is the reality, and it is vital that this debate does not inadvertently discourage women from attending.
While the motion focuses, rightly, on the Southern Trust's failures, we need to see it as part of a broader pattern. Time and again, women have had to fight for their healthcare to be taken seriously, be it in screening, menopause support, endometriosis services or access to fertility and maternity services. The forthcoming women's health strategy must deal with that head-on. The Minister must publish the reviews and explain the delay, but he must also rebuild confidence by showing that women's health will never again be an afterthought.
Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members who tabled the important motion. Cervical screening is a proven way in which to detect the early stages of that type of cancer, treat it and prevent it from progressing and adversely affecting, or, in some heartbreaking cases, ending, women's lives. Screening saves lives.
As an MLA for South Down, I speak for all the women and families in my constituency who have been affected. I also speak as a woman who understands, at first hand, the impact that the scandal has had on us all. Smear tests are not the most pleasant appointment that we attend as women. Many have to build up a lot of courage in order to go to their appointment, but most of us go, placing our trust in the doctors and the NHS. We trust that, by doing that, issues will be detected early, improving our outcomes. There is relief when a test is clear, and stress when there are concerning results. As others in the Chamber have done, I encourage everyone, no matter what is said in the debate, to continue to attend their smear tests.
When the news of the scandal broke, I think that every woman who lives in the Southern Trust area thought, "My goodness, do my years of clear results mean nothing?" There was a crisis in public confidence. It is deeply regrettable that the Southern Trust has not always been forthright in providing key information to relevant scrutiny bodies in the Assembly. People have had to go to unfortunate lengths to access individual screener data; information that is key to the entire issue. It is vital that we see openness and transparency across our health service at all times. Alarm bells should ring when professionals who have oversight of such a critical programme raise serious concerns. Full disclosure, openness and transparency in all those matters is needed now from the Department and the trust.
Confidence in the effectiveness of cervical screening is paramount to women across Northern Ireland. I want to build on that. I did not fully appreciate how much confidence I had lost in the system until I faced it myself. Two years ago, I was at an event, and, at the end of that event, I saw that I had a number of missed calls from my GP, which was unusual. When I called her back, she said that she wanted to speak to me before I got home and got my post, because my smear test, taken five months earlier, had highlighted issues. She said, however, that I should not be overly concerned, and went on to explain further, although I heard very little after that. I was in Cookstown, two hours from my home, and I felt like I had taken a gut blow. I should have thought immediately, "It's OK. I get that test every couple of years; this will be new and treatable," but that is not what I thought. I thought, "This is it: I'm dying. This has been growing within me for 20 years and they've missed it because they are useless. Look at how many people have been let down. It is all over the press, and I'm another one of those people". Perhaps that was an overreaction, but that is how I felt. It hit me hard, and I had a long journey home that day. When I got home, there was my letter. I went to Daisy Hill the following week. I got my test. Nobody committed either way when giving me information. I spent the entire Christmas, with my children, incredibly stressed.
With the support of my sister, I got on to a clinical trial for the next six to nine months to help to improve possible outcomes. It was mid-February before I got a letter from the Southern Trust to say that my investigative tests from November were clear and that nothing more needed to be done. To be honest, I had zero confidence in that letter. I continued on my clinical trial until late 2024. After that, I went for screening again, because I still believe in smear tests. Thankfully, earlier this year, I got clear results, but I still have a crisis of confidence. The failure of the Southern Trust to be open and honest throughout has really affected me. I am one person with lived experience, but I like to think of myself as a reasonably well-informed person when speaking on the issue. Given that I feel that way as an individual, it is difficult for me to be open and honest with constituents who come to me with the same concerns without having more information and assurances from the Department.
I commend the Ladies with Letters. Their strong voice on the issue has been incredible. We remember those who have, devastatingly, been lost along the way. I thank my colleague Diane Dodds for her strong advocacy on the issue. There is a clear need for greater candour and transparency in our health service. We support the call for a public inquiry, but it should not have had to come to that. Accountability, openness and honesty should be the pillars of our health system at every level. Women across Northern Ireland deserve clarity. They deserve better. Their confidence in the system needs to be restored.
Mrs Guy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I pay tribute to the women at the heart of the scandal. Members from across the House have offered their support to the women who were impacted, some catastrophically, by the failures of the Southern Trust. It is right to start by acknowledging that. I also thank the DUP for its amendment. It adds to our original motion and reminds us that there are still some frailties in the system and that we need to get those answers to restore confidence.
When I was co-opted to the Assembly, I got a message from my colleague Sorcha Eastwood telling me to check in with the Ladies with Letters campaign. Sorcha did not realise at the time that, when the news of the scandal broke, I was recovering from surgery for cervical cancer. Apologies, I did not expect to lose my composure. I did not realise at that time that I would have the opportunity to stand here as an MLA and advocate for those women. That is what I want to do today. I want to give voice to their pain, their anger and their ongoing determination to get truth and accountability. I want us to remember what we are talking about: 17,500 women had their smear test reviewed due to failings that stretched back over 13 years. Two women have died, and five children have lost their mother. They were not abstract mistakes.
Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. It is important that we come together from across the parties today and support the motion and the amendment. I reiterate that the people and women who were impacted live with the issue every day. I thank the Member for her bravery in speaking out.
Mrs Guy: They were not abstract mistakes; they were avoidable, life-altering errors that denied women the opportunity for early detection and treatment. Leona Patterson had three misread smear tests before she was diagnosed with cervical cancer at just 42. She told me:
"When you’re diagnosed with cancer and you go through treatment, you are changed. Going through what I have gone through, and knowing it was preventable, creates a different kind of anger. We shouldn’t have to fight for answers. If the Minister is really committed to women’s health, he would initiate this statutory public inquiry."
Sandra Courtney's daughter, Lynsey, died in 2018, aged only 30, after a misread smear test. Sandra asked me to read this out on her behalf:
"Lynsey tragically died in 2018 at the age of 30, through no fault of her own. At that time, I requested that the Trust undertake a review of the individuals involved, yet a consultant questioned the necessity of doing so. We were also assured that 'lessons had been learned.' However, seven years on, there is little evidence that meaningful lessons have been implemented. In light of this continued lack of transparency and accountability, will the Minister now agree to commission a thorough and robust statutory public inquiry into Lynsey's death and the conduct of the Southern Trust, to ensure that such a tragedy is not repeated?".
Heather Thompson, from the Ladies with Letters campaign, said:
"The only way forward in this dire situation is for the Minister to establish a Statutory Public Inquiry. Who knew this was happening? How did these failings continue for so long? Who will be held accountable? Only a public inquiry, with powers to compel evidence and testimony, can deliver the answers we deserve."
The Ladies with Letters are an inspiration not only in how they have campaigned but in how they have supported one another. They have been let down not only by the failures in the system but by the lack of urgency since. They have no confidence that the reports that will be published this week will give them the answers that they need. Confidence in the screening programme is fragile. Women must feel that they can trust the system. That trust can be rebuilt only through honesty, accountability and transparency, not through departmental reviews behind closed doors.
Minister, nothing you can do now can undo what has happened, but you can choose truth over defensiveness and transparency over secrecy. Delay in itself is a decision, one that deepens the pain and prolongs injustice. Decide, Minister, and be straight with those women. A statutory public inquiry is not only justified but essential.
Ms McLaughlin: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. We support the motion and the amendment; indeed, I feel privileged to listen to Members' testimonies. It is so important that, as elected reps, we share our life experiences and show those who are going through this our empathy, so thank you very much. It is not easy.
I begin by acknowledging the incredible women who are, I know, listening to today's debate online; they have been in touch. The Ladies with Letters campaigners have fought tirelessly to demand transparency and accountability in a scandal that has caused untold suffering. In the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area, 17,500 women have had their smear tests misread, but it is not just a Southern Trust issue. The impact stretches across Northern Ireland. Many women in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area have had misread tests, and I know of at least six women who have developed cancer because of that. The consequences of that failure are truly devastating and incredibly personal.
I will share the story of one constituent who was diagnosed with stage 1A1 cervical cancer in late 2016. I supported her recently at her disclosure meeting and serious adverse incident (SAI) meeting. To say that that was traumatic would be a complete understatement, but it is so important that she could see and hear the truth, with the smear tests that had been misread on several occasions laid out in front of her. It did not happen because she did not go to have her smear test: she went. She did everything right, but they were misread time and time again. She had a full hysterectomy on 13 April 2017 while raising young children. She went through surgical menopause without any support. The trauma, loss and lack of care that she faced are a damning indictment of how little urgency there has been in women's healthcare.
In 2019, she asked for her smear test to be reread. That review revealed that the test had been incorrectly read multiple times, as I said. Years of her life were filled with fear, treatment, recovery and the anguish of surgical menopause. It could all have been avoided. She was not treated with understanding or compassion during the process. She did not even get counselling. Like many women seeking answers, she felt as though she was on trial, being questioned and doubted while simply trying to uncover the truth. That is utterly heartbreaking but all too common, emphasising the additional damage caused by the failings in the system. She is still fighting for the truth.
We must never forget that behind every statistic is a life, a family and a story of courage. The women have had to navigate trauma, health scares and the failings of the very system that should have protected them. Through it all, many have shown extraordinary bravery — attending meetings, confronting the trust and demanding accountability — despite the emotional toll and turmoil. The Ladies with Letters campaigners are a testament to that courage. They refuse to accept that women's lives should be jeopardised by negligence and systemic failure. Their work has shone a light on a scandal that has otherwise remained hidden.
For those reasons, I call for a statutory public inquiry. We need a full investigation, not a partial review or another set of internal meetings but an independent, transparent process that uncovers the truth. We need to know how it happened; why warnings were missed; why errors went unchallenged for years; and why women were left to face the consequences alone. Justice and transparency are not just for the women affected but for all of us, because the credibility of our health system is at stake.
Minister, you have continued to insist that a women's health action plan is sufficient: let me be clear that it is not.
Ms McLaughlin: Action plans are intentions; strategies are commitments.
Mr Gaston: I welcome the original motion tabled by the Alliance Party and the amendment tabled by the DUP. Both recognise the seriousness of what has unfolded, the need for full transparency and the absolute necessity of a statutory public inquiry into the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Trust and, now, beyond. I commend the strength and determination that the Ladies with Letters have shown and continue to show.
It is not a moment for point-scoring but a moment for accuracy and accountability. The TUV was the first party to publicly call for a statutory public inquiry. On 4 September 2024, when others were still speaking in vague terms of reviews and learning exercises, the TUV stated clearly that a full public inquiry was necessary to uncover what happened, who failed whom and how women were so badly let down. That call is a matter of public record. I also commend my colleague, Councillor Keith Ratcliffe, who has been tirelessly working away in pursuit of the issues, standing with affected families and refusing to allow the scandal to be buried. Members will have seen the questions for written answer that I have submitted, seeking answers about the Royal College of Pathologists' report and about concerns raised as far back as 2021. Several questions have been answered, and I welcome and acknowledge that, but one remains outstanding even to this day, despite having been tabled in early September last year. That is simply not good enough, Minister, and it speaks volumes about the frustrating pace of achieving transparency in your Department. That is why victims and campaigners have lost confidence in the internal processes.
Women have been failed; families have suffered loss; and 17,500 slides have been recalled. Warnings were raised years ago that, sadly, were ignored. We now have fresh concerns about the Belfast Trust laboratory, with tests having to be sent across the water. The amendment rightly highlights that the scandal cannot be ring-fenced to one trust. Warm words will not restore trust; only full truth and accountability will. That is why I support the motion and the amendment and why the TUV will continue pressing consistently and without hesitation for truth for those women and assurance that it can never happen again.
Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you. If anybody was in any doubt that all healthcare is personal, this debate and this issue are the proof. I will begin by trying to assure Members that, right from the beginning, from taking up my post, I have given this matter my full focus. I have listened to those who have been affected and have met some of the women and some of their families, not just their spouses but their children. On several occasions, I have met the Ladies with Letters group. I have listened to their concerns, and I believe that I understand their frustration and anger. One thing that, I am sure, we all agree on is that the affected women must and will remain the key focus for all of us.
With regard to information sharing, I have sought to be as open and transparent as possible right from the get-go. I recognise that it has now been more than two years since the publication of the Royal College of Pathologists' report on 9 October 2023, and so, of course, I regret the time that it has taken to reach this point. However, it is essential that we gather all the relevant information, because we have to fully understand the full picture of exactly what happened in the Southern Trust cytology laboratory. While I am conscious of the time that it has taken to reach this point, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in relation to the screening programme in the meantime.
Let me list a few points. All the recommendations contained in the royal college's report have been implemented. All cervical screening activity in the Southern Trust has been ceased. There has been the full implementation, since December 2023, of human papillomavirus, or HPV, testing, which is a better and more reliable automated test. Cytology is now used as a second line of testing, undertaken for screening samples that test positive for the presence of HPV. Since November of last year, a single regional laboratory service, managed by the Belfast Trust, has been established. I will return to Mrs Dodds's concerns about that later. Consequently, the cervical screening programme has been significantly improved over the past two years.
As Members will be aware, a population-based cervical screening programme is a complicated process and involves a number of steps. The UK National Screening Committee states:
"It is important to have realistic expectations of what a screening test does and that it will not identify all cases of disease. It is not a diagnosis."
It is important to repeat that point: screening is not diagnosis. False negative and false positive tests occur in all screening programmes.
The screening programme is aimed at healthy women with no symptoms. Its purpose is to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer and to prevent women from dying. Screening has been shown to be effective in helping reduce the risk of developing cervical cancer, and, like other Members, I urge all women to take up the offer of screening when invited to do so. The programme's effectiveness is reflected in comparative data across the UK for 2017-19, which shows that the European age-standardised incidence rate for cervical cancer in Northern Ireland is similar to the UK average. In Northern Ireland, it is 9·1 new cases per 100,000 females, while the UK average is 9·9. In the Republic of Ireland, the age-standardised incidence rate is 10·43 cases per 100,000 females for the period 2018-2022, which is just a year out from our own data. I urge Members to ensure that that message is not lost.
I also remain committed to understanding what happened in the Southern Trust cervical screening programme. As Members may recall, the background is that, in 2021, the Southern Trust's senior management received internal notification that raised concerns of poor performance in the laboratory going back several years. That was formally raised with the Public Health Agency in February 2022, triggering a series of meetings that led to the royal college's being commissioned to undertake a desktop-based risk assessment. The pathologist's report was received in May 2023. It found that there was a significant performance issue with a number of screening staff. The report also found that the trust failed to take appropriate action to manage the underperformance. So, yes, it was management and screeners.
The Southern Trust and the PHA considered the report's recommendations and, taking into account ethical considerations, decided to carry out a precautionary physical review of the records of over 17,000 women who had been screened during the period in question. The review became known as the cervical cytology review, or CCR. I fully acknowledge that the news of the review naturally caused a lot of worry and upset for the women who received letters. It was, however, a necessary and important step to help establish the facts, to check the accuracy of the original screening results and to check whether those who were screened were on the correct pathway. Although the Southern Trust laboratory played no role in it, the review took longer than was initially anticipated and was completed in the autumn of 2024. Following its completion, two factual reports were published on 11 December last year: the 'Cervical Cytology Review: Activity and Outcomes Report', for 2008-2021; and a separate, companion report, 'Cervical Cancers in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust Area: A Summary Report', for 2009-2023. The reports provided the factual information collated from the review and drew on data reported by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and the audits of the invasive cervical cancer process.
As Members will recall, no cervical cancers were identified during the CCR. The cervical cytology review outcomes report noted that 96% of the women included had no change to their original smear test result on review and required no further follow-up. Therefore, while the review in itself did not provide all the answers that we needed, it went some way in reducing the concerns that were raised in the RCPath report, which stated:
"Whilst the majority of Negative results issued by this laboratory ... were correct, a significant number of women are likely to have had negative screening results on tests which would have been identified as abnormal in other ... laboratories".
As a result of the review, 64 women were invited to attend a colposcopy or gynaecology review. Of those, 56 attended their colposcopy appointment: 21 had a negative or normal result and therefore required no treatment and were discharged; 24 had evidence of precancerous changes to their cervix that did not require treatment; and 11 had precancerous changes to their cervix or another significant incidental finding that required treatment. Those women have either completed or are undergoing a treatment pathway.
There is a second report, entitled 'Cervical Cancers in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust Area'. It is a comprehensive review of cancer rates in Northern Ireland from 1997 to 2021. That report concluded:
"When adjusted for the population, data from the registry show that there is no statistical difference between trusts in the number of cases of cervical cancer, the stage at which they have been diagnosed, deaths from cervical cancer or the number of cases of pre-cancerous changes of the cervix. The incidence of cervical cancer in Northern Ireland has also been reported as being similar to the UK average."
To ensure that we have a full understanding of the potential issues in the Southern Trust laboratory, several additional reports were commissioned. I advise Members that three separate reports are due to be published jointly by the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency this Wednesday, 5 November. Let me emphasise that I am not publishing and the Department is not publishing; the three reports will be jointly published by the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency. They are an independent expert's opinion on the factual reports that were published in December last year; an independent review by NHS England of the PHA's quality assurance arrangements for cervical screening in Northern Ireland; and a summary of the multi-patient serious adverse incident findings and learnings. I requested that those reports be published at the same time as they relate to the full cervical screening pathway and because they need to be viewed in their entirety and in conjunction with the reports previously published. I will make a written ministerial statement to coincide with their publication and to update Members.
Mr Nesbitt: I will give way to the Member, but I will say this: one report was ready to be published, but I asked for it to be held back so that all three could be published at once, which means that we will not have some sort of swinging effect of one publication's taking people to a certain conclusion and a second one's taking them to another.
Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for giving way. I urge him, when those reports are published, to also look at the Kent and Canterbury inquiry that took place in the 1990s. Its statistics were not as bad as the statistics here in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, that inquiry will help to inform the next steps as we move forward.
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. I will certainly note that. I have a next step in mind. I will make clear in my written ministerial statement on Wednesday what that intention is. I take on board what the Member has asked to be included in my thinking.
The senior management of the Southern Trust previously acknowledged that there was underperformance by some screeners in its laboratory and in its oversight system. It recognised that that was a completely unacceptable breach of governance procedures, and that it represented a system failure.
Turning to the issue of the equipment in the regional laboratory, it is important to note that cervical screening and HPV testing are two separate processes, that cervical screening in the Belfast Trust has never been paused, that cervical cytology screening is the step that is undertaken after primary HPV testing, and that reporting for that step has continued on-site during the equipment downtime and remains unaffected. I confirm that, at this time, the HPV testing equipment is operational again in the regional laboratory. Trust staff are committed to having the service back to full operational capacity within the next short number of days. However, that machine, it seems to me, is nearing the end of its life. I have spoken to the permanent secretary about, as a matter of urgency, finding the capital to find a replacement piece of equipment, because there have been issues with the HPV testing equipment and it is reaching the end of its working life. However, all laboratories have contingency arrangements to deal with scenarios such as this, and since the Belfast Trust enacted its contingency plan for HPV testing with Gateshead, there has been no backlog in HPV testing. The plan will continue until technical issues are resolved.
As of 31 October, around 13,522 samples have been sent to Gateshead, and the results are sent back within 21 days of samples being sent there. Let me emphasise that they are sent to GPs, and it is up to the general practitioner to pass them on to the patients. The vast majority of women who attend screening — approximately 90% — test negative for HPV. They will not have had any negative impact on their screening outcomes, as that report will return them to a three-yearly smear as part of the screening programme. For women who test positive for HPV, there will be minimal to no additional impact to their turnaround times. Those samples require secondary testing by cytology screening to determine the final report. That process is more complex and manual, and it requires additional time. As I have said, reporting for that step has continued on site during the equipment downtime and remains unaffected.
In closing, I acknowledge again that this remains a difficult and challenging time for all who have been impacted on. I pledged to keep communication open with the women and families whom I previously met, and I will fulfil that pledge. I urge all Members to read the three screening-related reports due to be issued on Wednesday.
Diane Dodds asked about how the contract was awarded to the Belfast Trust. It was open to any trust to pitch. Accreditation for HPV testing was one of the criteria scored, but the decision by the implementation project board to commission Belfast Trust was informed by a range of factors. I am told that the Belfast Trust scored highest in the process and was awarded the contract. The scoring was reviewed by an independent appeals panel on 3 July 2025, and it endorsed the original result.
Linda Dillon asked for a women's action plan, and Sinéad McLaughlin said that I believed that an action plan was "sufficient". I have never said that. We do need a strategy. I am saying that, in the remainder of the mandate, what is practical is to deliver an action plan ahead of delivering a strategy in the next mandate.
Mr Nesbitt: If you can do it in 10 seconds, it is yours.
Mrs Dillon: It is just to get confirmation that the Ladies with Letters and the women whom they represent will get an embargoed copy of the reports.
Mr Nesbitt: I understand that they will be given sight of the reports before they are made public, yes, by an hour or so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, and thank you for finishing at 15 minutes. I call Alan Robinson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Alan, you have five minutes.
Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Michelle Guy, who is just leaving the Chamber. I know that, in here, it is sometimes difficult for politicians to show a personal side and to show their emotional hand, but she did, and she is very brave for doing that. On behalf of us all, it is important to wish her good health. I also thank Diane Forsythe, who also spoke in a very personal way about the issues that she has faced. She told her own personal story. It is very brave of both women to tell those very personal stories.
I also thank my colleague Diane Dodds for working up the amendment and for the incredible work that she has been doing with the families who have been so badly affected by this dreadful issue. I also thank the proposers of the motion. It is really important, and it has been a good and solemn debate here today.
The cervical screening scandal cost two lives that we know of. It is causing ongoing distress, and it has shaken public confidence in a programme that should be a bulwark of women's health. We believe that our amendment strengthens the motion and, in so doing, calls for accountability, transparency and, ultimately, justice for those women of this Province, who tell us that they have been failed.
We thank all Members who have said openly that they will support our amendment.
It is important to thank the senior health staff who spoke out about their concerns, resulting in the review of over 17,000 women's smear tests, spanning the period from January 2008 to October 2021. It is also important to thank the Royal College of Pathologists, whose independent report raised concerns about underperformance in the screening labs. It was important that, during the debate, we did not lose sight of the personal toll. That has been central to many if not all Members today.
It is very important that we applaud the campaign group Ladies with Letters, which was formed by the women who have been affected. It helped to report that eight women under the review went on to have cancer, and two whom we know of, Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson, have died. The names of those two women should weigh heavily on our minds in the Chamber. Lynsey, a mother of one from Portadown, died in 2018, aged just 30, after a smear test was misread. Erin, a mother of four from Tandragee, died in 2024 at just 44 years of age, her smear tests having been misread in 2012, 2015 and again in 2018. That is unforgivable. Other women who are still alive carry fear and uncertainty, not knowing whether their health is in danger as a result of errors. For some time, those women, the media and others have pushed for clear answers about who knew what and when and why so little was done and not done sooner, yet they feel that they are no further forward.
It is deeply concerning that, when some have called for further answers, trusts and some supporting bodies have not always been able or willing to provide full data. As I mentioned earlier, UTV's appeals for data on screening performance in a number of trusts were met with obstacles, with some citing the time required to collate and process the information. When the Information Commissioner was pressed, that office upheld that public interest and transparency outweighed internal delays. With episodes of underperformance being detected in all health and social care trusts, not just the Southern Trust, it is incredibly worrying that, in one year, 2016-17, half the screeners in the Belfast Trust failed to meet the 90% detection threshold for all abnormalities. That suggests that the issues may have been much more widespread.
Furthermore, a whistle-blower has warned that oversight and quality assurance in the programme have not significantly changed and that internal and external checks have not been sufficient to prevent reoccurrence of errors. That raises questions. How were underperforming screeners allowed to run for 13 years? Why were remedial actions not triggered sooner? What was the role of oversight bodies, management, governance and quality assurance in enabling or failing to stop that slide? Time and time again, women who have been affected say that they have also been met with a slow response to their questions.
Mr Robinson: A recent story from UTV showed that, due to equipment breakdown, nearly 10,000 HPV or smear tests have been sent to GB for testing. That is yet another indictment of our cervical screening facilities in Northern Ireland.
Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all Members across the House for their contributions. It has been a sensitive debate, and the contributions from across the House have been very positive. I thank the DUP for its amendment, which we will support. The amendment adds to the motion.
Two years have passed since the scandal came to light, yet progress on getting answers has been painfully slow. We have seen a lack of transparency, unacceptable delays and a slow pace of investigation by the Department of Health and the trust. That is simply not good enough. Every woman impacted by the scandal deserves truth and accountability as a bare minimum. While I welcome the recall and review of 17,500 smear tests, it should never have got to that stage. We absolutely must rebuild public trust in our screening services; a point that has come up time and time again. Cervical screening saves lives, but it can do so only if patients have faith that the system is robust and that any errors will be swiftly identified and corrected. Right now, that trust has been deeply eroded.
It was not that long ago that we were discussing endometriosis and the almost decade-long wait for diagnosis for women in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is no mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland. What about the delays to the maternity hospital? Time and time again, it is being proven that women's health is not a priority. That is a massive concern. Women must be able to place their trust in our health service without reservation. They cannot do so currently, and they are dying because of that. Women across Northern Ireland are understandably anxious. They will be asking, "Will my smear test be accurate? Can I trust the results?".
The human cost of the failures has been devastating. Misread smear tests resulted in at least eight women developing cervical cancer, and two women lost their lives. That is not just an unfortunate statistic: those people did the right thing, took the right steps and were given a death sentence due to serious failings in our health service.
Many of us will have heard the names Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson throughout the debate. Over the course of a decade, Erin had three cervical cancer screenings, all of which gave her the all-clear. All of them were incorrect. Erin died in August last year, aged 44. She was told by doctors that, if her results had been caught earlier, she would have been treated sooner, which could have helped save her life. She was told to think of her disease as "one of those things", not her fault or anyone else's. When Erin realised that she could have been diagnosed earlier, she said:
"this is somebody's fault ... They've killed me ... they've taken my life away."
Lynsey Courtney died in 2018, aged 30, following a misread smear. Her family met the trust and asked whether the screeners' work could be rechecked. In the minutes of that meeting, senior doctors admitted that no re-examinations had taken place and questioned why such action would be taken. Like other Members, I have had the privilege of meeting Lynsey's parents, Ron and Sandra, and I was moved by their quiet dignity in campaigning for the truth about their daughter's death. No words will ever express the utter tragedy of Lynsey's death and the possibility that it was preventable.
The relief of an all-clear result no longer carries the same meaning. We cannot let that fear, coupled with a lack of action to investigate, undermine participation in screening. If we do, more lives will be at risk. As my colleague Michelle Guy, who has worked closely with Ladies With Letters, said recently, a public inquiry is the only way to begin rebuilding trust in that essential service. The Ladies With Letters group believes the:
"scandal represents one of the most significant healthcare failures in Northern Ireland."
Its members are calling for a statutory public inquiry with full powers to establish the full, unvarnished facts of what happened. It is undeniable that the cost of inaction has gone too far, and the Minister must establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. That is the very least that women in Northern Ireland deserve.
I will highlight a few of the comments made by Members during the debate. My colleague Nuala McAllister proposed the motion and highlighted the effect of the recall on the confidence that women have in the screening process. She said that concerns were raised as early as 2019, yet no action was taken until 2021.
Diane Dodds noted the call from the Ladies With Letters campaign for a full statutory inquiry and the actions of the whistle-blower in the Southern Trust, which, undoubtedly, saved lives. She also talked about the failings in the management of the screeners and the anomalies in the awarding of the contracts.
Linda Dillon described the deep-rooted failure to value women's health equally. She asked whether delays and backlogs had been created by the recent sending of thousands of HPV tests to Gateshead. The Minister covered that. She also encouraged women to continue to attend cervical smears and to attend their GPs if they have any symptoms of ovarian cancer.
Alan Chambers encouraged MLAs to approach the reports responsibly and highlighted that screening saves lives.
Colin McGrath highlighted that the trust between women and the health service has been shaken to the core, and he encouraged the Minister to state his threshold for holding a full public inquiry if the reports show that there were failings.
Aoife Finnegan spoke of the importance of reassurance and rebuilding public confidence in the screening programme.
Diane Forsythe talked of the crisis in public confidence and said that it is vital that we see openness and transparency across the health service. She also bravely shared her personal account of worrying about test results.
Michelle Guy also powerfully shared her personal journey with this, highlighting that the mistakes were not abstract; they were avoidable and life-altering. If the Minister was really committed to women's health, he would commission a public inquiry. Michelle also quoted Lynsey Courtney's mum.
Sinéad McLaughlin thanked Members for sharing their personal stories. She recalled supporting a constituent at her disclosure meeting and SAI meeting and highlighted the additional damage done to women by a system that should have protected them.
Timothy Gaston highlighted the necessity of a public inquiry.
Minister Nesbitt listed the meetings that he had had with the women, their spouses and the Ladies with Letters group. He highlighted the importance of the cervical screening programme and said that there have been significant improvements, including implementation of all the recommendations in the report and the move to HPV and cytology testing as the second line. He encouraged women to take up any opportunities for screening and highlighted that 96% of the women in the review needed no follow-up. The Minister also talked about the three reports that will be jointly published by the PHA and the Southern Trust on Wednesday, highlighting that he had asked for one to be held back so that all three could be published together.
In his winding-up speech on the amendment, Alan Robinson commended the Ladies with Letters campaign but said that the women feel no further forward. He said that the issue raises serious questions about the management of the screeners and the system as a whole.
It has been a sensitive and powerful debate, and I thank all the Members who took part in it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Given some of today's earlier debates, it was good to see this one conducted in the way that it was. I pass on my regards: I understand how difficult that must be for those Members.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were lost following the failure; notes with alarm the ongoing technical issues with equipment at Northern Ireland’s only laboratory for HPV screening in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; highlights that that has resulted in thousands of smear tests being sent to England for screening since 30 September 2025, creating the potential for further delay, backlogs and distress to the women affected; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently clarify when that vital equipment will be fully operational; and further calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, and throughout Northern Ireland, never arise again.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)
That this Assembly recognises that the commitment to delivering more affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is an immediate priority in the Executive’s Programme for Government and that the Executive have provided £80 million towards childcare support measures during the past two financial years; further recognises that many families continue to struggle with the cost of childcare alongside their other bills; acknowledges the challenges facing the childcare sector in terms of recruitment and retention; regrets the delays by the Minister of Education in bringing forward the early learning and childcare strategy; calls on the Minister of Education to commit to publishing the long-awaited early learning and childcare strategy by the end of 2025; and further calls on the Minister to commit to a strategy that delivers high-quality, affordable childcare that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, physical disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for debate.
Please open the debate on the motion.
Mrs Mason: Since the Assembly returned, we have all agreed that tackling the childcare crisis must be a defining priority of the mandate. We know that delivering high-quality, affordable childcare is a key commitment in the Programme for Government. Sinn Féin Finance Ministers have not just recognised that, they have acted. They have allocated £75 million specifically for childcare and early years. It is funding given directly to support affordable childcare, struggling providers and to deliver the long-overdue childcare and early learning strategy. However, when it comes to a strategy, parents and providers are still left in the dark by the Minister of Education. There is no strategy and no plan. The childcare subsidy scheme was a welcome first step, but it has not been built upon. Families are still facing crippling childcare bills that rival mortgage payments.
According to the latest NISRA survey, only one in four households say that childcare is affordable. That means that three out of four families are struggling to pay for the very thing that lets them work and provide for their children. For too many families, whether on two incomes or relying on universal credit, accessing suitable and affordable childcare is not possible. That has to change. The price uplift gap that leaves families on universal credit locked out of affordable childcare must be closed, but affordability alone will not fix the crisis.
We need a childcare workforce strategy that tackles recruitment and retention, improves pay and conditions and values the skilled staff who make the sector possible. Let us be clear: the workforce is overwhelmingly female, underpaid and undervalued. If we want quality childcare, we must value the people who deliver it.
The strategy must also be inclusive. It must provide for children with special educational needs, for those with physical disabilities and for those learning through the medium of Irish or whose first language is not English. The Irish-medium sector has been under-resourced for years, lacking affordable childcare places, proper training pathways and workforce development in the language. Parents choosing Irish-medium education should not be penalised by poor provision. They deserve equality of access.
The non-statutory preschool sector, which is the backbone of early years education in many of our communities, must no longer be treated as a second-class service. Those providers, at present, feel at a disadvantage on funding, staffing ratios and resources. If we value early learning, we must fund it fairly, statutory and non-statutory alike.
The strategy must support all parts of our childcare system, including community and voluntary providers, Sure Start, childminders and home carers. It must finally deliver the long-overdue review of the minimum standards in partnership with the Health Minister.
Children are at the heart of the issue. Childcare is not just supervision; it is the very foundations of learning, confidence and opportunity. That is what the Education Minister should be focused on — not on propaganda trips funded by the Israeli Government but on delivering for the children, families and childcare workers here at home.
The childcare and early learning strategy must be child-centred, workforce-driven and action-focused. It is time to stop delaying, stop deflecting and start delivering. We need a fully costed, inclusive and ambitious plan that cuts bills for parents, supports providers, values workers and gives every single child, in every community and in every language, the very best possible start in life.
Mrs Guy: I beg to move the following amendment:
Leave out all after "recruitment and retention;" and insert:
"considers that cross-departmental collaboration is essential to the success of any strategy, including delivery from the review of the minimum standards for childminding and day care for children under age 12 being taken forward by the Minister of Health and proposed support for the childcare sector being taken forward by the Minister for the Economy; further acknowledges the requirement for an early learning and childcare strategy that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language, ensures that parents and carers can pursue education, training or work and delivers a workforce plan that promotes early learning and childcare as an attractive and rewarding career pathway and ensures those in the sector are valued, have access to training and development and are paid fairly; and calls on the Minister of Education to publish such a strategy, with a fully costed action plan, that ensures high-quality, affordable childcare, as required by all children."
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.
Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Once again, we are discussing childcare and early learning in the Chamber. It is a reflection of how important the issue is for families. Families and children do not care how many times we talk about something; they care about what actually changes.
The Minister has committed to deliver the long-awaited draft strategy to the Executive within weeks and confirmed that it will go out to consultation, which I welcome. Our amendment seeks to widen the scope of the motion and capture a number of key aspects of the strategy, especially the need for cross-departmental commitment to actions.
When it comes, the strategy must mark a step change in how the Government act on early learning and childcare. There has been progress, driven by years of advocacy from organisations and the sheer desperation of parents. However, we are still far from where we need to be. There has been some welcome support on affordability through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which provided a fast injection of financial support for some families. As the Minister has acknowledged, however, it does not support those who are on universal credit, who, although they can avail themselves of support, can do so only in arrears. The scheme also does not support those who are studying or who are made redundant. In short, too many people are still being left behind.
The Minister has described the upcoming strategy as "ambitious but realistic". I hope that that realism reflects the delicate ecosystem on which the sector depends. Let me be clear about those interdependencies. Subsidising fees helps, but if fees outstrip the subsidy, it does not work. Many families say that that is happening now. A discounted place means nothing to a family who cannot find a provider in their area. Providers cannot expand provision unless they can cover costs and retain qualified staff.
A long-awaited business support scheme, which was announced as a scheme:
"to assist those in financial difficulty and in areas where the demand for childcare exceeds supply"
appears from recent Assembly questions for written answer to the Minister for the Economy to have morphed into an advisory service. That will worry providers. Clarity on that is needed in the strategy.
We also know that families of children with special educational needs and disabilities face some of the greatest struggles. They find it incredibly difficult to access adequate childcare, and the same barriers follow those children into school. A strategy that is a decade in the making must deal with that complexity, not sidestep it. Let us also remember that publishing a strategy is not the achievement. Rather, delivery is. The real measure will be the difference that it makes to homes and early years settings across Northern Ireland.
I will also speak specifically about the early learning aspect of the strategy, which is where joined-up working with the Department of Health needs to improve. Lucy Crehan, who recently undertook a review of the curriculum, heard early learning professionals express serious concerns about early child development. She described the issue as a "ticking time bomb".
We know that investing in early years has the biggest return on investment, be it investment in tackling educational underachievement or investment in special educational needs. As Lucy said in her report:
"Giving children the input they need at a young age can transform educational (and life) trajectories. Funding and infrastructure to provide this necessary support in the early years is essential to the successful functioning of Northern Ireland's economy and society."
That investment, which is key to setting up young people for the rest of their lives, starts before the child is born. A significant part of that involves focusing more on what advice and support is available to parents and carers. Parenting is a difficult role that is made more difficult given the financial strains that are caused by the cost of living, including childcare, and the erosion of funding that is available to the community and voluntary sector. We must defend the public and community organisations that support our parents. 'A Fair Start' showed the need to reorient our systems towards early years. Many of its actions, including better data sharing between the Department of Health and the Department of Education, still have not been completed. Those are practical steps that do not necessarily require funding, simply a focus on delivery.
A focus on delivery must be at the heart of the strategy. Early learning and childcare have been neglected for far too long. Transforming the system will not only change children's lives but strengthen our education, health and justice systems, boost our economy and build a fairer society. Let us therefore not allow this strategy to become another strategy that is announced, debated and then quietly shelved. Let us get it right for our early educators, for our parents and, most importantly, for our children.
Mr Brooks: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on childcare. I do so with a sense of pride at the progress that has been made to support families across Northern Ireland, not least by this Minister. The extension of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme was an incredibly important initiative that is already making a tangible difference to the lives of parents and children in every corner of our country. By extending the scheme to include all school-age children, the Minister has increased eligibility by an impressive 60%. That means that thousands more families will now have access to vital support that helps them manage the cost of childcare. For many people, that support is the difference between being able to work and not.
It is a promise made and a promise kept. The DUP is serious about tackling the issues that matter most to people. It is serious about helping our working families, and few issues matter more to working families than the affordability and availability of childcare. As has been mentioned, we have discussed the topic many times in the Chamber for that reason. As a result of that initiative, which the DUP Minister championed and led on, working parents are now seeing savings of up to 32% on their childcare bills. That is not rhetoric; it is delivery. It is the practical difference that good government can make when the focus is on what really matters. For too long, parents in Northern Ireland have been paying over the odds for childcare. Many families have felt that the system did not work for them and that it was too expensive and too inflexible. This scheme gave that foot up. It is not a magic wand. It does not remove every challenge or financial strain, but it helps to ensure that more parents are not forced to choose between career and family and that children are given the best start in life.
While we can take pride in the progress made, this party is clear-eyed that challenges remain. The Minister has committed to launching the comprehensive early learning and childcare strategy, which is mentioned in the motion. That is to ensure that the childcare that we provide is affordable not only today but into the future. That is a commitment in the Programme for Government, and I am confident that we will see this Minister acting, as he has said, sooner rather than later on the implementation of that beyond its consultation. The £25 million support package announced for 2024-25 represented the most significant expansion of early years investment in decades. That was not an afterthought but evidence of the drive of this Minister and this party to deliver on the commitment to support hard-working families and to build a stronger and fairer Northern Ireland.
Our goal is to support every child and to empower parents to provide the best start for their children; to back working families so that parents can continue their career and see benefit not disadvantage from that and, in doing so, strengthen communities. That is why the Minister supported early years with a 10% uplift in 2024-25 and 11% in 2025-26 to stabilise Sure Start as its faces rising costs and increases in National Insurance and to expand the service to another 2,500 families alongside the other programmes that we are aware of such as Toybox, the pathway fund and others that target the key early years and aim to address educational inequalities and underachievement.
At times, Sinn Féin speaks out of both sides of its mouth on some of these issues. There is, of course, a commonality in what we support and what we want to see, but it wishes to create political hay and narratives out of motions such as this with simple demands for more, and sooner. However, the public are not fools. Sinn Féin holds the purse strings. This party recognises that the entire Executive face financial challenges and that, at times, there is not enough resource to fund all ambitions and pressures across Departments, so we should be careful about giving hope to people that there is enough resource. The Education Minister is clear on childcare, on SEN education and on the schools estate. He is laying out the plans to address the need. We have seen that in SEN education, where he has not only laid out ambitious plans for the future but has sought to find innovative ways to meet need in the short and medium terms. Indeed, we heard in the Chamber today that Sinn Féin is an impediment by refusing to table SEN issues at the Executive.
The Education Minister has said that he could do more, and more quickly. If the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has the funds to spare, I am sure that the Education Minister will be a willing and keen recipient. The implication of the motion is that the Minister is not already working as he is towards that which is being demanded. However positive the Minister's plans, ultimately money talks, and, when the rubber hits the road, resourcing or the lack thereof from the Department of Finance will obviously dictate the scale and pace of change.
Mr Burrows: An early learning and childcare strategy is certainly needed, and we hope that it comes as soon as possible.
I want to make a couple of points that transcend many of the arguments that we could have today. The first is to value childminders and those who provide support to young people at the start of their lives. I hear consistently that the number-one barrier is cost. In preparation for today's debate, I was speaking to a constituent who said that the cost of their childcare was £1,000 a month. That was for just three days a week because the grandparents provided two days worth of childcare. That family is incurring debt every month to pay for their childcare.
That is a difficult thing, and perhaps only those in certain professional and well-paid jobs can afford it. In all these things, those who have the least are the hardest impacted.
I also hear from constituents who are dropping out of employment or taking pauses in it in order to mind their children. The reality is that they are mostly women. That is not to say that that is the right or wrong thing, but, in our society, it is often women who bear the greatest responsibility for raising children. That leads into things like the gender pay gap, because, during those critical times, women are not getting advancement at work or promotion. Therefore, it is really important to support women generally in society so that we get this absolutely correct. Some of the support for the cost of childcare is welcome, but I find, when I speak to people, that there is a lack of awareness of the existing support measures, such as the support with tax-free childcare. We need more of an education or awareness campaign on the various supports that are available, as well as increasing them.
I am doing some touring around the country to schools, nurseries and parents, and I hear directly from parents that they find that raising children is a complex and difficult thing. It is not easy. In all these strategies, we need to get more support to skill parents in that very difficult role. They are bringing up children in an environment that is different from what it was in the past, particularly in the availability of screens. I hear from parents that that is a particularly difficult aspect. When children get as far as nursery school, I often hear that there is a problem in trying to get the child away from a screen. That is not judgement of the parent, but it is another obstacle that our nursery-school teachers face by the time a child gets there: they are having to deal with that issue. Some of the nursery-school teachers that I have spoken to find that the child does not want to go into nursery school because they are told that they cannot have their screen or that it will be controlled. Those are societal issues that I did not face when growing up, because there were no screens like that. Parents need support in dealing with those issues.
Recruitment and retention of nursery-school teachers is a really significant issue. I know that a lot of those involved in childminding and nursery-school teaching do not feel that they have sufficient accreditation or professional skill recognition and that they are dealing with issues that are beyond their capability in the complex needs that are presented to them. I hear that increasingly in primary schools. That is why a lot of teachers in primary school — P1 and P2 — are injured daily, being kicked, bitten or spat at. I say that without judgement, but it is the reality that they face. That difficulty, that challenge and that behaviour are also faced by people who are childminding and those involved in nursery education and support. They feel that they do not have sufficient support to deal with the increasingly difficult, challenging and complex behaviour being seen in children in numbers that did not exist in the past. The evidence base for that is clear in the rise of special educational needs and in the delays in development that school principals report with children increasingly coming to school perhaps 18 months or two years behind.
Mr Burrows: There is much merit in the motion, but this is not about political point-scoring; it is about getting the right strategy and the right support.
Ms McLaughlin: People across Northern Ireland rightly expect this place to deliver on the issues that matter most in their lives. For so many families, the issue that keeps them awake at night is childcare. It is an enormous expense that stretches family budgets to the limit, often swallowing up one parent's entire wage every month. They are waiting and waiting for a childcare strategy. It is incredible that we still have not got one. We were expecting it in the autumn, and, given that tonight I feel pretty cold in here, winter has arrived.
Time and again, the Chamber has heard stories of parents who are unable to make ends meet as a result of those costs and tales of families who are frustrated and angry at the inaction from government to successfully deal with their spiralling bills. Therefore, it is right that the motion states that families continue to struggle with childcare costs. As I said, that is an understatement. While the motion boasts about £80 million being invested to reduce costs, the reality tells a very different story. Barely a day goes past when I am not told about the costs that are crushing family finances. We know from official figures that costs have risen by 24% in less than two years. When the Executive introduced the subsidy scheme in September 2024, the average daily rate for day-care settings stood at £54·51: by March 2025, it had risen to £61·43. Many pay much more than that. I can vouch for that, because my daughter is paying a higher daily rate for childcare.
Nearly half — 43% — of the subsidy introduced by the Executive scheme has been absorbed by fee increases, and families now pay significantly more than they did when this place was restored. Things are going backwards instead of forwards. Reducing childcare costs is one of the key priorities for the Government, but the Executive have not made a dent in that so far, and there is little sign of the situation improving. Parents are still paying the price of that failure. For far too many of those parents, particularly women, it simply does not make sense to work, and that puts a handbrake on our economy. That is why we urgently need a strategy. Parents have waited decades for one, and they cannot afford to wait any longer. While the motion appears to back up our position that we should not pull the wool over anyone's eyes, the party that proposed the motion runs the Government and controls the purse strings.
Unfortunately, the amendment that we tabled was not selected, but it would have also called on the Finance Minister to commit to funding the strategy, once we get one. We know that a plan on paper means nothing if the money is not there to back it up. I urge the Finance Minister to make that commitment. Of course, that will require a significant financial investment, but it will be more than offset by the benefits to our economy and by the investment in the lives of our children.
The amendment that was selected is right to call attention to the other needs that the strategy will need to address. Our proposals have supported child-centred and inclusive childcare that invests in additional and targeted support for children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with disabilities. Research has found that fewer than one in five areas in England have enough childcare facilities for children with disabilities. I have severe concerns that, if we follow the 30-hour English model, it will not work in practice for all children, and I challenge the Minister to address, in his response, the particular needs of those children.
We also have to recognise the cross-government nature of the challenges, particularly the work on ratios in the Department of Health. On that, we have to say loudly and clearly that registered childminders cannot be left out of the picture. Between 2020 and 2022, there was an 11% reduction in the number of registered childminders across Northern Ireland, and 59% of respondents to a Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) survey said that they had real concerns about their future. The challenges facing registered childminders —
Ms McLaughlin: — are a real and pressing danger to the childcare sector.
Mr Sheehan: First of all, I want to deal with an issue that has been raised twice today in the Chamber, namely the Minister's SEN capital plan and the fact that the Executive have not offered him any money yet. The Audit Office brought out two reports — the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also brought out reports — that stated that neither the Education Department nor the Education Authority (EA) can demonstrate value for money. When the permanent secretary of the Department was at the Committee recently, I asked him what had changed since those reports came out, and he said, "Well, we are working together more closely". When I asked the chief executive of the Education Authority whether it had identified any efficiencies or wastage, his answer was no. If the Department and the EA cannot manage their current budgets, why on earth would anybody want to give them more money? In any event, I just wanted to deal with that issue.
The delivery of affordable childcare is a clear commitment in the Programme for Government and a key priority of the Executive. Families already struggle with the cost of living. Affordable childcare would be life-changing for many of them. It would help parents get back into work and give children the best start in life. That is why our party delivered over £75 million in funding to help deliver high-quality and affordable childcare and early years provision. That money was directly allocated to the Education Minister with a clear expectation that it would make childcare more affordable, support struggling providers and finally deliver the long-overdue early learning and childcare strategy. Yet, despite almost £80 million having been spent, in many cases, families continue to pay the equivalent of a second mortgage for their childcare. There has been no strategy and no real reduction in bills, as providers continue to raise fees due to the scale of the costs with which they are dealing. Hard-pressed families need a break.
When we eventually see a strategy from the Minister, if he remains in post, there must also be a clear commitment to the Irish-medium early years and childcare sector. That sector faces acute challenges and remains chronically under-resourced. Many Irish-medium early years settings are forced to create their own learning materials, fundraise to buy resources and operate with limited access to Irish-speaking SEN support staff or allied health professionals. Those are among the reasons why I have brought forward a private Member's Bill that will place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to prepare and review an Irish-medium education workforce plan every five years. The Bill will ensure that the Department finally takes responsibility for recruiting and retaining the staff that our Irish-medium schools and early years settings need. I urge all Members to support the Bill when it comes to the Floor.
The Minister must now do what he has failed to do to date: publish a childcare strategy that delivers affordability, sustainability and inclusion for all families, including those in the Irish-medium sector, and for children with special educational needs or disabilities.
Mr Middleton: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is unfortunate that Sinn Féin Members in particular have sought to refight some of the battles that they have already lost. That having been said, we need to focus on the issues that matter to people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, which include childcare. As a father of two young children and with a wife who also works full-time, I am acutely aware of the pressures that many families face when it comes to balancing work and childcare. It is about finding not just a place but the right place, one that is affordable and accessible and meets the needs of the child.
Like Mr Burrows, I pay tribute to all those involved in the childcare sector, be it statutory or non-statutory. They have an important role in the education of our young children. I also thank the Education Minister for his commitment and delivery on the issue. The delivery of the childcare subsidy scheme and its subsequent extension was a welcome step. The policy is making a difference to people across Northern Ireland. Thanks to that initiative, many working parents have seen a reduction of up to 30% in childcare bills. That is having a positive impact on family budgets across Northern Ireland. As my colleague Mr Brooks stated, as of September, 15,000 children and families were benefiting from that support.
Now that the scheme is extended, it will benefit even more families, not only in the Foyle constituency but across Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister's commitment to expanding preschool education, aiming for 22·5 hours per week for all children in their immediate preschool year. As my colleague Mr Brooks stated, it is a significant investment, made by a DUP Minister.
Of course, we recognise that there is more to do. Families still feel the squeeze, and the sector continues to face challenges, particularly with recruitment and retention. That is why we see that there is a need for and support an early learning and childcare strategy. Let us be clear, however, that a strategy alone will not be enough. We need the Finance Minister to put the money where his mouth is and back the Education Minister's plans. It is not good enough for Sinn Féin to come in and blame the UK Government or whoever; the reality is that there is a budget there, and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister needs to ensure that he backs the Minister's plans. This party is committed to supporting hard-working parents and ensuring that those who, for too long, have paid over the odds no longer need to do so. Let us keep building on the progress that has been made, set aside party politics and support the Education Minister in his role.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to those Members who have spoken. I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.
Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Transforming early learning and childcare has been a key priority for me since I took up the office of Minister of Education. The priority to:
"Deliver More Affordable, Accessible, High-Quality Early Learning and Childcare",
as set out in the Programme for Government, demonstrates the Executive's commitment to invest in that area over the longer term. I am happy to confirm that I will bring a draft strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration within the next few weeks — certainly before the end of 2025, as is requested in the motion. If that draft strategy is agreed, it will be subject to a public consultation.
The strategy will address all the issues that Members have raised today. It will build on the significant investment of £80 million already allocated by the Executive, which is making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers across Northern Ireland. That has allowed us to introduce a range of tangible measures, including the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which initially targeted support to families with preschool children, but was extended to include school-age children from 1 September 2025. That scheme now provides support to a much wider group of working parents, with the recent expansion to school-age children resulting in a 60% increase in the number of children who are eligible for the subsidy. That has helped to address the cumulative childcare costs that are faced by families with multiple children aged from 0 to 11, and it is in line with the tax-free childcare coverage.
The scheme has made a meaningful, tangible difference to families by providing a 15% reduction to registered childcare costs, with potential savings of up to 32% when combined with the United Kingdom's tax-free childcare. In order to maximise the benefit of the subsidy for parents, when childcare fees increased in April 2025, I again acted, increasing the subsidy cap of the scheme by 10% to £184 per month per child and raising administrative payments to providers. Almost 22,500 children are registered and active on the subsidy scheme. Since September 2024, £17·8 million has been paid out to reduce childcare costs for eligible working families. That is a significant investment that simply would not have happened had I not prioritised the introduction of the scheme ahead of the strategy. When the scheme is combined with tax-free childcare, working families in Northern Ireland have saved approximately £37·5 million on their childcare costs.
I accept that bills are still unacceptably high for some families. I want to go further. In the context of the strategy, I will bring proposals to the Executive that would further improve affordability. In addition, the £80 million that has been allocated by the Executive to date has enabled me to fund the creation of 2,500 more full-time preschool places, with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children. That means that half of our preschool places are now full time, with further increases planned for September 2026. Added to that is the additional funding to support children who face disadvantage via Sure Start, the pathway fund, the Toybox project and a range of programmes to support additional needs or disability. That early investment has made a real and meaningful difference for many children who often find the odds stacked against them.
I have clearly demonstrated my intention to enhance and transform early learning and childcare in Northern Ireland through the actions that I have taken forward to date. I am sure that colleagues will agree that that is a significant achievement in a very short timescale. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the positive partnership working across Departments with the early learning and childcare sector and parents in enabling the successful roll-out of those initial actions. I thank all for their continued work and support as we move to introducing and implementing an early learning and childcare strategy for Northern Ireland that builds on the successes to date.
It is essential to the success of all cross-cutting strategies that Departments work together in a collaborative and tangible way. That is why I established the cross-departmental task and finish group to ensure that the measures to date and the longer-term strategy reflect each Department's policy needs in the early learning and childcare arena. My officials have also worked closely with the Department of Health, which has statutory responsibility for childcare regulation, including minimum standards for day care and childminding provision, and the Department for Communities to support those on low incomes with childcare costs and those who are economically inactive to get into the workplace. In addition, work continues with the Department for the Economy on supporting training and apprenticeships in the sector and on proposals for a specific business advisory service. Whilst progress from that Department has been very slow, I am grateful that the Economy Minister has led on the recently published scoping study on the sustainability of the childcare sector. The recommendations from that report will also feed into the strategy. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has also been at the table to ensure that any planned action is considered through a rural lens. That collaboration has been essential to address the challenges that we face in transforming early learning and childcare. I am committed to continuing with that approach.
In tandem with successful cross-departmental engagement, my Department has engaged directly with parents, children and the early years sector. I have attended a number of meetings with the early learning and childcare stakeholder engagement forum, which allowed me to hear at first hand the challenges that they face. I listened to what was said and incorporated proposals in the draft strategy to address a wide range of issues, many of which were mentioned today.
A robust evidence base is critical to determining where investment should be directed. I commissioned the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to carry out the Northern Ireland childcare survey, and the first ever official statistics on childcare in Northern Ireland were published on 8 May this year. It provided insight into a range of issues, including the type and amount of childcare used, childcare costs, summer holiday childcare arrangements and the factors that influence parental childcare choices, including affordability, quality of care and proximity, to name a few. Those findings, alongside the data that is being gathered through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, other commissioned reviews and significant stakeholder engagement, are supporting the development of the draft strategy and ensuring that it reflects the needs of children, families and the sector. The strategy will include measures to support the early learning and childcare workforce, recognising the issues with recruitment and retention and the need to truly value and support all those who provide those essential services to ensure the best start in life for all our children. It will build on the early actions to support child development, including for those with special educational needs or disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language.
The strategy will be comprehensive and ambitious, but it will also be realistic. The scale and pace of implementation will depend on the budget that is available. It will include a proposed prioritisation and be structured in a way that enables actions to be scaled up or down or rescheduled. It will be flexible, allowing us to respond to the funding that is available over the coming years. I have consistently said that I would bring the strategy to the Executive by this autumn, and I will do so. If agreed by the Executive, it will be consulted on. I invite the House and Executive to support the strategy and, when the time comes, provide the funding that will be necessary to deliver it. We have too many strategies that are a substitute for delivery. I do not want this one to be another example of that.
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, even if some strayed into party politics. I welcome further engagement with all concerned so that the benefits of a new early learning and childcare strategy are fully realised for children, families and the wider early learning and childcare sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Kate Nicholl to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Kate, you have up to five minutes.
Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really welcome the opportunity to speak about childcare, which I do at any opportunity. No one in the Chamber will dispute the fact that affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is vital for families, for gender equality and for our economy. My comments will largely be about the economic side, because, if we are truly serious about achieving that type of early learning and childcare, our focus cannot begin and end with reducing parental fees. So often, the conversation centres on that.
Affordability is absolutely one side of the equation. I should declare an interest, because I avail myself of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. I am very well paid. I have three children, and my childcare bill, with the subsidy, is £2,600 a month. If that is how much we are paying, I honestly do not know how so many families are managing to pay for childcare at the moment.
The other part, however, is sustainability: sustainability for the people and places that deliver childcare every day. Childcare is not a luxury or a personal choice. Rather, it is essential economic and social infrastructure. It enables parents to work, supports children's development and underpins our productivity as a region, yet the people who deliver it — early years educators, childminders and assistants — are among the lowest paid, despite often doing the most precious work in our economy, which is nurturing and shaping the next generation. That has to change.
I will share some information from a local provider who contacted me recently. Their story reflects what I hear across the sector and what, I know, other MLAs hear. The provider, who runs a few day-care settings, describes growing and unsustainable pressures. Recruitment is in crisis. They report a chronic shortage of applicants. People do not turn up to interviews, and, if they do, many leave their post within weeks. The provider pays above the minimum wage, but the rising national minimum wage has narrowed the pay gap between qualified and unqualified staff. That makes it impossible to reward skills or experience properly. That director told me:
"We can't raise wages without raising fees, and that's the cycle families blame us for even though it's beyond our control."
The vetting system is described as being cumbersome, paper-based and inconsistent. Health declaration forms can take weeks for GPs to complete, often at the applicant's cost, and that delay means that settings are left short-staffed.
The provider also points to financial challenges. Providers here cannot register for VAT, so they cannot claim for essential costs. They manage multiple funding streams, from tax-free childcare to employer voucher schemes, with payments that often arrive without remittance advice, thus making reconciliation a full-time job, and one can add to that the strain of multiple staff being on maternity leave. We talked about how many women work in the sector. In one setting, five senior team members were off at once, and the result was very difficult for the provider.
Those complaints are not isolated but, rather, speak to a system that has evolved piecemeal across Departments without a coherent plan. That is why having a strategy is so important and why it is so important that Departments work well together. It is great that there is a task force, but, my goodness, the lack of goodwill in this place at the moment is shocking. We have heard that the business side sits with the Department for the Economy and that the Department of Health is also responsible for a big part of it. There therefore needs to be goodwill between the Ministers so that they can work together and deliver. That really struck me today.
When I became an MLA, my very first question was on the review of minimum standards. I was told that it was coming in a couple of months, but it is still not here. It is really important that we have a strategy, that it be joined-up and that there be delivery. As my colleague so perfectly said, we can keep talking about childcare, but we need to deliver on it.
I will briefly mention the registered childminding sector. Patricia Lewsley-Mooney is an expert on that and a fountain of knowledge. She told me that one childminder told her that she employs an assistant to support three children with additional needs but that the rise in costs have made doing that almost impossible to sustain. Those are exactly the people whom business support funding should help: those providing inclusive care that keeps parents in work and children in stable, nurturing environments.
I welcome the childcare academies. I have a free idea for the DUP. There is so much more that communities and councils could do. Work is already happening in the 11 council areas, but what about our parks and the space that is being used? How can we utilise that more? If you take that forward, I promise not to take credit for it. So much more could be done with councils, especially because of their grassroots reach and the work that already shows collaboration across Departments. It is the kind of joined-up approach that our amendment calls for.
Yes, families need affordable childcare, but affordability will mean nothing if there are no qualified staff to deliver it or if providers cannot keep their doors open. We owe it to the parents who need childcare to work and to the educators in nurseries, preschools and living rooms across Northern Ireland —
Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]
I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on the motion, which we tabled because we want to see action on the issue. We are at the close of what has been a particularly difficult day, when ideology has perhaps been the focus in some people's minds. For us, it is about doing the right thing for the people whom we represent.
I note that the Members opposite snigger and laugh. The people who have contacted us in recent days are not sniggering or laughing. They are really concerned and really worried. I speak to teachers and parents weekly, and they are concerned about the direction in which the Department is going. We tabled the motion because we want to see delivery for our constituents. Unlike Kate, I have neither chick nor child and cannot speak from personal experience on the issue of childcare and how costly and uncomfortable it is for many working families across society, but constituents bring the problem to me. I know — we have all heard it — that the cost of childcare and the lack of childcare that is specific to children's needs, with the rise in additional needs in children and children being educated through the Irish-medium sector who cannot access childcare that is appropriate for them, are causing real problems in homes across the North. That is what we want to see being addressed.
Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the issue is particularly pronounced in rural areas, where we have much less provision and fewer options?
Ms Sheerin: Yes. I was going to touch on that, because, again, there is another specific issue with people accessing transport and childcare before and after school. That is difficult to access.
It is heartening to see that, across the Chamber, everybody wants to see delivery on the issue, and, again, it is regrettable that the Minister referred to party politics when that is not the objective of the motion. It is about delivery. All parties across the House will table motions to try to see their objectives achieved, and that is why we tabled today's motion.
Members have touched on the fact that this is an equality issue, and we know that it predominantly affects women. We do not know the cost of unpaid care across the North, because it is unpaid, but we know that it is massive and is often left to the women in the families. That refers to the childcare issue, but it also touches on the care of our elderly population and people caring for relatives. The lack of domiciliary care packages feeds into that as well, which is another thing that is most keenly felt in rural constituencies. We also know that it has a negative impact on our economy, because it keeps people out of the workforce. A lack of respect is felt by the people who are in that workforce: it is a vocation, but it is treated as an unskilled job, which it is not.
To reiterate what has already been covered by my colleagues about the commitment that our Ministers have made on the budget, we want to see delivery on this, and we want to see a move away from what has been a regressive start from the Minister. I have spoken to school principals and teachers who are really concerned about the TransformED programme and listening to so-called experts from elsewhere with worse records than we have in the North. The events of the past week or so, which have not cast this place or the Department in a positive light, are causing real concerns for the people whom we all represent. The Minister would do well to consider all of that and to show a bit of humility.
Members — all Members — I am on my feet. We are going to consider the conclusion of the debate.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
That this Assembly recognises that the commitment to delivering more affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is an immediate priority in the Executive’s Programme for Government and that the Executive have provided £80 million towards childcare support measures during the past two financial years; further recognises that many families continue to struggle with the cost of childcare alongside their other bills; acknowledges the challenges facing the childcare sector in terms of recruitment and retention; considers that cross-departmental collaboration is essential to the success of any strategy, including delivery from the review of the minimum standards for childminding and day care for children under age 12 being taken forward by the Minister of Health and proposed support for the childcare sector being taken forward by the Minister for the Economy; further acknowledges the requirement for an early learning and childcare strategy that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language, ensures that parents and carers can pursue education, training or work and delivers a workforce plan that promotes early learning and childcare as an attractive and rewarding career pathway and ensures those in the sector are valued, have access to training and development and are paid fairly; and calls on the Minister of Education to publish such a strategy, with a fully costed action plan, that ensures high-quality, affordable childcare, as required by all children.