Official Report: Monday 17 November 2025

Ms Ní Chuilín: I want to challenge some of the narrative and, frankly, the mistruths that were spoken here regarding the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) and the Ulster Boxing Council. The IABA is reaffirming its alignment with the work of the Equality Commission and the importance placed by the association on the publication of the commission's review of the Ulster Boxing Council in light of comments made by the Communities Minister and others last week. The IABA acknowledges that the Minister, in a statement to the Assembly, shared his personal view. That view is not supported by the findings in the Equality Commission report or its recommendations. The Equality Commission's report does not make any findings of discrimination. On that basis, the IABA strongly and unequivocally refutes any suggestion that discrimination on religious or community grounds has taken place within the IABA or, for that matter, the Ulster Boxing Council.

The IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council have engaged, and will continue to engage, fully and constructively with the Equality Commission. The report makes a number of recommendations to strengthen governance, clarify selection processes and further embed good relations practices within boxing structures. In addition, it highlights areas for continuous improvement in governance and communication. In my experience, the IABA is well advanced in implementing those recommendations. The IABA and, indeed, the Ulster Boxing Council emphasise their work on equality, diversity and inclusion in boxing. That is a proud tradition. That commitment to equality and inclusion throughout Ulster and Ireland has long been a proud tradition and has brought people together across community lines. Clubs are inclusive and community-based and welcome everyone, regardless of their background, faith or belief.

I welcome the opportunity to directly challenge some of the narrative from last week, and I appeal to all Members to ensure that there is constructive engagement and cooperation, which should remain central to ensuring public confidence and achieving the shared goal of making boxing a truly inclusive sport for all.

Mrs Dodds: I rise this afternoon to talk about the issue of pay rises for social care workers in the independent sector. First, before we get into the meat of the subject, I want to reflect on something. I dare say that there is not a family represented in the Chamber at this time that is not grateful for the work of those care workers, who go in and care for elderly or disabled loved ones at a time when we cannot do it for them ourselves. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is right and proper that we put that on the record this afternoon.

The Minister of Health did the right thing when, earlier this year, he promised to provide those workers with the real living wage. The permanent secretary doubled down on that at the Health Committee and indicated that that would happen, perhaps even by September. However, we now find that, given the issues with the budget, the Minister has moved to a position where he is saying that he is still committed to that but only when it is more affordable — perhaps next year. Providing the real living wage is the right thing to do. In fact, it is the only thing to do.

Let us think for a moment about the position that the Minister has got himself into with his budget. There are already huge pressures on next year's budget. We are talking about the potential of him carrying an overspend into next year. He also promised last week in the House that he would prioritise pay for healthcare workers and, indeed, provide an upfront payment earlier in the year, even ahead of the pay review body settlements, and he has now promised that he will push the issue of the real living wage into next year as well. We are entitled to ask this: what is the Minister's financial plan for healthcare? It seems that we are kind of making it up as we go along, and that is simply not good enough. This year's pressures translated into next year's will create massive pressures on the healthcare budget. Furthermore, we will not relieve the winter pressures and take people out of hospital if we do not have a sustainable social care workforce, and the Minister needs to plan for that much more carefully than he has done heretofore.

Ms Egan: I rise today to speak with grave concern about the recent news regarding the confirmed serious and significant failings in the central safeguarding functions of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in the period from 2009 to 2022. That announcement arrives following a report on allegations of bullying and harassment that was commissioned by Lord John Alderdice, who was a member of the Presbyterian Church until 2018. Lord Alderdice commissioned that report, and it was submitted to the Charity Commission. It outlined allegations of members being shunned and gaslit by Church leadership and the mental health concerns among ministers across the Church.

Yesterday, a statement was read out to Presbyterian congregations across this island that informed Church members of an investigation and review of previous handling of safeguarding issues at an Assembly Buildings level. The results of that review are highly concerning. It found failures to make referrals to statutory authorities; inadequate responses to concerns expressed about individuals and congregations; and ineffective monitoring of offenders who sought to return to worship at church. The statement also contained an apology for the betrayal of trust and the hurt caused by the failure to take action.

The statement followed the resignation of Presbyterian moderator, Rev Trevor Gribben, last week. He is the first moderator to have stepped down in the Church's history. It has been greatly disappointing to discover the failings. In any organisation, safeguarding concerns must be treated with the utmost seriousness. In considering this specific case, places of religious worship and faith are where so many seek comfort and support, particularly those who are vulnerable. For so many, that trust has now been put into question — for some, it has been broken. It is essential that, in any future process, victims are protected and at the heart of any decisions.

I hope that all organisations across our society, whether religious, community, sporting or other, reflect on their own policies and safeguards. My thoughts are, of course, with the victims. I encourage anybody who wishes to make a disclosure to come forward and contact the police or Victim Support NI.

Mr Beattie: Ten years ago, we were coming to terms with the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks. Those attacks, on 13 November 2015, left 130 people dead and nearly 400 injured. France was left in a state of emergency for nearly two years such were the attacks. Who can forget the scenes of the aftermath of the Bataclan massacre? Ninety people were killed in that venue alone. It was truly devastating. The attacks started with a series of suicide bombs. As somebody who has been directly involved in three suicide bomb attacks, I know just how devastating suicide bombings are and the injuries that they cause. Paris has come through a lot, because that particularly fateful day cost Paris a lot.

Absolutely nobody in this Chamber would refer to those ISIS perpetrators as "combatants". Nobody would do anything other than refer to those who were killed and injured as "victims". The perpetrators were not victims. Why on earth do we, in this place and throughout Northern Ireland, bend ourselves out of shape so as not to point the finger at the people who perpetrated atrocities and say, "You are the terrorist, and you terrorised", and point at the victims and say, "You are the victims. We will make sure that we look after you and refer to you as 'victims'. We will not group you with the very people who made you victims"?

The Ulster Unionist Party is a party of the rule of law. It does not matter who you are — soldier, policeman, civilian or politician — if you break the law, you should face the law. We will stand up for that. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will meet on legacy very shortly. Our party is clear on two things for now. First, we will argue that the term "victim" refers only to those who were killed or injured through no fault of their own. We will also make sure that sexual crimes are added to the list of serious harm, because rape was used as a weapon of war during our Troubles.

Paris is healing and, in some cases, has healed, because it confronted the truth. The French did not hide away from direct language; they used direct language. Terrorists are terrorists: they terrorise. Victims are the innocent people who were made victims by terrorists. Let us get back to clear speaking, and maybe we will sort this mess out.

Mr Boylan: On behalf of Sinn Féin, I send our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the five young people who lost their lives on Saturday evening in a road tragedy in County Louth. The tragic deaths of Chloe Hipson, Alan McCluskey, Shay Duffy, Chloe McGee and Dylan Commins are dreadful and have stunned County Louth, County Monaghan and the wider area. The tributes that are being paid online and in the media show that all five young people were popular and had bright futures ahead of them. Their loss has cast a dark shadow over the community. I also think of the emergency services personnel who attended the scene on Saturday evening. Having to take the injured to hospital and call to the homes of the five families of those who lost their lives is devastating. I hope that those people will receive the support that they need. There are difficult and dark days ahead for the families in Monaghan and Louth, and we will continue to think of them as they face up to what is an unimaginable tragedy.

Mr McNulty: A sense of shock and sadness is consuming communities in Louth, Monaghan and Meath. On Saturday night, five young friends were heading for a night out. We can all identify with the sense of joy, excitement and fun that they were experiencing. That was turned on its head in an instant. My heart goes out to the families of Chloe McGee from Carrickmacross, Alan McCluskey from Drumconrath, Dylan Commins from Ardee, Shay Duffy from Carrickmacross and Chloe Hipson from Lanarkshire. We offer them our sincerest condolences and pay tribute to the emergency services personnel who attended the scene. Our thoughts are with the families of the deceased, their communities and their colleagues. I measc na naomh go raibh siad.

Mr Buckley: At the outset, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I convey our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones just outside Dundalk on Saturday. The pain and grief that those families and school communities are facing at the moment must be unbearable.

and:

Those are not my words but those of the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom as she announced the most significant changes to our asylum system in over a decade. That very point should be one of eternal shame to the Conservative Government who previously held power for 14 years and presided over such significant issues in our asylum system. Our communities know only too well the difficulties caused by illegal immigration. They have been talking about them for years. A year ago, a Labour politician would have attempted to lock people up for making a statement such as the one that the Home Secretary made. The fact remains that the political classes seem to be going through the stages of political grief. First, they ignore you, then they laugh at, sneer at and ridicule you, then they fight you, and then they claim your viewpoint as their own. That is what has been happening in the United Kingdom.

The measures that the Home Secretary has outlined are, I believe, common sense. They will not solve illegal immigration in its totality, but they will help. There are to be visa bans for countries that do not take back their citizens who have arrived on the UK's shores illegally: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on the ability of those who arrive here illegally to claim benefits: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on endless appeals by illegal immigrants against their removal: that is common sense. We have only to look at the legal aid bill to see that it is costing the country a fortune to deport those who should not be here in the first place.

Then there are reforms to prevent immigration judges from putting European Convention on Human Rights laws above the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom to control our borders and keep our people safe. Those are all common-sense measures, and it is high time that the Government —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — got on with dealing with the issue.

Mr McMurray: I acknowledge and, in many ways, lament the closure of the 'Down Recorder', the local newspaper that has served Downpatrick, Ardglass, Killough and many other areas of South Down. At over 189 years of age, it was one of the oldest papers on the island of Ireland. My thoughts are, first and foremost, with the staff at the paper — the journalists, editors, production staff and other workers — as they face into this uncertain period. Those staff were always proud to work for what was known as "the campaigning paper", highlighting local issues and championing the communities that they served. In an era of social media and fake news, it is sobering to see local papers such as the 'Down Recorder', which are so diligent in their journalism and hold to the values of the profession, ceasing production.

On the community aspect, I am sure that there are parents, and perhaps even grandparents, here who have seen the confidence that is inspired in our young people, from P1 and up, when they see themselves in the local newspaper at sports days and all sorts. That inspiration goes right the way through to helping journalists and other people who are involved in the media with their first tentative footsteps into the industry.

My final point is on the local economy. The 'Down Recorder' created jobs, supported local businesses and promoted community and cultural events. Its closure will be well felt, and I hope that some solution can be found.

Mr Sheehan: Israel is a rogue state. It is a terrorist state and a genocidal state. Its leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the Gaza Strip, 65,000 people have been confirmed as having been killed by the Israeli military, and it is reckoned that tens of thousands more bodies are still buried under the rubble. Of those who are dead, 20,000 are children and 500 are teachers. Of the schools in Gaza, 95% have been destroyed, and every university has been destroyed. There has been systematic destruction and obliteration of the education system in Gaza, which the UN describes as "scholasticide".

Recently, the Minister of Education thought that it was a good idea to visit Israel and engage in a propaganda exercise for the genocidal Israeli regime. While he was there, he visited a school in illegally occupied territory. When the permanent secretary appeared before the Education Committee last week, he said that, at the time, he did not know that that school was in illegally occupied territory. At that meeting, Committee members drew from the permanent secretary that another invitation for a trip to Israel in the near future has already landed on the Minister's desk. His recent trip caused palpable anger among teachers' unions, parents and students; led to the majority of Members in the Assembly voting for a no-confidence motion in him; and, similarly, the Education Committee holding a vote of no confidence in him.

It would be a huge mistake for the Education Minister to go back to Israel, particularly in his capacity as Education Minister. I call on the Minister to state publicly that he has no intention of going back to Israel.

Miss McIlveen: The 40th anniversary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement by Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald was marked on 15 November. That agreement was the beginning of my personal journey into politics as a teenager. It sparked something in me that led me to where I am today. The agreement remains a historic reminder of what happens when political change is imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland without their consent. Delivered over our heads and devoid of democratic legitimacy, it sowed deep mistrust that continues to have ramifications to this day. In recent years, the same disregard for democracy was repeated when the Northern Ireland protocol was imposed by the United Kingdom Government. Again, it was rejected by unionists and forced through without our consent.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement struck at the heart of what it meant to be a unionist. It was not just a constitutional issue; it was personal. It was a document on how the future of Northern Ireland could be shaped about us, but not with us; a document that allowed a state that housed training camps, safe houses, supply routes and bomb factories for the IRA to have a say in our affairs — a state that was perceived as not doing its part to combat the evils of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children in Northern Ireland, who were betrayed by a Prime Minister who had famously said "Out ... out ... out" to the proposals of the New Ireland Forum and had now let Dublin in.

Mrs Thatcher, once considered a steadfast defender of the Union, had signed an agreement where the will of the people was not just ignored but was not even sought. It was done without our consultation or consent. In later years, she would express regret and admit to underestimating the depth of unionist anger across the UK and the damage that the agreement would do to trust in the Government. Such regrets do not, however, change the past. While the agreement would be superseded, it marked a dark day in Northern Ireland's history when terrorist violence was rewarded.

Mr Burrows: In a similar vein, I want to mark the 40th anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that, on Saturday, was gushingly referred to by the Northern Ireland Office in a press release as having paved the way for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. As members of a party that, before I was in it, was one of the architects of that agreement, we cannot recognise or agree with that tone-deaf statement.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an example of how not to do peace-building or agreements in Northern Ireland. It was imposed on the people of Northern Ireland without consent or consultation. It was negotiated in secret, certainly from unionism. As ever, it was negotiated with the aim of securing from the Irish Republic something that should be the basic duty of a normal democracy: cooperation in the fight against terrorism. It was George Santayana who said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is worth reminding ourselves of those fundamental failures, because we have seen them time and time again. Negotiating things in secret, like the on-the-run letters, has massively damaged relationships in Northern Ireland. Some people would still try to impose things without consent in Northern Ireland. We are seeing our own Government, again, with regard to legacy, making the mistake of trying to secure the cooperation of the Irish Republic by passing new legacy laws and creating new bodies. As ever, the British Government jump and expect the Irish Government to follow. That is why my party believes that there should have been parallel legislation that meant that the Irish Government were committed to doing the things that the British Government were doing.

It is worth reflecting that the NIO and the British Government can sometimes bend the knee to those who would use or threaten violence. That is why we must be eternally vigilant to their manoeuvres. It is also why devolution is so important, and why my party will never stand for collapsing Stormont: never has and never will.

It places power in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, which is where it belongs. The Assembly exercises the democratic wishes of the people here.

Northern Ireland had a great year in 1985: Barry McGuigan was the champion of the world in boxing; Dennis Taylor was the world snooker champion; and Northern Ireland qualified for the World Cup the following year. However, it was not a good year due to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is a stain on the otherwise proud history of Margaret Thatcher.

Mr Donnelly: I, too, wish to raise serious concerns about the decision to exclude independent-sector care workers from the latest pay uplift and, equally, about the way in which the entire package has been managed. The Minister has confirmed that £209 million has been allocated to pay uplifts following the recommendations of the review bodies, but, to deliver that package, he has already committed £100 million from next year's budget. That is a significant decision to plug an immediate gap. Despite that extraordinary step, the award excludes the independent-sector workforce, which provides essential home care and social care services on behalf of the system. We are now in a position in which next year's Health budget has been compromised in advance, but care workers, who provide daily front-line support to many vulnerable people in our communities, have been left out. That raises clear questions: how can we justify spending next year's money on this year's pay deal while telling an essential part of the workforce that there is nothing for it, and why were pay uplifts not a priority for the Minister from the very beginning?

The Department has said that funding to support the real living wage this year is not being made available. That contradicts commitments to stabilise the sector and to shift left, and it flies in the face of the repeated warnings from unions and providers about low pay driving chronic staffing shortages. By refusing to fund proper pay for those workers, the Minister is, effectively, undermining the very reforms that he keeps talking about. The whole idea of "shift left" is to invest in community support so that fewer people end up in hospital. However, if care workers continue to leave the sector because the pay does not match the responsibility, capacity in the community will fall even further. That means more delayed discharges, more pressure on acute beds and more avoidable admissions.

We are witnessing a fragmented approach to pay, poor planning and a refusal to address part of the workforce, which will have huge impacts elsewhere on the system. Calling that "unprepared" would be generous; it is a repeated cycle of stopping one crisis while creating another. It is not credible to ask our hard-working care workers to accept that outcome while expecting to reduce waiting times and relieve winter pressures. Those workers are vital to keeping people independent, preventing hospital admissions and easing pressure on acute care. Excluding them is not just unfair; it is strategically unsound.

Mr Speaker: Members will be aware that a valid petition was tabled under section 25B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 21 October 2025. The petition, which was signed by 31 Members, expressed concern that a decision taken by the Minister for the Economy may have been taken in contravention of section 28A(1) of the 1998 Act, and that it related to a matter of public importance. The petition related to a decision taken by the Minister to instruct officials to prepare additional measures to eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of components that are used for genocide. The decision was communicated to the Assembly by means of a written ministerial statement on 16 October 2025.

In line with the requirements of Standing Order 29 and the 1998 Act, I have now undertaken the duties placed on me to reach a decision on the matter. The procedure is rarely used, and this is the first such valid petition to be received in more than 10 years. Therefore, it is worth briefly recording some key points for the benefit of the House.

The fact that the petition was supported by more than 30 Members did not, in itself, refer the matter to the Executive; rather, the receipt of 30 signatures required me to do two things. The first was to consult the political parties in the Assembly. Secondly, it was then for me to decide only whether the decision referenced in the petition was of public importance, in which case it is required to be referred to the Executive. I confirm to the House that I wrote to all of the parties and independent Members in the Assembly, seeking their views on whether the subject of the petition was one of public importance. I am placing those responses in the Library. Two parties did not provide a response, but among the contributions that were received there was a range of opinions. However, I need to record that many of those contributions focused on the views of the parties on whether the Minister had power to make the decision herself rather than on whether the decision related to a matter of public importance. I state to the House again that the Act is clear: the only matter for me to consider is whether the Minister's decision relates to a matter of public importance. Whether that was something that should have been decided by the Executive is not a matter for me to take into account.

Over the past few weeks, I have given the matter detailed consideration, and I thank Assembly officials for the work that they have done to provide me with advice. In considering the matter, I reviewed the background to the matter and the responses from the parties. I have also considered the frequency with which Members have raised in the Assembly matters regarding relations with Israel. Finally, I have also taken legal advice. Having taken account of all of those different elements, I have concluded that the only credible position for me to take is that the Minister's decision did relate to a matter of public importance. I have therefore written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister today to refer the matter to the Executive. The next steps are therefore now for the Executive and not for me.

At the beginning of my remarks, I reminded the House that this is a procedure that is rarely used. However, it is clear that there are some aspects of the procedure that would benefit from greater clarification, particularly in relation to timelines. Therefore, I intend to make a ruling on the operation of the procedure in the next few weeks.

I do not intend to take any points of order on the matter, as I have set out my decision and it is now for the Executive to consider and to inform the Assembly of the outcome within seven sitting days.

Let us move on.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I make the following statement on the fourteenth institutional meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the thirtieth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, both of which were held at Farmleigh House in Dublin on 17 October 2025. The deputy First Minister and I agreed that I would provide the report.

I begin with the institutional meeting. The deputy First Minister and I represented the Executive and chaired the institutional meeting. Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Harris TD represented the Irish Government.

The first item of business was an update from the joint secretaries on actions since the last meeting, and the Council welcomed the engagement that continues across all NSMC sectors on areas of importance to both Administrations. Ministers noted that work is under way across the North/South bodies and their sponsor Departments to develop three-year corporate plans that will set the strategic direction of the bodies over the years ahead. The NSMC welcomed the fact that the next all-island disaster risk reduction conference will take place in early 2026 and practitioners from both jurisdictions will attend and participate. Ministers welcomed the continuing opportunities for developing mutually beneficial cooperation, including through the PEACE PLUS programme and work to develop a successor programme and through the Shared Island initiative.

The Council then considered matters relating to the North/South implementation bodies and noted that the freedom of information code of practice is in the process of being reviewed to ensure that it remains aligned with principles regarding access to information across both jurisdictions. Ministers also agreed that an exercise be undertaken to collectively review the grading of the CEO posts of the North/South bodies.

The Council then discussed developments in the wider policy environment. The NSMC noted the progress on the strategic partnership between the British Government and the European Union that sets out a joint commitment to deepen cooperation. Ministers noted that cooperation between the jurisdictions will continue in the context of the evolving nature of relations and will be monitored to keep the NSMC apprised of relevant developments. The Council recognised the importance of continued investment in the PEACE PLUS programme and welcomed the PEACE PLUS project, Developing Irish Sea Cooperation, known as "DISC", being delivered with partners in both jurisdictions.

The next item was a technical matter relating to the pensions for those employed in the North/South bodies. The NSMC approved amendments to the pension schemes that will apply to the North/South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland. The Council then approved the appointment of four directors to the board of Tourism Ireland.

The meeting closed with the NSMC agreeing to meet again in institutional format in spring 2026.

Following the institutional meeting, the thirtieth plenary meeting of the NSMC took place. The deputy First Minister and I again led the Executive delegation, and Taoiseach Micheál Martin led the Irish Government delegation and chaired the meeting.

The first item on the agenda related to business and trade matters. The Council had an exchange of views on international and domestic business and trade developments since the previous plenary meeting, including on the UK-US and EU-US trade deals. Ministers recalled that, in what remains an evolving international trading environment, the two Administrations will remain engaged with one another on business and trade matters. The Council also recalled that, where appropriate, the NSMC sectors should continue to consider how agreed collaborative approaches can contribute to the promotion of economic growth. Ministers noted that the most recent combined figures for trade in goods and services between the two jurisdictions showed a total value of £12·4 billion or €14·3 billion. The Council welcomed the hosting of the twenty-eighth TCI global conference on 14 to 16 October by InterTradeIreland in partnership with Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland.

The next topic of discussion was emergency planning and preparedness. The NSMC welcomed the regular and ongoing collaboration between officials in both jurisdictions on civil contingencies, resilience and emergency preparedness. The Council agreed to enhance strategic cooperation between the office of emergency planning in the Department of Defence and the civil contingencies division in the Executive Office.

Ministers welcomed the developing collaboration between the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management and the Fire and Rescue Service, including on investment, cooperation and collaboration on the training facilities and capacity of both services. The Council welcomed the ongoing engagement between system operators to coordinate mitigations and supports in the event of power-system emergencies in the single electricity market. The NSMC agreed that both Administrations will remain in close contact during the upcoming winter storm season, given the significant impact that both jurisdictions experienced during storm Éowyn and the support that was provided on a cross-jurisdictional basis.

The Council then received a progress report from the joint secretaries. It noted that engagement on a wide range of policy areas continued across all NSMC areas of cooperation and that NSMC meetings continued across all sectors and were in the process of being arranged for the autumn/winter period. The Council further noted that Ministers at the relevant sectoral meetings have discussed climate change and loss of biodiversity.

We then discussed infrastructure and investment cooperation and noted the decision of the Department for Infrastructure to appeal the judgement against the A5 western transport corridor, with the appeal scheduled to be heard in December. Ministers noted that Waterways Ireland continues to progress phase 3 of the Ulster canal restoration project and that the Narrow Water bridge main construction project is proceeding to schedule. The NSMC noted the continued collaboration to progress the all-Ireland strategic rail review's recommendations and welcomed the increase in passenger numbers through the hourly service introduced on the Belfast to Dublin corridor.

Ministers noted the progress that has been made on the Ulster University Magee expansion project and welcomed the submission of the formal planning application for the construction of a new teaching block. The Council welcomed the progress that has been made on the delivery of collaborative research and innovation programmes.

The NSMC welcomed the official opening of the Carlingford lough greenway, noted the progression to phase 3 for the Sligo to Enniskillen greenway and recognised the continued cross-border collaboration on other greenway projects, including the Ulster canal greenway.

Ministers welcomed the significant stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Government of Ireland to aid the advancement of their Programme for Government commitment to establish air connectivity between Dublin Airport and City of Derry Airport, with a view to publishing a market-sounding exercise this year and having ongoing interaction with their Executive counterparts on the approach.

The Council welcomed the progress on the implementation of the PEACE PLUS programme and the discussions with relevant stakeholders on a successor to the current PEACE PLUS programme.

We then moved on to have a very good discussion on ending violence against women and girls, recognising the unacceptably high levels of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls that are prevalent across both jurisdictions. The Council agreed that there is an opportunity for more potential collaboration on initiatives with a protection focus, including child protection in the context of gender-based violence. Ministers also agreed that there is an opportunity for joint working on prevention-focused interventions through all-island awareness-raising initiatives. The Council recognised that human trafficking for sexual exploitation is a significant issue in both jurisdictions and that it also has a cross-border dimension and agreed that there is opportunity for cooperation in that area.

Ministers then approved an indicative schedule for future NSMC sectoral meetings, meetings in institutional format and the next plenary meeting in June 2026.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, First Minister. The statement is littered with instances of the Council simply noting issues rather than actively engaging on them. It is genuinely underwhelming. Strand two of the Good Friday Agreement was a landmark for all of us who wanted to build a new Ireland, yet, under your watch, it has been allowed to drift into near irrelevance. That was never the plan. It does not have to be like this. We need to build something new. Is that not precisely why reform is essential to the institutions, particularly those under strand two — so that they are effective and have real teeth?

Mrs O'Neill: In the paper, I set out updates on where we are across a wide range of areas of cooperation. The many varied areas of cooperation continue to go from strength to strength and include issues that we are looking at on a practical basis, be that the strategic railway review; the A5; mother-and-baby institutions; or working on ending violence against women and girls. I set out, clearly, the wide range of areas of cooperation, and I genuinely believe that there is a strong appetite among Ministers to continue to build on that into the future. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I will focus on the new three-year corporate plans for the North/South bodies. I am conscious of the fact, but not yet concerned, that there may be some duplication and overlap of work between the language commissioners. What transparency will there be around those corporate plans so that we can ensure that they all work within their own swimming lanes?

Mrs O'Neill: It is important that every organisation has its corporate plan, but also that that plan is laid out publicly so that everybody has a chance to scrutinise it, and that the organisation can stand over it. Openness and transparency is key. I have no doubt that all the reports that we discussed at the meeting will be public for everybody to scrutinise, be that on the Loughs Agency website or that of an Foras Teanga or any of the other bodies.

Mr Buckley: When addressing business and trade matters, the First Minister indicated that there were talks around the UK-US and the EU-US trade deals. The First Minister will be aware that President Trump issued significantly higher tariffs on EU exports than on UK exports. As First Minister for Northern Ireland, did you advocate the desire that Northern Ireland exports fall under UK tariff rates, which would mean a lower rate than that of the EU?

Mrs O'Neill: We had a good discussion about growing our economy. That included discussing the opportunities that we have but also the challenges, not least those that exist due to the fact that we are caught in the middle of a trade war. Regardless of whether the tariffs are at a UK level or EU level, my interest is in ensuring that we grow our economy. We have huge opportunity to grow our all-island economy. I touched briefly in the statement on the figures from which you can see the economic growth and the value of all-island trade. That will continue to grow, so it is important that we fight our corner. I do so at every turn.

Ms Ennis: I thank the First Minister for her statement. She will, no doubt, be aware of the figures that have been released by the Department of Foreign Affairs that show that more than 120,000 applications for a new Irish passport were made by people in the North in 2024. Does she agree that the sheer volume of applications speaks to the need for an Irish passport office here in the North? Would she be supportive of that?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I noted those figures, which were released towards the end of last week. They are a strong, positive endorsement and show that there is a huge demand from Irish citizens who live in the North for access to an Irish passport office. The figures further underline the case that I would make personally — a view shared by many — for the need to have an Irish passport office here in the North. I ask the Irish Government to take heed of the fact that so many people want to have an Irish passport and to provide that service. I continue to raise that issue at every turn with the Irish Government.

Dr Aiken: I thank the First Minister for her remarks so far. When addressing emergency planning preparedness — paragraph 23 of her statement — she talked about the ongoing engagement between the system operators, particularly when it comes to the all-island single electricity market and dealing with emergencies. Obviously, one of the biggest problems is the fact that there is no physical connection between North and South — indeed, unless the North/South interconnector is built, there never will be. Was there any discussion about the impediments to building the North/South interconnector? If there was, what are we going to do about it?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, that is an issue that has been going on for some time, and we want to get a resolution. We need to get the interconnector built. That has always been our view. We know the challenges, including the legal challenges, that have occurred along that journey. We continue to discuss the issue at North/South Ministerial Council level. The Member referred to the paragraph in the statement in which I mention how we discussed emergency planning, not least for storms. There are lots of opportunities for cooperation in that way, and we will continue to pursue them.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her statement. I am glad to note that the A5 was discussed at the recent NSMC meeting. Minister, you will be aware that the A5 has been the scene of unbelievable and heartbreaking tragedies that have devastated families. Can you reassure me that the A5 dual carriageway project remains a priority for the Executive and the NSMC?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for his question. I absolutely concur that the A5 remains an Executive priority. We must see the A5 built. We know that we have faced legal challenges and setbacks, but, given the number of lives lost on that road, building it is a safety issue. Think about what happened over the weekend on another stretch of road, where there was the tragedy of five young people losing their lives. We therefore have to get the A5 built. The Minister for Infrastructure is absolutely determined to see it built, and she is going through the appeal process now. I hope that the appeal will be successful. We have to build the A5, however, and we are not going to let up. The situation has been going on for far too long. The A5 is a strategic project for the Executive. It must be built, because of what it will mean for improving safety, regional balance, connectivity and our communities in rural areas.

Mr Brett: First Minister, when it comes to the North/South interconnector, Sinn Féin has a partitionist policy. Here in Northern Ireland, you support overground cables, while, in the Irish Republic, you say that they will have to be underground. When representing the Northern Ireland Executive in discussions about the North/South interconnector, which wing of your partitionist policy did you advocate?

Mrs O'Neill: Very good. I can absolutely assure the Member that, unfortunately, the reality, for now, is that we have two jurisdictions on the island. That is something that I hope to change, however. I hope that others, perhaps those on this side of the House, will assist us in doing that. We have been very clear that it is preferable for the cables for the North/South interconnector to be underground. We have gone through all the legal processes in the North, but there are two jurisdictions, and that has led to two different scenarios. The situation is not of our making. Unfortunately, it is the political reality for now, but I hope to change that.

Mr McMurray: The First Minister, in her statement, said that four directors have been appointed to the board of Tourism Ireland. Can she outline the criteria and process for making the appointments? Can she also outline how those directors may assist and strengthen North/South cooperation in the tourism sector?

Mrs O'Neill: That is their very role. I can write to the Member to provide him with the detail on how the process was conducted. I do not have that information here with me. The Irish Government nominated the four directors, because there were vacancies to fill. They are Ruth Andrews, Stephen McNally, Des Annett and Pat O'Leary. Full details about those individuals and their appointment are all on the website.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the First Minister for her statement. As she knows, and it is referenced in the statement, there is an unacceptable level of violence and abuse towards women and girls across this island and beyond, so the issue is relevant to the NSMC. Can the First Minister provide an assurance that ending violence against women and girls will remain a key priority of the NSMC?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I can give the Member that assurance. We introduced the issue on to the agenda of the North/South Ministerial Council some time ago. We are committed to collaboration, and we all recognise that we have a similar problem right across the island. The preventative work is absolutely necessary, however. I genuinely believe that there is a great willingness to cooperate. The relevant Ministers have been tasked with working together to look at potential initiatives, not least by looking at the Shared Island unit for a funding model that will allow us to explore a coordinated approach to dealing with some of the preventative work. Our officials, working alongside officials in Dublin, will explore the issue further and hopefully make even more progress in the time ahead.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a ráitis.

Minister, you say in your statement:

With the all-Ireland economy thriving and our exports to Europe increasing, do you agree that we need to maximise our potential for dual market access?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely do. We talk about the many challenges that we have in our economy, but, equally, we have many opportunities. Dual market access is one such opportunity. The fact that it gives us access to more than 500 million customers and a market worth almost £6 trillion shows us that we must reach for and grab it. It will benefit our domestic exporters. It will also be a unique selling point, which is certainly the message that we give when we engage with ambassadors and international visitors and companies. When we meet them, we talk about the fact that we have dual market access, and we continue to highlight that as our unique selling point. More people will be more interested in investing in this place as a direct result of it.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for your statement, First Minister. How will you ensure that Northern Ireland is best positioned to benefit fully from continued investment in the PEACE PLUS programme? How will the Executive contribute to the work that is being undertaken to develop a successor programme?

Mrs O'Neill: The potential for a successor programme to PEACE PLUS was discussed at the meeting and at the summit between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in March. They publicly said that they had agreed in principle to a successor programme, but I agree with the Member that we need to influence how that is shaped. We discussed that at the meeting. It will be a matter for ongoing engagement between the Department of Finance and its counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties. There is a lot of work to be done on translating what is, at the moment, a somewhat high-level agreement into detail. We may have a road to travel in shaping that, but we want to make sure that it delivers maximum benefit for people here and that we see the excellent work that went into the previous programme continue.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I agree with my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin that, sadly, 40 years on from the Anglo-Irish Agreement and 60 years on from Paisley throwing snowballs at Lemass outside this Building, the NSMC has become a bit of a dusty irrelevance. The statement is full of "noting" this and "technical updates" on that. I will ask you specifically about the North/South interconnector, as it has come up today. Sinn Féin's position on that appears to be a bit like that of 'The Wombles' — underground, overground — and who knows whether it will ever be built? You are the First Minister in this jurisdiction, but yours is an all-Ireland party and you guys make great play of that. Do you support the North/South interconnector being built overground if needs be? When will it be constructed?

Mrs O'Neill: You will know a lot about the North/South interconnector, given that your Minister took the decision when she was in post. Let us not play games; let us be serious about growing areas of North/South cooperation. What I highlighted in my report reflects the high-level engagement that we had, but, underneath the layer of the North/South institutional plenary meeting, there are so many levels of work across each sector — health, education and infrastructure — that are all reported on in the Chamber, and everybody has a chance to discuss them. We can see real progress in areas of North/South cooperation. There is an awful lot more on which we can engage, and there is willingness to do so.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, how can the Executive build on the work of the NSMC in order to deepen all-Ireland cooperation in the likes of health, infrastructure and the economy to ensure that that benefits all our people North and South?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. That is on the point that I am underlining. Underneath the plenary meeting, across the sectoral meetings, such a large volume of work is happening, whether that be on ending violence against women and girls, infrastructure investment or business and trade — all the areas of cooperation — for the benefit of people here. We need to continue to grow that, because we live on a small island, and we have so many synergies across those areas. We have two health services and two education systems back to back: let us do something better for people. We can do that through more cooperation and by joining up our services.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the First Minister for her statement. It was encouraging and reassuring to hear her set out areas of strategic cooperation and collaboration between Departments on emergency planning and preparedness issues. Does the First Minister agree that, where it makes sense for us to cooperate on issues that matter to us all, we should absolutely do that?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, it is just good sense. It is just common sense for us to cooperate where we can. When we look at our public services in the North, which have been starved for so many years because of austerity decisions taken in London and are on their knees, we see that we need to continue to do what we can to improve things.

There are many practical areas as well. During storm Éowyn, we needed to lean into each other to support each other through that. Undoubtedly, those are areas where we can practically work together. It is also about having the vision to do more. I think that that is what all our Ministers are there trying to do. Across all the areas where we have been able to cooperate — health issues, infrastructure issues — it leads to improvements in people's lives. Ultimately, that is what it is all about.

Mr Delargy: The First Minister will be aware that, in Derry, the North West Cancer Centre serves over 500,000 people. It is hugely important in our area. Does she recognise that there is an opportunity here to develop more all-Ireland services and to recognise the importance of the service for the people of the north-west?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. I know that healthcare is of enormous importance for the wider north-west because of the distance from so many other services. At the end of last month, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement continued to roll with the theme of all-island healthcare, which is very welcome, and Professor Heenan stated that cooperation was not enough and we needed a collaboration of resources and agreed outcomes. I absolutely concur with that statement. How we can work together and deliver better outcomes for people is a challenge for everybody. We should not limit our ambitions when it comes to improving people's lives. With regard to healthcare more generally, an all-island model of healthcare would absolutely lead to better outcomes for individuals.

Mr McNulty: First Minister, your statement references how engagement continues across all North/South Ministerial Council sectors on areas of importance to both Administrations. If all-island healthcare is so important, why is there no mention of it in your statement? In an Assembly question to your office, I asked the TEO to outline whether all-island CAR-T therapy was discussed at the most recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and your response was that Ministers provide updates on a wide range of collaboration, including healthcare issues. Can the First Minister detail whether the important issue relating to all-island CAR-T therapy for cancer treatment was discussed?

Mrs O'Neill: I know that the Member has taken a particular interest in that. I, too, would like to see a service across the island because there is a dearth of services North and South. Unfortunately, some people have to travel to England to get treatment, so it makes good common sense. I have no doubt that it was discussed within the health remit. There are sectoral meetings for each area, whether it be health, infrastructure, education, agriculture or food, so I have no doubt that it was discussed in that meeting.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her statement. Investing in infrastructure, Casement Park and our people is to be welcomed and supported. Can the First Minister provide an update on the Shared Ireland initiative?

Mrs O'Neill: The Taoiseach advised us that he is keen to work with us to identify and develop other areas that fall under the remit of the Shared Island initiative. As the Member will know, there have been a lot of really positive developments. Casement Park was one of the projects that have benefited. We have also seen cooperation across a raft of areas, whether it be in education, agriculture, bioeconomy demonstrations and cooperation between our enterprise agencies. I spoke at the TCI global conference, which involved Enterprise Ireland, Invest NI and InterTradeIreland coming together and looking towards collaboration and growing our economy. Those are really positive developments, and I want to see a lot more of them.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a freagraí.

It is evident from what the First Minister has been saying here today that cooperation and collaboration on an all-island basis is delivering positive outcomes for all our people, yet much more can and should be done. Does the First Minister agree that now is the time for the British Government to clarify the parameters and the date for a border poll, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. Over the weekend, at the Irish Labour Party conference, Ivana Bacik spoke about the need for clarification and for the Irish Government to prepare. There is an exciting and energetic debate under way, and more people are offering up their view. That is a good thing and a healthy thing, and I absolutely encourage it. The practicalities of all-island cooperation and the North/South Ministerial Council demonstrate how we can practically improve people's lives by working together. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, now is the time for clarification to be provided so that we know the parameters within which we will be working.

Mr Gaston: Paragraph 7 of your statement deals with matters that relate to the freedom of information code of practice. Currently, it is not possible to FOI the North/South Ministerial Council, yet we pay millions of pounds each year for it and its tentacles. What steps are being taken to open that body to scrutiny in order to permit questions to be asked and answered through FOI?

Mrs O'Neill: You are right: whilst the North/South bodies are not currently subject to freedom of information legislation in either jurisdiction, they follow a code of practice that reflects similar principles regarding access to information. The code is undergoing a review in order to ensure that it remains up to date, particularly given changes to legislation. We will have to come back to that and consider the outcome of the review at a future meeting.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the First Minister. I invite Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the Table before moving to the next item of business.

Mr Brett: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Mr Brett: I am pleased to move the motion in my name and those of my colleagues. We can come to the debate and attempt to refight, as some parties seem to want to do, the old wounds of the Brexit years. They can call out the democratic decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. I can respond by challenging Members' views on the rigorous implementation of the protocol, and we can have back and forth on those issues. From my perspective, however, that does not move the discussion or the debate forward by one iota.

Every week at the Committee for the Economy, my colleagues and I hear from a wide range of people with diverse perspectives who are concerned about the ongoing impact that the Windsor framework is having on them. They do not come to have a discussion of the constitutional consequences of it. My colleague Mr Buckley will continue to set out our party's constitutional objections to the Windsor framework. That is why we, as a party, have on two separate occasions voted down the Northern Ireland protocol in the House of Commons and opposed the Windsor framework in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This debate is an important opportunity for all Members of the House to stand together and state that the current operation of the Windsor framework is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination and that its impact on consumers, businesses and communities across Northern Ireland is clear.

Some statements that were issued by political spokespeople in advance of the debate have set it out that they wish to re-fight the Brexit wars. However, at this stage, I will be happy to give way to any Member who wishes to articulate any objection to what we have set out in our motion. The motion makes clear the impact on our businesses and communities. I will read some of those impacts into the record. Just two weeks ago, the Road Haulage Association (RHA) came before the Committee for the Economy, and members of all political parties were united in supporting the views that they made clear, which I will read into the record. We heard from a businessman from south Antrim who has operated a logistics company in Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. He operates all over the world, but he stated that the border in the Irish Sea is:

when it comes to moving goods, and that is within the internal market of the United Kingdom. That company alone is being billed a quarter of a million pounds as a result of paperwork, additional administration and the need to take on additional staff as a result of the Windsor framework. As a UK-wide representative, he made it clear that 450 haulage firms across the United Kingdom had closed in the past three years.

The evidence that the Road Haulage Association submitted in advance of the meeting clearly spelled out the impact of the framework. Goods sales from Great Britain to Northern Ireland dropped by 2·4% last year, and there has been a 30% drop in goods moved from Great Britain into Northern Ireland since 2002. That is not just a unionist issue; it impacts on every community across Northern Ireland, as they have less choice and higher bills and, come 1 January, will face even more difficulties. The Road Haulage Association made it clear that, as a result of the Windsor framework, the majority of businesses that source or transport their goods from Great Britain have additional costs and that delays have been created.

Let us not just take the RHA's word for it; let us turn to the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). Week after week, Members from all sides of the House stand to praise the work of our small businesses, because they recognise that over 90% of our businesses in Northern Ireland are microbusinesses or small businesses and that they are proudly the backbone of our economy. The FSB set out a report in the summer which highlighted the implications of the Windsor framework for its members. Trade disruption is widespread. Of the businesses that responded to its survey, 58% of those that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland report significant challenges in operating across the UK internal market. Over one third have already ceased trade rather than deal with new compliance demands. Strategic confidence is plummeting, with 50% of affected firms not confident in planning for the year ahead. Do not take my word for it; take it from the FSB.

I will move on to the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA), representatives of which appeared before the Committee six weeks ago. They made it clear that, from 1 January, vehicles registered in Northern Ireland must have EU type approval, while cars registered in Great Britain will follow rules under the UK Government. As a result, consumers will have less choice; car sales in Northern Ireland will plummet; and taxes on consumers will be increased.

Do not take my word for it. Let us take the word of the Member for Lagan Valley, who sits on the Committee for the Economy and made it clear that those regulations were "a nonsense" and that for car traders in Northern Ireland:

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: With that, I assume that the Alliance Party will support our motion. However, the words at the Committee will be very different, no doubt, from its members' words in the House today, because they will want to turn the debate into a constitutional one, rather than send a clear view from the House that businesses are being negatively impacted on by that.

The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and Lord Murphy produced reports in recent weeks, and I want to read some of the content of those into the record. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee is made up of members who supported the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and those who did not. It concluded:

The Chair of the Committee said:

He also said:

— through formal and informal evidence —

That is what is clear in our motion. We make no attempt in the motion other than to reinforce the words of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee.

I want to turn Lord Murphy's report. Lord Murphy, who came to our Committee just two weeks ago, recognised the challenges that the Windsor framework represented for businesses and communities across Northern Ireland. Despite his terms of reference requiring him to have cross-community support for any changes, he still set out a list of changes that needed to be made to the current Windsor framework. UK veterinary medicines was a huge issue, and he highlighted that, on 1 January, up to 40% of those may no longer be available. That point was reinforced by the former leader of the SDLP who now sits in the House of Lords, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, who made it clear that the current position on veterinary medicines under the Windsor framework was intolerable.

We have on the record the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, the National Franchised Dealers Association, the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Honeyford and the former leader of the SDLP all criticising the current Windsor framework arrangements. The House has an opportunity not just to sit in Committee and support businesses when they come here but to send a clear message today that it wants to see the Government deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and that the border in the Irish Sea be removed for the benefit of all people in all communities across Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Kearney: Just a few weeks ago, the DUP brought a variation on today's motion to the Chamber for discussion, so I find it difficult not to think that Groundhog Day is beginning to be played out once again. In the meantime, workers and families continue to face an ongoing and relentless cost-of-living crisis. Our schools are crumbling, the health service is under constant pressure and we face an unprecedented ecological crisis in our waterways and lakes. Instead, the DUP chooses to fixate on and rehearse the fallout from the Brexit calamity — the mess that the DUP helped to bring about.

Once again, the Assembly is subject to another DUP revisionist sham fight, and it is all to save its blushes from the ongoing onslaught and attrition from the TUV. In a similar debate only weeks ago, I predicted that we would see a lot more of this type of negative politicking in the time ahead, and here we go again. We might as well all strap ourselves in between now and the next Assembly and council elections, because DUP race-to-the-bottom politics will become the constant order of the day, and all to shore up an electoral base that is now under pressure from the TUV.

Ten years ago, the DUP was in the vanguard of the Brexit campaign. At that time, its representatives told us on the airwaves that they did not care about the consequences of Brexit so long as we left the European Union. On those same airwaves, I and others warned the DUP that that was a wrong-headed agenda, but, like lemmings and following their hero Boris Johnson, the DUP representatives quipped that really nothing else mattered.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Not at the moment.

It was a case of right-wing, zero-sum politics, and, since then, the DUP has thwarted and opposed every effort to find solutions to the Brexit debacle. However, while the DUP was cheerleading for the hardest, most destructive exit from the European Union, others were, thankfully, working to minimise the impact. Then, in another British Government sop to assuage DUP anxieties, the Windsor framework was brought forward.

Brexit inevitably created a whole new economic and trading context. The Windsor framework is not a panacea, but it has mitigated many of the challenges that we have had to contend with. All the experts on business and trade say that it is protecting us from the worst effects of Brexit. Business exports are up 7% in the North. At the same time, other regions caught up in the Brexit headwinds have experienced significant declines. According to NISRA, sales from the North to Britain increased by over 12% between 2022 and 2023. Cross-border trade continues to flourish. Yes, our businesses need support to help them navigate the new trading realities, and Sinn Féin firmly believes that whatever is needed should be provided. At no time in the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee or other Committee meetings have business groups challenged the potential of the Windsor framework to drive economic growth. The DUP knows that, because you sit on the same Committees as I and others do.

Friends, the framework is here to stay, and our focus needs to be on how we can refine its further implementation. This afternoon, I say this to my colleagues in the DUP: stop wasting our and your time. Deal with your TUV problems away from the Assembly, and start to work with the rest of us to maximise opportunities for our businesses by building the regional and all-Ireland economies.

Mr Tennyson: I, too, have a sense of déjà vu coming to the Chamber once again to rehearse the damage of Brexit. It was interesting that Mr Brett said that that was not his intention, because that is what he proceeded to do. He was keen to use not his own words but the words of businesses. I say gently to the Member that, if only he had listened to the voices of the FSB and other business organisations during the referendum, we may not have found ourselves in this position, for the consequences that he listed were entirely predictable and inevitable.

It has been fascinating to watch as those who tabled the motion have slowly come to terms with the consequences of their actions, as they seek to rewrite history and blame everybody else for the Brexit that they campaigned for. You won, guys: own it. Alliance warned that there was no such thing as a good or sensible Brexit and that leaving the EU would inevitably mean increased borders, barriers and friction. The only question was about where that friction would occur, not whether it would occur. We said clearly that that was much more likely to happen at ports and airports than at a porous 300-mile land border, not because we wanted to see those checks happen there but because logic necessitated that that is where they would happen.

Of course, logic was a concept that the DUP never applied during the Brexit process; indeed, the DUP dismissed such concerns, telling those of us who warned of red tape and food supply chain issues that we could, "Go to the chippy". Its former leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses as the cost of Brexit freedom. The DUP was out of touch then, and it is just as out of touch today. The motion spells out the gulf between those on the DUP Benches who are lamenting the price of food in Marks and Spencer (M&S) and those whom we represent who rely on food banks and expect us to be in the Chamber debating the cost of living and how we tackle poverty in our society.

M&S has been mentioned in the motion, so I will say that supermarkets have a choice either to go through the red lane or to use the retail movement scheme, which is also known as the "green lane". The reason that some supermarkets cannot avail themselves of that scheme is that they supply Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. M&S relies on being able to supply the Republic of Ireland through ports, including Belfast, and, because its loads are mixed, the system is bureaucratic and complicated. That is true. From my perspective, the way to address that is through a comprehensive veterinary agreement, for which the Alliance Party campaigned and to which the Government have committed. I hope that the Government will move forward at pace with that agreement. That will require building trust —.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not, because we heard enough from the Member in his opening contribution.

Alliance called for a veterinary agreement during the Brexit process, but Arlene Foster and the DUP dismissed our call. I am grateful that the DUP has undertaken probably the longest U-turn in history and got to a better position, but had it listened to those of us who warned of such issues at the time, our businesses would now be in a better place.

The Windsor framework is far from perfect, but it is a function of Brexit. It is intended to insulate us from its worst excesses. It has contributed to a situation in which Northern Ireland's economy has outperformed that of the rest of the UK. In 2024, economic output in Northern Ireland grew at a rate of 3·6%, compared with just 1·4% in the UK as a whole. To be blunt, the framework is also the only game in town. The Government have made that clear. My hope is that, over time, as issues arise, the framework can change, evolve and become less bureaucratic. The Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee's report and Lord Murphy's review can inform that process, but the framework itself is going nowhere. It will be the starting point.

Alliance supports the framework not because it is seamless or perfect but because it is the better option when faced with a choice between a hard border and a soft border, a choice between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. The Members who have railed loudest against the framework, including in today's debate, have provided no credible alternative over the past eight years.

We have set out our proposals and clear asks for how the framework could be improved in order to ease the burden on businesses, including the provision of enhanced support and advice, the promotion of dual market access and the relaxation of the at-risk category. Only a full reversal of Brexit, however, can undo all the tensions and contradictions that the framework poses.

We have a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the world. Will we continue to pick at old wounds and create uncertainty and instability or embrace the opportunities of dual market access and send a signal that we are open for business and are serious about doing business? I hope that Members choose the second option.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest, both as a member of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and as someone opposed to then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's official recommendations, which evolved into the so-called Stormont brake. It is just a pity that Rishi Sunak and the Prime Minister after him did not listen to the rest of our party's advice.

For the avoidance of doubt to some, our party supported Remain. We voted Remain precisely because we envisaged the chaos and damage to our economy that has occurred. We pointed out time and again that Brexit was never the best of both worlds; rather, it was the worst of both systems on steroids. That is also why the UUP opposed the protocol and then the Windsor framework when it was imposed. We did so because they were deeply flawed instruments that were drafted to solve UK and EU dilemmas rather than problems with Northern Ireland trade.

Northern Ireland was and remains a bargaining chip in UK-EU relations. The words "faithful implementation" are the genesis of the problem that we now face, which is the rigorous implementation of the entire acquis communautaire of the European Journal's rule book that applies, in its broadest interpretation, to Northern Ireland. It is the implementation of rules that many EU members, including our Irish neighbours, do not even bother to implement rigorously unless they are forced to. Those rules, which spread well beyond trade issues, impact on everyday life here. There is a huge democratic deficit in which, despite all the Windsor framework spin, our Assembly has absolutely no say. Safeguards, such as our ability to pray against legislative consent motions pertaining to EU regulations, do not work, because we are not even informed of them in time, never mind the fact that our vote counts for nothing. The Stormont brake and the grossly misnamed Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee have failed. Lord Murphy's view on membership of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which he gave to the Economy Committee, is well worth a read. I encourage everybody here to read it.

We have been told that many of our problems will be settled by the UK-EU reset, but, despite the hype last week that sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) talks were commencing, some Ministers have made it clear that it will be 2027 at the earliest before any agreement can be made. Anyone with even the faintest understanding of EU's relations with other countries will know that that is a highly ambitious timescale.

What is to be done? If the Government believe that they have been a faithful throughout, it is time to use the provisions in the protocol to stop any further damage. If our Government really believe that the EU is a faithful and not a traitor, they should activate article 16 of the protocol to protect article 6(2) on protecting our internal UK market. If there really is faith between the UK and the European Union and if the protection of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement really is central to those relations, pausing the implementation of further provisions of the EU acquis until all is solved by the UK-EU reset and the SPS community should be straightforward. The evidence of hard damage to companies —.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for giving way. This is really important. Part of the issue is the Labour Government's inability to do or simply not doing the diligence that is needed to improve things. There is no greater testament to that than the issue of veterinary medicines. From 1 January, we will see a significant problem with veterinary medicines, even those that have never been opened in Great Britain but need to come to Northern Ireland, yet, last week, the House of Lords Committee said that the Government were saying, "We are doing nothing about it". Worse still —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Member's interventions —.

Mrs Dodds: — DAERA is not intervening. Does the Member agree that it is important to make some progress?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute for that minute and a half.

Dr Aiken: I definitely agree, and I thank the Member very much for reading the last part of my speech. Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to know that I will not repeat it.

There is a key point: we are fewer than 50 days from there being real problems for our agriculture sector. Our party has pointed that out for the past year, yet we have still not reached a resolution on it. Government Ministers have basically said, "Suck it up", because they want to be seen as being faithful implementers, even though it will do real damage to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector. That is unacceptable. The evidence of hard damage being done to our companies and to the UK internal market from divergence in trade is abundantly clear. We need our Government to have the will to act, because, frankly, the Europeans do not really care about Northern Ireland. They want to see agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union about things such as defence.

We have an opportunity to solve the problem, and we have, in the protocol, the processes to do so. I therefore call on Labour and the Secretary of State to get off their proverbials and do something. Let them do it. More important, we support the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Bob Dylan is playing in Belfast on Wednesday night. [Interruption.]

Somebody asked who Bob Dylan is: he is a famous musician from the United States. The debate is almost like a greatest hits, except that it is not as great that as those that Dylan will be playing, we hope, on Wednesday night. It is the same old stuff that we have heard before.

In many ways, I am happy to play those tunes. I came into the Assembly because of Brexit. I literally would not have been here without it.

I have talked many times in the Chamber about my personal and professional experience. I could rehearse that and give you guys all the gory details of how the interests of this island, including those of the North and of unionists, were ignored systematically throughout the Brexit process, but I will not do that, because I have only five minutes. We have talked about it before and will talk about it again.

We will not support the motion. To be substantive, however, I will go through the various bits of the motion in good faith in order to explain why we will not support it. First are the practical disruptions that are felt by sectors of our economy, specifically east-west, that exist. We have never trivialised them and have always sought practical solutions to them. There are small retailers who need to move partials and who now face new barriers because of that. That is a fact. Clearly, there are questions around veterinary medicine. That is a fact, too, and we do not diminish it. We have never diminished any of the consequences of Brexit, and those are both consequences of Brexit. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which is now required for the 70% of tourists who come to Northern Ireland via Dublin, is another consequence of Brexit. That would not have happened had the UK not left the EU. Those are all practical consequences that we need to resolve. How we do that is the next question, and that will happen via a number of means. None of those has been outlined in the DUP motion or in the remarks that we just heard from Dr Aiken. They are just saying, "Turn the table over, because we are angry about all this".

I am angry about Brexit. I do not like the constitutional disruption of Brexit, and neither do lots of the people who vote for my party. However, it is about practical solutions. I will list a few, none of which are mentioned in the motion. Number one relates to most of the checks on food and veterinary medicine. Mr Tennyson mentioned the comprehensive veterinary agreement, which we had called for for ages. That is a critical part of softening the burdens. Let us be absolutely clear: it is not possible, in practical terms, for England or GB to be outside the EU's SPS rules and for Northern Ireland to follow. Why is that? It is not because the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party or some inchoate mass of liberals are trying to do down unionism; it is because there are cattle that graze in both Cavan and Fermanagh. That is how our agriculture works, so we have to have an integrated SPS zone on the island. Our food production is integrated. Cattle that produce milk in Donegal are processed in County Tyrone. That is literally the way in which our agriculture system works. That covers the comprehensive veterinary agreement.

Number two is about how we interact with the EU. That is mentioned in the motion. I totally agree that we need better mechanisms. Lots of this was talked about in Lord Murphy's report. I am unabashed about saying that we are the most pro-EU party in this place. We want to be back in the European Union, although I think that that will happen only via a new Ireland, if we are honest with ourselves. In the meantime, I want to have representation for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament so that unionists, nationalists, the left and others can make representations there on behalf of our constituents and businesses. We should also have an EU Commission office in Belfast. Why not? That would not change the constitutional position, given that we had an EU Commissioner — [Interruption.]

I can see Mrs Dodds complaining vociferously about all the evil EU things. Why not bring the EU Commission to Belfast? It could set up an office. I will give way to the Member. Will you make it relatively concise, so that I can have a bit of time left in which to respond?

Mrs Dodds: I will indeed. When the Member reiterates this nonsense, I often wonder why he does not want to do his own job, which is making laws that are for Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland.

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

Mr O'Toole: I would love to do that in Northern Ireland, Brussels or Dublin. Any of those would be great to me. I wish, however, that the Member would face up to the consequences of the Brexit that she challenges. She is a former MEP, so she knows these things all too well.

That is all set out in our policy paper. More representation for the North in the here and now and for its businesses and workers who face those EU rules can, and should, happen.

There is a range of other practical consequences of Brexit. The consequences for traders and people who use veterinary medicine need to be examined, but so, too, do the consequences for the all-island economy. As Mr Kearney rightly said, the all-island economy is growing. Northern Ireland has massively outperformed Britain in economic growth. Many economists think that that is to do with us being shielded from a significant number of the consequences of Brexit. That is a reality with which the DUP will not engage. Why has Northern Ireland grown faster than every other part of the UK over the past number of years? That is a remarkable thing.

We should also deal with the disruption to people moving across the island of Ireland, whether they are French students who are backpacking in Galway but cannot now easily come to Derry or tourists on coach trips to the Giant's Causeway. Those are all consequences of Brexit. One way to deal with that, rather than taking Dr Aiken's nuclear option of using article 16, is very simple, and it is to use article 14 of the original protocol, now the Windsor framework. That allows the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) to raise specific concerns to the Joint Committee on the operation of the protocol. The deputy First Minister was not even here.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way, because I will not get another minute, but I am happy to debate it in another place.

I have not heard anything about article 14 being triggered by the Executive. The First Minister was here earlier. Are the Executive doing anything via the NSMC to raise those issues? There are practical solutions to these problems. The ultimate one is, of course, to rejoin the EU via a new Ireland, but, in the meantime, let us get real about solutions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Matthew.

Ms Sheerin: I laughed at Mr O'Toole's comments, comparing the debate to a Bob Dylan record. Now, I would not insult Bob Dylan with that particular analogy, but I see the Member's point, and I have to agree with it.

The proposer's premise was that he did not want the debate to be a rehashing of the benefits or negatives of Brexit but that he wants to have a conversation about the part of it that he does not like. Look, we all make mistakes. You made a mistake, and we are where we are now. There are parts of it that you do not like. That is fair enough. However, we have to be realistic and pragmatic in how we deal with the problems that some businesses are encountering. People have referred to the FSB report. I sat through Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and Economy Committee sessions where we dealt with that sector. Of course, we want to do anything that we can to aid those businesses to secure their recommendations on the easing of paperwork, bureaucracy and burdens. However, the proportion of businesses that are affected by that is the 100 respondents to the survey out of 130,000 businesses across the North. To present that in a way that suggests that it is a massive problem for the vast majority of our business sector is being disingenuous. It is not a massive problem.

The motion refers to Marks and Spencer. In bringing the motion to the Chamber, the Members have displayed just how out of touch they are at a time when most of our constituents are in a cost-of-living crisis, and some are relying on food banks. As we come towards Christmas, we have people across our communities who are in genuine hardship and face real difficulties. They do not want to hear another debate in this place on why the DUP did not get the Brexit that it wanted, which is due to its following the TUV and being afraid of that party in the polls. That is what this is about. We have to be realistic when we have conversations like this. We are here to govern and to work for all people across the North. I am really sorry that the British Government have let you down again, but that is where we are at.

Mr Martin: I want to pick up on a few points that have been made already, particularly by Mr Kearney and Mr Tennyson. Mr Tennyson used the phrase "pick at old wounds". Two thirds of their speeches did not address the motion but simply attacked my party. Now, we have different positions, but their speeches did not actually address the motion. Mr Honeyford finds it very funny, but, actually, what we are discussing are the impacts on customers and businesses, which affect people's real lives. To be fair to the leader of the Opposition, while I did not agree with what he said, at least he addressed the motion at hand. Hopefully, with the Bob Dylan reference, he was not suggesting that anyone was 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door'. If he has not got the album 'Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid', I very much recommend it to him as it is one of Dylan's finest.

I will pick up on the issue of veterinary medicines, which has been touched on already, because, over the past week, a number of constituents have contacted me about it, and when I told them about the debate, they asked me to raise the issue. As some Members have already reflected, the grace period for veterinary medicines comes to an end on 31 December.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He points to the DUP's reason and motivation for tabling the motion, which is simply because we have been contacted by people, consumers and small businesses in our constituencies. It seems that the only MLAs who are being contacted about those issues are Members on this side of the House.

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

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I agree with my colleague. I can only reflect the correspondence that we get. People have concerns. This is affecting people out there, and it is our job to raise such things in this place and to find solutions to them. That is the most important thing in the debate.

Some Members have referred to the evidence received last week by the Scrutiny Committee. My colleague, in opening the debate, reflected the fact that up to 40% of medicines could be discontinued from 1 January 2026. Some reference was made to colleagues who sit on that Committee. In fact, Baroness Ritchie said that it was more or less her view that the Government had, essentially, decided to do nothing until they see how serious the situation becomes in 2026. Baroness Foster, picking up on comments from my colleague to my left, usefully pointed out that article 16 of the protocol allows His Majesty's Government to take unilateral action to resolve problems if they see a diversion of trade. Surely that should happen. The Committee heard that over 90% of medicines currently supplied are likely to be diverted to Northern Ireland via Dublin rather than GB. It sounds as though the Government are suggesting that they will wait to see how bad this gets before they decide to do something. That is an atrocious position when it comes to animal health.

It is also deeply worrying for businesses and pet owners. The Government have to urgently address it. Pet owners are receiving notifications about important medications that they purchase online from GB firms, such as eye gels and ointments, being discontinued. Are we seriously expected to believe that those products represent a clear and present danger to the EU single market? Such a position is ridiculous. I have been contacted by constituents involved in supplier-to-customer relationships who say that they will simply not be able to get those medicines from 31 December. That is unacceptable. They want some answers. I spoke to two veterinary medicine firms in GB — one on Friday and one this morning — about the issue.
The Government must acknowledge that the trade diversion, including veterinary meds, needs to be sorted out. I thank my colleague Carla Lockhart, who has raised the issue at Westminster. In addition, last week, my colleague the deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly met Nick Thomas–Symonds, who leads on the issue for the Government, and directly raised with him the provision of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. His Majesty's Government's Ministers need to stand up for the integrity of the UK internal market and the United Kingdom as a whole.

I encourage anyone who is watching the debate and is concerned about the impacts of the framework or the workings of the protocol, be they businesses or customers who are simply buying products from GB, to contact us. Members on these Benches will be more than happy to raise those concerns on their behalf. The Government will not be able to resolve the challenges through the full-throated implementation of EU customs. I simply say this: whether it is on customs, food labelling, veterinary meds or the movement of goods, inflicting more EU law on trade flows within the market will simply damage it. I encourage all Members to support our motion this afternoon.

Mr Honeyford: I am feeling really special today about the call-outs and the constructive debates that we are having, yet we spend all of the time focused on ourselves. I repeat what I said in Committee: I was not the one who brought this situation about. I did not want any barriers to trade. I will continue to look at how we can simplify this. Unfortunately, here we go again with the DUP. We have not heard from the TUV yet, but it will say exactly the same, as will the Ulster Unionists. They continue to talk Northern Ireland down and look to promote problems, rather than to deliver anything. They want everybody else to come up with solutions; they do not have any thinking or thought for them.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: No, I will not give way to you.

The values behind the slogan, "Making Northern Ireland Work", have not changed since the 1960s. It simply means, "Make Northern Ireland work for us". That attitude can be seen with the Irish language, the GAA, Casement Park, hosting the Euros in west Belfast or simply letting our kids share a classroom, and it all reinforces the default entitlement —.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: No, I am not giving way to you. I have heard enough of you, Peter, to be honest.

It is the default entitlement that we see and hear about again and again. When we look at the motion, we need to be honest about the facts and not inflate the problems for clips that are simply for TikTok and Instagram reels: facts such as that Marks and Spencer describes itself as viewing its entire store network on the island of Ireland, North and South, as one and, therefore, does not use the green lane. Sadly, the DUP leaves that bit out, but facts matter.

The Member referenced one of the trade guys and mentioned the problems that they have, and they have a lot of problems. I asked them a simple question about why there were no problems coming into Dublin, and they said it was because there was one thing. The Member needs to be careful about moving stuff that is trying to make Northern Ireland work to another constitutional difference. I say that because that was the alternative that that same person said. Again, the Member left that part out.

Ultimately, Alliance wants to be back as members of the EU, but what we have is the best that we are getting. We need to get on with delivering for the people, using the advantages to deliver growth. Northern Ireland's ability to sell into the UK internal market and the EU single market is a huge opportunity. It is a unique opportunity that differentiates us from others, and, unfortunately, the positives are what the DUP is pushing against. In fact, the DUP, alongside the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV, goes out of its way to talk that advantage down and to dismiss it, and we hear it again and again. However, the fact is that dual market access is already starting to drive investment, jobs, expansion and decisions to manufacture here. There are multiple examples in my area, such as PRM, with 1,000 lines of Marks and Spencer products from Europe, based in Lisburn and tripling its plant with major expansion. Leprino Foods, formerly Glanbia, moved its production to Magheralin and is expanding and growing due to dual market access. Last week, Coca-Cola announced another expansion, having extended before, with Monster drinks, to ship to the all-island economy and to GB.

The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Federation of Small Businesses and individual business leaders do not want the framework to be scrapped; they want stability, and they want the issues to be ironed out. Each of them is calling for the highlight to be the EU access advantages. Even in the FSB report, 71% of 700 businesses across the whole of the UK said that dual market access is an advantage, not a barrier, and that they wanted it to be sold. Businesses want certainty, not constitutional fear dressed up as economics, poking everybody else in the eye just for the video clips that MLAs can post on TikTok and Instagram. I will be gutted if I am not in today's.

Alliance will continue to promote this region as a place to do business, to grow your business and to attract inward investment, because here are the facts: Northern Ireland has been in deficit since the 1930s, almost 100 years. Regardless of your constitutional position and regardless of the constitutional future of this place, that is not sustainable. It must change now. That is our focus, and we need to drive that across the House in order to deliver growth: putting people front and centre, having jobs, skills and opportunities to live in a place that is affordable for everybody and collaborating across the island to deliver better for everyone. Alliance is focused on delivering the improvements that business asks for, not re-fighting Brexit. We will all succeed when we do not turn it into an identity battle and instead start acting like a modern economy. I will not support the motion.

Mr McAleer: In 2016, the people of the North voted decisively to remain in the European Union. That democratic expression still resonates today, and many of us continue to believe that our long-term future will be best served by eventually rejoining the EU. We note with interest and encouragement that EU leaders have given firm assurances that, in the event of Irish unity, the North of Ireland would resume full EU membership automatically. In the meantime, the Windsor framework has provided us with a means to deal with the trading realities created by Brexit, prevented the re-emergence of a hard border on the island of Ireland, safeguarded the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement and, crucially, preserved dual market access for businesses operating in this region. Dual access is a unique economic advantage that we must protect and maximise. From an agriculture point of view, for example, we export a third of the milk that we produce in the North to the South of Ireland for processing. That is 800 million litres a year.

It is important to acknowledge that the earlier backstop arrangement that was negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May would have prevented many of the trade divergences that we now face. Unfortunately, MPs opted for a harder Brexit. As a result, we are dealing with challenges today, including those relating to veterinary medicines, that could otherwise have been avoided.

We recognise that Brexit continues to present significant challenges in relation to trade agreements. Those are not abstract concerns; they affect farmers, manufacturers, hauliers, pharmacists and families in every community. Throughout the process, we have consistently urged the British Government and the European Union to find practical, long-term solutions that do not undermine the essential mitigations currently in place to reduce the negative impacts of Brexit. Many of those challenges could be eliminated if the British Government were willing to make a political decision to align with EU rules and regulations. Such alignment would reduce trade friction and bring clarity and stability to our business sectors.

The EU-UK Joint Committee remains a vital mechanism, especially for agriculture and agri-food trade. Its work has been instrumental in identifying and adopting solutions that strengthen food security and support rural communities. We acknowledge its importance and encourage its continued use. We know that an EU-UK veterinary agreement would significantly ease pressures, yet the British Government continue to oppose such an arrangement. That is disappointing, but it should not deter us from pressing for progress.

There has been some improvement in the risk of medicines being discontinued, with supply lines now able to reroute through the South rather than Britain. That is welcome, but challenges remain, including concerns about certain vaccines such as the botulism vaccine. It is important that the EU and the British Government continue negotiations so that the disruptions are further reduced and possibly eliminated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This debate will continue after Question Time, when Paul Frew will be the next Member to speak. The next item of business is Question Time. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Speaker: It is time for questions to the Minister for Communities. We will start with listed questions. Questions 2 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The Housing Executive has indicated that an estimated 25 properties will be purchased in the current financial year. That will be followed by 125 properties next year, 225 properties in 2027-28 and 225 properties in 2028-29.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire, as an fhreagra sin.

The Minister will know that a very large percentage of those who require temporary accommodation are single males, who often find it difficult, even in the private market, to find accommodation that is suited to their needs. How will he ensure that the purchase of those 600 homes is completed in a strategic way in order to meet the needs of that demographic?

Mr Lyons: We are taking a holistic approach. First and foremost, I am trying to deal with the cost of temporary accommodation. By allowing reserves to be used in that way, we will save significant sums of money that would otherwise be spent on hotels and B&Bs. The nature of the temporary accommodation client groups, such as single persons, will be taken into consideration.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister tell us more about how much savings the purchase of those homes will generate?

Mr Lyons: It is rare that Ministers bring forward proposals that will save money in the long run, but that is exactly what we are doing through the scheme. It will save £75 million over the next seven years. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, because in these times of financial constraint, we need to demonstrate ways in which we can protect taxpayers' money and look for further ways in which to do that. That is exactly what I am doing through the work on fraud and error legislation, which is another way in which we can save tens of millions of pounds every year. I look forward to receiving Executive support for taking that work forward.

Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate that the 600 new homes to be used for temporary accommodation will go some way towards dealing with our housing crisis. Are there any plans for the Housing Executive to look at derelict properties across Northern Ireland to see whether they can be added to the total?

Mr Lyons: We will want to make sure that we buy properties that are fit for purpose. I share the Member's concern, however, about the extensive number of derelict properties in Northern Ireland. I see them in my constituency, and I am sure that the Member sees them in hers. I hope that her party colleague's Dilapidation Bill will help in some way. We are going through a housing crisis, so it is difficult to see the many derelict homes that there are. Some of them will obviously require work, but we need to weigh up the costs of such work, because it is simply not right that we are spending so much money on hotels and bed and breakfasts when other housing opportunities are available. Of course, we are doing everything that we can to look at all options.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister expand on the information that the Housing Executive will use to determine where the properties will be located?

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive has said that the principal considerations for the geographical distribution of the units will include the geographical areas where exposure to high-cost temporary accommodation is most prevalent; the nature of the temporary accommodation client groups, such as single persons, couples or families; and the availability of suitable properties in areas that are available to purchase and that align with the criteria. Value for money will also be taken into account.

Mr O'Toole: Ultimately, the need to purchase those homes is a failure of policy, particularly a result of the failure to build more social homes. Minister, you have cut the housing association grant. You have pledged to build just under 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate, but it looks as though that target is not going to be met. Do you accept that it will not be met? Do you accept that the need to buy temporary accommodation is a consequence of the failure to build enough social homes?

Mr Lyons: First, the Member misunderstands exactly what I am trying to do with the housing association grant. I am not cutting the funding for social housing. First and foremost, that needs to be made clear. I am cutting the amount of money that is available per unit so that the slack can be taken up by housing associations through the private finance that they are able to access but we are not. It makes sense to do that and make sure that the money that we have goes further, because I am not happy with the status quo. The status quo is not appropriate, which is why I have been trying to do new and innovative things since I came into office.

The Member is right: we do not have the number of social homes that we need. We do not have homes across all tenures, and I am trying to do something about that. That is why I am trying to get Executive agreement on a proposal to get easier access to public-sector land; I have brought forward the intermediate rent scheme, which will provide some relief for those who need it; and I have done more than any other Minister to put the revitalisation of the Housing Executive on the agenda. Those are all the new actions that I am taking, but, of course, I will continue to ask for more funding to make sure that we can build more social homes. However, ultimately, we are spending huge sums of money on temporary accommodation every year. Therefore, I have taken this step to ensure that we use Housing Executive reserves, which will save over £75 million over the next seven years.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's proposals to generate savings on the amount that is spent on emergency accommodation. I am mindful of the neighbours who live beside the houses used for emergency accommodation. The issue of tenants causing problems comes up time and time again, and, if concerns about tenants of the units are raised, will they be moved on from the emergency accommodation so that new and deserving people can go into them?

Mr Lyons: First, I am a Minister who takes antisocial behaviour seriously. I understand that it is a curse for many good and decent people who just want to live their lives but are plagued by others who, quite frankly, make their lives a misery. I am putting stronger powers in place so that we can deal with antisocial behaviour and hold those people to account. I want to make sure that that happens, which is why we are taking those actions.

Mr Lyons: My Department does not hold data on the developments that are impacted on by waste water infrastructure limitations. However, it is clear from discussions with the sector that waste water capacity constraint is having a significant impact on housebuilding.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. I find it extraordinary that the Minister for the Economy does not know the level of economic stoppages.

Mr Brett: Wrong Minister.

Mr McNulty: No drains, no cranes. To what extent has the construction of new housing developments stalled due to insufficient water and drainage infrastructure?

Mr Lyons: First, to clarify, I am the Minister for Communities; I am not the Minister for the Economy any longer. The Member asked the same question twice. I do not hold that data, but, as I have said, the problem has had a significant impact. We need to make sure that we have sufficient infrastructure in place. We need to look at the areas in which sufficient infrastructure exists to make the best use of the public land that is available. I have a paper that, I hope, will get Executive agreement, which will mean that we can build more homes where there is capacity and make sure that we put in place the infrastructure where it is needed.

Mr McMurray: Minister, are you having any conversations with your counterpart in the Infrastructure Department and with the construction industry to ensure that you can start new builds in the social housing sector?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I have met, and recently wrote to, the Infrastructure Minister to press for the need to identify substantive actions that will begin to resolve the issue. We are already seeing better collaboration between the Departments as a result of the housing supply strategy and the common thread of wanting to build more homes that runs through it. Ultimately, we need to make sure that that continues because it is having an impact, and we need to do something about it.

Mr K Buchanan: The Infrastructure Minister previously blamed the issue with waste water capacity on Tory austerity, and now she is blaming it on British Government austerity — there has been a change in the line there. Does the Minister agree with the assessment that it is the Government's fault?

Mr Lyons: My party has long made the case for fair-funding models for Northern Ireland, but we have Ministers in post for a reason. Although we want to see more funding, and believe that we are entitled to it, we have to take decisions ourselves. We have to decide on our priorities. It is for each Minister to decide how they prioritise their budget and take their own decisions, even if they are unpopular or difficult.

I hope that housing is a priority for the Infrastructure Minister and for Sinn Féin and that it is backed up with sufficient funding for the social housing development programme and investment in waste water infrastructure. We need to get real. This is a serious issue, and we need to make sure that we do something about it. I am playing my role by bringing forward proposals to save money, meaning that we can redirect funding that we would otherwise spend on hotels and bed and breakfasts to help people to stay out of homelessness. It is also up to other Ministers to make sure that they allocate funding to where it needs to go.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, what impact does the matter have on the process that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) uses to determine where homes are built?

Mr Lyons: It has an impact, of course. The Housing Executive manages the day-to-day operation of the social housing development programme and regularly engages with Northern Ireland Water. It has provided Northern Ireland Water with a list of social housing developments that will potentially require a connection to the public waste water system in the next few years. NI Water reviews each development site for a potential connection. An assessment of waste water treatment and network capacity will have to be made, and that will be put into the risk assessment for the programme. That is why it is so important that we get this right.

Mr Lyons: The issues that people in North Down face with poverty are similar to those that people throughout Northern Ireland face. I am working to address those issues through the development of the anti-poverty strategy and interventions such as the extension of welfare mitigations; the adoption of the new housing supply strategy; the provision of inclusive pathways to work for everyone in Northern Ireland; work on fuel poverty; and the development of a new People and Place strategic framework.

In the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, my Make the Call outreach team supported over 1,200 people to access just under £7 million in additional benefits last year. Between 1 February 2024 and 30 June this year, the Housing Executive funded private-sector grants, including affordable warmth, totalling over £3 million. That funding supported 91 home improvement grants and helped 155 homes through the affordable warmth scheme. In this financial year, the neighbourhood renewal programme has invested almost half a million pounds in 13 projects. I have also provided half a million pounds to the independent advice and debt sector and social supermarkets. All that plays a critical role in addressing poverty.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Community organisations in North Down that deal directly with individuals who live in hardship and poverty feel the loss of your Department's hardship fund. Will you consider reintroducing that fund or introducing a similar fund to support organisations that deal with individuals who are living in poverty?

Mr Lyons: I am aware of the impact that that has had, and the Member will be aware of the genesis of it and of how the funding for us to continue it is no longer in place. We will assess the implications of that and, as part of our wider anti-poverty work, take whatever steps we need to in order to make sure that we make the best use of the resources that we have for maximum impact.

Ms Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that home heating costs are particularly challenging for those who feel the cost-of-living pressures. Will he give an update on the fuel poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: I have said that I will present the fuel poverty strategy by the end of the year, and that is still my intention. We know that, as we head into the winter, the issues become more pressing for people. I am well aware of the costs and difficulties that many people face. I will have the strategy before the Executive by the end of the year, but let us not forget that a strategy by itself does not heat people's homes. That is why, as part of the strategy, I will announce interventions that will help us as we seek to eradicate fuel poverty in Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: Sport NI has advised me that it has received 44 applications to date: 16 projects have been approved; three applications have been declined on grounds of project ineligibility; and 25 projects remain under review.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for coming to see Bangor Cricket Club juniors, who are interested in that funding. How will Sport NI ensure that Olympic legacy funding will be equitably split? Will that split be geographical, be done by region or will it be done by sport?

Mr Lyons: The issue has been addressed by Sport NI on its web page that advertises the fund. It is not a competitive grant, and I acknowledge that not all clubs or sports may have the same capacity to access the fund. I knew that it would be popular, and I am pleased to see a big uptake, so, to ensure a fair distribution of funding by sport or geographical area, Sport NI may apply a cap in the programme. Applications impacted by a cap, should it be implemented, will be deferred to future investment rounds, subject to eligibility criteria and funding being made available.

Mr Honeyford: A lot of sports clubs here will not be ready for this round of funding. In the next financial year, will it reopen, and, if so, is the budget likely to increase?

Mr Lyons: It is certainly my intention for it to be in place again in the next financial year. The number of applications that we have received so far indicate the need that exists in sport in Northern Ireland. I want to see that continue. I hope that we can have the same budget or an increased budget again because it makes a difference.

I was delighted to have been invited to Larne Leisure Centre on Saturday to visit Larne Swimming Club, which was very pleased with the Olympic legacy fund being open. It was delighted that it now has a way through because a lot of clubs do not always have those funding opportunities. I thank the club for making me so welcome and for welcoming the fact that the fund is in place. I want to help more clubs like that to ensure that they can have the equipment that they need.

We have the right approach with the crowdfunder element that is needed. It is bringing communities together and ensuring that they are part of that and that there is buy-in there. That is welcome, and I hope that it can continue.

Mr Lyons: It will be the summer of 2026.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his unusually and mercifully brief answer. While we all welcome any investment in the city, people in Derry will be glad to see the work finished and roads restored. Does the Department have any further public realm plans for Derry city centre? Will the Minister encourage collaboration with DFI to identify and address flaws in a previous scheme at Newmarket Street that has left a particularly perilous pavement that poses a real risk to pedestrians?

Mr Lyons: I am sure that the Member will understand that I cannot comment on that because of ongoing legal issues. However, it is always a good thing if we can learn from previous schemes and any issues or difficulties that arise, and there will certainly be a willingness by my Department to do that. The Member will be aware of the significant investment coming through for the north-west, particularly through the regeneration fund. There will be other opportunities for that fund to be used for regeneration purposes.

Mr Lyons: There is currently no set date for the publication of the Executive’s anti-poverty strategy. However, work remains ongoing at pace in the Department to drive forward that vital work.

The public consultation on the draft anti-poverty strategy ran from June to September, and input was received from a wide range of stakeholders. Officials are currently analysing all responses received throughout the process. That analysis will be shared with all Departments and Executive colleagues. The Executive will then give direction on any further development required on the strategy, including any changes deemed appropriate.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his response. I am conscious that the strategy has not been fully launched or implemented yet, but will any immediate actions flow from the strategy that might help to offset some of the real, harsh impacts of the cost-of-living crisis that people are feeling at the minute? Can any immediate, short-term actions be delivered on that issue?

Mr Lyons: The Executive have taken some moves already. We have not waited until full publication of the strategy to move forward. We have included — we have been criticised for it — some of the work that we are already doing. Good progress has been made on the implementation of some of those issues. The Department for Communities has been running the discretionary support fund for some time, and that is continuing, as are other actions.

It is important that we do not wait for the final publication of the strategy before we help and provide support in different ways. The Member will be aware that we are always willing to look at how we can help outside the timelines for the strategies as well. Take, for example, the action that was taken after the Labour Government took the callous decision to remove the winter fuel payment. I was able to bid for funding from the Department of Finance and get Executive agreement so that we could put that measure in place. That is something that we will always look at, depending on the circumstances that arise. From the Executive's point of view, however, we want to make sure that the anti-poverty strategy is fit for purpose, makes a real difference, has long-lasting impacts and, importantly, tackles the root causes of poverty.

Ms Mulholland: It is a wee bit disappointing that we still do not have a timeline. I feel that we waited quite a long time until the draft strategy was initially released, and now it feels like we are back in a holding pattern. Will the Department publish the responses that were received from the stakeholders, and is the Minister able to indicate whether those responses were supportive of the current draft document? When we will hear about the sector's responses?

Mr Lyons: We certainly have not been in a holding pattern. We had a 14-week consultation period to give people the opportunity and the time to have their say. It has been less than two months since that consultation closed, and, in that period, we have been looking at the responses, analysing them and taking them forward. I am keen to share those responses with the public. The responses will inform Executive conversations as well. We will release that information in the normal way, and I look forward to that happening so that people can understand what the public have had to say. We will present all of that information to the Executive so that they can make their final decision on how we take the strategy forward and get it ready for publication.

Mr Lyons: In July 2024 I established the heritage, culture and creativity programme, through which I will fill the void created by the absence of an Executive policy for the arts and for the historic environment. I look forward to bringing that forward soon.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. The question was about the publication of a strategy for the arts. Can he ensure that that publication happens? I am sure that he will appreciate the economic and health and well-being benefits that the arts sector contributes to the economy and, indeed, to all our lives.

Mr Lyons: I will just repeat my answer: through that programme, I will fill the void created by the absence of an Executive policy for the arts. That means that I will be bringing forward that policy.

Mr Brett: The Minister has done an important job in ensuring that the Arts Council and the arts sector are now more reflective of working-class communities across Northern Ireland. Will he commit to continuing to ensure that all communities benefit from arts funding, not just one section of society?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The Member will be aware that I have set that trajectory already. I have sent a letter of expectation to the Arts Council, outlining some of the issues that the Member has raised. I have also had the privilege of welcoming Nora Douds as the new chair of the Arts Council, along with new board members. I am absolutely delighted that she is in post. I have been reassured by the Arts Council's response, and I will continue to work with it to ensure that the arts are for everyone, regardless of class, religion, geography or background. The arts are not just for the few, the elite or the privileged.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, you have just said that the arts sector is not reflective: what support are you giving to ensure that it is reflective?

Mr Lyons: I am not sure whether the Member is aware of the feeling, but I have received many letters from constituents and had meetings with people who feel that the support has not been there for them. Many people outside of Belfast and Londonderry do not feel that there has been enough funding for the arts and for their organisations. There are some small groups and some groups that are doing great work in disadvantaged areas. Some great groups in the arts, particularly amateur dramatics groups, feel that they have not had support. They often feel that no one is interested in them. That is a common and recurrent theme: they feel that no one is interested in what they do. I am surprised that the Member has not received some of that feedback.

I want everyone to have confidence that they can apply for funding and that it will be there on a fair and equitable basis. The big challenge for the Arts Council is that it does not have enough funding, but I want to make sure that we get extra funding and that people feel that it is for everybody.

Mr Lyons: My programme of private rented sector reform is focused on addressing the key issues of affordability, security and quality in a way that balances the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. The key actions that I have already delivered are improving safety for tenants by setting minimum standards for fire and electrical safety; transferring the landlord registration scheme to councils to help to increase landlords' knowledge of their duties and responsibilities; and restricting the frequency of rent increases to once in every 12 months with a three-month written notice. The remaining actions that I will deliver in this mandate are introducing much longer notice to quit periods; amending landlord registration regulations to make the scheme a more meaningful tool in raising property standards; and exploring minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Westminster recently passed its Renters' Rights Act 2025, which has ushered in a significant number of reforms to private tenancies in England, such as a ban on no-fault evictions, the abolition of fixed-term tenancy contracts and increased rights for pet owners. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward legislative reforms to strengthen renters' rights before the end of the mandate?

Mr Lyons: All that will be kept under review. If we need to bring in additional measures and legislation is required, we will do that. I note what the Member said about banning no-fault evictions, but, of course, that is not watertight. There are always reasons why people can be evicted; in fact, in Scotland, there are 18 reasons and exemptions. In all those things, it is about getting the right balance. I am progressing measures to which the Assembly agreed in the previous mandate. I am always happy to keep some of those other issues under review, but we also need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from those.

Mr Harvey: Minister, do rent controls work?

Mr Lyons: I go by the evidence. The evidence indicates that they do not work; in fact, all the evidence demonstrates that. For some, the solution to affordability is introducing regulation on rent controls, such as freezes or reductions. However, the independent research highlights the potential unintended consequences of such actions, including landlords exiting the private rental market, resulting in a greater shortage of properties in an already stretched market. I have previously discussed and debated the issue with Members in the House. I am glad to see Mr Carroll in his place: just over a year ago, I asked him to bring evidence on rent controls to me, if he had it, but, unfortunately, we have —.

Mr Carroll: It is coming.

Mr Lyons: Oh, it is coming. It has taken him only 11 months, but it is on its way. I look forward to seeing that research. I will be guided by the research on this one.

Mr Lyons: My officials are undertaking a scoping exercise on the feasibility and sustainability of a Northern Ireland industry levy that is anticipated to be completed by the end of the financial year. The outworkings of that exercise will be used to help inform decisions on a way forward.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, my question is on the work that you have done to date. What discussions have you had with counterparts in other jurisdictions?

Mr Lyons: Clearly, there has been engagement with the relevant UK Departments on the issue. There has also been significant cooperation in Northern Ireland. In my correspondence with the UK Government, we have written jointly, because gambling is an issue that does not affect the Department for Communities alone. I have worked closely with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education, and we have made a joint representation on the wider issue. I look forward to working with others, because it is important that we have this in place and use the funding that is there for the right purposes.

Mr Frew: Will the Minister explain and describe the engagement with the Department of Health on this serious issue?

Mr Lyons: We have been engaging with the Department of Health at official level on our correspondence with the UK Government and to make sure that other Departments are aware of their responsibilities. As the Member will be aware, the purpose of the levy is to tackle gambling harm, for which the Department of Health has a responsibility. Therefore, it has an important role to play in advising my officials on gambling harm. It should also be advising on the types of projects and services that a levy could support.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, I am disappointed that we will not host any matches in Belfast. I would have very much appreciated the opportunity for that to happen, but we know why it will not. In the absence of hosting matches, it is incumbent on all of us to look at the ways that we might still benefit from the Euros being hosted by the UK and Ireland. That is why I am glad of that first step of ensuring that the draw will take place here. We will have representatives of 54 nations and many journalists coming for the draw. Obviously, that is no substitute for holding matches here, but we should be in the mindset of doing everything that we can to promote Northern Ireland and ensure that we play whatever role we can. That is the first of what, I hope, will be more announcements.

What is more important will be the legacy that comes from the tournament as a whole. I am delighted that the Irish Football Association (IFA) has already signalled its intention to put a significant amount of money into that. I look forward to Executive colleagues also providing support so that we can build a sporting legacy from the tournament.

Mr Durkan: While we host the draw for that prestigious competition, Dublin will host seven matches and generate hundreds of millions of pounds. Does the Minister have no regrets that the Executive did not do more to secure the investment needed in Casement Park to allow Northern Ireland to play a proper role in hosting and benefiting from one of the biggest sporting tournaments in the world? Will steps be taken to ensure that we do not miss out on similar opportunities in future?

Mr Lyons: My goodness, the Member is brave in asking the question that he has just asked. He is wondering why we are not able to host any games here. We know that Windsor Park does not have the required capacity. He has mentioned Casement Park in the past. We all know that to have built Casement Park in time for the Euros required cash and lots of it. My skills and abilities do not extend to magicking £300 million-plus out of nowhere.

Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get matches, but maybe the Member would, for once, like to consider the role that he played in all of that. If he really wants, we can go back to the original planning application in 2014. Why did the original planning application fall at judicial review in 2014? It was because of the Member: a judge ruled that he acted unlawfully in granting planning permission. He did not take into consideration all the relevant factors. The judge said that the decision was "irretrievably flawed". There is more blame to go on Mark Durkan than on anybody else in the House. It was Mark Durkan who unlawfully approved the original planning application. That is why we are in the situation that we are in today. I would rather that all those projects had been completed in 2011. If they had, we would not face the cost that we face now. If the Member wants to blame someone, maybe he should look in the mirror.

Mr Lyons: The Member should not be surprised to hear that the UK Government have not provided us with information on their intentions. I am not sure how much use any information would be anyway, because it would probably change within a few hours.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, sort of. If they do decide to scrap the policy, presumably there will be a financial benefit, with extra money coming here to cover the cost. If not, will you give a commitment that your Department will cover it?

Mr Lyons: The difficulty is that there is a huge cost involved in our doing that on our own. I hope that the Government do the right thing and reverse the policy. That has been the united position of the Assembly, but, as we finalise the anti-poverty strategy, we will look at all options in order to ensure that we provide help where it is needed most.

Mr Lyons: I heard some of the comments from the Chair of the Communities Committee at the Public Accounts Committee last week. He was very negative about what we are trying to do on our connections with the United States. I do not know whether that is because of his distaste for Ulster-Scots culture or because Northern Ireland will have special status in next year's celebrations. The celebrations here are important, however, because of the benefits that they can bring to Northern Ireland, including tourism, investment and greater understanding in the United States of who we are. My goal is clear: to promote Northern Ireland, who we are, what we have done in the past and what positively lies ahead for us in the future.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You know that I am passionate about Ulster-Scots culture, and I look forward to welcoming you to some more events in the Mournes. Can you outline some of the tangible outcomes that you foresee from the investment resulting from the America250 celebrations?

Mr Lyons: We will stand out on the international stage next year at the special event that the US is organising. We also have the memorandum of understanding, which contains key benefits for Northern Ireland. We are also raising the cultural connections, which I would have thought the Chairman of the Communities Committee would welcome. We will also host our own event in the US next year that will give us the opportunity to tell people about Northern Ireland. Through the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, we are getting some significant players in the room with us, and that should be welcomed by all.

Mr Lyons: It is up to individual councils to identify their priorities for regeneration funding. My Department applies a consistent approach that is based on the applications and priorities, and it is great to see towns taking the initiative to apply for funding to deliver projects that enhance their town centre. Funding for festive investments has also been provided to four other council areas in the current year and in recent years: Ards and North Down; Lisburn and Castlereagh; Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon; and Newry, Mourne and Down.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that many councils are now struggling with the effect that the slashing of the rate support grant has had on their financial management arrangements. Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, which is in my constituency, faces the invidious challenge this year of trying to work out which towns will get Christmas lights and which will not. Minister, are you saying that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council's was the only application that you received for financial support to invest in Christmas lights this year?

Mr Lyons: I will confirm that for the Member, but the information that I have is that applications are open to everyone and everyone can apply on the same basis. It is up to councils to decide how they allocate their regeneration funding.

Let me cut to the chase: you think that something untoward has gone on and that I am prioritising my constituency.

I will always want to stand up for my constituents, but I assure you that this is available on the same basis for everybody. The Member is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr Lyons: Yes. I am pleased to confirm that the fund has received over 800 applications. I am also encouraged by the fact that we have had interest from a wide range of sectors, spread across every council area in Northern Ireland. That is a clear indication that we have a great need for the fund, and my officials are working to ensure that it becomes a rolling programme of support, which is much needed by the voluntary and community sector.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the scheme and its positive impact on communities be evaluated, and will it be rolled out year-on-year?

Mr Lyons: Yes, there certainly will be an evaluation. I hope that the scheme can be funded again next year.

I apologise that I did not answer the second part of the Member's first question, which was about funding from other Departments. I have had correspondence and discussions with the AERA Minister, and I will write to him formally to request his support for the fund because the majority of the applications come from rural communities. As the Member knows, the primary responsibility for policy in the area falls to DAERA. I hope that we can work together on the fund, because there is huge demand and it will have a hugely positive impact.

Mr Lyons: That is an issue about which we will all have been contacted. I am concerned about it because so many really good organisations that do brilliant work have had uncertainty for some time. There does not seem to be any clarification coming their way. The Executive, with the Finance Minister taking the lead, will continue to make those representations. Those organisations do brilliant work and deserve to have long-term certainty, which they do not have right now.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his answer. What exactly have you done to put pressure on Westminster to provide the support that we need for those organisations?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, all work with the Treasury goes through the Department of Finance. That is how the Executive operate. I assure the Member that there has been strong support from across the Executive, including me, for the issues that the Finance Minister is raising. I know that that does not bring much comfort to the organisations that are so badly affected, but it is clear that we need answers on the matter and very soon. I will play whatever role I can in that.

Mr Lyons: It absolutely is the case that the funding is not worth as much as it was in 2011. That was the commitment that was made at that time, and I am disappointed that progress has not been made. In the case of the football fund, Ministers did not take it forward when they should have, and, in the case of Casement Park, Mr Durkan acted unlawfully and the project was held up for that reason. Obviously, any further allocations would be subject to Executive agreement, and we have to balance those against other pressures.

Mr Honeyford: The question is whether you agree that the value of those projects should be increased in line with inflation. As Minister, will you argue on the Executive that those two figures are increased to the value of what they were in 2011?

Mr Lyons: Of course I want to see more money for sport and sporting infrastructure. However, I am aware that there are other pressures in my Department and across the Executive. Do I want to see more money for sport in Northern Ireland? Absolutely. Should it be allocated on a fair and equitable basis? Absolutely. However, there is a huge financial requirement on us right now. Those increases in and of themselves will not meet some of that need. Those things have to be weighed up together.

Mr Speaker: It is time to move on to questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Regional balance is a key priority of my tourism vision and action plan, and rural tourism presents a valuable opportunity to support regional balance and promote the sustainable development of our rural communities.

We know that visitors, particularly those from international markets, come to experience our amazing landscapes and scenery. Whether they are our coasts, lakes, countryside or parklands, our rural areas have them in abundance. Tourism NI will continue to work directly with tourism businesses in rural areas as well as in collaboration with local councils. That focus on business development supports and promotes their authentic and unique appeal across all regions to develop their profitability, innovation, visitor appeal and long-term sustainability. The work will be further enhanced by an upcoming destination stewardship approach that will focus on achieving regional balance in rural and urban areas through carefully designed sustainability and regenerative plans.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, our local councils play a vital role in the promotion of many of our rural tourist sites. However, success varies from one local authority to the next. What can the Department do to ensure that best practice models and ideas are shared across Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Some of our council areas, including mine and the Member's, have a particularly strong focus on tourism and will have strong tourism development departments. Working alongside Tourism NI, there is an opportunity for them to share best practice. Through the tourism vision and action plan, I encourage that and will continue to encourage Tourism NI to play that important role. Through the local economic partnerships (LEPs) that we recently established, there is an opportunity for each council to design its own economic plan and, where it is relevant and council members feel that it is appropriate to do so, ensure that tourism is appropriately represented in it. Again, I actively encourage councils to do that.

Mr McMurray: Minister, what representation are you making to your counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that all-island branding, such as Ireland's Ancient East, is extended into Northern Ireland, as doing so would benefit many in the tourism industry, not least in South Down?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I completely agree with him. Work is ongoing with Tourism NI, Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland to bridge those visitor experiences across the island. For example, the Causeway coastal route and the Wild Atlantic Way have a Shared Island project fund of some £7·6 million to do that. A review of the current Causeway coastal route visitor offering has been completed, following consultation with public and industry stakeholders and having gathered insights to shape an infrastructure strategy. That has the potential to develop things along the route such as the discovery points that are similar to those along the Wild Atlantic Way. That project also includes the delivery of a small capital investment scheme to improve interpretation, provision and the visitor experience. Recognising the brands that Fáilte Ireland owns, Tourism NI is in final discussions with Fáilte Ireland on licensing the use of Ireland's Hidden Heartlands to the Fermanagh region, and I hope to be in a position to welcome progress on that in the very near future.

I have previously updated Members on Ireland's Ancient East. Fáilte Ireland is evaluating that brand's effectiveness and considering the next steps. I am keen for the North to be represented in any discussions on that, and I will continue to make that case to Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland.

Ms Hunter: Minister, we share the beautiful constituency of East Derry. It has areas of outstanding natural beauty and a stunning coast. What developments do you have in mind to expand rural tourism in our constituency?

Dr Archibald: I completely agree with the Member. We are blessed with significant and important tourism areas and landscapes and a number of hugely important visitor attractions. Our council does a very good job of promoting our tourism offering. As recently as today, we have seen the success of the Open, which was hosted in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. That council area has shown that we have the ability to host that type of major sporting event and other major events. We can continue to build on that. Similarly, as I said to Mr Harvey, there is a real opportunity for our LEP to look towards tourism as part of its plans. Working alongside Tourism Ireland, Tourism NI and our councils, I will, of course, continue to promote the best that we have to offer.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 5 together. My written ministerial statement of 16 October concerns matters that are within the statutory responsibility of my Department. The measures that are outlined in that statement are driven by the clear moral case for action. Insofar as my statement outlined that the North would not participate in the British Government's trade talks with Israel, which are currently paused, I do not consider it to be controversial.

In its report, published on 16 September, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Genocide is not only abhorrent but illegal under international law. In addition, the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of last July was that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and that states have an obligation not to recognise or assist in maintaining that situation. That position is reinforced by the UN General Assembly's resolution of 18 September 2024, which called on all states to cease trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation. That resolution reflects a broad international consensus that states should not facilitate violations of international law.

In relation to the other measures that are designed to provide reassurance and eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide, I have outlined my intention and will provide further information, once those steps have been progressed. My decision does not represent a policy that is unique with regard to Israel; it is based on the principle that public funds must not support the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide. That approach will be country-neutral, principles-based and grounded in the UN's 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights'. The measures that I announced will apply consistently to any country that is found to be committing genocide and are designed to align our economic development policies with human rights obligations and ethical investment principles. I do not consider that to be a controversial position to adopt to ensure that public funding is not associated —

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up.

Dr Archibald: — with the genocide of any population.

Mr Brett: Minister, you described genocide as "abhorrent". Last week, as Economy Minister, you met representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Will you outline to the House what discussions you had with them in relation to genocide, or do you have a hypocritical approach when it comes to the issue of Israel?

Dr Archibald: I note the Member's attempt to deflect from his party's position on the genocide that is being committed by Israel in Gaza. There are issues in relation to China's human rights: I have highlighted and will continue to highlight those concerns. I also emphasise that one of the measures that is being taken as part of my announcement is the development of an ethical investment framework that will apply consistently across the board.

Mr Gaston: Minister, given Sinn Féin's well-documented historical links to paramilitary and international terrorist organisations, will you share with the House the specific evidence that you relied on when deciding that your Department of all Departments is in a position to lecture anyone on ethical international engagement?

Dr Archibald: As I clearly outlined in my opening answer, I did not decide that. It was set out by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, which found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and by the International Court of Justice, which found the Palestinian occupation to be unlawful. What I announced upholds international law. It is a basic moral position that has been adopted in order not to associate ourselves with public funding that is going to the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide. As I have said very clearly on a number of occasions, I do not consider that position to be controversial in any way whatsoever.

Mr McGuigan: I agree that the Minister's announcement was not controversial, thank her for her clarification of international law and agree that public funds from the North should not be used to support genocide in, in this instance, Gaza. The Minister mentioned an ethical investment framework. Will she update us on the development of that framework?

Dr Archibald: As part of the measures that I announced on 16 October, my officials are developing an ethical investment framework. The initial scoping for the framework will be based on the UN's 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights', which are the three principles of protect, respect and remedy. It will also be informed by a variety of stakeholders, including arm's-length bodies of the Department as well as the business and human rights sectors. There will be a formal consultation period and an opportunity for members of the public to input their views. It will be completed before the end of the mandate.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you will be aware that unionist parties are trying to compare your action, like for like, to what the Education Minister did in recent weeks. Do you agree that doing all that we can, including ministerial directions, against a state that is involved in apartheid, and trying to isolate it, is not the same as a Minister's engaging in a propaganda trip to a rogue genocidal apartheid state?

Dr Archibald: I completely agree with what the Member has set out. What is controversial is the Education Minister's trip and his cheerleading for a state that has perpetrated the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, has created more child amputees per capita in Gaza than in any other place in the world, is responsible for the initialism WCNSF — wounded child, no surviving family — has destroyed civilian infrastructure and is enforcing starvation on a population. The measures that I have announced have absolutely nothing to do with the perpetrators of such abhorrent actions and are in no way controversial in my opinion.

Dr Aiken: Minister, why are you breaching your obligations under annex 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which your party chairman, Declan Kearney, was praising earlier this afternoon, on the Euro-Mediterranean agreement on trade between the EU, the single market and Israel?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member that that is the case. In fact, I do not believe that my announcements breach the Windsor framework agreement in any way.

Dr Archibald: The independent review of Invest NI, commissioned to assess the organisation's efficiency and effectiveness, identified significant challenges and called for profound transformation. In response, my Department, working closely with Invest NI and key stakeholders, published a comprehensive action plan comprising 35 strategic actions to drive meaningful change and align the agency with my economic vision. To date, 28 of those actions have been fully implemented, delivering improvements in leadership, organisational structure and operational delivery. The remaining seven actions are on track for completion by December 2026. Through that collaborative effort, I am committed to ensuring that Invest NI is better equipped to support businesses, foster regional balance and drive sustainable economic growth across the North.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

Minister, will you provide an update on the new leadership team?

Dr Archibald: The independent review of Invest NI made clear that there was a need for a refreshed and dynamic leadership team to drive that organisation forward. I am pleased to report that decisive steps have been taken to implement that recommendation with the appointment of Anne Beggs as chief commercial officer, Kathryn Hill as chief operating officer and Alison Currie as chief development officer. Those appointments reflect a commitment to strong, inclusive leadership and bring a wealth of experience and expertise to Invest NI at a pivotal time for our economy. I commend Kieran Donoghue for his decisive leadership in ensuring that the organisation is well positioned to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead. I look forward to working closely with the new leadership team as we continue our shared mission to foster innovation, attract investment and deliver prosperity for communities right across the North.

Mr Buckley: Invest NI is crucial to ensuring that our businesses reach their full potential right across the world. With that in mind, the Minister will be aware that, recently, Invest NI talked about the importance of the defence sector to the Northern Ireland economy, representing some 10,000 jobs and £2 billion in output. Does the Minister agree with that statement?

Dr Archibald: The Member will be well aware of my position on the funding of the British Government's militarisation agenda in favour of public services, infrastructure and things that would be beneficial to the population. The Member will also be well aware that advanced manufacturing and engineering is one of the priority sectors of our economy and, accordingly, attracts support from the Department and Invest NI. There are other initiatives that are funded and supported by the British Government that businesses here have the opportunity to avail themselves of directly by engaging with the British Government.

Mr McNulty: Historically, Invest NI has made a ridiculously low number of FDI visits to my constituency of Newry and Armagh. Can the Minister say with any degree of confidence that Invest NI support reflects regional balance across all of the North, including Newry and Armagh?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he will be aware of the subregional economic plan that was published last year, which put a new focus on regional development, including by Invest NI. It included a target for investment outside of the Belfast metropolitan area of 65% over the three-year business period. In the first year, that increased to 59%, so we can point to some success in the short space of time in which that and the subregional economic plan have been in place. Regional balance is increasingly important. I have put a particular focus on it; it is one of my four priorities under the economic vision. I will certainly encourage Invest NI to look at regions right across the North. Just last week, I was in Boston, supporting a delegation from the north-west to attract investment and trade opportunities. I will look for further opportunities to do so for regions right across the North.

Dr Archibald: The Utility Regulator (UR) announced on 30 October 2025 that it has launched a formal investigation into the matter. The investigation is being carried out in accordance with the UR's enforcement procedure. The details of the investigation are confidential while it is ongoing in order to allow for due process.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her worrying differences with Invest NI, and given the fact that the Utility Regulator has had to step in on EP Ballylumford Limited, can she assure the House that she is fully across her brief and is ensuring that her Department's energy branch is protecting the consumers of Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: The Member is well aware that I am across my brief. I do not have differences with Invest NI, so I am not sure what he is talking about in that regard. What the Utility Regulator is doing for Kilroot is part of its job. I assure you that energy branch in my Department is fully engaged in ensuring that our consumers are protected and that all the appropriate functions are being carried out.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, on the subject of electricity generation, critical to meeting our targets and reducing consumer bills is the North/South interconnector. When I asked your colleague the First Minister earlier about the North/South interconnector, she did not answer the question. It is going to be delayed for several years. Do you accept that it is critical that it is delivered? Do you accept that the North/South interconnector cannot be undergrounded because of cost? Do you want it to be delivered, and do you accept that it has to be delivered overground? Please be clear.

Dr Archibald: I am not sure why the Member thinks that I have not been clear on the issue. The North/South interconnector is critical infrastructure. It is really unfortunate that it will be delayed; some of the issues that we have been dealing with recently in relation to the security of supply would not be happening if we had the North/South interconnector.

The Member is well aware of my party's long-stated policy in respect of the interconnector's being overground or underground. We also have a planning application that has been approved. Departments have to ensure that that is progressed and implemented as set out.

Ms Finnegan: What measures are in place to safeguard security of supply for winter 2025?

Dr Archibald: As a mitigation to meet security of supply for demand until the run-hours reset on 1 January 2026, my departmental officials have been engaging with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, providing evidence that, under the circumstances, it is necessary to increase the running hours at Kilroot. That has happened because of unexpected issues with Coolkeeragh, which was taken out for repair and has not yet come back on. Therefore, to ensure security of supply, we have increased the number of run hours that are permitted at Kilroot. Those will be reset on 1 January, and that has obtained the agreement of the Executive.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn. Mr McGlone is not in his place. I call Nick Mathison.

Dr Archibald: The Minister of Education and I met in May to discuss his proposals for 16-18 legislation. We will meet again at the end of this month to continue that discussion, alongside other cross-cutting issues relating to 14-19 education. My officials have maintained ongoing engagement with the Department of Education on those matters through the established 14-19 structures. I note that it is vital that that work is underpinned by strong interdepartmental collaboration, clear operational planning and meaningful engagement with young people themselves. Legislation alone will not be enough; it must be matched by adequate funding and a whole-systems approach to ensure equity and meaningful change for every young person.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that answer. As the Minister with responsibility for further education, how will you ensure that, when the legislation is delivered, our young people, regardless of what school or school sector they are in, are given the full suite of options and pathways available to ensure that access to further education pathways or apprenticeships are promoted to all our young people, and that we do not end up, by virtue of that legislation, locking them into pathways that are not right for them?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I support the broad intention of the legislation to ensure that all our young people have opportunities. Currently, there is a lack of sufficient detail to properly comment on the specifics. As I mentioned, we need to see all pathways appropriately funded to ensure that they deliver. It is important that we work together to avoid duplication and make the best use of our combined resources.

I believe that we have world-class further education facilities. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to open two of our new campuses, which are fantastic. There is a real opportunity for us to be world-leading in the type of initiatives and programmes that we put in place for our young people, particularly across the remit of apprenticeships. Certainly, I will engage closely with the Education Minister to ensure that our priorities align — they do, generally, in what we are trying to achieve for young people — to make sure that we are working together and have a whole suite of options that young people can pursue, regardless of where they come from or their aspirations.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her commitment to this topic and broad area of work. Minister, you mentioned duplication. Will you talk more to exactly what you will do to ensure that there is no duplication and how you will continue to support our further education colleges, which, we know, do brilliant work in my area and across the board?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We are all aware of the financial pressures that the Department of Education is under. Putting increasing student numbers into its remit may further stretch that available funding. My Department is also under funding pressure. I have tried very hard to prioritise skills within my funding envelope, but, certainly, with more funding, we could do an awful lot more. That is why it is more important than ever that we work together to avoid duplication and make the best use of our combined resources. As I said, I am absolutely committed to collaborating closely with the Education Minister to ensure that our facilities are properly utilised. If we align our planning and delivery, and have appropriate sharing of data and coordination of different programmes, we can provide learners with the best possible opportunities while also ensuring value for money. Our focus therefore needs to be on delivering a joined-up offer that meets the needs of all young people and avoids unnecessary overlap in order to maximise the impact of every pound that we spend.

Dr Archibald: A review of grid connection charges here remains a priority for me. I intend to publish a decision paper later this year, with implementation planned for 2026. My Department has consulted on the options for transitioning to a more socialised grid connection charging policy. Greater socialisation of grid connection costs will make it easier for individuals, businesses and communities to connect to the electricity network. That is particularly important for our rural communities. Those of us who represent rural constituencies will no doubt have had constituents raise the issue with them on many occasions. It is also important for enabling the roll-out of low-carbon technologies and electric vehicles in order to meet our objectives in the transition to net zero.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for your answer, Minister. You indicated that you will make some form of decision at the back end of this year. When will the implementation of that decision be rolled out? What is the timeline for people on the ground seeing a cost reduction? A bit of a process is involved. When therefore will increased socialisation of connection costs hit the ground so that people can see savings?

Dr Archibald: As I indicated, it is my intention to publish the decision before the end of the year. Its implementation will progress during 2026. As I said in my initial answer, I know that rural constituents in particular have lobbied for greater socialisation of grid connection costs for a long time. I have to consider the options in front of me and the consultation responses. I am keen to progress implementation as soon as possible, however.

Mr Durkan: Minister, the Audit Office recently found that your Department had achieved just 1% of progress on the energy strategy, despite spending over £100 million. Given that record, how can the public have confidence in your Department's ability to deliver lower costs and renewable energy at pace?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, as it gives me the opportunity to address the issue. The Audit Office reported on three targets and found that progress was being made on two of them. For the third target — energy efficiency — the issue was with data, and we, as a Department, need to resolve that.

Of the funding that has been utilised to date, over £70 million has gone to invest-to-save projects across public services. Those projects are saving in the region of £8 million or £9 million annually. The investment that has been made is therefore saving the public purse money. That is to be welcomed. It shows public-sector leadership. We will take on board the recommendations in the Audit Office report, one of which is to do a mid-strategy review, which we intend to publish before the end of the year.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, will you provide an update on the smart meter programme?

Dr Archibald: Yes, although I am not sure that I have the full details in front of me. The consultation has completed, and we will publish information on the way forward in the very near future. If the Member wishes to write to me, I will furnish her with her further details, but that is the gist of it.

Dr Archibald: The setting of air passenger duty is a reserved matter that is legislated for by the Treasury, which then collects APD. I consider APD to be an unfair tax that continues to have a significant detrimental impact on domestic aviation, as was acknowledged by Sir Peter Hendy in the Union connectivity review. The British Government need to address that. As an island, we rely heavily on air travel. The current rate of air passenger duty set by the British Government is the highest in Europe. Adding an extra cost burden thus has a disproportionate impact on us that undermines our competitiveness and accessibility. That impact is heightened when we look at the South, where APD was abolished in 2014.

Since 2012, the Executive have had the delegated authority to set the APD rate for long-haul flights. As part of our efforts to encourage more flights, the rate has been set at zero.

Any change, however, to the rate of short-haul APD here must be weighed against the financial consequences. I believe that the British Government should bear the responsibility for those financial consequences, in recognition of our status as an island and the requirement for air travel.

While there have been no recent studies on APD's economic impact on the local economy, I have asked my officials to examine a number of policy options, including potential APD reform. Officials recently met key aviation stakeholders and are preparing a consultation document that is to be issued in the coming months.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, you promised a 'good jobs' Bill by the end of the mandate, but time is running out. You say that it will be introduced in January, but we have not even seen a draft. This afternoon, your party will move a motion on the cost of living, but it is hard to take that seriously when Sinn Féin has not delivered the workers' rights Bill that you promised.

Dr Archibald: The good jobs agenda is about putting more money in workers' pockets, prosperity and ensuring that people have access to a good job, a good work-life balance and good working conditions. I am a little bemused by the question, because, in April, when I announced the way forward, I indicated that it would be January before the legislation was introduced. Therefore, I do not see that there has been any delay.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, we have had no clarity on the contents of the Bill. There is great concern about that, even in the Economy Committee. What does it look like? It will be a complex Bill with lots of elements. Is the Minister guaranteeing that it will be introduced in January and delivered before the end of the mandate?

Dr Archibald: When I set out the way forward on the 'good jobs' Bill in April, I set out what would be contained in the Bill. Drafters are progressing the legislation. I do not see why you would anticipate seeing the contents of the Bill before it has been introduced in the Assembly. As I said, I view it as being on track.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The report by the high street task force had a number of recommendations. My Department has taken forward those that fall within my responsibility. On place-based regeneration, it is worth saying that, with the Communities Minister, I recently announced funding for community wealth-building pilot projects in the north-west and Larne. Those are good initiatives that give communities the power to design the support that they want to see in their area and initiatives that will support their area.

I am more than happy to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that our high streets are vibrant places. Most of the responsibility sits directly with the Communities Minister and, to some extent, the Finance Minister, but I am open to any initiatives that can support our high streets. Recently, the Infrastructure Minister and I, along with a number of Executive colleagues, brought forward the night-time economy initiative, which is aimed expressly at getting footfall back into our city centre at night. That is a pilot for this year, but, hopefully, we can build on it in the coming years.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I was on Botanic Avenue last night. It is wonderful that there are so many independent hospitality businesses there, but I know from speaking to many of their owners that they find it difficult to expand because they are outbid by multinational and multi-chain restaurants. The Republic of Ireland has put in place a cap on the number of such restaurants: is that something that the Minister's Department would consider to allow independent hospitality businesses to flourish?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not aware of that initiative, but I am happy to look into it and for my officials to evaluate its objectives and outworkings. I, too, am lobbied by hospitality businesses that find things challenging in the current circumstances, and we all know that last year's Budget from the Chancellor had measures that were damaging to small businesses in particular. Hopefully, in the coming Budget, we will see a reversal of some of those measures. We also know that, comparatively speaking, the level of VAT in the South impacts on hospitality businesses in the North, and, along with the Finance Minister, I continue to make the case that we act as a pilot in the reduction of VAT for the hospitality sector. Again, that is something that we will continue to pursue.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly see a strong synergy between the initiatives that are being taken forward under the community wealth-building pilot projects and what can be done with our local economic partnerships. The intent behind the local economic partnerships was to democratise power back to local areas so that they could design the projects that best meet their needs. I strongly encourage the tie-in with community, voluntary and other third-sector organisations to ensure that there is a place-based approach to economic development that meets the needs of everybody across our communities. There is a real opportunity there for our local economic partnerships and such initiatives to make a real difference in communities.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that answer. What long-term impact might those projects have on those areas?

Dr Archibald: I do not have a crystal ball to help me understand what the impacts might be, but I expect there to be robust evaluations of the initiatives' achievements. I expect them to be successful and to have positive outcomes, because, when there is community buy-in and something is built from the ground up, it will meet the needs of those whom you are trying to serve. Certainly, the intent behind the community wealth-building partnerships is to leverage local assets for the benefit of the community, and I fully anticipate that they will be positive. We have two pilot schemes that could be rolled out across the board to support other communities to do likewise.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Skills are the top priority for me, as Minister, because they underpin everything else that we are trying to achieve across the four priorities of the economic vision. We need people with the appropriate skills to fill the good jobs that we are trying to create in regions across the North. When I engage with businesses, I find that skills is the top issue that they raise. We are ensuring that there are pathways that have been designed in partnership with industry through our sectoral partnerships so that the programmes, traineeships, apprenticeships and other programmes meet the needs of the businesses that are trying to grow and expand.

If we are thinking about how we take that regional approach, as I mentioned, we now have the subregional economic plan to guide us, and that is showing success. The local economic partnerships, working alongside the labour market partnerships that are under the remit of the Department for Communities, can make sure that there is better alignment in local areas to ensure that the skills meet the business needs.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What specific targets has she put in place to ensure that people from the most deprived communities benefit from higher-value jobs? Will she commit to publishing area-based data on those programmes?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I agree that data is really important in evidencing progress, and, in the Department, we are looking at using that to ensure that the objectives that we set ourselves under the departmental plan are met and to measure how we perform against those objectives.

Invest NI has subregional targets on jobs and job creation across council areas that it will progress under its business plan. In our regional focus, we will work closely alongside Invest NI. Through local economic partnerships in particular, there is an opportunity to ensure that the skills needs in each area are met. I very much encourage that collaborative approach. Our regional colleges are represented on all the partnerships, so there is a real opportunity for effective tie-in.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We recently published the apprenticeship action plan. The plan is about ensuring that apprenticeships are readily available and accessible and that they meet the needs of business while being person-centred and meeting the needs of our young people and, increasingly, people of all ages. A number of the initiatives under the apprenticeship action plan are about ensuring that businesses have the capability and support in place to offer apprenticeships, which is certainly really important.

I have had significant correspondence from MLAs and others in recent weeks about the challenges that young people face in obtaining apprenticeships. The number of people in apprenticeships has increased significantly over the past number of years, which is a sign of success, but we have still more young people who would take up the opportunity if they had an employer to offer it. My work is now very much about encouraging more employers to offer such opportunities and ensuring that they have the appropriate support to do so.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that there is a scarcity of tradesmen in our workforce in Northern Ireland and that it is therefore vital to encourage as many as possible into apprenticeships?

Dr Archibald: I agree. It can be challenging to find a tradesperson to do a job for you, because they are so busy. You will probably be surprised to hear that the most popular apprenticeships are those in construction trades. We need to put a focus on that, because we need tradespeople in those areas, be they construction workers, electricians or plumbers. We need the appropriate labour to support us in our initiatives in relation to meeting our net zero targets, for example, and our housebuilding targets. It is critical for us to ensure that people come through into our construction trades.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I was in Boston for two days at the end of last week on a trip that was specifically about promoting the north-west as a leading location for investment and trade. On Thursday, hosted by Tourism NI, I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the American travel trade. I delivered a keynote address at the Golden Bridges conference, which highlights the best of the north-west to an influential Irish-American business audience. I met former US envoy Joe Kennedy to discuss building on the momentum that he had created and strengthening transatlantic economic ties with US companies. I also had the opportunity to meet one of our current investors, who is planning further investment here. That was on Thursday.

On Friday, I attended a business leaders' event organised by Invest NI, which had a particular focus on the north-west. I then had the opportunity to attend the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ulster University and the University of Massachusetts. There is a huge amount of positive economic news coming out of the north-west, with recent investments and announcements, and I was delighted to take that message to the business community in the States.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr McGlone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in my place for my question.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McGlone. Members may take their ease for a moment before we return to the previous debate.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In the debate before Question Time, some interventions were called but none was taken. I sometimes heard more debate in my old Bangor Grammar School debating society. Do you have a view on Members not taking interventions? Otherwise, we could just come to the Chamber and read out speeches, and there would be no debating at all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do have a view, but, at the end of the day, it is down to Members whether they accept interventions. There is nothing in Standing Orders about it. OK, Peter?

Mr Gildernew: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In Question Time, the Minister for Communities asserted that, in my role as Chair of the Committee for Communities, I had a distaste for Ulster-Scots culture. That is simply not true. The Minister may not be comfortable with the scrutiny, but it is not appropriate for him to make untrue inferences or assertions in light of that. Will the Speaker's Office review his remarks?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can certainly ask the Speaker's Office to review his remarks. Ministers can respond in any way that they like, but it is normally in a cordial fashion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As I said before the debate was suspended, the next Member to speak will be Paul Frew.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. It is a very topical, serious issue for many of our constituents and businesses, small and large, and it is a big issue for many consumers who are trying to buy their wares from GB companies and are finding it increasingly difficult. I know from my mailbag and my email lists the amount of concern out there.

We, as a party, have a very good sense of organisation. When we get emails regarding the protocol, we pass them to the central party, and it engages for us, on our behalf, with the relevant departments in Westminster. It has proven to be a very good way of getting information down to constituents. However, it seems to me, from listening to the debate, that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have no concerns about those issues and no complaints from their constituents. Going by the level and tone of their debate, it seems that, if they do, they basically reply, "Suck it up, buttercup. You should have listened to us during the Brexit debate". That is simply not good enough. The Brexit debate and referendum were run nearly 10 years ago. It is time for the parties here to get over themselves, get over the result and move on. I know that they are angry, and I know that they love to be EU fanatics. Well, most of the parties do. Sinn Féin has only really adopted that policy in the past 10 years because, before that, it was Eurosceptic. In effect, it was probably the most militant party against the EU on this island. It changed tack, but it did so because it saw a point of division that it could exploit. Boy, has it tried to do that. Sinn Féin is not trying to resolve the issues; it is just trying to divide. Of course, all the other parties are aligned with that.

The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality, however, will not work in North Antrim, Lagan Valley or Upper Bann, where so many people voted for Brexit but then experienced the ill effects of the protocol. That is where the violence was done. The violence was done by the protocol. The Windsor framework was labelled as some sort of remedy when we knew that it was not. It was this party that said that it was not. It was this party that fought against the worst excesses of the protocol and fought against the Windsor framework in order to make it better for all our people. Yet, those parties cannot get over themselves about the decision that was taken by UK citizens nearly 10 years ago.

We are where we are. The practicalities of the protocol and the Windsor framework are upon us, so it is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to make sure that the people whom we represent, no matter what church they go to or what their political philosophy is, are not damaged and that their trading relationships and consumer practices are not damaged by the protocol and the Windsor framework. We are facing a really serious issue with regard to veterinary medicines. We have tabled the motion so that we can air those concerns. Instead of having the concerns of our people echoed across the Chamber, however, they are thrown back not just in our faces but in the faces of the people whom we represent.

This issue affects everybody, no matter who they vote for. Once again, it is the DUP that is stepping up and raising the legitimate concerns of our people, while the other parties are very flippant about it. Members on the other side of the House can laugh about that, but we will continue to fight for our people in order to ensure that those barriers are removed.

Ms Nicholl: When I came back, I was determined that my contributions were going to be positive and that I would not be snarky. I am going to try so hard, but oh, my goodness. I suppose that there is comfort to be taken in the fact that we know exactly what the arguments are going to be, because we have rehearsed them so many times. One positive thing that I will say for the DUP motion is that it calls on the UK Government to find solutions and work through issues with the EU. The responsibility is with the UK Government, and we are grateful that the DUP now acknowledges that. It would have been nice to have had that before the Assembly collapsed.

The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality is a difficult one for me to listen to. We know that the Windsor framework is not perfect. I listened to the people who came to the Economy Committee and articulated the problems that they were having, and I sympathised and empathised with them. Of course, we need to find solutions. The one thing that I took from Lord Murphy's contribution when he came to the Committee two weeks ago was that we need to work together in order to find practical solutions.

I may have laughed, but I was not being flippant. It is not that I do not appreciate the magnitude of the problems that exist. The issue is that, when the referendum happened, we said, "These are the bad things about Brexit". You said that you wanted to have Brexit, but now you are saying, "These are the bad things about Brexit". We are in a state of disbelief sometimes, because those were the things that we were worried about.

We live in a complex place, and there are significant sensitivities that have to be managed. The reality is that none of us is ever going to get the perfect post-Brexit landscape. We are not going to get everything that we want, but we have to move on and work together. What people want is an Assembly and a Government that are focused on solutions, problem-solving and making things better. We need to talk about how we can do more upstream. We see that problem at the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. We talk about there being a democratic deficit; of course there is. We left, and that is the reality of it. We are not able to influence things further upstream, which is a pity. We should do more to see how we could do that.

Good relationships with the EU and our European neighbours are so important and should be welcomed. The UK Government's attempt to reset relations has been a welcome relief from the chaos and division that characterised the previous Government's engagement with Europe. That reset presents a window of opportunity to implement an ambitious sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which the UK Government are taking forward with the EU.

My colleague David Honeyford, who is such a fierce champion for dual market access, talked about the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) report, which found that 71% of businesses want us to talk about it more. Our Executive need to speak with one voice on that matter and ensure that there are opportunities for people to invest in Northern Ireland and that it is properly marketed. We are not doing that. Let us sell it. Let us sell Northern Ireland. There are so many wonderful things about this place. Our business landscape is amazing. Look at what is happening in tech. We should be selling the opportunities in Northern Ireland, not focusing on the negatives.

We want to focus on solutions, not just on diagnosing problems. Our economy really needs stability, certainty and clarity. There are issues to be worked through. It is not that we are oblivious to those or that we have not been listening about them. However, the constant negativity undermines the very stability that businesses crave. Brexit put up barriers to building more positive relationships, and, as Northern Ireland's cross-community party, Alliance remains completely committed to making sure that the connections and collaboration across and beyond jurisdictions deliver the opportunities and benefits that communities deserve. In the spirit of what Lord Murphy said, let us work together, look at the practical solutions and try to move on.

Ms McLaughlin: When I first read the motion, I was surprised at how much I agreed with parts of it, particularly the recognition of the real challenges that businesses face under the current trading arrangements, but, as ever in this Chamber, the motion ends on a note of political point-scoring. Those who tabled the motion could not resist turning what should be an economic discussion into another constitutional crusade. I find that deeply regrettable.

It is equally regrettable that they failed to acknowledge their role in creating the mess. It was their relentless demand for the hardest possible Brexit that led us here. Let us be clear: the debate is not about identity. It is about economic survival, especially for small businesses across the North, particularly those in my constituency of Foyle. Those businesses face real difficulties. As one businesswoman said, it is a cliff edge for her. Businesses are trying desperately to keep their heads above water, knowing that, without support, they will soon drown.

Just last week, I met a number of business owners in Derry, and, to be honest, I left those meetings shaken by how serious things have become and by the fact that time is running out for some of them. For example, Michael, who owns Angry Cherry, a small independent shop in Foyleside that sells memorabilia, music and comics, told me about the nightmare of getting deliveries from UPS. Before the full implementation of the Windsor framework, he followed every bit of guidance published by the UK Government and submitted all the necessary paperwork. Yet, by April this year, he was hit with duty demands on almost every order. Despite doing everything right, he is now paying import fees of up to 10% per order on top of delivery charges and admin costs. His experience is not unique.

A large part of the problem lies with courier firms, particularly, but not exclusively, UPS and DHL. Their systems and customer support have been nothing short of disastrous. However, the blame does not stop there. That is kind of the point that those who tabled the motion are missing.

There can be two truths. Small businesses can be affected. Brexit is a disaster, but the Windsor framework is there to protect the all-island economy, and the DUP forgot about that in its motion.

I hate to go on about it — although it goes on a wee bit about it as well — but the DUP did champion Brexit. It was Boris Johnson who pursued the hardest possible withdrawal, no matter what the cost, and we now know that there has been a significant cost to the UK economy. The Windsor framework is not perfect, and I have made that clear, but it is essential for shielding Northern Ireland from the worst impacts of Brexit. It safeguards our all-island economy, prevents a hard border and provides unique protections for people and businesses here. Those who want to dismantle it without offering any credible alternative are now acting recklessly again. Will they ever learn? Putting stability and prosperity at risk once again is not what small businesses that I talk to in my constituency need. Rather, they want practical solutions.

We welcome many of Lord Murphy's review report recommendations, including the proposals to strengthen the Assembly's scrutiny role and to increase resources for doing that. It is vital that those recommendations be adopted by Westminster and that support be given to the Executive to support in turn our small businesses to overcome the barriers to east-west trade. The work of the review, however, missed a key opportunity to explore deeper North/South cooperation that could provide growth and uphold the Good Friday Agreement. Meanwhile, small traders are paying the price for dysfunction between London and Brussels. Many are turning away from GB suppliers and instead sourcing entirely from the EU because the red tape has simply become unbearable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: We will not be supporting the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you, Sinéad.

Mr Gaston: At the outset, I put on record that I will be voting for the motion, just in case that message gets lost during my remarks.

The motion admits that the Windsor framework is fundamentally harmful, burdens business, diverts trade and creates a democratic deficit and that tinkering at the edges will not fix it. All of that is correct, and I agree with the wording of the motion. What is astonishing, however, is that the Members whose names appear under the motion in the Order Paper are in a party that is implementing all of that through the Executive every single day. I remind Members from the party to my right that they won their seats on the basis of a manifesto that rejected devolution under the protocol. An non-binding motion here today and the videos that will be produced from the debate do not absolve them from the lies that their party told.

The system is unbearably complex. The framework imposes costs and delays. The democratic deficit remains. EU law still applies. The DUP, however, told the public that the arguments on those issues had been transformed. Anyone who said anything or who dissented from that message was simply dismissed as a dead-end unionist. Let me remind the House what was said about the deal. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, told the public that the proposals removed the border, that there would be:

and that our place in the UK internal market was restored. Today, as the motion rightly outlines and reminds us, Marks and Spencer tells us that 3,500 products require daily checks, accompanied by paperwork thick enough to choke a horse. The FSB tells us that small firms are drowning.

The House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee tells us that the so-called democratic safeguards were oversold. That is a polite way of saying to the public that they were lied to. My goodness, who lied to the public? However, nothing captures the contradiction more starkly than the DUP's Gordon Lyons, who said this in a DUP statement that is on its website to this very day:

The Windsor framework is the protocol. EU law still governs vast areas of life here, and the Irish Sea border still operates every day, yet the DUP Ministers sit in office and implement precisely what, they once said, no unionist could touch.

The motion is not bold. It is not radical.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: The motion is not a challenge to the foundations of the framework. It is more political theatre, condemning with one hand but complying with the other.

I am happy to give way, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: I appreciate Mr Gaston giving way; he is always up for debate. I know that he will probably come on to the rest of our motion, including where it calls on the UK Government to honour the commitments that they made to the people of Northern Ireland, but I want Mr Gaston to put his view on the record. Is it his view that the Assembly should be collapsed and that we should hand power for this place over to Keir Starmer, the very man who continues to implement the Windsor framework?

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

Mr Gaston: We have the bogeyman once again: Keir Starmer. I hope that, come 2029, Keir Starmer will not be in office. I am clear, Mr Brett, Mr Buckley and Mr Martin, that, if it is a choice between the protocol and being ruled from London, this place should not exist. If you have no leverage — you might shake your head and think that you have got material for a TikTok video — very good; that is grand — but, my goodness, you are sitting with Sinn Féin/IRA and trying to say "Starmer or Stormont". That does not wash, because, come 2029, Labour will be nowhere near 10 Downing Street.

Unionism needs more than rhetoric, but it is rhetoric that we hear. It needs unionists who really mean it when they say that they will not administer the Irish Sea border. It needs unionists who will not operate EU law. It needs unionists who refuse to implement North/South institutions as normal while our east-west institutions and our links are being absolutely trashed day by day. It needs unionists who do not go into government with IRA/Sinn Féin after winning seats on the basis of a —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, stop using that term: it is "Sinn Féin". If you use that term again, you will not be called.

Mr Gaston: Well, Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be very well apt to tell me whether the right term is "Sinn Féin/IRA" or "IRA/Sinn Féin" —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Right, sit down.

Mr Gaston: — on that basis.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat.

I call Jonathan Buckley to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Jonathan, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Who would have thought that a debate on challenging the harm posed by the Windsor framework would cause such a debate or lack of it in some instances? It is fair to say that a lot of political parties have been on a journey when it comes to the Windsor framework. I genuinely believe that, today, all parties are now in a position where they, perhaps to varying degrees, understand that harm is being caused to some aspects of business in Northern Ireland because of the Windsor framework's outputs.

Northern Ireland's economy is largely made up of small businesses, and that is largely on whom the major weight of trouble has fallen. I say gently to Members, although we will always have robust conversation in the Chamber, that it is incumbent on us, as elected Members of the Assembly, to speak up when harm is caused. Often, what has happened in this place is that businesses that have been impacted by the Windsor framework and, indeed, other provisions from the Brexit process — from the withdrawal agreement right through — have felt that they needed to keep their head down rather than speak up on the issues that affect them, their business, their employees and the Northern Ireland consumer. Just at a time when some of them go on the record to talk about their concerns from a business perspective, they are shot down. Some Members shot down the FSB report, saying that the examples that it gave were not relevant and represented too small a proportion. M&S is shot down because it is M&S. The RHA is shot down because it does not represent a wider section of those who are impacted. That is deeply disingenuous for the businesses that have felt the need to speak up on the impact that the arrangements are having on their respective industries.

Some parties have reiterated old ground. Sinn Féin talked about the need for a cost-of-living strategy. The Member for South Antrim and chairman of Sinn Féin, Mr Kearney, said that we should stop wasting time. He failed to say that his party has probably tabled more motions about Gaza than about the cost-of-living crisis since it came back to this place. It is a bit rich for those champagne socialists to talk about cost-of-living strategies when it is now the richest party in these islands, with assets estimated to have a net value of over €8 million. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, as the Member mentioned —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Buckley, I know that you are enjoying yourself, but can you return to the substance of the motion, please?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed. As the Member who is winding up on the motion, I think that it is important that I capture the totality of the debate. Imagine being in such a wealthy position that you do not even know how many properties you own. I will give way to a Member of Sinn Féin if one of them wants to tell us that. No? I suspected that they did not.

We can look at the Alliance Party's contribution to the debate. We had the student union debater-in-chief, Mr Tennyson, telling us that it is our fault. He said, "You should have listened to us." Had we listened to them, we would have had the rigorous implementation of the very protocol that preceded the Windsor framework, which would have caused even more catastrophic difficulties for our businesses.

We had the SDLP talk about article 14 of the agreement, which would enable the EU to have direct conversations with business representatives and Northern Ireland stakeholders about the impact and —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, just briefly.

Dr Aiken: One of the problems with the article that the SDLP pointed out is that that has been tried but the EU Joint Committee refused to engage.

Mr Buckley: That is exactly the point that I am coming to. The Member for South Belfast also talked about good relations with the European Union. Members, be under no illusions about this: the EU has played a blinder. It hoodwinked the United Kingdom in the Brexit negotiations. Why do I say that? Let us look at Lord Murphy's review. We can point out its clear limitations, but one of the most startling aspects of his evidence to the Economy Committee just a couple of weeks prior to this debate was the fact that, despite him reaching out in good faith to the European Union, it would not even afford him the courtesy of a meeting. What does that say? Are the parties opposite so blinded by the needs and wants of the European Union that they close their eyes and cover their ears to the genuine concerns of the businesses that are represented in the motion? We have already heard about M&S and the challenges that it faces.

Let us look at some of the evidence in the independent report. Products are being delisted locally because GB businesses, particularly micro and small businesses, are choosing not to supply Northern Ireland. Supermarkets feel that the Government's push for 100% compliance with the Windsor framework is unnecessarily disrupting trade to Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the matter. The UK's insistence on 100% compliance is not being met with any form of goodwill from the European Union. It is being met with meek responses and disengagement from the very organisation that could unlock the solutions to a lot of the problems.

We talk about the democratic deficit, and, at the start of his contribution, Mr Gaston talked about how the motion contains the wrongs of the Windsor framework. I have always held that position, and I always will. The Windsor framework's root problem, as with the agreements subsequent to it, is that EU law still applies. Whilst EU law still applies in Northern Ireland, we will still have those major issues affecting large swathes of our economy.

When we talk about the democratic deficit, Members across the Floor talk keenly about the need for an Assembly to debate the issues. However, pre-Christmas 2024, after a six-hour debate on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, the Assembly sent over 300 areas of law, controlling large swathes of our economy, back to Europe. It therefore could have no democratic say on the laws that affect our people, our businesses and our consumers. The laws covered everything from agriculture, the environment and electricity to state aid, VAT and duties, goods and customs. They covered large sections of our economy, yet, whilst we in the House recognise that the Windsor framework presents difficulties to some of our businesses, whether they are small, medium or, in some cases, large, in essence, we voted against the ability to take decisions to benefit those businesses. That is a great shame on the Members who, at the behest of the European Union, sent those laws there.

The Road Haulage Association captured some of the issues facing the haulage sector well. Members may want to go on the record to rubbish what M&S said, but the Road Haulage Association identified that, as long as it remains the position that all goods are classified as "at risk" unless it can be proved otherwise, large swathes of checks are placed on those businesses and that trade in particular. At the point of sale, the end destination is known, so why not change the rule so that goods are deemed not to be at risk? By doing so, we would save our businesses from vast swathes of paperwork that is destroying them economically. The motion mentions bureaucracy: 300 pages of paperwork per lorry is simply ridiculous and will only increase as time goes on, unless Members are prepared to open their eyes to the challenges and stand up to the European Union.

I would love to know why Members are so compelled to believe that the European Union has Northern Ireland businesses' interests at heart more than the democratically elected Members of this House. I do not see it. I just hope that Members understand that. My colleague Mr Martin mentioned how we are going down the road towards an incredibly difficult position on veterinary medicines, and that will affect not just farmers but owners of domestic pets. Over 40% of pet medicines in Northern Ireland could be discontinued by January. The UK Government and Europe's burying their heads in the sand tells me that there is little genuine interest in dealing with the issues affecting Northern Ireland.

This House is the best place in which to determine those laws. I ask Members to reconsider their opposition to the motion and ensure that we can have a democratic input into the laws that affect this place.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr Gildernew: I beg to move

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

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

Christmas is only a few short weeks away, and I am sure that most of us are looking forward to taking some time off to relax and spend time with our family. For many of us, the next few weeks will be full of festive spirit as we make plans, put up decorations and buy gifts for friends and family. Unfortunately, far too many families are facing the Christmas period feeling anxious about all the extra costs that come with celebrating Christmas. Recent statistics show that families in the North spend, on average, £850 more during the month of December on things such as gifts, food, nights out and travel, which comes on top of all the usual heating and other bills that many people are already struggling to pay.

As our motion highlights, the current rate of inflation is 3·8%, which is significantly higher than what it was this time last year, when it was only 2·5%. In practice, that means rising costs for basic necessities such as food and fuel for already hard-pressed families. We have to understand that the cost-of-living crisis is very much still with us and that it continues to wreak havoc on the least well-off in our society.

This morning, I held a round-table discussion with some of the organisations that are on the ground tackling poverty every single day. They painted a picture of a worsening situation and were very clear that more needs to be done to help those in need. They spoke of a feeling of hopelessness amongst many of the people whom they assist and of a belief that no one is listening to their very real concerns.

Research carried out by the Trussell Trust in 2024 showed that 21% of households in the North were experiencing food insecurity, which was a dramatic increase from 2022, when the figure was only 16%. Its research also showed that 77,000 emergency food parcels were delivered to households facing hardship in 2024-25, including to over 31,000 children. That is an increase of 71% over the past five years. The most recent poverty and income inequality report for the North, which was released in March this year, shows that the rate of poverty here has been rising steadily over the past five years and that 18% of adults are currently living in relative poverty, with 15% living in absolute poverty. The same report also revealed that 23% of children, or almost one in four, are currently living in relative poverty, with 17% living in absolute poverty. Those figures are shocking, and they underline the urgent need for more ambitious measures to tackle poverty.

We must also recognise that British austerity and underfunding must shoulder much of the blame for the growing levels of poverty in our society. Policies such as the two-child limit have pushed thousands of children into poverty, stealing from them many of the life chances that they need in order to live fulfilling and prosperous lives as adults. So far, this British Government have taken the winter fuel payment from pensioners and attacked the sick and disabled. Just last week, they threatened to raise taxes for the least well-off. It is no wonder that Keir Starmer is the most unpopular Prime Minister in living memory. Some media reports have suggested that they may remove the two-child limit. Although that has not been confirmed yet, it is absolutely essential that the British Government fully scrap that disgraceful policy once and for all in the upcoming Budget.

We must ensure that we do everything in our power to alleviate the worst impacts of poverty in the North. Earlier this year, the Minister for Communities published the first draft of the anti-poverty strategy. To say that people were underwhelmed is an understatement. The strategy was weak in both substance and ambition. Indeed, many anti-poverty organisations stated that the strategy was not fit for purpose, including many of the organisations that helped to co-design it. The draft anti-poverty strategy does not contain any targets or measurable outcomes. That is despite the fact that a recent report on child poverty by the Public Accounts Committee, which I also sit on, made a recommendation that targets and outcomes should be included in the strategy.

The absence of targets and outcomes renders the strategy largely meaningless. It leaves it reading more like a stocktake document that lists a range of departmental actions that are linked to poverty, with many of those actions already enacted or currently in operation. The strategy does not give any clear indication of what level of funding will be forthcoming to support its implementation, nor does it state how it will obtain that funding. Sinn Féin understands that the Executive are in a difficult position financially, but it is vital that the anti-poverty strategy provides costed proposals so that we have a full understanding of how much finance is needed to fund actions that could reduce poverty and deliver prosperity.

Another key criticism of the current strategy, which I heard from the sector again today, is that it does not follow a life-cycle approach. That means that it does not take into account how poverty can affect people differently at different stages of their lives. We need to see the adoption of a life-cycle approach that recognises the unique causes of poverty and barriers to exiting it at each life stage and ensures that actions are tailored accordingly.

Fuel poverty is another huge issue that affects many families across the North, with recent figures suggesting that it has also significantly increased in recent years. National Energy Action (NEA) carried out a survey in September 2024 that found that nearly 40% of households in the North were experiencing fuel poverty. Fuel poverty often results in people cutting back on the amount of money that they spend on essential items such as food or clothing so that they may be able to afford to heat their home. Those figures bring into sharp focus the urgent need for a modern, fit-for-purpose fuel poverty strategy that will make a meaningful impact on reducing fuel poverty. The Minister needs to urgently bring forward a final draft of the fuel poverty strategy. Indeed, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on when that is likely to happen.

It is also important to mention some of the steps that the Executive have taken to alleviate poverty in recent years. Welfare mitigations were initially secured in 2016 in order to protect the most vulnerable here against Tory austerity. Welfare supplementary payments were automatically paid to anyone who would otherwise have been impacted on by cruel welfare changes such as the bedroom tax, the benefit cap or the roll-out of the personal independence payment (PIP). The Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Act 2022 that was brought forward by the previous Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, extended most of the mitigations until March 2025, with the bedroom tax mitigation being extended indefinitely, ensuring that over 37,000 social housing tenants are permanently protected.

In this year's Budget, the Executive allocated £47·3 million to welfare mitigations, signalling their continued commitment to funding those mitigations in full whilst extending them until March 2028. Those mitigations are vital for so many people in our society. In many cases, they are the difference between having enough food to eat and going to bed hungry. The Executive have also protected households from unfair taxes, such as domestic water charges, that would disproportionately impact on those who can least afford to pay. Another huge step forward was the work done by Sinn Féin Ministers in the Finance Department to secure an agreement with the British Treasury that the North's funding will be increased to more accurately relate to levels of need.

Although it is important that we recognise the important steps that the Executive have taken, it is clear that more needs to be done. Tackling poverty and supporting people during the cost-of-living crisis need to be the number-one priority of every one of us here today. Far too often, the issues that have been debated in the Chamber have only served as distractions from the very real suffering that people endure every day.

We have a duty to do all that we can to come to their aid and to return a sense of hope that things can be better for them and their families.

Mr Allen: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You 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. Andy, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our amendment is offered in a constructive spirit. The motion rightly highlights the pressures that households face, and we support its intention. The amendment would complement it by adding a particular focus on an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent: the rising cost of food and growing food insecurity. Headline inflation may have eased somewhat, but, for many families, the pressure has not. The essential items that people rely on week in, week out have not returned to previous prices. Food costs remain significantly higher, and, while some products appear unchanged, the reality of shrinkflation means that households get less for the same money or, in many cases, pay more for less. Those changes may appear minor in isolation, but, for families who are already stretched to the limit, the cumulative impact is substantial. That is why we have also highlighted the recent decision by the Education Authority (EA) to increase the cost of school meals. A 50p rise — an increase of around 20% — may not seem significant to some, but, for many families who are already under pressure, it will hit hard. Some will point to the fact that school meal prices have not risen since 2017. I commend all involved for keeping costs down for so long, but we will hear throughout today's debate why increasing them now, against the backdrop of severe cost-of-living pressures, is the wrong approach and one that sits uneasily with the aims of an anti-poverty strategy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I, perhaps, should have declared an interest as a father with three school-age children.

Balancing the books on the backs of those who are already struggling is not a sustainable or fair way of tackling poverty.

There is a crossover from the previous debate. When products become more expensive to move, the pressures show up in the cost and availability of those everyday products. Those costs do not fall evenly across society; low-income households feel them most.

The evidence is stark. Around 520,000 people, including 130,000 children, in Northern Ireland are in food insecurity. In the past year, as we have heard from the Communities Committee Chair, 77,000 emergency food parcels were issued. Those referred to food banks were living on an average of £171 a week after housing costs, which is roughly 30% of an ordinary household's income, and most had no savings. The overwhelming majority were already in debt or arrears. Those are not exceptional cases. They reflect the everyday reality of too many people across Northern Ireland.

At the human level, we all know what that looks like. A recent BBC report featured a working mother who said that she regularly skips meals so that her daughter has enough to eat. She summed it up simply by saying, "My daughter comes first". That sentiment is familiar to many parents who are quietly making sacrifices not because of poor choices but because the cost of feeding a family has outpaced their income.

Those pressures are especially visible in our schools. For many children, the school meal may be the most reliable and nutritious meal of their day. When the cost of school meals increases, families who are already struggling face even greater difficulty. Hunger affects behaviour, concentration and learning, and it can affect the entire classroom environment. That is why our amendment emphasises the importance of:

as a central part of:

The Programme for Government acknowledges the clear link between poverty, education and long-term health. Alongside that, we call on the Minister of Education to review the recent increase in school meal costs and consider whether the current eligibility threshold for free school meals remains appropriate. Many families sit just above the threshold but cannot absorb the rising costs of food. Supporting those families would be a fair and practical step that directly benefits children.

Food pressures are part of a wider picture, and fuel poverty remains a major concern. As we have already heard, National Energy Action NI has reported that nearly half of households are worried about their energy bills this winter; 39% are already in fuel poverty; and one in five households have gone without heat or power at least once in the last two years because they could not afford it. A quarter of households say that rising energy costs are harming their health and well-being, and those figures underline why robust anti-poverty and fuel poverty strategies with clear, measurable and time-bound targets are not just helpful but necessary.

I acknowledge the work that the Minister has taken forward. He has moved the strategy further than many of his predecessors — it is fair to say that — and he has made progress in other areas, such as fuel poverty. That should be recognised and commended, but the scale and seriousness of the challenges mean that the final strategies must be as robust and ambitious as possible. There must be clear outcomes and measurable targets to give the strategies structure, direction, credibility and transparency. Families and organisations need to see where progress is made and where further action is required.

The voluntary and community sector also deserves recognition, and I declare an interest as a charity trustee. They are often the first to see the pressures facing families, and they support thousands of people every week. They contribute an estimated £1·71 in value for every pound that is invested, yet the sector reports rising demand, recruitment difficulties and burnout among its staff. If we want to properly support the voluntary and community sector, we must address the pressures that drive people to its doors, including food and fuel insecurity, and our amendment reinforces that link.

I acknowledge the pressures on unpaid carers. Northern Ireland has around 220,000 unpaid carers who provide support that saves the Executive an estimated £5·8 billion per year, yet they are among the groups most affected by rising costs. One in four carers lives in poverty, and, of those who receive carer's allowance, the number rises to almost half. Many carers are cutting back on the essentials, including food and heating. The anti-poverty strategy is important work, but, to meet the scale of the challenges that we face, it needs firm, measurable, cross-departmental targets, particularly on food and fuel poverty, that are time-bound, transparent and informed by data and lived experience. That will help ensure that the strategy makes an impact rather than becoming a document filled with aspirations but lacking in delivery.

The amendment strengthens the motion by highlighting one of the most fundamental pressures that households face: the ability to afford food. It aligns with the motion's recognition of the vital work of the voluntary and community sector; it supports the call for a revised anti-poverty strategy; and it identifies practical, realistic actions that can be taken now to help families, particularly through the school system. The cost-of-living crisis is not experienced through statistics alone; it is felt in households making choices that no one should have to make, parents skipping meals, children arriving at school hungry and families rationing heat and power. While we cannot control every global event, we can take decisions here that improve the circumstances of those who rely on us, and that is the purpose of the amendment. In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members will have five minutes.

Mr Bradley: In considering the motion and the amendment, we can agree that the cost-of-living crisis is still real for workers and families across Northern Ireland. Inflation may have fallen from its peak, but, at 3·8%, it remains higher than the EU average and is almost double the target set by the Bank of England. Families do not need those statistics to tell them what they already know; they see it in their grocery bill, their heating oil delivery and now, potentially, in the cost of school meals.

For us, the key question is not just how we help people cope with rising prices but how we help them move beyond long-term reliance on benefits. We have heard stark figures about poverty from the proposer of the motion, Mr Gildernew, and the proposer of the amendment, Mr Allen. The best long-term defence against poverty is meaningful, fairly paid employment, supported by a strong safety net for those who cannot work or face additional barriers. Work, when it pays, changes lives. A secure job gives parents the ability to plan ahead, manage their bills and provide stability for their children. That is why we welcome the focus on getting more less able people into better jobs and reducing the disability pay gap. It is why we have supported measures such as the childcare subsidy scheme, intermediate rent, co-ownership and investment in skills and apprenticeships, all of which help people get into work and stay in employment.

Employment alone is not enough, however. The amendment rightly highlights the sharp rise in food prices and the importance of:

in tackling child poverty and health inequalities. Any increase in the cost of school meals would be deeply worrying for already stretched families. That is why we agree that decisions by Departments and arm's-length bodies (ALBs), including the Education Authority, must align with the Executive's anti-poverty strategy and why the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities must take a coordinated approach to supporting those on low incomes.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the reality of constrained budgets and statutory duties. Difficult choices are having to be made across our public services. That is why it is essential that every pound spent is clearly focused on reducing poverty, supporting families and enabling people to move into and progress in work.

We also recognise the crucial role of the voluntary and community sector, which is often on the front line of the crisis, reaching people in places where government alone does not. The anti-poverty strategy must set out not only high-level ambitions but measurable targets and clear actions on employment, on food and fuel poverty and on supporting the organisations that work directly with vulnerable households.

Our approach is clear: help as many people as possible into good, sustainable employment; maintain a strong, targeted safety net that includes welfare mitigations; and ensure a coordinated, Executive-wide strategy that turns warm words into real, practical help for families. If we get that right, we will not only help people through this winter and this cost-of-living crisis but give families across Northern Ireland a realistic route out of poverty and away from long-term dependence on benefits. I am happy to support the motion or the motion as amended.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I thank the Members who brought the issue to the Floor. The anti-poverty strategy consultation may be over, but poverty is not pausing. Poverty is tightening its grip on such a wide swathe of households, but it is the depth of poverty that should trouble every one of us in the Chamber.

At a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) round table that we attended, Baroness Lister of Burtersett, one of the UK's leading social policy thinkers, set out with absolute clarity what an effective anti-poverty strategy must look like:

She reminded us:

and:

Her message to us was powerful:

Do we have all three of those in the House?

Unless people living in poverty can see their fingerprints on the solutions, they will not have those people's trust. That brings me to a point that the motion implicitly recognises: it is not about how many people are struggling — we know the numbers all too well; we have heard them many times in debating many other motions — but about how deep the struggle has become. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows us not only that poverty is widespread across the UK but that it is deepening.

Hardship is intensifying and becoming even more entrenched in Northern Ireland. The Trussell Trust's 'Cost of Hunger and Hardship' report estimates that 200,000 people, including 62,000 children, which is roughly one in seven, face hunger and hardship. Those people are experiencing and managing the deepest and most damaging forms of hardship — severe food insecurity, destitution and hunger and hardship — that go far beyond what the headline poverty rates capture.

In Northern Ireland, the persistence and depth of poverty and the poverty gap are not routinely measured. We rely entirely on absolute and relative poverty rates despite all the evidence that those headline figures no longer capture the severity of the hardship.

The draft anti-poverty strategy contains no targets or indicators, so I ask for them to be included. We cannot continue with a broad-brush approach when the evidence shows that hardship is concentrated, severe and worsening.

I come now to the UUP amendment. We welcome it and share the concerns that it raises. Rising food costs have placed significant strain on households across Northern Ireland. They have deepened food insecurity and widened health inequalities. We are concerned that the Education Authority's recent increase in the cost of school meals will only add to those pressures, particularly for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Access to affordable food, including school meals, is essential in tackling child poverty and improving health outcomes, so we will support the amendment. It is vital that decisions by all Departments and all arm's-length bodies align with what is, as we are constantly reminded, an Executive anti-poverty strategy. Therefore, we urge the Minister of Education to review the decision, raise the eligibility threshold for free school meals and work closely with his colleague the Minister for Communities to deliver a coordinated response.

The Communities Minister tends to bristle a bit when I use Scotland as a benchmark, so we will look instead at the Republic of Ireland. That jurisdiction has placed a real emphasis on measuring the depth and level of deprivation. It measures "at risk of poverty", "enforced deprivation" and "consistent poverty". Recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) work identifies children who are deprived even when their parents' income sits just above the poverty line. Child benefit, the working family payment and free school meals and schoolbooks have lifted 150,000 children out of income poverty and 94,000 out of consistent poverty. That is what happens when depth and deprivation are taken seriously.

We need targeted interventions that shift the outcomes. Above all, we need an anti-poverty strategy that is worthy of the name, grounded in objective need, framed in a life-cycle approach —

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

Ms Mulholland: — and shaped by lived experience. A strategy without delivery is not a strategy at all.

Mr Durkan: The cost-of-living crisis is a term that has slipped from our daily lexicon not because it has gone away but because people have become so accustomed to hardship that it no longer shocks in the way that it did and still should. I remember looking on in horror as welfare reform was rolled out across the water and warning here that it would drive families to food banks. Today, food banks are no longer a rarity but a staple in all our town centres. Trussell's work tells us what that means in human terms. Some 520,000 people across the North are food insecure, including 130,000 children. The arithmetic of everyday life is now almost surreal. A block of cheese costs a fiver, and a bottle of red sauce costs about £6. Even small, formerly cheap and cheerful family treats are beyond affordability for many. That is the small, humiliating cruelty of the crisis: the things that used to bring comfort are now priced out of reach.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Allen: Will the Member also recognise, when highlighting those products that have increased in price, that, as I said in my remarks, many have increased in size, so they do not last as long or go as far for families?

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that he means "decreased in size", but, yes, I see the role that shrinkflation plays. Food just does not go as far.

The motion also:

You what? Rates have increased, with no effort being made to cushion our poorest councils and, by extension, poor families from those costs. Public transport fares have increased three times in a 15-month period. Then, let us look at our public-sector workers: our poorest staff are being penalised by Executive decisions or, in many cases, Executive indecision. We have heard today of the thousands of care workers, who are the backbone of the social care system, being locked out of a pay award that would deliver a real, living wage. From EA support staff to health workers, thousands of workers in receipt of universal credit (UC) will not benefit from a backdated pay award. In fact, they will be worse off, left for one or maybe two months without a UC payment. My pleas to all Ministers to fix that oversight — it can be done, because a mechanism was found to do it for COVID payments — remain unheeded. Meanwhile, staff continue to be penalised for being poor.

Band 2 healthcare staff received an additional 8p uplift this year to bring them up to the minimum wage, but that money is now going to be absorbed into the upcoming pay award. In other words, the uplift that was designed to correct low pay will disappear once the new award lands. That is not progress but stagnation.

On the subject of disappearing, the First Minister happily stood alongside the Communities Minister to welcome the draft anti-poverty strategy but disappeared when the fallout from it came. I fear that the motion is another attempt to deflect responsibility. Every Executive party signed off on the strategy. Disappearing when the going gets tough is not leadership, however. To the party with the Finance and Economy portfolios and the top office, my question is this: what are you doing to tackle the crisis? At least that party sees the glaring flaws in the draft strategy, however. "Gaslighting" Gordon says that it is grand.

Community and voluntary organisations, as the motion correctly identifies, remain an absolute lifeline, and they have my deepest gratitude, but they are tired. I spoke to representatives of the Focus Project in Creggan recently. They are under unbearable pressure as they try to meet soaring demand in a community in which thousands of households would now be considered vulnerable, working families included.

Poverty is a political choice. The irony of the motion's calling for action while Executive parties continue to implement policies that deepen poverty is not lost on anyone. This week, the cost of school meals increased by 20%, which will primarily have an impact on the working poor. That decision was taken alongside the failure to raise the threshold for school meals support. A decade ago, the criteria were more generous than they are today, which is utterly preposterous in the context of soaring inflation. Some 3,000 fewer children receive support now than did in 2023. That is not an accident but, rather, the consequence of bad decisions by the Government.

The motion delivers motherhood and apple pie but not bread and butter. Poverty is not just for Christmas, and it is frankly insulting to see such a motion tabled by the party with the most power to change things. The reality is that the Executive need a Scrooge-like epiphany. They hold the purse strings and the power, but they continue to deliver a bad deal for all the Bob Cratchits: the underpaid and undervalued workers. It does not have to be that way, however. If we spend less time arguing about the past and more time in the present delivering positive policy rather than debating meaningless motions, we can change the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I hate to be the Ghost of Christmas Present, Mark, but I ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mrs Mason: The cost of living continues to rise, and families across the North are feeling it every single day. Inflation sits at 3·8% higher than the EU average and nearly double the Bank of England's target. What does that mean exactly? It means that families are afraid to turn on their heating, that food costs are rising week after week and that the cost of school uniforms is pushing parents into debt. In the middle of all that pressure, as the amendment alludes to, the Education Authority has increased the price of school meals to £3·10 a day. That is a decision that will hit already stretched households hard. That equates to £20 a month extra for each child's school meals. For many families, that is simply not within their budget. Let me be very clear about how that has come about. It has come about as a result of years of chronic underfunding by the British Government, along with years of poor decisions in the Department of Education and a complete lack of leadership from the current Minister. Families simply cannot take another blow, yet, under this Education Minister, the blows seem to keep coming. The cost of school meals is up, while uniform costs are still sky high. Childcare pressures are rising, and more and more parents are now being asked for so-called voluntary school contributions. That is what happens when a Department fails to plan, fails to prioritise and fails to protect families.

Of course, it is not solely about what is happening in education. Across our communities, food prices have soared, fuel poverty is deepening, and more families are turning to food banks, including many who never imagined that they would need that help. Our voluntary and community organisations, a number of which we met this morning, are holding the line and stepping in where immediate support is needed. They do incredible work, but they do it with such limited resources and rising demand.

That is why the anti-poverty strategy really matters. However, the draft that was published by the Minister for Communities simply does not match the scale of the crisis. It lacks measurable targets, clear actions and the urgency that families are crying out for. It needs to make urgent interventions so that organisations on the ground are properly supported and low-income families are not left to shoulder the crisis alone.

Families are not asking for the earth. Every weak decision, delay and missed opportunity by the Department lands directly on a family's kitchen table when it comes to the food that they struggle to afford, the school meals that they now cannot pay for, the heating that they ration and the childcare bill that wipes out their wages. Workers and families deserve better than the draft anti-poverty strategy. That is why we tabled the motion and support the amendment, which we feel adds to the motion.

The cost-of-living crisis is real and urgent. The Department of Education and the Department for Communities need to step up, strengthen their plans and start putting families first. Workers and families need action, not excuses; leadership, not deflection; and real support, not weak draft strategies. People need hope, and they need it now.

Mr Kingston: The Democratic Unionist Party is dedicated to providing opportunity and support for all families across Northern Ireland, many of whom are feeling the squeeze on their finances. It was the DUP Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, who led engagement with other Departments and Ministers to create and publish a draft anti-poverty strategy for Northern Ireland this year, some 19 years after the previous anti-poverty strategy was published in 2006. The new strategy sets out a long-term approach to addressing poverty by minimising risks and impacts and helping people to exit poverty. On 5 December last year, Minister Lyons took the decision to announce that all existing welfare mitigations would be extended to March 2028. That should help to give stability to families.

For all the proposals to address poverty, these are the critical questions: how will they be funded, and what is the evidence that they will make a real difference? The answers to those two questions are often lacking. The DUP is committed to ending the two-child limit on universal credit payments, and we will strongly support such a move if it is announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her Budget speech next week. Indeed, I joined a number of charities and other MLAs for a campaign photo at the front of Stormont in support of such a move. We placed our hands on a sign to make handprints, and I still have the paint under my nails to show for it, as others may also do.

Creating opportunities for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, be it through greater educational attainment, training or employment, is crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty and dependency for many. Minister Lyons announced a new strategy that aims to provide more for disabled people to help them to get better jobs and reduce the disability pay gap. The local growth fund is being created by the Labour Government to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, which replaced the European social fund. However, many voluntary sector groups, which do tremendous front-line work to assist people who are considered to be economically inactive into employment and vocational training, have no certainty about their funding beyond the end of this financial year. The UK Government have a responsibility to provide clarity on the future of the local growth fund without delay. Over the course of the past three years, the DUP has repeatedly sought clarity on when the funding will be available, how it will be administered and the degree of input that local Ministers will be afforded, but the responses have been lacking in information.

I turn to the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment. The Education Minister has made it clear that Education has been and remains significantly underfunded. Currently, the EA faces an overcommitment of £280 million. As a result, the EA board, on which all parties sit, has had to make difficult decisions. In its statement, the Education Authority said that the price charged for school meals had not increased since 2017-18, as has been acknowledged, and will remain well below the cost of producing the meal.

The amendment calls on the Education Minister:

something that he has already done. In July, the Education Minister announced an increase in the income threshold for free school meals and the school uniform grant, committing to link future increases to the rate of consumer price inflation. That support will keep pace with the cost of living.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, I will.

Mr Allen: Does the Member have to hand the figure for the Education Minister's increase to the free school meals eligibility threshold?

Mr Kingston: No, I do not have that information to hand, but I will get it for the Member.

The UUP calls for a coordinated approach between the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities. All Ministers should work in a coordinated way to support low-income families, whether that be the Education Minister supporting educational attainment, the Health Minister addressing health inequalities or the Economy Minister supporting skills growth and good employment opportunities. The anti-poverty strategy is a full-Executive strategy, with responsibilities for all Ministers.

Ms K Armstrong: As my colleague Sian Mulholland said, Alliance will support the Sinn Féin motion and the Ulster Unionist amendment.

The motion highlights the stark reality that inflation in the UK stands at 3·8%, nearly double the Bank of England's target and higher than the EU average. That is not an abstract figure; it is a daily burden on workers, families, carers and the wider community. The amendment adds an equally urgent dimension: the sharp rise in food prices, growing levels of food insecurity and the unacceptable pressures being placed on household budgets by increases in, for instance, the cost of school meals and the cost to heat a home. It is becoming more difficult, given that you need to have a smartphone to access benefit apps and online portals. It is all costs.

The motion and the amendment recognise the vital role of voluntary and community organisations and call for stronger and more coordinated action from Ministers. We just heard Mr Kingston say that the anti-poverty strategy is an Executive strategy, so we should be seeing something in that from all Ministers, but we do not. How many times must the Assembly debate poverty and the cost of living before we see a completed anti-poverty strategy and that strategy being put into action? How many speeches must we give before families see relief in their bills, children are guaranteed access to affordable food and communities feel the impact of a plan that is not just drafted but delivered?

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I will.

Mr O'Toole: I could not agree more with Ms Armstrong. Does she agree that more important than the motion from Sinn Féin is that, in addition to the Communities Minister putting meat on the bone of the anti-poverty strategy, the multi-year Budget published, we hope, by the Finance Minister before the end of the year puts in place a multi-year strategy for poverty reduction?

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, I will not need that.

I agree: the two must go hand in hand. In the past, for instance, the House agreed to mitigations to protect people, but mitigations alone are not a strategy. I acknowledge the draft anti-poverty strategy and its limitations, but I also acknowledge that it alone is not an action plan. Families cannot heat their homes with words; children cannot be nourished by debates; and communities cannot be sustained by motions alone. The amendment is right to call for "measurable poverty reduction targets". That is what we need to see for the multi-year Budget. We need to see a clean Programme for Government with clear objectives, and one of those would be to reduce poverty.

The motion is right to demand a revision of the draft anti-poverty strategy. No more Ministers should be making decisions that exacerbate the effects of poverty. For example, others have mentioned the Minister of Education, but the cut in holiday hunger support is the type of action that is contrary to ending poverty. What we need now is urgency, clarity and delivery. We need Ministers to work together — the Communities, Education, Finance, Health and Economy Ministers have all been mentioned today — to align decisions with the objectives of a strengthened cross-Executive anti-poverty strategy. We need timelines and accountability, and we need to know when households will feel the difference.

I support the motion and the amendment because they reflect the real concerns of our constituents. Recently, as many of you have done, I have been working through the energy scheme. The vouchers allocated to me were gone in a day. That is how much pressure we face in our constituency offices, and the community and voluntary sector and advice sector face that all the time. Unless we move beyond speeches to strategies and from those strategies to implementation and from implementation to measurable outcomes, we will be back here in a few weeks talking about the families who continue to struggle. I hope that this will be the last debate that we will have in the House without an anti-poverty strategy. Let this be the moment when we stop talking about poverty and start tackling it.

Ms Murphy: I will highlight the rising cost of living and its devastating impact on workers, families and, in particular, our rural communities.

The cost of living has risen everywhere, but, in rural areas, the pain is more acute. With higher fuel costs, higher heating bills and barriers to accessing services, those communities are always asked to do more with less. For many, a car is not a choice but a necessity, yet the cost of filling the tank and the steep rise in insurance premiums, especially for younger motorists, make it nearly impossible for many families to get from A to B. Food prices have also surged. In rural areas, food banks report unprecedented demand. Community groups and charities are stretched to breaking point, yet those groups do extraordinary work. They run warm hubs, deliver food parcels and support isolated older people, but they cannot carry this alone. They need clarity, sustained support and proper funding. Last week at the AERA Committee, we received an update on the new rural policy framework from officials that highlighted many of those areas, but even the Department has admitted that it will take months for support to get out at grassroots level.

The draft anti-poverty strategy needs clear goals and firm action to tackle food and fuel poverty, the issues that hit rural families hardest. We need policies that do not just sound good on paper but deliver real help on the ground. Rural families are hard-working, resilient and resourceful. They should not be punished by geography. They deserve a fair chance and to be protected from a crisis that they did not create. Yes, we cannot control every global force driving inflation and, yes, we are subject to the decisions of yet another British Government who prioritise everyone but workers, from proposing inheritance tax on family farms to cutting support for the most vulnerable in our communities, but we can choose how we respond. We can strengthen welfare mitigations, oppose water charges and invest in the community organisations that hold our rural areas together.

I urge Members to support the motion. Let us act now to protect families, support workers and strengthen our rural communities.

Ms D Armstrong: At the outset, I thank the proposer of the motion. I will speak principally on the amendment tabled by my colleagues and me.

The rising cost of food in Northern Ireland is one of the most pressing issues facing households here, and it is having a devastating impact on families, especially children. As others have said, in the run-up to Christmas, many families will feel an even greater burden as the cost of Christmas presents and food stacks up. Recent statistics from the Trussell Trust are startling, to say the least. In the last five years, food prices have increased by 37%, while the cost of a frozen turkey has risen by 41%. The reality is that families may not even be able to afford a frozen turkey. The average cost of a Christmas dinner for four people has increased by around 15% as of 2024.

As my colleague Andy Allen said, in 2024, the charity found that 520,000 people across Northern Ireland were food-insecure. To put the figures into perspective, that is almost one in four people in Northern Ireland, and, even more worryingly, 130,000 of that number were children. Furthermore, National Energy Action found that, in 2024, 40% of adults were experiencing food poverty and spent more than 10% of their salary on household energy costs.

The rising cost of living is pushing more families into poverty and deepening health inequalities. Parents are being forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. Members, we are failing in our duty to protect the most vulnerable. The recent 50% hike in the cost of school meals by the Education Authority adds yet another layer of pressure on already stretched household budgets. Fifty pence might not seem like much, but, when you factor in five school days, alongside multiple children in a family, the cost quickly adds up. For many children, the school dinner is the most substantial meal that they receive in a day and making those meals less affordable risks worsening child health and child poverty.

Our party's amendment aptly calls for departmental decisions to

and develop practical measures to reduce poverty. Making important decisions on school meal pricing and increasing the eligibility threshold for free school meals would go a long way in reflecting those commitments.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I was surprised when I learned through a question for written answer that the Minister of Education confirmed that nutritional standards for school meals were considered and reviewed in 2021, but, because he does not have enough money, none of those nutritional standards has been put into practice. Does the Member agree that we should push, as part of the anti-poverty strategy, to make sure that, where and when we feed children, they get the best nutrition possible?

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that is critical. In many cases, that is the principal meal of the day for a child, and so the nutritional elements in it need to be considered.

As I said, making important decisions on school meal prices and increasing the eligibility threshold for school meals are important first steps that would make a real difference for low-income families. Beyond those simple measures, the draft anti-poverty strategy must be strengthened to include ambitious but achievable poverty reduction targets with clear actions to address food and fuel poverty.

I urge Members to back the amendment and the motion and send a message to the Education and Communities Ministers and indeed to the Executive that they must help to ensure that no child goes hungry this winter.

Mr Carroll: As other Members have indicated, the cost-of-living crisis does not make as many headlines these days, but it is still very much with us. Just because prices are not rising by as much as they were maybe two or three years ago, it does not mean that they are not rising or that they have come down. That is felt most acutely by working-class communities and families struggling to feed their children, especially now that the cost of school meals has been hiked. It is felt by low-paid and minimum-wage workers who are denied the bare minimum of pay increases and by unpaid carers, one in four of whom lives in poverty, who save the Executive £16 million per day in care costs.

One in three children in my constituency of West Belfast, disgracefully, lives in poverty, and the two-child benefit cap is a key reason for that shameful statistic. I hope that the Chancellor does the right thing and scraps that cruel and nonsensical policy in the upcoming Budget. However, it is hard to remember the last time that the Labour Government made any decision that benefited rather than hurt working-class communities. I am unclear from the answer that the Minister for Communities gave to my question earlier what his plan of action or intention is.

One in five households here has not been able to afford heat or power at least once in the past two years. That is 20% of the population living in misery in cold, dark homes. Since 2019, the number of people using food banks here has increased by 93%. That is a shameful statistic and an indictment of the powerful parties here and at Westminster, who are content to let the rich get richer while the rest of us are condemned to a life of poverty.

Make no mistake about it: failure to tackle the cost of living is a political choice. The spiralling cost of living is a crisis for some people, but it is a bonanza for others. Maybe it is best to call it a "record profiteering crisis".

For example, the 500 richest people in the world have net worth of more than £8 trillion. Those are the people — billionaires and trillionaires — who are destroying our climate and exploiting workers while our Governments cosy up to them. There is more than enough wealth in our society, but it is in the wrong hands.

Locally, the Executive could do plenty of things to reduce costs for people who are struggling to get by. In the past, families living in the North were protected from the harshest impacts of poverty by relatively low housing costs, but, since COVID, housing costs have risen through the roof. Rents here are rising faster than anywhere in Britain, including London. Our wages are stagnating, and workers in the public sector have seen their wages fall in real terms. The poorest quarter of tenants living in the lowest-quality housing in Belfast spend 50% of their monthly income on rent: a huge figure. Private rents continue to rise while inflation soars and wages stagnate. Our poverty levels will skyrocket. It is entirely within the Executive's remit to introduce rent controls to stop landlords from rent gouging and exploiting their tenants, but the Minister refuses to act. He continues to parrot landlord propaganda. The state subsidises private landlords to the tune of £300 million each year in the form of housing benefits and universal credit housing costs, but we do not hear a lot about those massive handouts; we focus only on so-called benefit scroungers.

Look at unpaid carers. According to economic analysis by Trussell, as others have said, protecting people from hunger and hardship would benefit the economy and public finances by over £2 billion each year, as well as delivering an additional £360 million of savings in public service costs. Tackling poverty makes economic sense, but, more important, it is the correct moral and political choice. Poverty is cruel, but it also costs money and costs lives.

Tackling poverty requires a strong, ambitious anti-poverty strategy with measurable, time-bound targets. It should be a fully funded strategy that puts money in people's pockets. Instead, we have an unresourced strategy that features reheated actions, strategies that were already in development and next to no concrete actions by the Minister to increase people's income in the face of an unending cost-of-living crisis. It is an insult to the expert panel whose work the Minister binned and ignored. It is a slap in the face of the working-class communities that have been destroyed by poverty and deprivation under the Executive and on the Minister's watch. He should go back to the drawing board, listen to the experts, including experts by experience, and implement a proper anti-poverty strategy and fuel poverty strategy.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak towards the end of the debate to give my thoughts on the motion. Over the past number of years — in many ways, the past decade and a half but particularly since 2022 — we have been living through an extraordinary spike in the pressures facing ordinary working families and the most destitute. Costs have increased exponentially. We support the motion; we also support the useful amendment.

For some time, ordinary working families here have had the lowest disposable income, certainly, in the UK and in these islands in general. As we know, we have the highest levels of economic inactivity, child poverty and precarity. All those things are a shame on our society, and they have got worse over the past number of years. They have got worse, yes, as a long-term consequence of some of the decisions made by UK Governments to squeeze spending — austerity, as it is often called — and, yes, as a result of international pressures, including the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and price gouging by lots of big companies. All those things have international consequences and broader challenges.

The key thing, as multiple Members have said today, is not that we come to the Chamber and complain about that but that we take practical measures to help the people who sent us here — the people whom we promised to help and who, as many Members said, face real hardship this winter. Whether they are elderly people struggling to heat their home; working families or, indeed, families in which someone is out of work thinking about how they will pay for Christmas gifts; or parents having to go without in order to feed their child or get them an extra treat at Christmas, all those things should pinch at our conscience and be at the front of our mind every day. We need practical measures, not gesture motions.

While we support the motion and the amendment, therefore, it is important that I say, further to what my colleague Mark H Durkan said, that the motion is problematic for a number of reasons, particularly because it is the lead party in government putting forward a list of complaints about policies that it has overseen in a Government in which it is the biggest party. When our politics is defined by a lack of responsibility, that is a problem.

It is true that successive British Governments have made appalling decisions. The two-child limit is appalling, indefensible and immoral, and I hope that it will be reversed in full. Sinn Féin cannot, however, take credit for some welfare mitigations while avoiding responsibility for the Executive's failure to mitigate the two-child limit, for which the SDLP put forward a practical proposal last year. We said how we would pay for it. We said that we would change how vacant property relief works and use the rates revenue from that. Our proposal arose not as a result of what is in the Sinn Féin motion today but as a result of a Sinn Féin Minister putting up a tax that, despite what is stated in the motion, impinged on working families. We said, "Use some of it to mitigate the two-child limit". The Sinn Féin Finance Minister could have chosen to do that, but it was not done. Do not come to the Chamber today as if you have no responsibility and as if the only people who are ever responsible for bad things are the Brits or the DUP. Yes, they are responsible for bad things, but, if you seek office, you have to be accountable for the decisions that you do and do not take.

There is a problem when we are presented with such a motion, and it is particularly disappointing to hear people talk about how awful it is to raise revenue in any circumstances and their refusal to do so. If a party is on the left, as mine is, it has to be honest about the decisions that it wants to take. As Mr Carroll said, those who have broader shoulders should pay more in order to help those who have less. Sinn Féin has not made that decision, despite having had the Finance Ministry for the past half decade and on another occasion before that. How is that the case? We had an indication from a previous Sinn Féin Finance Minister that they would abolish the domestic rates cap. That would be a small increase for people with more expensive homes, but we have had no indication of whether or when that will happen. Earlier today, we heard Sinn Féin's Economy Minister lambast air passenger duty, which is a tax that, I imagine, is paid largely by people who fly a lot, who, by definition, are people who can afford to fly. It is a small tax that is critical to getting people to reduce how often they fly, yet it is apparently an awful thing that must be abolished.

I say to those who tabled the motion to take responsibility. Do not gaslight people who face real pressures in their everyday lives. Do not table meaningless motions when you hold the posts of First Minister, Economy Minister, Finance Minister and Infrastructure Minister, which are positions that can take real steps. Take responsibility. Use the power that you have rather than simply transfer the blame to others at every opportunity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Communities. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. First, it is clear to everyone in the Chamber that we all care about the issue; of course we do. I certainly do not question anybody's determination or ambition to tackle it. We have deep care and compassion for those who suffer most, because we all, I hope, got into politics because we wanted to make people's lives better. That is certainly where I am coming from. I want to enhance and uplift our communities and make Northern Ireland the best possible place for people to live and bring up their families. I do not doubt the sincerity and commitment of others in the Chamber, and I trust that they do not doubt mine.

We all know, as I certainly do from the contact that I have had with my constituents and with community and voluntary organisations, how deeply the increase in the cost of living is affecting everyone across Northern Ireland. Financial pressures are particularly acute as the winter weather sets in and as we find ourselves in the run-up to Christmas. The whole Executive, including Ministers from the party opposite, which tabled the motion, must recognise that. I have said this before, but I find myself having to repeat it: my Department alone cannot tackle poverty and socio-economic disadvantage. The motion mentions my anti-poverty strategy, but let me again remind Members — the SDLP did so, as did Kellie Armstrong — that all parties in the Executive have collective responsibility for the strategy. We all signed up to its publication and its going out to consultation. I asked all Executive parties whether they wanted further strategic actions to be included.

No further actions were added to it, and Ministers agreed that the strategy be published and go out for consultation. It is important that we recognise that it is not the strategy of one Minister alone. I am more than happy to take forward our proposal and stand in this place answering questions on it.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way.

Mr Allen: Does the Minister acknowledge that my party's amendment highlights the fact that the anti-poverty strategy is an Executive strategy?

Mr Lyons: I do. I am grateful to the Member for doing that. Maybe it highlights the fact that it is only Sinn Féin that is unaware, or unwilling to admit, that it is an Executive strategy. I had to laugh when Mr Gildernew was speaking, actually, because he exposed that. When something good happens, the Executive can take the responsibility. When something bad happens, it is all down to me. He said that, in 2022, Deirdre Hargey brought forward welfare mitigations. However, last year, when I brought forward welfare mitigations, it was the Executive who did that. That exposes where he is coming from. Fair enough that he wants to highlight that, but the important —.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to give way.

Mr Gildernew: I said that the Executive had allocated the money for it —

Mr Lyons: Ah, the Executive allocated the money.

Mr Gildernew: — which is true.

Mr Lyons: It is true. It is also true that I was the one who brought forward the paper and secured that funding. Look, I am happy to work with others to ensure that that is the case. It is, however, important to remember that we all have to tackle poverty together. Even if we do that as an Executive, we alone cannot tackle it. It has been said in the Chamber that poverty is a political choice. With the best will in the world, and even with all the money that they have, the Executive are not going to be able to tackle poverty alone. It will require everybody working together; not just the Executive and voluntary and community organisations but the people who are affected. Many people out there are struggling with poverty, and there are things that we need them to do. We need them to come forward and use the Make the Call service to ensure that they get the support that they need. We need them to look at the opportunities that can be presented to them.

I will talk a bit more about the anti-poverty strategy shortly, but I want to first address some of the work that my Department is taking forward. Work on a fuel poverty strategy is well under way and due with the Executive before Christmas. Mr Gildernew, in particular, asked about that. That will contain a brand new energy efficiency scheme for low-income households. As I have said before, we cannot tackle poverty if we are not tackling fuel poverty. Fuel is one of the things that we spend most of our incomes on, so it is important that we tackle fuel poverty and bring that support forward. Since its launch in 2015, the affordable warmth scheme has supported over 30,000 households, with more than £136 million invested to date. The discretionary support scheme delivers tens of millions of pounds of emergency financial assistance year after year. In 2025-26, £2·8 million was allocated to support social supermarket projects in every council area. There was a £100 winter fuel payment for every pensioner household in Northern Ireland after the SDLP's sister party decided to cut that support. That kind of support plays a vital role in safeguarding the well-being and dignity of people who are in financial distress, especially amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

I ask everyone in the Chamber to remember the Make the Call service when they are speaking to constituents who are struggling. It is one of the most effective ways in which to ensure that we get support to those who need it most. Make the Call generated £62·1 million extra of annualised benefits for 12,025 people in 2023-24.

Vital work is being carried out by voluntary and community organisations. Once again, I express my gratitude to those from that sector who continue to provide support and advice, which supplements what government can deliver.

Finally, one of the most important things that my Department does is help people to ensure that they have a safe and secure home to live in. Good housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of any society. Consistently, it seems as though I am the only one who is talking about that. I want to ensure that we have sufficient money for the social housing development programme. Again, I appeal to the Finance Minister and other Ministers to ensure that we have the money that we need to deliver properly on our housing targets.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. On that issue, is he having conversations with the Finance Minister about a multi-year Budget? Obviously, his Department will have put in a return, or it will be in the process of doing so.

Is there a specific amount that you have asked for as a settlement from the multi-year Budget, and what is the upshot of those conversations?

Mr Lyons: I have had conversations at ministerial level to highlight the demand that we have and make sure that that is met. Returns are also submitted to make sure that we can achieve our housing targets. More than that, I am not just saying, "Give me more money"; I am saying, "What are the other ways in which we can subsidise housing? How can other Departments help, maybe with public land?" If they are not able to give up cash, perhaps we can look at the transfer of public land. I hope that that will get Executive approval. Look at what we are doing to utilise financial transactions capital for intermediate rent in particular — a new programme has been brought in — and at what I am doing to revitalise the Housing Executive. I will do everything that I can on the issue because, if you get housing right and people have warm homes to live in, that will deal with so many of the other issues that we are facing.

We need to make sure that we have a strong and growing economy that provides well-paid jobs. Only a few Members touched on that issue during the debate. Maurice Bradley put it best when he said that we need to make sure that jobs are available to people and that there is a safety net if people cannot work. Working is the game changer. We have heard a bit about Tory austerity and the austerity from the current UK Government. We are in the difficulty that we are in right now because growth has been so low and because there are so many people who have not been helped and supported into work.

We talk about the tens of millions of pounds — sometimes, the hundreds of millions of pounds — that we need to deal with some of the issues that we are facing. Look at the disability and work strategy, and the plan that we have: if we can get the number of disabled people in work from 40% up to 50%, that will generate savings of £750 million a year. That is massive. One reason why we are in the position that we are in and do not have enough money to do all the other things that we want to do is that we have to support so many people who, although they can and, often, want to work, have not been given the help and support that they need. That is why I extended the JobStart programme this year. We know how effective it has been: over 80% of people on it either stay in employment or go into further education or training. That has the potential to be a real game changer, never mind others who could work but are not working. We need to do something about that issue. Not only does that help our economic return but it is better for people in the long run to be in employment — it is good for their health, including their mental health, and well-being. The stats are astounding. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between the number of people who are unemployed or not working and deprivation in certain areas. We see that in our constituencies. We know that the most deprived constituencies are often those that have the highest levels of economic inactivity, so let us do something about that. That will release the funds to do some of the other things that we want to do.

I will address some of the concerns and the comments that were made about the anti-poverty strategy, although I sometimes question whether I should; I feel that, given that I have said it so many times in the House, Members are not listening any more. Of course, there will be measurable targets and outcomes in the final anti-poverty strategy and/or action plan. I am more than happy to make sure that we are held to account on those issues. The Executive are not responsible overall for poverty, because it is not only the Executive who tackle those issues; there will be other worldwide factors outside our control. However, we should be held to account, and there should be objective measures and targets, which need to be recognised and implemented. I have no issue whatsoever with those being included; they need to be. That is the right thing to do. However, there will be more changes to come, because it was a genuine consultation; it was not the final product. We, as an Executive, said, "This is what we are able to do. This is what is funded. This is what we're putting forward. It's over to you — the public, and voluntary and community organisations — to have your say and tell us what you think". I look forward to the feedback's being published when it comes to support for the policies that we have set out.

Of course, we will consider and analyse different recommendations that come forward and see what is doable and what will make a change. I look forward to that as well. I am very keen that we do not simply put together a list of policies that might sit on the shelf, not be funded and not make a difference to people at all. We could have developed a strategy that was a wish list with no recognition of reality. I could have made vague promises for action five or 10 years from now that no one would hold me to. I am not here to make empty promises. I want to make promises that I can deliver on. That is also why we will have an action plan that will be a living document that changes and develops as our evidence base evolves and, importantly, as resources become available. I encourage all Members in the Chamber to join in that work so that we can make a real difference.

I will make a couple of comments on some of the issues that were raised. I am very keen to make sure that we put in place those things that actually make a difference. Sian Mulholland raised that: she talked about the lived realities. Absolutely that has been taken on board. She is right to highlight some of the issues that she has. I have no issue whatsoever; I do not bristle whenever she mentions Scotland. I am dealing with the basis of reality and the evidence that has been presented. That has not been overwhelming, nor is it a long-term solution. Our energies and our focuses, first and foremost, should be put on where we can tackle those root causes. That is why the strategy is formatted in the way that it is as well.

I was also very taken by the comments made by Maurice Bradley, as I have already outlined. It is important that we support people into work. I have mentioned that already. I thank Andy Allen for recognising that work has been done and that it has been taken forward further than it ever has been before. I have already addressed the issue of clear outcomes and measured targets, and I understand that in relation, in particular, to food and fuel poverty, which he raised as well. I also associate myself with his remarks in relation to unpaid carers.

My time is coming to a close. I finish with the hypocrisy of Mr O'Toole, who complains about air passenger duty, yet his own party members support flights between the City of Derry and Dublin. Perhaps we can have more consistency from the Member.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Jon Burrows to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Jon, you have five minutes.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. I will say at the outset that it is refreshing to be discussing issues that really are kitchen-table politics — issues that are directly relevant to our constituents up and down the country. As my colleague who proposed the amendment said, it really strengthens the motion and is a constructive amendment.

I begin by making a couple of points about the rate of inflation. Inflation is one of those things that is of great interest to economists, but the figure of 3·8% is, of course, in many ways irrelevant to those who are in the real economy, because inflation affects different people in different ways. Food inflation, as my colleague Ms Diana Armstrong said, is actually running at 11%, and over the past four years, it has been 37%. It far outstrips the overall rate of aggregate inflation — and that is what really hits working families most. You will hear from people when they go to do their shop: they know that the things that they put in their trolley have got so much more expensive. That hits working families because, first, they have more mouths to feed — hungry children and teenagers playing sport — and second, because it is a non-discretionary spend. The inflation rate also includes other things, like new cars or holidays and all kinds of other things. They are often discretionary, but the food increase is non-discretionary. That is why the amendment is right to link food security and school meals to the motion.

I will come on to school meals, because we have opposed the 20% increase in school meal costs. That increase outstrips inflation. Yes, there has not been an increase since 2017. The difficulty with that is that it will make it more difficult for parents to manage the jump. In hindsight, if you are going to do it, it would be better to spread the increase incrementally year by year and achieve the 20% at the end of that period, as opposed to holding off and jumping by 20%. It will potentially be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Food prices have increased, and that puts pressure on the cost of producing school meals. I accept that. One of the things that we as a party have been very clear about is that the price of school meals should be the last thing that is increased. There are savings to be had in how procurement is done. Ask any schoolteacher and they will tell you that it is cheaper to go out and buy printer paper directly than to get it through procurement. Those are ways in which you can save money, if they are done properly, as opposed to front-loading the cost on to schools.

My colleagues and many others — I will not summarise what everyone else said — were quite right to say that school meals are critical, particularly for those whose families can just about afford them and who are ineligible for free school meals, because, with the rise in food prices, they are guaranteed to get that square meal. It is therefore vital that we do not increase the price. That is why we have also called for the threshold for eligibility for free school meals to rise. The last time that it rose, it rose by £390. However, that figure, and what families can afford, is more than wiped out by the increase in inflation.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Mr Durkan: Does the Member acknowledge that it was not a hugely significant amount and that it was even less significant given that the threshold had fallen significantly with the migration of so many people to universal credit?

Mr Burrows: Yes, that really compounds it. To make the point really clearly, the threshold to qualify for free school meals was an income of up to £15,000. It then went up to £15,390, which reflects about a 3% rise in inflation. However, the real inflation felt by working families who have children and have to pay those non-discretionary inflationary rates that run at 11% a year wipes out —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way very briefly.

Ms K Armstrong: The cost to the Northern Ireland Government of increasing school meal costs is a cost to the Department of Education itself, because it is the Department of Education that pays the Education Authority for school meals. Therefore, on the one hand, we have working families who are going to be in trouble, and, on the other hand, we have the Department of Education, which is already in trouble with its budget, now facing higher costs to provide those meals.

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

Mr Burrows: That is a valid point. There is consensus emerging that the increase in school meal prices should be reviewed.

There is a side issue that I will not explore in detail now, but it is the fact that there is a lot of wastage in school meals at primary-school level, because schools have insufficient ability to tailor the menu to the needs of the children. The menu is overly prescriptive. I did a little bit of touring around different schools, and, from the figures, I found that there is up to 40% wastage in primary-school meals. The catering department says, "Look, we know what the children will eat, and we are unable to tailor the offering". Why is that relevant? It is relevant because, if you were running a commercial setting and people were not eating half the food that you were supplying, you certainly would not get away with increasing the price.

Food banks are a significant feature in our society. I used to volunteer at one before I came to this place, and it was a heartbreaking experience to see people wait for a delivery of food so that they could feed their children. One of the particular difficulties, of course, is —.

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

Mr Burrows: I will. I commend the amendment. It strengthens the motion and is constructive, and I encourage Members to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Emma, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I am glad to hear a somewhat united voice in response to the motion that we tabled, because we want everyone to work together in support of the workers and families whom we all represent. As has been said by others throughout the debate, poverty is, indeed, a political choice. At the heart of my politics and the reason for my getting involved in political life is my rejection of the fact that we in the North are forever at the whim of whatever British Government are in office, and, as a result of their decisions, the people whom we represent often suffer. We call on the Minister to work with colleagues in order to mitigate the worst impacts of the latest British Government and the decisions that they make.

We see the impact of our having been pulled out of the EU and the loss of all the EU funding from which we were able to benefit previously, particularly in such areas as mine in Mid Ulster. There has been the loss of CAP funding, which supported working farmers and their families, and the rural development programme, which has had an impact on our local community groups and small communities across the North. We have also seen the cliff edge that has come about due to the replacement of the European social fund and the European regional development fund, which helped local groups and people who needed support to get into the workplace; the pressure that has been heaped upon working people by the threat of the inheritance tax on our farming families, which compounds the pressures that they are already under; and the planned rise to the pension age, which has seen the elderly and most vulnerable worrying about how they are going to fund the last years of their life. At the same time, there is always money to fund billionaires' interests; there is always money for capitalist projects. That is what we object to. We watch as the British Government tell us, very proudly, that they are increasing their defence spending, year-on-year, and that they aim to spend 2·5% of GDP on defence by 2027. How disgusting is that? Today, we had DUP Member after DUP Member question a Minister who attempts to prevent public funding going towards the creation of Israeli genocidal war weapons —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Emma, can you keep your remarks to the motion, please?

Ms Sheerin: — in this jurisdiction — something that I object to. The British Government have shown us that they will always prioritise weapons over workers. They prioritise warfare — not in any of our names. They contribute to famine in a foreign land, as opposed to contributing to families here at home. We want to see a common voice coming from the Assembly, and we want to work together to mitigate those worst impacts and support the families and workers whom we all represent.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.