Official Report: Monday 24 November 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that I have received correspondence from the Minister for Communities to advise that he is unable to make a statement today on the launch of the public consultation on the Executive disability strategy, as he is unwell.

Whilst we were having our moment of prayer, I was reflecting on the tragic loss of two people on a road in Glenavy so soon after the loss of five people in Louth just last week. It shows how dangerous a place our roads are. Indeed, on Saturday night, there was a crash close to my home that resulted in three adults and two children being taken to hospital. It is therefore incumbent on us all to keep getting out the message about road safety. Our thoughts and prayers at this time are with the bereaved families and with those who have been injured.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the UK COVID-19 inquiry report that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate so by rising in their place. Each Member, including Mr Gaston, will have to up three minutes in which to speak. I will take no interventions and no points of order until the item of business has finished.

Mr Gaston: Once again, we are confronted with the latest feeble finding about what was, by any objective measure, one of the greatest scandals of lockdown: the IRA Storey funeral. Let us remind ourselves of what happened. While ordinary people in Northern Ireland were being denied the right to stand at a graveside, being denied the right to comfort their loved ones and, in some cases, even being denied the right to say goodbye, thousands gathered on the streets of Belfast for a full-scale republican show of strength. It was not a spontaneous act of grief but a meticulously organised, tightly choreographed display of IRA power, with Sinn Féin figures at its centre, yet, time after time, in report after report, the establishment has twisted itself in knots to avoid the obvious, which is that the law was applied differently depending on whom people were. Republican leaders knew exactly what they were doing and that the authorities would not confront them.

The latest findings simply continue the tired pattern of evasion.

The truth is this: Sinn Féin was flagrantly hypocritical and at the heart of the breach, and everyone knows that. Michelle O'Neill did not merely attend: she led; she posed; she set an example that thousands followed; and then she claimed that she did nothing wrong. What was the response of officialdom? No accountability, just more excuses. The latest report tells us once again that no one can rely on people being held responsible. The public are not fools: they see what this is. They know exactly what it means when the law is flexible for some and rigid for others. They know what it means when senior republicans can breach restrictions with impunity while ordinary people are criminalised for far less.

This is a scandal about two-tier policing. It is about rule makers who, in full view of the TV cameras, became rule breakers. It is about law-abiding citizens being denied a basic funeral while a blood-soaked terrorist was given a grand send-off. The fact that Lady Hallett joins a long list of figures in officialdom who cannot bring themselves to say so does her no credit; in fact, it does a gross disservice to ordinary people.

Mr McGuigan: Our thoughts are very much with those who suffered or lost loved ones during the pandemic. I pay tribute to the dedicated Health and Social Care (HSC) workers who stepped forward during that extraordinary time to see us through it.

The COVID pandemic was an unprecedented global emergency, the like of which no Administration, including the Executive, had ever faced. The inquiry into how the Executive and other Administrations navigated their way through the pandemic is clearly important and valuable work. I thank the inquiry team for its work, and I welcome the publication of its module 2 report.

I acknowledge the inquiry and the important opportunity that it afforded to families and loved ones to come forward to tell their stories in order to ensure that their experience, grief and trauma were not and will not be forgotten. The report is an important landmark. It provides further lessons from that extraordinary time and the experience that we all went through, and it will help all of us, including the Executive, to learn lessons. It will also help in the long journey of recovery after the pain and trauma of the COVID pandemic and help to inform future preparedness for and response to any future pandemic or society-wide emergency.

Mr Frew: My first thoughts are with the families who lost and suffered during the COVID years, when the Executive were making decisions on behalf of the people of this country. It is fair to say that the criticism from the Hallett report is damning, but it is also centred on decisions that Michelle O'Neill took in her time as deputy First Minister. It was Sinn Féin that first breached the Executive's collective responsibility when it came out in public utterance about the decision that the Executive had taken on school closures. That was only a day after that decision had been taken at an Executive meeting at which Michelle O'Neill had not raised it as an issue. That was diabolical — diabolical. Then, of course, there was the grandest breach of the rules: bringing thousands out on to the streets at a time of COVID restrictions to glorify a dead terrorist and, worse than that, to have a sham funeral oration in a graveyard in which the man was not even buried. What a disgrace.

It is a disgrace for the people who could not attend the funerals of their loved ones and friends. The tragedy is that so many people died alone in care homes and hospitals without their families present; that is where the harm has been done. Michelle O'Neill and Sinn Féin enticed and encouraged thousands of people to breach the COVID restrictions, when people were being fined £250 for seeing their grandchildren: that is the level it went to. Of course, many people breached their own COVID rules and were heavily criticised or fined, but Sinn Féin walked away from that horrible episode without a touch on them. No fines were administered, whereas households in my constituency — grannies, grandas, mums and dads — were fined £250 each because they dared to go to their grandchild's first birthday party. That is the disgrace, and, given the number of people who suffered during that time, it is unforgivable.

Ms Bradshaw: Once again, I express my deepest sympathies to the people who were bereaved during the pandemic. I am sure that reading Baroness Hallett's report was distressing and probably re-traumatising.

The COVID inquiry has laid bare a simple but sobering truth: Northern Ireland's institutions were not equipped to deal with a crisis on that scale. The decision-making was fragmented and, in the words of the inquiry, "chaotic". Too often, politics trumped evidence, and the structures that we rely on to protect people simply did not function as they should have. Lives and livelihoods were put at greater risk because our system was slow, divided and reactive when it needed to be united, transparent and strategic.

What needs to happen now is clear. First, we need a fundamental shift towards evidence-led, cross-departmental decision-making. The inquiry showed that too much responsibility fell on a single Department and that the operational independence of the Departments was a hindrance to cohesive decision-making, while other parts of government operated in silos. That cannot happen again. We need a standing emergency framework that brings every Department together, backed by strong scientific and public health capacity and led by clear, collective authority rather than competing political agendas.

Secondly, we must rebuild public trust. The confused messages and blurred lines between guidance and the law, as well as the spectacle of leaks and political point-scoring, damaged confidence at the very moment when people needed clarity and leadership. We now need a commitment to honesty, accessible communication and full transparency in how decisions are recorded, scrutinised and explained. Trust is earned through behaviour, not rhetoric.

Thirdly, the most significant lesson is that the failures were not just operational; they were institutional. Our power-sharing structures are too vulnerable to deadlock. The Executive struggled to act quickly because our system gives the two parties from the largest designations what is, in effect, a sectarian veto to block action but gives no one the authority to lead in an emergency. The inquiry is also right to highlight the risk of paralysis if the Government collapse during a crisis. That is why the Alliance Party has consistently called for institutional reform. It is not just a constitutional debate; it is a public safety requirement.

The inquiry has given us the facts; we now need the courage to act. The Alliance Party stands ready to deliver reform, protect public health and build institutions that serve people not parties.

Mr Burrows: COVID was, in many ways, a moment of truth for many in our political establishment, and the truth was that many of our political leaders were not up to the challenge.

I will turn to the Bobby Storey funeral in a moment. First, I extend my sympathy to all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic and all those who never got a chance to say goodbye and who visited their loved ones in care homes through a glass window because they abided by the rules that were set down by people in this place.

Then we had the flagrant breach of those rules by Sinn Féin. Yes, Baroness Hallett's report raised issues of competency and decision-making, but what stood out in Sinn Féin's misconduct was that it was a predetermined, pre-planned, calculated, flagrant breach of the rule of law. It was an affront to everybody who did the right thing.

The show of strength for Bobby Storey's funeral revealed what is wrong with the rule of law in Northern Ireland: the average citizen has to follow the rules on when they see, or do not see, their granny or granda, but, when it comes to a terrorist, different rules apply. That was a day of shame for Sinn Féin. There was much talk about the apology of the now First Minister for all. It took 1,414 days to apologise — that is not an apology at all — and Sinn Féin still boycotts 'The Nolan Show', because the BBC had the temerity to expose its duplicity. That is not genuine remorse.

We focus on the Bobby Storey funeral, but there is a second chapter to Sinn Féin's conduct around COVID. That concerns 5 February 2021, when two young constables, one Protestant and one Catholic, had the temerity to try to give a ticket to a group of people who were breaching the COVID regulations. The result, after the constables were jostled and abused, was that Sinn Féin, at a senior level, interfered with policing. It demanded that a prisoner be released from the back of a police car. It petitioned the Chief Constable and threatened him until he suspended an innocent officer. I was proud to be part of the campaign to exonerate that police officer.

Sinn Féin caused not only a crisis in confidence around the Bobby Storey funeral but a crisis in policing around its politicisation on the Ormeau Road. It has never apologised for that, but I know the truth, because I saw the minutes: I saw the disclosure. Yes, there are real lessons on competence, integrity and decision-making that we can learn from the report, but, when it comes to predetermined immorality, Sinn Féin showed its true colours, and it should still make a heartfelt apology for the damage that it did to this country during COVID.

Mr Durkan: The report compels us to reflect honestly on how this region was led through an unprecedented global crisis. Around the world, Governments struggled under immense pressure, making agonising decisions, and no response was perfect. However, acknowledging international challenges does not diminish the specific failures that were identified in the North. The findings will be incredibly painful for the families who lost loved ones in the most difficult circumstances and for every person who quietly sacrificed to protect others. Our thoughts are with all those people. They deserved clear, consistent, united leadership, but they too often got the exact opposite. The inquiry makes it clear that political division here repeatedly hindered our response. Decisions were taken along party lines. Opportunities to act sooner were missed. Public health messaging was inconsistent and was dictated more by political calculation than scientific evidence. We cannot ignore the message that chaotic behaviours in the Executive caused to be sent out. Leaks to the media, sometimes even during meetings, undermined trust, destabilised public messaging and made it impossible to present a united front at a time when unity was essential.

The public's confidence was further eroded by events such as the Bobby Storey funeral. When ordinary families were being denied the chance to say goodbye to their loved ones, senior Sinn Féin figures being seen attending a mass funeral sent the devastating message that there was one rule for leaders and another rule for everyone else. Then there was the deletion of WhatsApp messages, including those belonging to the current First Minister. Those messages could have helped the inquiry to build a fuller picture of what was happening behind the scenes; instead, they were wiped.

The pandemic has passed, but, sadly, the attitudes that hindered our response have not. There remains a clear absence of leadership here, and too many continue to put party interests before the public good. The SDLP has consistently called for serious institutional reform to deliver better government. The findings make that case beyond doubt. Those criticised in the inquiry cannot simply dismiss it or deflect. They must accept responsibility and commit to change. If we are to honour those who were lost, and if we are to rebuild public trust, every lesson must be learned and acted upon. People deserve better. They deserve leadership that puts them first.

Mr Brett: "Do as I say, not as I do" perfectly sums up the attitude of Sinn Féin during the COVID pandemic. At a time when people were dying alone, our older people were shielded in care homes, our front-line health workers risked their lives day and daily and businessmen and women watched what they had built over years disappear in front of their eyes, they saw laws made in this place that the now First Minister thought did not apply to her.

We had a situation in which a Provo show of strength was put ahead of the safety of every person here in Northern Ireland. That was a shame then, and it is a shame today. It is telling that, in the remarks made by those on the Benches opposite, we have had no apology officially on the record of the House for the breaches that they and their colleagues incurred.

There was a clear demonstration in the report that Ministers tried to use the pandemic as an opportunity to push forward an all-island agenda rather than the factual medical situation that pertained here to Northern Ireland. Who will forget the fake, phantom PPE order by Minister Conor Murphy, who proclaimed from the steps of the House that he had secured a historic medical order for the people of Northern Ireland? Little did he know that that Chinese equipment did not exist, and, when asked by his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland whether it existed, they said no.

We will also not forget the actions of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, who, at the height of the pandemic, put forward their view that they should traipse down to Dublin to call for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol rather than continue to have a united message on health here in Northern Ireland.

This party was a voice of reason during the COVID pandemic. When others tried to have draconian laws that, they believed, should not apply to them, this party proudly stood up and spoke up for citizens

right across Northern Ireland. They may not like the truth now

but they cannot shout us down.

The SDLP, whose Members shout from the Opposition Benches, wanted to sack nurses because they did not want to comply with their draconian legislation. They were happy to traipse to Dublin to try to dismantle businesses further. This party will always be a party of reason and of freedom of expression.

Mr Tennyson: First, I want to bring the debate back to those who should be at the heart of our considerations of the report, and that is the front-line workers who served across our public services, those who were not able to hold their loved one's hand in their final moments and all those in our society who had their lives and livelihoods upended by the coronavirus pandemic.

It is shameful that Baroness Hallett has found that, even when our people and public services were on their knees and even in the context of a global emergency, the DUP and Sinn Féin could not set aside their party political interests to prioritise the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. That should bring great shame on the House; be it the DUP abusing rules in the Executive to block public health measures or Sinn Féin breaking the rules that it made in the Executive, they ought to be hanging their heads in shame. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

Today is not just about recrimination and blame, however. We have an opportunity to set aside that party political interest and deliver better for the people whom we represent. Baroness Hallett was clear that the power-sharing structures at Stormont undermined the Executive's ability to respond effectively to the pandemic, which resulted in chaotic and dysfunctional decision-making. People died as a result of the delays in decision-making in the Executive. The report is clear about that. Will we now set aside party political interests? Will the First Minister and the deputy First Minister call on the Secretary of State to convene a process to reform these institutions in order to ensure that never again is the Assembly paralysed when it ought to be planning for a pandemic and never again can any Executive measure or policy be held to ransom? That is the least that the people whom we represent deserve. Let us set aside the sham fight that is taking place across the Chamber between the two largest parties, and, for once in this Building, let us prioritise the people whom we all represent.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes Members' contributions on the Matter of the Day.

Ms Finnegan: I pay tribute to two extraordinary young women from Silverbridge in south Armagh. Sisters Aisling Muckian and Áine Mallie were given a breast cancer diagnosis weeks apart. In May, during a routine self-check, Aisling discovered a lump, and Áine found herself facing the same devastating news shortly afterwards. The women are each mothers of two beautiful young children and have undergone single mastectomies and lymph node clearances. Both are now bravely undergoing chemotherapy.

What has resonated so deeply with people across our community is the way in which the sisters are walking their journey together. They have spoken openly about the comfort and strength that they find in each other, acknowledging that, while they would never wish this on the other, facing it side by side has helped them to cope with the whirlwind of diagnosis and treatment. Their closeness, their humour in dark moments and the way in which they lift each other up are a powerful testament to the bond that they share.

They have also been incredibly proactive in raising awareness, using their own experience to encourage self-checking at any age, challenging assumptions that breast cancer affects only older women and urging families to talk openly about medical history and the possibility of genetic risk. Their courage in turning personal hardship into purpose has already begun to change lives, with many people saying that they have checked themselves because of the sisters' story.

I know both ladies, not simply as brave fighters but as my constituents, rooted in their community, loved by their neighbours, families and friends, and now inspiring people far beyond Silverbridge. Today, let their journey be a call to action. Let us promote regular check-ups for women and men, regardless of age, ensure that healthcare services listen and respond quickly when concerns are raised and improve access to information, support and genetic testing for families who need it.

Aisling and Áine have shown extraordinary resilience, love and determination. On behalf of the community of Newry and Armagh and the Assembly, I send them our love, strength and solidarity. They are not walking this journey alone: we, too, are walking it with them.

Mr Middleton: I rise this afternoon to address the recent court judgement on religious education in our schools. Whilst we must, of course, take time to properly review the legal ruling with due care, I know that many people from a faith background are particularly anxious about its potential consequences.

For generations, Christian values have shaped the moral character of our school and education system, whether that be through assemblies, school activities or, indeed, the everyday life of the classroom. Those values have helped to shape and form the young people whom we have today. That heritage is not something that we apologise for, nor is it something that we are prepared to see diminished.

When the Protestant Churches transferred their schools to the state, it was on the solemn understanding that a Christian ethos would be maintained not to indoctrinate but to guide our young people with values of love, integrity and service. To view that heritage as a source of bias or exclusion is to misunderstand the fabric of our community.

The court has called for education that is objective, critical and pluralistic. Let me be clear that we are not afraid of scrutiny or of our children understanding the world around them, but "pluralistic" must not become a byword for "secular". It must not be used as a tool to strip away the Christian character that so many parents actively choose for their children. We are glad that, at this time, we have a DUP Education Minister in place. He has already made it clear that, under his leadership, the Christian faith will continue to shape education in Northern Ireland. It is right that schools and governors have many questions about the ruling's implications and what they should do, and I welcome the fact that the Minister will, over the coming weeks, provide clear, legally sound guidance to schools in order to avoid confusion and to ensure a unified response.

This party will not stand by and watch the ethos of many of our schools being dismantled. We will work to ensure that, in meeting our legal obligations, we do not abandon our moral ones. The Bible remains a book of wisdom, not unlawful harm. We will continue to stand up for an education system that reflects and respects all but apologises to none for its Christian roots.

Mr Honeyford: On Friday night, I had the absolute privilege of joining St Patrick's GAC in Lisburn as it celebrated its 60th anniversary. Listening to its story of the sectarian abuse that the club and its members have faced over the years was deeply moving. At the end of the 1990s, members were unable even to step on to their own pitch at a new facility that the club had built, so it made the difficult decision to walk away in order to protect its players. For some clubs, that could have been the end of the story but, thankfully, not for St Pat's. I pay tribute to Michael Lynch and others, who refused to give in. That quiet, determined spirit, rooted in the community, is what has carried St Pat's through six decades.

What a contrast we see today, with a thriving club. Alongside its senior men's and ladies' teams, it has strong membership across every age group, a brilliant youth development structure and even a really vocal mothers and others' team, which I saw the other night. All of that has been built with a real sense of pride and belonging. The club is also looking forward with confidence. Having played for many years at the Ministry of Defence pitches at Kirkwoods Road, it is now finalising the purchase of that land. That is transformational and an opportunity to secure the club's future for generations to come.

St Patrick's GAC is not only marking 60 years but celebrating the resilience of its founding members and the power of sport and our community to overcome even the toughest of times. We have so many brilliant sporting clubs in Lagan Valley, and St Pat's is a key part of the wider sporting family. I congratulate every person involved and wish the club every success in the future.

Ms D Armstrong: It is with great sadness that, as the Ulster Unionist MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I pay tribute to the late Paul Costelloe, who passed away on Friday 21 November. He was a remarkable designer whose influence on fashion and connection to our part of the world will be remembered for generations. Paul Costelloe was a transformative figure in women's fashion. His designs were instantly recognisable, elegant and confident and crafted with a deep understanding of how women live and express themselves. For decades, he shaped the style of modern womenswear, producing collections that were admired on runways, embraced by customers and praised for their sophistication and originality. His work consistently celebrated women, blending practicality with beauty in a way that set him apart as a true leader in his field.

The Paul Costelloe brand had a special connection to my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It placed significant elements of its production in the Strelitz factory in Moygashel, recognising and valuing the exceptional skills of local workers and the area's long-standing tradition of textile craft. At a time when such investment truly mattered, Paul Costelloe chose to anchor part of his global brand in a small village that he trusted to deliver excellence. That decision brought real economic benefit to Tyrone. His commitment provided employment and stability and brought pride to a community with deep manufacturing roots. He helped to ensure that Moygashel was known not only for its past but for the contemporary craftsmanship that contributed to one of the most respected fashion labels of our time. On the global stage, his name became synonymous with quality and creativity. His designs travelled from Moygashel to major fashion capitals, carrying with them the story of local skill and dedication.

Today, as we reflect on his life and achievements, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to his wife, Anne, and their seven children, who have lost a beloved husband and father. May they find comfort in the knowledge that his contributions to fashion, to Moygashel, to Tyrone and to all who admired his work will endure long into the future.

Mr O'Toole: I associate myself with the previous remarks.

I want to talk about accountability. Since we came into opposition, we have made a specific point of addressing what has been a crisis in accountability in our politics. When the public see what happens in the Assembly, they feel that there is a crisis in accountability, that people are not answerable for their actions and that nobody is answerable for the quality or lack thereof of public services.

A fortnight ago, a motion of no confidence was tabled against the Education Minister. Per the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that motion was not successful, so I do not propose to relitigate its terms. However, I want to draw attention to information that has come out subsequently about the Education Minister's trip to Israel and the occupied territories and, indeed, the response of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) in order to put it on the record and to be clear about accountability. Some said, erroneously and offensively, that holding the Minister and, indeed, the broader Executive to account over that episode was merely party politics and sectarianism, and, at worst, some even alleged antisemitism.

Let us be clear about what has emerged since that day. The Education Minister has confirmed to me that his view and that of his permanent secretary, which we heard in evidence to the Education Committee, is that that meeting did not represent "an official meeting" and, therefore, did not engage the provisions of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. Subsequently, we have found out in answer to a question for written answer from Mr Carroll, that the meeting at the Ofek School in east Jerusalem was attended by a director and deputy director from the Israeli Ministry of Education. Therefore, an unofficial meeting at an Israeli government-run facility in occupied east Jerusalem, attended by two senior Israeli government officials, was not an official meeting: I merely place that on record. Others can judge whether they think that its unofficial status is credible.

Subsequent to that, we have had confirmation that the Minister did not inform the UK Government of his decision to have a visit to a school in east Jerusalem that engaged his official responsibilities. Whether he or his permanent secretary deemed that to be official, he did not inform the UK Government. I am not an unionist and certainly do not think that the UK Government should have any ability to veto or say where devolved politicians visit overseas, but the Education Minister is a unionist. The UK Government's stated position for the past nearly 60 years has been that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. It was confirmed to my colleague Colum Eastwood that no UK Minister would ever be advised to visit Israeli occupied territory.

Those are important matters. Accountability matters. The Senior Civil Service should defend the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Civil Service.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: I am concerned that those things not happening.

Ms Murphy: As we approach the upcoming Budget, I want to speak to a pressing concern that many of our rural communities and farmers face: the British Government's proposed changes to inheritance tax. We in Sinn Féin have consistently voiced our concerns about the disproportionate impact that the changes will have on family farms here. DAERA's analysis paints an alarming picture. A large proportion of farms will be hit, and 49% of farms, representing around 80% of the land that is farmed, would fall within the scope of the proposals.

Let me be clear: this is not about asking for a handout; it is about asking for fairness. It is about recognition from a Government who often see farm assets simply as revenue rather than as a living and essential part of our rural economy and social fabric.

Farming's importance to rural communities cannot be overstated. The Executive have already written to the Chancellor to call for a higher threshold for the North, one that reflects the real value of land here. Without proper mitigations, families will be forced to sell off farmland just to meet tax bills. That would dismantle family farms and erode the heritage that has sustained rural communities for generations.

Our farmers are custodians of the land and the backbone of our rural communities. They support local economies, protect our landscapes and hold rural life together. The British Government must reverse the tax changes before irreparable damage is done. Farming is not just an industry; it is a way of life and the foundation on which rural communities have grown and endured for generations.

Mr Brett: Last week, the House, led by the rigorous implementers, rejected our call for work to continue to sort out the impact of the Windsor framework and the failure of the UK Government to live up to the commitments that they made to the people of Northern Ireland. Despite that, today's announcement by the Treasury that it will invest yet another £16 million into trying to sort out the impact of the Windsor framework is yet again justification for the stance taken by all unionists on these Benches that the Windsor framework continues to damage all the people of Northern Ireland.

No amount of funding from UK taxpayers will remove the continued imposition of EU law in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people or, indeed, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Sixteen million pounds of funding will not remove the requirement for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks, and £16 million of funding will not remove the ridiculous scenario that all goods moving from GB into Northern Ireland are automatically treated as "at risk".

I welcome part of today's announcement by the Government, however: the part about funding for Intertrade UK. Intertrade UK was created outside the remit of both the protocol and the Windsor framework and was a result of the work and negotiations undertaken by this party. Some claimed that no such body could be created and that no such body would have any funding to deliver the requirement to strengthen and maintain the internal market of the United Kingdom. The announcement today by the Government that that body will receive the funding that it needs and deserves as it continues to expose the impact of the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland is hugely welcome. It shows what can happen if we continue to stand up and speak up not just for unionists but for businesses. Week after week, businesses come to the Committee for the Economy, where they receive tea and sympathy from the parties opposite, yet, when those parties have an opportunity in the House to send a clear and united message, they renege on that.

The Government have shown the need to implement fully the requirements of the restoration of the Assembly. This party continues to hold the Government's feet to the fire to implement those requirements in full, because this party and no unionists will continue to allow an Irish Sea border to remain and go unchallenged.

Mr Donnelly: I want to take a minute to mention a fantastic event that happened in the Chamber on Friday. I attended the Disabled People's Parliament with my colleague Kellie Armstrong, and I thank the organisers, the Assembly staff and all who spoke. The event was chaired by the Principal Deputy Speaker, and everybody involved heard a debate on the impact of laws and policies on deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland, particularly the barriers that disabled people face, whether in education, employment, transport, health or anything else. A range of members representing multiple disabilities made very passionate speeches. I have no time to go into them all in detail, but they were really strong, and it was a fantastic event. The debate was responded to by two Ministers: the Minister of Health and the Minister for Communities.

The whole event will have been recorded, and I encourage all Members to watch the recording. It lasts about two hours and is a very good debate. It will be followed by a report, which will have recommendations for us on the need to progress changes to our society to make it more open, accessible and inclusive.

Mr Gaston: The judgement by the Supreme Court was the final stage in a calculated assault on the foundations of the controlled sector of education. It is often forgotten that the controlled sector did not emerge out of thin air; it is the product of what used to be the school system run by Protestant Churches. That system was handed over to the state following Lord Londonderry's 1930 Education Act. Churches were promised that the schools would retain a broadly Christian ethos. Church and state recognised that there was a duty to, as scripture puts it:

Now that ethos has come under attack. However, it is vital to underline one critical fact that seems to have been lost in much of the commentary: the law has not changed. Article 21 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 remains. It requires that religious education (RE) in controlled schools must be:

The judgement did not strike down that legislation. The law still mandates that the foundation of RE in Northern Ireland is scriptural and Christian. That reflects the historic, cultural and moral foundations of our education system.

Christian teaching has shaped our schools, our law and our society. It is no accident that the law requires RE to be firmly rooted in Holy Scripture. The Bible is not one optional voice among many but the bedrock of moral order. There is a misplaced notion that schools must move towards a neutral or multifaith model. Regrettably, that information has even come from some who claim to represent the interests of faith in society. There is no such thing as religious neutrality. Religious institutions that claim to take no view on the existence of God are in fact teaching that his existence is irrelevant. Our schools should always teach morality, right and wrong, but it is impossible to do so without acknowledging God as the source of that morality. If that happens, the moral framework is severed from its roots.

The task now falls squarely to our Education Minister. He must reaffirm the statutory requirement that RE be taught on a scriptural basis and ensure that collective worship in schools retains its Christian character, as required by the law.

Mr Gildernew: D’fhoilsigh an Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha figiúirí lena léirítear go bhfuarthas breis agus 120,000 iarratas ar phasanna ón Tuaisceart anuraidh. Ní rud nua an líon mór iarratas sin, agus níor cheart go gcuirfeadh sé iontas ar aon duine sa Teach.

Tá gach saoránach ar an oileán seo i dteideal pas Éireannach a fháil. Ar an drochuair, ainneoin gur léir go bhfuil ráchairt ar phasanna Éireannacha, níl oifig pasanna Éireannacha sa taobh seo d’Éirinn le freastal ar an ráchairt sin. An té a mbaineann moill nó míthapa dó pas a fháil ag an bhomaite dheireanach, caithfidh sé gabháil go Baile Átha Cliath nó Corcaigh le haghaidh coinní práinneacha. Is féidir go ndéanfaidh cailleadh do phas cúrsaí an-deacair costasach, mar shampla, is féidir go gcaillfidh daoine saoire atá beartaithe acu, tionól teaghlaigh nó imeachtaí tábhachtacha eile. Tá mé cinnte go bhfuil a dhála sin ag go leor againne. Dhéanfadh oifig pasanna sa Tuaisceart freastal ar na hiarratasóirí sin agus laghdódh sí an t-ualach oibre agus an riaráiste iarratas, chomh maith le fostaíocht a sholáthar do dhaoine sa Tuaisceart.

Tá an easpa gnímh ó thaobh na Roinne Gnóthaí Eachtracha de doghlactha. Léiríonn an ráchairt atá ag fás léi ar shaoránacht Éireannach sa Tuaisceart an gá práinneach atá le hoifig pasanna a oscailt anseo. Tá sé in am ag Rialtas na hÉireann éisteacht le glaonna agus oifig pasanna Éireannacha a bhunú sa Tuaisceart gan mhoill.

Ms Forsythe: I welcome Ulster-Scots Leid Week. As a proud Mourne Ulster Scot, I live and breathe this every day, but it is brilliant to join to mark this special time together and say, "Houl yer whisht, for we're still here". Ulster-Scots Leid Week 2025 runs from today and is set to be a vibrant celebration of our Ulster-Scots language, music and culture. Across Northern Ireland, our communities will join in a wide variety of activities, coordinated by the Ulster-Scots Agency. Many events are planned by local community groups and councils.

The most recent census figures told us that, in Northern Ireland, over 190,000 people now have some ability in the Ulster-Scots language. That is an increase of 8·1% on the 2011 figures. However, Ulster Scots is far more than a language: it is our bands, our heritage, our identity and our people. As a proud Ulster Scot who lives in Mourne, which is an Ulster-Scots heartland, the Ulster-Scots language is integral to who I am and how I interact with my family, my community and all of you.

I am delighted to see so many events planned for this week. In my home of Kilkeel, we have a strong Ulster-Scots organisation, the Schomberg Society, which is based at the heart of our local Ulster-Scots community. Through its Reivers House and Hairtlan Hub facilities, it provides a local base for many Ulster-Scots groups and activities. Today, in my constituency, the Schomberg Society will hold an Ulster-Scots guided tour for weans around Kilkeel, with an Ulster-Scots language event — "A Vision for the Future" — to be held this evening in Reivers House. On Saturday, Leid Week will finish with Belfast Tartan Day, which will see hundreds of pipers, drummers, drum majors and highland dancers parade from the Discover Ulster-Scots Centre to Belfast City Hall.

Leid Week will, once again, be a great success in highlighting our community, which thrives all year round. Our local radio station, FUSE FM Mourne — For Ulster-Scots Enthusiasts — will start in a couple of weeks, on Monday 8 December, for the two-week Christmas broadcast. You can listen on the FUSE FM Mourne app, online or on 106·2 FM in the Mourne area. As a proud Mourne Ulster Scot, I will, as always, be a presenter on it. I invite you all to tune in as I say, "Fair fa' ye" to everyone. I wish everyone a great Ulster-Scots Leid week.

Miss McAllister: I will speak again about the unacceptable waiting times for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. I made a similar statement on this issue in September, regarding specific constituents from North Belfast and beyond who had been in touch.

Last week, we had GP practices and doctors speak out on the issue. Patients have been waiting up to seven, eight, nine or 10 weeks to see a specialist following an urgent referral, despite the Department's target being 14 days. It is deeply regretful that we need to stand here to advocate for those women again.

Last week, in my constituency of North Belfast, Dr Jilly O'Hagan, a GP in Notting Hill Medical Practice, spoke of specific women in our constituency. Some of those women had been waiting for over eight weeks to be seen by a consultant. Three of those women received a late breast cancer diagnosis. Dr O'Hagan also highlighted the fact that a number of women waited unacceptable times, which ended up in them receiving treatment too late. One in particular has waited for over 10 weeks and still has not seen a consultant.

We heard from the Health Minister in the Chamber last week that, as of the beginning of this month, the waiting list had been reduced from a high of 10 weeks to seven weeks and two days. That contradicts medical people on the ground who say that their patients wait for 10 weeks. Which of those is right? It is not a race to have the best figures; it is a race for treatment and to save lives. The latest waiting time statistics released by the Department of Health show that just 6·6% of women were seen by specialists within 14 days of being urgently referred. I thank Dr O'Hagan for speaking out on the issue. We can stand in the Chamber and discuss statistics and figures, but if we only do that, nothing will change. Nothing better illustrates the crisis than the words of the women themselves, who are waiting, scared and worried.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to introduce the General Teaching Council Bill [NIA 23/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision in relation to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Mr Brett: As the House is aware, the call for evidence to the Committee Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill has coincided with the departmental consultation on the regulations that are expected to be brought forward following the passage of the Bill. Consequently, and in order to allow time for members to consider the feedback to that consultation, the Committee agreed that it would seek an extension to the Committee Stage until the end of February 2026. The Committee was advised that a later passage of the Bill would not adversely impact on boiler owners as the related regulations will apply retrospectively from 1 April 2026. In any event, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in the motion. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore commend the extension to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As no other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, I will put the Question.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): 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 to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Nick, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the institutions were restored in 2024, the Committee for Education identified a number of strategic priorities, one of which was outdoor education. As Chair of the Committee, I have tried to ensure that a focus on that priority is retained. We all know the competing priorities in education and the impact that constrained budgets have on the Department's work and priorities. I have, however, been clear and the Committee has been united in its view that outdoor education should not be seen as a "nice to do" or an optional extra to learning in our schools. Outdoor learning enhances and deepens children's engagement with the curriculum and is a key tool for promoting the health and well-being of the children and young people in our schools.

That strategic priority built on a legacy commitment of the previous Committee to visit the Northern Ireland forest school. Earlier this term, the Committee went to the Northern Ireland Forest School Association (NIFSA) site hosted by the Dufferin Foundation at Clandeboye to hear from the forest school leaders and to carry out strategic planning for the mandate. I am sure that many Members have had the opportunity to visit the forest school and will concur with me about the brilliant work that is delivered there.

The motion explicitly states the Committee's appreciation of the input of the Northern Ireland Forest School Association, which really has helped shape the Committee's thinking about and engagement with the policy area of outdoor learning. NIFSA worked with us to develop our Committee stakeholder event on the issue. It took place on 19 March 2025, when NIFSA representatives, plus representatives from Stranmillis University College, St Mary's University College Belfast, Ulster University, Queen's University Belfast, the Scottish Outdoor Learning Association (SOLA), Inspiring Scotland's Thrive Outdoors programme, Field Studies Ireland, the Irish schools inspectorate, Scouts Northern Ireland and Scouting Ireland, among others, gathered in the Long Gallery to discuss the role of outdoor education in our system.

On other occasions, we have had valued input from Education Authority (EA) outdoor education settings; in particular, the Committee received detailed evidence and reflections from Magilligan Field Centre. At the stakeholder event, presenters were unanimous in commending the benefits of outdoor education for learning and development and brought with them many examples and outcomes that demonstrated why they were convinced of the need for it to be addressed more fully in our system in Northern Ireland. The Committee has undoubtedly heard evidence widely on the issue. I thank Gillian Kane and the Research and Information Service (RaISe) team for comprehensively collating all the material from the range of evidence sources that we received and from the literature more widely to help inform our thinking and today's motion and debate.

The motion calls for the development of weekly outdoor learning opportunities for all learners aged three to 16 and for the Minister to develop, in partnership with the wider sector, an outdoor learning strategy. The strategy should address barriers to outdoor learning, be they resource, curricular, issues at school leadership level, teacher capacity and confidence or time available in the school day. The Committee has been clear — it has been really welcome to see an issue around which the Committee has united — that outdoor learning is real learning. It enhances access to the curriculum and should be embedded in a pupil's learning journey at all ages.

There are many definitions of "outdoor learning", but one aspect is key: it is not a stand-alone subject on the curriculum but an experiential approach to education that takes the classroom and the curriculum outside. It should not need to be fitted in as an extra. Teachers in schools that have embraced outdoor learning highlight just how much it enhances the engagement that learners have with the curriculum. It is not something that we need to find time for when the real learning is done; it is real learning in its own right. Outdoor learning enhances physical and emotional well-being. It develops a love and respect for nature, promotes an inclusive approach that can be accessible to all learners and brings the curriculum to life outside of the constraints of the traditional classroom. We are all too familiar with issues around children's screen time and the real challenges with mental well-being. Outdoor learning is one of the simplest and easiest ways to address those in the context of the school day.

I want to be clear that the Northern Ireland curriculum promotes outdoor learning. There are some excellent resources. I commend the work of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in that regard, especially in preschools and at Foundation Stage. As children move up into post-primary school, however, there are no bespoke resources delivered by CCEA. That, regrettably, sends a message that outdoor learning ends in primary school. That shouId absolutely not be the case, and we should look at this across the age ranges in our system.

There is much good practice in the system. The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of outdoor learning in 2021 highlighted the amount of good practice that is out there, but it also identified some of the challenges, including inconsistency of provision; varying opportunities being made available to children on the basis of the outdoor space available in their school; and concerns about teacher capacity or confidence to deliver outdoor education. While we have seen brilliant examples of teachers who have really taken the lead on the issue — the Committee has heard from them — others remain lacking in the confidence to get the learning outside in the same way.

It is also important to consider what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence that has come through to the Committee about Scotland, Wales, England and the Republic of Ireland very much shows that Scotland appears to be the most significantly advanced in its approach to outdoor learning. They have developed a curriculum for excellence in outdoor education in 2010 and a national position statement on outdoor learning and play, which was published in 2018 and grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Scottish curriculum for excellence sets out an enviable set of curriculum resources to support the teaching of any topic for any age group in an outdoor setting. It features local heritage examples, such as using local heritage landmarks and local literature to enhance that learning. It is not unreasonable to ask that a similar resource be created to reflect the Northern Ireland curriculum and the holistic arts and heritage that we have in our natural landscape.

Right now, there are so many opportunities. The curriculum task force work is under way, and it would be fantastic if we could, on the back of the motion, begin to see outdoor learning emerging as a thread that runs through any revised curriculum that materialises, empowering and equipping teachers to deliver learning in an outdoor context. There are partnerships across the sector that the Department can tap into to enhance outdoor learning. NIFSA has already been highlighted. We have the EA outdoor education resources; the outdoor education facility at Stranmillis College; PlayBoard NI and its work in this field; and Field Studies Ireland. There are many more agencies, and they are all keen to promote outdoor learning and to work in partnership to do that.

Recently, we saw the Minister's delivery of capital grants for outdoor play equipment. That interest in outdoor play was welcome. However, I emphasise — the Committee has heard it widely — that outdoor learning is about much more than the traditional view of outdoor play. It does not necessarily need big capital spend to work, so, when money such as that becomes available, I would love to see an emerging strategy give that flexibility to schools to use money and resources in ways that would work for them in their context, such as creating areas to rewild or grow vegetables, perhaps accessing training for teachers and creating storage areas for equipment. We should allow our schools to be creative in their approach. That is why a strategy is so important. It could bring together all the strands that are live in the issue: curriculum support; teacher continuing professional development (CPD); capital investment where it is needed; partnership working; initial teacher education (ITE); and real support and direction to ensure that all the learners in our schools, regardless of the size, location or setting of the school or the character of its current outdoor space, can access that vital outdoor learning.

I hope that all Members, including the Education Minister, will get behind the call in the motion. It is not a call for funding, necessarily — investment will always help, of course — but it is a call to develop a strategy that sets out how the Department will promote, support and enhance outdoor learning in our schools. All pupils should be accessing it, regardless of age, school sector or setting. I hope that today is a step in a process that can get us to a point in Northern Ireland where learning outdoors is seen as being as much a part of education as what happens in the traditional classroom.

Mr Brooks: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and to acknowledge the contribution to our educational landscape that is made by outdoor learning and the providers that bring it to our schools and that bring our schools to their facilities.

We have heard that, across Northern Ireland, the forest schools model has helped many of our young people connect with nature, develop confidence and strengthen teamwork and problem-solving skills. Teachers have consistently reported the positive impact that outdoor learning has on behaviour, well-being and engagement — benefits that extend far beyond any single lesson — and, at a time when concerns about children's mental health, physical activity levels and connection to the natural environment are well documented, the work of the Forest School Association, PlayBoard NI and some of the other organisations that the Chair mentioned provides creative and meaningful contributions to the development of young people. Outdoor play, in its various forms, is an important part of learning. The ETI has also acknowledged how outdoor learning improves health, well-being and progression in learning. It also helps young people to manage emotions, develop social skills and improve concentration after adventurous play. It is also helpful to children who have additional needs, which will be relevant to the Committee as it continues its special educational needs (SEN) inquiry.

I do not think that anybody will say anything today that is not positive about outdoor learning, a strategy to look at the same or the work of providers. Like other Members, I have had the privilege of visiting the forest school in the Clandeboye estate and have seen the excellent environment, facilities and ethos that makes so many passionate about it and has seen so many kids benefit. All of us will have had opportunities to go to our local schools to hear from them about some of the opportunities that they have had and what it has meant to them and to see the excitement when the kids talk about it. I record my appreciation of the dedication of the educators, volunteers and the partner organisations that deliver the work, often with limited resources — I recognise that — and a great deal of personal commitment. Their contribution is undeniably valuable and enhances the educational experience for many of our pupils.

While recognising all of those strengths and positives, we have to say a word about recognising the financial reality and the challenges under which the Department of Education is operating. The pressures on the Education budget are severe and well known to Members of the House and the Committee. Schools struggle to meet basic needs, and support services are stretched. Many statutory responsibilities are already competing for insufficient funding. Therefore, while I do not question the worth or impact of outdoor learning or the programmes that are being provided without it being mainstreamed, I must also be honest about what, I think, the Department can realistically support at the moment. If additional resources were to become available, as, we all hope, they will, there are, regrettably, more urgent and immediate priorities that must be addressed first, including safeguarding, essential front-line services, supporting children with special educational needs and ensuring that schools can simply keep the doors open and staffed.

That is not to take away from this priority. As I said when we discussed it in Committee, it is a worthy issue, but it has to be set against the other issues that we face. It is not a reflection on providers or their merits; it reflects the difficult financial environment that we face. My position is not that we should close the door on future departmental support or that we should not work to develop a strategy; it is to recognise that mainstreaming and directly funding this work from the core budget is probably not feasible right now, without compromising other critical areas. In the meantime, I would continue collaboration with providers, schools, communities and other partners. I remain hopeful that, in the future, if we can navigate some of the challenges that we face now, we should continue to look at these issues.

In closing, I reiterate my respect for our providers and the movement that they are a part of and my appreciation for their contribution to our young people. We will not oppose the motion, but it is worth noting that, while praising much of the work that is being done, we must also be realistic with people and not build false hope about the position that the Department is in.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Chair of the Committee for tabling this important motion. It is really nice that we, as a Committee and as a collective, endorse and support it. From my school experience of outdoor learning, I vividly remember that, while attending Dominican College in Portstewart, which is based beside the sea, many moons ago, we had a biology class outdoors — going out and learning about plants and how they work.

To this day, I remember everything that I learnt that day. Getting outside on such a sunny day in such a beautiful constituency was a unique experience, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of outdoor learning further today.

Over the past number of months at the Education Committee, we have heard from the experts — the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and the Magilligan Field Centre — and, of course, from wider contributors such as principals, teachers and pupils about the importance of outdoor learning and of seeing the outdoors, as the Chair rightly said, not as a reward but as a classroom itself. The message is clear that this kind of learning is not a luxury; it is core to how some children learn best. Evidence backs that up: studies across these islands show that regular, nature-based outdoor learning improves pupils' enjoyment of lessons and can improve their behaviour, social skills and even educational attainment. Time in nature is linked with better attendance, better concentration and teamwork, particularly for children who really struggle in traditional classroom settings or who have non-traditional needs. I think particularly of Rossmar School in Limavady in my constituency, which has a really strong focus on outdoor play and learning. It has a little forest school outside with a mud garden in which children with special educational needs can learn. It is fantastic.

Wider forest school approaches have been shown specifically to improve confidence, independence, language and communication skills and emotional resilience. As an adult, I find that being in nature is so great for the head, and, of course, it gives young people important time away from screens. We know that children today spend less time outdoors than in previous generations. Recent UK research shows that one in three children does not play outside after school at all. It is crazy that, in one generation, children have changed from fighting to be out of the house until the street lights came on to now fighting to get back indoors to get access to iPads and screens. Outdoor education can be a really firm and strong step in changing that.

As other Members have said, schools cannot solve that problem alone, but they can be part of the solution. Finding joy outside is just so important. Currently, provision of outdoor learning remains patchy and depends too often on the enthusiasm of individual teachers. It is not yet fully embedded systematically in the curriculum or in school planning. That must change.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes.

Mr McGrath: Does the Member agree that it is a bit difficult to listen to parts of this debate without reflecting on how the Education Authority totally changed the landscape by taking away places such as Ardnabannon outdoor education centre in Castlewellan and reprofiling the Killyleagh outdoor education centre so that it is no longer residential, and on how there is even a threat to the Tollymore national outdoor centre? Does she agree that, if we do not have such residential places, people will not be able to enjoy what she is suggesting?

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

Ms Hunter: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly. In my constituency, we have Woodhall outdoor learning centre in Kilrea. Given the benefits that it provides, particularly through a residential experience, it is absolutely necessary. I have no doubt that it is important for the Minister to listen to the need for investment in the Member's constituency.

This motion recognises that inclusive outdoor learning is key to our young people's development from the age of three to 18. It is crucial that they have weekly, progressive and sustainable outdoor learning opportunities built into the curriculum by the end of 2026. That will require leadership, support, time, clear policy signals and resourcing. It will also require an outdoor learning strategy, co-designed with teachers, that removes practical barriers and makes it genuinely easier for our schools and pupils to go outside. That will lessen screen usage, get our children excited by nature, improve school attendance and improve our young people's mental health, equipping a generation with the skills, well-being and environmental awareness that they need for the future that lies ahead. The SDLP wholeheartedly supports the motion.

Mr Middleton: I join others in welcoming the opportunity to speak on the motion and commend the work of all those involved in outdoor education, particularly the Northern Ireland Forest School Association. The sensible use of the resources around us is something that we can all support. As outlined by some contributors already, there is clear and substantial evidence of the benefits of outdoor learning. Being outdoors is, of course, a powerful antidote to the excessive screen time that is, sadly, becoming the norm for too many of our young people, given all the associated benefits for physical and mental health. When children and young people are engaged in outdoor learning, we see the improvements in social skills and cognitive development.

I want to bring a local perspective to the Chamber, especially as the parent of a child who attends a rural school in Northern Ireland that values outdoor learning, with a sensory garden, daily mile walks and many lessons outdoors. The value of our natural surroundings is self-evident when our children can richly investigate plants, insects and the natural environment. We have seen first-hand how access to green spaces, fresh air and the natural world allows children and young people to flourish in ways that the four walls of a classroom cannot always accommodate. In my child's school, the teachers, through their dedication and willingness, have found innovative ways to integrate outdoor learning into the existing curriculum, from science and geography to simple literacy and numeracy skills, by observing nature and working together on projects. It is, of course, heartening to see new friendships form as children work together in different environments, building confidence and a sense of belonging in their community and the world around them.

We have also seen how the outdoor approach has been successfully integrated into education systems in Scotland, Norway, Finland, the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, Wales. There is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead the way in this field. That having been said, as my colleague Mr Brooks said, we have to be mindful of the constraints on and the challenges that exist in the Department of Education at this time.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not going to downplay the resource challenges that we face, but does the Member agree that so much of what he highlighted about what schools can do on an innovative level does not require financial expenditure and that there are other levers at a policy level that the Department and the EA can implement to promote outdoor learning across all our schools?

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

Mr Middleton: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I concur. I was going to go on to say that, whilst we may not have a lot of financial resources, we have the natural environment and natural resources, and we have dedicated educators in the teaching workforce. We also have the willingness to embrace that. What we need is a consistent approach to ensure that it becomes very much a normalised part of education and not just a one-off, such as an educational field trip, or a nice-to-do activity.

Early years educators report that this approach reduces stress among children. That is important information. In an increasingly fast-paced and, sometimes, overwhelming world for our young people, providing them with opportunities to connect with the outdoor world, move away from screens and exercise and engage in lifelong learning is not just a good idea but a necessity for mental and physical well-being.

As I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I look forward to working together to try to bring about a better system for all.

Mrs Guy: Outdoor education is important, and I am pleased that we, as the Education Committee, have come together to support it. There are many challenges facing our education system, and there are many things that we worry about when it comes to our kids. However, outdoor education can help to meet those challenges in a strategic way. What things make us worry? The first is the physical and mental well-being of children and young people. Growing levels of mental health issues and reported levels of physical activity are really concerning, with only 21% of primary-school pupils and 16% of post-primary pupils meeting the recommended 60 minutes of activity a day. There is concern about how that will impact on our economy, society and health service in the long term. Outdoor education is proven to improve the physical and mental health of our children.

We are also concerned about loneliness, social isolation and too much time being spent online. Outdoor education and instilling a love of the outdoors and physical activity from a young age improve children's social skills, build confidence and the ability to take risks and embed a love of nature and the outdoors that can last a lifetime.

We also have major issues with attendance, which is a complicated issue, with individual circumstances behind each young person's not making it into school. Again, we have heard evidence of how outdoor learning improves young people's attendance rates.

We also worry about some of our children being dysregulated in the classroom, or unable to learn due to their emotional state. Outdoor education supports that. The Independent Autism Reviewer, for example, provided a briefing for the Committee on the experience of autistic children with outdoor education. In that briefing, she highlighted the experience of Dara McAnulty, an award-winning naturalist and author. He spoke about liking school and desperately wanting to learn, but he found classrooms to be claustrophobic and distressing. The outdoors was where he could find peace and where his mind could focus. As we know, when environments are adapted to make them more accessible for one group, they often tend to become better for everyone.

Outdoor education is not a novelty. It is a serious policy solution that could have major educational, health and societal benefits. It is about enhancing areas of the curriculum, including literacy, numeracy and STEM, by moving beyond the structured learning environment of the traditional classroom. It is an area that should have cross-departmental support. We know, however, that there are significant barriers for those who are trying to embrace more outdoor learning. Some schools have limited outdoor space or equipment and resources. So, too, do many wider communities. School staff and leadership need further support with training and guidance. There are also significant time pressures on staff.

The benefits and challenges have been recognised by the Department and the Minister, and we know that the Minister has provided some capital for outdoor equipment. Some schools have, however, had issues with the conditions that have been placed on that funding. The question, then, is this: how much more focus will this area of the curriculum and policy get from the Department, especially in supporting its expansion beyond the early years and Foundation Stage of education?

Outdoor education is proving to be so beneficial in the face of some of the most systemic issues that we face in education, and it deserves a lot more focus. A strategy would be helpful, but we should not miss out on making progress through the current curriculum review process. I have had contact from teachers who are keen to see that happening. They have bought into the great work of organisations such as NI Forest School Association and PlayBoard NI.

I will end with two quotes from teachers in a report by Field Studies Ireland into the inclusion of outdoor education in primary schools here. One teacher said:

Another said:

Mr Burrows: I will cause a shock wave by saying that I agree entirely with the Alliance Party motion, and I am glad to support it. Outdoor learning, and the development of an outdoor learning strategy, is not a luxury. It is essential, more than ever, because we are seeing real challenges with mental health, addiction to screens, development, children being sociable with other young people and physical health. We have also seen the exponential rise in children with special educational needs. I read an article in yesterday's 'The Sunday Times' in which teachers talked about having children coming to their schools who can swipe a screen but cannot speak. Outdoor learning is, therefore, vital. Outdoor learning is also vital in helping us to change our perception of the education system. It is not just a conveyor belt of children with the grades to go on to university. It is about them developing life skills that will help them navigate the world personally, in their families and communities, as well as in the workforce.

I will also link the issue to the recent shocking statistics around young men who are ending their lives in Northern Ireland. Suicide is the greatest cause of death amongst men under 50. It is vital that we learn how to interact with nature to deal with things like depression.

Of course, there are challenges. We talk about money, capacity and capability, but those are things that you get over and sort out. They do not cost a lot of money. That is something that the Forest School Association was keen to say: you can do a lot with very little. We have a lot of natural resources. With regard to capacity, we have a workload review and a curriculum review, so there are opportunities to carve out more time for our teachers. There is a lot of bureaucracy. Teachers tell me about the various portals to which they have to log in. Those could be streamlined to create extra capacity for teachers to deliver outdoor learning.

I was particularly struck by an article in the paper at the weekend about the impact that opportunities for outdoor experiences and thus a more-rounded education have on academic ability. James Parkinson, the Pearson National Teaching Awards winner of the head teacher of the year in a primary school award, introduced a not dissimilar initiative in a struggling school to give children experiences in the outdoor world, and the school's results went from the bottom 10% nationally to the top 13%. Doing that did not cost money. Rather, it required a little bit of emphasis and focus. We therefore need to summon our inner MacGyver or Bear Grylls and put outdoor experiences at the heart of the curriculum so that our young people learn skills that will stand them in good stead for years. Our teachers yearn for that. I have met teachers and unions over the past number of weeks, and they are very keen on the idea. All the obstacles that we talk about, such as capability and capacity, are easily dealt with.

We also need a healthier attitude to risk, and outdoor learning can help with that. We have become a society that worries about children bouldering on a river but that lets them go upstairs to be subjected to a world of, frankly, evil, often without any supervision. There is huge risk online. A healthier attitude to risk comes from learning how to do outdoor activities safely. Teachers also need to have a healthier attitude to risk. If they have support and training and know that someone will stand by them, they can enjoy outdoor activities safely and healthily.

I support the motion. Outdoor learning is not a luxury but an essential that should be mainstreamed in our curriculum. The outworking of that will be healthier bodies and minds and more-rounded students, who will benefit Northern Ireland in the years to come.

Mr McMurray: I have spent a lifetime in the outdoors. Recently, I reflected on the fact that getting psyched in the outdoors through doing activities such as climbing, mountain biking and mountaineering, in the company of like-minded friends and companions with a shared objective, might not have been the best grounding for a career in front-line Northern Irish politics, but the road less travelled and all that.

Outdoor learning provides for inspirational experiences, challenging activities, excitement and fun, all of which contribute to a positive, lifelong educational impact. The Committee Chair is correct to say that outdoor learning is not just a nice thing to do. It is still a very nice thing to do, however. It has been proven that outdoor learning introduces energy into the classroom. Studies have shown that it can improve the academic potential of those who are exposed to it. Many other Members have acknowledged that fact, and it has been academically proven beyond what has been said in the Sunday papers.

From anecdotal experience of outdoor education, I believe that it works for those who may not have the traditional academic strengths. Minister, Members and the Committee, do not underestimate the power of the outdoors and associated activities to change how individuals see themselves and how others see them. I have often witnessed a child who is not the most academic or confident in the classroom or who does not perform on the traditional sports pitch come into their own and exude confidence in an outdoor environment when put on the end of a rope to abseil down a cliff, in a wetsuit to jump into a plunge pool or in the forest with a map. It is not just about giving that individual confidence but about their getting acknowledgement from teachers and classmates, who now view them differently because they have a strength that they previously did not know that they possessed. That is the real magic of outdoor education.

There are, however, challenges to any such strategy, and the Minister should note them. I am glad to see the will of the Committee to investigate the positive role that outdoor learning can have in formal and informal education settings, but there are a number of points on which the Committee and the Minister may wish to reflect. When we look at the policy, we do not always take into consideration the full range of outdoor learning centres that exist. Statutory, voluntary and private providers all play a role. We need to consider the curriculum topics that are in the syllabus for Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 and that outdoor learning centres already deliver. That learning takes place in formal education settings, but there are also informal, youth-work settings and the accreditations that those guys provide.

Protection from further cuts is needed. The Minister previously referred to financial constraints. I appreciate that, as we all do, but, as we have said, outdoor learning should not be curtailed simply by the outdoor spaces that are available to schools. While it is great for outdoor learning to be acknowledged — it should be embedded in the curriculum — in reality, the number of schoolchildren who are exposed to outdoor learning, whether formal or informal, has drastically reduced over the years. The centres at Ardnabannon, Bushmills, Killowen, Killyleagh, Ebbitt and Cabra have been closed over the years, which has taken away the ability to provide an outdoor recreational learning setting.

The Committee Chair and other Members have said that Scotland is an exemplar of outdoor learning. I certainly subscribe to that. Scotland and Wales are at different stages of legislating to make outdoor residential learning a requirement, which would be good to see here, given the wonderful outdoors that we have.

At the beginning of my contribution, I made a quip about outdoor activities not being a good grounding for front-line Northern Ireland politics. However, the teamwork involved in canoeing, the resilience gained climbing a mountain, the trust required to hold a rope and to be held at the end of a rope all engender partnership working. It is never too late to work on those skills, so, if the Speaker or, indeed, the Minister or any members of the Executive want to take part in a few outdoor workshops to look at the matter, I would be happy to hook up with them to go for a dander or something like that.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I will see whether I can release my inner Bear Grylls or MacGyver in my contribution. Some Members have invited me to engage in a working group with the Committee and said that we can maybe abseil together. I would be quite happy to tie some of them up in rope if they wanted me to. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting and important debate. I share a lot of commonality on it with all the Members who have spoken. I will pick up on some of the issues that they raised.

First, outdoor learning is not simply an enrichment activity. It is a vital part of how children develop resilience, creativity and well-being. It supports physical, emotional and cognitive development and helps pupils to build confidence and problem-solving and social interaction skills. Those experiences are particularly valuable in fostering curiosity and a lifelong love of learning. When I think about history and geography field trips, I reflect on how I have committed to my long-term memory some of the things that I learned on them. There are other things that I learned in the classroom that I certainly could not recite, but I recall going to Dundrum and learning about the Norman keep when we were considering the Norman invasion of Ireland. Yes, the Normans were here long before we Ulster Scots came during the plantation 400 years ago, so blame them. It was those interesting field trips that enhanced my curiosity about such subjects. I did not participate in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, but I know that many in my school benefited from that experience.

Outdoor play is embedded in the Northern Ireland curriculum at Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1, specifically in the areas of learning the world around us and physical development and movement. However, implementation of those areas is at the discretion of individual schools, and, while many schools embrace outdoor learning, we recognise the need for a more consistent and progressive approach across all settings. One of the findings of the independent review indicated that there was inconsistency in that. Implementation should not be down to the experience of the school through teachers who have a particular interest and can then impart their knowledge to the pupils. Given the fact that some schools do not have teachers with such experiences, education on the world around us and physical development and movement was found not to be consistent across schools because of the way in which it operates.

Significant steps are being taken to support learning in this area. In December 2024, I launched the curriculum-led capital investment programme, which prioritises investment in areas that enhance curriculum delivery. Under that programme, the outdoor learning project was introduced in early 2025. Through that initiative, £3 million was invested in outdoor play equipment. That benefited 93 nursery schools, 776 primary schools and 40 special schools. Funding allocations ranged from £3,500 to just over £6,000 per school, which was based on their enrolment numbers. That investment ensured that schools have the resources to create safe and stimulating outdoor environments. Evaluation of the project will take place during the autumn, and findings will inform our next steps.

Beyond capital investment, the Education Authority continues to provide professional learning resources through its supporting learning website. Those include practical guidance and videos showcasing outdoor learning activities, primarily focused on early years but also relevant throughout primary education. That support helps teachers to embed outdoor approaches in their practice and ensures that outdoor learning is not an occasional activity but a planned and purposeful part of the curriculum.

I pay tribute to some organisations that provide that outdoor opportunity for some schools, albeit in a limited fashion, and I know that schools would like to have more resources. However, during Open Farm Weekend, which is organised by the Ulster Farmers' Union, farms in constituencies are opened up, and they encourage schools to come in. Those young people get to see how a farm operates from the landscape and land utilisation, to animals and the way in which the feed operates and, ultimately, the production process and the end product and how you can sell that on to market. The young people in the schools that have been able to participate have benefited from that and have a much greater understanding of the agricultural way of life.

I was a townie, but my grandfather had a farm, and I benefited from heading up to the farm every weekend to get enlightened as to how the culchies all lived. I had great experiences of being out on the farm in Dungannon in south Tyrone, which is where my family is all from. I remember those experiences out on the tractor and granda explaining to me what was happening with the cattle and the pigs. I was below the minimum age of criminal responsibility for some activities, but I fired my first shotgun and air rifle — all under very strict supervision — which is an experience that many townies, quite rightly, would never be able to benefit from. A lot of people do not have the same opportunity to benefit from that outdoor way of life. Therefore, although the Ulster Farmers' Union does not offer some of the extracurricular activities that my grandfather provided, it does provide a good demonstration of that outdoor way of life.

The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) strongly endorses outdoor learning. Recent inspection findings highlight that outdoor learning improves children's health, well-being and progression in learning. It helps pupils to manage emotions and behaviours, develop social skills and demonstrate better concentration after engaging in adventurous physical play. The ETI reports that schools prioritising outdoor learning in their development plans see increased resilience, confidence and creativity among pupils. Outdoor learning is particularly effective when well planned and integrated across the curriculum, enabling children to make connections, apply knowledge and develop critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. The ETI also notes that growing interest in forest and beach schools and collaboration with organisations, such as the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and Eco-Schools, is building teacher confidence and enriching pupils' understanding of sustainability.

I commend the work of the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and its efforts in promoting child-centred, nature-based learning. It has had a transformative impact on pupils' confidence, well-being and engagement, and I look forward to visiting its site at Clandeboye in due course to see at first-hand the positive differences that it is making for children and teachers across Northern Ireland.

I thank Members for their contribution to this important discussion. By working collaboratively, we can embed outdoor learning as a meaningful component of learning and delivering positive change for children, families and the wider education sector. Outdoor learning is an investment in well-being, creativity and lifelong learning.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cathy Mason to make a winding-up speech. Cathy, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on this motion from the Education Committee. I am not quite sure that I would have foreseen that we would be discussing the Norman invasion, culchies and townies, Bear Grylls and air rifles, but I suppose that that shows the impact that outdoor learning can have on a child's imagination.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to attend a Playboard conference, entitled "School Age Childcare: The Journey — The Future". The conference brought together practitioners, educators, leaders and providers from across the play-based school-age sector, including the forest school leaders, who had us lighting fires, sawing pieces of wood and hammering nails. I am not quite sure that I channelled my inner Bear Grylls, but I certainly got my hands dirty. It really was a welcome step outside, offering a breath of fresh air. You can imagine the impact that that would have on children who are in a classroom all day.

Part of the focus of that conference was on play-based learning, engaging with how a play-based curriculum can help raise children and young people's educational outcomes. The view amongst the sector that day was very clear: there is an overwhelming need for outdoor play-based learning in our education system. As we in the Committee have seen for ourselves, outdoor learning is great for children's mental health and well-being. Fresh air and natural sunlight; what more could you need? In that regard, Cara Hunter specifically mentioned resilience, school attendance and regulation. The freedom to move and explore stimulates curiosity and interest, allowing children and young people to explore, investigate and ask questions about the world around them. Colin McGrath, who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned two great examples of that in my constituency. It is disheartening that we no longer have the Ardnabannon site and that the Tollymore centre is now under threat.

Taking classroom learning to the outside world makes subjects that are normally found only in a textbook come to life. The learnings of science, maths or geography can come to life right in front of our eyes. Learning should be immersive and engaging and should, of course, stimulate curiosity and interest.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that this is a great opportunity for schoolchildren to work with local community and voluntary groups? I have seen great examples of that in my area, where the Lough Neagh Partnership has worked closely with St John's Primary School, Kingsisland. These are real opportunities for children to learn about the place that they live in and want to grow up in and love.

Mrs Mason: Absolutely, I agree with that. We have so many community and voluntary organisations that are willing to step in and help to aid young people's education, and that is really important.

Outdoor play and learning introduces new challenges that encourage risk-taking in safe ways and supports independent play, whilst also prompting classmates to collaborate, explore together, share ideas and knowledge, and enhance their social skills, as Michelle Guy mentioned. When students have the ability to work through obstacles, they strengthen their independence and resilience, and that lays the groundwork for the confidence that is needed in order to handle tough situations later in life. We have seen great examples of that in many of our schools, and Gary Middleton mentioned the great example in his children's school. Children need physical space, however, but they also need the time to enjoy it. Jon Burrows mentioned that the ongoing curriculum review presents an opportunity to allow that to happen, but schools need the resources to do that. We must now see the development of an outdoor learning in schools strategy in conjunction with the sector in order to give our children and young people the very best start to their educational pathway.

There is a broad consensus. David Brooks mentioned the Department of Education's financial pressures, as did the Minister, but it is very important to take into consideration that we are not solely talking about financial aid here. We are talking about the Department having the will to put a focus on this. Across the board, we heard about the importance of children getting outside and learning. I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate.

Ms Sheerin: Molaim an rún

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

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

We tabled today's motion to bring focus to another example of cross-border collaboration, which is so important for the trajectory that we find ourselves on in the North of Ireland, with people feeling passionately, as I do, about the concept of Irish unity coming towards us. We know that that conversation is alive and is finding its way into more homes and spaces daily. To make preparations for a new and united Ireland, we have to have an understanding of the situation that we are currently in and the facts and figures. The joint census went an awful distance in doing that.

There is a common misconception that those of us who advocate for a new and united Ireland would just like to rub away the border, join the two states and leave it at that, going home to put our feet up. However, any of us who are involved in the conversation in a real way know that that is not what we want. From our perspective in Sinn Féin, we have many issues and concerns about how both states and jurisdictions have been run since partition was implemented in this country. The joint census goes some way in highlighting that there are problems north of the border and that there are also problems south of the border and that there are things that we are doing really well in the North and things that are being done better in the Twenty-six Counties. We would like collaboration and joint working to learn from each other and to make both states better in the here and now and, obviously, for future planning.

One of the key statistics that jumps out from the 2021-22 joint census is the increase from the previous census in cross-border workers. Over 4,000 people have begun working cross-border since the previous census was carried out, and we can see, particularly in the border region, that people go north and south daily for their work. That, again, speaks to one of the misconceptions about Irish unity. We hear a lot of scaremongering about what a potential united Ireland could mean for our health system. Obviously, people hold the NHS very dearly, but, when you look at the cohort of workers that is crossing the border for work, you see that the majority of people coming from the South to the North are working in health and social care settings. That indicates the strength of feeling in the Twenty-six Counties around the NHS and that there is not a reticence amongst our friends and colleagues in the South about public services. I think that that is heartening and is something that we should look at and draw attention to.

To make progress on anything, you have to have the information available to you, and we in the North know how damaging partition was. We know that it was particularly impactful on the border areas. That is seen very clearly through the fact that, to this day, unemployment figures are highest in the border regions of Louth in the Twenty-six Counties and Derry and Strabane in the North. That shows once again the impact and the consequences of that border infrastructure and how disruptive and damaging it has been for the communities living beside it. We can point to many reasons for our problems in the North, including the fact that we do not have a sovereign Parliament, are still at the behest of the British Government and have had Tory austerity for the past 14 years, which has caused innumerable problems for and damage to our public services. Still and all, our people have the determination, spirit and grit to excel beyond what has been set out for them. My constituency, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the North, is a shining example of that. Infrastructure was not widely available and we did not see investment in our roads and electricity network, yet we have the most successful engineering sector in Ireland and produce well above our means in that area.

I commend the motion to the House and hope that it passes. Other parties have tabled amendments: one could be seen as being slightly constructive, while the other, unfortunately, has probably missed the point. I welcome the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. I call Matthew O'Toole to move amendment No 1.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move amendment No 1:

I am pleased to move amendment No 1. Now, this motion was —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, all you have to do is —.

Mr O'Toole: I said "move". I knew that. I do not understand why I am standing here talking. [Laughter.] [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We are about to suspend the sitting before Question Time. The next Member to speak when we resume after the question for urgent oral answer will be you, Matthew.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We are delighted that Dr Katy Radford formally started in her role as director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression on 13 November. Other members of the board are due to take up post on 3 December. Over the coming months, the office will seek to develop a work programme in line with the aims and functions set out in the Identity and Language Act 2022. The aim will be the promotion of cultural pluralism, respect for diversity, social cohesion and reconciliation and to support and promote the celebration of our cultural and linguistic heritage. We are confident that we have the right people in place to deliver those objectives and are committed to supporting the office in its efforts. We will be able to provide further details to Members on the work of the office as it progresses.

Mr Honeyford: Will the First Minister outline how her office will ensure that the work on identity and culture will not just be symbolic but will genuinely support our young people, sports clubs and community groups across all traditions to build relationships and share understanding? How will progress be measured and reported to the Assembly?

Mrs O'Neill: I agree with the Member: it has to be much more than symbolism. This is a crucial juncture at which we can have a new departure, particularly in relation to social cohesion and the problems that we have witnessed across society, especially in the past year. It is an opportunity not to be missed, and we need to measure progress as we go. We are committed to working with Katy and the board team on that. The clear aims of the office are set out in the legislation, but, for me, it is about how the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and the other two offices can work in a complementary fashion but also distinctly. There is a real opportunity for the office to be shaped to promote respect, inclusion, social cohesion and reconciliation among all our national and cultural identities.

Mr Brett: First Minister, one of the greatest examples of initiatives to promote cultural understanding is the wide range of portraits of Lord Mayors in Belfast City Hall. A member and employee of your party was forced to resign after attacking one of those portraits. Given that you are required to uphold the rule of law under the ministerial code, will you take the opportunity to name that former employee and state to which member of your party and Member of the House that individual is related?

Mrs O'Neill: If only your question was genuinely about respect, but, of course, it is not. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has made its views known, and I respect its position.

Ms Ennis: As the First Minister outlined, there is amazing work going on in our communities to promote inclusion and cultural understanding. Does she agree that there is now an opportunity for the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, as well as the offices of the Irish Language Commissioner and the Ulster-Scots Commissioner, to build on that work and help further promote a society that is built on respect and mutual understanding of identity and culture?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. As I referenced in my answer to the original question, so much incredible work happens out there. We all see it in our backyards and in our constituencies. Such a huge amount of work is being done to promote inclusion and social cohesion at grassroots level. We need to draw all of that out. We need to focus on the positivity and build on it, be that in community centres, sports clubs, sports spaces or other places where people come together to share experiences. We have a richness of diversity, and we need to get to a position in which we talk about how we celebrate our diversity and respect our differences. The Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will create the opportunity to build on what is there through focusing on new work programmes, but it will also genuinely help build the new society that we all desperately want to achieve together. With the director and the two commissioners now in place, the work that they can do together will bear fruit in the years to come.

Mr McGlone: A Chéad-Aire, an dtig leat insint dúinn cad chuige nach raibh cumas sa teanga Ghaeilge ar na critéir do na ceapacháin don bhord?

Mrs O'Neill: Sorry, my translation thing was not working.

We wanted to give Katy a chance to bed in before putting in place the other board members. They will take up their roles in the next number of weeks. I am looking for their names. Brian Dougherty, Ellen Finlay, Stephen Moore, Dr Callie Persic and Dr Jacqueline Witherow have all been appointed and will assume their roles on 3 December, which is just around the corner. They will very much add to the director, who is now in post. It is important that she gets a chance to put her feet under the table and then welcome the new board members. Together they will design the programme of work.

Mr Gaston: Does the First Minister think that a fanatic who believes that the Irish language legislation does not go far enough and is or, at least, was a card-carrying member of Sinn Féin is the right person to hold the post of Irish Language Commissioner? How can someone with that record enjoy unionist support?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that the commissioner will have something to say about your commentary. I very much welcome the commissioner to his post and wish him well in it. Ádh mór

to Pól Deeds as he takes up his role. We should all get behind him and stop skirting around the issues and being so divisive. Try to think about it from an inclusive point of view. This is a promotion of the Irish language, and it is a positive thing. You should not be frightened.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle

, I will answer questions 2 and 13 together.

The independent review carries a range of recommendations and suggestions on the functioning of the Windsor framework. Many of the recommendations concern areas of responsibility for the British Government, and our officials are engaging with the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office on the areas that touch on the Executive's responsibilities. We also held a very useful discussion with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, on 13 November at which we outlined the importance of working together to ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing the issues raised in the report. One of the recommendations is that further staff be seconded or added to the Executive office in Brussels, and we welcome the recognition of the important role that that office has to play in providing information and upstream engagement on EU legislation. We also advocated for support for our local businesses and therefore welcome the commitment made by the British Government today. Our officials are working to understand the details of that funding package and how it will be implemented.

Mr Brooks: I thank the First Minister for her answer. The office has an important role in not only influencing in Europe but being the canary in the mine that will warn us of any serious difficulties that may come from European legislation.

One of the current difficulties is veterinary medicines. Has the First Minister had any conversations on that, or has she any update for us on the real threat that that poses to our veterinary sector and animal health in Northern Ireland and on what can be done as the end of the grace period looms?

Mrs O'Neill: I assure you that that is raised at all our engagements. Obviously, we welcome the fact that there will be an sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, because it will iron out a lot of the issues that have developed to this point. However, we need to have a particular approach to veterinary medicines, and that is raised at every engagement. We are hopeful that we will continue to make progress.

Mr Speaker: I call Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I did not think that I was down for a question.

Mr Speaker: The questions are grouped.

Dr Aiken: Sorry. In that case, I do not have a question for you, First Minister. [Laughter.]

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you.

Mr Kearney: First Minister, you will be aware that the Murphy report states that one of the most obvious benefits attributed to the Windsor framework is dual market access and that there is a need to highlight and publicise that fact. Do you agree that we need to do more to maximise dual market access?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The Member has raised this question with me on a number of occasions. I absolutely concur with that. We have seen the Murphy report, which is his own report, and we await the British Government's response to it. That will come in January, which is just two months away. It focused on a number of areas, not least the fact that we need to lean more heavily into dual market access. I absolutely agree that we need to continue to do that.

This is a real opportunity for us to grow our economy. When you look at the growth of our export market over the past years — since we have had the Windsor framework introduced — you see that our exports have increased by 2%. That is in direct comparison with a 9% drop in Britain, so that tells you how unique our status is and how we have to maximise that advantage to grow our economy, create jobs and reach for that market. I commend the work of Caoimhe Archibald, the Economy Minister, in continuing to look towards those opportunities, promote the unique selling point that we have in our dual market access and send the message that we are open for business and want to grow our economy and attract what investment we can with that unique selling point.

Mr Dickson: First Minister, will you join me in being relentlessly positive about Northern Ireland's dual access opportunities? With the expansion of the Brussels office in particular, will you ensure that our small to medium-sized enterprises are given a real opportunity to market Northern Ireland across the EU?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I will join you in your relentless positivity. There is a good-news story to tell, and we very much promote the message that we are open for business. The fact that we have dual market access makes us the envy of many other economies and is something that we must maximise. That is why what happens in our Brussels office is important. There are resource implications for that.

We also face post-Brexit realities and challenges that need to be mitigated. I welcome all the advocating that we have done collectively on behalf of local businesses about the need to have some support for businesses to enable them to overcome some of those challenges and opportunities. It has been mooted that that will be part of the Budget this week. We need to see more of the detail of that, but we should always be positive about anything that helps to remove barriers to businesses getting opportunities.

Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, do you accept that strengthening our presence in Brussels is a two-way process and that the effectiveness of our work there would be significantly enhanced if we had a European Commission office based in Belfast?

Mrs O'Neill: That is my view. I am not sure that that view is shared across the office, but it is certainly my view that we should have a Commission office based in Belfast. You are absolutely right that it is a two-way street. I welcome the progress that we have made in our office in Brussels and look forward to visiting it at some stage in the near future, but, as we reach into the opportunities, those are things that would make good, common, practical sense to help businesses to understand and navigate the sometimes complex trading world in which we now live.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. I call Paula Bradshaw.

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

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Clerical child abuse has had a devastating impact. I express our deepest sympathies to and solidarity with all victims and survivors of that terrible abuse. Throughout the process, previous junior Minister Cameron and I have engaged with victims and survivors to hear their stories and their views on what is needed. Junior Minister Bunting and I will continue to do that.

We are very grateful to all those who participated in the process and shared their experiences. Work has been completed on three separate pieces of research: one of which examined records held by faith organisations and statutory agencies; one recorded experiences and expectations of victims and survivors; and one examined the safeguarding policies and practices of faith groups. We have received the research reports and are giving them careful consideration.

On 10 November, the First Minister and deputy First Minister met Lisa Caldwell, the independent chair of the interdepartmental working group (IDWG), to discuss the reports and the IDWG recommendations. Officials continue to engage with victims and survivors, whose views we will take into account as we move forward. Our deliberations on the reports continue, and no decisions on next steps have been made.

The research has highlighted the importance of current-day safeguarding practice. We note that the PSNI has announced that it has launched a criminal investigation and established a dedicated team following safeguarding concerns at the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. As it is a live investigation, we would not want to say anything that might prejudice it. However, we reiterate the PSNI's appeal for any victims and survivors to come forward, and we trust that everyone will cooperate fully with the investigation.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that update, junior Minister. Things are moving on, and a growing body of campaigners is looking for a public inquiry. The victims and survivors of institutional abuse in mother-and-baby homes campaigned for a public inquiry for over 10 years. I greatly fear that this group of survivors will also have to campaign for 10 years. When will you make the decision on the recommendations put forward in the research?

Ms Reilly: My thoughts are with every person who has lived through clerical child abuse. What they faced was horrific. The impact of that does not just disappear; it is with them every day. They should never have been put into that position or have faced that horrific abuse. As I said, I have had the chance to sit down with some of the victims and survivors, and I will be honest: the conversations were emotional and, at times, difficult, but I am grateful for their trust and for the time that they took to speak with me.

When you hear directly from victims and survivors, it reiterates the importance of how we handle this work going forward. As I said in my original answer, we are considering our next steps. We are still working our way through the reports with officials, and we will continue to engage with victims and survivors. Of course, we will bring any updates to Members.

Mrs Dillon: Junior Minister, you mentioned that, on 12 November, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a press release acknowledging previous safeguarding failures. Our thoughts are with anybody who was impacted on by that. I absolutely concur with everything that you said about victims and survivors. Do you agree that the latest revelations reinforce the point that lessons must be learned and highlight the need for a renewed focus on safeguarding, so that all bodies can be fully aware of, and honour, their obligations?

Ms Reilly: I associate myself with your comments on that. The recent revelations, alongside those of a historical nature that the research on clerical abuse speaks to, are a stark reminder of the need for a consistent and sustained focus on safeguarding. No longer can there be situations where warning signs are missed, organisations fail to act or investigations are not prioritised when concerns are raised. Safeguarding requires constant improvement and vigilance. That means adherence to robust procedures, clear mandatory reporting, proper records, accountability and a culture where the protection of children and vulnerable people comes first. It is only by making sure that those systems are strong, independently scrutinised and continually reviewed that we can demonstrate a commitment to learning from the past and preventing failures in the future.

Mrs O'Neill: Immigration is an excepted matter, and the Executive have no decision-making powers in respect of the movement of people and migration flows. We believe that the asylum system should be fair and balanced and offer protection to people who are in genuine need. We recognise the positive contribution of migration to our society, including in the delivery of our essential services — particularly our health and social care sector — and to our economy. On 12 November, we attended the inter-ministerial group for safety, security and migration, at which the intention on reforms was highlighted. Now that we have received the published asylum policy statement, we are reviewing the proposals and will continue to engage with the Home Office at ministerial and official level on implementation and local impacts.

Mr K Buchanan: First Minister, in the period between 2011 and 2015, 150,000 people claimed to be asylum seekers. In the period from 2021 to 2025, there were 400,000 such claimants, which is a massive increase. In your opinion, as First Minister for this region of the United Kingdom, is there a problem?

Mrs O'Neill: The question that you ask relates to what is being proposed in Britain. I have set out very clearly our role in immigration: we do not control migration flows. What I can say about your initial question is that what was published by the Labour Government last week provides us only with a high-level overview; we still do not understand what that means for the practical outworkings of the asylum reforms that the Home Office plans to implement. The detail of all those reforms will still have to be worked through.

Unfortunately, the reality is that many of those figures are overinflated, particularly by some people in your own party. We depend very much on migration right across our health and social care system. Quite a high number of people migrate here to work and to provide our public services. We need to put things in perspective. When it comes to asylum seekers — people who seek support at times when they have had to flee war, persecution or genocide — we should all be open to that. I am absolutely open to the idea of a managed immigration system that provides support for those who actually need it and is fair, accountable, human rights-compliant and compassionate. That is the least that we can all do. We need to keep in perspective the actual numbers that we have here of people who seek asylum and of those who come here as economic migrants.

Mr Gildernew: First Minister, you will know that recent data from the PSNI has indicated that racist crimes here are at very worrying levels. Do you agree that there can be no tolerance for racism and that we must all work together to end that scourge?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question. We must work together. This is about our home, our society, good relations, social cohesion and integration. We all have a role to play in tackling racism and calling it out where we see it. We should not have any acceptable level of tolerance for racism when we see it. The PSNI data that you referred to shows that the levels of racist hate crime have risen. That should concern every single person who is elected to this Chamber. We should never forget the real human impact at the core of all that.

As I said, there should be no tolerance of hatred or racism. No one should be targeted because of their race, religion, nationality, disability or sexual orientation. It is so important that we create a welcoming and inclusive society that celebrates and champions diversity. We need to ensure that members of our minority ethnic community here, who, as I said in a previous answer, play a crucial role in the delivery of our public services, know that they are valued and that they feel part of our society and feel safe. We all have to play our part in that regard.

Ms Nicholl: Asylum policy is reserved, but integration is devolved. What is the First Minister's assessment of the impact that negative rhetoric about migrants is having on the Assembly's ability to bring forward integration and the impact that it has on not just human beings but the economy? People in our society are feeling very fearful right now, and the rhetoric from politicians is not helping.

Mrs O'Neill: I agree: some of the rhetoric is so toxic. It also puts people from a black and minority ethnic community in particular in a position in which they do not feel safe to walk the street. I know people working in our hospitals who are afraid to go to their workplace. How anybody thinks that that is an acceptable position is beyond me. We have a role to play in how we shape this place through the language that we use when speaking about such things. We also have a role to play through the policies that we develop, not least our refugee integration strategy and our racial equality strategy. In addition, it is about updating our race relations laws, our funding to support minority ethnic development, the work that we do with councils, and good relations funding. There are so many layers of different work, but it needs to be joined up in a way that makes a meaningful difference. I concur with the Member about how dangerous language is and how important it is for us, as political leaders, to set the tone.

Mr Burrows: Does the First Minister agree that, although we should celebrate lawful migration, any foreign national who commits sexual violence against our women here in Northern Ireland should be swiftly deported from the country?

Mrs O'Neill: Anybody who commits a crime should be dealt with accordingly. That is common sense and should be the norm in any society. However, it is back to the previous commentary about the importance of language and how we describe things: it is very easy to characterise all sexual crimes against women as being committed by people from a particular community. That is not the case. It does not stack up from a policing perspective, given the stats. It does not stack up when it comes to the stats from the Office for National Statistics. Do your homework very carefully.

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

Ms Reilly: We, along with our Executive colleagues, have made it very clear that all acts of violence and intimidation are abhorrent and have no place in our society. Everyone, regardless of race, religion or background, is entitled to feel safe and be safe, free from threat or intimidation. The Executive Office provides funding of over £7 million to local organisations and councils to support cohesion and integration and to address good relations issues. An additional allocation of £220,000 was distributed to councils to address issues around racial and social cohesion. In parallel, work has progressed on the Executive Office crisis fund, which could be used to support those at risk of destitution or homelessness.

Enhancing community cohesion is very much a cross-cutting issue that requires a collective and joined-up approach. In recognition of that, the Executive Office is leading a dedicated community cohesion group. It is working collaboratively across Departments, sectors and communities to bring people together to create safer and more supportive environments. The Education Authority (EA) has also provided a range of support for children impacted on, including supporting children in Ballymena to return to school. In addition, it is working with Belfast City Council to bring together 14 schools affected by the unrest across Belfast for cluster working and racial literacy training for teachers. A follow-up good relations programme is also planned with the EA and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council in the spring and summer to help to address misinformation and race-related incidents.

Mr Mathison: I thank the junior Minister for that answer. Junior Minister, you stated in your answer that children displaced from their home in that way see a significant disruption to their education. Will you provide more detail on the Executive Office's engagement with the Education Minister about how that impact can be better mitigated?

Ms Reilly: As I mentioned, it is a cross-cutting issue. We need to continue working with all Ministers across the Executive.

Families came here hoping that this place would finally be somewhere that they could build a stable and peaceful life. We can never lose sight of the fact that they are human beings who are looking for nothing more than what any of us would want for our families.

Our Department and officials have been working hard to support communities so that people feel welcome and safe. As I mentioned, that is done by providing funding to local councils and community organisations specifically to strengthen cohesion, integration and good relations. However, funding alone is not enough. It is important that we constantly look for new avenues and new partnerships so that we can keep working together across government, councils, voluntary groups and communities to make sure that those who want to call this place home feel safe, supported and valued. We all share a responsibility to make that possible.

Mrs Mason: What work is being done by the Executive Office to help build a society that is free from the scourge of sectarianism, racism and intolerance?

Ms Reilly: As I have mentioned, the Executive Office and the wider Executive have made it very clear that everyone is entitled to feel safe and be safe in our society. Racism and sectarianism have absolutely no place in our communities. There are no excuses for it, and we, as political leaders, have a responsibility to show leadership, call out racism and stand with victims of intimidation, discrimination and violence, and we will continue to do that.

The Executive Office has a number of programmes to help support that work. Over £500,000 in additional funding has been provided since the summer to fund projects that promote inclusion and integration. We also have the Executive Office's minority ethnic development fund, which is approximately £1 million per annum; the planned interventions programme; and a range of other programmes, including Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), that provide funding to promote inclusion and integration. There is also the central good relations fund and the Communities in Transition programme, which, with a budget of £2·9 million, is delivering 35 projects that are focused on resilience and tackling paramilitarism.

Mr O'Toole: I, like others in the Chamber, represent probably the most diverse constituency in the North. I have to say, and I am not spoofing, that most BAME individuals and communities are underwhelmed by the Executive's response to the race riots. One element of that is the criminal justice response. Is the Executive Office engaged with the Justice Minister on the sentencing Bill, and when will we finally get hate-crime provisions in law?

Ms Reilly: As I have said, the Executive Office constantly engages across the Executive with other Departments and Ministers. However, the issues that the Member raised are specifically within the Justice Minister's remit.

Mrs O'Neill: The director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition took up their posts on 13 November. Those appointments are a significant step forward as we continue to build a shared, inclusive and respectful society by recognising and celebrating our rich cultural diversity of identities, languages and traditions. We wish them all every success in their new roles and look forward to working with them.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo.

The Minister will be aware that there is a thriving Irish language community in my constituency of West Belfast. We have the Gaeltacht Quarter, and many children are educated in Irish-medium schools. Does the First Minister believe that the appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner will be extremely important in improving the visibility and use of an Ghaeilge

among public authorities?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. As I said, I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Language Commissioner is in post and that the other commissioner and director are also in post. The appointment is an extremely important milestone for us. It is a step forward in building a society that is respectful and inclusive, and it is a real sign of inclusion, equality and representation that the Irish language and culture are now properly reflected in society. Part of the role of the commissioner is to ensure, enhance and protect the use of an Ghaeilge

across public authorities here and to devise and develop best-practice standards for that purpose.

I concur with you on the number of children who are being educated through the medium of Irish. That shows the growth of the language and the growth in the number of parents who want to educate their children through Irish-medium education. The strength of the Irish language in the arts, music and culture in recent years is something to be very much celebrated. It is positive and vibrant, and it is a living language. All people in society should see themselves, their culture and their identity reflected in public services.

Mr Kingston: Many in the unionist community feel as though their British culture and identity have been undermined and not treated fairly. Will the First Minister confirm today that the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will actively work to promote cultural understanding of the British identity, will not be biased towards one identity over the other and will be fairly funded across identities?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, a fair funding model is in place, and I wish the commissioners and the director the very best. Their role covers inclusion, mutual respect, creating a better society and respect for cultural difference. That is crucial. The remit of the three new offices can be really pivotal in shaping the narrative in our society and in creating the space in which everybody can be comfortable in their Irishness, Britishness or Ulster Britishness: whatever they identify with. We need to create space for one another, and the commissioners and the director have a role to play in helping create that dynamic in society.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: First, as I said last week, I very much recognise that the report is another difficult moment on the recovery journey for all the families that the pandemic impacted on. We need to be mindful of them. From my experience of engaging with all those families, I believe that they want us to learn lessons, and that is very much what I am committed to doing. I thank the chair of the inquiry for her work. It marks a major milestone in our learning from and preparedness for a future pandemic, which we will inevitably face. We have to reflect on all of the report and all of its findings. I do not think that any of us has anything to gain from dissecting it or going over ground that we have gone over before. I will, however, absolutely take on board the learning from the report. We have already put some things in train, and we will do much more in the time ahead.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I am afraid that many of the people who lost loved ones in the pandemic will be frustrated with your answer, which is long on generic platitudes. We all can learn lessons, of course, but you were the deputy First Minister then and are the First Minister now. You are personally responsible, not simply in a generic way.

It is clear that one of the lessons to be learned concerns the toxicity and dysfunctionality of our political institutions. Do you agree with that, and will you commit to endorsing a programme of reform of Stormont before the end of the mandate? Please, First Minister, do not simply refer it to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC), on which I sit. We all know about the Committee. Do you endorse a programme of reform as a specific lesson arising out of the public inquiry?

Mrs O'Neill: You do not seem to be able to hear me when I tell you each time you ask me the same question that I am up for the issue of reform being dealt with. The place on which to have that conversation is at the AERC, of which you are a member. I absolutely embrace the issue of reform, and I tell you that time after time. Maybe you do not want to hear it, but it is a fact.

On the inquiry, it is important that the public understand that we are taking on board the lessons to be learned. We were faced with an unprecedented global pandemic. All four parties on the Executive, I believe, worked really hard to get people through it. Was what we did perfect? Far from it. Did we get everything right? Absolutely not. That is where the lessons need to come from.

I will advise the House on the progress that we have been able to make. Our office has established a cross-departmental steering group to consider all the recommendations, not just from this module but from all modules of the public inquiry. We are absolutely committed to building a more resilient civil contingencies system so that we can respond to all emergencies. Significant progress has been made on improving preparedness, response and recovery, which has included the appointment of a Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser. I certainly felt, the whole way through the pandemic, that that was something that we, as an Executive, were missing, so we now have it in place. We have expanded the Executive Office's civil contingencies division. We have established cross-government civil contingencies structures. We have developed and enhanced the civil contingencies risk register. We will do a further review in 2026 of the framework. We are already taking part in an exercise named "Pegasus", which is about future planning for any potential catastrophe or pandemic. We are putting lessons in train and putting them into action. I want the public to know that that is what is already being embraced. We are not waiting until the end of the public inquiry but are doing things as we go, just as we did the whole way through the pandemic and have done in the years since.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will, of course, be aware that I have addressed that question in the House on numerous occasions, as well as in the public inquiry. Through my actions, I never set out to deliberately further hurt families who had lost loved ones throughout the pandemic. I have also made that clear directly to the families.

Mr Bradley: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does a Minister who undermines public health messaging in the middle of a pandemic meet the standards of accountability and leadership that the public are entitled to expect. If so, how?

Mrs O'Neill: I am not sure that I understand the question, but I can tell the Member that I have made my views known on any damage that I caused to public health messaging and have taken every opportunity to do so. I led us the whole way through that pandemic, and I continue to lead us. Faced with it again tomorrow, I would do likewise, but I would have the added advantage of all the lessons that have been learned, some of which I have already reflected.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. I, too, have been contacted by those teachers. I absolutely will work with you and other Members who are opposed to criminalising our teachers just for taking industrial action. We need to strengthen workers' rights, not take away from them. I give an unwavering commitment to every teacher that I will not endorse or stand over proposals that criminalise them for taking industrial action in order to seek better conditions for themselves and their colleagues.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

Does the First Minister believe that, rather than undermining workers' rights, we should work to support workers and avoid circumstances in which teachers and others feel the need to engage in industrial action?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. Instead of criminalising workers, including teachers, as mentioned in the previous question, we need to do all that we can to support them to do the incredible job that they do. That is why I very much welcome the protection for workers' rights that the Economy Minister will introduce shortly in legislation that we will all have a chance to debate, discuss and, hopefully, agree on. That will be the most progressive workers' rights legislation that we have ever seen. It will be an opportunity for us to put money into workers' pockets by giving them protection in law for the conditions under which they work. It is very much about supporting workers' families and protecting the rights of trade unions to support those workers.

That is an incredible opportunity and something that we can do in a real, practical sense to make a difference to people. I encourage all parties in the Assembly to engage in and be part of shaping what could be the most progressive legislation. We could see an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and, among other progressive measures, we could see stronger rights for trade unions and paid leave for neonatal care. We should all work together on that, because it will really make a difference to people's lives.

Mrs O'Neill: I am sorry: I cannot. I am happy to talk to officials in case there has been official-level engagement on that, but it has not been brought to our attention. Given the enhanced role of AI in everything that we do in life, we need to have the right protections and the right regulatory framework around it, so we would obviously have something to say about that. We will see what comes later in the week with the Budget, in which, I hope, there will be more support for workers and families. I hope that there will be more support for childcare and that inheritance tax will be dealt with. As we await Wednesday's outcome, we have made our views known on the Budget, but we do not have the detail on the regulatory framework yet.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the First Minister. On the theme of the Budget and AI, Helen McCarthy is leading some really great work. There is a view that Northern Ireland could be world-leading in the ethical use of AI, but a strategy needs to be brought forward with speed. Have you given any further consideration to increasing the Budget allocation to your Department, given the importance of AI to our economy?

Mrs O'Neill: We have to wait until our three-year Budget is set later this year. Then we will know what departmental budget we are playing with. Yes, we have identified the need for an AI strategy, and that is being actively developed. I concur with you on the role of our new Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser, Helen McCarthy, and the work that she is doing. A wide-ranging team is helping her to develop that strategy, and we hope to bring it to the Assembly in the near future. However, the strategy needs to be backed up by resource to make it practical. We will definitely have that conversation as part of the budget discussions.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I will. Again, there probably is not an agreed position on that in our office, but, from my perspective, I absolutely agree with the initiative that was taken. There is no escaping the reality that Brexit has been disastrous for us. All that we have faced from that time has been uncertainty, economic challenge, mitigation and further mitigation. Even today, we are talking about more mitigation through financial support to businesses. It has been a hugely uncertain and challenging time. Many of us have worked to mitigate the worst excesses of Brexit. Without those efforts and mitigations, we would be much worse off. Our unique position in having access to both markets demands that we have direct access at an EU level. I therefore support that initiative and hope that we can continue to make the case for having our voice heard in the European Parliament.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, First Minister. The letter also noted that, in the event of Irish unity, the North will automatically rejoin the EU. Does the First Minister believe that granting observer status would help us to better plan and prepare for the future?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Everything that I do every day is about trying to make people's lives better. There is a much brighter and better future ahead for us all if we can only grasp that opportunity together. We have so much untapped potential across the island that can best be unlocked through constitutional change. Of course, I see no contradiction in delivering good public services and working together in this institution every day while having equally legitimate political aspirations for where we see ourselves in the future. I really want us to embrace that, but we need to carefully plan for change. It is important that people have the facts and the information and that everybody knows that every vote will have equal value. The discussions on and preparations for constitutional change need to be had now. Those discussions need to be had with the Irish Government, the British Government and at EU level. That is important. Observer status for Northern representatives would certainly assist in all the planning and preparation and, as I said, in having our voices heard in Europe.

We know that rejoining the EU through constitutional change would open up many more doors for all our people and could attract more investment, create more jobs, boost tourism and truly seize our potential. We need to keep our eyes focused on an outward-looking, inclusive and better future. Having our voice heard at a European level would be crucial in shaping that narrative.

Mrs O'Neill: The matter that the Member refers to is for the PPS to decide. I discharged my duties as responsibly as I always should. That was an issue for the PPS. It has made its final view known. You may not like the outcome, but the outcome is the outcome.

Mr Kingston: First Minister, I think that there is a good relations angle to and consequence from it. Indeed, the junior Minister was present at the event. Given that the Sinn Féin chief whip is quoted in a witness statement as saying that the employee made:

and given that there were a large number of Sinn Féin members in attendance, including, as I say, the junior Minister, surely it is not credible for Sinn Féin to claim once again that it did not notice its former employee present there.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Speaker, I am sure that we are not going to start dissecting the outworkings of all decisions taken by the PPS in all cases. It has made its view known. I have nothing to add to it.

Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn. I call Mr Frew.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Each trust will have its own operating model for how it manages patients with delirium, be that in the hospital, independent sector or intermediate care. That means that trusts may not have specific designated delirium beds, but all will manage delirium patients or other patients with challenging behaviours. The Belfast, South Eastern and Northern trusts have confirmed that they have specific delirium beds. The Belfast Trust has a contract for 12, all of which are allocated within an independent sector care home. They provide essential support for patients who require specialist care in a non-acute setting. The South Eastern Trust has 10 block-booked delirium beds, which are also situated in an independent sector care home within its area. Those beds are currently fully occupied, which reflects the high demand. The Northern Trust has six beds at residential level. They are located in the Roddens residential unit, which is a statutory facility. That ensures continuity of care for patients closer to home. The Southern Trust and Western Trust have advised that they have no specific designated ring-fenced delirium beds. However, they manage delirium patients within their bed cohort.

Mr Frew: I thank the Health Minister for answering a question that was submitted as a question for written answer, and which was to be answered on 14 April 2025. That in itself is a question.

There could be hundreds of people a year contracting delirium. How does the fact that there are only 28 beds — only six within the NHS — impact on waiting times in other wards? How can the Minister be sure that people are being diagnosed correctly and receiving the appropriate pathway to care in respect of delirium or some of the other long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's and the like?

Mr Nesbitt: I apologise to Mr Frew for the fact that the question was not answered in a timely manner. It is a fact that my Department conducts something like 30% of all communications for all the Departments, so there is a lot of pressure on it, and mistakes may be made. That might explain, but it certainly does not excuse.

I have every confidence in the clinicians, specialists and workforce who are conducting the diagnoses of these patients. The shortage of beds is, of course, a concern to me, but that plays into the wider concern about the capacity gap compared with the demand for health and social care (HSC) services.

Mr Donnelly: Has the Department assessed whether the current delirium provision meets the projected demand for an ageing population? What changes are planned to address any gaps?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. Work is always ongoing in trying not only to assess current demand but to predict how that demand is going to go. The answer tends to be that it is going to go up. Delirium is in with a broader area of mental health challenges. As, I am sure that the Member is aware, delirium is a specific disturbance of brain function. It is a state of sudden confusion and change in a person's behaviour and alertness that poses particular risks not only for the patient but, perhaps, for those around them. I assure the Member that it is very much on our list of areas to be mindful of, and that, as we plan for capacity in the future, it is in the mix.

Ms D Armstrong: How does the Department ensure quality of care in the independent sector where delirium beds are contracted to?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, that is an area of concern, particularly for the loved ones of people who are suffering from delirium. They might well have a preference for their loved one to be treated in HSC rather than the independent sector. However, I reassure the Member that the Department requires very strict adherence to contractual standards. That includes compliance with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). It sets guidelines and has regular audits and monitoring. Patient safety and continuity of care remain absolutely paramount.

Mr McGlone: Given that delirium is often found in patients aged 65-plus, has the Minister considered extending the mental health liaison service to that age group in trust areas in which the service is available only to those aged 18 to 64?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I was aware that age is a factor in the prevalence of delirium: his exact request is one that I am more than happy to take away.

Mr Gaston: Minister, workers on the front line tell me that the number of delirium beds is not adequate to meet need: there are only six such beds in the Northern Trust. People have to wait in acute hospitals for a considerable length of time before they get a bed that is appropriate to meet their needs. As our population ages, the pressures on that area will continue to grow. Minister, does the current number of beds meet the current patient need? If not, what will you do in the short term to address that?

Mr Nesbitt: The short answer is no: the number of beds is not sufficient to meet demand. I respectfully say to the Member that that is likely to be the case for acute beds across our health and social care trusts. The pressure has been on for a considerable length of time, and it remains on 24/7/365. It gets worse — it gets steeper and deeper — and the demands on the workforce continue to rise. I am concerned about all those things, but there is only so much that we can do because there is a finite budget. It is a very large budget. As Executive members tell me all the time, I have just over 50% of the entire Executive Budget. However, I would prefer to look at those things in terms of objective, assessed need. If we did so, we would say that we need more delirium beds and more members of the workforce who can specialise in that area.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kingston is not in his place.

Mr Nesbitt: I agree that there is great benefit to early diagnosis of dementia. My Department has been leading on work that aims to reduce the waiting lists. We have identified a number of system-wide measures that could help to reduce delays. Each trust has sought to improve the position through initiatives such as extra memory clinics and by completing clinical validation exercises to ensure that the current waiting lists are as accurate as possible.

In addition, there has been a sharpened focus on the education of advanced practitioners and on their recruitment into memory services in order to develop a multidisciplinary team approach, which, it has been evidenced, aids diagnosis. The Western Trust and the Northern Trust have employed an advanced nurse practitioner in their memory services.

Furthermore, my officials advise that active recruitment is being undertaken by the trusts that face particular challenges, especially vacant posts in old age psychiatry, that contribute to a capacity gap between the number of people on the waiting lists and the number who can be seen at clinics.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he commit to the gathering of sufficient data on dementia diagnosis rates at a local level to enable comparison of dementia diagnosis across the United Kingdom as a first step towards an action plan to address what has become a postcode lottery for diagnosis in Northern Ireland and in an attempt to improve our estimated diagnosis rate, which is around 55%?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. The regional dementia care pathway sets out a vision for high-quality dementia services in a standardised, regionalised manner, emphasising early diagnosis. Through the development and introduction of resources, including easy-read guides and the Apps4Dementia library for self-care and daily living support, we have also sought to augment and support the guidance on offer to people with dementia and their families.

The introduction of Encompass, which, as the Member knows, is live in all five geographic trusts as of 8 May 2025, means that our ability to trap data that will allow for population-level health interventions is unprecedented. I very much look forward to tapping into that resource for the benefit of that cohort.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you outline how the winter preparedness plan ensures that people who live with dementia have a clear pathway to avoid unnecessary hospital placements?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. There is huge concern, not least in the House, about winter preparedness and the additional winter demands on Health and Social Care. My primary concern, and where I have asked for focus, is on when people with dementia present at emergency departments. As the Member will be aware, emergency departments are very bright and they can be very noisy, so they can be very disconcerting for somebody who is suffering that sort of mental, rapid condition. As I said, it comes on very rapidly, and that is not an ideal environment for them. I assure the Member that the workforce is very aware of those issues and will find whatever workaround it possibly can to deal with them.

Ms Hunter: Minister, given the clear benefits of early diagnosis, will you commit to setting a target of 12 weeks by which no patient will wait longer for a dementia assessment? Will you detail further some of the current waiting times in Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: The current national target rate for the diagnosis of dementia is 66·7%. Northern Ireland currently has a rate of 62%, so we reckon that there are about 25,000 people living with dementia in Northern Ireland. In 2024, it was reported by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) that 13,900 people had a diagnosis.

The regional ministerial target for memory services is that individuals should have access to the service within nine weeks of their referral. That does not include the waiting time for diagnosis. The regional dementia Encompass group is validating the data for that ministerial target under the systems management oversight group. The key objective is to focus on how to standardise and streamline data reporting across the region because that is the way to shape service improvements and assist with future commissioning. Within that context, a priority will be assigned to reporting on the waiting times that people are having to endure before they are seen.

Mr Nesbitt: The reset plan that was published on 9 July is very clear. Transformation cannot simply be expanding hospital capacity; it has to mean changing how we deliver care, keeping people well for longer and supporting them in their own communities. In other words, getting health and social care services as close to people's front doors as possible.

Prevention and community care are at the heart of the reset plan. Two of the seven strategic priorities are prevention and seeing the citizen as an asset; and investing in primary, community and social care. We are taking a whole-system approach, by which I mean that we are working with the housing, education and voluntary sectors to tackle wider health determinants, not just the symptoms that appear in hospitals.

Prevention strategies, such as Live Better, will enable people to take charge of their own well-being, and we are exploring a new initiative, which we are calling "This is our health". In that, we want to create a public dialogue to encourage and empower the public to work with us as partners in managing their own health.

By March of next year, we will have developed a neighbourhood model for primary, community and social care. We hope to start that on 1 April, but I emphasise that it will be a five- to 10-year plan.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is good to hear that you are talking a whole-system approach. Community care is a critical component of our wider health and social care system. How are you seeking to ensure that social care will be better integrated to support people in their homes?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I want to put an emphasis on community-based social care, which has to be a core pillar of the neighbourhood model. That will ensure that people can live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. To do that, we have to tailor support to their needs. Social care teams will work with GPs, mental health services and the voluntary and community sector to enable care partnerships to be built and reduce avoidable admissions to hospitals and the need for longer-term care.

My Department is taking a range of steps to ensure that social care has the capacity that it needs. The neighbourhood model will directly support social care by embedding it within local multidisciplinary teams and through shared planning and better coordination between the health and social care professions.

The reset plan commits to improving information sharing, aligning care pathways and strengthening local partnerships so that people experience a seamless service.

Mr McHugh: Minister, how will you address the crisis in recruitment and retention in the independent community care sector in areas such as my constituency of West Tyrone, which is highly rural in nature?

Mr Nesbitt: To make the profession more attractive, we need to pay people the right salary. Again, I regret that I am not in a position to move as quickly to paying the real living wage as I wanted to. It is, however, also about the conditions in which people are working and the respect that we show them, as well as about the idea that there is career progression for those who want it. My Department is in the process of finalising a 10-year strategic plan and an associated three-year delivery plan, drawing heavily on the recommendations in the 'Power to People' report, which was published back in 2017, and the subsequent consultation on the reform of adult social care, which took place in January 2022.

The plans will prioritise a preventative approach to care and support, and the aim will be to improve individual well-being, thus reducing the need for formal care, but also to utilise community assets in order to achieve a more person-centred, sustainable social care system. The hope is that that will be a much more satisfying way of doing business for the workforce.

Mrs Dodds: We had a very helpful session on that matter with you at the Health Committee last week. You are aware, however, that transformation is also about the transformation of hospitals. You launched the hospital network consultation in October 2024, but, so far, we have not heard the outcome of it. When will we hear about the outcome? Can you perhaps give us a taster of some of the actions that may come from it?

Mr Nesbitt: That is a two-part question. The second part is certainly the part that I would have asked about if I were her but not the part that I would answer if I were me, and I am me. [Laughter.]

We have been taking a degree of time to think about that concept, and we have been right to do so, because it is, as I have said often in the House, a very radical proposal in its own right. I am as guilty as anybody of wishing that my local health and social care facility could provide every service and procedure that I might wish to avail myself of as a patient or service user. That is simply not going to be possible, however. We cannot have an acute hospital at the end of every street. I say once again that it is about convincing the public of the concept that, if they need a procedure, even if their local facility can do it, there may be somewhere else some distance away that has become a specialist facility for that procedure, meaning that it is absolutely in their best interests to travel for it.

I know that the process has been slow, and I could, I guess, share the Member's frustration, but it is really important that we bring people with us. I suggest to the Member that she will see real movement in the calendar year 2026.

Mr Mathison: What performance indicators will the Department adopt in order to demonstrate how the transformation work is delivering tangible change rather than just stabilising a crisis?

Mr Nesbitt: I presume that the Member is talking about tangible measures that show how transformation works. We already do that. We have done quite a bit of transformation in primary care. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are being rolled out, and I am very grateful to the Executive and the public-sector transformation board for the £61 million received, which will enable phase 2 to happen over the next four years. There are measures in there, based on the number of people who have accessed MDTs.

We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres for vague symptoms of cancer at Whiteabbey Hospital and at the South Tyrone Hospital in Dungannon. Again, the statistics come through for the number of patients who go through those processes. We have elective overnight-stay centres, and the stats are there for them, and we have day procedure centres in places such as Lagan Valley Hospital, for which , once again, the stats are there. I do not want to be judged on my saying, "We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres, so that is a tick in a box". Rather, it is a question of my saying, "We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres, and the outcomes have been x, y and z". Those outcomes are there to be assessed.

Mr O'Toole: Further to that, Minister, and, indeed, further to a lot of what has been talked about today, we have had the worst time recently with planning. We all want to see staff be paid more, but we now have an overspend going into next year. This year, we will have, we hope, a multi-year Budget, which will mean an almost once-in-a-generation opportunity to plan and budget for change. Am I to understand that you are working with the Finance Minister so that we will have a multi-year Budget next to health transformation? Will the public be able to see, by the end of this year, the type of resource that you and the Finance Minister will devote to sorting out our health system?

Mr Nesbitt: First, I did not see or hear the Finance Minister on the BBC at the weekend, but I am very grateful for his comments on the savings that my Department has managed to achieve. As I have said before, they are unprecedented. I very much look forward to having a multi-year Budget not just because it would provide a degree of certainty, as the Member will be aware, but because that certainty could be used to be transformative in its own right. That is where my focus is at the moment. For clarity, once we know what our budget is for next year, the first action will be to ring-fence for pay, because I do not want what happened this year, last year and in previous years to ever, ever happen again. I believe that, if I do that this year and, if God spares me, I do it this time next year, I will have set a precedent that no future Health Minister will feel other than compelled to follow into future years.

Mr Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin.

Mr Nesbitt: After the pay, comes the transformation, because you can spend money on waiting lists — it is right that we are, and we are bringing them down — but, if that is all that you do, once the money is spent, the lists go back up again. So, we have to do the transformation in tandem with tackling the lists.

Mr Speaker: As a friend of mine says, that was a comma, not a full stop.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. An independent review of children's social care services was completed by Professor Ray Jones in June 2023, and it included commentary on family courts and social workers' engagements with those courts. Work is being undertaken to address the issues that were identified in the independent review and to respond to the recommendations that Ray Jones made. The management and determination of individual cases that are brought before the family court system is primarily a matter for the judiciary, because, of course, it is completely independent of government. However, I have recently received correspondence from and met individuals who have drawn to my attention issues and concerns that are related to their reported experience of engagements with social workers and court guardians who provide reports to the family court system to assist the judiciary with their deliberations. The Member is aware of that, because she was in the room, and we have action points arising.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, again, for taking the time to meet my constituents and to hear just how serious and distressing their experiences with social services have been. Given the gravity of what you heard and your confirmation today that a review will now take place, will you outline when you expect that review to begin, what timeline you envisage for its completion and, more importantly, when families can expect to see meaningful change as a result?

Mr Nesbitt: I hope that the Member is aware from recent comments that I have made in the Chamber that I am reluctant to start providing timelines, because it seems to me that we are not world leaders in this Department in matching up to the timelines that we set. It was very useful to me to meet those individuals with the lived experiences of private law proceedings and to hear about their engagements with social workers and court guardians. Some of it was not easy to listen to, but it is a lot easier to listen to it than to experience and go through it. Therefore, I have asked officials to provide me with advice, and I have asked for some options on how we can deal with those concerns. Once I get that advice, I will think about how best to improve the reports to family courts — I believe now that they do need to be improved — and how the experiences of the sorts of people whom I met along with the Member and the involvement of court guardians in such court proceedings can also be improved. I will stop short of saying that it will happen by such-and-such a month, but it is on the radar, and I will not let it drop off.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, on that specific issue of the reports, what engagement have you had with the Justice Minister on conversations with the judiciary? Very often, the judiciary is directing social workers to look at only one element of a child's life. That is not satisfactory in determining a child's entire future and the future of that child's family.

Mr Nesbitt: That was the first time that the issue was put firmly on my radar, so step 1 was to have the meeting and listen to the lived experiences. I just outlined that step 2 is to ask officials to take a look and come to me with options. Once I have those, that would be the appropriate time to reach out to the Minister of Justice, because this is very much in that Minister's bailiwick. Ministers and Departments work collaboratively all the time, which is the right thing to do. As I often say, there is very little that one Minister can achieve that the Assembly and Executive want to achieve, so I will be reaching out the Justice Minister once I have the options paper from my officials.

Miss McAllister: It is important to have that review and options for people who have had a negative experience. Sitting alongside that family court system and the issue of social workers is the gateway team, and there is disparity across trusts between transfer from the gateway team to the day-to-day children and family social services. Is there going to be an increase in the next year in the number of social workers or in the members of the multidisciplinary teams for which Professor Ray Jones advocated so that we can see the waiting times go down?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. The majority of the recommendations in the Ray Jones report have been or are being implemented. Some are cross-cutting, not least his proposal for an arm's-length body. I think that the report's preference was to include the Department of Education. That is not going to happen, certainly not in the foreseeable future, so the Minister of Justice and I are pressing ahead. I cannot make specific promises or commitments to increase capacity at this stage because I do not yet know what my budget for next year is going to be. I have outlined the top two priorities. Once we know what the budget will be and what we need to commit to those top two priorities, we will look at everything else. I hope that the Member recognises that it is the only sensible way to proceed.

Mr Nesbitt: The South Eastern Trust remains fully committed to the installation of a new MRI scanner at Downe Hospital. That continues to be regarded as a capital priority for the organisation. A scanner would significantly improve diagnostic capacity and ensure timely access to high-quality imaging services for patients in that area. In preparation, the trust has commenced work on a detailed business case that includes initial design work to enable rapid progress once funding is confirmed.

I am committed to progressing work across imaging services as soon as is possible in the current financial climate. I would like an imaging academy. In December 2024, I published a three-year plan that recognised that diagnostic capacity was a fundamental enabler of the three pillars of HSC, namely stabilisation, transformation and delivery.

Mr McGrath: I appreciate what the Minister said about the development of that plan. It will save people from having to travel great distances, especially if their condition means that travelling is difficult. There is a need for that service, but we have been hearing about it for years and years. Do you have a timescale for that capital investment being made so that the people of the east coast of Down and the Lecale area can have that service and not have to travel for it?

Mr Nesbitt: I understand that you have been hearing about it and hearing about it. A few days ago, I was in Coleraine to officially open an MRI scanner in the Causeway Hospital, so sometimes things that have been talked about and talked about actually happen. That is great and people will not now have to travel from Coleraine to Antrim to get their MRI scans.

Capital projects of that scale and complexity require extensive planning, detailed design work and multiple layers of approval before implementation can begin. All I can say to you is that I will try to deliver it for you as soon as I can.

Mr McGuigan: I hope that the people of South Down do eventually get the good news that the people in the Northern Trust got just recently. I was going to highlight the fact, Minister, that you opened the new scanner in Causeway Hospital. I think that it will stop 655 patients per year having to go to Antrim.

Earlier in the year, the Comptroller and Auditor General produced a devastating report on the state of CT scans, MRI scanners and scanning equipment in general across the North. Can you provide any update on investment in scans in hospitals across the North?

Mr Nesbitt: I can say to the Member that this issue is relatively fresh to me and of real concern, because, if the equipment is not there, we have a serious issue. From 2021-22 until the current year, more than £40 million of capital funding was prioritised for the replacement of imaging and diagnostics equipment and related enabling works across the whole HSC sector. Additional projects identified by the capital subgroup of the regional medical imaging board have been bid for as part of the Budget 2026 process, and that includes the MRI scanner for the Downe Hospital.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand the Member's question, but, first of all, we do not know what is in the Budget. We will find out on Wednesday, and we will then move rapidly, led by the Minister of Finance, to assess the implications of the Budget for the Northern Ireland Executive.

The Member asked about pay pressures and next year's budget. To be clear, I have not asked the Executive to overspend and dip into next year's Budget; I have asked them to endorse the ministerial direction that I gave some months ago to pay the health workforce. That is happening, but it creates a pressure of, I believe, £208·7 million — let us call it £209 million. I am being promised up to £100 million from December monitoring — "up to". That leaves potentially at least £109 million to be found. We have not finished trying to find savings this year. We will continue to try to find savings until 31 March, but it is reasonable to assume that, when we get to 31 March, we will not have balanced our budget. That is a serious thing. I never wanted to stand here as a Minister and preside over a budget that is broken. However, it is better that we pay the doctors, nurses and the allied health professionals in our workforce, and that is what we are doing.

Mr McGrath: Thank you. Absolutely, we need to pay our staff, but, if the budget books are not balanced, if we have had to slash the money that was being made available for waiting lists to deal with that and if we go into next year's budget with trusts that are pared back to the bone and will probably struggle to find any more savings, how perilous will our health service be?

Mr Nesbitt: It will be perilous if we do not reform, but the permanent secretary and I are determined to finally begin that long-awaited, almost fabled shift left. We are now engaging with stakeholders. Earlier today, I met the Eastern GP Federation Support Unit, which, as you know, is a group that oversees a large number of GP practices. That is the third such meeting that I have had. There is an appetite there to go to that neighbourhood model, and, if you go to the neighbourhood model, you will put a focus on prevention to keep people healthy and early intervention when they start to get sick. If you can do that effectively, the number of high-cost procedures being carried out in our acute hospitals should start to come down, and, as they come down, that will release money and start a flow.

I share the Member's concern about next year's budget, but we do not yet know where we will end up this year, we do not yet know what next year's budget will be and we do not yet know how quickly we will be able to roll out the neighbourhood model. I hope that everybody is on the starting line for 1 April. For some processes, it will be a 100-metre sprint, but others will be doing a 5K or a 10K. Who knows? Some might even be doing the marathon to get there.

Mr Nesbitt: I have said that I am no longer able to fulfil my commitment to provide a real living wage from 1 September last. I remain committed to providing it as soon as possible. There is no point in me saying, "Here is a new date", because who would believe it when the last date was broken?

I have had several briefings and have heard Ms Shepherd from the Independent Health and Care Providers contest what I told the Committee last week. Therefore, I have asked for a solid report on that. I have also invited Pauline Shepherd to discuss it with me, and that meeting will happen on Wednesday.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for being transparent, and I welcome the fact that he has asked for a report on the issue. Minister, last week, at the Health Committee, you said that 70% were already in receipt of the real living wage. We have now heard through the media that over 80% are not in receipt of it. The question now is this: did you make the decision on the basis of knowledge of those facts? Given what you said at the Committee last week, were you not aware that 70% were not getting the living wage when you made the decision not to pursue the living wage from September?

Mr Nesbitt: I made the decision to offer the real living wage from 1 September some months ago. It was on foot of discussions with officials. It is so long ago that Peter May was permanent secretary; it was a while ago. I wanted to do it, and I was told at the time that it was possible. At that time, I think, we were projecting pay awards of 2·8%: they turned out to be 3·6% and 4%, and that played into the unaffordability of going for the real living wage from 1 September.

At the time that I committed to the real living wage, I was unaware of what percentage, if any, of social care staff were being paid the real living wage by their employers.

Mr Nesbitt: The short answer to that is yes. It is a matter of huge regret to me that this is happening, because it obviously impacts on outcomes for patients. When I first stood in the House as Minister, I said that cancer, along with mental health and a couple of other issues, would be my main areas of focus during my time as Minister.

The Member will know that we have moved to a regional booking slot for assessments that introduces a regional standardised service. It is far too slow. That point is made forcefully by Members of the House, and I accept it. However, we are bringing down waiting times, and we will continue to do so.

The next phase is about diagnosis and treatment and trying to get a lot closer to the 62-day target. I am talking to experts in that field, and they are coming up with really interesting and solid ideas.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, in May 2025, you initiated the regional breast cancer assessment system to reduce times. When do you envisage that that will meet the 14-day target?

Mr Nesbitt: I understand why the Member wants a date, but I cannot give him one, because such things depend on a huge number of factors. When I say that they depend on the workforce, it is not about productivity; it is about the workforce staying healthy and, perhaps, going off on maternity leave. There are, therefore, factors that are beyond the control of the Department or any of the five geographically defined health and social care trusts. Let me assure the Member, however, that there is no lack of effort from the workforce, no lack of focus from the trusts and no lack of determination from the Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member can keep me right on this, but, as I understand it, the issue at Redwood was with a staircase. I am not aware of whether the works there have been completed.

To make a general point, I am sure that the Member is aware that the use of such institutions and buildings is really fragile. If one young person with severe learning difficulties appears unexpectedly and in a way that is, from our point of view, unplanned, it can have a profound effect on our ability to provide residential and short-break care across the piece.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. I do not dispute the fragility of those services. My understanding is that Redwood was due to be ready for use in September. That was the target that the Department suggested. Does the Minister agree that, when families who desperately need such provision see those deadlines pass, it erodes trust and hope? What commitment can he give to the Assembly that the repurposing will be delivered without further delay?

Mr Nesbitt: I certainly agree with the first half: I have met some of the mothers on a not infrequent basis — certainly more than once — and I get it. I also get their frustration that, although there is money available for short breaks, it is in our resource budget and cannot be used for capital. Quite rightly, they do not understand that, because they are mums who are running households. They have money, and they make choices with that money. They may decide that they are not going to spend so much on food in a particular week because they need the money for their children's clothing or school uniforms. They do not have the solid walls between their budgets for food, electricity, heating, clothing and transport that we tend to have between capital and resource. That is very much part of the frustration that I have discussed with them in some detail.

Mr Nesbitt: That falls to the Public Health Agency (PHA). I assure the Member that it is particularly aware of the issue and the fact that there is a false belief among many that a test for cervical cancer will reveal ovarian cancer: it will not. The one thing that the PHA is not doing is paid-for advertising, which is a reflection of the tightness of the Department of Health's budget.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, tragically, my constituent Stephen McCormick lost his beloved wife, Julie, to ovarian cancer. It took two and a half years to diagnose that that is what her symptoms were due to, and she died within one year of diagnosis. However, once she had been diagnosed, the service was exceptional. Ovarian cancer charities and survivors have highlighted the delays in diagnosis and the limited public awareness that exists. Minister, what consideration have you given to shortening the diagnostic pathway for ovarian cancer in order to address delays?

Mr Nesbitt: As a general rule, I ask officials to shorten every pathway to diagnosis and treatment.

I pay tribute to Mr McCormick, who is on my social media daily. He is welcome to use my social media to raise awareness. I am very sorry that he lost his wife.

It is a common theme that, once they get into the health and social care system, people say that they receive first-class treatment, so please do not say that the system is broken. What is badly damaged, however, are the pathways by which people access that world-class treatment. Addressing that issue will remain a focus of mine until I am no longer the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Last week, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant legal decision on religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland. I will consider the judgement in full before determining any essential remedies that respect the law and safeguard the role of religion in education. The judgement focuses on religious education that is taught as part of the school curriculum and on collective worship that is held in schools, mainly through assemblies and services.

The court held that arrangements for religious education and collective worship in this case breached rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It further determined that the core syllabus for religious education does not provide teaching in an objective, critical and pluralist manner and that collective worship is similarly not conveyed in such a way. The court did not strike down the existing legislation, however. Religious education and collective worship can therefore continue in schools, and they are legally required to. Indeed, there is a legal obligation that they must continue. Article 21(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 provides:

The case is not about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. Historically and today, Christianity is the main religion in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the court has explained that it is within the Department's margin of appreciation in planning and setting the curriculum for the greater part of religious education to focus on knowledge of Christianity.

This is a complex judgement that cannot be ignored. It is important, however, to understand fully the issues before acting. I have requested further legal advice in order to understand the judgement's full implications and will issue comprehensive guidance to schools on both issues in the coming weeks to ensure consistency and legal compliance. I will write to schools within the next few days on the matter.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his clear answer to the House. Minister, do you agree that the judgement is a clear case of judicial overreach and that there are numerous countries that have signed up to the ECHR whose RE curriculum is expressly Christian, such as Poland? Regardless of precedents, does the Minister also agree that this is another good reason for the whole of the UK to quit the ECHR?

Mr Givan: I will respect the decision that the UK Supreme Court has taken. A different decision was taken by the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court is exactly that: the supreme court in the land. The Member rightly makes a point about the wider European Convention on Human Rights and its implications. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the case had gone to the European Court of Human Rights. Having looked at some other European countries and the way in which they operate, I think that we can draw parallels with other European countries that would be in defence of the system that we have in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I will work through what is a complex judgement.

I have clearly articulated that the underpinning legislation was not struck down as a result of the judgement. I have outlined the basis on which the law exists in Northern Ireland, and I will seek to provide a remedy to the court judgement that is in line with the law. It is important to state that it is as a result of devolution that I am able to deal with the issue — imagine if it had been a direct rule Minister or a Minister from another political party in the Chamber. However, it is not; it is a Minister from the Democratic Unionist Party who will respond to the judgement and ensure that our Christian ethos in our schools is maintained.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: I will raise an issue that is difficult, but I will try to do so in a sensitive way. This is in no way prejudicial to the vast majority of people who follow Islam, but there have been examples of Islamic preachers who have preached hatred and extremism or for the subservience of women under men. Will any steps be taken to ensure that any religion that is coming into our schools and being preached by someone or explained to our pupils is not inconsistent with our values, which are that women are not subservient to men and have full equal rights in our society?

Mr Givan: Our approach will involve the responsibility of looking at the core syllabus on religious education in the curriculum. The responsibility rests with me to establish the appropriate panel on which there are persons of interest related to religious education. That, historically, has meant people from the four main denominations: three Protestant; and one Catholic. I will get advice from my Department in due course and move forward with appointing an appropriate body that will look at the curriculum. That will then be subject to public consultation, and I will lay an order on the process for what the curriculum looks like.

Where collective worship is concerned, it is clear from the judgement that Christianity can, and will, continue to be the primary religion that shapes the ethos of our schools. There is a valid issue for the inspectorate when it comes to how we inspect what is being taught in the curriculum and how collective worship operates. Again, I will take advice from officials on how we can seek to enhance the inspection process. I cannot envisage how the example that the Member highlighted could happen in Northern Ireland. It is certainly not something that I would support, nor do I think that there are schools that would support it. The judgement does not create the opportunity for it. It is important to state that there are those who have sought to frame the judgement in a way that suits their own particular objective, which often comes from an overtly hostile position towards the Christian ethos.

Miss McIlveen: Parents, teachers and governors are, naturally, concerned by the judgement and by the contribution from the Alliance Party's Chair of the Education Committee, who seemed to suggest that witchcraft and paganism could be taught in our schools. That was very unhelpful. I ask the Minister for his thoughts on that and to outline the Department's role in the creation of a new curriculum.

Mr Givan: The Member is right. Hopefully, no one in the Chamber will seek to cast a spell on me. I have the quotes of what was said on 'The Nolan Show', and I may refer to them in these exchanges. When the Chairman of the Education Committee was asked about the teaching of witchcraft and paganism, he did not rule it out.

Mr Tennyson: Catch yourself on.

Mr Givan: I understand why the deputy leader of the Alliance Party wants to laugh that off. It is no laughing matter for a lot of parents in Northern Ireland that the Alliance Party is not able to rule that out. It demonstrates the underlying hostility that exists towards the Christian ethos in our schools.

The role of the Department in the creation of the curriculum is set out clearly in article 11(1) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which states:

However, article 11(2) includes a requirement that the syllabus:

Therefore, I will have to sign off on any syllabus before it becomes law. I will appoint the appropriate persons, who have an interest in the teaching of religious education. They will carry out the work of reviewing the curriculum, and that will then be subject to a public consultation.

Mr Mathison: For anybody who has been kept awake at night worrying about whether the Alliance Party supports the teaching of witchcraft in RE or, indeed, in collective worship: if that has been something that has been causing you concern, I can clearly put it on the record that it does not. [Interruption.]

On the issue at hand, the Minister has already highlighted the role of the inspectorate in RE and that it does not have a formal role in Northern Ireland. Given the attention now being placed on those issues, will the Minister commit to reviewing that anomaly and move us into a space where RE can be formally and routinely inspected in our schools?

Mr Givan: It is helpful that we have been able to shine a light on what the initial response of Alliance was to the judgement. The Chairperson of the Education Committee has now helpfully clarified that he does not want to have witchcraft or paganism being taught in our schools. I wish he had done so when asked by Stephen Nolan:

Mr Mathison replied:

Well, I am glad now that he has expressed a view that is strong: he does not support witchcraft or paganism. We could have avoided some of the commentary that took place afterwards had he been clearer on that particular programme.

On the substantive point, when it comes to the inspectorate, as the law currently pertains, the four main Churches are involved in setting the curriculum under the law. They are also responsible for carrying out inspections when it comes to the teaching of religious education in our schools. I am not convinced that that has been carried out effectively over the years, and the court has drawn upon the area of a more effective inspection process. I would need to engage on what that would look like, because, obviously, where the four main Churches have a role in the curriculum, and will continue to do so, there needs to be a role in how that inspection process will be carried out. I do not have a predetermined view as to how ETI, for example, could incorporate that work within its functions. I will have to look at that because the legislation currently does not allow for the ETI to carry out inspection of religious education because of the distinct way in which the law is framed in respect of the Churches and their role in forming the curriculum and then inspecting on it. That is something that I will certainly look at over the course of the next weeks and months.

Mrs Mason: Minister, there has obviously been a lot of coverage of this, but there has been no guidance from your Department for schools and boards of governors. Will you give them the guidance that they need to ensure that they are compliant with the legal ruling and give them the confidence that they are doing things right?

Mr Givan: Yes, I will. I intend to write to school leaders in the next number of days on the next steps. The courts will be understanding that it will be reasonable for us to be able to fully assess how we can comply with and provide a remedy to that judgement. I have sought further legal advice on that, and we are working through the various remedies that may be reflective of the changes that could be necessary. I have made it clear that the law has not been struck down: it is still there. That pertains to the current teaching of the curriculum and collective worship. Indeed, it would be unlawful for any school to stop collective worship as a result of that UK Supreme Court judgement, because the law has not been struck down. Therefore, schools should continue with their current practice, but, obviously, we will work through the various outworkings of the judgement, and I will provide guidance to schools within a number of weeks. I intend to give them a clear view on it in within the next number of days, and that will be followed by guidance.

When it comes to the broader piece around the curriculum, I intend to take forward a review of the curriculum in line with the judgement when it comes to RE. It will take a number of months to set up the body, carry out the work of the review and put in place a framework for religious education in the curriculum. Then we will want to carry out a public consultation to seek the views of everyone in society, including those who are hostile to religious education. Those people should be able to engage in that public consultation. The responses will, ultimately, come to the Department before I sign off on the legislative approach, by way of an order, around the syllabus.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I have engaged with parents with a faith and without faith, and it is clear that it is not impossible to ensure that our curriculum provides a balanced and inclusive education for all our children, while also allowing schools to fulfil their Christian ethos where they have one. Will the Minister commit, today and henceforth, to approaching the issue with pragmatism and with the common good in mind for all our children?

Mr Givan: Pragmatism and common good, yes, very much so. I have listened to the voices that have been expressed over the past week on the issue. I understand that the judgement related to one specific school and the approach that it had taken, by way of the ability to opt out and withdraw. We need to look at what a meaningful withdrawal is if parents choose that they do not want their children to participate in collective worship. How do you ensure that there is an effective withdrawal process?

What the judgement does not say is that you need to change the Christian approach to collective worship. It does not say that. We will look through all of this with a pragmatic view to the approach, but I also say to Members that a lot of the religious denominations have not reacted negatively, per se, to the judgement. They welcome the opportunity to look at the curriculum. Indeed, in its intervention to the UK Supreme Court, the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC), which is the representative body for a lot of the Protestant denominations, said that it would welcome the opportunity to review the curriculum. I have listened to the Catholic Church, which has said that it welcomes the opportunity to engage in the process, including in the 'Irish News' today, saying that the Catholic Church has a very clear position that it believes that its cultural Christian Catholic ethos should be retained, protected and promoted within the Catholic maintained sector. I can understand that approach. It is in line with the convention rights for parents to bring their children up within the ethos of the school that they wish. All those things are complex, but they need to be handled sensitively, and I will certainly do that.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for making clear that he will protect the Christian ethos of our schools in Northern Ireland, which, in my view, is a strength of our schools and not a weakness. He will know that a number of principals are concerned about JR87. He has referenced the guidance that his Department is going to issue. Will the Minister advise whether that guidance will cover the curriculum and collective worship aspects?

Mr Givan: It will. I will write to schools within the next number of days — my sign-off on the letter to schools is imminent. We will provide guidance. My intention is to do that before the end of this calendar year, by way of interim guidance as to the approaches that we should seek to take, but there is more work to be done on the wider core syllabus when it comes to the curriculum around religious education. That will take more time to do with the processes that need to be set up.

Mrs Guy: Minister, in your initial response to the judgement, for some reason, you thought to define the Alliance Party's view instead of just focusing on the impact on schools. For accuracy, my party is made up of people of deep faith and those without, which is reflective of wider society in Northern Ireland today. We believe that Christianity and religious education absolutely have a role in schools, but as the judgement says —.

Mr Speaker: Mrs Guy, this is an opportunity for questions, not statements.

Mrs Guy: My question is coming now. As the judgement says, it needs to be objective, critical and pluralistic, essentially welcoming to all children. Is that a vision for education in schools that the Minister disagrees with?

Mr Givan: I have outlined the approach that we will take, and I think that it is important again to make clear that the judgement did not say that there should not be a Christian ethos within our schools. Indeed, it said that that can and should continue to be the primary ethos in our schools. That has been misrepresented by other organisations.

Mrs Guy: Not by us.

Mr Givan: Well, I am pleased that the Alliance Party now wants to clarify its position. It should not have taken the confusion around witchcraft and paganism for the party to have to do so today. Others will be able to draw their own conclusions about the Alliance Party's social policies and approaches to education. I know where Alliance is on those issues, and the vast majority of people know where it sits on them. That is why, in public commentary, different views are expressed by MLAs who want to be able to withdraw and give parents the right to withdraw from those activities.

Michelle Guy has made her point, and I have outlined how we will comply with the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the points that have been made. It will be complied with in line with the legislation. The legislation was not struck down as a result of the court judgement.

Mr Harvey: Minister, in recent days, some schools have been unsure about whether they have been acting lawfully by continuing with school assemblies. Can you confirm that teachers can continue with assemblies and that they are within the law in doing so?

Mr Givan: I very much confirm that schools can continue with their collective worship and assemblies. Indeed, it would be unlawful for schools to stop collective worship and assemblies from taking place, because the law has not been struck down. If any school has been contemplating doing that, they should not, because that would be unlawful and would rightly be challenged by any parent of that school. In the controlled sector in particular, there is legislative underpinning for collective worship, and there are distinct legal approaches around it. When it comes to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), boards of governors have greater responsibility for such matters, but, for controlled schools, it is the legislation, not boards of governors, that underpins collective worship. Governors have to comply with the law in that respect.

Now that the matter has been given greater public awareness, some parents will ask how often collective worship takes place in their school, what its nature is and whether it reflects the legislative underpinning that states that it ought to be from a Christian ethos. The issues are being debated much more widely among the public, and there will be much greater interest in the way in which schools operate. As Education Minister, I say to all our schools that they should comply with the law, and the law is that collective worship should continue.

Miss McAllister: Minister, I welcomed the judgement. My child's rights are of equal value to your child's rights or anyone else's. Many faith groups have welcomed the judgement, and so have those of no faith. Now that the judgement has been made, will you confirm whether you will meet groups such as Parents for Inclusive Education NI to discuss and lay out a way forward for those voices to be included in the new guidance? Will the interim guidance also include the issue of opting out not being sufficient for children, on which the judgement focused heavily?

Mr Givan: A parent's right to opt their child out of collective worship should not, nor will it, trump the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents to have their children engage in collective worship in a Christian ethos. Members and parents are entitled to their individual position on the matter, but the judgement does not require that one parent's right to opt out their child should mean that there is no form of collective worship from a Christian perspective in a school.

As I take forward the approach on this, it will be for me to appoint persons of interest who will look at the issue and review the curriculum. They will carry out their work, and there will then be an opportunity by way of public consultation for everybody, including atheists, humanists and those who have a different approach, to feed into that process. They will be able to do that through the public consultation, and I will welcome their input to it. That will be reflected on and considered. The curriculum will then be finalised, and we will follow due process when it comes to my responsibilities on the matter.

Mr Chambers: The legal challenge has been ongoing for a number of years. Will the Minister confirm that his Department has had to detail considerable resource and funding to the case that could have been better deployed elsewhere?

Mr Givan: Yes, the process has been going on for a number of years, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. The costs have not yet been finalised, but the Department has had to set aside a significant amount of money — hundreds of thousands of pounds — for the legal costs associated with the case. That is funding that will be spent not on parts of our education sector but on meeting those legal costs. The final figure is yet to crystallise.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, with respect, there appears to be a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on with you today. There is a bit of a devil on your shoulder. On one shoulder, there is a Minister who wants to respond pragmatically and sensitively to a judgement, and, on the other shoulder, there is a person who wants to talk about witchcraft and bait people from different perspectives. In proceeding, for once and genuinely with goodwill, can you not listen to the devil on your shoulder and instead listen to whomever is residing on the other shoulder?

Mr Givan: I will respond to Members when they put forward their positions, but when one's position on the matter is confused — I am not yet clear on the SDLP's position — it is only right that we try to get some clarity. I do not think that anybody will be able to second-guess the approach that I will take on this matter. However, when other Members are not able to answer very basic questions about paganism and witchcraft, we should ask those questions. Alliance has now provided clarity and said that it does not regard those as belief systems that should be taught in our education system. The whole situation could have been avoided entirely had it answered those questions only last week.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response and his intention to write to schools over the coming days. There are also many parents who would like clarity. Minister, what reassurance can you give to parents from faith backgrounds who fear that the judgement will dilute the Christian ethos in our schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. The case was, very clearly, not about secularism in our education system. The court has clearly stated that religious education may be provided in schools. Nor was the case about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. The court has explained that the greater part of religious education may focus on knowledge of Christianity and that the Department retains responsibility for setting and planning the curriculum for religious education. We will continue to comply with the law, but we will do so in a way that preserves the values that have underpinned our education system for many years.

Mr Tennyson: I am resisting the urge to cast a spell across the Chamber. I know that the Minister is very keen to bait the Alliance Party, but the wee graphic that was floating around of me dressed as Harry Potter made me laugh. That is probably the best thing that the DUP has done for the Alliance Party in quite a long time.

On the matter at hand, given the strength of the views that the Minister and members of his party have expressed on the issue, does he regard it as being significant and controversial?

Mr Givan: We will comply with the law in that respect. The legal framework that exists around this is very simple for Members to follow. The process that we have to take forward sits entirely with the Department, so I will continue to take that forward. My view that the Christian ethos is the primary faith that should be reflected in our education system is not an outlier. My thinking is entirely representative of mainstream thinking in Northern Ireland on that. It is Mr Tennyson's party that is out of step with where people in Northern Ireland are on such issues, not me.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister confirm that schools should continue to plan for and hold nativity plays, as many do at this time of year?

Mr Givan: Yes, they absolutely should. I heard a bit of chuckling at the question. We have parents contacting schools and demanding that nativity plays be cancelled, not just in light of the Supreme Court judgement. It has been happening for years. There are parents who are vocal and active about saying that we should not have things as minimal as nativity plays in schools. The Member asks a valid question and one on which principals have reached out to my Department and other organisations for advice. I can give him a categorical answer: nativity plays can continue to take place in our schools.

Mr Speaker: That brings the item of business to a conclusion. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Do I have five or 10 minutes?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: God or, in light of the previous business, whatever entity one refers to help all of you. I will not take all 10 minutes.

This is an interesting subject for debate. There is a new census publication that looks at demographics on a cross-border basis. It is hugely useful, and it is important. It comes at the same time as a number of organisations are looking academically at the ways in which there is potential for greater economic growth, partnership and interdependence across the island of Ireland, as well as at the ways in which public services can be better and more appropriately delivered on a cross-border basis.

We can all list examples of where the existence of the border, at least in a hard sense, is a distortion of the delivery of public services. One obvious way relates to healthcare. For example, we have a brilliant and still relatively new healthcare facility in the form of the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen. It is criminally underused, however, despite the huge public investment that went into it and the state-of-the-art theatres that are sitting there. Part of the reason for that is that, in large measure, citizens who live in Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, south Donegal and north Sligo are not using its facilities, except in unusual circumstances, because they cannot. That is one of the distortions created by the border. It is therefore welcome that we are looking at the joint census publication.

Even if you are not a designated nationalist or someone who believes in constitutional change, it is important that we understand the ways in which the different outcomes are being looked at in the joint census. If you are as geeky as I am and are interested in demography or genealogy, you can, of course, go online to the Irish public records office and look at the census records for 1901 and 1911. They are among the greatest historical records that exist for pre-partition Ireland. You can find your family entry. It is broken down by townland, and it is all-island, so it is 32-county.

In one sense, all that we are doing is rediscovering and recapturing the kind of data gathering that happened on the island before partition. Whether or not you have a view on the constitution that relates to reunifying the island, that is a positive step.

Our amendment seeks to be more specific than the motion's theoretical positivity about simply gathering the data, so it looks with more focus at why you would want to gather it. Part of the reason why you would want to gather the data is not mentioned in the motion, and that is the fact that outcomes in most areas are so much better in the South than in the North. That is also one of the sharpest and most important reasons why, bluntly, many people are considering constitutional change and a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union. My party and I are completely unabashed in talking about that in the most optimistic and inclusive way that we can, because we think that the huge project for this generation and the next is to build a more empowered, inclusive, post-sectarian new Ireland.

Our amendment makes it clear not just that gathering the data is a good thing but that Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic in the most critical areas. The North now lags several years behind the South not just in health outcomes but in life expectancy. We know that, when Ireland was partitioned, this was the most industrialised and richest part of the island. That was one of the reasons for the momentum behind the anti-home rule movement and the movement to create what became Northern Ireland. Since then, however, and certainly in the past few decades, we have completely changed positions. The South has raced ahead of us in economic performance, education and life expectancy. I do not say that to carp or crow but simply to say that those are the facts.

Gathering the census data will demonstrate the many ways in which the gap in performance between the two parts of the island has widened. It is also true, as, I think, Emma Sheerin said in proposing the motion, that performance, whether it is measured in economic, employment or educational outcomes, tends to be worse in the areas that are closest to the border. The border counties have historically been the slowest-growing parts of both jurisdictions. That is one reason why, whatever your view on the constitutional future, those areas should continue to be primary and priority recipients of Peace funding.

We do not want the census document just to be noted; as per our amendment, we want Departments to take active and proactive steps to use the information to find ways in which greater cross-border collaboration can be used to improve outcomes for the people who send us here. Once again, I say that without prejudice to the constitutional future. My party and I are clear that the best possible future for Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland is in a new Ireland without a border. However, I recognise that people have an equally legitimate aspiration to maintain the status quo. I want those people to embrace the potential for greater cross-border cooperation to drive better outcomes for people in the same way as I will champion and work in east-west and, as it were, UK and islands-wide collaboration that drives better outcomes for our people, regardless of the fact that I have a different constitutional aspiration.

We cannot avoid the clear fact that is before us, which is that the South has raced ahead of the North on performance. I will give one reason why, perhaps, that is not in the motion. It is sometimes respectfully put to me that my party is not a 32-county party in the same way as Sinn Féin is. That is fine; it is a legitimate point. Sinn Féin has a particular analysis of many of the flaws of the Government in the South — there are many legitimate criticisms of them — but it is important that we acknowledge and say here that the Republic of Ireland has been, in broad terms, an astonishing success story since the 1980s. There are real challenges, particularly the distribution of wealth and the housing crisis, but, as advocates of a new Ireland, we would be kidding ourselves if we did not point to the many ways in which the South has transformed itself. It has gone from being probably western Europe's poorest country to being, per head of population, its richest. The next step, of course, is the need for it to become rich not only in theoretical terms or GDP statistics but in broader-based and more sustainable growth throughout the island and all the communities on it. I hope that, at some point, that will include people in this jurisdiction, as we choose a new future. However, in the meantime, we want all Executive Departments not just to note the census data but to work with it to actively find ways that they can use it to drive better performance.

I mentioned health. I agree with the Education Minister on very little — I put my name to a no-confidence motion in him a fortnight ago, so I can hardly be said to be at the top of his Christmas card list — but I acknowledge that he is working with the Shared Island unit to drive better outcomes for working-class kids in the North. That is one of the areas for which he is drawing down funding. That is an example of cross-border collaboration. I welcome that, and it does not threaten his constitutional perspective.

My gosh, if ever there were an area where we need more cross-border collaboration, it is in relation to the environment, not just because we share an ecosystem on the island but because of the protocol, the Windsor framework and the fact that we have an all-island animal health system. We share waterways, so the zebra mussels that are invasive and are damaging Lough Neagh have come up via the Shannon and the Erne, and our model of land ownership and small farming is cross-border because it predates partition. All those things inform the way in which we make public policy.

Our amendment to today's motion is a constructive one. I am sometimes accused of not being constructive. I am never accused of being concise, but I have tried my best today, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Our amendment today is constructive. It is about acknowledging that the South has outperformed us, bluntly, in innumerable ways over the past decade or two. It is about mandating Executive Ministers to look positively at ways in which they can embrace cross-border collaboration and the information that will be in the joint census without prejudice to their constitutional view to build a better future for all of us in this society, whatever our constitutional view or identity, and to move beyond the barriers of partition, even if we do not share that constitutional aspiration.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 2:

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

Doug, you have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will start by apologising for missing the very start of the debate and the moving of the motion and the contribution from Sinn Féin. It was just tardiness on my part.

If I can be honest about it, having read the initial motion on the census, I genuinely struggled to see the point of it. Indeed, the SDLP amendment added some flesh to the bones of the motion, as did the contribution from Mr O'Toole, including an understanding of the east-west dimension, which I will mention.

There is a bit of casual Brit-bashing in the middle of the motion, as if the whole issue of population decline were due to the famine. It was a time of great hardship, when all communities suffered, and those who represented these islands did not do their best to safeguard the people in Ireland. It is a period to be remembered and for the suffering to be understood, not minimised. I think that the motion minimises it, in truth. However, you can see from our amendment that the population of Ireland shrank even lower than the post-famine levels 100 years later: who or what was to blame for that? Research will tell you that it was due to mass migration in the 1950s. The population dropped to its lowest level ever in 1961. It was nothing to do with the famine. The migration was due to economic stagnation, lack of jobs in Ireland, the economic boom in post-war Great Britain and increased opportunities in the US and Canada. The population in Northern Ireland dropped as well, as the linen business and the shipyards contracted and people left the island to find work. The reality is that population ebbs and flows for many reasons, in the same way as it grew due to the Celtic tiger, for example, but it will drop for other reasons. I am not sure that looking back 150 years is helpful. It is lazy just to say that it was due to the famine.

The movement of citizens on both sides of the border, and across the border, is positive for me and for everybody who lives and works on this island; nobody should see it as otherwise. Two jurisdictions, one island. It does not hamper the free movement of individuals each way, and nor does it hamper movement across all these islands.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: For the purposes of being constructive, there is now this thing called the electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which does hamper people, and 70% of the people who come to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin airport, whether we like it or not.

Mr Beattie: That will hamper our tourism, and we have talked about that. However, the Member has made a fair point, and it is a point that gets kicked up. It is bad decision-making, as far as I am concerned. There is a real positive from the common travel area, and it is something that we should all look at and support. The real positive in these British Isles is the trade with the United Kingdom, the largest single export market for Ireland, and Ireland is one of the UK's top six export destinations. I know that some will not like me calling it the British Isles, and I get that, but I have not moved to the Trumpian way of renaming places. It is still the Gulf of Mexico to me, not the Gulf of America, and we still live in the British Isles.

The interchangeable agri-food industry, pharmaceuticals and tech are embedded in each other's supply chains, but, of course, Brexit has hampered that. We stood up against Brexit. We did not support it — it was a bad idea — but that is democracy for you, and we have to work through it. However, half a million Irish-born individuals now live in Great Britain. Over 100,000 British people live in the Irish Republic. It makes me wonder why they ever left the Union in the first place. Can we learn from that? Absolutely. Should we learn from it? Yes, of course. These islands are in an incredible position, given their geographical and, in large parts, common economic and cultural alignment. Ireland also benefits from the UK on defence and security, and it is not given begrudgingly; we work together right across these islands. It helps the United Kingdom to look after the western approaches and add a bit of support to Ireland's defence and security. It is not done selfishly; it benefits the UK, and we all need to understand that.

On the SDLP amendment, sure: population growth, poor reported health outcomes and a significantly higher burden of unpaid care are all factual, but they are a snapshot in time. It was not like that 15 years ago; it may not be like that in 15 years. We need to keep working across these islands, east and west, north and south. Is it all the Executive's fault? If you want to go down the line of saying that everything that is wrong with this place is the Executive's fault, that did not just happen yesterday. That has been happening over many years, and the SDLP was part of the Executive for many years, so it cannot wash its hands and say it is all our fault and not take any responsibility.

The issues that affect us on this island — north and south, east and west — whether you call yourself British or Irish, are caused by many things, including the geopolitical situation. World events, such as COVID and the collapse of our Government, have a real impact on this place. There are many reasons why Northern Ireland is in this situation, and there are many reasons why the Republic of Ireland is having a boom, but it never stays like that, because these things ebb and flow. The census is one great snapshot in time, but it does not give us all the answers; we need to keep working at it. I am happy to learn from the census data and work together to come up with something that is good for Northern Ireland to make it a better place for all its people, to allow the free movement, north and south, east and west. We must remember that, on a daily and weekly basis, about 6,000 people go from the island of Ireland to Great Britain, and that is the beauty of the common travel area that we have on these islands where we all live. All that we have to do now is harness that information and find out what is best for our people. For us, of course, when we look at it constitutionally, we want to stay in the United Kingdom. I wish that the Twenty-six would join us, but I understand that they do not want to, and that is fine. We can, however, look forward, in order to get through the harder times, to better times on the horizon.

Ms Forsythe: As an accountant, I am well used to numbers and statistics. I fully appreciate the value of interrogating and using them in order to inform analysis and to strategise to make Northern Ireland achieve the best. As a representative of South Down, I understand the importance of gathering data on the economic behaviours of people in the border constituencies.

The Belfast and St Andrews Agreements provided the appropriate political framework for cross-border relationships, enabling practical cooperation where it is mutually beneficial to our citizens, whilst respecting the principle of consent. Nothing in those provisions mandates or even leans towards the idea of a joint census publication. As unionists, however, we do not fear current demographics or data. The facts on the ground are that the communities that we represent and throughout Northern Ireland are unionist.

The core purpose of any census is to harness population data in order to assist in the planning of future public services. The design, delivery and cost of those services to ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland is hugely different from those in the Irish Republic. The release of headline population statistics, even jointly, does not tell the full story. Numbers without full context can be misrepresented and sometimes dangerous. We would query whether the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) are going to show the same level of endeavour when it comes to comparing Northern Ireland's census data with other UK regions, particularly in our social and economic interconnectedness.

Why would we want to obscure an understanding of Northern Ireland's specific needs and circumstances within the United Kingdom or the enormous contribution that the NHS and other UK-funded services make to the lives of our citizens by blending our census data with that of the Irish Republic? Ultimately, by consolidating data across both jurisdictions, the census could be manipulated to suggest trends or patterns that support the aspiration of breaking up the United Kingdom. It is time that Sinn Féin and the other parties on the opposite Benches began to focus their attention on dealing with the issues that face people in Northern Ireland, which they are elected here to do.

The Sinn Féin Economy Minister stated that her priority was to protect the all-island economy, yet that is not her remit. Her responsibility should be to champion the interests of Northern Ireland's economy and its business community above all else. The motion appears to completely ignore the risks that are posed by an all-island economy. The Republic of Ireland is facing 20% tariffs, double the 10% tariffs facing the United Kingdom, but, because of the Northern Ireland protocol, which Sinn Féin championed, we risk being caught in the crossfire of a trade dispute between the EU and the United States. The work of the Assembly should be focused on tackling waiting lists, addressing the pressures that are facing our public services and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, once again, we are spending our time dealing with this political point-scoring by Sinn Féin.

Our economic prosperity is clearly overwhelmingly linked to our links to the UK internal market. That must remain the primary context for interpreting labour market and mobility statistics. Sinn Féin may view joint census publications as a Trojan horse for advancing all-island integration, but, in truth, the motion smacks of desperation. It is on the road to nowhere.

Ms K Armstrong: OK, let us get back to what we are talking about here. Population statistics are not just things on a page; they are the story of who we are, how we live and how we plan for the future. The census is more than just numbers; it is the evidence that is supposed to guide our decisions on health, education, infrastructure and the environment. Without that, we would be navigating blind. So, those who say that they represent a point in time need to talk to the statisticians in our Departments who use those figures for 10 years.

The census allows us to consider our labour force. The working-age population defines our productivity capacity, and participation rates shape our economic strength. Skills distribution reveals the gaps that we must fill. When we understand those dynamics, we can act to reduce unemployment, address shortages and strengthen productivity. Knowledge is power, and the census gives us that power. The motion welcomes the census as a tool, and, rightly so. The census tells us about the £12·5 billion in all-island trade. It talks about the fact that commuting has gone up 25% since COVID, which you would expect because nobody could move around during COVID. It talks about shared infrastructure — the single electricity market is one issue that needs to be sorted out for the future of housing — and the Windsor framework and the common travel area. It also talks about joint initiatives such as enterprise schemes, trade missions, tourism collaboration and so on.

The message is clear: our island is growing, ageing and becoming ever more interconnected. The census confirms that. The evidence is there, and the challenge is ours. Northern Ireland must not be left behind. We need to make this place work.

I have to be absolutely clear: accuracy matters. The census, whether we have it alongside an Irish census or a GB census, must reflect today's realities, not yesterday's divisions. When was the last time that we looked at our census and the questions in it? I know that the motion is for all the Executive Ministers, but I specifically ask the Minister of Finance what comparisons have been made with other censuses across these islands and whether questions will be updated to ensure alignment and that we have the evidence that we need to plan better for Northern Ireland's future?

Finally, I must raise a point of frustration. The second religion question, which asks not only current affiliation but upbringing, is outdated. It is unnecessary, and it is misleading. It has been removed in England and Wales and Scotland, and it was removed in Ireland in 2016. It is an optional question and is, therefore, unreliable. If we are to be serious about fact-based evidence, let us remove questions that distort the picture of who we really are and put in questions that tell us more about the economy and the economic movements that we need in this place.

The census is our mirror: it must show us clearly, not through the lens of the past. Let us use it to build policy on truth, not tradition; on evidence, not assumption; and on the future, not the Troubles. Therefore, will the Executive, particularly the Minister of Finance, because the census sits with him, remove the second religion question from the 2031 census? Let us be the same as all other parts of these islands.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the motion and the joint census publication, because that work offers a clear and honest picture of Ireland as it is today. People, services and opportunities flow across our island every single day. The census shows the scale of that reality because, every day, 18,000 people move between the North and the South for work, to study and as part of their daily lives. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency in Derry and, indeed, right across the north-west, where people quite often move for employment and for study. Those people form the backbone of our healthcare service. I know that many healthcare workers come from Donegal to the North to work every day, particularly in Altnagelvin, and vice versa. Similarly, that is the case for teachers and other professions that are the backbone of our economy. Indeed, we rely on staff from Donegal communities such as Inishowen and Letterkenny, and those communities also depend on workers who travel from Derry and Tyrone. We are one labour market and one region, and we are one interconnected community.

However, that cooperation goes far beyond employment. In further and higher education across the north-west, there are huge opportunities that are already being acted on by Ulster University, North West Regional College, Atlantic Technical University (ATU) and Donegal Education and Training Board (ETB) to address a lot of the skills deficits that we see, particularly in the census data, and to increase employability opportunities across our island. Together, they are building pathways that our region needs, not looking at the lines that are drawn on a map. I am working with my Sinn Féin colleagues in the South to try to promote that, because, as has been mentioned by most Members who have spoken, when we work better together, we can do so much more across our island.

The joint census tells us another story. It is a story that my generation and, indeed, the generations before know only too well: emigration. It is a story in which our young people are still packing their bags for Australia, Doha and Canada and taking with them their skills and the opportunities that they could create in our society. I have had many conversations with people in my constituency and beyond who will have an empty seat at the dinner table this Christmas. Our economy will be missing their skills. There are opportunities across the piece for them to be here to contribute to our society, our economy and, most important, our communities.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with him on migration and people leaving these shores. Sometimes, though, it is a good thing that people leave to experience other countries and cultures and to get other skills. Does the Member agree that the issue is that we need to provide the opportunities to bring them back?

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

Mr Delargy: The Member will be keen to hear the next paragraph or two of my speech, because they are about just that. So many young people go away for a short time to seek skills, to travel and to do other things. What I am most concerned about, however, is young people going away because they feel that there are no opportunities for them here, so I concur absolutely with what the Member said. My generation refused to consign themselves to the fate of previous generations, in which the census told the story that Ireland's biggest export was our people. My generation has not accepted that and will not accept it, so we need the skills and talents that those young people bring and the opportunities for them here in Ireland. Sinn Féin has a clear and concise plan for building that future and for building an economy with good jobs, fair pay and affordable housing and a society of equal rights and equal opportunities for people across Ireland.

The joint census publication gives us the information that we need to plan for that future. It strengthens the work of cross-border bodies and supports smarter decisions in skills, healthcare, transport and economic development. It must be the beginning of regular coordinated data collection across Ireland. When we understand the reality of people's lives, we can better shape policies that meet that reality North and South, especially in the communities that bridge both. I commend the teams in the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and NISRA for their work. I fully support the motion, because it represents the cooperation that delivers for people today while helping build a better future.

Mr Gaston: What we have before us is not an innocent or technical motion about census data but yet another example of the steady and relentless attempt to normalise an all-island policy framework within the workings of the devolved institutions. Let me be clear from the outset that the TUV will oppose the motion and the two amendments.

The motion takes a joint census publication and turns it into a political manifesto. Rather than ground Northern Ireland's future in the United Kingdom, in our internal market, in our democratic structures and in our constitutional guarantee, the motion invites Departments "to take stock" of an all-island framing of social and economic life. Workers crossing the border is not a mandate for constitutional re-engineering. Commuter flows are not a justification for policy harmonisation. A spreadsheet should not be used as a stepping stone to the break-up of the Union, yet that is precisely how the motion seeks to deploy and use the data. Everywhere else in the motion we find the same coded language: "shared challenges", "all-island economy" and "joint census publications". It is not a statistical analysis but a political positioning designed to shift the centre of gravity away from the United Kingdom towards Dublin.

We then come to the SDLP amendment, which frames Northern Ireland as lagging behind the Irish Republic. It invites "structured partnership" between Stormont Departments and the Government of a foreign state. It casts the Republic as the model and Northern Ireland as the poor relation that must catch up. It is not about economic fairness or balanced comparison; it is simply the latest repetition of the nationalist argument that the answer to everything is more alignment with Dublin.

By the way, that does not say a great deal for these institutions, which, the SDLP says, it was so pivotal in delivering, does it? Why does the SDLP not look at the comparisons with England? In England, the median wait for referral for treatment across cancer pathways is 14·8 weeks. In the Irish Republic, however, studies have shown that there are postcode lottery variations, signalling longer and more uneven delays. It is not the Republic that we need to look to but the rest of the UK. If Northern Ireland is as bad as the SDLP says it is, it is because of these failing institutions, not the Union. Northern Ireland is not a province of the Irish Republic, and TUV will not support any amendment that suggests that it should be.

The UUP amendment may use softer language, but it operates on exactly the same assumption. It still places Northern Ireland inside an all-island economic frame, and it still invites the Minister for the Economy to shape strategy around the dynamics of an all-island situation rather than the realities of the United Kingdom internal market. Neither amendment acknowledges the real barrier to our economic development: the fact that Northern Ireland is segregated and separated from its biggest market by a border within our own country. Neither amendment mentions the democratic affront of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. Instead, the focus is on shaping Northern Ireland around the needs, ambitions and preferences of an all-island agenda. TUV has been consistent and unapologetic in telling the truth: Northern Ireland's prosperity will not be secured through deeper integration with the Republic.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It should be acknowledged today when we are having a debate about the census, that, not so long ago, Sinn Féin claimed that the census was a British tool for spying on nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. That was at the time when they murdered Joanne Mathers, a lady of 29 years of age who was collecting census data. That should be acknowledged here today.

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

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is, indeed, timely to put that on the record during the debate.

Northern Ireland's integration and place in the Union will be secured only by restoring our full and equal place in the United Kingdom economically, constitutionally and democratically. Our future must be tied to the UK internal market, not to a political project that uses data to blur constitutional lines.

I will finish by referring to Ms Armstrong's comment that the census is the "story of who we are". Are we part of the UK, or are we part of an all-Ireland? A joint census says an all-Ireland, so I look forward to seeing how the parties vote today. The Alliance Party always tries to distance itself from being a nationalist party, so I will look at how it and, indeed, the other unionist parties vote on the motion.

Mr Honeyford: I do not know how to follow that, to be honest, but I will set out our place in sharing this island without the belief that we live in Kent or somewhere else.

The joint census is about facts and giving us data to help us make better decisions for people's lives, our economy and our future. It is important data to help focus policy, and it shows that the island is more interconnected today than at any point in our recent history. However, it is still nowhere near as interconnected as it could be. Yes, over 18,000 people cross the border every day, but it has not been mentioned that, when you set that beside the fact that a population of 7·1 million people live on the island, it focuses on the work that is needed, because the potential for mobility and collaboration and shared economic opportunity is still massively underutilised. That figure of 18,000 is growing as the opportunities grow, but that growth is still far too slow. It is growing only because of businesses and workers and because families act in their own best interests.

Our job as policymakers — this is also for the Executive — is to remove the barriers and to stop leaving people to navigate the issues on their own.
Alliance believes that unlocking that potential requires constant attention, and that means breaking down obstacles, improving the infrastructure, aligning skills and qualifications and making it easier for people and businesses to operate across the island. It also means delivering on the full potential of dual market access and that bridge into European markets. For us in Northern Ireland, this is not something to fear. We have just heard five minutes of fear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Six.

Mr Honeyford: Six minutes of fear. It is not something to fear. I appreciate that Emma and Sinn Féin have framed the motion in terms of constitutional change and that that is what their party exists for. However, for me and Alliance, this is about building better opportunities for people now: building a shared future and sharing the island in a practical, economic and inclusive way. Sharing the island is something that we should use to create better opportunities for everybody through increased trade, better job opportunities and stronger skills, and it should be outside of any constitutional debate.

An all-island labour market gives us access to skills that we do not have enough of and opportunities for our young people that we must keep improving. That includes better student mobility, whether that is going to university in the South or movement from the South to the North; apprenticeships, where people living on either side are able to have apprenticeships that link together; and the scale required to attract investment for advanced manufacturing or for an all-island energy system to drive down the cost of energy for people and local families or for tourism, agri-food or across services. If we want our people to have higher wages, stronger productivity and real growth, collaboration North and South is not optional; it is practical economic sense.

The census also highlights shared challenges such as housing pressures, better health outcomes, the ageing population, poor care and regional imbalance. None of those issues stop at the border, and joint evidence helps us to understand them better and design solutions that work for everyone.

The motion calls on the Executive and asks how we use the strengths of each part of the island to deliver better outcomes for people here. Sharing the island must weave through every Department, not as a constitutional debate and not as that zero-sum game from either side of the Chamber that cannot be allowed to hold back the change that is needed. Sharing the island is practical policy to improve lives, drive growth and ensure that we do not fall further behind. At a time of intense global competition, smaller regions such as Northern Ireland, with our economy, cannot afford to work in a silo.

Working together gives us more opportunity, greater investment and greater prosperity North and South, alongside the ability to continue to work and trade east-west and into and with the EU. The census simply confirms what people, workers, businesses, companies and the self-employed already know: we are better when we work together, sharing this place.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have five minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: I have taken a few notes on what Members have said, and I will see whether I can read them. I thank the proposer of the motion, and I will make a few comments on what has been said.

I listened to Matthew O'Toole, and I was pleased that he mentioned the South West Acute Hospital in County Fermanagh as being "criminally underused" and the potential there for cross-border usage. He said that the facility has not been used due to "distortions created by the border". He also paid tribute to and understood the east-west dimension: that was important.

My colleague, Doug Beattie, expressed his struggle to see the validity of the motion and pointed out that population ebbs and flows in many ways, and we see that in the movement of people North/South and east-west.

Diane Forsythe talked about the economic behaviours of people in her border county and said that the work of the Assembly should focus on public services, waiting lists etc instead of political point-scoring by Sinn Féin.

Kellie Armstrong said that accuracy mattered in the sense that it must reflect today's realities, not yesterday's divisions.

Pádraig Delargy also mentioned the movement of people and the opportunities that cross-border movement allows for using universities, and he acknowledged emigration and how we need to not lose young people from our society to opportunities overseas.

Timothy Gaston said that this turns consensus into a political manifesto, and, in wrapping up, David Honeyford said that using facts makes for better decisions for our lives and builds better opportunities for all.

I will make my own comments on the amendments. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the opportunity to discuss the Ireland and Northern Ireland joint census publication and the value that it offers in providing an understanding of the demographic and economic trends across the island. The motion rightly notes the scale of population change. It is important to recognise that the publication highlights the long-term historical context. The census confirms that, while the island's population has reached 7·1 million, that figure remains below pre-famine levels and reflects a profound demographic shift that has taken place over many generations. It is also important to note that the population of the South has not always been at its current level. For example, census records show that the Republic of Ireland's population in 1961 was under 3 million. That is significantly lower than today and illustrates how recent growth is a relatively modern development rather than being part of a continuous historical trend.

The UUP recognises the importance of data to cross-border and east-west labour mobility. According to the publication, more than 18,000 people travel across the border daily for work, with 10,500 commuting southwards and 7,777 travelling northwards. Those flows demonstrate the interconnected nature of our labour markets, not only North/South but as part of broader patterns of movement across the UK and these islands in general. The existence of such mobility does not in itself define or predetermine constitutional outcomes. Rather, it reflects the practical realities of a modern, flexible workforce that is shaped by geography, opportunity and the common travel area.

The motion notes:

The UUP agrees with that. Reliable, jointly presented data helps all Administrations — Stormont, Dublin and Westminster — to better understand pressures on housing, healthcare, skills, transport and public services. It is clear that many of the issues highlighted in the publication, such as age demographics, workforce participation, housing pressures and regional disparities, are not unique to either jurisdiction and require serious, evidence-based policy responses rather than ideological framing. For those reasons, the UUP supports ongoing statistical cooperation between NISRA and the CSO. We must, however, emphasise that such collaboration should inform practical policymaking within the settled constitutional framework, respecting the principle of consent and ensuring that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom remains fully recognised in an all-island analysis.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to wind up on amendment No 1. Matthew, you have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to wind up on this amendment, having chatted to my colleague Colin McGrath about some of the points that we wish to make.

Part of the challenge with the debate, initially, is that the motion is almost banal. I mean no offence to those who tabled it, because it is important stuff, but it is anodyne. It is almost just a description of something that is, theoretically, good. We have tried to put a bit of forward-based intent and policy direction into it through our amendment. It is a banal motion, although it notes something really important in more cross-border data-gathering, but it has to be said that we have seen a remarkable overreaction to it from some unionist politicians — not all of them. I exclude from that the Ulster Unionists, who tabled an amendment from their constitutional perspective with which I do not entirely agree. I do not agree with everything that the previous Member who spoke said, but at least they engaged with the need for more cross-border data-gathering and put their own perspective on it. From the DUP and TUV, we heard almost a long march of hostility to the idea of talking about greater cross-border data-gathering. That is genuinely a tragedy, not just for the people of the North of the island but for unionism.

I am one of the people who Pádraig Delargy talked about. Almost exactly 24 years ago, I left this island to go to university across the water and did not come back for basically another 20 years. When I did, I did so to become a politician here. I would not necessarily recommend that as a career move for which to come back to the island of Ireland, if any impressionable 20-something Irish people out there are listening. Having said that, I did come back. One reason why some do not come back, if they are from the North, is that when they turn on their TV — or, more likely, their devices — and look at politics, they hear statements — I mean this with the greatest respect to Mr Gaston, who put his point across with some passion, and Members of the DUP — talking about, my God, the idea of framing cross-border data-gathering as something with a kind of hex that has to be guarded against because there demons lie and we are on a slippery slope to a united Ireland if we even talk about cross-border data-gathering. If the motion were about east-west data gathering, I, as someone who spent most of my career working in London as a civil servant in the UK Government, would not be saying, "No, we cannot possibly gather that data or look at UK-wide statistics, because that threatens my aspiration for a new Ireland". I do not think that. Even after we have a new Ireland and are back inside the European Union, we will have to work really closely on these islands for all the reasons why the Good Friday Agreement enshrines partnership across these islands. It enshrines the British identity on this island. We are also neighbours. Our services and lives will still be entwined in many ways. I have no difficulty in acknowledging that. It is a tragedy for unionism that, in the current constitutional set-up, some unionists cannot do that. Of course, I do not mean all unionists in the Chamber, because the Ulster Unionists tabled a very constructive amendment. I may not necessarily agree with it, but it at least endeavours to engage with the debate.

I genuinely believe that, whether or not we have a new Ireland — I believe that we are moving in that direction — it is important that we maximise every opportunity to improve services on a cross-border basis. Frontier workers are not a threat. Those frontier workers are a real, everyday fact of life on the island. They are not just in Newry and Derry but in Belfast. My brother is a frontier worker. He works for a bank that is headquartered in Dublin, and he travels up and down and works remotely. That is a fact of life. He has to navigate all the bureaucratic complexities that that involves.

We have talked about public services and public policy challenges. It is vital that we get that right, whatever the constitutional future is. I also say this, however: Ministers here, including Ministers from the party that tabled the motion, need to take responsibility for driving those things forward. The motion does not call on a Minister. The Minister with responsibility for the census is, of course, John O'Dowd, the Finance Minister, who will be in front of us tomorrow for questions. He, or, indeed, the First Minister and deputy First Minister, would be best placed to answer questions on how the Executive could make use of that census. Rather than having a general debate that takes note of its existence, we need to see responsibility-taking in the Executive for driving that agenda forward, particularly from those parties who say that they are committed to it.

That brings me on to my next point. Without prejudice to the constitutional future — I say that as a new Irelander — I also say this: the census, by itself, will not get us to a new Ireland. We will have to persuade people and lead that debate. We will have to explain it to people who are — I heard Members from the Alliance Party talk about them — open-minded, unconvinced and persuadable on the subject. They want to hear about the benefits of change. They do not just want to hear about the fact that it will inevitably happen. We need to sell it. Even if we are not selling it, and we want to maintain the constitutional status quo, we should all be able to embrace the huge potential of greater cross-border working. I commend my party's amendment and, indeed, the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Philip McGuigan to make the winding-up speech and conclude the debate on the motion. I advise you that you have 10 minutes, Philip.

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

It was clear from listening to the debate that, through the publication of the joint census, we now have a better all-island statistical picture. The joint census provides a coherent view of our population and allows us to compare social, demographic and economic trends on either side of the border. One of the most used words by almost everyone during the debate was "interconnectedness". I do not think that any of us could disagree that, on this island, there is a serious amount of growing interconnectedness. Members talked about various policy areas, such as the environment, education, animal health, the economy, tourism, trade, agri-food, regions and the north-west, and interconnectedness, particularly along border areas. That is why the debate is important. The use of the statistics that we have now is vital.

I disagreed with Doug Beattie to a degree when he said that the census was just a "snapshot". Obviously, it presents a picture of the here and now. However, the purpose of census data is to allow policymakers and politicians to look at trends, predict into the future and prepare good policy and legislation that is based on good, appropriate, factual data. It is true to say that there were different levels of enthusiasm in the Chamber on how best we could use the data. There were probably different levels of common sense applied to arguments against the motion.

Some people see data and facts as a Trojan Horse for constitutional change. Some, including the DUP, think that we should ignore the data and what it tells us and try to make the North work better. Both miss the point, which is that, by using the data to make proper policy, we will represent people much better in the North.

Matthew O'Toole said that he left the North for 20 years and came back to be a politician. I stayed and had no intention of becoming a politician; I see myself as a reluctant politician. I got involved in republican struggle for the simple reason that I wanted to improve people's lives. The DUP continually misunderstands what we are about. Sinn Féin and Irish republicanism is about improving people's lives. We see that through the prism of using data to provide services to the seven million people of the island. We think that, by doing that, we will improve the lives of everybody in the North, whether they vote for Sinn Féin or not.

Timothy Gaston spent a good three or four minutes of his contribution talking about policies and decisions that were made by the British Government. Clearly, the British Government do not give a hoot about Timothy Gaston, the TUV, the DUP or Sinn Féin. They care not a hoot about the people on this island. We will probably see that again in the decisions that they take this Thursday in the Budget. That is why we should work together in the Chamber and across this island to make decisions about the people of this island.

I am my party's health spokesperson, so I want concentrate on health for most of my contribution. As Matthew O'Toole said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the economics of this island are on a certain trajectory, regardless of the decisions that made here, quite frankly. Business people who are looking at what is happening across the island are not waiting for politicians to tell them about the direction of travel; they are making judgements and decisions in their best interests.

Health is a particularly important area that people rightly want to see improvement in to improve their lives, but it will help with the argument about our constitutional trajectory. There is no area in which we can do more to improve people's lives by moving to an all-Ireland basis than we can through health. My party colleague Conor Murphy said the other day that lives can be saved and economic development created through the all-Ireland coordination of healthcare: I cannot argue with that. He made those comments after presentations in the Oireachtas by the All-Island Cancer Research Institute and the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network, neither of which involves any aspects of republicanism; they involve people who are promoting health policy and are trying to save people's lives and do the best for citizens. Those organisations and other groups are, by and large, increasingly coming to see the benefits of working together to improve things on an all-Ireland basis.

The North/South-US cancer consortium, which was established in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, has enabled over 40,000 patients to participate in clinical trials and has saved lives. The All-Island Cancer Research Institute has brought together 10 universities on this island to build a shared framework for cancer research that will save lives. The cross-border radiotherapy service at the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin again demonstrates how shared services can meet the needs of the local population more effectively. As I said, the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network enables children across the island to receive world-class specialist cardiac care in a single centre while keeping diagnostics and follow-ups close to home.

Those issues, on an island with seven million people, are examples of how we can provide the critical mass required for world-class research and pioneering medical techniques to be developed. The health information captured in the joint census publication gives us, for the first time in many years, a genuinely all-island view of population health.

It allows us to understand patterns of illness, disability, chronic conditions, caring responsibilities and age-related health pressures in a way that transcends any border.

The publication identifies challenges. My colleague Emma Sheerin said that we are talking not just about pinning the North's health service on to the Twenty-six Counties but about creating a genuinely improved all-island health service, just as we are talking about improving education, the economy, the environment and all other aspects.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. That is an important point, because nobody is saying that the health service in the South is perfect or that the health service in the North is anywhere near perfect. I can tell Members that both jurisdictions are failing women, day and daily, so we have an opportunity to create a genuinely better health service that delivers better for all our people, particularly children with cancer, because, in order to have real specialisms, we need to have demographics. We need to have enough people in order to create specialists.

Mr McGuigan: I absolutely agree with those comments. Both health systems need to be improved, but it is clear, as was pointed out, that the South is currently ahead of us. It is ahead of us in life expectancy. Who does not want to live longer? It is ahead of us in addressing health inequalities and tackling waiting lists. Who does not want those particular problems to be solved? We know that we have particular challenges here. As my colleague said, the issues are not confined to one jurisdiction. The data that we have in front of us reflects the lived experience of people across this island, so it is not just about joining two systems together but about creating a better system.

We had a Matter of the Day earlier about the Executive's response to COVID. Our Executive could have had a much better response to COVID if we on this island had worked on an island-wide basis. That would be the case with any global pandemic. Working as such would certainly strengthen the island's ability to respond to future public health scenarios.

There was a lot of talk in the debate about the workforce and about the transient nature of people crossing the border in either direction. The data is extremely useful for giving us a clearer insight into workforce planning and how we can use it when making future policy decisions. On healthcare, for example, the data gives crucial insights into how to plan staffing needs for primary care in hospitals, mental health services and community care.

I am a politician who wants to make decisions that improve people's lives. Evidence-based policymaking is clearly what we should all be looking to do, and the joint health data equips policymakers and politicians with the evidence that is needed to design better, targeted —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Philip.

Mr McGuigan: — and collaborative health interventions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As amendment No 1 has been made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.