Official Report: Tuesday 09 December 2025

Ms Flynn: Today, I rise with a very heavy heart. This morning, my thoughts are with families across the island who are grieving someone who they have lost to suicide.

The latest NISRA figures on suicide are deeply troubling. They show that 290 deaths by suicide were registered in 2024. That figure is up from 221 in the previous year. To those who have lost someone to suicide, I express how sorry I am for what you have been through and for what you are still going through. I know that no statistic can ever capture the person whom you miss and you have lost.

The figures are based on the year that the deaths are registered, and delays in inquests can sometimes mean that some of the deaths that have been recorded happened in earlier years. While that explanation is important, it does not take away from the reality that too many lives are being lost in that way year after year.

Men remain much more likely to die by suicide, especially younger and middle-aged men. People living in our most deprived communities also face higher risk. Older people, often living alone, are particularly vulnerable, and we have seen that the rise in the latest NISRA statistics for 2024 has impacted more on our older population.

We are now moving into winter and towards Christmas. On the surface, it is a time of joy, lights and music, but, for many people, it is the darkest, loneliest, most pressurised time of the year. The cost of heating your home, the pressure to spend money that you do not have, empty chairs at a table that cannot be filled and anniversaries of loved ones who we have lost all sit in stark contrast to the positivity that we see on our screens and on our streets.

At a time when everywhere seems bright, many people feel completely in the dark. So, I ask Members and the wider public for something very simple over the weeks ahead: please be kind in the Chamber, online and in our communities. We rarely know what the person in front of us is dealing with or what they are carrying, and a harsh word can push someone further down. A small act of kindness can make it easier for them to hold on.

For anyone who is listening and might be finding it hard, please know that you can reach out to the Samaritans and to Lifeline. We cannot undo the loss that so many families have already experienced, but we can listen to them, learn from what they are telling us and try to do more to stop others going through that pain.

Miss McIlveen: I rise this morning to recognise the contribution of my friend and DUP colleague William Irwin MLA from the Newry and Armagh constituency. As you will be aware, William has indicated his intention to step down from the Assembly at the end of the year, and it is fitting to mark that occasion.

William was first elected to Armagh City and District Council in 2005, prior to his election to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2007. As a member of the class of 2007, William and the rest of us newbies learned our craft from the old hands. In what seems like a blink of an eye, we are the old hands.

As a farmer, William has agriculture in his blood. He earned the right to serve, from day one, on the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and, later, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. A true stalwart, William is the authentic voice of the rural community: the natural farmer's friend. Coming from an agricultural background, he has always been fiercely proud of those roots, and becoming Chair of the Committee was one of the highlights of his political career. He has also served with distinction as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. He has been a stalwart for unionism in Newry and Armagh; a mantle that he has carried with unwavering principle, and, with that, he has earned the respect and affection of his constituents. His are big shoes to fill.

Yesterday, as a tribute, a colleague summed up William Irwin in two words: faithful and true. However, there are other words that can define William: tireless, loyal, generous, compassionate, quiet, diligent, effective, husband, father, grandfather, colleague and friend. It has always been a privilege to serve with and a pleasure to work with William. In the bitter world of local politics, where harsh words and insults are bandied about easily without any consideration of the consequences, one thing that stands out about William is that, in all the years that I have known him, he has never spoken ill of someone or fallen out with anyone.

On a personal note, I will miss William's friendship, loyalty, wit, advice and guidance in this place. He has been a fantastic help and support to me through my time in the Assembly, particularly on all matters rural. He is also one of those sensible heads that we all need when passions are high.

It is deeply sad that this day has come. After William's serving 20 years as a public representative in the council and the Northern Ireland Assembly and in recognition of his long service to his country and his party, I take the opportunity to mark that service properly and purposefully in the Chamber and to place on the public record my party's and my personal appreciation for William. "Retirement" is not a word in William's vocabulary; perhaps, more fittingly, it is simply about refocusing on his other priorities. Our loss is his wife, Olive's, gain. I wish William, Olive and his family every blessing in the future.

Ms Bradshaw: As an MLA for South Belfast, I say a massive "Congratulations" to Royal Belfast Academical Institution (Inst) on winning the 2025 McCullough Cup schools hockey competition.

Last Thursday, Inst secured a superb 3-1 victory over Banbridge Academy in the final at Havelock Park, retaining the trophy that it won last year. Two goals from Josh Gill and a penalty from captain, Matthew McAreavey, sealed the win, with defender Riley Marney delivering a man-of-the-match performance at the back. That latest success means that Inst has now lifted the McCullough Cup for a record eighteenth time, extending its position as the most successful school in the history of that Ulster competition. It is also the first side to retain the title for a second year since Cookstown High School managed the feat in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. That is a remarkable achievement that speaks to the depth of talent and strength of the coaching set-up at the school.

I pay tribute to all the players whose commitment over many months and even years of training has culminated in this moment of well-deserved success. School sport is not just about trophies. It is about teamwork, resilience, learning to handle pressure and supporting one another in victory and defeat. The young people representing Inst have shown that all those qualities are present in abundance, and they showed that throughout the campaign. I also extend my congratulations to the coaching and support staff, the teachers who juggle academic responsibilities with time on the pitch and, of course, the parents and families who stand on the sidelines in all weathers. Their encouragement, lifts to training and constant support are crucial to making success such as this possible.

As a South Belfast MLA, I am particularly proud that the school, which has such strong links across our constituency, is setting the standard in schools hockey and providing positive role models for younger pupils, who will be inspired by that success. Through its long tradition of excellence in sport across hockey, rugby and many other disciplines, Inst continues to make an important contribution to life in the city and the health and well-being of our young people.

I also acknowledge Ulster Hockey and all those who are involved in organising the McCullough Cup and wider schools competitions. Their work ensures that our young people have access to high-quality competitive sport in a safe and supportive environment and helps to promote participation, inclusion and respect across schools and communities.

I wish the team every success as it continues its season.

Mr Beattie: A number of legacy reports will be released today. I thank those individuals who were responsible for conducting the investigations, which will, hopefully, give us the closure and information that we so desperately need.

Operation Denton was about investigating what was known as the Glenanne gang, a terrorist organisation that was responsible for over 120 murders of men, women and children. As a unionist, I stand here and say that I have absolutely no link whatsoever to those people. We know that they are a scourge on our society. They do not get any unionist support whatsoever. It is important to understand that. They killed mostly because of religion, including 34 people — men, women and children — in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those who served in the security forces and were part of the Glenanne gang are an utter disgrace — a disgrace — to the uniform that they wore and those brave men and women who served alongside them and did so within the law. They can never be viewed as anything other than terrorists.

Operation Denton looked at the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and although those involved cannot be named because of a legal challenge, the investigators have the names of those who were responsible. I wish that the Dublin Government could do something similar in regard to Omagh.

Operation Kenova was about the human intelligence source known as Stakeknife. Stakeknife murdered 18 people. Stakeknife did that. The nutting squad — the Disneyfication of violence in Northern Ireland is absolutely astounding — murdered 30 people. It was responsible for that. Some people will try to spin that and say, "Well, it was the UK security forces that did that", but let us be clear: of course, the security forces made mistakes, but the people who tortured and murdered others were part of that Disneyfied nutting squad, including the man who was called Stakeknife. Anybody who supported that or knew about it is also an utter disgrace. We know that there are people in a party in the Chamber who know information about it.

Operation Turma looks at the murder of three RUC constables in 1990, and Operation Mizzenmast looks at the murder of Jean Smyth-Campbell in 1972.

We will have those four reports to look at, but let us be clear: the people who pulled the trigger, those who sent them out and those who supported them are the ones who are responsible. Let us not allow anybody to redirect us, in any shape or form, from pointing the finger at the individuals who are responsible.

Mr McGrath: I will speak about a treasure of the Lecale coastline; a sentinel that has watched over generations and guided countless fishermen and sailors safely home: St John's lighthouse. It is the tallest lighthouse on the island of Ireland and one of the last to maintain that beautiful and iconic sweeping beam. It is a piece of engineering heritage that still performs its duty every night and is seen for miles around.

At its heart is the Bourdelles rotation system, which rests on mercury-based bearings that are designed to allow the lens to glide with frictionless precision. That system has stood the test of time: it is remarkably efficient and remains in working order. Yet plans are now in place from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to remove that system and replace it with metal-on-metal roller bearings, despite the planners rejecting such a proposal in 2018.

The proposal is fundamentally flawed. It may be called modernisation, but it is a step backwards in engineering. It introduces friction, noise and wear into a mechanism that is currently smooth, silent and reliable. I will be clear: a noisy, mechanical system being introduced into a quiet coastal environment will be disruptive to local wildlife, particularly marine and nocturnal species.

As if that were not enough, the proposal includes replacing the current lamp with a static LED. That is not progress; it is the removal of the lighthouse's character, identity and purpose. LED systems are prone to faults. They alter the visual signature that mariners depend on, and they carry well-documented ecological impacts that have been disastrously overlooked by the historic environment division during the planning process. What we have at present works and works safely. The sweeping beam is one of the last of its kind and is a living link to our maritime history. To extinguish it now would be an act of professional cultural vandalism. Instead of recognising the enormous potential of St John's Point lighthouse as a world-class tourist attraction, we face plans that would diminish it.

I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Lecale Lightkeepers community campaign group — some of them are here today — which stands in defence of the sweeping beam. We owe it to the Lecale Lightkeepers, to our fishing community, to our heritage and to the generations yet to come to ensure that St John's Point lighthouse remains what it has always been: a true beacon. Once the beam has gone, it will be gone forever. We will never get another chance to protect it.

Mr Kearney: Where is Moneyglass? That is the question on the lips of many sports journalists in the aftermath of the Moneyglass senior ladies footballers' winning their All-Ireland semi-final nine days ago. Well, Moneyglass is a cluster of townlands in the south-west of County Antrim, beside the River Bann and adjacent to Lough Beg. It is a small place with just a few hundred residents. There is Boyd's garage and shop; Tumbledown bar; one chapel; a small community centre; and a large number of small family businesses and farms.

The beating heart of Moneyglass is St Ergnats GAC. Formed in 1948, the club has a strong tradition in an Cumann Lúthchleas Gael

That is reflected in the men's footballers' participation and score and in underage development for young boys and girls. However, ladies Gaelic football is one of the club's huge successes. The club has enjoyed great progress in recent times. New facilities have been opened on Loughbeg Road. The men won the 2025 Intermediate Club football final. Furthermore, the club has elected its first female chairperson, Sarah McCann. In a special, personal first for Sarah, in the past few weeks, she qualified with a doctorate in education, specialising in climate change and sustainability.

The crowning glory of 2025, however, will be this weekend's All-Ireland Club final. Not surprisingly, local excitement is at fever pitch. Everybody is up to high doh. In my book, whatever happens this Saturday in Croke Park, the Moneyglass women are already winners. The footballers will travel to Croke Park as pride of the parish, queens of the county and champions of Ulster. Those girls are a credit to their families, their friends and all of us, and I wish them all the luck that they deserve in the All-Ireland final this Saturday. Give it your all, girls. Leave it all on the pitch. Ádh mór oraibh. Tapaigí an deis. An Muine Glas abú.

Mr Buckley: To begin with, I join Members in offering my colleague William Irwin every best wish for his retirement alongside his family. He truly is the authentic friend of the farmer. He spoke with such conviction and passion in representing those people across Northern Ireland, probably long before it was popular to do so in the House. He certainly will be missed in this place, and I wish him well for his retirement.

Our Executive are meeting, next door, to grapple with the huge budgetary pressures that face core Departments such as Education and Health. I will offer not only an observation but a clear warning: the benefits system is killing the United Kingdom. Its stranglehold is getting tighter year-on-year. The Chancellor's autumn Budget made one thing unmistakably clear: taxes are being driven to record highs, not to invest in growth or to strengthen our public services but to prop up an outdated, unsustainable and inflated welfare system.

Total spending on social security and welfare in the United Kingdom has gone from £152 billion in 2005 to £326 billion in 2025. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that that will rise to £406 billion by 2030. Yes, Members, we value those who cannot fend for themselves and who, due to health needs or injury, need support; we are a generous nation, but the system is open to corruption and abuse. In Northern Ireland alone, benefit fraud is estimated to cost as much as £350 million per year. That is a national shame. That is money that cannot be spent on core public services; the taxpayer has been cheated of that money. That must be addressed. Money that should be used to support our hospitals, our schools and our police is being taken directly from those core services in order to fund cheats.

In Northern Ireland, we have the additional pressure of an accommodation system for the likes of asylum seekers that has ballooned. Across the United Kingdom, the cost is projected to balloon from £4·5 billion to £15·3 billion over a decade. That is more than triple the initial estimate. Our constituents ask us why taxes are going up, why we cannot help to support businesses by reducing VAT and other taxes and why we are not supporting and standing up for the working middle — alarm-clock United Kingdom — who get up in the morning and work two or three jobs but simply cannot afford to live. Why can we not do that? It is because we have an outdated benefits system that is being abused.

Mrs Guy: Every MLA in the Chamber is aware of the Caleb's Cause NI campaign through the advocacy of Caleb's mum, Alma, but, at the recent session of the Disabled People's Parliament, Caleb spoke for himself. It was a powerful and moving moment when every one of us was asked to keep using our voices to support the cause of post-19 SEN reform. These are Caleb's words:

If Members have not watched that online clip of Caleb, they should. It really is a powerful moment when he looks up and asks that question.

Investing in kids such as Caleb is not a waste of our time. They are not lost causes. We know that, if we invest in the right support at as early a stage as possible, they can thrive, contribute and inspire. As MLAs, we must keep advocating not just for them but with them. Let me assure you that Caleb's Cause will not stop until every one of our post-19 children is cared for.

Mr Gildernew: Tabharfar an ráiteas seo as Gaeilge. Dá bhrí sin, impím ar Chomhaltaí atá gan Ghaeilge a gcluasáin a chur orthu.

Déanfar Lá Chearta an Duine a chomóradh an tseachtain seo. Is é téama an lae i mbliana "Cearta an Duine, Ár mBunriachtanais Laethúla". Tá sé seo thar a bheith ábhartha, nó sheas mé sa tSeomra tá seachtainí beaga ó shin agus labhair mé ar a thábhachtaí a bhí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine agus an ról luachmhar a d’imir sé anseo in Éirinn agus mé ag comóradh 75 bliain ó bunaíodh an coinbhinsiún. Tá páirtithe polaitíochta áirithe sa Bhreatain ag rá gur chóir an Ríocht Aontaithe a tharraingt amach as an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, cinneadh a rachadh go holc do gach aon duine ar an oileán seo.

Cé go leanann na díospóireachtaí sin ar aghaidh sa Bhreatain, tá sé tábhachtach againne cuimhneamh ar an méid a chumasaigh an coinbhisiún anseo agus an méid sin a chosaint. Bhí ionchorprú an choinbhinsiúin sa dlí riachtanach le cearta saoránach a chosaint agus le muinín a chothú i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Cuireadh béim ar thábhacht an choinbhinsiúin sa chomhaontú um tharraingt siar i ndiaidh an Bhreatimeachta. Is maolú ríthábhachtach lenár síocháin agus ár rathúnas a chosaint i bhfianaise pholasaí díobhálach Rialtas na Breataine é. Rinneadh ionsaithe eile ar chearta, agus tá reachtaíocht sceimhlitheoireachta na Breataine ag gabháil faoi chearta fosta.

Ba é an rud a bhí Rialtas na Breataine ag iarraidh a dhéanamh i gcás Kneecap ná srian a chur ar an chead cainte; sa chás sin, féachadh le lucht cáinte chinedhíothú Iosrael in Gaza a chur ina dtost. Ach d’éirigh le Rialtas na Breataine sárú ar cheart cruinnithe lucht agóide agus chuaigh ag Rialtas na Breataine cosc a chur ar Palestine Action. Léiríonn an dá shampla sin an gá atá le cearta a choinneáil agus a chosaint. Ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, níorbh ann do phróiseas na síochána; agus ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine níorbh fhéidir próiseas na síochána a choinneáil ag gabháil. Trí chearta uilíocha agus comhionannas a leabú sa dlí, leanann sé de bheith ag tacú leis an athmhuintearas agus leis an chobhsaíocht dhaonlathach.

Seo iad ár mbunriachtanais —

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Gildernew: — laethúla. Tá siad le cosaint. Tá siad le ceiliúradh.

Miss McAllister: Before I begin my statement, I will also put on record my party's best wishes to William Irwin, who is retiring in a few weeks. I spoke to him briefly yesterday, and it is clear that he is looking forward to retirement. I wish him all the best. He really is a kind soul, so I hope that he can enjoy his retirement.

Mr Speaker, all politics is local. In May this year, I presented to you a public petition signed by hundreds of people in the North Belfast community asking for a pedestrian crossing. That might not seem important to everyone, but, for the people who have to cross the road at the roundabout on Prince Charles Way every day, most of whom are schoolchildren going to and from school, it is very important. The safety of our children going to and from school and of all those walking on that road and getting about their day is important to us all.

I say again that all politics is local, because we can have successes sometimes, but they are often too slow in coming. Following that public petition, we had another visit from the Department for Infrastructure, which carried out a full survey of the site, and works on the roundabout have now been approved. However, that has also come with the caveat that the works will be budget-dependent. I understand that all Departments are under pressure with their resources.

When we passed the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, a successful Alliance amendment secured the provision saying that 10% of the transport budget should be spent on active travel. At the minute, however, we are not seeing that budget being spent on active travel; instead, we see it being repurposed for other areas. I call on the Infrastructure Minister — I will ask her about this later during questions for oral answer — to prioritise the safety of local schoolchildren to ensure that they can get to and from their school, walking or cycling, by using a pedestrian crossing. People's voices have been heard and listened to, but we need to finalise that and take action and ensure that we install a safe pedestrian crossing.

Mr Speaker: Members, I have three more requests to make statements, and I think that I have three minutes for that. However, I am in a generous mood today because it is coming up to Christmas, so I will include everybody, even Mr Carroll. I will have to listen to your statement as well.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Since abortion was decriminalised through the legislation imposed on the Province as part of the package that facilitated the return of Stormont, the number of abortions carried out has risen year on year. We now know that, between 2020 and 2024, more than 8,000 lives were taken through abortion in Northern Ireland.

An answer that I received yesterday from the Finance Minister raises further questions. In response to my question asking how many death certificates had been issued for babies who were born alive after an abortion procedure, the Minister stated that a search of death registrations for the category of termination of pregnancy affecting fetus and newborn identified 32 deaths up to the end of 2024 where that cause was recorded on the death certificate as either contributory or underlying. We should all reflect on what that means. Those were living children, infants who had taken their first breaths. They are 32 little boys and girls whose deaths were officially recorded as being affected by a termination of pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances leading to those procedures, whether elective or in situations where the mother's health or life was in danger, the stark fact remains that those children were born alive and, sadly, later died. Each one represents a tragedy.

The headline statistics demonstrate that the way that the issue was framed by many media outlets before the change in the law was deeply dishonest. We were told repeatedly that legal change was required for so-called hard cases, yet 8,000 abortions in four years did not occur because of the exceptional situations promoted by those with an anti-life agenda.

As abortion becomes more common, it is anything but compassionate to ignore the social pressures — economic, familial and cultural — that push women towards ending a pregnancy. A genuinely humane society would champion the truth that every human life is worthy of protection. I commend organisations such as Precious Life and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which continue to do that. It remains my deep conviction that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our lifetime. While others may prefer to look the other way, I will ensure that no one can say that they were unaware of the quiet holocaust taking place in our Province.

Mr Carroll: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle. Tá sin iontach cinéalta. Nollaig shona duit.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal gasta a rá faoi rud a bhí ar siúl ag an deireadh seachtaine in Iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Tá moladh mór tuillte ag na daoine sin ar fad a d’eagraigh Scoil Gheimhridh Ghearóid Uí Chairealláin — bhí an-rath ar fad uirthi.

Ba cheannródaí teanga agus pobail é Gearóid Ó Cairealláin. Bhí sé mar chuid de ghrúpa Gaeilgeoirí a bhunaigh an Chultúrlann. Bhunaigh siad an nuachtán Lá, Raidió Fáilte agus, ar ndóigh, Meánscoil Feirste. D’fhág Gearóid lorg ollmhór ar an Ghaeilge ó Thuaidh. Is tábhachtach an rud é Scoil Gheimhridh a bheith ann a thabhairt ómos dó.

Bhí plé breá ann ar an iriseoireacht, ar an ghníomhaíochas, agus ar an teanga. D’fhreastail mé féin ar chuid de na himeachtaí Dé hAoine, agus tá taispeántas an-suimiúil ann thuas staighre sa Chultúrlann. Bhí spiorad Ghearóid le mothú an deireadh seachtaine ar fad. Arís eile, comhghairdeas mór le gach duine a d’eagraigh an scoil.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your grace. I thought that, in your generosity, you had discovered the Christmas Carroll there. [Laughter.]

I speak about an event that I attended this morning, a collective healing through honouring our loved ones. It was a meeting to launch a report on all the people who died during the pandemic and the lockdowns. The process of grieving was explored with the individuals who took part in the study, and a question was asked whether the individual felt that they were able to grieve the passing of their loved one. While 17% stated that they could, 55% reported that they had not been able to do this and 28% were unsure. Self-reported mental health rates revealed that 56% described it as either "poor" or "very poor". Some 32% stated that it was "average", while the remaining 12% gave their mental health a rating of "good" or "very good". When asked about receiving support following the person's death, a large proportion, 37%, indicated that this was not offered to them. For those who got support, the source of this was largely family, 40%, or friends, 15%. That included 80% who reported that they did not get the support needed for the grief that they experienced during the pandemic and lockdowns.

The conclusions from the report include that a number of salient themes were evident through a review of responses on both the survey and from the support session evaluations. The most prominent of those themes was the traumatic impact of experiencing a death during the pandemic. That was impacted by the systematic and structural restrictions enforced by the Government in the management of the pandemic. The absence of opportunities to have traditions associated with death and dying, whether religious or cultural in nature, was cited often in the feedback. Saying goodbye to loved ones or being present during their final moments was not available to the majority of respondents. Those psychological and emotional omissions were described as having a significant toll on the individual and the family, amplified by the variations in manner and tone of communications or interactions with professionals at the time of the loved one's death.

Those people seek a physical memorial through which their loved ones who died in the pandemic and during the lockdown should be remembered, but the greatest memorial that we can give those people is that never again will our people, communities and society be locked down as they were during the pandemic.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly regarding my plans to bring forward a new Executive disability strategy for Northern Ireland.

Around one in four people in Northern Ireland experience some form of disability, and it is fair to say that we are all impacted to some extent. Everyone’s experience of living with disability is unique, and so any new strategy needs to be able to flex to accommodate the often complex and unique interventions that are to be managed. Through the sharing of lived experience by deaf and disabled people and by our commissioning of bespoke research, the disability strategy demonstrates that we have taken account of the issues raised by deaf and disabled people, the expert advisory panel, the co-design group, the cross-departmental working group and many other stakeholders during significant engagement processes. The disability strategy vision, outcomes, principles and terminology and language used are all a product of that extensive engagement process, and the strategy commitments are broadly reflective of the wishes of the sector.

The strategy represents further delivery against our Programme for Government (PFG) commitments. It also intersects with a range of strategic agendas such as the anti-poverty strategy, the autism and mental health strategies, my Department’s disability and work strategy and the review of special educational needs (SEN) provision. In co-producing the disability strategy, we have placed people with lived experience of disability at the centre, involving them at every stage to ensure that we have identified and shaped the change needed to achieve better outcomes.

We have a wealth of experience in our voluntary and community sector, and we know that its insight and value cannot be overstated. In developing the disability strategy, we have carried out many engagement events with individuals and organisations that represent the deaf and disabled community. Those events were delivered online and in person. Special efforts were made to engage with those who can often be the hardest to reach in Northern Ireland, including minority ethnic communities and the Travelling community. Those marginalised yet often inspirational people freely contributed their lived experience and ideas to my officials. I want to tell them this: your views were valued greatly. You were not only heard but, more important, listened to.

From an early stage of the engagement, it was apparent that a number of key asks were coming from across the sector about what it wished to see in a new disability strategy. I wish to cover some of those asks briefly and how we intend to deal with them through the new strategy.

First, there was a universal desire to establish a Northern Ireland disability forum wholly comprised of deaf and disabled people and having a role in supporting the monitoring and reporting processes involved with any new disability strategy. I can announce today that the strategy commits my Department to establishing a Northern Ireland disability forum to monitor the actions included in the strategy. The forum's membership will be made up entirely of deaf and disabled people, with my officials providing secretarial support. The forum will also link in with the Department of Health's existing regional disabled people's health and social care forum as appropriate and will be able to engage with all Departments on their responsibilities in the strategy. I have also taken steps to ensure that forum membership will be fully representative of our community. For example, places will be reserved for young people who have not yet had the life opportunities or lived experience to be able to demonstrate the academic credentials or experience that normally indicates suitability for a place on such a body.

We were also told of the desire to see reform of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which, stakeholders believe, is no longer fit for purpose. I, too, believe that there is a clear case for the review and potential reform of disability law here. The Disability Discrimination Act is 30 years old. There is a clear gap between the legislative protections available to disabled people here and those in, for example, Great Britain, where the Equality Act 2010 is in force. I can also announce today that scoping work is under way in my Department with a view to the full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into domestic law. That, of course, will require additional funding across Departments, but I am sure that we can all agree that it is the right thing to do.

The strategy is constructed around eight outcomes. During the lifetime of the strategy, there will be continuous monitoring of its delivery. Those outcomes will ensure that deaf and disabled people can effectively exercise their rights and fundamental freedoms and participate in society on an equal basis, free from discrimination; that they can access our built environment, facilities and transport on an equal basis; that, across our public services, government information and communications will be provided on an equal basis; that they can access and participate in culture, leisure activities and sport on an equal basis; that they can live independently in the community with choice and control, with a sufficient and sustainable standard of living; that they can have access to quality health and social care on an equal basis and without discrimination; that they can access, sustain and progress in quality employment in an inclusive labour market; and that deaf and disabled children and young people can exercise their rights and reach their full educational, social and developmental potential.

Once it is approved in final form by the Executive, the disability strategy will run for a 10-year period from 2025 to 2035. It will be underpinned by an action plan that will contain a range of time-bound, measurable actions targeted at progressing the strategy outcomes and commitments. The action plan will be monitored, reviewed and updated annually, with published progress reports that will be agreed by the Executive.

A formal midpoint review will allow for the strategy to be assessed, taking account of the annual reports on the action plan. That review will provide an opportunity for the strategy's commitments to be reviewed, amended, removed or added to if necessary. The strategy's impact will be measured through the delivery of actions in the action plan and progress against agreed indicators and outcomes.

We have worked closely across Departments to commit to the actions in the strategy, and the Executive have given it their endorsement. We must continue to work together to ensure that, collectively, we achieve better outcomes for deaf and disabled people. I will be launching a minimum 12-week public consultation on the disability strategy. That wide-ranging conversation with society provides an opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and highlight any areas that can be strengthened further. In addition to being able to engage in the consultation online, we will be hosting a series of roadshow events across Northern Ireland, at which people who attend can engage with officials. Naturally, all documents will be available in a range of accessible formats to make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute to the consultation. I encourage as many people as possible to take part in the consultation. I place on record my sincere thanks to everyone who has taken the time to share their experiences and suggestions.

Taken in conjunction with the recent launch of my Department's disability and work strategy, today's announcement signifies my commitment to the deaf and disabled community and a step change from the Northern Ireland Executive in delivering for deaf and disabled people, their families and their carers.

I commend the statement to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. It is welcome to hear some of the progress that has been outlined today on the new disability strategy. We look forward to hearing of similar progress on the other social inclusion strategies for which the Minister is responsible.

The statement refers to the potential reform of disability law. Will the Minister give us a flavour of what that might be, and how he intends to bring forward any such reforms? What time frame are we talking about? Is it realistic to expect that any such reform will be done in the remainder of this mandate?

Mr Lyons: We are going to start that work now. Some people think that we in Northern Ireland should replicate the Equality Act 2010, but, as I said, key stakeholders in the disability sector do not believe that it is fit for purpose. One of the reasons that it is important that we put the disability forum in place is that we will hear views from people before that legislation is drafted. I want that forum to be set up and for it to feed into the process. The legislation can then be brought forward. If any legislative changes can be made during the rest of the mandate, we will certainly do that, but the Member will be aware of how long it takes legislation to progress. If that is not possible, I want to make sure that we are well placed to introduce fit-for-purpose legislation at the start of a new mandate.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement. It is a very important strategy. The incorporation of the UNCRPD is an important factor. You have dealt with some of that already, Minister.

You stated that many Departments will have a role in delivering the strategy. Who will hold those Departments to account if progress stalls, and who will report to the Assembly if commitments are not met? How will you ensure that the regional forum, which is very welcome, has real teeth and is not simply an advisory body?

Mr Lyons: I had a meeting last week with some people representing the disability sector. The points that I made to them will answer the Member's question. First of all, it will be for Ministers to bring forward actions, and they need to be held to account on those actions. I hope that the Assembly and its scrutiny Committees will do that for individual Ministers. During my time in office, I will certainly make sure that I hold other Ministers to account, and that we put proper priority on delivering things that will be of benefit to deaf and disabled people.

Last week, I made it clear to the group that the forum is not simply a tick-box exercise for me. I have not simply put a few deaf and disabled people on the group as a token; the group will comprise deaf and disabled people entirely. I expect them to be very forthright in holding Ministers and the Department for Communities to account. I want them to do that, and I know that they will. We will certainly look at how it is structured to make sure that we can do that effectively. Ultimately, we should all want to deliver, and we need to be held to account on that.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. This is a huge day for the deaf and disabled community, and I really welcome his statement. Minister, it is a time-bound issue. When will the strategy be finished, and when can people expect delivery on the ground?

Mr Lyons: The time frames will depend on the responses that we get to the public consultation. I will go back to Executive colleagues so that they can look at the recommendations that come through during the consultation process. The Executive will then consider what can be put into the final strategy and the action plans that can come from that. That will take some time.

We do not have definitive timescales, but it is important to note that, even in the absence of the strategy, we have not been found wanting in getting on and delivering for deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland, whether that is through the disability and work strategy; the Sign Language Bill that is progressing through the House; the JobStart programmes that we have been able to put in place; what we are doing in housing, in particular with the disabled adaptations and grants that we make available; lobbying the Government on some of the disgraceful changes that they announced on support for disabled people; or the many other issues. Although it will take some time to progress the strategy, it is important that we do it right and that we deliver for deaf and disabled people in the meantime, and I will certainly do that.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I must declare an interest as a member of the deaf community. The statement is very welcome. We have been waiting for the strategy for quite a while. I am a little bit concerned at the timing of it, given that the multi-year Budget is coming up. In the sign language legislation, it says that, without doubt, Departments can take into consideration affordability when deciding about reasonable adjustments. Have you had any discussions with your Executive colleagues on the amount of money that they should be setting aside in their multi-year budgets to deliver the eventual outcomes of the strategy?

Mr Lyons: Of course, it is hard for us to put a price tag on that because we are just going out to consultation. We will hear people's views, and that is when we will decide the specific actions to implement as an Executive. Ministers will be aware that the strategy is coming forward. They will not necessarily be aware of all the actions that they may be required to take, but sufficient budgetary processes are there, and they should be thinking ahead about what needs to be done. If necessary, the Executive should allocate additional funding for that purpose. It is a little bit hard for us to be final on it until we know what will be in the final strategy and the action plans that will follow. However, we absolutely should be prepared to allocate money to it, where possible.

We should see the strategy as an investment. We should not see it as money that we have to put into something; we should see how it can generate a return for us. I made this point in the House yesterday: taking the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, as it is in the rest of the UK, for example, has the potential to generate savings of around £750 million a year. Helping deaf and disabled people can actually bring an economic return as well, so we should not see the strategy just as money that we spend but rather as an investment.

Mr Allen: I, too, declare an interest as a member of the disabled community. Minister, I thank you for getting the strategy to this point. However, many in the disabled community have highlighted to me the fact that the previous iteration of the strategy, 2012-15, which was extended to 2017, did not deliver the tangible benefits for the disabled community that it desired to do. Minister, how can you ensure that this strategy will deliver real and tangible benefits for the disabled community; and, if I may ask, when did the scoping work on disability law reform commence?

Mr Lyons: It is important to highlight that that is why we will have the regional disability forum: to make sure that the strategy that we have and the actions that we put into the action plan are necessary and deliverable and that we are held to account on them. I am more than happy for us to subject ourselves to that scrutiny, because I do not want this to be a wasted opportunity; I want to do something that actually makes a difference, is tangible and has the right outcome. That is why I am committed to doing that and why the forum has such a key role. As I have said, I do not want that to be a tick-box exercise. I genuinely want to get that feedback, input and monitoring and to be held to account by that group.

Mr Baker: Recent statistics show that 38% of households living in poverty include a person with a disability, which highlights disability as a real risk factor that can contribute to a person's falling into poverty. What new measures aimed at tackling disability-related poverty will flow from the strategy?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue, because we see time and again that disability is a huge factor that impacts on poverty. That is why we have 58 commitments in the strategy, many of which will directly impact on that and some of which will have an impact in other ways. There are a number of ways in which we can make a difference. One of the first key actions will be the collection and increased availability of data. A problem that we have had in the past is this: if we do not have the data, it is hard to put the policies in place to make a difference.

A number of other things that we are doing will also tackle poverty. It is often related to isolation, so, for example, there are ways in which we can make sure that people in urban and rural settings have access to transport. Other issues include communication, which is why it is so important that we have introduced the sign language legislation. We will implement the disability and work strategy because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty is through work. We have to make sure that people have jobs, that they have the ability to travel to them and that they get the reasonable adjustments that they need.

We know that participation in the arts and in sport is also a contributing factor in helping to deal with poverty, and the strategy includes that. It is also about making sure that people have suitable accommodation; housing is another key commitment in the strategy. All those things together can help us to tackle poverty, along with, of course, improved access to health and social care. That is why it is important that we have a joined-up approach and why the strategy will help us to deal with poverty.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his very welcome statement on the launch of the public consultation on the Executive's disability strategy. Does the Minister have any plans for reform of the disability legislation in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. That was a key ask and is one that we will deliver on. That work is starting now. It will require significant resource, because the existing disability legislation is extremely complex, but we have to see that as an opportunity to create meaningful and lasting improvements in the lives of deaf and disabled people. Any new disability legislation would be a positive measure but would also be cross-cutting; we would need to collaborate across Departments and then get Executive agreement. I am committed to doing that because that is what the sector tells us that it needs, and listening to it on those issues is important.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for the very welcome statement; I am delighted to see that step towards my colleague Danny Donnelly's Member's Bill on the UNCRPD. Will the Minister give an idea of the timeline? What will come first? A wee bit of clarity would be useful on whether the recruitment for the disability forum will happen first or the actions will all happen alongside one another. I really welcome the disability forum, which is a great idea — we have to put people at the heart of the policies that matter to them — but how will the forum members be recruited? What will the process be, and how will the Minister ensure that the forum is fully representative?

Mr Lyons: The specific details are still being worked out. The Member raises an important issue, however, because we want to make sure that the forum will be fully representative of the sectors and individuals that need to be on it, and I have stated that it will be.

As for timelines, we can do some preparatory work now, but we are keen to have the forum in place to feed into some of the changes that we want to see. At the very most, I would expect it to be created and in place within 12 months. That is very long-term, so I want to pull that back as much as I can and have the forum in place as soon as possible. The furthest away would be 12 months, but I hope that we can pull it forward, and I have instructed officials to do that.

Mr McHugh: Minister, we live now in an ageing society, and, clearly, I am also well in that ballpark. As the society ages, it is more likely that many people will suffer from a disability of one form or another, and, as a result, the demand for disability adaptations and the like will increase. The facilities grant is already struggling to cope with demand, so when will the review of that grant be completed? Will its recommendations be implemented by 2027?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important that we have the resources in place. It is also important that we take action now to make sure that people do not find themselves in the situation that the Member described due to ageing and that we have as healthy a population as possible. The Member will be aware of the significant investment that we put into those issues. It would certainly be inappropriate for me to comment right now, but I hope that we will have further good news on that later today. However, we certainly need to make the most effective use of our resources, which is why that work is being carried out. I will update the Member accordingly.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement progressing a new disability strategy. A disability forum has been long called for by the deaf and disabled community, and I welcome its inclusion in the statement. The Minister said that he is aiming for it to be in place in 12 months. Will he provide details of the recruitment process for those who would be keen to get involved?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the fact that I want the forum to be in place as soon as possible; in fact, we have already had quite a bit of interest from those who have volunteered their services. Obviously, we still need to go through the consultation process, getting final agreement from the Executive and putting it out there. I will make sure that we do as much of that preparatory work as possible, and we will inform people of what it will entail. As I said in my statement, the forum will be different from any of the other bodies that have been set up. For example, we are not asking for some of the professional or life experience that some may have required for other roles. Instead, we are trying to make sure that we get as wide a range of views as possible, because it is important that we have expertise and representation from all sectors. That is what I am determined to do, and we will update as soon as we have more information on that.

Mr Butler: On 6 December last year, we lost Mr Seán Fitzsimons, one of the most powerful disability advocates. I am sure that the Minister would recognise his loss to that piece of work and that Seán Fitzsimons would have loved to hear the news today about the potential for significant change for our disabled communities. We extend our thoughts to the family, who were mourning his loss this time last year.

Minister, this is good news — at least, it certainly has the potential to be good news — but your statement refers to "potential reform" of the DDA, which is 30 years old. As chair of the all-party group (APG) on disability, I have not heard a single person say that the DDA is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister outline why changes have not happened in the past 30 years and give a more significant and complete timeline for the full implementation of the UNCRPD and changes to the legislation?

Mr Lyons: First, I thank the Member for his kind words about Seán. I was at an event that paid tribute to him last week at City Hall. I have no doubt that he made a significant contribution to the document through his work in the groups. I pay tribute to him and to the work that he carried out. It was great to meet his family and his son, Ollie, last week. I am very grateful to him for that work.

The Member may have been a little bit wrong when he said that he had not met anyone who thinks that the Act is not fit for purpose, rather than fit for purpose. I do not think that it is fit for purpose. That is why we need to do more work on it, and that will be done. There is a commitment, as I said in the statement, to review that. I hope that there is not any misunderstanding. We will take that forward.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, you mentioned that there would be a number of groups and organisations in the forum to hold you to account. Can I have some more detail on that?

Mr Lyons: As I said, the forum will be composed entirely of deaf and disabled people. We want as broad a representation on it as possible. There are many people involved in the disability sector. I want it to be broad, because I want to hear the views, the expertise and the lived experience of those involved. We do not have the details yet on the exact process for that. It will also depend on the feedback from the consultation. However, the forum will have a key role not only in monitoring and holding us to account but in bringing forward new ideas as time progresses, because it is a 10-year strategy.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the disability strategy today and for the announcement on the disability forum. Minister, you mentioned the fully representative nature of the forum and referred to the young disabled people who will be on it. However, given that we have an ageing population, Minister, can you confirm that older people will also be on the panel, as well as representatives from rural areas, such as those in my constituency, where deaf and disabled people face increased barriers and isolation? Transportation is a particular issue in accessing services.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I have said that I want representation to be as broad as possible so that we hear those views. As I said, there are differing circumstances in rural and urban areas. Those need to be taken into account. We want it to be as comprehensive as possible in taking in all those views. I certainly hope that we have some representation from South Down as well.

Mrs Guy: Minister, I welcome the statement. I am pleased to see that you are reserving places for disabled young people on the disability forum. What collaboration has your Department had with the Department of Education to ensure that the strategy will help disabled young people to fulfil their educational potential?

Mr Lyons: There has been extensive engagement not just with the Department of Education but all Departments because it impacts on so many areas of life. Of course, that engagement has happened through the groups that have been set up. We have been clear that we want to make sure that we help people fulfil their full potential, and that includes children's educational experiences.

I encourage people to look at the document and to respond to it and to the commitments that we have made to see what needs changed and what can be improved. It will be a genuine consultation process. If the Member would like to see any further issues included in it, we would be happy to hear from her.

Mr McNulty: Nollaig shona daoibh.

I hope that every family, especially children, get to experience the magic and the joy of Christmas.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I hope that it delivers on its promise to deaf and disabled people. Does the Minister anticipate any necessity for training public servants in the delivery of the disability strategy in order to achieve the eight outcomes, as outlined?

Mr Lyons: A very happy Christmas to Mr McNulty as well.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: I hope that Santa comes. I hope that the Member has been a good boy this year. That is maybe to be determined. Maybe he can ask Santa for a new phone

if he is not able to find his.

The Member asks a relevant question. It is important that we have a step change and that staff, be they in the public or private sector, understand the needs and concerns of deaf and disabled people. Those are changes that we look forward to bringing through, but, of course, there will be a requirement, whether for the Civil Service or elsewhere in the public sector, to understand the changes that will be implemented and the things that they can do to make it easier for deaf and disabled people. You will see some of those come through in the action plan, specifically, but, if the Member thinks that there is anything missing, I encourage him to respond to the public consultation.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's statement and the confirmation that the forum will work closely with the various Departments. That is key to delivering for the deaf and disabled community. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council recently established a lived experience group made up of councillors and members of the public with disabilities. It meets for the first time tomorrow, and I wish it all the best as it moves forward. Is it envisaged that the forum will work closely with local councils and groups such as the one I have outlined as well as the various Departments in Stormont?

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to hear that that group has been set up in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and I wish it well as it carries out its work. Of course I would like to see the regional disability forum engage with other stakeholders as it carries out its work and monitors the implementation and development of the strategy. It would be useful for them to take into consideration the views of others, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the needs of all deaf and disabled people are met, because there are significant differences in some of the challenges that are faced, especially between urban and rural areas. That is where the expertise of the group that he mentioned in Mid and Antrim Borough Council can be useful. I welcome its establishment, and I hope that other councils can look at that example. One of the reasons why it is so important is that we need to raise awareness and visibility, and we need to be better aware of the small things that we can do every day to improve the opportunities, experiences and life chances of those who are affected. I welcome the establishment of that group and his support for the strategy.

Mr Carroll: The Minister talked about access to the labour market. Can he expand on that and what will it look like? How will he ensure that people whose personal independence payment (PIP) has been cut and who have lost their mobility car, will be able to get into work?

Quickly — with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the time of year — as the Minister has been speaking, I have been tagged online by Dermot Devlin. He, alongside three members of the disability strategy co-design group, has published a brief outlining concerns about the strategy. I have not read it yet, but will the Minister commit to engaging with Dermot and members of the group to hear their concerns?

Mr Lyons: We have the disability at work strategy in place, because opportunities should be open to everyone. Work is an opportunity — it is a good thing — and people should not be prohibited from working because of their disability. That is why we have put that strategy in place and why we think that employers should make reasonable adjustments if that would help people enter the workplace. That is why we are putting through JobStart to help people, many of whom have disabilities, get into work. I want to be clear: I am not taking the approach that the Labour Government have taken and pulling the rug from under people. I want to help people get into work and improve their life chances.

The Member will be aware that I have not seen the documentation that he talks about, but of course we will engage. This is a consultation process: we are going to hear from people. Having put other strategies in place, I understand that, when you go out for consultation, there will always be those who will say, "Why isn't x in?", or, "Why do we not have y or z in the document?". This is the opportunity, through the strategy, for people to give us their feedback and views.

I met many of the stakeholders last week. It is fair to say that there is broad welcome for the strategy; that people are pleased that it is in place, that they have been listened to and that we are now going to be able to start collecting data; that the disability forum is in place; and that there will be a review of the legislation. Many of the other 58 commitments in the strategy are to be welcomed. If there are more, of course we will listen, engage and take on board what we can, because we want something that genuinely meets the needs of disabled people. That is why the process is in place. We will be happy to listen to all.

Mr Sheehan: Many people who live in social housing require accommodation that suits their needs, and that demand is likely to grow. The Minister, however, has indicated that he intends to change the design standards of social housing to reduce the minimum requirement for disability-inclusive accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the policy proposal flies in the face of the spirit of the disability strategy?

Mr Lyons: No, it does not, because I want to ensure that we have more houses in Northern Ireland that are suitable for those who require them. We do not need to ensure that all houses are built to the same standard. Doing that would increase the cost, and, over the lifetime of the house, there might not be anybody living in it who requires those expensive changes. I want to make sure that we have sufficient houses that are properly constructed and adaptable for those who need that. I would rather make sure that we have more houses overall that meet the needs of disabled and non-disabled people than have fewer houses that are built to a certain spec that is not necessarily needed for everybody. It is a common-sense thing to do. We can keep doing things the way that we have always done them and wonder why we do not get different results. I am prepared to do something differently to meet the challenges that we face.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a question following a ministerial statement, they need to have been in the Chamber to hear the statement. Apart from that, I confirm that the goodwill expressed during that set of questions, from the Minister and Mr McNulty, also comes from the Chair, and it will hopefully prevail in the following debates. That concludes questions on the statement.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move

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

Ms Bradshaw: The findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry speak directly to the functioning of the Executive during one of the most serious crises of our lifetime. Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, I confirm that we will support the SDLP's amendment. My party made it clear in its response to the draft Programme for Government that institutional reform ought to be part of the Executive's work, but that becomes impossible when the two largest parties block progress. That, in itself, illustrates why reform is needed.

What the inquiry has laid out is stark; it describes a system that responded too slowly and which suffered from what Baroness Hallett called a fractured and dysfunctional approach to collective decision-making. In Northern Ireland, the dysfunction was magnified. What emerged here was a disjointed and, at times, politically motivated approach to a global emergency that touched every household. The uncomfortable truth is that some Ministers did not consistently put the people of Northern Ireland first. When unity, clarity and discipline were needed, political point-scoring too often filled the space instead. The inquiry has confirmed that. Those are not Alliance's criticisms; they are the findings of an independent, statutory process, the chair of which concluded that Northern Ireland's institutions and structures significantly weakened the Executive's ability to respond effectively in the pandemic.

Rightly, the motion notes those findings with grave concern and expresses regret that there were failures of leadership displayed by Ministers from the two largest parties at key moments. Those failures are now matters of public record. There were delayed interventions, public disputes and decisions blocked when time was critical. Sadly, recent behaviour in the Chamber suggests that the culture has not materially changed. Bickering, point-scoring and the pursuit of sound bites still displace the serious collective work that the public expect from us. After the report was published, members of the public told the media that they have been conditioned not to expect much from political leaders here. That is a devastating indictment and one that we should all take seriously.

Health must never be a partisan battleground. In a public health emergency, the Executive table should be a place of unity, yet the inquiry found that cohesion was missing at several key points. Baroness Hallett stated plainly that the Executive were not the central forum for crisis leadership that they needed to be. A major factor in that failing was the misuse of cross-community mechanisms. Alliance has long warned that those safeguards were designed to protect inclusion, not to be used as political weapons. During the pandemic, they were used in ways that eroded public confidence and trust at a time when trust was already fragile.

That reflects a deeper structural flaw. The current cross-community voting arrangements create a democratic deficit. Alliance MLAs are elected by voters from all backgrounds, yet our votes do not count in cross-community Divisions. During the pandemic, that meant that thousands of people whom we represent were effectively excluded from some of the most consequential decisions ever taken here.

The most striking example —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I would like to make a bit of progress.

The most striking example came in November 2020, when a cross-community mechanism was used to block a proposed circuit breaker, despite majority support for stronger restrictions. As Baroness Hallett noted, that left the Executive unable to take timely and consistent decisions. The result was weaker and delayed intervention during a major wave of infection. It is difficult to see the fairness or the democracy in that outcome.

Dysfunction in a crisis is not just poor governance; it is dangerous governance. That is why the motion states:

No mandate gives a party the right to paralyse government when lives are at stake. Let me be clear: this is not an attack on power-sharing. Power-sharing is essential here in Northern Ireland. What we oppose is power-dividing. The institutions must be robust enough to function in a crisis. They must be fair, credible and genuinely collective when tested.

We must never forget the human reality behind what happened. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland died; families grieved without funerals; older people endured isolation; disabled people felt invisible; workers faced impossible choices; and children lost months of learning, stability and their normal lives. Those are human stories, not statistics, and many families now ask, with reason, whether clearer, faster and more decisive leadership could have reduced their suffering. We cannot undo what happened, but we can choose what we learn.

One of the most serious findings for Northern Ireland was the fragmentation of decision-making. The Department of Health carried an impossible burden while the Executive failed to operate as a coherent system. Authority was unclear, advice was disputed and responsibility was not shared. Baroness Hallett described that as a structural weakness that left Northern Ireland exposed. Key sectors, especially care homes, carers and disability organisations issued repeated warnings about disproportionate impacts. Their voices were not systematically built into decision-making, and that must change.

Our institutions were designed to end conflict, protect identity and guarantee representation. Those purposes remain vital, but a system built primarily to manage division is not automatically a system that is capable of managing a fast-moving public health emergency. The inquiry makes that point plainly. Reform does not mean dismantling power-sharing. It means strengthening it and building resilience into the structures that we already have so that they hold firm under pressure. We need open, honest communication with the public. Trust takes years to earn and moments to lose, and we cannot claim to have learned lessons unless transparency becomes the norm rather than the exception.

We must recognise that future crises will not stop at our borders. Whether the next shock is in public health, the economy or climate, cooperation with the UK Government and the Irish Government must be grounded in stable, agreed structures, not improvised arrangements made in panic. Those are the foundations of competent government, and they reflect Alliance's values: pluralism over polarisation; service over division; and the belief that good government is not optional but our duty. That is why the motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a process of institutional reform in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties and stakeholders. Some of what is needed requires action beyond this Assembly.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Can the Member outline why she believes that the Irish Government should be involved in institutional reform in Northern Ireland? Would that not be a breach of the current arrangements via the Belfast Agreement?

Ms Bradshaw: We know that the Belfast Agreement was an international agreement, so we think that institutional reform will require all partners to step forward. I do not see any reason why we would exclude the partners who were instrumental in bringing about the institutions in the first place. I will move on.

There will always be those who say that this is not the right time, but, if we cannot reform our institutions after a crisis that took so many lives, when will be the right time? Another crisis will come. It will not look exactly like COVID, but it will come. The test for us all is whether we act when we have the chance. We owe it to the families who grieved; the health and social care workers who carried unbearable burdens; the children and young people whose lives were disrupted; and the future generations who deserve institutions that are capable of protecting them. I urge Members to support our motion, and I commend it to the House.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is one of the final motions before we break up for Christmas, and, in many ways, it is fitting because, since we came back in February last year after our two-year forced absence — forced by one party, as it had been forced by a different party previously — in one sense, as an official Opposition, we represent one of the bits of institutional reform that has happened. I hope that — perhaps I am not the one to judge — we have been relatively successful, or the idea of opposition has been successful. As leader of the Opposition, the first thing that I did was challenge the newly appointed First Minister and deputy First Minister not to resign their offices. The only way to directly collapse these institutions is for one of the two major designated parties to resign that office and then refuse to appoint a replacement. Neither of those individuals, nor their parties, has ever given me that commitment. That speaks to a fundamental problem with the way our system works. It is why the motion is necessary, and it speaks to dysfunction. However, that is not the only thing that is dysfunctional about the way that our politics works.

Our amendment is an important one. It is about accountability. Yes, it is about holding Executive parties to account. We make no apology for that, because, as I said, one of the most important bits of institutional and political reform that has happened here is the creation of an official Opposition. Like everybody else, we deserve to be held to account through robust debate in the Chamber, and robust debate in the Chamber is necessary so long as it is focused on policy and outcomes for the public, not personalities.

I will come on to the Executive parties — all of them — and their failure to make progress on a Programme for Government, because that is important, but, first, I will reflect on the core thrust of the motion: the findings of module 2 of the COVID inquiry. They are shocking. Let us remember not only the awfulness of the years of COVID-19 and the difficult position in which every individual and family across the world was put but the immense pressure that healthcare workers, educationalists, teachers, families and, indeed, policymakers were under. For those of us who had to legislate and make decisions for people, it was extraordinarily difficult. All those things were made worse by the two major parties in our Executive. The inquiry is scathing about that and about how our system of government let down the public, who lost loved ones.

The inquiry made it clear that the situation was worse for families and the public in Northern Ireland because of decisions that were made by the two big parties. Sinn Féin facilitated and attended a funeral in the middle of Belfast in clear violation either of the restrictions themselves or of the spirit of them, which undermined people's confidence in leadership at a time when others' loved ones either died alone or were buried effectively in private. That was immensely hurtful, and it took years for an apology.

The DUP used cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. That was an extraordinarily inappropriate thing to do.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a few minutes, not just yet.

That is not what those vetoes are for. As we know from yesterday, the DUP is trying to use those vetoes again. At least, in the case of yesterday, the use of the veto is totally futile, because it is being used in relation to a non-binding motion, but it comes back to how, unfortunately, the DUP occasionally sees politics.

The COVID-19 inquiry exposed why we need to change how we do politics here. As a party that was an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, we remain profoundly morally, politically and intellectually committed to the idea of sharing power, but, as Paula Bradshaw said, it has to be about sharing. In order to share power, you have to have a vision of the common good that respects different identities and aspirations for the future. Our politics has become about negative vetoes, stalemate, divvying up power and sharing it out when it suits one another. We have already seen that this week, with the failure to agree a multi-year Budget in time for the end of the year and the beginning of the financial year. There are multiple examples of that every day.

The case is proven for the need to reform how this place works. The word "reform" is often bandied about without precision about what it means, and it can mean a multiplicity of things. It is understood most definitively as meaning "institutional reform", but what we have to mean by that is making it harder to collapse the institutions, so that they are more sustainable. It should not just be about their being here and our showing up and debating motions that have no legal effect but about our Government's being more effective at dealing with the issues that face people in their lives. It is about recognising that there are different aspirations and traditions in this society, having a clear list of priorities, ideally in a Programme for Government that is matched to a Budget, and saying to the public, "This is what we are delivering for you". That is what reform should be about, and that is what we are about. That is why we have championed reform, and I acknowledge that others in the Chamber want to do that too.

That brings me on to the thrust of our amendment, which is about accounting for all the parties in the Chamber. Literally every party in the Chamber has said at one point that it wants to fundamentally reform how the institutions work. It is a much more recent move for Sinn Féin, but it now says — rhetorically at least — that it wants the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to investigate that. I welcome that. To be honest, I do not think that that would have happened without political pressure from other quarters, including from us as the official Opposition. I do not think that that is an unreasonable position for Sinn Féin to take; it is a welcome development, and I hope that it keeps that up and is serious about delivering on it.

I will come on to the Alliance Party, but we know that the Ulster Unionist Party has acknowledged that there needs to be reform. The DUP, however, now seems to be implacably opposed. It keeps talking about how any change to the way in which Stormont works would be a profound offence. I will very briefly read out some words:

— we are flattered to be included —

blah-blah-blah.

Those words are not from the Alliance Party or the Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto; they are, in fact, from the DUP's manifesto in 2011. When a Programme for Government was agreed, we did not see any of that. When it comes to accountability, we are —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am not going to give way; I have been asked to give way multiple times. I am happy to do so in a second, if I have time, but I need to make some progress. I think that I am one of the most generous Members when it comes to taking interventions in the Chamber.

I want to say this, however: we know that all parties in the Chamber, including the Alliance Party, have a long-standing commitment to reform. I do not say this to be gratuitous — it is pre-Christmas, and I say it in a spirit of goodwill — but it is important to say that the Alliance Party won an extraordinary mandate in 2022. I know that it was extraordinary, because we lost a third of our seats thanks to the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party is right when it says that that was an historic mandate. Unfortunately, however, the people who voted for the Alliance Party on that day have not seen a clear, meaningful return on that investment. That is not just the fault of the DUP and Sinn Féin — they cannot simply be blamed for that.

This is a really important point: when discussions were had about restoring the Executive last year, a lot of people would have felt that it would be entirely reasonable for the Alliance Party, with a more than doubled representation in the Executive, to say to the other parties, "As a condition of our participation in this Executive, we insist upon a commitment to make progress on institutional reform". That would not have been, as it is sometimes described, ransom politics. It could not have been ransom politics. The Alliance Party does not designate as First Minister or deputy First Minister, so it could not have blocked Sinn Féin or the DUP from forming an Executive. It would simply have been keeping true to the mandate that it received in 2022, but I am afraid that it did not do that.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have time, but I am happy to engage. If I have time at the end, I will give way.

That party did not hold faith with its mandate. I am not saying that that would have been easy, nor am I saying that it would have led to institutional reform, because the two big parties may well have blocked it. However, it is true to say that it would have been an entirely reasonable and, in fact, obvious thing to do, because the upshot of some of the Alliance Party's proposals for reform is that it wants a more voluntary or more flexible form of coalition. Saying that your participation is conditional not on getting everything that you want but on at least making progress on one thing, even if it involves saying, "We will enter an Executive for a period of time, subject to its being included in a Programme for Government", would have been the entirely responsible thing to do. It is hugely regrettable to me that that did not happen, because I want to see reform. It is also true to say that many people who voted for a party that does not traditionally designate as unionist or nationalist and who wanted to see reform have not seen progress on that. I do not say that to be rude or unkind — it is pre-Christmas — and I want to work with the Alliance Party to deliver reform, but it did not use the mandate that it received in 2022 to deliver on that.

Where do we go from here? We must use all the means that are available to us. Let us go back to being honest. All of us in the Chamber must acknowledge that trust in politics is at an all-time low. We simply cannot go on like this. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing some important work, but it is a relatively obscure Stormont Committee. Let us agree today in the Chamber with the Alliance Party motion that we need to make progress on this. Let us do it; let us not simply write to Santa Claus, Hilary Benn, asking him to do it for us. Let us start the work here, and let us take responsibility. People do not trust us; they have contempt for those of us who are in the Chamber. Let us reform this place —

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

Mr O'Toole: — and let us take responsibility for our actions.

Mr Sheehan: We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and we must acknowledge how far we have come and how much things have changed. The context in which we now operate is fundamentally different from that of 1998. With that in mind, we must look seriously and maturely at reform. Sinn Féin is up for that discussion. We are open to exploring how our institutions can be strengthened and how accountability can be improved. However, we are equally clear that any reform must defend, not dilute, the principles of and protections in the Good Friday Agreement.

The proper forum in which to examine those issues in detail, hear expert evidence and bring forward meaningful proposals is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That work is ongoing, and a process of evidence gathering and consultation is under way. As part of our current work programme, we on that Committee are engaging with academics, constitutional experts and others on questions such as the role and election of the Speaker, cross-community voting and designations, the process for Executive formation and all the other important issues.

Those are complex issues that require thoughtful consideration. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place to have that conversation, test ideas, build consensus and ensure that any changes strengthen, rather than undermine, these institutions. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I was pleased to support a proposal from my Committee colleague Alliance MLA Michelle Guy to explore enhanced civic engagement on the issue of institutional reform. Civic participation was key to building the Good Friday Agreement, and it should remain central to how we continue to shape these political institutions. If we were to hand responsibility for the process to a Secretary of State who has consistently shown himself to be out of touch with people here, it would be the wrong approach. It would also cut across the constructive work already taking place at Committee level. People elected representatives to this Assembly to take forward proposals, debate them, test ideas and work towards agreement.

Our message is clear. Sinn Féin is up for the discussion. We are engaging with the detail, and we will continue to do so through the proper forum, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Others, particularly the DUP, need to explain where they stand because setting your face against reform is not a plan for the future, and it is not good enough for all the people whom we come here to represent.

Mr Buckley: I suppose that I have mixed emotions about the debate. Primarily, my thoughts are with those who lost loved ones during COVID, those who continue to suffer the aftermath of long-term health effects, the children who missed out on schooling and, indeed, those who were bereaved. Those of us who were in the Chamber at the time can recount a very difficult time as an elected representative. I remember the elderly constituent who was impaled on the cemetery fence as he went to lay flowers at his wife's grave when the cemeteries were closed due to COVID restrictions. I remember the constituent who presented late at A&E and his throat cancer was so developed that it was missed. He died. I remember the businesses destroyed. I remember going to the window of a care home to visit a dear friend and watch him die from the window. I remember those things. I was present as an elected representative. I took views in the Assembly that were different from those of other Members, but they were all taken from a position of huge empathy and a huge degree of respect for those who had no voice.

That is why I look at the motion, and I look at Governments around the world that struggled with COVID. There was not one Government that did not struggle with the COVID pandemic. If we look at deaths per million around the world, we see that the UK does not even enter the top 10. That is not to say that the UK Government got everything right; they got many things wrong, as did the devolved Administrations. However, it is a fallacy to say that it is because of the institutions and the way in which they operate here that we so failed the people of Northern Ireland.

I am disappointed in the Alliance Party today because it is not only low but crass to try to insinuate and link that to your desire for institutional reform, which you know rightly goes to the very heart of safeguards in the agreements, the Belfast Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, that are crucial to this place functioning. We know that this is a divided society, and we know that it needs to have cross-community support on key issues.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a minute, because the Member gave way to me.

When I look at that, I say that that is crass and is gaslighting the victims who suffered as a result of some the decisions taken by Members in the House. I will make this point, and then I will give way: it is very obvious to me that it is the Alliance Party that is so keen to talk up collapse, and it is quite obvious that there is a campaign. You are in a political vice. You are being squeezed from the left by the SDLP, which is putting you under pressure. There is a huge chasm between you and unionism because of the positions that you have adopted. Ms Bradshaw failed to mention in her opening speech that one of the most brass-necked, outlandish and despicable acts during the COVID pandemic in Northern Ireland was the mass attendance at the Bobby Storey funeral.

To the SDLP's credit, Matthew O'Toole mentioned it. Ms Bradshaw could not even mention it. It shows how far to the left, and indeed into Sinn Féin's lap, Alliance has fallen.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give take an intervention?

Mr Buckley: On that point, I give way to a Member of the Alliance Party who can suggest an action of reform that would have delivered better results during the COVID pandemic.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. This is about institutional reform, so —

A Member: No, it is not.

Ms Bradshaw: No, it is. It is about institutional reform. The report laid bare the need for it. My question to you is: have you read Baroness Hallett's response? These —.

Mr Buckley: Let me answer.

Ms Bradshaw: OK.

Mr Buckley: I only have a moment. Have I read the report? Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute.

Mr Buckley: The Member is quite crass to talk about whether I have read the report. I sat on the Health Committee with her during the COVID pandemic. She did not even realise at the time that the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled the Minister of Health to have vast, overreaching powers beyond the Assembly. She is trying to rewrite the past.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. I will take your point of order, Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: I want the record to reflect that I spoke in every single debate on the COVID regulations, and I always stressed that we in the Alliance Party were deeply troubled by the fact that the Health Minister had such far-reaching powers. During —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am going to move on. Mr Buckley's time —.

Mr Buckley: The Member did not even realise —.

Ms Bradshaw: What are you talking about? Of course I realised. Of course I realised.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will resume their seats. Points of order will not be used as points of information during the debate. Mr Buckley will continue.

Mr Buckley: It is quite easy to understand why the Member is angry —

Ms Bradshaw: You are telling lies.

Mr Buckley: — because she failed fundamentally to scrutinise —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr Buckley: She failed to fundamentally scrutinise legislation that had a huge impact. The Alliance Members were lockdown fanatics. That caused huge harm in our schools. There are still record levels of truancy in our schools. The legislation caused record levels of anxiety in our communities, which craved leadership, and Alliance showed none. Alliance wants to come to the House today to try to rewrite its record during the COVID pandemic. Talk about accountability? It was the Alliance Party's leader, Naomi Long, who wiped her WhatsApp messages. Where was the accountability there? Perhaps take a mirror and look at your own face before throwing around accusations —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, resume your seat. I am going to call order again. I refer all Members to the terms of the motion, but particularly you, Mr Buckley. You have strayed some way from that and you are straying into the business of reviewing the entire COVID process. Return to the motion.

Mr Buckley: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think there is a brave degree of rewriting and hypocrisy from some of the parties that are debating the motion.

Parties fundamentally disagreed on aspects of COVID. Do you know what? Rightly so, because they were huge decisions. However, understand this — I want to be clear — you will not use the COVID inquiry or the death of loved ones from all across Northern Ireland to take away safeguards that are crucial to the functioning of this place.

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

Mr Buckley: I say this to the Secretary of State: no unionist will support it.

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

Mr Butler: I have a speech written, but I might digress from it because the debate has moved into a slightly different sphere. In the first instance, my party would have loved to support the first part of the motion, because it talks about the reform of the institutions for the common good. However, I listened to Mr Sheehan's speech, and he did not reference the first part of the motion at all. Sinn Féin has spotted the two parts of the motion: one to ignore and one to lean into. Now, we have looked at it from a balanced perspective. Members in the Chamber have different views on what happened during COVID and what has happened since. Sadly, the motion has lost every bit of good that it could have had.

I was one of the MLAs who was here during New Decade, New Approach, when we worked for weeks through talks, about 200 or 300 yards away from the Chamber, to try to restore these institutions. Part of those talks was about reform. That is hard to deliver and, if you do not deliver reform in the House with the authority of all the voices in the Chamber, you doom yourself to failure. I ask the Members who tabled the motion to reflect on the fact that it is a missed opportunity.

I want to turn to Baroness Hallett's module 2 findings for a moment or two. The findings are damning — absolutely damning. Evidence showed the clear failure of leadership in this place. Sinn Féin, evidently, failed spectacularly when it did not obey the laws that we had passed here collectively. That was not mentioned today. The ongoing process that we had at the very top between the DUP and Sinn Féin and the failure to put people before party became evident when we could not make decisions. I want to deal with that very quickly because I am sure that, some day, we will have a better debate about what happened during COVID. I am genuinely pleased that we had a Health Minister in Robin Swann, who did not delete his phone or WhatsApp messages and has been able to contribute fully to the COVID inquiry. I do not claim that I got everything right in the whole COVID debate. However, what I will say is that I have a background in dynamic risk assessment. When you dynamically risk assess something such as the COVID pandemic, you do not have all the facts, so what you do is listen to those who do have the facts — the scientists and medical experts — and put your faith in the people who are giving you the best advice based on what has been proven. We are certainly not experts. We could have acted more speedily. Would we have got everything right? We absolutely would not have done because it was an imperfect storm. Nothing was going to protect —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. With regard to the advice that was given to Robin Swann, the Health Minister, who had all the power — whether he chose to use it or not was up to him — the CMO in England silenced the ethical and moral group that was there to advise him on ethical standards. That would have migrated over the sea in the advice that Robin Swann received. Does the Member agree that it was dangerous to have power in one man and one party throughout that emergency?

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

Mr Butler: I do not actually see how one man had that power. We passed legislation. There were 90 Members in the House and an Executive. Had that Executive been functioning properly, and has there been trust among Members, we would not have been in the mess that we are discussing today. Therefore, I do not accept what the Member has said.

I agree with Mr Buckley's assertion. The second part of the motion actually asks us to disregard strand one of the Good Friday Agreement.

Some Members: Yes.

Mr Butler: That should have been separated out. If that is what the Alliance Party wants to do, that should be a separate motion in and of itself. I genuinely lament the fact that we could not simply have debated a motion on how we collectively bring leadership, collaboration and cohesion to the Executive, because the people of Northern Ireland darned well deserve that. It is not just about COVID. The first part of the motion speaks to the fact that we have not had a Government here for 12 years out of 25. That is an indictment of why we cannot govern at times.

If and when there is a serious motion to debate the reform and betterment of the Good Friday Agreement for the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland, my party will not be found wanting. However, we will not set aside aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for anybody's political whims.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Alliance and the SDLP for tabling the motion and amendment. While I do not like some of the language in them, I completely support the spirit of both.

I declare an interest as I was a Minister from June 2020 to December 2020 and was responsible for making some of the COVID regulations. I went in front of the COVID inquiry. I have read each of the module reports. I have read the recent report. It is not good reading for anyone. I apologised privately to families and at the COVID inquiry for my attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral. That is the measure of political leadership.

Matthew, my party has not come late to the table on reform. We have taken part in a series of citizens' assemblies right across the island. We have listened to people. I do not agree with a lot of what they said, but we can certainly appreciate what they said. That is why we are serious about reform. I do not want to do down AERC, because it is a space in which we go through the process of working with academics, listening to consultations and doing the citizens' assemblies before bringing our findings back to our parties. I want to put to bed any suggestion that we are not serious about reform. If people want to approach that from a different political perspective, that is up to them.

This debate is really interesting for me, and a lot of observers who watch this place. Paul Frew is very vocal about the impacts of COVID, which is his prerogative, and Jonathan Buckley has talked about what Jonathan talks about. I, and, I think, the people watching and listening, would have much preferred to hear what you are doing about reform. Instead, you attacked parties because they are different from you.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will give way in a wee minute, Jonathan.

That demonstrates a lack of political confidence and political leadership.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that she apologised for her attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral; it is just a pity that other members of her party did not.

I am serious about the reform that we should all be serious about, which is the reform of public services. Does the Member agree that key institutional reforms, such as the removal of cross-community safeguards, will be achieved only if there is agreement across the House, rather than the agreement of one political party?

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Alliance, the SDLP and ourselves are trying to get to that point in AERC. The Member may not appreciate this, but we are trying to get to a point at which we all agree on institutional reform. With respect, Jonathan, coming from a party that has blocked equality and progress —.

Mr Buckley: Nonsense.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The proof has been in the pudding. We are looking at the bill of rights and lots of other issues that would promote rights, equality, inclusion and respect, which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement and anything that comes with it.

Both Governments need to be involved at some stage. If we get to the stage of having to decide on proposals in AERC — hopefully we will — and yourselves and the UUP —. Robbie is not here, but I was on the Executive when Robin Swann voted against his own proposal because he was a DUP fanboy at the time. I am just putting that on the record. At some stage or other, we are going to have to look at reform. What is happening here at the minute is not working.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will surely, Eóin. Very briefly.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate what she said about the spirit of reform, but I am still not clear on whether her intention is to support the motion.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Begrudgingly. I do not like the language, but I will support it. We will also support the amendment. I say "begrudgingly" because we did not write it, but, accepting the spirit of it, we absolutely will support it. You cannot talk about reform, equality, inclusion and the very essence of this place and then block the very motions and amendments that are trying to look at things differently.

What some Members are going to say has become almost predictable. Members need to be genuinely serious about reform. If they are happy to hold on to vetoes and blocking mechanisms, at least we will all know where we stand. The progressive parties need to get on with the business, and, hopefully, some people will come to their senses along the way.

Mr Frew: Today, so many people who have suffered loss and bereavement have been in the Building. I do not know whether Members got to see and hear the event in the Long Gallery this morning involving people who suffered loss and bereavement due to the pandemic and the lockdown philosophy that meant that they could not bury their loved ones, attend a funeral or attend a wake.

Alliance would dare to exploit that and, indeed, Alliance's own failings to try to further its political goals and objectives.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: No, I will not give way.

Reform will not fix incompetence, reform will not fix lazy governance, and reform will not fix stupid. Everything that was constitutional and institutional about this place was held in abeyance at the time of COVID. Reform would not have stopped those parties and the Assembly giving away all its power to one person, no matter who that person was, to dream up regulations and restrictions and have them written up over breakfast, implemented at lunchtime and enforced by supper time. It shifted the whole dynamic of the Executive. The Executive changed, in one move, how they would make decisions that impacted on our people so badly and disastrously. Reform could not have stopped the Coronavirus Act 2020, which made this a zombie Assembly that rubber-stamped horrific laws weeks after they had been enforced and then, of course, superseded. Those laws had been made redundant numerous times over before the Assembly even voted on them.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: No, I will not.

Whilst the regulations were fleeting, the damage remains to this day: people filled with anxiety, not able to leave their home; people not able to attend school; people who were coerced to take vaccines that damaged them — of course, the Member called for house-to-house and door-to-door vaccine teams to coerce people into taking a vaccine that caused them adverse reactions. That is what we are left with, but it is what Alliance will not get to grips with.

When I was asking questions about and raising objections to those restrictions, two SDLP Members came to me in the corridor and said, "You know, Paul, we agree with everything that you say in there". I asked, "Well, why do you not get up off your hind legs and actually say that?", and they said, "No, our party would go through us". That party, the SDLP, then called for the sacking of nurses, who had worked for a whole year on the front line; the SDLP called for their sacking. Those people, the SDLP, even called for the unvaccinated and those who chose not to have the discriminatory certificate to be banished.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Frew, I asked earlier for people not to reassess the entire COVID period and processes, and I will certainly not indulge party critiques. Will you return to the motion?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which talked about all those matters. An Alliance Member asked me one day, "Why do you keep asking those questions?". Well, that is our job. It was their incompetence. We know that the Alliance Party played a massive role in the coercion around vaccine certification. We need to grapple with this issue, but to use it as an excuse to reform these institutions, which were held in abeyance? The Executive did not function properly. The Assembly could not do its scrutiny work. It should take months to pass regulations and legislation in this place.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member makes an interesting point. Does he agree that it was not the structures of the Executive that prevented adequate scrutiny and adequate legislation but the Coronavirus Act 2020, which those Members supported?

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

Mr Frew: Yes. I thank the Member for that vital intervention. It is that Act, which still sits on the statute book, that has done the damage. We have families who are filled with regret, guilt and torment because they could not give their loved ones a proper send-off according to their religion. They could not do that. In Ireland, North and South, a wake is really important, and those people were denied it. In fact, they could not even stand in the open air in a field — a burial ground. That was disastrous, and we still live with the consequences. Assembly Members in the Chamber were denied the ability to scrutinise and denied their say, because we passed laws weeks after they had been enforced, when they had been duplicated, removed and superseded three or four times over. That is no way to run an Executive; that is no way to run an Assembly. In a crisis, we need more scrutiny powers and more of a say, not less, but that is what all those parties supported at the time: shame on you all.

Mrs Guy: The purpose of the motion is not to re-litigate the failures of leadership and decision-making during COVID that have been vividly expressed by Baroness Hallett in the latest findings of the COVID-19 inquiry. At its heart, the purpose of the motion is to understand how the two largest parties in the Executive are prepared to react to them.

When I heard the finding that decision-making was "chaotic", "deeply divided" and "marred by political disputes", I know how I reacted — I was angry — but, when I listened to the reaction of those who lost loved ones, my heart broke for them. Brenda Doherty's mother, Ruth Burke, was the first local woman to die from COVID-19 here. Speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' after the latest inquiry findings, her reaction and her call were clear:

That is wisdom and clarity from a place of grief. Her grief — her story — is one of thousands. Families have empty seats at the table because our politics failed them when they needed leadership most. That is why the report must be a tipping point.

It is absolutely intolerable that anyone in the Assembly could look at the evidence, especially the abuse of cross-community voting, and still argue that the current institutional arrangements are fine as they are. If, when an independent inquiry has shown that lives may have been lost because decision-making was paralysed by political disputes, the DUP and Sinn Féin are not willing to accept the need for reform, we must ask whether those parties are capable of change at all. Maybe I should stop being surprised by that, because those are the parties that were willing to collapse the Government here for years and watch as our public services deteriorated. Even to me, however, the inquiry report feels different. It cuts through every excuse, every deflection; it shows us, in black and white, that party politics were prioritised over public safety.

I am a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we continue to take evidence on reform of the institutions. Experts and academics tell us that the public want to see reform. They tell us what could be done and how it could be done, but it feels as though some parties on that Committee just simply dance around the issues. The DUP will not engage with the thought of changing anything while it has a veto. Sinn Féin talks about being open to reform; I welcome that, and I am keen to understand what kind of reform they will support. Those of us who want to see change know that nothing can be done without those parties.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Guy: No, I will not give way.

The motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process, but we should do that ourselves. If we cannot do so, we must take the conversation to the public through a citizens' assembly. Let me be clear: a citizens' assembly is not a new institution. It does not mean outsourcing our responsibilities. It is a proven model for serious, structured, civic engagement. It brings together a representative group of citizens to examine reform proposals in depth and to provide evidence-based recommendations. It strengthens political decision-making; it does not replace it.

We cannot undo the pain of the pandemic — we cannot give families back the people whom they lost — but we can learn from what went wrong. We can build institutions that serve the common good, not party interest. We can create an Executive that cannot be collapsed at the whim of one party. It is our responsibility to meet the moment and to show that the Assembly has the will and the maturity to act for all our people. It is our duty to honour those who were failed, by ensuring that those mistakes are never, ever repeated.

Mr Gaston: As we speak today about the COVID inquiry's findings, we must begin with the most catastrophic failure of leadership. That failure of leadership brought an end to the public paying attention to anything that the Executive had to say about the health messaging around COVID restrictions. That breaking point came for many on the day of the Bobby Storey funeral. How could any party bring a motion to the House on the failures that the COVID inquiry exposed without making a single direct reference to the shameful spectacle that was put on for all to see?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree that what is really telling is that we have now had two Members from Alliance to speak and neither of them mentioned that?

Mr Gaston: Neither one of them mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral, and that is telling and there for all to see.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will maybe think about it later on. Two Alliance Members have already spoken; you have missed your opportunity.

If one moment crystallises the failures that were identified in module 2 of the inquiry, it was that day. While the people of Northern Ireland were burying their dead — their loved ones — alone, and while families could not come together and restrictions were still being enforced on ordinary people, senior members of Sinn Féin, including the current First Minister, flouted the law in broad daylight. They did so deliberately and without consequence, and they should never be allowed to forget the hurt and pain that they caused to many families right across Northern Ireland. Today, we still have no accountability, no resignations and no genuine remorse other than from one Member who travelled to the funeral in their Executive limo.

Sinn Féin behaved as though the rules did not apply to it. The evidence suggests that it was right, because nothing has happened. That is a consequence of the peace process. The COVID inquiry states plainly that the Executive's response was undermined by political dysfunction, rule-breaking and a failure among Ministers to put public interest above party interest. Yet, astonishingly, the motion, tabled by Alliance, tries to airbrush that reality by making it sound as though certain parties were uniquely responsible while others were perfect models of moral excellence.

The motion rewrites the inquiry for political convenience. It tries to narrow the scope and blame only the two largest parties. That phrase does not occur in the report. It was the Executive, of which Alliance was part, that failed the people of Northern Ireland. It was the Belfast Agreement that produced a system in which all Executive parties are trapped in structures that reward vetoes and political theatre. The dysfunction is not selective; it is structural. What the Alliance Party cannot escape is this: the system that failed us during COVID is a system that it championed, defended, supported and still clings to, as its two ministerial posts and the trappings that come with them are more important than the accountability and reform that it talks about.

We have a system in which a single party can collapse the Executive at will. Ministers can act without collective responsibility. No sanction is applied when rules are broken. Accountability evaporates the moment that party political convenience demands it. Who helped to deliver and sustain that system? The Alliance Party.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way, but briefly.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much. The Member talks about reform, but, in the previous mandate, Alliance, alongside his predecessor, Jim Allister, worked on AERC to have the report on reform brought to the House. Have you read that?

Mr Gaston: Where is it? What have you achieved? What has your mandate produced? Nothing. We are still where we are here today.

The Storey funeral scandal was not only a disgrace from Sinn Féin but a case study in how the Belfast Agreement, the flawed institutions and their design make accountability optional.

The rules were broken, the police investigation became political theatre, and the system — this very system — made sure that nothing happened.

The motion attempts to rewrite the COVID inquiry to absolve the Alliance Party and direct attention away from its role in propping up this broken system. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than a system that allows rule-breakers to walk away untouched. They deserve better than motions designed to protect political friends and narrow the blame to suit political and party narratives. They deserve institutions that work, and, quite frankly, the people of Northern Ireland simply do not have them.

The House must be honest. The Storey funeral scandal showed us that the system is broken. Sinn Féin's behaviour showed us that it is still unfit for office. The Alliance motion shows us that political convenience still trumps honesty.

Mr Carroll: I support the motion and the amendment. As somebody who sat in the House and on the Health Committee during COVID, I think that there is a lot of amnesia and that there has been a lot of rewriting of the history of that, no doubt, turbulent and difficult period by Members to my right, in particular those in the DUP.

The COVID-19 inquiry told us that our local institutions failed and that political disputes trumped the public good and what was good for people's health. However, what the inquiry did not say loudly enough is that that was entirely predictable to anyone who watches this place, at present or in the past. While thousands of people died, often alone, and were denied the company of loved ones to comfort them, our political system was paralysed by sectarian vetoes and political point-scoring.

Working-class communities bore the brunt of that failure. They could not access adequate healthcare then, and tens and hundreds of thousands still cannot today. They faced impossible choices between following restrictions and putting food on the table, and they watched as those who made the rules broke them without consequence.

Our institutions are fundamentally built on a foundation that incentivises division. When the crisis hit, we saw the consequences: people died alone in hospitals, while Ministers played political games and let the virus flow and grow. Families were denied funerals for their loved ones. My grandmother died of COVID in 2022 because, in part, she could not get a care package and was forced to stay in hospital. We were lucky to have a small funeral for her, but we were denied a wake, which is so important to many families. Many families did not get a funeral at all, while the Executive lurched from one chaotic meeting to the next, leaking like a sieve.

This is not just about COVID; it is about a system that cannot deliver on housing, that watches our health service collapse and that fiddles while Lough Neagh and Belfast lough turn toxic. It is a system where "transformation" means another unfunded strategy document gathering dust and where an aspirational, non-binding Programme for Government exists.

Fifty-eight per cent of people who responded to the life and times survey said that they want reform, and 79% said that they think that the Assembly had achieved little or nothing. They are absolutely right; they are not wrong. People see MLAs whose votes do not count equally, depending on which box they tick when they take their seat in this place. They see a political class that is more interested in looking after wealthy and vested interests than building houses or treating the sick. Reform is not optional; it is absolutely essential. Reform must serve working-class communities across the board and not just tinker with mechanisms that protect elite and well-connected interests. We need institutions that can act decisively in emergencies, and we need accountability mechanisms that work.

Citizens' assemblies could — I emphasise "could" — provide a democratic mandate for change. However, let us be honest: reforms in this Building and even talking about them threaten those who benefit from dysfunction. That is why previous attempts have failed and why Mr Buckley and others are dead set against them. Here is the terrifying reality: we are no better prepared for the next pandemic than we were for the last. It would be foolish to say when there will be another, but there is no doubt that, at some time, one will come round the corner.

The COVID inquiry's recommendations have not been fully implemented, as has been stated. We still lack robust emergency planning structures. Our healthcare system remains fragile and underfunded, with a gap of thousands of health and social care workers. The cross-departmental coordination needed for a pandemic response is totally absent; it is non-existent. When — not if — a public health emergency strikes, we risk repeating the same catastrophic failures that cost thousands of lives. That is totally unconscionable, but preventable. People deserve institutions that work for them, not against them. They deserve a Government that can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies, not one that is tied to the internal dysfunction of Westminster during a public health crisis.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If ever a debate personified the dysfunctionality of these institutions, it is the debate that we have heard over the past hour. People deserve better.

As we close the debate, I bring the focus back to the people who lived through the worst days of the pandemic. Too often, discussions like this become abstract. For many families, the COVID inquiry's findings go to the heart of their personal grief. They are people across the North who have lost loved ones, without being able to hold their hand or sit beside their bed; families who said goodbye through windows; people who were denied the chance to give their relatives a proper funeral, while others in positions of power ignored the rules. It was disgusting. Those wounds have not healed, and they may never fully heal. The inquiry has put in writing what so many already knew: the Executive did not function as they should have. Divisions, delays and political disputes shaped decisions at a time when leadership should have been steady, united and dignified. That failure had consequences. It caused confusion, weakened public confidence and left people more vulnerable than they ever should have been.

We cannot talk about moving forward unless we are honest about what went wrong, and we must also be honest about where things stand today. The dysfunction that was highlighted by the inquiry did not vanish when the pandemic ended. We continue to see gridlock on issues that should command agreement. The childcare strategy has sat unresolved for almost a month in the Executive, and, repeatedly, key strategies on investment, climate and public services struggle to get through the Executive. Even Ministers are acknowledging the extent of that backlog. Those delays have real effects. Families who are waiting for childcare support cannot put their lives on pause, workers need certainty, businesses need decisions and communities need a Government that set priorities and follow through. The public can see that the system is still under strain. Nothing has changed. "Negative vetoes" was even given an outing this week. Many feel that this place is not delivering what was promised and, when frustration builds, confidence in the institutions weakens further. Our amendment simply recognises the obvious: reform was not placed at the centre of the Programme for Government, and avoiding it has contributed to continued instability.

This is not about pointing fingers. It is about accepting that, without meaningful, structural change, the problems highlighted by the inquiry will not go away. Reform is not an academic exercise. It is about making sure that the decision-making is dependable, that crisis responses do not collapse under political tension and that the Executive can work collectively on challenges that affect every family. To be honest, the public do not trust us. The two main parties — Sinn Féin and the DUP — lost the changing room during COVID.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: We hold every party here to account. Mr Frew talked about "a zombie Assembly" during COVID, but his party then collapsed the Assembly for two years after that. How much more "zombie" can you get?

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

Ms McLaughlin: Furthermore, if the institutions had not been collapsed for the two years prior to COVID, maybe we would have been more prepared. The institutions need reform. The inquiry, and what it outlined in its report, said that very clearly. Does anybody here believe that, if it happened tomorrow, we would be any more prepared? We would not. We have a duty to every constituent whom we serve. We are their servants. We have a duty to reform these institutions and to take the inquiry as seriously as possible.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP has put forward proposals to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister, improve how the Speaker is selected and create stronger requirements for Departments to cooperate. Those modest but important changes will help to create more stability and reduce the opportunities for political brinkmanship. At its core, it is about restoring trust. People need to know that their Government can act together when it matters most. They need confidence that the lessons have been taken seriously, and they deserve institutions that are built around the needs of the public not the internal politics of one party.

The inquiry has given us a clear picture of what happens when systems fail and leadership falters.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: We have a responsibility to learn from and act on that.

Mr Buckley, I have heard enough from you today and yesterday.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: If reform is pushed aside again, we should not be surprised if instability continues and public confidence continues to drift.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I support the motion and our amendment, which will strengthen it. More importantly, I support the people who lived through the consequences of the failures that are outlined in the report. They deserve a Government that have learned from the past and are willing to make the changes needed to prevent it from happening in the future.

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

I give a gentle reminder to Members that they should not persist in asking a Member to give way when the Member clearly will not do so, nor should they speak over the Member who has not given way, Mr Frew.

Ms McLaughlin: did it today and yesterday.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

I call Eóin Tennyson to conclude the debate on the motion and make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In closing the debate, first, I pay a heartfelt tribute to those whose lives were irrevocably changed by the pandemic; to the families who lost loved ones, often without a chance to say goodbye, we hold you in our thoughts today; to those whose lives and livelihoods were upended, we acknowledge your resilience in the face of hardship; and to those front-line workers — our doctors, nurses, carers and key staff — who went above and beyond in a time of crisis, we owe you a debt of gratitude that can never truly be repaid. Given that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister has said it — at least, not jointly — I will: I am sorry, and I am embarrassed by the way that the institutions operated during that period. All those people deserved better from the House. It is the experiences, the sacrifices and the voices of those who bore the greatest cost that must be at the heart of the discussions as we reflect on the pandemic, chart a way forward and prepare for the future.

COVID-19 was, in every sense, unprecedented. No event in living memory has reshaped our lives so suddenly, profoundly and universally. Mr Buckley said that every Government struggled; I agree with him. No Administration emerged from the crisis without mistakes to acknowledge or lessons to learn, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. However, the findings that relate to the Northern Ireland Executive in particular are stark.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. No Government handled the pandemic brilliantly, but does he agree that other countries handled it in a much better way, including countries in Southeast Asia that prioritised public health over opening businesses at any cost and letting the virus run rampant through communities? Does the Member agree with that point in a general sense?

Mr Tennyson: There is a balance to be struck between the economy and health. Various models operated across the world, and we are still analysing their impact. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that at this stage, when the inquiry has not entirely concluded.

I can understand why the DUP's attacks on the Alliance Party are so vociferous today. The DUP led the Executive during the pandemic as the largest party, and some of the most stinging criticism is reserved for the two largest parties in the Executive at that time. Do not just take my word for that; the inquiry described decision-making in the Executive as "chaotic" and marred by political disputes, and it found that, at critical junctures, Ministers from the DUP and Sinn Féin:

It is a damning indictment that, even in the face of a global pandemic, when our people and public services were on their knees, the institutions descended into more chaos and dysfunction.

It is true that the political vacuum created by Sinn Féin's boycott of the Assembly between 2017 and 2020, right before the onset of the pandemic, weakened preparedness, damaged public services and contributed to a chaotic response. It is equally true that, as the pandemic progressed, and when the public were asked to make some of the most difficult sacrifices, the actions of some Sinn Féin Ministers who broke the rules undermined public confidence and deepened the hurt of families who had been denied the very same opportunity to have a funeral and grieve their loved ones.

We saw Ministers seeking to sectarianise the virus, with a DUP Minister claiming that one section of our community was spreading COVID more than others. That rhetoric was reckless and corrosive at a time when clarity and unity were so desperately needed. Of course, those were not just failures of leadership, integrity or preparedness, but failures of the current power-sharing structures. Baroness Hallett was clear in her report that the abuse of cross-community votes resulted in dysfunctional decision-making and undermined the ability of the Executive to respond effectively. At the height of the pandemic, sectarian vetoes were being thrown around the Executive like confetti. That led to there being gridlock in one Executive meeting for four days, when swift and decisive action was so desperately needed to protect lives.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not.

COVID did not discriminate between nationalists and unionists. It struck indiscriminately and demanded a united response. The sheer folly of DUP Ministers deploying a cross-community vote against a fellow unionist Health Minister was not only farcical but exposed just how warped the so-called cross-community mechanisms in the Chamber had become.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not.

Whether it is those making the rules in the Executive breaking them outside of the Executive, or those abuses of rules in the Executive to block vital public health measures, the people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

Those displays of division and dysfunction are not the preserve of times of global crisis. Since the pandemic, we have experienced yet another walkout of the Executive, this time by the DUP. Then, just this week, we saw the petition of concern deployed on the Floor. In previous mandates, we have seen those mechanisms being used and abused to prevent accountability, frustrate the rights of LGBTQ+ people in our society and frustrate the democratic will of the Assembly. Those shameful abuses are a perversion of democracy, and the displays of arrogance that often accompany them have contributed directly to the collapse of the institutions in previous mandates. Therefore, we all have to learn lessons about where this show inevitably ends.

It is long past time that we had a system of government that prioritised the interests of the people whom we represent ahead of the interests of the DUP and Sinn Féin. The current system of up-down, stop-start government and ransom politics needs to end. No single party should have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive or the Executive itself to ransom. I am weary of successive UK Governments telling Alliance that we have won the academic argument on reform because this is not merely an academic exercise. Failure to act is ruining lives, eroding public confidence and jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement. If the institutions cannot deliver, or, worse, are allowed to collapse once again by those who poke and prod one another across the Chamber in sham fights, I fear that devolution will not return. By pandering to those who upend the institutions or block progress, the Secretary of State is not only rewarding bad behaviour but condemning devolution to death by a thousand collapses.

To argue for reform is not to undermine or reject the Good Friday Agreement. It is simply to acknowledge that, with the passage of time and the changes in our society — evidenced not least by the growth of this party — and with the benefit of hindsight, having tested the structures in practice — in some cases, almost to the point of destruction — there is room for change and, indeed, change is a necessity. Our proposals are consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The principles of power-sharing, inclusion, interdependence and respect are necessary if we are to realise those ambitions and those principles —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not give way because I do not have time.

Our proposals enshrine the right of parties to be in government based on the strength of their mandates but remove the right of any single party to exclude everybody else from government, as is currently the case. They would not remove cross-community consent, but they would remove parallel consent as a measure of that cross-community support. Ironically, cross-community votes, as they are currently structured in the Assembly, are the least cross-community votes that can happen, because they exclude the voices of genuinely cross-community parties like the Alliance Party. Instead, weighted majority voting would enshrine cross-community protection whilst incentivising cooperation and genuine equality in the way that the Assembly operates, rather than the mutually enforced sectarian vetoes that have not done so and cannot do so.

There can be no more time for prevarication. The Secretary of State has said that the issue is in the hands of the local parties, just as the Good Friday Agreement was. That is not true. Without an active and engaged Secretary of State and Irish Government pushing the parties in the right direction, we would never have achieved the Good Friday Agreement. Many of the people out there who were horrified by the COVID inquiry report — they will be equally horrified, I might say, by some of the contributions to this debate — are looking for hope. We have an opportunity to give that to them today by, for the first time as an Assembly, calling on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process that enables us to move beyond what passes for politics in Stormont at the moment and beyond a power carve-up to true power-sharing so that we can finally deliver a form of government that represents everyone and delivers for everyone. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. Without further ado, I call the Minister.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the 2025-26 December monitoring round, which was agreed by the Executive earlier today. Reaching that decision as soon as possible following the autumn Budget was essential to provide Departments with the certainty that they need to plan and deliver. That was particularly important, given the magnitude of the capital funding allocations that we are in a position to make to allow investment in vital infrastructure.

Looking now — I think that it is time for the glasses — at the funding available for allocation, following the autumn Budget, the Executive had the following available for allocation: £111·2 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL); £162 million capital DEL; £16·8 million financial transactions capital (FTC) DEL; and £0·9 million ring-fenced resource DEL.

Turning first to resource DEL, I will begin by addressing a prior commitment made by the Executive as part of June monitoring. The Executive agreed that the Department of Justice would have first call of up to £7 million towards PSNI workforce recovery costs, recognising the importance of investing in our police workforce. That funding is now being allocated in full.

On 16 October, the Executive agreed that the Departments of Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure would have first call on available funding of up to £150·4 million in total for pay awards. No other resource bids were sought from Departments. Instead, the focus was on working towards meeting those previous commitments to ensure that public-sector workers receive the pay that they deserve.

The autumn Budget delivered just £18·8 million in additional Barnett consequentials this year. Combined with reduced requirements from Departments, that meant that the Executive had £104·2 million of available funding to allocate. In line with the prior commitment to public-sector pay, the Executive have therefore agreed that the funding available will be provided across the four Departments earmarked for pay. That represents a significant step towards supporting pay award costs for health workers, police, teachers and infrastructure workers. The Department of Health will receive an allocation of £69·3 million for the Health and Social Care (HSC) pay award. The Department of Education will receive £25·6 million for teachers' pay. The Department of Justice will receive £4·6 million for the PSNI pay award. The Department for Infrastructure will receive £4·6 million for pay awards.

I understand that the additional funding provided in the December monitoring round will allow the Minister of Justice to work with the Chief Constable on delivering police pay recommendations. The ministerial direction agreed by the Executive for health workers' pay parity will ensure that there is no delay in the implementation of the award to health workers. Today's allocation demonstrates the priority that the Executive and I attach to our vital public-sector workers and our desire to support public-sector pay despite the financial constraints that we face.

I have asked all Ministers to endeavour to find further efficiencies to help to fund the pressures that are facing Departments. I have also committed that, should any further Barnett consequentials arise from the Westminster Estimates in January, I will move quickly to bring recommendations to the Executive to allocate that funding towards those costs.

Moving to capital DEL, the Executive have agreed allocations of £162 million targeting key priorities across social and affordable housing, education, health and infrastructure. The Department for Communities will receive £42·4 million. That includes £29·8 million to meet in full its bid for the social housing development programme. That investment will be a major contribution to the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) target of providing more social, affordable and sustainable housing. That investment and others that I am announcing today will be a huge boost to the construction industry and the local economy by sustaining and creating jobs. There is £8·6 million for the cladding safety scheme, which will ensure that residents live in buildings that have the necessary building safety standards, and £4 million for priority adaptations to Housing Executive properties for tenants living with a disability.

The Department for the Economy will receive £12·6 million to provide strategic support for higher education research and essential works in further education colleges, investing in skills and innovation for the future.

The Department of Education will receive £22 million, which includes £5·2 million for essential school maintenance; £3·2 million for schools' minor works and energy-saving solutions; £6·7 million for business-critical ICT pressures; £1 million for ICT infrastructure contractual commitments; and £6 million for Irish-medium accommodation and facilities.

The Department of Health will receive £25·2 million, recognising our commitment to investing in our health service and supporting bids to modernise it. Allocations include £19·7 million for IT equipment and £5·5 million to tackle significant backlog maintenance across the health estate.

Finally, the Department for Infrastructure will receive £59·8 million, which will fund £34·1 million for waste water services, public transport, rail and road projects and ensuring that the Department can maximise the delivery of capital projects to meet statutory obligations; £13·2 million for road maintenance and safety improvements; £4·1 million for drinking water infrastructure, which supports housing development as well as improving water quality; £5 million for new trains and track improvements to support the Enterprise cross-border service, which will enhance connectivity on the island of Ireland on the cross-border rail corridor between Belfast and Dublin; £2 million for street lighting, contributing to safer environments and encouraging more active travel; and £1·5 million for the A26 Glarryford Lands Tribunal case.

The Executive also agreed a central allocation of £0·027 million capital DEL to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for the city and growth deals complementary fund.

On financial transactions capital DEL, the Executive have allocated £2·5 million to the Department for the Economy for Invest NI to support businesses and encourage innovation, as well as £1·5 million to the Executive Office for capitalised loan interest. Following those allocations, there remains £12·8 million of FTC to be allocated. I have encouraged all Ministers to explore further opportunities for utilising FTC in the remainder of this financial year. Full details of all the allocations that have been made are set out in the tables accompanying the statement.

Ring-fenced resource DEL can be used only for non-cash costs relating to depreciation and impairments. Given that only £0·9 million was available for allocation, no allocations have been made in this round. Should funding become available at Westminster Estimates, it will be allocated in line with the bids set out in the tables accompanying the statement. To increase transparency, the statement is also accompanied by tables outlining the detail of changes to departmental budgets. Included under "Technical Adjustments" are Treasury-earmarked funding for city and growth deals and budget cover transfers from Whitehall Departments. In total, those amount to £11·6 million resource DEL and £26·6 million capital DEL.

The allocations made today reflect our determination as an Executive to deliver tangible change across a wide range of public services and utilities. Despite the highly constrained financial environment, we continue to invest in our workers and public services. The allocations agreed will make a positive difference to citizens' lives across society. Much-needed funding is being provided towards public-sector pay awards. Reflecting our key priorities in the Programme for Government, capital allocations have been made to enable the delivery of new social housing. We are also investing in our schools estate, further education colleges and higher education institutions, reflecting our commitment to supporting learning and delivering investment in skills. We have also agreed funding for infrastructure, which is critical to sustainable economic growth and connectivity, with allocations for key projects in water, roads and rail.

Following the conclusion of the December monitoring round, my next step will be to bring the multi-year Budget to the Executive. The multi-year Budget will give Departments the certainty they need to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis and to transform our public services for the years ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. Many of the allocations will, of course, be welcome — they always are — but surely you must acknowledge that this monitoring round is an example of criminal financial mismanagement. We are three months from the end of the financial year. Despite everything that you say about not getting enough money from London — you are right about that in many cases — the Executive are underspending their capital budget by £0·25 billion three months from the end of the financial year. There is mismanagement of the A5, Casement Park and the maternity and children's hospitals, and £0·25 million will have to be handed back. We need a multi-year Budget to fix those problems. When will a multi-year Budget be delivered to help us move away from this monitoring round chaos?

Mr O'Dowd: I think the Member referred to "criminal negligence" — was it?

Mr O'Toole: Mismanagement.

Mr O'Dowd: Criminal mismanagement. If the Member has any evidence of criminal mismanagement, he should bring it forward. It sounds to me like a very serious accusation for the leader of the Opposition to make. If the leader of the Opposition has any evidence to back that up, the leader of the Opposition should come forward with it.

It has become Matthew's job to be the dark cloud over the Executive. No matter what you come forward with, Matthew will find fault with it; he will direct a negative agenda towards it; and he will attempt to get a headline that is as dramatic as possible and runs down the efforts of the Executive, the Assembly and public-sector workers to improve the daily lives of the people whom we all serve. The fact of the matter is that, today, despite all your suggestions in the Chamber yesterday, the Executive agreed almost £300 million of funding for front-line public services that will improve the lives of the citizens whom we all serve. Despite your, perhaps, wishing overnight with your fingers crossed, the Executive agreed that this morning, and we will now move on to the multi-year Budget.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you for the statement, Minister. As outlined, £250 million, including £162 million of capital, was returned and reallocated in December this year. It is late in the year. I very much welcome the allocation to the Department for Communities for social housing, which is a key priority in the Programme for Government. However, had that been reallocated earlier, the Communities Minister would have been able to hit the 1,950 housing target. He is keen to deliver 1,750, and I am confident that he will. Can lessons be learned about how we can reallocate funding earlier, as soon as it becomes available, to meet those targets?

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth remembering that the Chancellor's autumn Budget was probably four weeks later this year than it usually is because of needs in Westminster and elsewhere. We were operating four weeks behind the usual time frame. While a significant proportion of the funding has been returned from the A5 and other sectors — the A5 is beyond our control at this stage because of legal challenges; legal deliberations on it are taking place today — the Departments have to improve how they deliver capital projects. I am not arguing against that, but we allocated the money to all Departments as soon as it was practically possible. I welcome the fact that we have increased and will significantly increase the delivery of social housing as we move forward.

I mentioned in my statement that there would be a further fiscal event at Westminster: the Estimates in January. Some small amounts of capital may come from that, and we will again allocate those to Departments that can spend them in the time frame in which we are able to do so. The multi-year Budget will allow us to plan much better the delivery of major capital projects, which will mean that less capital comes to the centre. At the end of the day, this money today is going to projects that are worthy and needed and would not have been delivered otherwise.

Mr Boylan: With a little indulgence, I will pay tribute to Willie Irwin, my constituency colleague, and recognise his contribution to politics and to the people of Newry and Armagh. I wish him well in his retirement.

Turning to the Minister's statement, will the Minister provide more detail on the funding for infrastructure?

Mr O'Dowd: I, too, pay tribute to Willie. I do not think that he is in the Chamber, but I understand that he is stepping down from this place — the lucky duck — so he is moving on to other things.

We have made a significant investment in the Department for Infrastructure, covering a wide range of areas, including water services, public transport, road maintenance, drinking water infrastructure and trains and infrastructure for the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service. It is about funding that has become available being reinvested in front-line public services and making a real difference to people's lives. Water infrastructure and waste water infrastructure are, understandably, often debated in the Chamber and elsewhere, but the further investment in that will allow more businesses and more homes to be connected to water and waste water services.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the funding that has been allocated. Minister, following the leaked exchange of letters between you and the Education Minister, how confident are you that the multi-year Budget will proceed at pace? Will those disagreements impede agreement on that?

Mr O'Dowd: In most institutions, there will be tension between Ministers and the Finance Minister. It would be hugely surprising if other Ministers and I were not in correspondence and engaging with one another. The letters that were leaked to the media are an example of that. I am confident that all Ministers around the Executive table see the worthiness of a three-year Budget. I have no doubt that there will be some bartering and negotiations ahead of our getting an agreed draft Budget out to public consultation, but all Ministers see the benefit of having a three-year Budget, and, when they focus on those benefits, that will allow us to deliver a Budget for public consultation.

Dr Aiken: Minister, from doing my maths, I see that the health pay shortfall is now about £140 million, despite the £109 million overspend that you agreed with the Health Minister. The resource allocation in this monitoring round is far short of the £100 million that the Health Minister was told in October was available; that was reiterated in the media by the First Minister. Is Health really the priority of the Northern Ireland Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive have agreed a ministerial direction that authorises the Health Minister to proceed with the health workers' pay award. There should be no doubt in the Chamber that the health sector's pay award is going ahead.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister provide more detail on the Irish-medium capital allocation?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a welcome allocation of £6 million for Irish-medium education and for Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta for the facilities that it provides to the Irish-medium sector. It is a significant investment, but I have no doubt that continued investment in that sector and others will be needed. That, again, shows the value of monitoring rounds, by which funding can be allocated to areas of need. Those areas of need can absorb that funding quickly.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his important statement. Like my colleague, I very much welcome the fact that the bid for social homes was met. It is disappointing, however, that we cannot meet the target that every Minister signed up to and agreed in the housing supply strategy and the Programme for Government. Will the Finance Minister today show his commitment to social housing and confirm that future Budget bids will be met in full?

Mr O'Dowd: The final whistle has not blown on this financial year. At least one fiscal event is still to take place in Westminster, from which, I hope, the Executive will benefit, although I do not suggest that that will be by huge amounts. There may also be some reprioritisation of capital in the Executive's Budget. I will commit to working with all Ministers to ensure that that funding is spent where it can be delivered. If it can be delivered in social housing, I will have no difficulty in directing it towards social housing. As I said to Mr Tennyson, I have no doubt that there will be robust engagement and negotiations around the three-year Budget and that, if Ministers keep themselves focused on the need for a three-year Budget and the benefits that it will bring to all Departments, we will get it delivered.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the prioritisation of staff, and particularly the fact that PSNI staff will get their pay rise. That is most definitely welcome.

Will the Executive continue to prioritise the police recovery plan in the multi-year Budget so that we can see our officer numbers increase?

Mr O'Dowd: I am on record saying that one of the recommendations that I will make as part of the multi-year Budget will be that the fund for the police recovery plan be supported and that we see a recovery in our police numbers. That is essential to delivering front-line public services, of which policing is one. It will also assist the police to recruit from across our community, ensuring that policing represents the community that it serves.

Miss Dolan: I congratulate the Minister for his work on the matter. How will today's allocations support Programme for Government commitments?

Mr O'Dowd: They will go across a range of areas. Social housing, which is one of those commitments, has been mentioned. Significant investment is going into bringing us towards the target for social housing. There has been other investment. If you look at infrastructure, for instance, you will see that allocations to that will allow us to develop more homes and connect more businesses. There are investments in further and higher education, such as investment in skills etc. That is a theme of the Programme for Government where our economy is concerned and for ensuring that we have a skilled workforce to further develop and support that economy.

Mr Clarke: Like others, I welcome the statement and the recovery plan for the PSNI and the pay awards, which have been discussed. Minister, an opportunity that was not addressed in the statement is money for the data breach. Lots of officers are concerned about pay rises and data breach money. Do you foresee that being delivered before the end of the financial year? While I am on my feet, I will ask this: do you anticipate today's pay award being in their December pay packets?

Mr O'Dowd: The delivery of the pay award is down to the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable. I have no doubt that the Justice Minister will comment further on that later today.

My understanding is that legal engagement on the data breach will not conclude in this financial year. That will allow us to plan making payment on the data breach in the following financial year. That is the recommendation that I will make to my Executive colleagues. However, we continue to engage with the Treasury and others to urge them to allow the Assembly and the Executive access to the reserve claim. That goes to the highest levels of government, including the Prime Minister.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for his statement. Whilst the £69·3 million that has been announced today for health pay goes some way towards funding this year's pay award, as the Minister will be aware — it has been mentioned — based on expectations that have been raised previously, many will view today's allocation as falling far short of what was promised. Does the Minister therefore accept that, based on the previous promises, it would be entirely unfair if today's £31 million shortfall in the Health budget were also to be taken off next year's opening budget for Health?

Mr O'Dowd: Let us not send out a mixed message from the Chamber today. Let us be very clear about this: the pay award for health and social care workers is going to be paid. That is beyond doubt. The Executive have passed a ministerial direction supporting the Health Minister on that. It will go ahead, therefore, and it will be paid. There is no doubt or question about that.

How the Executive deal with that in their future Budget is entirely a matter for the Executive. I will make recommendations to the Executive on the three-year Budget and how we deal with the potential overspends of this year. It will be up to my Executive colleagues to decide how to respond to those. As I said to another Member, however, the final whistle has not blown on this financial year. The game is still on. There can be changes in circumstances from month to month that may be to people's advantage or disadvantage, but I continually monitor the situation and engage with Executive colleagues to ensure that overspend is minimised to as little as possible.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I also welcome the pay awards for our healthcare workers as well as for the PSNI. Will the Minister outline and expand on the capital funding being provided to Health, given that some of our health facilities are not fit for purpose and are actually in an unsafe condition?

Mr O'Dowd: Around £5 million has been set aside for urgent repairs to the health estate, and there is a substantial investment in IT equipment for the health sector. It is vital that we have modern, up-to-date IT equipment in all Departments, but particularly in the health sector, to allow it to run as efficient and effective a service as possible.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement. As other Members have stated, the First Minister spoke publicly about the £150 million secured for pay awards, including £37 million for teachers. However, in the Finance Minister's statement, he states that the Education Minister will receive £25·6 million for teachers' pay, which is quite a bit short. Our teachers deserve a pay award. If the Education Minister issues a ministerial direction, will the Minister support him in that and provide the necessary finance to give teachers the pay award that they deserve?

Mr O'Dowd: I am sure that the Education Minister will further outline how he intends to deal with the pressures facing his Department, and the particular pressure with regard to teachers and education workers' pay. I will support any ministerial direction if it is in line with and similar to the way in which the Health Minister approached the issue previously. That is the way forward; it is a well-tested route, and it received a collective response from the Executive. I am willing to work with the Education Minister on that. I think that there is a way through it, but it has to be a managed process.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister outline how much of the remaining £12·8 million of financial transactions capital (FTC) can be allocated, and is he aware of any shovel-ready projects?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of any projects, other than the ones that we have funded at this stage, but, again, I have encouraged Ministers and their senior officials to engage with the various sectors with which they operate, to see whether we can further invest that FTC.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will take our ease —

Mr O'Toole: On the point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If I could just finish first, Matthew, and then I will bring you in. Thank you.

We are going to take our ease before Question Time. Questions on the statement will resume afterwards, and Colin McGrath will be the next Member to ask a question. I will take your point of order, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be brief. Earlier, during the debate, I described the underspend of a quarter of a billion pounds as "criminal". The Minister implied that I said that a criminal act had literally taken place; I did not. Just to be clear, the Oxford English Dictionary is clear that, in addition to the formal legal meaning, there is the meaning that something can be criminal if it is "shocking and deplorable" — [Interruption.]

Members may laugh, but this is important. The Minister accused me of something that I did not do. Underspending capital by a quarter of a billion pounds is shocking and deplorable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, please take your seat. First of all, that was not a point of order. You have, kind of, clarified what you, kind of, said. We all have the gist, so I appreciate that.

Members, please take your ease.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I am clear that there needs to be investment in drainage and waste water treatment around Belfast lough. With regard to the necessary funding for those projects, I assure the Member that I have been working hard to deliver the most funding possible within the budget available to my Department. This year alone, NI Water has received over £500 million of public money, representing 23% of the opening resource and over 40% of the general capital budget allocated to my Department. At opening budget, NI Water was receiving 86% of what, it identified, it could deliver this year, and, when the additional £11 million capital funding that I was able to secure in June monitoring is taken into consideration, that increases to almost 90% of its ask, which is a significant level of investment in our water and waste water infrastructure. It is for the board of NI Water to prioritise the funding that it has been allocated to ensure the delivery of water and waste water services across the North.

Members will be familiar with my three-pronged approach, which I am progressing and delivering: securing more investment for waste water infrastructure from Executive colleagues; considering the approach to developer contributions; and bringing in legislation to provide for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Additionally, my Department has secured £15 million in funding from the transformation fund that will implement a pilot project to help transform the way in which rainwater is managed in the Belfast area, and I am progressing further bids to the transformation fund for investment in waste water treatment.

As I have said on many occasions, however, funding is not the only answer, and I have been encouraged by NI Water's delivery of faster and lower-cost solutions to how it manages waste water. I have advised NI Water to look at more options in that regard, and I look forward to the company using innovation to unlock waste water capacity and protecting the environment in other areas across the North.

Finally, in dealing with the very serious challenges in Belfast lough, it is vital that we continue to work collaboratively across government. My Department is working closely with the environmental regulator, officials in DAERA and DFC and other stakeholders as we seek to deliver solutions. I remain committed to working together and will continue to make the case for additional funding to expedite the delivery of those projects in Belfast.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. It is concerning that, as I understand it, NI Water faces a £2 billion funding gap. Can that realistically be addressed by your three-pronged approach, and can you give us more details of the other options that you are exploring?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member may be aware, that £2 billion shortfall is over a number of years. Given the overall Executive Budget, it would be unrealistic to say that that could be met. However, I am an optimist, and it is important that we look at what is available to us and how we can do that. That is why I have talked about some of the innovation that NI Water has already shown.

We have seen delays to the living with water programme for Belfast because of a 60% increase in the original cost. We have to manage and work through that and see how we can continue to deliver on all the issues.

I am under no illusions. I have said on many occasions that this is extremely challenging; there is no doubt about that. That is why I am looking at all the options available to me, whether it is through securing additional funding with work through the Executive, the developer contributions options or the sustainable options for waste water treatment and drainage solutions. We can make a real difference. As well as working collaboratively with NI Water, there are solutions out there, and I am working with it to achieve that.

Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister plan for natural sustainable urban drainage such as the urban drainage transformation project to reduce spills into Belfast lough, thereby improving water quality?

Ms Kimmins: As I suggested there, the aim of the pilot project is to make a robust case to transform the way in which rainwater is managed in towns and cities by managing rainwater naturally on the surface and slowing the flow into our rivers and pipe drainage system. Slowing that flow will help to reduce flood risks and improve water quality by reducing spills from combined sewers. I recently had the privilege of seeing how that is working in the Eglinton area of Derry. There is a pilot project in place there. We have seen in real life how that is slowing the flow. Hopefully, we will see positive impacts from that.

The initial focus of the pilot is in the Fortwilliam and Whitehouse catchments of Belfast, where specific surface water and sewerage issues have been identified. The pilot project aims to retrofit 10,000 cubic metres of rainwater storage that will either divert or delay its entry into the combined sewerage network in order to increase capacity and, therefore, increase the system's capacity to handle storm conditions. As I have said before, such projects and other solutions mean that we can ensure that the water that comes through the system to be treated is water that needs to be treated and is not rainwater that is taking up capacity and using up resource. We are trying to be sensible and use the natural options available to us that will help to alleviate the pressure on the overall system.

Mr Chambers: With the clock ticking down on the compliance of the Kinnegar treatment plant, where do the unacceptable levels of pollution entering Belfast lough sit in the priorities of the Minister's Department?

Ms Kimmins: That is a major priority. I have been working with the Agriculture Minister on those serious issues. I have already outlined some of the steps that I am taking to offset that. You will be aware of the recent investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP): I welcome that, because it gives us an opportunity to look at how we can do things differently. My Department will fully cooperate with the OEP on that. However, compliance is the Department of Agriculture's responsibility. As I have said, I am working collaboratively with the Minister and all stakeholders to see what we can do to address the issue at earliest possible stage.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am slightly at a loss. Your colleague the Finance Minister and you were not impressed by my asking about mismanagement of the capital budget. However, you have just said that there is not enough money for NI Water. You have just handed back £140 million in unspent capital to the centre in this monitoring round. That is remarkable mismanagement. Given that, when will we see a comprehensive, multi-year plan for investment in NI Water? You have talked about a developer levy and about seeking more money from your colleagues: when will that convert into a plan for us to rescue Belfast lough and our water system more generally?

Ms Kimmins: The Member has chosen his words carefully, because he is fully aware of why there has been an underspend in capital in my Department. The issue with the A5 is completely beyond my control. I cannot spend money that I am not allowed to spend, and that is the reality of it. However, the Member will also be aware that, in the Minister's statement, he outlined a further allocation of almost £60 million back into my Department to deal with some of the issues that he has outlined. That money will be put to good use. Let me be clear: we continue to work extremely hard to deal with the issues that he has outlined. It is unfortunate and disappointing that we are in this position. I would love to have spent that money on the A5 and to have construction well under way. Unfortunately, that was not to be. However, as you know, legal proceedings started today on the appeal.

I will continue to look at what is available to me. I have outlined clearly what we are doing through the different avenues of work that are under way to try to tackle the issues. I have outlined exactly how much NI Water has been allocated in this financial year and what we have been able to do with that. I will continue to work with everybody to ensure that we find solutions and continue to make good progress on the issue.

Mr Gaston: Minister, the farming community is often used by Northern Ireland Water as a convenient scapegoat for the pollution in many of our loughs and waterways. Will the Minister update the House on what immediate steps she is taking to get her own house in order and stop millions of tons of raw sewage being dumped into our loughs and waterways annually by Northern Ireland Water?

Ms Kimmins: The "millions of tons" that the Member refers to might be a wee bit of an exaggeration. I have a breakdown of the content of the spills that have gone into some of the waterways. We do not want any to go in; I want to make that very clear. I do not want anybody to be scapegoated.

There is work for us all in tackling the issue, and there is a responsibility on everybody. I will play my part in that. We are working collaboratively with NI Water and other Departments to ensure that we find solutions that are viable, make sense and are realistic in addressing what we are dealing with. Funding is, undoubtedly, a huge challenge, but we have to make the best of the funding that we have. That is what I am committed to doing.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware and as I have mentioned today, my Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for many, many years as a result of underfunding and underinvestment by British Governments. That has created significant challenges in our ability to maintain the road network in a safe condition. As Members will be aware, last week — on 2 December — I was pleased to launch the new road maintenance strategy, which is now open for public consultation. The main objectives of the strategy are to make our roads better by enhancing safety and quality through the delivery of a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment and a sustainable maintenance regime. As I have said in the House previously, that means that, instead of workers filling one or two potholes and walking past a number of others, there will be more patch resurfacing. When that is done, the repairs last longer, because they are of higher quality. It will mean filling more potholes, where that is needed most, and ensuring that we are not sending the same resources back to the same spot on a number of occasions. Through the new strategy, my Department will ensure that the road maintenance function is organised to improve day-to-day effectiveness and enhance our ability to respond to incidents and weather events.

Along with the strategy, my Department is investing £1·3 million in the provision of a full digital survey of the entire road network in the North, which is almost 27,000 kilometres. That will provide a much greater understanding of road condition and allow officials to take a more data-driven approach when they are making decisions and to deliver more focused maintenance interventions. The value of deeper, more accurate information to support an intelligent road maintenance strategy is widely recognised. We are world-leading in that approach. It is a landmark initiative, and, in just six months, we will have an unprecedented understanding of the road infrastructure to better target maintenance, reduce costs and react quickly to future opportunities and innovations.

Mr Clarke: It sounds good, Minister, that we will have an intelligent system, but that implies that some of the current engineers are not intelligent.

That said, I can think of one example in my constituency about which I have asked officials for a meeting a number of times, but they say that they are working on the basis of defects and actionable defects. In most constituencies, the actionable defects are so bad that, after staff have marked the defects, by the time that they come round to fix them, the defect markings are part of the potholes. The problem there is either management in Roads Service or the management of contractors. When, Minister, will your Department get a grasp and manage the contracts appropriately so that the roads do not get into the state that they are in?

Ms Kimmins: I am not for one second questioning the intelligence of any of my staff. That was a disappointing remark.

We are using the digital technology available to us to make smarter decisions so that we can free up our workforce to do the work that needs to be done and ensure that we are not sending staff out to the same locations time and time again. The Member will be fully aware that the issues that we have are a result of underfunding; there is no denying that. It has been going on for well over a decade, and we are constantly playing catch-up.

I fully concur with the Member on the issues that he has raised. If you come to my constituency and look at some of the roads around Newry and south Armagh, you will see that we have the exact same issues. We are taking a different approach to try to address all of the issues that you have just outlined. Let us see what happens; let us see how this beds in. I am positive about it. I think that it will make a real difference. It will ensure that we make more efficient and cost-effective decisions that build the resilience and sustainability of our road network.

Mr Boylan: Will the Minister outline how she will use the technology to improve our road maintenance activities?

Ms Kimmins: As I have mentioned, the new strategy will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly. That will ensure a more reliable and safer road network and that our interventions prove to be more effective, so that we are not having to come back time and time again to the same areas. As part of the strategy, my Department is taking forward the development of digitally supported procedures for the inspection and repair of roads to inform decision-making. The first step in that work is to get a complete understanding of the condition of our entire road network. We are already over halfway through that process. It will help to give us a full picture of the deterioration on our roads and ensure that we can properly target the areas of greatest need and continually build resilience.

The process will use advanced AI, HD imaging and roadscape-modelling technology to capture a digital twin of every road in the North to an extraordinary level of detail, generating billions of data points that will provide a detailed insight into the condition of all our carriageways and footways. It will map the extent of every visible defect, from minor cracks to large potholes. It will not only identify and prioritise urgent maintenance but perform life-cycle modelling that will provide clear, long-term projections of how the road network will perform under different investment scenarios. That will help my Department to plan investments more effectively, reducing the carbon impact of its maintenance and optimising the safety and lifespan of its road assets.

Mr Stewart: Minister, our roads are in a diabolical state, and we are spending millions of pounds on compensation, which is increasing year-on-year. You have highlighted the work that is being done, but what engagement have you had with the Mineral Products Association (MPA) and its contractors about their concerns and their vital role in resolving the situation?

Ms Kimmins: I have met the Mineral Products Association on a number of occasions since coming into post, and I am acutely aware of the concerns that it continues to raise. That is why I focused in the December monitoring round on putting in a specific bid for structural maintenance. I said that I wanted to do that and that I would press for funds, and I was pleased to have been awarded £13·2 million in today's monitoring round, which will go a long way. I give credit to my officials, staff on the ground and contractors, who are members of the Mineral Products Association, who can turn the money around quickly so that we can see real results. I look forward to further engagement with it on the outcome of the monitoring round. I recognise that it does not go far enough, but I hope that the public that we represent will see and feel a real difference in the coming weeks and months.

Mr McNulty: The Mineral Products Association asked for £20 million as a minimum to enable essential maintenance and repairs of our crumbling road network, which has potholes galore, even though a winter freeze has not happened yet. The MPA asked for £20 million; you bid for £19 million and were allocated £13 million. What does that mean for the safety and state of our roads? You talked about your bells-and-whistles mapping system, but how long will it take to map the road network? Surely —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr McNulty: — the Minister agrees that we need —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr McNulty: — to fill the potholes, not take pictures of them.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member takes plenty of pictures of potholes, maybe he should listen to his own advice. [Laughter.]

To answer his question on the Mineral Products Association and today's December monitoring outcome, yes, there is £13·2 million. There was a £20 million ask, but we have also been allocated money from overplanning, so there is room for flexibility in my Department. I will do my best to ensure that we meet as much of that as possible and deliver as much as we can in the rest of the financial year.

Ms Kimmins: From 1 June 2025, private cars that were first registered between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 or that were registered between 1 June 2018 and 31 May 2019 and have a valid MOT certificate will be given a temporary exemption certificate. The TEC means they will not need a vehicle test — MOT — for 12 months from the date that their current certificate expires. If a vehicle meets the eligible date criteria but does not have a valid MOT certificate, an MOT test will need to be conducted and passed. A TEC for 12 months will be automatically applied from the expiry of the latest test certificate.

Mr Kingston: Unfortunately, the introduction of the emergency measures speaks to a lack of capacity in the MOT testing system. Will the Minister ask her officials to check that Government websites give a consistent online message? When I tried in October to check my MOT status on GOV.UK, it told me that the MOT would expire in December, as I thought. When I went to the nidirect website to book an MOT test, after I went through the process, it told me that I could not book a test because it was not due until 2026. Having got a different message from nidirect, I had to check that that was correct when I looked up the information —

Mr Speaker: Interesting story, Mr Kingston, but we need a question. [Laughter.]

Mr Kingston: Will you ask officials to check whether the two websites are giving a consistent message about the temporary exemptions?

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the Member's raising that. I am happy for you to provide more detail on that specific issue to my private office, and we can look into it and try to get it rectified. I have outlined how that process works, but if there are issues, I am keen to make sure that they are addressed.

Mr McHugh: Ignoring the comment that was just made about how difficult it is to get an MOT, most people have noticed that it has become a lot easier to get an MOT appointment now than it was back in 2024. Did implementing the temporary exemption certificates impact on waiting times?

Ms Kimmins: It absolutely did. In May 2024, the average MOT waiting time was approximately 100 days. I am pleased that the waiting time for an MOT is now down to 32 days. That has been achieved by increasing the number of tests that are conducted and managing demand through the use of TECs. The Driver and Vehicle Agency has increased its testing capacity by recruiting additional vehicle examiners. It has also been offering appointments on Sundays and bank holidays, when testing has not normally been available, and has increased the number of vehicles that each examiner tests.

As I mentioned, TECs were first introduced in June 2024, and I was able to extend their use for certain five- and seven-year-old private cars for another year to help manage waiting times further until the new test centres at Hydebank and Mallusk open. Once both those test centres are fully operational, they will provide capacity for over 200,000 additional vehicle tests per year. Both centres are expected to open in 2026. That will be a marked difference from the experiences that we have seen in recent years.

It is important to pay tribute to the staff who have worked extremely hard doing overtime and putting in extra shifts. We have also been able to recruit new staff, which has made a really positive difference.

Mr Durkan: The Minister and Members outlined the benefits that have derived from the introduction of temporary exemption certificates, but what consideration has the Minister given to consultation responses on the move to biennial MOT testing? What other evidence might be considered? Should we have more up-to-date evidence on vehicle condition as a causation factor in collisions?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, we have done a consultation on biennial testing. The responses are with my officials, who are finalising a detailed paper that will come to me for consideration on the future of MOT testing here. I will update Members in due course when that is available. From a road safety perspective, it is important to remember and to remind people that the condition of your vehicle is your responsibility. Regardless of when your MOT is due, it is your responsibility to ensure that your vehicle is fit for purpose and fit for the road.

Over the past number of years, we have seen some of the issues that we have had with the testing centres. Back in 2020, we had issues with the lifts, which also had an impact on MOT testing. Then we had COVID, and we are gradually seeing a recovery from both those really difficult situations. During that period, the majority of motorists were acutely aware that it was their responsibility to ensure that their vehicle was roadworthy. That continues, regardless of whether your car has just been through its MOT or is two weeks out from an MOT. That is a really important point, particularly from a road safety perspective.

Ms Kimmins: The Inclusion Foundation, which is also known as Including People, is about creating an infrastructure system that works for everyone, including older people, those with disabilities and those with sensory impairments.

Accessible transport is not just about ramps or designated seating; it is about dignity, equality and enabling people to participate fully in society. By removing barriers, we open opportunities for employment, education and community life. Our initial focus has been on understanding the barriers that people encounter when accessing our services. That has enabled my Department to review existing functions and identify areas where programmes can be strengthened to better reflect individual needs.

We are actively working to remove obstacles for older people and those who are deaf or disabled while addressing how active travel can feel intimidating for women and girls and how racial and ethnic minorities face risks when using public transport. We work very closely and collaboratively with the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC). Building on that commitment to accessibility, I recently announced my intention to bring forward legislation to tackle inconsiderate pavement parking across the North.

A vehicle parked fully on a pavement creates serious and often dangerous barriers for pedestrians, forcing people to step out on to the road into oncoming traffic. That poses a safety risk, particularly for people with disabilities, older people, children and people pushing prams. This legislative action complements wider engagement efforts, such as our recent inclusive transport and travel conference, which brought together almost 140 people from various areas of that sector. Key messages included involving users from the outset, future-proofing infrastructure and improving parking enforcement. Stakeholders also called for better payment systems, real-time information and a more joined-up approach to public and community transport.

To ensure that there is a central and continuous focus on the diverse needs of the people who are using our services, all DFI senior civil servants, along with other lead policy officials, have completed a disability equality training programme, which is delivered in partnership with Inclusion London —

Mr Speaker: Minister —.

Ms Kimmins: — and in collaboration with IMTAC.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her answer and for putting inclusion and equality at the heart of what she does. Will the Minister consider extending the half-fare pass for disabled people to full fare?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. I am glad that the Member raised that question as it is an issue that I have been quite vocal about for many years. I fully acknowledge the significant societal and economic benefits that free public transport can deliver for people with disabilities. As well as that, increasing the use of public transport is a vital step towards reducing congestion, improving air quality and achieving our climate objectives, which will bring benefits to all our society.

As part of my ongoing review of budget allocations, I am carefully considering the funding available for the concessionary fares scheme, including the option of extending free travel to disabled people, who currently only receive the half-fare discount. In anticipation of when resources permit, my officials have been working closely with Translink to resolve any operational challenges, particularly those associated with the major upgrade of Translink's ticketing system. I am firmly committed to enhancing social inclusion by improving access to our public transport network through the extension of free public transport to people with disabilities, and I have met a number of representatives and organisations from across the sector to hear their views and hear why it is so important. I really appreciate and am grateful for their input to date.

Mr T Buchanan: Economic growth, roads and transport are part of your seven foundations for the future. That is very much needed in West Tyrone. Should there be a negative outcome to the ongoing court case regarding the A5, what is plan B?

Ms Kimmins: I am sure that the Member will appreciate that, at this point in time, it would be remiss of me to go into any level of detail. However, I will say that, as the work on the appeal has been ongoing, my officials have also been looking at a contingency plan as to what other options there are for us to take that forward. When the time comes and when I am able to do so, I will keep all Members updated.

Ms Kimmins: Road safety remains a major priority for me. This year, more than 50 families have already received the devastating news that their loved one has been killed in a road traffic collision, and many more have learned of life-changing injuries. My Department continues to collaborate with blue-light organisations and other Departments through the road safety strategic forum to steer the road safety strategy action plan. The plan will address the latest and emerging needs in road safety, with interventions that are based on sound research and success in other jurisdictions.

The forum is finalising a new action plan of high-level interventions. Whilst not all those interventions will specifically target rural or high-risk roads, any intervention to improve road safety has the potential to have a positive impact on any type of road and on road safety in general. The interventions will include, amongst others, a consultation on a number of speed-related matters; a local transport and safety measures programme; working with Translink on public transport and school bus safety in rural areas; a new tranche of part-time 20 mph speed limits at schools; continuing work on impaired and distracted driving policy and legislation; and targeted awareness campaigns.

It is important to remember that the majority of collisions are caused by human error, so road user behaviour must also be addressed. That is a specific focus that Members will potentially have seen through some of the more recent road safety advertising campaigns and awareness-raising work that we have been doing.

Mrs Cameron: I hope that the Speaker will not mind indulging me for a second to congratulate my good colleague beside me, Willie Irwin, on reaching his final day of service in the Assembly Chamber. We all wish him well for the future.

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware of the very recent and tragic loss of life on the Lurgan Road in Glenavy. Our hearts go out to those families who have suffered such terrible loss. Given the long-term ambition of the 'Road Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland to 2030', can the Minister outline how the new technology that she has already spoken about and the maintenance strategy reforms and budget allocations, including the £13·2 million that was announced today, will align with the strategy's targets to ensure meaningful reductions in deaths and serious injuries on our roads?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister, please.

Ms Kimmins: I also offer my best wishes to my constituency colleague William Irwin. We have always had a very good relationship, and I appreciate his work over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement, which is, at this stage, well deserved. The best of luck with that, William.

On the Member's question, we are doing a number of things. As I have talked about before, I am continually looking at ways that we can narrow those gaps. Road user and driver behaviour is one of the key areas, which is why I wanted to increase road safety advertising. I was able to approve an allocation of £1·9 million — almost £2 million — for road safety promotion for this financial year, which is an increase of over £1·5 million. In addition, the road safety partnership was allocated half a million in sponsorship, which brought the total budget to almost £2·5 million. That, in itself, shows my commitment and dedication to ensuring that we do more and do as much as we can. We recently announced the drug-driving campaign, which the Member may be aware of. We have been working across Departments on a number of other areas, including with her party colleague the Education Minister on school bus safety.

When it comes to the road maintenance aspect, anything that improves our road surfaces and network will improve safety. I am very conscious of that, and I want to achieve that. There are a number of things that we can do here, and I am always looking for more ideas for how we can improve driver behaviour and make our roads safer for everyone.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr McNulty: I wish my constituency colleague and her family a happy Christmas in the run-in to the magical season of festivities.

Ms Kimmins: I thank my colleague for his warm wishes and wish him the same. I hope that he gets a good break over Christmas and gets time to enjoy it with his family. We are all looking forward to it at this stage, and, hopefully, we will get to enjoy it, along with many others.

I have probably answered that question in some of my responses today about waste water infrastructure. There is no doubt that it is a significant challenge. It has not just arisen since my predecessor, John O'Dowd, or I came into post. It has been a characteristic of the Department for many years. However, when we look at what we have achieved in the past year, albeit with a constrained budget, we see that, while NI Water had indicated that the target was just over 4,000 houses for the PC21 period, over 5,000 houses have already been built due to the work that has happened across Departments, around the Executive table and with other partners across the sector using innovation to unlock waste water capacity. I hope that that shows my commitment to finding solutions. It may not always be funding. Funding is the key issue, but looking at the British Government's Budget, or lack of a decent Budget, last week, I do not think that that money is going to drop out of the sky any time soon. That will not deter me from doing the work that I need to do to ensure that we keep this place moving forward and deliver for the people whom we all represent.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, the current funding model for NI Water is not fit for purpose. You know it, your Department knows it and the industry knows it. Industry has told you that. What is the plan to ensure that funding is in place to allow NI Water to connect new houses, schools, hospitals and commercial, hospitality, retail and industrial developments?

Ms Kimmins: Again, I have outlined the plan for my three-pronged approach on many occasions here, as well as the approaches that we are taking in different areas of work, which have made and continue to make a difference. I am of the view, however, that the funding model works. It is the right one for NI Water, because it ensures that the Government still have a level of control, which protects it for the people whom we represent. I have said it very clearly, and I will say it once again: I do not intend to introduce water charges. For me, that seems to be the only other option that people are bringing forward. The Member is shaking his head, so if he has another solution to that —.

Mr McNulty: Mutualisation.

Ms Kimmins: Mutualisation is water charges by the back door. The Member is shaking his head, but he clearly needs to do a wee bit of research on that. Mutualisation is water charges by the back door, and that is something that I am not prepared to do, even though he may be.

Mr Irwin: I thank my party colleagues and Members from all sides of the House who have wished me well on the occasion of my retirement. It has been an absolute privilege to represent Newry and Armagh since 2007. I think that most people will recognise that I represented everyone irrespective of their class or creed.

Ms Kimmins: I send my condolences to that lady's family. That was such a devastating incident, and I cannot imagine what they are going through. As I said, many families have, sadly, had similar experiences this year. I will ask my officials to review that again, because I know that we have looked at it in the past, particularly in light of that most recent incident. I travel on that road myself quite a lot, and I am very familiar with it. As the Member said, there are a lot of junctions. The junction at Gosford Park, which is not far away, is a very busy junction. I am very conscious of that, and I will be happy to ask officials to look at that situation and reassess it.

Mr Speaker: Before I call you, Mr Irwin, I extend to you my best wishes on your retirement. I have known you for a very long time, and I know you as a very hard constituency worker over those years. Many people have benefited from that, and you have always done what you do with honesty and integrity, which is a great value for someone to have.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Irwin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely together, and I hold you in high esteem.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into the matter. I was at the funeral on Sunday, and the family are devastated by their loss. The lady was going to get her hair done and was killed on that main road. The traffic travels quite fast on that road, and it is a very busy road. It is important that we all realise the seriousness of the matter.

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The seriousness of that incident and the danger on that road cannot be overstated. I reiterate my commitment to ask officials to review that situation. If he prefers, I will arrange to come back either to the Member personally through the Department or to his successor.

Mr Dickson: I pass on the Alliance Party's best wishes to Mr Irwin on his retirement. He has been in the Assembly longer than I have, and I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Ms Kimmins: The consultation was heavily responded to, as the Member will be aware, so we are considering that and looking at what the next steps will be. It is important to recognise that this is a good opportunity to look at how we can bolster our waste water infrastructure funding, while recognising the need for an equal and fair approach. I will update the House when I go through that and finalise those plans.

Mr Dickson: Minister, the consultation showed strong opposition to developer-led contributions. What measures do you plan to take to minimise the potential negative impact on housing affordability?

Ms Kimmins: The opposition was not a surprise. As I think the Member will understand, none of us wants any additional costs, but it is important to look at what the outcomes will be and what we can actually achieve. We are trying to finalise what it would look like, and I am very conscious that we do not want it to have a further negative impact in other ways. In particular, the possibility of its having an impact on house prices has been mentioned. Obviously, I do not want to see that. However, it is also important to recognise that, for housebuilders or anyone else who is building and who needs a waste water connection, there is already a cost. In many cases, the cost is quite significant if a new connection is needed. The idea behind developer contributions was to look at how we could do that more equitably, whereby we invest in our system with people feeling less impact. That was the desired outcome, and I am very conscious of that in making my final decision.

Ms Kimmins: I am aware of that site. As the Member alluded to, a full site survey and assessment has been completed. The site has been scored, with that indicating that it is considered to be a high priority in the council area. As you mentioned earlier during Members' Statements, it is, ultimately, down to budget and where it fits in with what we can deliver. It is on the Department's prioritised list for inclusion in the future works programme. I do not have a timetable in front of me, but I am happy to come back in writing if there is any idea, particularly now that we have additional funding through December monitoring, of what that may look like. I am happy to keep you updated, because I recognise how important it is. I do not know what may be in front of it: we could have someone else complaining that a site that scored as higher priority had its funding overridden; that is also important to remember. Given that it has been identified as a high-priority site, we can get more detail from officials, if that would be helpful.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. Yes, if we could have more details about whether it will happen in the next financial year, that would be helpful. I might invite the Minister to come to the site along with Ashgrove Primary School's council, so that she can see how busy the road is. There are four lanes — it looks almost like a dual carriageway — with speeds of 50 mph. She would see what it is like for children to cross the road in that area. I understand the point about budgets, but it is a serious safety concern.

Ms Kimmins: I am happy to accept the invite. As a parent, I am so keen that we do our best to maximise road safety at all costs and to encourage our children to walk, cycle or whatever it may be to get to places that are close to them, including school or the local youth club. I am very conscious of those issues, and, when the Department carries out the assessments, they are all factored in. If you want to write to the Department, I will be happy to accept the invitation.

Ms Kimmins: I have not had any engagement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I am sure that the Member will appreciate, it is, largely, the Finance Minister who is involved in such direct negotiations. As we await further information, I imagine that there will be engagement with the British Government and their relevant Ministers on what that will mean for people here.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Do you have concerns about how that tax might impact on Northern Ireland's ability to meet its climate change targets?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. At the first look at it, at a time when we are trying to encourage more people to transition to electric vehicles, it is understandable that concerns are raised if costs will increase. At this point, I am keen to get more information on what the British Government propose, what that will look like and what it will mean for people here. I will then be better able to provide a rationalisation of what we can expect.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish my constituency colleague Willie Irwin well on this, his last day in the Chamber after more than two decades of dedicated service to the people of Newry and Armagh. He has been a fearsome advocate for farmers and their families. Willie, you will be sorely missed. We shook hands in the Great Hall in front of the Christmas tree: you still have that farmer's grip. Best of luck for whatever is next. Take care.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you for that. I, too, wish William all the very best for the future. It has been a pleasure working with you. You are an absolute gentleman.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we broke for Question Time, I indicated that Colin McGrath would be the next Member to ask a question.

Mr McGrath: Last week, at the Health Committee, we were told that the maintenance bill for our health estate had blown past £1·6 billion, with £251 million of that judged to be high-risk, 40% of the estate failing to meet statutory standards and nearly a fifth of it in a physically unacceptable condition. Does the Minister seriously believe that it is acceptable for the Executive to leave patients in such conditions? Will he explain how a criminally low level of £5·5 million —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Colin.

Mr McGrath: — has been allocated amounting to a fraction of a fraction of the backlog? Will it make any meaningful difference?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there are several questions there.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Not only has he done his homework but he has been reading the dictionary.

I have heard no one around the Executive table or, indeed, beyond it claim that patients should be kept in anything other than first-class, first-rate conditions in our health service. Despite the best efforts of our health workers and teams, circumstances often fall below par, but patients very often receive world-class care in world-class conditions. Where there is a maintenance backlog, I will work with the Health Minister and others to try to alleviate that. Nowhere in my statement is there any suggestion that the allocation that we have made today will resolve that problem. We are doing the best that we can with the limited resources that we have, but we will continue to drive forward change.

Mr Kingston: The allocation and reallocation of over £290 million is to be welcomed and will relieve many pressures. You said, Minister, that £104·2 million had been allocated to pay award costs, and your statement also highlighted the fact that, across four Departments, up to £150 million is needed for pay awards. From what you said earlier, it seems that the health and policing pay awards will be met in full. Can you provide the clarity that workers across the four Departments are seeking as to what they can expect?

Mr O'Dowd: Let us be clear: there has been a ministerial direction approved by the Executive on health workers' pay. That has been agreed: health workers' pay will now proceed. The £7 million for police restructuring and recruitment has been agreed and will proceed. I understand that the Justice Minister will set out later how she will implement policing pay. That leaves teachers and infrastructure workers. I understand that the Education Minister is bringing forward a ministerial direction in relation to teachers' pay. As I have said, if that is laid out in the same circumstances as the Health Minister's ministerial direction was, there will be grounds for the Executive to approve that. A ministerial direction is a document on its own and contains information etc, but, in principle, that is the way to proceed to ensure that all our public sector workers receive their agreed pay awards.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the statement, Minister. It is an important step forward. In it, you indicated that there will be almost £70 million for healthcare workers' pay. I am glad that you have confirmed, through the ministerial direction process, that that will go ahead. However, it may involve an overspend into next year or a three-year Budget. What discussions have you had with the Health Minister about how he will manage the pressures on his budget, given that considerable potential overspend and its implications?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had ongoing discussions with the Health Minister over a protracted period on the pressures that his budget is under. There has been a significant decline in the forecasted pressures on Health as a result of the work of the Health Minister, his permanent secretary, the team around them and all the staff involved in the health service. They are all playing their part in that work.

As I said to another Member, a number of manoeuvres are still to be made in this financial year. There is still a fiscal event to come in Westminster with the Estimates, when we will receive some money, although we are not expecting huge amounts from that. That will allow us to further analyse the figures and better project how we will overspend. I suspect that there will be an overspend by the Executive. One or two Departments will probably give us an overspend. However, I am not in a position to predict firmly what that overspend will be at this stage, because there are still a number of moving elements. I have engaged with the Health Minister at length about that, and my officials have engaged at official level.

Mr Martin: Minister, thank you for your statement. I will take you to table 3, which shows capital allocations. I will let you flick towards it while I read my question.

Essentially, in the DFI budget's capital allocations, you have fully funded the Glarryford land tribunal, which was an inescapable cost. You have fully funded the "Overplanning" at £34 million, which was an inescapable cost. You then part-funded capital structural maintenance and Northern Ireland drinking water infrastructure. You went on to part-fund a high-priority item with £5 million for fleet replacement. Is it usual not to fund inescapables as far as you can within the envelope while funding a high-priority item ahead of those inescapables?

Mr O'Dowd: For clarification, I have not funded anything: this is an Executive document. The Executive approved it. The Executive can make whatever decisions they want about monitoring rounds and how they fund items. A considerable amount of capital was brought forward on this occasion. My officials work with departmental officials across the board on what could be spent in the time frame that we have, hence the presentation that you have in front of you.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas agus as ucht a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

There is certainly some good news in the document. However, that does not mean that it is a good way of doing business, particularly given the allocation of so much capital so late in the financial year. We welcome the bid for social housing of almost £30 million being met. Can the Minister clarify — maybe it is for the Communities Minister — how many new units that will provide and how far we will fall short of the target?

Mr O'Dowd: How close will we get to the target? That is another way of looking at it.

Monitoring rounds are not a new invention. I did not wake up during the week and say, "Here is what I will do: I will have a monitoring round". Monitoring rounds are a part and fixture of budgetary processes in the Assembly and elsewhere. They are a proven way of doing business in institutions and of redistributing moneys across Departments at set periods. I have not made that process up; it is a fixed, sound process. As I said, the reason why it is a bit later in the year is that the Chancellor's autumn Budget was approximately four weeks later than it would usually be in the Westminster calendar. That prevented me coming forward with proposals to the Executive earlier and the Executive signing off on them.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I note the return of £4·9 million as a result of unfilled vacancies in DAERA.Given the pressures that our agriculture sector is experiencing and the large number of vacancies in the Department, especially in veterinary personnel, that is a matter of concern. Have you had any discussions with the AERA Minister about those vacancies and the filling of them?

Mr O'Dowd: Mr Durkan asked how close we were to the target: it will be for the Communities Minister to make an announcement in that regard. He will have all of the facts and figures.

On Tom's question, I have not had a discussion specifically with the AERA Minister about those vacancies. I do not know what the specific challenges are with recruitment in DAERA. The public sector faces the challenges that many private-sector businesses face with recruitment: at times, it is difficult to recruit the staff you need for the jobs that you have at that time. That question is probably best directed to the AERA Minister.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement. I see a bid from DFI relating to the Ballynahinch bypass, but I have not, as yet, seen it on the list of awards. Will you update the House on that priority project, which, hopefully, is due to start soon?

Mr O'Dowd: I am familiar with the Ballynahinch bypass, given my previous role as Infrastructure Minister. However, I am not sure what stage it is at, Harry. The Infrastructure Minister will have to profile her budget in a way that responds to how that project is moving forward. I have no further information for you on it.

Mr Carroll: Revenue raising has been doing the rounds again. Something that I have raised before but was not in the statement is some form of empty property levy or tax through the rating system. According to your Department's figures, Minister, a £1,000 fine on empty properties could bring in somewhere between £22 million and £50 million a year. Is that something that you are likely to look at and support developing further?

Mr O'Dowd: Deliberations about empty properties will form part of the ongoing rates review. The Member will be aware that I am proposing to increase the rates on empty non-domestic properties. That consultation has gone out in the past week or so. Further exploration of the rates reviewing policy is ongoing. If there is an opportune time to further develop that proposal, it could be something that we consult on.

Mr McNulty: Minister, "Casement Park will be built" was the rallying call of your Executive's First Minister. Casement Park is, of course, an Executive flagship project, but, sadly, it remains derelict. It is astonishing, therefore, to see a £27·3 million allocation for the development of Casement Park being handed back unspent. What is going on?

Mr O'Dowd: There has clearly been a slippage for all to see in the delivery of Casement Park. However, I and other Ministers are engaging with the Communities Minister to ensure that that project is delivered and built and that it meets the needs of the GAA. It is unfortunate that it has not progressed at this stage, but I am still confident that it will.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is us. I remind Members that, in the new year, all being well, if they wish to ask a Minister a question, they need to be in for that Minister's statement.

That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Diane, please open the debate on the motion. Thank you.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Minister, just in case you are interested in how we think about health issues and those that we should debate in the Chamber, I recently attended an event at which a lot of neurology patients were present. At that event, I found groups of people who felt abandoned, who have lost hope and who felt that, even though they were able to speak to MLAs, they had no clear answers. So I made up my mind that we would have a debate through which you could, perhaps, give them the answers that they deserve.

The review of neurology services, launched in 2018, followed the, at that time, largest patient recall in the history of the NHS. Nearly 5,500 people met the criteria for recall, and over 4,000 patients were reassessed. Almost one in five patients was advised that their original diagnosis was insecure. That illustrates a system that was not functioning properly or offering a high standard of care. Seven years on from the review, it is time that some action was taken to implement fully its recommendations.

An estimated 40,000 people in Northern Ireland are living with a chronic neurological condition and rely on regular access to neurology services. The review was clear: we need more neurologists, more neurophysiologists, more neurology nurses and advanced nurse practitioners, and more allied health professionals (AHPs), psychologists, pharmacists and neuropsychiatrists. Yet, for those people in that room that day, it seemed that there had been next to no progress. Some could not even get a diagnosis.

On-site neurology opinion should be available at every acute hospital receiving unscheduled admissions, with patients being seen by a neurologist within 24 hours, in line with recognised standards. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. In fact, one trust does not have a neurology service.

In response to a question for written answer on the neurology review, the Minister stated:

Another answer was:

I am disappointed that it seems to have become the norm for the Department of Health to have a new strategy, plan or service development, and even to have the adult protection legislation that we are considering, but to have no idea where the funding is to come from to implement them. As an Assembly, we should agree to end that approach, because we are promising people something that the Department is not delivering. The responsibility for review and reform lies firmly with the Department and the Minister. We cannot expect everybody else to fund those initiatives. That priority must be within the Department.

At the weekend, the My Waiting Times NI website showed that those referred for a routine neurology outpatient appointment were waiting 192 weeks in Belfast — 192 weeks. The figure was exactly the same in the Southern Trust. In the Western Trust, it was 263 weeks. According to the website, those figures were up to date at the weekend. That is just over five years for a first routine neurology appointment. Minister, can you confirm the waiting time for routine appointments in the South Eastern Trust? At the weekend, the My Waiting Times NI website stated that that was 16 weeks; previously, it had been 14 weeks. I would like to know whether that is accurate, particularly in light of the figures in every other trust. The referral time for urgent cases is twice as long, at 35 weeks. Those figures do not seem to be quite right, but I would be delighted if they were correct. I would like the Minister to give some answers on those.

Northern Ireland has only 25 full-time equivalent neurologists, with limited 24/7 emergency cover beyond the Royal Victoria Hospital. Only two of 138 core medical training places are allocated to neurology. How are we going to make up the deficit? How will we get more people in place to tackle the backlog of that terrible waiting list?

The lack of timely access to neurology care causes deterioration in health conditions and a preventable rise in disability across Northern Ireland. Delayed access to neurology treatment can also be life-threatening. The economic implications as well as the implications for individual well-being are significant. Direct costs include ambulance call-outs, emergency admissions and longer hospital stays, while indirect costs due to lost productivity and the impact on informal care contribute to that economic burden. A 2024 study by the Economist Intelligence Unit estimated that 14·5 million people in the UK live with neurological conditions. The total direct and indirect burden was calculated as 4·3% of GDP, or £96 billion per year, as far back as 2019. Presumably, that figure is much higher now. The same study suggested — this is the most interesting part for us all — that timely intervention and timely and improved access to care could reduce those costs by a third.

The figures are probably an underestimate, not just because they are based on 2019 data but because the study considered only 10 common neurological conditions, whereas, in fact, there are many. The impact of those waiting lists on people who are unable to secure a diagnosis, or even, as one person at that event explained to me, on people who have obtained a diagnosis privately, is that health services are almost impossible to access as well. I cannot emphasise enough, Minister, how much we need to invest in the neurology workforce and the introduction of minimum standards to ensure that all trusts provide timely access to care. Consultant time is not being used efficiently, because the workforce lacks the right mix of skills. A shortage of specialist nurses and allied health professionals means that many people go directly to consultants when other options may have been more suitable. I again plead with you on the issue of GPs. Your instinct to shift care to the community is right, but there will be great difficulty with that if GPs do not have the support to manage neurology patients who have complex needs.

The report on the neurology review recommends the development of a broader skill mix through extended roles such as advanced nurse practitioners and advanced practice AHPs. That would ensure a more efficient use of resources. I presume, Minister, that the roll-out of the multidisciplinary teams in your reset will help with that as well.

Those who suffer from neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and the wide range of other such conditions, deserve something better than what is being provided. I would like you to address the waiting lists and the issues with the workforce. Unless we can address those two things in the debate, we will not give answers to the many thousands of people who are on waiting lists, without hope and in pain.

Mr Donnelly: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, you will have 10 minutes to propose your amendment and five minutes in which to wind. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I endorse the FightForNeuro campaign, which was launched in Stormont in November of this year. That campaign is testament to the powerful stories of those with lived experience, and it highlights the urgent need to address the gaps identified in neurological care following the publication of the final report of the regional review of neurology services. Some of the quotes from the campaign are shocking. One patient said:

Another said:

As Diane highlighted, those people feel abandoned. We have heard about the shockingly long waiting lists for routine appointments, on which patients wait for years, while their conditions deteriorate. That impacts on their health, quality of life and finances. It also results in additional pressures on the health service.

In August, Alliance responded to the consultation on the neurology review, which accurately outlined the serious and systemic challenges within neurological services. Waiting times are unacceptably long. Workforce shortages across consultants, nurses, AHPs and psychology staff create an unacceptable variation in access and outcomes across the trusts. The absence of local neurology teams and condition-specific pathways further undermines service consistency and quality.

The report of the neurology review sets out four main priorities: a person-centred service; developing additional workforce capacity within neurology; addressing gaps in current services; and using current resources more effectively. In responding to the consultation, we strongly supported the vision but urged that the focus needs to be on delivery. Person-centred, evidence-based care cannot be achieved without investment, across all trusts, in workforce, infrastructure and support services. Services need to be designed with and for people with neurological conditions, particularly through condition-specific pathways that reflect lived experience. Is that going to happen? Well, the Minister attended the launch of the FightForNeuro campaign, and the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance (NINCA) stated that he:

NINCA said:

I do not doubt that the Minister has genuine empathy for the people in those circumstances, and I do not doubt that he would like to deliver real and meaningful change in neurology services, but empathy and kind words will not fix the health service.

Consider the Department's approach to some of the priorities set out in the review. At the Health Committee last week, when discussing the Department's budget, my colleague Nuala McAllister asked the departmental finance officer about projected savings and whether they were simply cost savings or efficiencies. She was informed that they were mostly just savings, which raises serious concerns that there is a culture of bottom-line budgets on paper as opposed to efficient spending with best outcomes and patient-centred care in mind. How will we ever have a person-centred service if that is the Department's approach? It feeds into the need to use current resources more effectively, but how can it be a more efficient service when the Department admits that it is more focused on saving money than being efficient?

I have spoken previously about the constant recommendations in basically every report across our health service that recognise the need to develop additional workforce capacity. The Minister told me in the Assembly that a delayed winter plan would have no impact on staff morale, yet, two weeks later, it has appeared as a red-line concern in the departmental report. I can say from personal experience and from speaking to healthcare staff that it has had a serious impact on morale in the service.

It has been consistently reported that mental health problems are one of the biggest causes of staff sickness in the public sector, including the trusts, yet we have a mental health strategy that is effectively shelved and completely underfunded. We have pay uplifts that leave out vital parts of the healthcare workforce, and we have a neurology service that has roughly one consultant for every 1,600 patients and one specialist nurse for every 700 patients. We cannot continue to address recognised failures only with words and unactioned reviews. A funded delivery plan with clear timelines, accountability structures and the patient voice embedded throughout is clearly needed. How can we call for those things when the embedded culture is clearly set on keeping the system inequitable and reactive? The review will just be another waste of resources if actionable delivery does not follow, along with the culture change and reform that are needed.

Mr McGuigan: I begin by thanking the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment. We will support both.

The regional review of neurology services was first launched in 2018 in response to serious concerns about service pressures, clinical governance and patient safety, following, as has been pointed out, the largest patient recall in the history of the NHS. Now, in 2025, with the publication of the final report, it is clear that neurology services remain under-resourced, understaffed and under substantial pressure. Waiting lists, both in numbers and length of wait, have reached unacceptable levels. That has led to inevitable delays in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care and, potentially, missed opportunities for early intervention that, in some cases, have resulted in patients presenting to emergency departments in crisis. People living with neurological conditions and those presenting with symptoms deserve better; they deserve far better.

The report identifies significant capacity constraints across the system that are compounded by fragmentation between primary, secondary and community care. That fragmentation creates gaps in services and inequitable access to timely neurological care across trust areas. The report also highlights the acute workforce shortages, including in consultant neurologist, specialist nurse, allied health professional and psychology roles. The findings echo the concerns that have been raised by patients, carers and advocacy groups.

The 'My Neuro Survey 2024-25' provides stark evidence of the reality. Many people living with neurological conditions and their carers reported feeling unsupported by the healthcare system physically and mentally. Access to specialist services remains a major challenge. As has been pointed out, 82% of those who responded to the survey reported difficulty accessing inpatient neuro-rehabilitation; 80% reported difficulty accessing neuropsychiatry; and 71% reported difficulty accessing neuropsychology. Respondents raised concerns about insufficient time during appointments, a lack of continuity in the professionals whom they see, difficulty in accessing follow-up care and the additional financial burden of managing their condition, including the cost of transport, therapies, equipment and, in some cases, having to seek private healthcare.

We are all aware that lengthy delays can lead to deterioration in physical and mental health, placing unnecessary strain on carers and limiting the ability of individuals and families to remain in employment or to participate in the activities that give their lives meaning. I have heard first-hand how living with a neurological condition can be life-altering, complex and unpredictable. Those conditions, which include MS, Parkinson's, epilepsy and migraines, to mention a few, can affect mobility, cognition, communication and emotional well-being not only for the individual but for their families and those who care for them. That is why it is vital that patients feel listened to and supported from the moment that symptoms emerge, regardless of which trust area they live in. It is clear that that is not currently the case.

I acknowledge the important work of the Neurological Charities Alliance in the North, and I voice my support for its FightForNeuro campaign. Charitable organisations too often have to step in to fill gaps in statutory services, providing a lifeline for patients, carers and families. I thank Treasa and Bill, whom I met along with the Neurological Charities Alliance last week, for sharing their lived experience with me. Their personal accounts were deeply impactful, and I am grateful to them for sharing how they were diagnosed, the problems that come with their conditions and in accessing services in the health service and the impact that that has on their condition, their physical and mental health and their families.

While I welcome the priorities and the associated recommendations outlined in the report on the review, particularly on person-centred care, expanding the neurology workforce, addressing gaps in existing services and making better use of current resources, I fully concur with the Members who moved the motion and the amendment. I ask for implementation without further delay of the recommendations in the report as well as any additional actions arising from the consultation process. That action is needed to restore trust and public confidence in our neurology services.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the motion and the opportunity that it gives the House to debate an important part of our health service. There is no doubt that there are huge challenges in neurology; in that, neurology is similar to many specialties, but the challenges are particularly significant in that service. Regrettably, too many people across the health system have been waiting too long, but the waits are especially poor in neurology services; no one in the House could suggest otherwise. Those waits affect many thousands of people living with a wide spectrum of neurological conditions from Parkinson's to epilepsy, from multiple sclerosis (MS) to motor neurone disease (MND) and from functional neurological disorders (FNDs) to rare but devastating conditions such as Huntington's disease. Every one of those conditions brings its challenges and the need for timely specialist care.

As in many specialties, there is a wide spectrum of patient impacts and outcomes. For someone living with emerging symptoms of a condition such as MS, the earlier the intervention, the greater the opportunities. Sadly, for those with Parkinson's or motor neurone disease, time is often not a luxury, so they really need specialist guidance and support urgently. The current provision is far from ideal. It was far from ideal five years ago, just as it was far from ideal a decade ago. Unfortunately, the neurology-related problems and pressures that we see on these shores are being experienced across the rest of the UK.

While big problems persist, positive things are now happening. The publication of the evidence-based regional review of neurology earlier this year represented the most comprehensive assessment of neurology services undertaken in Northern Ireland. Crucially, it placed the voice of patients and carers at the core of its recommendations. I especially welcome the review's insistence on person-centred care. As MLAs, we are regularly and understandably on the front line hearing about what, patients feel, works or does not work well in our health service, and lived experiences of poor diagnostic and treatment pathways are part and parcel of that. It is clear to me that too many people living with neurological conditions feel that they are navigating the system alone, and, as with many other health-related journeys, that can often be a scary or intimidating experience. I fully support putting patients at the centre, ensuring that they have access to reliable information and providing a designated point of contact.

The review also shone a bright light on the workforce crisis that opened up many years previously. We currently operate with only a fraction of the necessary consultant, nursing and AHP workforce. I therefore fully support the latest renewed emphasis on having a workforce that is fit to meet our significant needs. This time, it feels different. Of course, more staff alone will not fix everything, but more staff will allow us to provide the multidisciplinary service that reflects the complexity of neurological care.

At last, there is a road map that reflects the full complexity of neurology. As I have often heard the Minister say, an action plan is more valuable than a lengthy strategic document any day. What patients and staff need and deserve now is clarity on how and when the improvements will be implemented. Whilst funding or the lack thereof may be a big barrier to achieving all that is possible, I am pleased that there are other measures that do not have a financial price tag but will deliver improved patient care and experiences. I commend the work that has been undertaken, especially in recent months, and I urge us to continue with that progress at pace. With commitment, investment and partnership, we can build neurology services that meet the needs of the people whom they serve.

Mr McGrath: I am pleased to take part in the debate, not least because it impacts on and reflects the needs of thousands of people across the places that we represent and the many thousands in their families who support them every day. The crisis that we face is not new, and it is certainly not hidden. It was laid bare in the regional review of neurology services, which showed that we have a system that is underfunded, understaffed and sometimes unable to meet even the most basic of needs. With almost 20,000 people waiting for a first neurology appointment and more than 11,000 waiting for a review, waiting times in some trusts are now stretched, as has been explained, to nearly five years. That is not the case in my area, for some reason, but I am sure that we will get the detail on that later.

Even in recent weeks, I received a deeply moving message from a family whose loved one was among the deceased patients of Michael Watt. They reminded me that it has been seven years and seven months since the Department first announced the review of his deceased patients. Still the families have no clarity, and still they wait. They described the unprocessed grief, the daily torment and a profound sense of abandonment. The fact that people who have already suffered immeasurable loss are left searching for answers that they should not have to fight for tells us everything that we need to know about the need for urgency in turning this round and changing the service.

That urgency is echoed across the broader neurological community. According to Parkinson's UK and the NI Neurological Charities Alliance, 76% of people with neurological conditions have faced delays in accessing healthcare; 77% report negative impacts on their mental health; and 74% say that delays have worsened their physical condition. Families have told us bluntly that, without timely care, treatable conditions become chronic, lives shrink and hope diminishes. One patient said:

Another said:

In the starkest of terms, we hear of individuals being driven to suicide attempts, because the system that was meant to support them could not respond. The system is in crisis, because we have not resourced or prioritised neurology as a core part of our health service. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of Produodopa — I hope that I have pronounced that correctly — which is the first major new treatment for advanced Parkinson's in decades.

It is approved across the UK. It offers transformative, stabilising symptom control for those with severe motor fluctuations, but it is entirely unavailable here, not because clinicians doubt it or the evidence is lacking but because Northern Ireland does not have the workforce, the specialist teams or the infrastructure to deliver it. Patients here watch others in the UK begin to benefit while they remain stuck, with no options left. When the possibility of a better life exists but is out of reach simply because the system is not staffed to provide it, that is an absolute moral failure.

The regional review showed us the path forward. It said that we should have a properly staffed workforce; a person-centred model of care; designated points of contact for every patient; community neurology teams in every trust; clear pathways; joined-up care; access to psychology and rehabilitation; and modern treatments delivered safely and consistently. However, seven years after that review was commissioned, we are still debating its implementation. There could be no more important moment than this, on the last sitting day of 2025, for the Assembly to act. As we close the doors on yet another year, thousands of families cannot close the door on their fear, deterioration and unanswered questions. They cannot wait for another year, another new plan or another new promise. They need action, now — not in 2026 and not in due course; they need it today.

Solidarity is expressed through decisions that honour the suffering that we have heard about and from which we can build a service that is worthy of the people for whom it exists to serve. They are the families who are waiting for answers, the patients waiting for care and all those who cannot afford another year of delay. Hopefully, we will hear how the Minister and the Executive are going to act. I support the motion and the amendment.

Mrs Dillon: I support of the motion and the amendment, because the crisis in neurology services in the North is not abstract or distant, and it is not something that can be ignored. These experiences are being lived every day by thousands of people who are living with Parkinson's, MS, epilepsy, stroke, brain injury and many other conditions and who are having to navigate a system that is fragmented, overstretched and incapable of meeting their needs. The Department's review and the experiences that have been shared through the FightForNeuro campaign paint a picture of delay, deterioration and distress that no person should have to face.

Sinn Féin is clear that the waiting times are unacceptably long, that capacity is far below what is needed and that the absence of consistent services across trusts is leading to inequity and unnecessary suffering. When a person has to wait for five years for a first neurology appointment or cannot access the neuro-rehabilitation or psychological support that they desperately need, it is not simply a health service issue. It becomes a crisis that affects their family life, employment, mental well-being and independence.

Carers are exhausted and unsupported, and clinicians are working in impossible conditions, and they have outlined that they feel moral injury as a result of not being able to do the best for the people whom they serve. I have spoken to many in the allied health professions who are clear that if people who are impacted on by neurological disorders were to get the early intervention and support that should be available to them, they would have a better quality of life, improved mobility and independence and, in some cases, the ability to continue to work. We were given clear indications of that. We heard stories of people's lived experiences of being able to return to work when they got the interventions that they required.

The fact that three quarters of people surveyed experienced delays that actively worsened their health is not only a cause for shame but represents a significant cost to our health services and economy. The reality is that many are forced into private care because the system cannot meet the demand. That is an absolute disgrace. People are using their benefits, such as the personal independence payment (PIP), to access private care and treatments, leaving themselves in financial hardship. We know that, due to mobility issues, they may need additional heating and support, but they cannot afford that because they are using the money for private care.

I will also speak about the all-island dimension of the crisis, because that is a vital part of the solution. The North does not exist in isolation. Neurology is a highly specialised field, the population here is small, and the expertise required for many neurological conditions is concentrated in a handful of centres across the island. The development of all-Ireland pathways is a practical, urgent and clinically sensible approach to ensure that people, especially in rural and border communities, get timely diagnosis and treatment. We have long argued for cross-border collaboration, and we welcome the review's recognition that some services will only ever be sustainable on an all-Ireland-wide basis. It is common sense, and it is on page 75 of the ‘Regional Review of Neurology Services’ in section 5, "NEXT STEPS".

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the kind of life-changing treatment that can dramatically improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's disease. The establishment of an all-Ireland DBS service, with neurology services in the South working closely with neurosurgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital, would mean that people from Donegal to Fermanagh and from Tyrone to Monaghan could access specialist care without navigating fragmented pathways or waiting years for treatment. The same is true for rare neurological conditions, where expertise may exist only in Dublin or Belfast. Rural patients, in particular, stand to benefit. Too many people in the west, in border counties and in rural regions are disadvantaged by geography. An all-island framework would allow the closest and most appropriate centre, North or South, to become the default option. It would mean bringing services closer to people instead of forcing people to travel.

At the heart of my speech and the motion is a simple truth: people cannot wait any longer. Seven years after the review began, the Minister must now publish and fund an implementation plan that matches the urgency of the need. The Department estimates that £65 million will be required in the first five years, and that investment is not optional; it is essential if we are to rebuild trust, cut waiting lists and improve outcomes.

We fully endorse the FightForNeuro campaign, because it amplifies the voices of those who are living with neurological conditions, and they can no longer be ignored. On that basis, we support the motion and the amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin. No?

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Health Minister will be aware —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Peter. There has been a bit of a mix-up.

Mr Martin: There has.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Can you give us a minute? OK. Are you winding up?

Mr Martin: I am winding up.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr Martin: I can do a range of things, although my wife says that I cannot fill a dishwasher properly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, Peter, can you take your —.

Mr Martin: I can sit down again, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes. Somebody in the DUP is winding up as well, because you are down as the next Member to speak, and Alan is on the list as winding up. Apologies, Peter.

Mr Martin: Not a problem.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are winding up, and Alan is the next Member to speak. I call Alan Robinson.

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We got there. We thank the signatories to the amendment. We will certainly support the amendment, and we very much value and welcome its inclusion today.

It is important to say that we do not table motions to poke anyone in the eye or to play a game of one-upmanship. We table motions because our constituents and the organisations that frequent these Buildings, as Diane mentioned, ask us to highlight the issues that people are very concerned about, and the appropriate forum in which to do so is the Chamber. On the final plenary day of 2025, no apology should be given for debating health issues in the Chamber, given the importance of these matters. Access to neurology services is important because the conditions affect tens of thousands of people; it is an issue that people want to see escalated by the Department of Health.

The scale of the conditions, which now affect tens of thousands of local people, is frightening. Like all of us, I find myself feeling quite frustrated and down when I read and speak about the stats, especially when, because of our aging population, there will be an increase in people who present with issues such as Parkinson's disease, MND and epilepsy. Approximately 20,000 people are on a waiting list to see a neurologist: 11,000 of those people have been waiting for over a year and over 11,000 people are overdue for a review appointment. Only 25 full-time equivalent consultants work in the field, and there is very little emergency 24/7 cover beyond that offered at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Only two of 138 core medical training places are allocated to this field, which restricts the ability to train the next generation. There is a need for substantial growth in the allied health and nursing workforce.

The statistics do not make for good reading. Is it any wonder that the Economist Intelligence Unit stated in 2024 that, if you are ever in Northern Ireland, pray that you do not need a neurology appointment? That at a time when 40,000 people are living with such issues, including 22,000 people with epilepsy; 5,400 with MS; 4,000 with Parkinson's; and 140 with that horrible condition MND.

I acknowledge the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance, which has repeatedly warned that delays in neurology services are adding to the worsening mental health of patients and feelings of being abandoned after diagnosis. Diane referred to that in her opening remarks. The impact of the delays is multilayered, with worse patient outcomes, adult mental health, worsening strain on emergency services, workforce burnout, with staff in the field stretched to breaking point, and geographical inequity, with the concentration of expertise being at the Royal Victoria Hospital and no consultants in the Northern Trust. However, it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that the Department has recognised many of those challenges. The recent neurology review recommendations created a road map to work our way out of the mess, with four key areas in the report to drive forward improvements.

That elephant in the room remains, however. It is the one that we hear about so often in health debates in the Chamber: the lack of available investment, which, no doubt, will slow down the pace of the implementation. Despite the road map, we await a published plan. The Minister has acknowledged that substantial additional funding will be required but that, in the current constrained budget environment, meeting the full costs will be challenging. I am sure that we will hear that in his contribution. That is what is so deeply concerning: a once-in-a-generation opportunity could be lost.

Therefore, as stated in the motion, we urge the Minister to commit to publishing the time-bound implementation plan for the neurology review's recommendations, including the costings and, hopefully, some form of timeline to help to at least inch the issue forward. The cost of not doing it will be profound. While the cost to do it may seem steep, surely it is cheaper in human terms than letting our neurology services collapse under their own weight, which is the fear of where we may just get to.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. Members may have seen that the clock ran over the five minutes. That was to allow for the mix-up at the start.

Mr Carroll: I will speak in the main about two individuals. The first is a lady called Jeanette. Twelve years ago, she was diagnosed with functional neurological disorder, which is condition that disrupts the brain and body communication, leading to symptoms such as seizures, tremors, paralysis and chronic pain. Despite its prevalence, FND remains widely misunderstood, with minimal awareness, inadequate health services and significant stigma. At the time of Jeanette's diagnosis, there were no care pathways, specialists or rehabilitation services available. There are misdiagnoses and dismissal. Jeanette was ridiculed and told by healthcare professionals that her symptoms were imagined or that she was attention-seeking. I hope that she was the only one who was told that, but I am sure that she was not.

There is also a lack of resources. Patients were left to research their condition themselves, with no structured care or support from the healthcare system. There is a stigma. FND patients were often blamed for their condition, which exacerbated emotional distress for patients and their families. There is also insufficient medical education. Many clinicians lack the knowledge or confidence to manage FND, leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Jeanette and her family were determined to take action. She founded the charity FND Matters NI, which I am sure that Members are familiar with. It has provided 800 hours of free counselling funded by grants and members' contributions. It has set up support networks and established drop-in sessions, as well as a befriending service and social media platforms to connect patients and families. It does really important stuff. It provides training for healthcare professionals and advocates for better education to improve understanding and care for FND patients. I thank Jeanette and her group for their work.

Despite that effort and that sterling work, systemic issues persist. There are no formal care pathways for people with FND, no rehabilitation programmes or specialist healthcare professionals for FND patients.

Patients are still dismissed, stigmatised and left without adequate support. There is delayed diagnosis and a lack of treatment, leading to worsening symptoms for many and placing emotional and financial strain on families in the healthcare system. FND is a common but under-recognised condition, and the lack of timely, appropriate care has severe consequences for patients and their families. Patient-led organisations like FND Matters are leading the charge for change, but systemic support is still urgently needed. As Jeanette states:

I urge the Minister to pay heed to that and ensure that FND support is in place.

The second person whom I want to speak about is a constituent of mine, Ms Catherine Mullen. I met her and her daughter on Friday. She is one of the tens of thousands of people who are waiting for treatment and to see a consultant. Despite the severity of her seizures and her neurological issues, she has been told that she will have to wait at least five years to see a consultant. That is completely unacceptable. Her GP wants to start her on medication. However, she has been told that she has to wait because she is under a consultant, despite never having seen a consultant. That is completely unacceptable, and I urge the Minister to act on that.

To add insult to injury, Catherine was recently forced to wait two hours for an ambulance to come when she fell after her seizure and was found to be black and blue. She lives just a stone's throw away from the Royal Hospital. That is completely unacceptable. I do not blame the people working in the Royal or anywhere else for that, but that is a symptom of the failure of the system. Her GP has put in an urgent referral but has been told that Catherine will have to wait years. That is totally unacceptable, Minister. I know that she is not the only person, but she is the person whom I most recently met, and I urge you to hear her story, listen to her concerns and make sure that she gets the treatment that she deserves.

After one recent seizure, the cooker in the house was left on. The family told me that it was a miracle that nobody was tragically injured or worse. As Catherine's daughter said to me on Friday:

— her mother —

I urge the Minister to listen to that call and that story and make sure that Catherine gets the treatment that she deserves, as well as the tens of thousands of people across the North who are waiting for treatment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next contributor will be the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence: I begin by adding to the good wishes to Mr William Irwin as he steps away from the Chamber.

From listening to the contributions, there can be no doubt how serious neurology and the issues surrounding it are. As Members are aware, my Department published a final report of the regional review on 7 May this year, and, in the context of ongoing challenges in the service, the review team was tasked with identifying the optimum configuration for neurology for the next 10 to 15 years. The review report sets out an ambitious vision for future services and is underpinned by priorities for improvement and associated recommendations. The focus of my comments this afternoon will be on how those priorities and recommendations address the issues that have been raised today.

The first priority identified in the report is the need to ensure that neurology services are person-centred. The voices of people with neurological conditions and their carers have been central to the review, and that has been achieved by working closely with the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance and through direct engagement with people with neurological conditions.

As Members have noted, I recently attended and spoke at an event organised by the Neurological Charities Alliance, which focused on the experience of people with neurological conditions. I had the opportunity to hear first-hand the devastating impact on the physical and psychological well-being of people while they wait for a diagnosis, treatment and support. That has to change. We can and must do better.

The "House of Care" model set out in the report crucially recognises that people with neurological conditions are experts in their own health. By also ensuring that people have access to the right information and have a designated point of contact, we can ensure that the voices of patients are at the centre of neurology.

The neurology workforce is the focus of the report's second priority, and there is no doubt that our workforce is made up of passionate and dedicated individuals who do their very best every day to deliver care and support to everybody with a neurological condition. However, it is clear from the report's comprehensive analysis that there are significant shortfalls in the current workforce. The report identifies that we are operating with only 60% of the recommended consultant and nursing capacity; 50% of the recommended allied health professions capacity; and only 20% of the recommended psychology capacity. Those shortages have a direct impact on the delivery of timely diagnosis, treatment, care and support.

In that context, the report recommends substantial growth and development across the spectrum of the neurology workforce. That includes an additional 20 neurology consultants; 41 neurology nurses, including 12 advanced nurse practitioners; 38 allied health professionals and 22 psychologists. In addition to an increase in numbers, the report recommends the development of a broader skill mix. That will be achieved through extended roles, such as advanced nurse practitioners, advanced practice allied health professions and GPs with enhanced roles. All that will ensure that people are seen by the right person in line with their needs. Growth in the workforce will not only better align demand and capacity but, crucially, support new ways of working, which will make the system more responsive.

It is clear from the personal accounts that I have listened to and those shared in the course of the review that, for many people, timely access to services is key. That is the focus of the third priority in the report: "Addressing gaps in current services". In order to better understand the extent of the challenges, a gaps and constraints assessment of current services was undertaken as part of the review. The assessment, much of which is reflected in the motion, identified significant variation in access to inpatient neurological care. In addition, a large proportion of patients are admitted to a hospital without a consultant neurologist on-site. More widely, access to some supporting services that sit outside neurology, such as mental health services, was also identified as a major gap. The report makes specific recommendations to address those gaps and promote equity. They include a recommendation to double the number of inpatient beds at the neurosciences centre at Royal Victoria Hospital. That will ensure that all patients have access to inpatient neurological care when they need it, regardless of where they live.

The report is also clear that, where patients are admitted as a neurological emergency, access to specialist neurological opinion must be available in line with recognised standards of care. It is not acceptable that almost a quarter of neurology patients are admitted to a hospital with no neurologists available on-site. To address that issue, the report recommends that trusts must ensure access to specialist neurology opinion at all acute hospitals that receive unscheduled admissions. Where workforce constraints pose a challenge, trusts must consider alternative methods, such as tele-neurology, as an interim measure.

Regarding access to ongoing care and support, the report notes the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach and care closer to home where that approach is sustainable. In that context, the report recommends the establishment of local neurology teams in each trust area to support that approach and ensure robust service delivery. The completion of condition-specific pathways within the first two years of implementation is noted as a priority recommendation. Pathways will set out the services and care that people should expect and ensure equity of access for all. Progress against that priority will be a key metric during implementation.

The fourth priority focuses on opportunities to work more effectively with the resources that we already have. Recommendations include the roll-out to all trusts of innovative practices, such as referral management for outpatient appointments. Those are already present in the South Eastern Trust and the Southern Trust and have been shown to be a very effective way of working. In addition, there is a focus on trialling new ways of working, including the use of patient-initiated reviews and providing protected slots in neurology clinics for people experiencing a change in their condition. The drive for efficiency is further supported by recommendations to improve the use of data in neurology and for closer partnership working with our colleagues in the voluntary and community sector.

It is clear that the implementation of the report's recommendations would drive improvements across the service. Workforce development, supplemented by working more effectively, would provide the basis for a more responsive, sustainable service that better aligns capacity with demand. That is critical to ensure that we are in a position to sustainably address the issue of unacceptable waiting lists for a first appointment and review appointments that Members have raised.

The report estimates that an additional £65 million will be needed over the first five years of implementation, primarily to support growth in the workforce. While that amount will be refined as part of the development of the implementation plan, it is clear that the funding needed for reform is significant. Many of you — most of you — should be aware of the financial challenges that my Department faces, starting with a funding gap this year of £600 million. Today, we had December monitoring and another pressure in terms of pay that will materialise in the next financial year.

In that context, while I would like to be in a position to commit the funding required to implement the neurology review recommendations, the current financial position means that, unfortunately, I am unable to do so at this stage. With regard to future years, the Finance Minister has indicated that he will bring forward recommendations for a multi-year Budget.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: A multi-year budget will allow my Department to better plan for the next three years, and that will enable us to prioritise spending and investment. As part of the Budget process, my Department has submitted nine high-priority bids that are aligned to the health and social care reset plan that I published in July 2025.

I will give way to the Member.

Mr Donnelly: Just so that I understand you clearly, Minister, you said that, due to financial pressures, you were unable to progress any of the recommendations: is that your current position?

Mr Nesbitt: The current position is that it is all under review. Until I know what my three-year budget will be or what next year's budget is, I will not be in a position to make definitive, concrete commitments. We now know what the pressures are, and we have a pretty good idea of how we will end this financial year. We will be in deficit, and it will be a significant deficit. That money will have to come out of next year's budget, but, until I know what next year's budget is, I will not know how big the pressure of this year's deficit will be. It is just too early to make definitive commitments. I made a definitive commitment on the real living wage for social care workers, and I do not want to make that mistake again, having had to withdraw that promise.

The neurology review recommendations are aligned to the neighbourhood focus and the commitment to reform that were set out in the reset plan, so the funding required is included in those bids. Depending on the outcome, the scale and pace of implementation may be adjusted in line with available future funding. That is a more positive and encouraging statement for the Member.

My Department recently concluded a public consultation on the review report. An initial assessment of the responses indicates that the report adequately reflects the experience of people with a neurological condition. The impact on people who struggled to access the care and support that they need came out loud and clear. I look forward to receiving the final consultation analysis report in the coming weeks. That will inform the development of an implementation plan. It is intended that a neurology delivery team will be established to oversee the delivery of the review recommendations. The development of an implementation plan will be an initial priority action for the delivery team.

In conclusion, I will touch on something that Mrs Dodds said when she opened the debate. She listed the specialists who are required to make the neurology service fit for purpose, and, indeed, I listed a number of them. She explicitly said that the service needs investment. The question is this: where do we get that investment from? I am often told in the Chamber that Health has over 50% of the Executive's Budget, and I recognise that that has gone up from 46% in recent years. That is an unsustainable direction of travel, which is why we have to reset and to go for the neighbourhood model. Mrs Dodds also had a specific question about waiting times in the South Eastern Trust. The waiting time for a neuromuscular first appointment is 19·1 weeks; for other conditions, it is a little longer.

I am clear that the challenges faced by people with a neurological condition and those who care for them are unacceptable and are the product of a system under extreme pressure. I must also take the opportunity, however, to commend the committed and dedicated Health and Social Care workforce, who, in challenging circumstances, do their best for patients.

I assure you all of my commitment to deliver better neurology services and outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. The challenges are significant in some cases, and there are no quick fixes. However, I am confident that the report's recommendations provide an opportunity to build neurology services that are equitable, timely, suitably resourced and centred on the needs of people with neurological conditions.

Principal Deputy Speaker, this is the last sitting day of the year, so I wish you and fellow Members a very merry Christmas. I believe that 2026 will be a highly consequential year for the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland, and it is my commitment to come back in January and begin with some good news.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, and the same to you. I call Nuala McAllister to wind on the amendment. Nuala, you have five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, and I thank them for acknowledging that they will support the Alliance Party amendment. It was not our intention to take away from the motion but to add support to and recognise the sector's work.

I will start by highlighting the complexity of neurological conditions and, therefore, the complexity of neurological care and the training that is required of healthcare professionals in neurology. There can be no doubt that we all agree with that. I also put on record my thanks to the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance for the work that it has done as a collective to ensure that neurology services remain a key priority for the Department of Health and for us as Health Committee members. As MLAs have referenced in their speeches, we received a significant amount of correspondence calling for support for neurological conditions not only ahead of the FightForNeuro launch event but in our engagements since we returned to the Assembly after the election. Specifically on the FightForNeuro launch, we have received correspondence about the wide-ranging impact of those conditions across our constituencies. The complexity and depth of neurological conditions in Northern Ireland is often misunderstood by the public and, sometimes, by MLAs, so it is very important that all in the sector work together and that there is specialist care.

Quite often in the Chamber, we speak about unacceptable waiting times in health, and, unfortunately, as many Members said during the debate, neurology services are another example of those. I have used the official statistics from the Department of Health on the number of people who are on waiting lists. The Department stated that, as of June 2025, over 16,500 people were waiting for a neurology outpatient appointment. However, I know that there is some dispute about the waiting times and the number of patients, so we have stuck with the official statistics. The median amount of time that those patients were waiting was one year and 20 weeks, and, as mentioned, some of the longest waits were sitting at over six years and 34 weeks. In comparison, a waiting time for an outpatient appointment in 2023 was one year and 26 weeks, with the longest wait being six years and 32 weeks, so there really has not been much change in either two years or since the review.

The motion calls on the Minister to:

I am thankful that the Minister has responded, but he did so with what the review set out as its recommendations. As a Committee, we have discussed those recommendations, and, as MLAs, we have already read them, so we are very well aware of what they are. I understand that each Department is under budgetary pressure, and every MLA in the Chamber has recognised that. As my colleague said when moving the amendment, we have had a commitment from the Department of Health to do things differently, but, just last week at the Health Committee, we had recognition that there really has not been any efficiency in the Department of Health. When I asked the Department's finance team directly about that, there was a recognition that there have been savings just through what has not been spent, not from doing things differently. Therefore, I highlight to the Minister the fact that, whilst there is some acknowledgement that you cannot implement the recommendations in the review, the Department is already spending money on neurology services. However, they are not working for everyone, so the money is going to be spent anyway. Therefore, how about spending it differently? That goes not only for neurology but for loads of services.

I agree with some of the comments that have been made regarding minimum standards. The proposer of the motion highlighted that, and every MLA has highlighted workforce training. We need to look not just at workforce training but at succession planning, training places and the issues associated with retirement of those who are further up the bands, such as specialist nurses, consultants and allied health professionals. We will lose a core value there, and if we do not have the training places for specialists to come up, we are just kicking the can down the road. Every MLA has highlighted that, and there is much of what has been spoken about today that we agree on. However, first and foremost, we need to see the three-year budget. If we do not get that, even now, we can still implement changes within our health service that will do things better. There needs to be a political assessment and acceptance that that means that some things will have to change for the better so that we can improve patient outcomes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will skip past the first sentence, as some Members may have heard it already. I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions. Health is not my area. Previously I was on the Education Committee, and now I am on the Infrastructure Committee. Most of my interest in writing to the Minister is because constituents have approached me, and I have met a number of them who suffer with Parkinson's disease or MS. I imagine that a number of them are watching today. The Minister has written back to me on a number of occasions, and I want to try to be fair to him. The best representation is, "I would like to do more, but I probably need more money." I hope that that is fair comment on what the Minister has said to me.

As has been highlighted in the debate, in England, about half of the neurology patients are seen within the 18-week NHS target for treatment, and, in Northern Ireland, as has been mentioned, we have patients who wait for more than five years. When I looked up the NHS statistics, they place it in the negative: they say that it is pretty bad that some patients are waiting for more than 18 weeks. I thought, "My goodness, you want to see what Northern Ireland is like."

You could make the argument, and it has been made, that funding for Health is the reason for those excessive waits. However I do not think it fair just to make that case. As has been mentioned, Health receives about 51% of the Budget. However, health spend in England, whilst it varies by region and is a complicated mix, is about £12,000 to £15,000 per person, and yet, in Northern Ireland, we spend £16,000 in a comparable per capita figure.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he concede that that does not take into account lower wages, higher levels of deprivation, higher levels of poverty and more-complex health issues and trauma. It takes no account of that stuff.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I worry that it is the Christmas season: I agree with him. We do not have the economies of scale. I accept that as well. We have some of the problems that Mr Carroll has suggested, and, in comparison, the Republic of Ireland spends about one third of what we spend in Northern Ireland on health. Clearly, there is a reason for that: it is a private system. It spends about £5,000 per year per capita. However, you can see where I am generally going with this. In England, they spend less per capita, but they achieve better outcomes. That leads me to conclude that it is not necessarily all about the money; it is about the system. The Minister is right with his shift left idea. Earlier diagnosis and support will not only achieve better outcomes for patients but will be much more cost-effective. Those things are absolutely clear and undisputed.

It would be wrong of me, at this point, not to acknowledge the clinicians in the sector. I have spoken to lots of patients and, without exception, they say that their clinical care, when they receive it, is second to none, so I thank the clinicians, who are doing their best.

Recently I, like others, met the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance and Treasa and Bill, whom Mr McGuigan referenced, and I heard about the difficulties that the sector faces. The Minister needs to get to grips with the workforce challenges, particularly in neurology and specialist nursing. As Miss McAllister mentioned, pathways need to be improved. Workforce planning and, in particular, training places are key to that. The Minister mentioned the regional review of neurology and the need for more consultants, nurses and allied health professionals.

I am conscious that, as MLAs, we often stand here and make speeches — yes, that is undoubtedly part of our job — but let us be honest with people: no one who has spoken in the debate walks in the shoes of someone with Parkinson's disease or MS. We probably do not see at first hand or experience personally the debilitating effects of those dreadful diseases unless we are unfortunate enough to have a parent or relative with one. According to recent research by the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance, only 22% of those people feel supported by the healthcare system in Northern Ireland. That has to change.

I am so glad that, across the board, Members support our motion. To be clear: we will also support the Alliance amendment. We need implementation of some of the things that were talked about today. My job in winding up is to summarise the debate a little bit, which I will do, if people will indulge me. I thank my colleague Diane for opening up for us. She mentioned waiting times and the particular problems that patients face across Northern Ireland. Danny mentioned the FightForNeuro campaign and the change of culture that has to take place in neurology in Northern Ireland. Philip highlighted the work of NINCA and mentioned Treasa and Bill in particular. Clearly, their story had an impact on him.

Alan mentioned the evidence-based review, which did, and does, place patients at the centre. Colin shared a very personal story about a constituent who really felt abandoned in the middle of the dreadful situation in which they found themselves. Linda is not in her place, but she mentioned how early intervention and support would make a huge difference to patient outcomes. My good colleague Alan Robinson made the excellent point that the situation cannot remain the same. For patients across Northern Ireland who are suffering from those illnesses, it simply has to improve.

Gerry mentioned Jeanette and Catherine. In particular, he spoke about Jeanette, who has a diagnosis of FND, having received great support from FND Matters Northern Ireland. The Minister took us through the review and talked about how we had to optimise the configuration for neurology. He said that we can, and simply must, do better. He highlighted the fact that it is not acceptable for a quarter of neurology patients to be admitted with no neurologist in place, and I agree completely. In winding up on the amendment, Nuala mentioned training places and workforce planning.

A lot of the issues that we have talked about in the debate will not be solved today, and they would probably not even be solved if the Minister were to get more money in next year's Budget. We all know the challenges around the Budget. However, like many of the problems that the Executive face, it reminds me of the Indian proverb that asks, "How do you eat an elephant?". The answer is, "One bite a day". I am not suggesting that anyone leaves this place, finds an elephant and tries to eat it. It simply points out that, in order to tackle the big problems that we face, we have to start somewhere. I urge the Minister of Health to look at this area, examine the review and do what he can to find the money to fund it. It will make a real and present difference to people who are suffering with these incredibly debilitating illnesses across Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease.

Ms D Armstrong: 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Diana, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The goal of the motion is to draw attention to the real and growing threat that scams and fraud pose to people across Northern Ireland. From rogue traders preying on our elderly constituents to the most sophisticated cyber-enabled fraud, the challenge is local and global. The scale and sophistication of fraud and scams has stepped up markedly across Northern Ireland in recent years. In the 12 months to the end of October 2024, over 5,200 fraud reports were made to the PSNI, with close to £19 million in reported losses, ranging from ticket scams to six-figure impersonation frauds.

Fraud is not a victimless crime. It devastates lives not only through financial loss but by leaving victims feeling invaded, humiliated and unsafe in their own home. The elderly are particularly vulnerable when they are deliberately targeted by fraudsters online and in person. It is our collective responsibility across communities and law enforcement to protect the most vulnerable from those who would prey on them.

While mobile phones and the internet have opened the door to more sophisticated scamming, the perpetrators still use traditional methods as well. Postal scams are still rampant and appearing through letter boxes. Last summer, Enniskillen residents received convincing lottery letters, claiming that the recipient had won a fortune. In fact, it was quite the opposite: those letters were designed to pry out bank details and personal information.

Let us be clear: scams are not victimless crimes. They are deeply traumatic and cause profound financial and emotional harm.
This September, it was reported in my local press that an Enniskillen woman had lost over £40,000 in a romance scam. She had been groomed on social media for months and was persuaded to transfer money and gift cards. Of course, the person on the other end of the phone was not who they said they were. Such scams are not just, as I said, financially devastating. Many victims never come forward. Some are embarrassed, some blame themselves and others feel that reporting will not make a difference. As a result, the true scale of harm is almost certainly greater than the official figures suggest.

What is particularly worrying about many of the scams is how convincing they are. Scammers seek to present themselves as trusted companies or public bodies using familiar branding and professional language, although that is not always the case. Poor language and grammar are often telling signs of a scam. Many victims genuinely believe that they are responding to routine communications from organisations that they deal with regularly. That is not carelessness; it is organised, deliberate deception. That is especially common through email and, increasingly, on social media.

We have seen a rise in fake accounts posing as customer service teams for well-known companies. Airlines are a frequent example, particularly on platforms like X, where people often post publicly about cancelled or delayed flights. Scammers actively monitor those posts. When someone is already stressed and looking for help, a fake account moves in quickly, appearing helpful and legitimate. In reality, the aim is to extract personal details or encourage payments under false pretences.

The emotional impact can be severe. Victims speak about anxiety, loss of sleep and a lasting loss of confidence. Older people, in particular, can become afraid to answer the phone or use the internet at all. That fear can lead to isolation and wider decline in well-being. Families and carers are often left trying to provide reassurance and support, while also dealing with the practical and financial fallout. Let us not forget the grave human cost. Consider the tragic case of Ronan Hughes, a teenager from Coalisland, who took his own life after being tricked online and blackmailed — a devastating demonstration that fraud is not just a financial crime.

Scammers see any new incentive as a means of exploitation. We see it annually, when a new scheme is announced for affordable heating or insulation. A barrage of text messages is sent out to vulnerable people, demanding personal information and sometimes even threatening customers with bills if they do not respond. Such scams create huge fear among the most vulnerable in our society.

Members will know that border communities are particularly exposed to scams linked to organised and cross-border criminal gangs. This autumn, the PSNI and its counterpart, an Garda Síochána, highlighted a cross-border criminal gang that was targeting farmers and agribusinesses on the border. The gang has been using cloned cards, fake bank transfers and redirected deliveries to steal high-value machinery.

It is an issue with global ramifications, as it is often said that fraud and scams are borderless crimes. Members may recall a high-profile telemarketing fraud case in the USA this year, when Alan Redmond, a Belfast-born businessman, was charged by US federal prosecutors in an alleged multimillion-dollar insurance fraud scheme. We also remember the case of Patrick and Matthew McDonagh from Irvinestown in my constituency, who were jailed last year after scamming elderly American homeowners out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a phoney home-repair business. That case was described by an FBI agent as a "a travelling roadshow of fraud".

Increasingly, small businesses and sole traders are being targeted. They are people who work long hours, often on small margins, and rely on digital platforms to trade. A clear example is the coordinated scam targeting local takeaway firms through sophisticated phishing attacks. Between December 2022 and 2024, it is estimated, businesses in Northern Ireland lost over £200,000 through that scam, alongside customer-focused phishing scams and fraudulent orders. In those cases, business accounts were compromised, payments were redirected and income disappeared with little warning. For some, that was not a minor disruption; it threatened their ability to pay staff, meet rent or keep trading at all. Those were everyday, local businesses doing exactly what they needed to do to operate in a modern economy.

We must thank the PSNI, the National Crime Agency, ScamwiseNI and, indeed, the main banks for their work in preventing scams. Other bodies, such as councils, have also stepped up, partnering with police, banks and the telecoms industry to amplify awareness and offer practical guidance.

The motion calls on the Minister of Justice:

to strengthen our opposition to scams and their perpetrators. The strategy should focus on prevention, which is always better than detection, especially with fraud. We need tough penalties for those who commit fraud, with sentencing that reflects the economic and personal trauma inflicted. Judges must be trained in the impact of fraud, and full victim impact statements should be presented in court.

The inclusion of fraud in the DOJ's penalty notice proposals is, frankly, disappointing and sends the wrong message. Fraud is a calculated crime and should never be met with a mere slap on the wrist. That is why the motion is so important. Raising awareness, strengthening support mechanisms —.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes, certainly.

Mrs Long: The Member refers to penalty notices being a "slap on the wrist". However, they are criminal convictions and carry with them all the import of criminal convictions. They may, in effect, be a greater sanction than the one determined by the courts, if a case is prosecuted at all. Does the Member agree, therefore, that the focus of discussions should be on giving the PSNI the greatest possible flexibility to pursue crime at an appropriate level and in a way that is most likely to bring offenders to justice?

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her comments. Yes: any actions that can be taken to bring perpetrators to court are essential.

Raising awareness, strengthening support mechanisms and sharing best practice are vital steps. At a community level, rogue traders continue to target vulnerable people, cold-calling at homes and pressuring residents into unnecessary and overpriced work. We must support initiatives such as no-cold-calling zones, empower communities to say no and ensure that clear advice is available at clinics, faith groups and constituency offices. With police resources stretched, voluntary groups often have a crucial role to play.

Cyber-enabled fraud is now a daily threat. Simple steps, such as using strong passwords, enabling two-step verification and staying vigilant, can make a real difference. Businesses must invest in prevention, but we must also ensure that young and old alike are aware of the dangers. We need to ensure that victims of such crimes get emotional support. The victim of a romance scam needs not just a crime reference number but signposting to trauma services and help to secure their digital life against becoming a future target.

The motion is timely and necessary. Fraudsters exploit technology and our trust. We must have a cross-cutting response that spans public bodies, banks, businesses and institutions in Northern Ireland. We must send a clear message that the people of Northern Ireland will not be easy prey for fraudsters and scammers. We must strengthen prevention; improve detection and enforcement; and enhance data-sharing between agencies and financial institutions.

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

Ms D Armstrong: I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin to move the amendment.

Ms Sheerin: Molaim an leasú:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment, Emma.

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

I welcome the motion. We have tabled a small amendment to close the gap left by not including the cross-border agencies in the motion and to make sure that there is no scope for criminals to avail themselves of that gap.

We often say that crime knows no border. We are currently in a storm that knows no border. Whilst crime might know no border, it definitely exploits the border on this island, and scams are one example of how that can happen. I agree with a lot of what the proposer of the motion said. We can see a rise in such scams, which are becoming more and more sophisticated, to the point where even those of us who might consider ourselves to be fairly tech-savvy — I assure Members that staff on the fourth floor of the Building would not count me among them — who are familiar with social media and how things should be worded and who, like me, work online every day find ourselves stopping in our tracks and almost getting caught out by some of the messages and emails that come through.

It has already been said that scams target our older and more vulnerable people in particular. It is about the shame that comes with it. There are ramifications such as loss of earnings and, a lot of the time, of savings, and the real-life implications that that has for people. As well as that, however, they may be embarrassed to report it or even to tell family and friends. They feel that they have been made fools of. It is the exploitation of people in their most vulnerable moments that makes that type of crime so horrible and nasty.

We want to see joint working. We want the Minister to work with the rest of the Executive, the PSNI, the gardaí and the cross-border joint agency task force (JATF) to ensure that we clamp down on the scams and the people who are involved — they are very manipulative; increasingly, it is criminal gangs and groups that carry out such scams — so that more of our constituents do not fall prey to them. There are legislative changes that can be made. In the interim, however, we can send out these messages: "Think twice", "Check, check, check" and, "Ask the question". People contact me as an MLA, as I am sure they do other MLAs, to ask, "Is this right enough?", checking the veracity of a message or an email that they received. I always say, "Ask the question, because you are better to be safe than sorry". A clear message needs to come from the Assembly today that we do not accept the situation, that we will challenge it and that we want to support people, particularly those who are vulnerable, who may fall prey to those sorts of crimes.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you for tabling the motion. We should all have been horrified when we read the recent story of 82-year-old Eddie Rushe from Lurgan, who was cruelly scammed out of nearly £35,000. Eddie was targeted through sophisticated AI-generated advertisements bearing the faces of well-known public figures. It began as what he believed to be a legitimate and trusted investment opportunity but ultimately led to a devastating financial and emotional loss. Tragically, his experience is not an isolated incident. It is shameful that older people are increasingly singled out because of their vulnerability, trust and lower familiarity with technology. The criminals know exactly what they are doing. They prey on loneliness and fear, and the harm that they inflict goes far beyond bank statements. Many victims are left feeling deeply shaken, anxious and distraught, particularly at this time of year, when isolation can make the emotional impact even heavier.

It is the scale of the problem that should alarm us all. The PSNI reported more than 5,200 cases of fraud in the past year alone, with almost £19 million in losses. Every week in Northern Ireland, about 100 reports of scams are made to Action Fraud, and I am sure that there are many more that are not reported. Those crimes are no longer small. They are growing in sophistication, using phones, tech, social media and email in order to deceive, impersonate and manipulate. Increasingly, scams are enabled by modern technology, with the likes of AI making scams harder to identify. The emerging rise in cross-border fraud is even more concerning. Under the new joint agency task force, the PSNI and the gardaí are investigating dozens of complex scams that target individual companies, particularly in border areas. The perpetrators of those scams pose as legitimate buyers and have left local businesses thousands of pounds out of pocket, sometimes stealing valuable machinery by using fake or cancelled payment screenshots. That is a coordinated criminal threat. It is planned and requires coordinated policing and a governmental response.

Although we recognise and value the work of the PSNI, ScamwiseNI and other partnerships and, of course, our policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) and Crimestoppers, along with many other important contributions by the voluntary and community sector, the message from the evidence is clear: more needs to be done. The Department of Justice has an essential role, not just in awareness-raising but in ensuring that agencies on the ground have the support and resources that they need to keep pace with the evolving nature of fraud.

Our older generations deserve to live in safety, free from the threat of crime, abuse and exploitation. We have continually set out in our manifestos that we should protect our older generation from financial abuse, and redoubling our efforts against online fraud is now more important than ever. We also need better data to understand both how such abuse is broken down by age and its true impact on our older population. The motion rightly calls for "a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy", because joined-up action will protect our elderly, support victims and bring the criminals to justice. Working together across departmental organisations will bring justice here, and we will try to deal with it in a coordinated way, because we all must work together.

Before I conclude, I want to say that there is no shame whatsoever when a scam happens. Emma said that people can feel embarrassed about it, but it has probably happened to every person in the Chamber in some shape or form. Things are becoming more complex now, and it is harder to distinguish between the truth and fraud. People should never feel shame and never feel embarrassed. They should always contact somebody to clarify things and be sure before they go any further. As I said, it has happened to me, and I thought that I was pretty decent with tech, but obviously not, and things are also more complex.

We are very happy to support the motion and the amendment. The more that we can do to raise awareness and support for everybody involved in this space, the better, in order to protect our community and society.

Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Ulster Unionist Party's motion on tackling scams and improving public protection and the amendment.

We have all seen the concerning upward trend in scams, which often take advantage of the most vulnerable people, with around 100 reports to Action Fraud per week and close to £19 million lost in the period from November 2023 to October 2024. We also know that the losses are under-reported and only scratch the surface due to the shame and embarrassment that victims of fraudulent crime can feel for not seeing through the scam that they have endured. That is not good enough, particularly in a world where fraudsters are using increasingly sophisticated technology and scams to commit these crimes. We need to move the dial not only to make people feel comfortable enough to come forward and report the crime but, perhaps more importantly, to work together across all Departments and agencies to intervene and prevent people becoming a victim to begin with. That is why we welcome the motion.

What makes those scams particularly sickening is that they usually arise from a victim putting trust in a fraudster. They have genuine intentions of doing what is needed, fostering a connection or helping another. It makes the cruel impact of the scams all the more felt. I think particularly of the deception that is used in romance scams, and the proposer of the motion mentioned in her speech how that affected one of her constituents. It really is despicable that, for their own criminal gain, a person will prey on someone who is perhaps just seeking love or feels a bit lonely.

There is a common misconception that, if you are smart and savvy enough, you will not fall victim to a scam or fraudulent activity, but with modern technology and the weaponisation of digital products, such as artificial intelligence and spyware, scams are getting more sophisticated and harder to spot. For example, in my borough of Ards and North Down, a story hit the news during the summer of a business owner and bank customer who lost thousands of pounds from her hard-earned business because of multiple fraudulent banking messages. Of course, such fraud also extends to our communities through postal and doorstep scams, manipulating and misleading those in our communities, young and old, to give over their money in the promise of receiving goods and services that just never materialise.

As the motion states and the amendment reiterates, it is essential that we include as many partners as possible in the work to tackle cybersecurity threats and scamming behaviour. That extends from the Department of Justice, the PSNI and ScamwiseNI through to the Department for the Economy's Trading Standards Service. Scams can happen anywhere and at any time, so having a joint approach that coordinates with the joint agency task force and bodies in Westminster makes sense.

Last year, Members may have seen last that 'The Nolan Show' highlighted a story about the Just Eat platform and the scams that followed a cybersecurity breach. The losses in that amounted to something in the realm of at least £200,000 across Northern Ireland. That breach was felt deeply in my constituency of North Down, with two local businesses in Bangor losing nearly £30,000 combined. Following that news breaking, I wrote directly to Just Eat as the home platform and engaged with investigatory bodies. To be honest, I was disappointed with how that was initially handled.

I am not here to rehash that but to highlight the devastating impact that those crimes have, threatening the livelihoods of local business people who already face many barriers to success and leaving them unsure as to whether they could pay their staff's wages. Such crimes take a heavy mental toll on victims, leaving them feeling under pressure. If we are to prevent anything like that from happening again, we must have clear accountability for online platforms and those who commit those crimes. Scams and fraud devastate people, businesses and communities. We must work with everyone we can to deliver better outcomes for victims of fraud and to minimise the risks of such distress and real hurt from happening again.

Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes the motion and the opportunity to discuss the growing threat of scams and how the Executive can improve public protection and support for victims right across the North.

In 2024, the PSNI received more than 5,200 reports of fraud, with a loss of around £19 million. The National Cyber Security Centre reported that almost £12 million was lost to online shopping fraud across the UK over last year's festive season. The PSNI figures cover a wide range of scams and amounts of money lost, from hundreds of pounds lost to ticket scams to hundreds of thousands of pounds lost to impersonation and investment scams. We all know about those. We all know individuals who have sought our advice. In fact, in some instances, we have been surprised by the individuals who were taken in by those offers. It is true that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Each fraud leaves behind a victim of financial loss, often with emotional and psychological damage. Those responsible are mostly organised criminal groups operating not just cross-border, as in across this island, but internationally. It makes little sense for the motion to refer to "cross-border criminal activity" and not call for greater cooperation with an Garda Síochána. Indeed, there is a case for improving the already close working relationship between the Police Service in the North and an Garda Síochána to tackle the organised criminal groups involved in scams on this island. There already is a cross-border policing strategy, with a focus on tackling crime and preventing harm, roads policing and road safety, community policing and major emergency management. Obviously, that strategy is primarily about the cross-border area, but there is no reason why it should be limited in the geographical sense when the criminal activity is not.

The criminal gangs deliberately target the isolated and vulnerable, but anyone can fall victim to their scams. They are increasingly sophisticated in their operations. They have the technology and the time to create elaborate fictions to ensnare the unwary. It makes fascinating watching on social media some evenings to see how the gentleman — I think that he is from here — turns the tables on those individuals and hacks into their systems, and when the previously unwary become very wary, and when the tables are turned, the scammers do not particularly like it.

In some countries, there are literally thousands of dedicated scammers and cybercriminals targeting the citizens of other countries with romance, investment, pyramid, shopping and identity fraud. There is also evidence that, having been scammed once, victims' details have been sold on to other groups as potential targets for future scams. Given the level of fraud reported here and the financial cost to individuals and business, more could and should be done.

The European Union has taken the initiative against some types of cross-border fraud, and there has been some action by Interpol. However, there has been limited interest elsewhere in combating truly cross-border fraud on an international scale. Therefore, the SDLP supports the call for the Minister of Justice, working with Executive colleagues, to bring forward a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention and improve detection and enforcement in this area. The public can only benefit from enhanced data sharing between agencies and financial institutions, from the delivery of a more effective public awareness campaign or campaigns and from better support for the victims of scams.

Those benefits will be greater still if delivered on an all-island basis, across these islands and internationally.

Mr K Buchanan: The Democratic Unionist Party believes that our older generation and, indeed, every generation must live in safety, free from crime, abuse and exploitation. That is not just policy; it is a moral duty. Fraudsters today are organised, sophisticated and global. We have pushed for fraud and cybercrime statistics to be broken down by age so that the scale of the problem facing older people is clear. Along with others in the Chamber, I was horrified to read about what happened to 82-year-old Eddie, whom my colleague referenced earlier, who was tricked by a fake AI-generated advert. He trusted what looked like a real company, only to be defrauded. It is shameful that criminals target older people's vulnerability and exploit their trust. Scams cause more than financial loss; they leave deep emotional scars. Victims often feel betrayed, humiliated and fearful, especially in isolation. It is shameful that older people are targeted because of their increased vulnerability and lack of technological awareness. Indeed, as others mentioned, some younger folks are maybe not that savvy either, and I include myself in that.

It is shameful that criminals exploit trust and innocence for profit. We must recognise that scams do not only inflict financial trauma. Every week in Northern Ireland, around 100 scams are reported. Those are the ones that are reported. Those are 100 families who have been disrupted and 100 crimes that must be stopped. Technology such as AI and deepfakes have made scams more sophisticated. What began on social media is now being used in bold frauds against individuals and companies.

The Assembly must send a clear message that we will not allow our older generation or any generation to be preyed on. We need to strengthen awareness, improve legislation and give law enforcement the tools to fight the threat. Our elderly citizens deserve dignity, safety and peace of mind. Let us decisively act to protect them.

Ms Nicholl: I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it and talk about a case that came into my constituency office. An older woman came in very distressed because she had received a message from someone saying that they were her son. The message read, "Hi, mum. It's me. I've changed my number. Can you save it?", so she saved the number. Later that afternoon, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. I need some help paying an online bill, and I'll pay you back at the weekend. Here are the account details", so she transferred, I think, about £900 to the account. An hour later, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. Sorry, the amount is actually an extra £600". It was at that moment that she realised that she had been scammed. She called her son after realising that it was not him who had messaged her. She called the bank, the PSNI and Action Fraud. What began was a long saga of going backwards and forwards. My colleague Curtis, who works in my office, is a phenomenal caseworker, among other things, and was so diligent. He ended up taking the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and managed to get the money back with 8% interest. That is the exception, not the rule. It took an awful amount of work.

I welcome the motion and the discussion around it. As is the case with so many issues, it is cross-cutting and touches on so many other Departments. We had been in touch with the Older People's Commissioner about this as well. Everyone knows that I am passionate about AI and how we get up to speed with digitisation, but people are being left behind, and we are not doing enough to talk about it. I tabled a question to the Department for Communities about the goods and services directorate for older people and the need for that here, because every day we have people coming into the office. Another constituent came in and said, "I used to book all my tickets online. I don't have a smartphone. No one belongs to me" — the most heartbreaking phrase that you could hear. Those are the people who are falling victim to such scams and who are being manipulated and tricked. It is not just that they are left out of pocket; it is deeply humiliating for them. They feel so humiliated by it. It is great that we are talking about it here. Thank you so much for tabling the motion and shining a light on the issue, because we need to have the conversations and to remind people that there is no shame. As Cheryl said, anyone can fall victim to scams, because they are becoming so much smarter, and, with the advance of technology, we have to be especially mindful of that.

Real people are at the heart of this, and I am grateful when they come to their elected representatives for assistance. When we look at the issue, we see that it is not just for one Department. It is for many others, and we all have a role to play in addressing it. I wanted to mention that one case, because I think about her a lot. I think about the people who are being left behind in the age of digitisation, how vulnerable they are as a result of that and how we have a duty to support them as best we can.

Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak on the motion, but the more I saw of the debate on my monitor upstairs, the more I thought that I had better come down and say something about it. I pay tribute to my colleagues from the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion.

I will focus on one issue and pick up on my constituency colleague Ms Egan's comments about Just Eat. I have a constituent who runs the Bokhara Indian restaurant in north Down. They were defrauded out of £17,000 as part of some sort of scam. That incident was reported in 'The Irish News', which stated:

and that Just Eat has been in dispute with businesses, many of which feel that the company has not done enough to prevent fraud. I have been working on the issue for a number of weeks. I think that it was yesterday that my office received a statement from Just Eat. The more I read the statement and looked at the press coverage from the time of the incident, the more I realised that it had simply sent me a press statement from about a year ago, because all the details and sentences in the statement that I received were part of the press coverage at that time. That is wholly unacceptable.

My understanding of that phishing scam is that the money was taken not from the restaurant's bank account but from its partner centre account, which is some sort of holding account between the restaurant and Just Eat. I would like to address Just Eat. I have two questions. First, what action has it taken to recover those funds on behalf of my constituent from its account? Secondly, how will it make the matter right? A fact in this case is that the company is not registered in the UK — apparently, it is registered in Amsterdam — and it is charging our restaurants and takeaways fairly high levies for their business. That is not money that is staying in our local economy. It is money that is being siphoned off, in this case —.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I certainly will give way to Ms Egan.

Ms Egan: I appreciate the Member raising that. Does the Member think that that is a disgraceful way to treat our constituents and local business people? Just Eat is a huge company. It has millions of pounds and can afford to remunerate them. It has a lot more resources to address it than the small, local business owners in our constituency. It should do the right thing.

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

Mr Martin: I am not sure that I will need that extra minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will do the best that I can.

I completely agree with my colleague. Just Eat is an enormous company. My understanding is that it has offered some of those businesses small sums. It was reported in 'The Irish News' that:

after the company described it as a "goodwill gesture". Some of us will recall the press coverage from that time.

Unless Just Eat wants me to stand in the Assembly talking about the company, how it acts, the percentages that it takes off our local businesses and the fact that I have a constituent who is £17,000 down through no fault of his own, I suggest that it engages with MLAs better than it has done and sorts out the matter.

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

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party who tabled the motion, because it is a very important issue, not least at this time of the year as many people move online to buy goods and services.

In my Department, fraud and scams fall under the umbrella of safer communities. Members will be aware that the Programme for Government, which was published this year, made safer communities one of its key strands, making the issue of scams and fraud one of utmost importance. The Department is fully committed to working with all its partners, including the community and voluntary sector, as well as other Departments and organisations, to ensure that we have a community where we all feel safe to live and work. Tackling fraudsters and the impact of scams is not something that can be addressed by any one individual or organisation. As the motion rightly recognises, it takes a partnership approach to tackle crime, including fraud and scams, from the initial process of identifying the fraudsters and, just as important, supporting the victims, to ensure that those participating in such crimes are brought swiftly to justice.

Prevention through awareness is a vital tool in combating fraudsters and scammers, who, unfortunately, often target the most vulnerable people in society. Despite Report Fraud’s figures showing that over 5,400 scams and frauds were reported in Northern Ireland for the period October 2024 to October 2025, we believe that under-reporting remains an issue. People often feel ashamed and embarrassed, even humiliated, that they have fallen prey to scammers, so we must be diligent and report all incidents of attempted fraud or scamming to ensure that we raise awareness of new trends and new scams as and when we become aware of them. Hopefully, the justice system has made it easier for those scams to be reported by anyone in a number of ways, including via Report Fraud, the PSNI or, indeed, Crimestoppers.

There are elements of tackling fraud in the motion that are reserved matters and fall outside my area of responsibility as the Minister of Justice. They include aspects relating in particular to financial institutions. I will, however, take a moment to reflect on and acknowledge the harm and trauma that comes with being a victim of financial fraud. I have heard heartbreaking accounts of the effect that being a victim of fraud has had on individuals' lives and those of their families. Often, we hear of people who feel deeply ashamed that they have fallen victim to those manipulators and very distressing offences, and we know that there continues to be under-reporting. I emphasise that there is no shame in coming forward to report those crimes should you find yourself a victim. I encourage anyone who finds themselves in that position to come forward. I also stress that anyone, including any of us in the Chamber, could fall victim to fraud, not least given the increasing sophistication of those engaged in the crimes.

Whilst fraud happens at all levels, I acknowledge that some of it has an organised and coordinated element to it. From a justice perspective, the risk of harm caused by organised crime, including fraud, is one of my top priorities. Criminals are interested in only one thing: lining their own pockets. They are motivated purely by profit, and they really do not care who gets hurt in the process. We all recognise that organised criminals are agile and innovative. They find new ways of exploiting people's vulnerabilities for their own gain, and, in turn, we have to adapt our collective response. It is essential that we send clear and consistent messages that crime does not pay and that profiting from people's vulnerabilities will not go unchallenged.

I acknowledge the outstanding work of the PSNI in the area. It has a comprehensive approach to tackling fraud: protect, pursue, prevent and prepare. I am well aware that the PSNI works closely with other forces across the UK and feeds into national and international investigative arrangements. Only a few months ago, I visited the PSNI's cyber centre and heard first-hand about the work that it carries out on a daily basis and the difference that it makes. I am aware that the PSNI engages with financial institutions and makes proactive interventions to safeguard the public, where it is expected that people are actively being targeted by fraudsters.

The National Crime Agency also has a key role to play in tackling fraud. It works closely with PSNI colleagues, and, in recent weeks, I met the director general of the NCA and was briefed on the complexity of the issues that the agency increasingly faces.

Members will be aware that there is an already an exceptionally strong partnership-working model, which provides a robust response to organised crime across Northern Ireland. My Department works closely with a range of partners through the organised crime task force (OCTF) to reduce the harm caused by organised crime, including fraud and scams. The OCTF supports the development of operational partnerships and plays a key role in informing the public about successful operations against criminal groups and how to protect themselves from and report any suspicions of organised crime. The most recently published OCTF annual report and threat assessment provides case studies of how law enforcement partners have worked together to combat the threat posed by fraudsters and scammers, and it is available online if members wish to read more about it. The OCTF report, which my Department coordinates and publishes, includes work by the Department for the Economy's Trading Standards Service. The Trading Standards Service works to tackle mass marketing scams and doorstep crime and disrupt the operations of the perpetrators behind phone-enabled, online and mail scams.

Tackling the cross-border response to financial crime, including scams and fraud, is of high importance to police forces on both sides of the border.

Only last month, senior officials from my Department attended the Sir George Quigley memorial lecture in Queens University, hosted by the Centre for Cross Border Cooperation. The focus of that event was on combating economic crime across the island of Ireland, with the keynote speakers being the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Commissioner of an Garda Síochána. That demonstrates the importance that both organisations place on the issue. Both addresses covered the response to tackling fraud and scams, which shows the dedication and commitment to ensuring that that is viewed as a priority area of focus.

On the point in the motion regarding recognising that scams are increasingly linked to organised and cross-border activity, the PSNI has indicated that it is not aware of any specific data to show that there is a marked increase in cross-border criminality, including scams, in the context of Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. However, Members will be aware that all borders, whether on the island of Ireland or internationally, pose no obstacle to organised crime groups that are intent on carrying out fraud or exploitation. Indeed, they may provide them with additional opportunities.

I also want to highlight and pay tribute to the excellent working relationships that exist between wider law enforcement agencies. Members will be aware that I regularly make ministerial statements to the Assembly following meetings that I hold with my Irish counterpart under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement arrangements on criminal justice matters. Those meetings include updates on the work of the joint agency task force; I think that it was Mr McGlone who talked about that cross-border working. The joint agency task force is a powerful example of what can be achieved by collaboration and partnership working. Its meetings are jointly chaired by the PSNI and an Garda Síochána, alongside a range of partner organisations. JATF focuses on six designated strategic priority areas, one of which is financial crime. The Garda National Economic Crime Bureau works closely with the PSNI and the NCA in the prevention and detection of such crime.

The Department of Justice is not a member of the joint agency task force because it has an operational focus. However, I am kept updated about its work, and I see great value in the positive, collaborative work between the members of the JATF and its many successful operations.

In addition, the joint PSNI and an Garda Síochána cross-border policing strategy 2025-27 aims to build on established collaborative relationships. There are four main areas of focus in the strategy, one of which is proactive collaboration in the prevention and detection of crime, including financial crime and cybercrime. Both those examples — the JATF and the working group deriving from the strategy — demonstrate the strong partnership and close working relationships that often go unseen but are vital in keeping people safe.

Fraud affects not only individuals but businesses. I note what my colleague Ms Egan and Mr Martin raised with regard to their constituents. I am determined to ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall out of step with the rest of the UK and, critically, that law enforcement agencies here have the full range of powers that are available elsewhere. As Justice Minister, I work closely with UK Government Ministers to consider any developments in policy and legislation that would benefit Northern Ireland. That includes the UK-wide fraud strategy led by the Home Office. The PSNI is also engaged in aspects of the fraud strategy, working with the UK and international law enforcement partners to identify and tackle emerging scams and assist in investigations impacting on victims in Northern Ireland. The UK Government will soon publish their new fraud strategy, which includes references to Northern Ireland. The strategy acknowledges and provides a response to the ever-increasingly sophisticated and transnational nature of fraud, with advances in technology making online fraud and scams more complex.

We know that legislative measures alone will not solve the problem and that we all have a role to play. My Department helps to address harm and vulnerability caused by fraud and supports partnership working to tackle the threat of scams through its membership of the ScamwiseNI Partnership, chaired by the PSNI. The partnership was established in 2016 and now has over 45 partners that work collaboratively to provide valuable information and crucial advice to keep the public informed, aware and vigilant. The ScamwiseNI Partnership also has an effective online presence, and my Department uses its own social media channels, whether it is Bluesky, X, YouTube or Instagram, to highlight current scams and the steps that people can take to protect themselves.

I will give Members an example of the work of Scamwise. On 29 September 2025, the PSNI launched a new romance fraud social media campaign, sharing advice on how to spot and stop those types of scams. A conference led and facilitated by the PSNI was held on 6 November 2025, where Dr Elisabeth Carter, a criminologist and forensic linguist, was the key speaker. She educated partners about how romance scams work, explained the psychological manipulation involved and provided insight into why victims stay engaged with the scammer. Those insidious crimes are carried out by people who exploit those who are lonely and vulnerable and who are living in the hope of having companionship; it is horrific that they carry that out in such a calculated manner. At the conference, Ofcom introduced partners to its recently launched serious game, which is an online interactive simulator to help users identify romance scam red flags.

In addition to all that, the Department and the Northern Ireland Policing Board fund community safety partnerships across each of the 11 council areas, and those partnerships lead on community safety at a local level. Many have a dedicated community safety warden scheme that provides sessions on crime prevention and raises awareness of a range of scams and fraud, including romance scams. For example, as part of the awareness campaign, I was pleased to open the Mid and East Antrim Agewell Partnership's Challenging the Scamdemic scam awareness conference earlier this year, which was a really insightful opportunity for people to share their experiences.

My Department and the PSNI jointly fund the Crimestoppers Northern Ireland regional manager post, which is a key role in raising awareness and encouraging reporting of intelligence by promoting, developing and maintaining awareness of Crimestoppers throughout Northern Ireland among all our partners and the general public. Crimestoppers ran a "Stop! Think Fraud" campaign on social media and radio earlier this year.

The Department also provides about £2 million in core grant funding to Victim Support NI — the proposer of the motion and other Members have indicated the importance of having proper support for people who have been victims of fraud — which can provide a range of services to all victims and witnesses of crime, including victims of scams and fraud. Services include the provision of emotional support, advocacy, information and advice to victims; assistance with claiming criminal injuries compensation; and court support to adult prosecution witnesses who are called to give evidence in court. Together, those services help people who are affected by crime to deal with the impact, to claim compensation and to give their best evidence.

I will close by reiterating that any of us could be a victim of fraud or a scam. I encourage anyone who has been a victim to report it. There is no shame in being a victim. By coming forward, you can help to protect others and to bring the scammers and fraudsters to account. Addressing community safety issues such as this can only be done through partnership working. My Department is committed to working with all relevant stakeholders to support preventative action, to raise awareness and to ensure that our communities are safe places to live, work and visit. I will continue to do everything that I can in support of that endeavour, and I thank the Members who secured the debate today.

As this is the last opportunity that I will have, I wish all Members a peaceful Christmas and a crime-free new year.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Hear, hear. The same to you, Minister.

I call Ciara Ferguson. Ciara, you have five minutes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I, too, thank those who tabled the motion on tackling scams and improving public protection. I will start by acknowledging the publication last Friday of the research and statistical bulletin on the findings of the 2023-24 safe community telephone survey, including experiences of cybercrime and awareness of online cybercrime-related issues. Whilst it is welcome news that the proportion of respondents who know where or how to seek advice about cybersecurity and staying safe online has risen by 3%, concerningly, the number of those who are confident that the criminal justice system can effectively deal with cybercrime has fallen by 3%.

We recognise, as the motion does, that we are experiencing a rise in the number and an increase in the sophistication of scams across online, telephone, postal and doorstep methods. We also know, as outlined by Age NI, that, sadly, it is only too often older people who are specifically targeted. I welcome Age NI's campaign, in collaboration with Power NI, to provide practical steps to help people recognise, avoid and report fraudulent activity. I also thank the Minister for the Economy for her recent warning to consumers to be alert to scams set up by heartless rogue traders during the Christmas period. The Trading Standards Service is highlighting the "12 scams of Christmas" to help raise awareness and educate people about the common festive frauds to look out for during the holidays, including fake shopping sites, delivery texts phishing for details and other risks, such as technology viruses and tech support scams.

Some core advice includes the following: never share personal or banking details; use strong passwords; avoid clicking on suspicious links; end incoming calls and return them using numbers from an official website; and, importantly, adequately report all scam efforts to protect not only yourself but others. We have a duty to spread an awareness and understanding of common scam tactics and to stay vigilant by stopping to think and making checks when approached.

I, too, welcome the work of Scamwise and the community safety initiatives that it leads in our local communities alongside restorative justice organisations, which do excellent work. We also welcome the reference to stepping up public information campaigns on the matter, but we emphasise that those must be supported by adequate measures to enable us to hold large social media platforms accountable for any fraudulent content that is advertised online on their channels. Reports can be made to the PSNI, Crimestoppers and Action Fraud, alongside further contact with Consumerline and the potential involvement of the Trading Standards Service. People can forward any suspicious texts for free to 7726 and use the "report phishing" or "report spam" option for questionable email correspondence.

As we all know, scammers cause devastating harm to individuals and communities. They cause severe financial ruin for ordinary people, workers and families. Scammers can cause people severe emotional distress and create health implications due to the shame and stigma that are attached to scams. For all those reasons, a much wider challenge exists in rebuilding the trust and self-esteem of the many who have been impacted on and in restoring their confidence so that they feel fully safe online again. We cannot thank Victim Support NI enough for the work that it does to support people in such times.

We support the call for a:

and to

Sinn Féin tabled the amendment, which includes a reference to the cross-border joint agency task force, that we hope will attain cross-party support. We recognise that the joint agency task force, which exists between the gardaí and the PSNI and which was established under the Fresh Start Agreement in 2015, brings other agencies together to conduct synchronised operations, days of action and any other coordinated action that it takes on these matters. Consideration must be given to expanding and strengthening the existing all-Ireland collaboration that takes place in the strategic oversight group and the operations coordination group, alongside significantly improving data sharing on the issue. We have consistently called for that all-Ireland coordinated response to tackling the rising problems of scams and financial fraud. The statistics that were published last week are evidence of the clear need to step up that response, including through a shared database to tackle fraud and protect consumers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ciara, will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Ms Ferguson: We need a strengthened and coordinated all-Ireland response for the protection of all our citizens.

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

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tackling scams is not just about catching criminals; it is about protecting dignity, safeguarding savings and restoring trust in our digital and financial systems. Scams can be tackled effectively when there is a joined-up effort on prevention, enforcement and the public awareness of trade. Stronger real-time cooperation between the PSNI, the National Crime Agency, banks and telecom providers would allow suspicious activity to be identified and stopped more quickly, preventing losses before they occur. Better use of shared data and fast account-freezing powers would significantly disrupt organised scam networks. Ultimately, tackling scams successfully depends on making criminals' lives harder while making the public more confident, informed and protected.

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and giving us quite comprehensive feedback on the motion and outlining how it sits with the safer communities strand of the Programme for Government. However, it is important to say — this has been said across the Chamber — that the issue sits not just with our criminal justice system and that there has to be a response from all Departments, including Health, Communities, Infrastructure and Finance. Everybody has a part to play in it.

My colleague, Diana Armstrong, highlighted the issue well in her contribution. Scams are an insidious method of theft. It is organised crime and the harvesting of information. It creates victims, even big corporate organisations. It is certainly not victimless crime.

I will give an example of a Romania-based organised crime group that was involved in a large-scale phishing operation targeting UK government services and individuals. It sent out emails and texts that appeared to come from legitimate organisations such as HMRC, banks and other authorities in order to trick victims into revealing sensitive information. It then used that sensitive information to claim benefits. That is what those groups are sucking from society. In July 2025, 13 individuals were arrested near Bucharest and one in the UK as part of a major international operation targeting a phishing campaign that defrauded UK taxpayers to the tune of £47 million.

People do it in other ways, however. Scammers impersonate NHS GPs and contact individuals by phone, text or email, pretending to be from the NHS, a GP practice or other health service. They might ask you to update your records because, if you do not, they will take your name off their list. People give them their date of birth, their NHS number or their address, and, again, that information is harvested in order to claim benefits.

There are multiple types of scam. I did not realise how many types of scam there were until I looked them up. There is phishing, smishing, vishing, spear phishing and whaling, as well as romance scams, investment-in-crypto scams, tech-support scams, impersonation scams, lotteries, jobs and rental scams. Kate Nicholl mentioned emergency scams, where somebody messages, "Hi mum, I've lost my phone, and I'm using a friend's phone. Can you send me money?". It happens a lot; I have received that one myself. I have kids and grandkids, so I had to stop and think twice. They gain your information if you engage.

The motion notes the:

Many older people are far too embarrassed to say that they have been scammed, so they do not report it. That is what the Minister was saying when she talked about under-reporting. People are too embarrassed, but they need to be told that they must come forward to their bank or financial services. We need a public awareness campaign on that, and, again, the Minister outlined that well. Knowledge, awareness and information are key in this digital world. Knowledge is the battleground in scams.

The motion calls on the Justice Minister to work with her Executive colleagues. That is the important part, because, although she is here and gave her response, all Ministers need to come together. Further to that, the motion calls for a:

It has been a good debate. I will be honest; I have not heard any dissenting voices, and I have learned something from all corners of the House. That is a good thing, because this is important. This is happening in real time, and it is affecting our people. We can all have our disagreements and arguments, but this is real. Emma Sheerin was absolutely right to point out that crime recognises no borders. Her amendment adds value to our motion, and we will support it. In her winding-up speech, Ciara talked about the rising number of scams and their increasing sophistication.

Cheryl Brownlee mentioned the case of Eddie and the way in which older people are being targeted by fraudsters, as well as the use of AI. AI is a great tool, but it is a double-edged sword, and it can be used against us.

Connie Egan said that scams are under-reported because of shame and embarrassment, and she is absolutely right. People are ashamed to say that they fell for a scam, particularly if it is one of those romance scams, where somebody takes money off you because you think there is —.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he will agree that many people who face financial difficulties tune into Martin Lewis's programme, which, I think, is on a Tuesday night. Many people watch his programme for ideas. They scammed Martin Lewis. How much more authentic can they get when they can do that on the internet and social media? Does the Member agree that the social media platforms are not doing enough to stamp that out?

Mr Beattie: You raised two points. The first point is that every one of us in here is susceptible to scams, as is every person outside here. If Martin Lewis can be scammed, everybody can be scammed, and social media can, of course, do more. It can always do more.

Patsy McGlone outlined the financial cost of scams and, like Emma, focused on cross-border cooperation. Keith Buchanan talked about the sophisticated global threat and the emotional scars that come from being involved in scams. That is why I mentioned the international element to all of this. Sometimes we think that scams are on our doorsteps, but they are absolutely not. They may feel as though they are on our doorstep, but sometimes they are from an awfully long way away. When you are replying to that Nigerian prince who wants to put £2 million into your bank account, that is coming from an awful long way away. It is certainly not coming from somewhere close to home.

I already mentioned Kate, who raised a good point in her contribution, as did Peter when he talked about Just Eat. That had slipped my mind until you mentioned it, Peter, to be honest. I remember watching a programme about the very issue of Just Eat, and it shows you that some of the larger companies can afford to take the hit on those scams, but it is the smaller people who simply cannot do so.

It was a good debate, and I am glad that we have had it. It was the last debate of 2025. Maybe things will get hotter when the debate is finished; I do not know. It was a good-natured debate, and some good information came across. As it is the last debate of 2025, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I wish everybody in the Chamber and outside of it a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Hear, hear. I think that we can all echo that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease for a few moments while we change the top Table.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question that they should rise in their place.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The Member will be aware that I did not return to office until February 2024, following the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. I was therefore not in post in September 2023. I first became aware of the matter upon being briefed by my officials on 12 February 2024.

For clarity, the Police Ombudsman is independent and appointed as a corporation sole by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly. For further clarity, the Department of Justice is not afforded any specific powers under the terms of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to act to temporarily suspend or otherwise interfere with the ombudsman's term of office. The legislation is clear that a person may at any time resign the office of ombudsman by notice in writing to His Majesty. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that the then permanent secretary had no vires to accept a resignation from the Police Ombudsman.

Mr Buckley: The Justice Minister knows that the role of the Police Ombudsman and their conduct whilst in office is of huge public importance. The Minister has been asked over a dozen times in the Chamber about the position and credibility of the ombudsman, yet never did she notify us, even when a question for urgent oral answer previously identified the matter, that the ombudsman had ever tendered a resignation. Why did she deliberately withhold that information from the Assembly? Was it incompetence or cover-up?

Mrs Long: I did not deliberately withhold the information in question from the Assembly. It was neither incompetence nor cover-up.

Mr Brooks: Minister, you were asked about the matter directly on 17 June 2024 in the Chamber and asked whether the Police Ombudsman should step aside. You did not inform the Assembly then that the ombudsman had previously tendered her resignation. Why did you withhold that important information?

Mrs Long: Because it was not relevant to the question that was asked, which was whether the ombudsman should step aside. By the time I came to the House, it had been made clear to the ombudsman that the resignation that was tendered prior to me taking up office was not tendered to the appropriate person and was then withdrawn. The question was whether she should step aside, and I made it clear then, as I do now, that the Department of Justice has no role to ask the ombudsman to retire early or to step aside. It is for the Executive Office to deal with matters pertaining to the Police Ombudsman and her employment, and I have made that clear every time that I have been brought to the Chamber to answer these questions.

Mr Burrows: When the resignation was tendered to her Department, the response — I have it — was not, "We have no vires to take it"; it was:

That is a decision. It was not a referral elsewhere. That happened in your Department. You were not there then, but you have been there since. I seem to know much more about what is going on in the Department of Justice than you do. I call on the Police Ombudsman to resign. Confidence in her comments is in tatters. Will you please explain why you did not make it transparent that your Department had received a resignation and clearly bungled it?

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Burrows: The officials either did not have the power to answer or answered wrongly.

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Long: The only person who can answer as to the response that was given to Marie Anderson, either in a phone call or a private email, is Richard Pengelly, who was then the permanent secretary of my Department. I am aware only of that which is on the formal record, and I have come to answer only on that basis in the House. There is no vires for anyone in my Department to accept or reject any resignation, because we have no vires to alter the terms on which the Police Ombudsman has been appointed or otherwise. Therefore, the issue that the Member raises is not one for my Department.

Mr Frew: In June of this year, the Justice Minister told 'The Nolan Show', of all people, that she wanted to acknowledge the Police Ombudsman's decision to delegate the powers to the chief executive and the senior staff of the ombudsman's office. That being the case, why did the Justice Minister not choose to acknowledge and inform the Assembly of the Police Ombudsman's previous offer to resign?

Mrs Long: Asked already and answered.

Ms Forsythe: The Minister has been clear in saying that clear rules are set down in law about when the ombudsman should be removed from office. Does she accept that the threshold is somewhat lower if the ombudsman herself chooses to resign?

Mrs Long: The ombudsman can resign at any time for any reason. She must do so in writing to His Majesty The King, and that is the only basis on which she can do so.

Mr Kingston: Minister, do you commit to publishing all records that are kept by your Department in which the offer of resignation from the Police Ombudsman is mentioned?

Mrs Long: As those matters remain sub judice, I will not commit to doing so until I have sought legal advice on them

Mr Clarke: I was going to thank the Minister for her answers thus far, but I do not want to go as far as that because you have not actually answered any questions, Minister. Why did you mislead the House when there was a confidence issue around the conduct of the ombudsman?

Mrs Long: I did not mislead the House at any time. The suggestion that I did so is very serious. Whether the House or individual Members had confidence in the ombudsman was a different matter. I did not mislead the House on those issues.

Mr Gaston: We now know that the ombudsman did, indeed, tender her resignation to the Justice Minister's Department. The Justice Minister is a caretaker Minister and, indeed, her answers have proved, once again, that she wants to take only some, not all, the responsibility.

Mr Speaker: Get to the question.

Mr Gaston: We now know that there was a brief chat, part of which was about the resignation. Will you commit to releasing all the information on the matter? It is a huge matter of public confidence in your Department and in you as Justice Minister. Essentially, the resignation was received by your Department. Why was it not passed on? If you say that it was not for your Department, why was it not passed on through the correct processes so that it could be acted upon and, indeed, accepted at that time, as it should have been?

Mrs Long: Let me correct a few of Mr Gaston's remarks. First, I am not a caretaker Minister. I was a caretaker Minister between the collapse of the Executive and October 2022, when Ministers were suspended. To clarify: that is the context in which the term "caretaker Minister" was used. I was not the Minister at the point at which those discussions and debates took place, nor was I party to them.

Mr Gaston: You are the Minister now.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Long: Am I to have order so that I can answer the question?

Mr Speaker: Continue please.

Mrs Long: Thank you.

With respect to the publication that the Member has sought, I have said already that these matters remain sub judice. Therefore, I will not commit to the House to releasing all the correspondence and papers until I have had the opportunity to seek detailed legal advice.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her part-answers so far. Minister, have you misled the House by omission?

Mrs Long: No.

Mr Chambers: Minister, does the ombudsman still have full security clearance?

Mrs Long: Security clearance and other HR matters pertaining to the ombudsman are for the Executive Office. Security clearance is not granted by the Department of Justice. It is actually granted by the Home Office.

Mrs Cameron: If the Justice Minister had been in post in 2023, would she have accepted the Police Ombudsman's resignation?

Mrs Long: Had I been in office in 2023, I would have had no vires to accept the resignation of the ombudsman. My Department and its Minister and permanent secretary have no vires to accept the resignation of the ombudsman. The ombudsman must resign directly by notice in writing to His Majesty.

Ms Brownlee: When preparing for the question for urgent oral answer in June 2024, did your briefing papers have any details of the resignation?

Mrs Long: Those details were not pertinent to the question for urgent oral answer and were, therefore, not included in the briefing papers that were provided to me in June 2024.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, do you have any concerns about the conduct of the ombudsman?

Mrs Long: I am not, within my Department, empowered to make judgements about the ombudsman's office. The Public Prosecution Service made a decision not to prosecute the ombudsman. We must respect that decision. It is not for me to judge the fitness for office of the ombudsman. That is the role of the Executive Office. I suggest that the Member directs her question to that Department.

Mr Middleton: Minister, some of us are finding it hard to believe your responses. You are telling us that it was not in your briefing pack in June, yet you were informed in February. Is that right?

Mrs Long: That is exactly what I said; that is correct. It was not pertinent to the question that I was asked in June and was therefore not included in my briefing pack, to the best of my recollection. However, I was briefed about it in an early-day briefing at the beginning of February.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mr Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, I have given leave to Connie Egan to raise the matter of poverty in North Down. Ms Egan, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I secured this debate on poverty in North Down for many reasons. At its core, the debate is on behalf of all those across our constituency who are struggling to make ends meet and to deal with the cost of living and of the organisations that are fighting for funding to support them. It is incredibly timely: this is the last item to be discussed in the Chamber before Christmas, which is a time when so many feel pressure financially, whether it be because of presents for the kids or the increasing use of fuel to keep homes warm and families healthy.

To set the tone from the outset, I have brought the matter to the House not to point fingers and propel blame but to have a frank and constructive conversation about the vast income inequality and areas of deprivation across the place that I represent. I thank every Member who has made the time to come to the Chamber and contribute to the debate, including the Minister.

Poverty across our region continues to be an issue of serious concern. It feels right to begin the debate by putting some numbers to it. Although I am here to raise issues relevant to my constituency, we all know that poverty is a problem across Northern Ireland. It is not about pitting communities or constituencies against each other; it is about shining a light on an issue that persists in our area and the grassroots work that is being done on the ground to mitigate it. Approximately 330,000 people, including approximately 24% of all children, in Northern Ireland are in relative poverty after housing costs. That is about 17% of our total population. Up to 40% of our population are thought to have been in fuel poverty at some point over the past few years. Almost half of all workers have experienced low pay in one of the past five years. It is estimated that one in five households in Northern Ireland has faced food insecurity in the past 12 months.

Before the debate, I spoke with many individuals across North Down, including those who are struggling and those who provide direct support to the people who need it most. In each of those conversations, I heard the repeated message that high levels of income and wealth in North Down continue to overshadow the struggle and deprivation of many people. Perhaps that message is best put in simple terms, as Trussell did in a briefing that was sent to all MLAs in advance of today's debate: poverty in our borough is hidden, and the stigma of getting help is rising. Our constituency is sometimes called "the gold coast", and it is seen as being a wealthy area. That perception has contributed to the stigma, making those who are struggling across the community feel a lot of shame because their finances or living costs are not more manageable. I am here today to make it clear that that is not their fault; it is the fault of the system that has let them down.

It is our local community and voluntary sector organisations that deal with individuals directly and provide essential support. Charities such as the Society of St Vincent de Paul or Christians Against Poverty operate locally, Bangor Foodbank and Community Support runs a food bank and a baby bank, Kilcooley Women's Centre's runs a social supermarket, and there are too many churches and local community groups to mention: they all see at first hand the level of need in their local communities and areas. They address that need directly and offer support. Those are the groups and the people doing the work on the ground.

Together, between the councils, Departments, Westminster counterparts and grassroots action, we can deliver better. We can deliver a transformational anti-poverty strategy that acts to the benefit of all across Northern Ireland. I would like to see clear, ambitious targets. The strategy should listen to the expertise of those with lived experience, and to organisations providing practical support in communities. We have really good examples of collaboration and co-design in Executive strategies. I hope that we will also see that in the finalised anti-poverty strategy.

One of the items that I would like to raise with the Minister is the need for updated information on poverty at a small area level. That is vital to unpick the stigma that is felt so strongly across North Down and to track the tangibility of the outcomes of interventions. For example, I can see that, in 2017 — the last time that that data was disaggregated so — Bangor Central, the district electoral area (DEA) where my office sits, was ranked amongst the 100 wards with the most income deprivation in Northern Ireland. The same goes for the areas of Conlig and Loughview in Holywood, where 23·9% of the working population was employment deprived. However, all that was eight years ago, pre pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. When preparing for the debate, I found that there is very little hard, up-to-date data available on the levels of poverty and deprivation in specific areas of constituencies rather than in local government districts as a whole.

As I have said, there is a broad spectrum of wealth in North Down and a number of high earners in the area, but that is simply not the case for everyone. Income inequalities can hide the struggle of those in areas across the constituency. As one community worker put it to me:

They see, at first hand, how that misconception contributes to a disproportionate lack of investment. I ask the Minister to address the need for solid data on those areas.

We do have a rather helpful collection of data from Bangor's 2022 neighbourhood renewal profile. For anyone who is not familiar with that project, its focus was on supporting areas that fell into the 10% most deprived in Northern Ireland. Clandeboye and Dufferin in North Down fell into that category, based on the 2017 baseline data, with 44% of children in poverty; 31% of the working-age population employment deprived; and 21% of people living in households whose equalised income was below 60% of Northern Ireland's median.

I want to pay particular attention to the doubling in the number of drug-related deaths between 2005-09 and 2017-2021, and the 37% increase between 2011-15 and 2017-2021 in the number of deaths from suicide and undetermined intent, in the Bangor neighbourhood renewal area. Poverty and struggles with the cost of living have clear connections with people's health, both physical and mental. Poverty does not happen in isolation; there are so many factors. The inability to work due to long waiting lists or health inequalities, mental health pressures, housing insecurity and the rising cost of living are all compounding one another and pushing people to breaking point. That gives a direct reminder of the need for cross-departmental working on anti-poverty measures, as stated in our Programme for Government.

I will highlight two anonymised, real-life stories of my constituents, who, plainly put, are struggling not just with the cost of living but with the cost of surviving. A woman knocked on the door of a local community centre one morning and asked whether she could borrow a loaf of bread for her children's breakfast. When she came in for help, she admitted that her children had missed school as she did not have enough electric to wash and dry their uniforms and was rationing her washing powder. Another parent experienced extreme malnutrition because they chose to put food on the table for their child and heat the home instead of filling their own plate. I know that those are not isolated incidents and that there are many such heartbreaking stories across Northern Ireland.

In North Down, local community organisations always step in and address the need, connecting those who need support to food banks or social supermarkets or providing advice or expertise to recalculate social welfare support. However, the same organisations find themselves struggling and competing for impactful funding, in part due to limiting criteria set by the council and Departments. We need to move beyond that and short-term sticking plasters and focus on long-term, collaborative solutions. I would really welcome the Minister's telling us what he is doing about that in preparation for the multi-year Budget.

For example, Ards and North Down Borough Council's community development fund makes no assessment of applicants' reserves, unrestricted income or financial vulnerability. Instead, allocations are based on a 0 to 5 score for postcode deprivation, when we know that, across the board, multiple deprivation statistics are outdated. Our area's needs must be better understood in order to ensure genuine equity so that all communities can thrive equally.

Another issue that is often raised with me is the missed opportunities for regional funding, as North Down is often seen and counted as being part of the greater Belfast area, which feeds into geographic inequality and a postcode lottery of support. For example, in the BT19 postcode area, there are some of the most expensive properties in the constituency — maybe even in Northern Ireland — but there is also one of Northern Ireland's three largest housing estates. The visibility of that wealth in close proximity to those who are living in significant poverty hides the deprivation that needs to be tackled.

A practical way to address that, which communities welcomed, was the hardship fund that DFC issued and that was distributed through councils to the front-line communities that needed it. Minister, I have raised that fund with you previously, so if progress has been made on its reintroduction or if your Department is doing any work to bring forward similar schemes, we would all appreciate an update.

Ultimately, we need the council and DFC to work with our community and voluntary sector partners to ensure that funding is distributed on the basis of need and is proportionate to the population of the local area. It is really unfortunate that many of the community groups to which I speak cite councils and Departments as being the most difficult partners to work with. They cite the length of application forms for relatively small grants; the amount of paperwork and monitoring that are involved; and the timescales in which funding is received competing with the need to spend it by the end of a financial year. I do not think that that is a situation that any of us want to see or be in. We need all of us to work together and our councils and Departments to support our community partners.

No one type of person experiences poverty. I really hope to see that reflected in the anti-poverty strategy. There are those who cannot work for a variety of reasons, including caring responsibilities and accessibility needs, and there are those who can. In fact, a significant majority of people who are in poverty, which is 60% of such adults, live in households with someone who works, but the work-first approach does not adequately combat poverty when other significant barriers, such as poor health, unaffordable childcare and housing, are not being addressed.

I thank all who spoke to me in anticipation of today's debate. I hope that you feel that it reflects what you had to say. Thank you for the work that you do and the work that keeps so many people in our constituency surviving and living. I look forward to hearing all the other contributions, and I will listen with an eagerness to collaborate and deliver positive change together for all our communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Connie. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately five minutes.

Mr Martin: As Ms Egan mentioned, our North Down constituency is frequently associated with prosperity. We all know and are aware of jokes about living on the "gold coast". However, the truth is very far from that for a number of my constituents. Behind the averages and headlines, households are struggling to meet basic needs, families are navigating the rising cost of living and individuals are feeling disconnected from opportunity. Poverty in North Down may be less concentrated than it is in other parts of Northern Ireland, but it is no less real for those who have to experience it. As highlighted, there are significant income disparities across our constituency.

I thank the organisations that work in North Down and support those who are in need. There are some excellent charities and third-sector organisations, and I will highlight a few that have been mentioned. Kilcooley Women's Centre runs a superb social supermarket that I have visited on numerous occasions; North Down Community Network runs a range of support programmes; and Bangor Foodbank, in partnership with Trussell, distributed 2,500 parcels during 2024-25. As mentioned, there are other organisations, such as Christians Against Poverty, which my family supports, and a range of churches that run programmes and offer support networks such as homework clubs.

We need to continue to support the community organisations that already make a measurable difference. I mentioned food banks, and there are also advice centres, mental health centres and many other brilliant youth groups and social enterprises. Their work is invaluable and must be underpinned by stable funding and strong collaboration. I thank my colleague the Communities Minister for all his work and the support that he gives. Some of that is done directly, but some comes through programmes that are delivered by Ards and North Down Borough Council. As has been referred to, we have a neighbourhood renewal area in North Down — Kilcooley, which is the third largest estate in Northern Ireland. I note, from some research that I did earlier, that about £0·5 million has been put through the scheme this year, supporting 13 projects, all of which are making a real difference to people in the area.

I have to note that it is Christmastime. I am not a big fan of Christmas. For some, the income disparity is highlighted most acutely at Christmastime. There is pressure to buy presents and to feel happy and content. Those are pressures that many folk simply do not need at this time of year. There are real challenges for working families, as well; I was glad to hear Ms Egan reference that. That is a major concern for me. We have to do all that we can to support people — the families who work hard, raise children and struggle financially at the end of the month, having to make incredibly tough decisions. That is a key policy area that the Minister is working on.

The Communities Minister will not be able to tackle or solve the issue of poverty in Northern Ireland in a silo. He simply cannot do that, and he certainly does not have the money allocated to his budget that is needed to do it. The issue needs not only cross-departmental working but cross-departmental Executive support.

I thank my North Down colleague for bringing the debate to the Assembly, and I very much look forward to what my colleague the Minister has to say at the end of the debate.

Mr Chambers: The recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, 'Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025', provides important insight into the scale and impact of poverty across Northern Ireland. One of the most striking findings is that the:

It found that 60% of working-class adults in poverty live in houses in which someone is in work. That figure rises to 64% for children. Put simply, employment alone is no longer a guarantee of financial security.

That reality applies in North Down as it does elsewhere, albeit often in less visible ways. As others have said, North Down is often referred to as the "gold coast". Undoubtedly, many prosperous families, who have worked hard to secure financial stability, live in comfort in my constituency. There are, however, areas of serious deprivation where the damaging effects of poverty can be seen. Behind the curtains of many seemingly prosperous homes, the issue of balancing the family budget is very real.

In 2017-18, Bangor Foodbank and Community Support distributed 634 emergency food parcels. In 2024-25, that figure has risen to a staggering 2,569. For that to happen, something in our society must not be working.

It is not just food poverty that is an affliction in North Down. Fuel poverty provides challenges across all sections of the community, from young families to pensioners who struggle to heat their entire home to the recommended, comfortable levels. The cost of energy has risen at rates that do not equate to the rise in income. The cost of private rentals and the disgraceful lack of affordable social housing is making a huge dent in family incomes. Providing a roof over their heads means that a family has less income available to heat or eat. Another group of people who are largely forgotten but who have a daily struggle to make ends meet is the army of unpaid carers, a group that not only faces financial challenges but, in many cases, is deprived of any level of social life or respite self-time.

All the issues I have spoken of are not purely financial. Cold homes, financial stress and insecurity can harm physical and mental health and increase social isolation. Even the shame of poverty can seriously lower self-esteem and extinguish hope in people. Addressing poverty, therefore, supports better health outcomes and can reduce pressure on public services, and tackling poverty cannot rest with one Department alone. While the Department for Communities has the lead role in addressing poverty in all its forms, the pressure faced by people requires coordinated action, as others have said, across the Executive, including housing, health, energy, employment and infrastructure. I commend the Minister for Communities for attending tonight to listen to the debate.

Finally, as my colleague Andy Allen has done in previous debates, I acknowledge the work that the Minister has undertaken in progressing the long-overdue anti-poverty strategy. However, I also recognise the widespread concern amongst sector experts about its current strength and delivery, and I look forward to seeing how the feedback from sector experts is factored into the final iteration of the strategy so that it delivers practical and measurable improvements for individuals and families in North Down and across Northern Ireland.

I join other Members in expressing my appreciation and thanks to all the voluntary organisations in North Down that help to deal with poverty. One in particular that I was unaware of until recently is the Kiltonga Christian Centre, which operates under the radar. Without those charities, things would be an awful lot worse, so we owe them a huge debt.

Mr Muir: I speak today as an Alliance Party MLA for North Down, and I thank my constituency colleague Connie Egan MLA for securing this timely and important debate in the Assembly.

Contrary to the perceptions of some, there are many people in North Down who are suffering from poverty. They are wondering how they will feed their families and whether they can afford to put the heat on, in the same way as is experienced in many other constituencies across Northern Ireland. North Down still has around one fifth of children living in poverty, and, within the wider borough, over 3,000 people are on the housing waiting list and approximately 20% are experiencing fuel poverty. Just last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that 330,000 people and 110,000 children are living in poverty here, and, despite misconceptions, the majority of those live in working households. That means that hundreds of thousands of people have a lower life expectancy and greater mental health challenges, and those children will suffer worse educational and wider life outcomes.

The failure to meaningfully tackle poverty over the past 20 years and beyond is a dreadful legacy, particularly with the austerity policies of subsequent Conservative Governments. I have been incredibly disappointed that the Labour Party has sought to continue some of that legacy by targeting those in our society who are most vulnerable to poverty, particularly older people and people with a disability. I commend those MPs who forced concessions from the UK Government on welfare and the winter fuel payment and championed the removal of the two-child limit, including my Alliance Party colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP. We know that families with three or more children experience higher rates of poverty, and the removal of that punitive cap will make a huge difference to the 50,000 families who are set to benefit in every constituency in Northern Ireland, especially in North Down.

Although it is important to acknowledge that it is a wider UK problem, we should not shirk our responsibilities locally, especially because, before housing costs, our poverty levels in Northern Ireland are similar to the UK as a whole. Given the drastic rise in the number of private renters, the rate at which rent is rising should be a concern to us all, particularly in North Down, where rent prices are already much higher. I am sure that we can all see the huge strain that the housing crisis places on our constituents, particularly as the cost of living and inflation continue to bite. It is vital that we deliver new social homes to address the issues hampering development, not least in relation to our waste water infrastructure.

We must also see an anti-poverty strategy not only in place but delivering meaningful change in North Down and beyond.

I look forward to hearing from the Communities Minister about his departmental efforts to finalise the strategy and how he will address concerns raised by relevant stakeholders in the consultation. I also hope that he will be able to update us on the anticipated fuel poverty strategy, because, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlights, the downward trend of poverty here has stalled in recent years and our child poverty rates remain high. Clearly, the lack of an anti-poverty strategy and the collapse of the Assembly have had consequences.

Regrettably, our time to discuss such a complicated and layered topic is short, but I will close by again thanking Connie for securing the debate and all the organisations in North Down for the sterling work that they do. Their work is a lifeline for many in the constituency, which I am proud to represent, and I am glad that we have been able to air this important topic in the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew: I thank Connie for bringing the issue to the Floor. Although I do not represent North Down, I will say a few words as Sinn Féin's community spokesperson, as poverty is an issue that affects every town, village and area across the North.

As Connie said, it is important to recognise that deep poverty can exist side by side and cheek by jowl with massive wealth. On a global level, inequality is a pervasive issue at present. A number of years ago, the World Bank issued a warning to the wealthy that the inequality levels were no longer sustainable and had to be addressed. That is something that we locally need to take account of as well.

It is important that, when we discuss poverty, we remember the very human suffering that poverty inflicts on people every day in all our constituencies. Right now, as we debate the issue, there are people in our communities who do not have enough food to eat, do not have enough fuel to keep themselves warm or, potentially, do not even have a roof over their heads. Imagine what it must be like to wake every morning not knowing how you will feed yourself or your children or whether you will be able to afford to turn the heating on that day. We all have a moral obligation to do everything that we can to end that intolerable situation and ensure that everyone in our society has a fair chance in life.

Over recent years, a number of economic and political factors have had a disproportionately negative impact on those on lower incomes, including Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, the disastrous Tory mini-Budget and a prolonged period of British Government austerity, with signs that the Labour Government have carried it on, as Andrew mentioned. That combination of factors has undoubtedly led to an increase in the overall level of poverty in our society, with the most recent 'Poverty and Income Inequality' report showing that roughly 18% of our population live in relative poverty while 15% live in absolute poverty. The figures for children are even more shocking, with roughly 23% of children living in relative poverty and 20% of children living in absolute poverty.

We know that certain risk factors make someone more vulnerable to falling into poverty such as having a disability, being a carer, as Alan mentioned, or being in receipt of benefits. Other factors include low-wage or precarious employment, being a lone parent, geographical location and even gender. With regard to geographical location, poverty rates are generally even higher west of the Bann. Earlier this year, the Minister — I am glad to see him in the Chamber listening to the debate — published the long-awaited anti-poverty strategy, which promises to identify and address the root causes of poverty, mitigate its worst impacts and support people to exit poverty. While the publication of the strategy is indeed welcome — it was long overdue — the strategy falls short of what is needed and, as a result, has been criticised by anti-poverty experts, including some who helped to co-design the strategy.

Alan Chambers's point about working people is really important. We need to be careful and understand that there is no clear or easy divide between people who are on benefits and people who are working. Many of our people who are working — our working poor — are dependent on benefits as well, so it is not a question of some people who get up in the morning and are struggling and other people who do not. It is much more complicated than that, to be honest.

As we await the final draft of the strategy, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the many voices that are calling for a change of approach and to come back with a strengthened anti-poverty strategy that will make a real difference in eradicating poverty once and for all, wherever it occurs across the North.

With your indulgence, a LeasCheann Comhairle

, as this is the last debate of the session, I wish all my colleagues and you a very happy, peaceful and reflective Christmas. Nollaig shona daoibh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. I call Kellie Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Principal — "Principal"? — Deputy Speaker. I have given you a promotion, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Obviously, I am not a Member for North Down, but I am a Member for the Strangford constituency, which is next door to North Down and shares one of its council areas, Ards and North Down Borough Council. As has been said by everyone here, poverty is a scourge on our society. More and more people who work are on universal credit and need the support of our Government in order to get by. We have children living in poverty, we have middle-aged people living in poverty and we have a growing number of older people living in poverty.

I know that the Minister is due to come forward with the final anti-poverty strategy. Other strategies such as the fuel poverty strategy are due to come forward. There is much that we need to do. We cannot keep depending on the community and voluntary sector to pull the Assembly out of a hole when it comes to poverty.

As many of us will know through our constituency offices, the Bryson scheme opened recently. Within a week — I tell a lie: it was not a week; it was two days — the vouchers issued to my office to help people who live in poverty with their electricity bills were gone. Fifty vouchers were snapped up just like that. I could have given out another 150 vouchers if I had had them. The food bank is constantly giving out vouchers for food parcels and is asking people what they need help with in order to prevent them from having to use a food bank. To be honest, it all comes back to one thing: they do not have enough money. There are many people who try their very best, but, after they have paid their rent, their electricity bill and their gas or oil bill, they have nothing left at the end of the month. That is what we have come to in Northern Ireland.

I know that the Minister is determined to look at fraud, but not everyone who is on benefits is a fraudulent person. They simply need help from us to keep going. Costs and the cost of living have continued to rise. As we have seen, the local housing allowance (LHA) has not kept in line with housing benefit rates or private rented sector rates. There are issues. The number of people who call all our offices to reach out for help is incredible. From working in the constituency next door to North Down, I know that that is the case there too.

Mr Chambers spoke about the Kiltonga centre. I know a mum-of-six who was recently offered support through the Kiltonga centre. I was amazed that it was able to deliver that. That support was not available anywhere else. I encouraged her to go forward for discretionary support, but, because she had had a loan before, she was out of the system. She has six children. As we know, the two-child cap is going, thank goodness, so she will see some light at the end of the tunnel, but it will not solve her problems.

Thanks very much to all those who work for the community and voluntary sector organisations. They, too, are living in poverty, because many are paid the minimum wage. To those whom we in the Assembly depend on to see people living in poverty through the winter and the school holiday period, when there is no help with hunger, I say, "Thanks". I am so sorry that they live on the minimum wage. I would love to see that improve, because they are as important to me in my work as an MLA as a GP. They are vital to keeping people well in our community. The stress that is placed on constituents in North Down and elsewhere because of poverty is unimaginable to someone like me.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I certainly will.

Ms Egan: Does the Member agree that, in both our constituencies, we see the presence of paramilitaries and how they exploit poverty? There are two Communities in Transition (CIT) areas in North Down. There are loan sharks exploiting those in poverty. That is why we need a cross-departmental approach and different agencies to come on board in order to tackle the root causes of poverty.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. I will confirm that by saying that the food banks that I know, which work extraordinarily hard, are not required to report paramilitary lending and that possibly being the reason why someone is in debt.Paramilitaries see themselves as the solution, the helper, the people who will step in when there is nobody else to provide that help. We do not lift data that enables us to say how many people are borrowing money from paramilitaries. I know for a fact that paramilitary lenders were sitting in a car outside a North Down and a Strangford constituency food bank and support system, watching to see who was going in, and saying to them afterwards, "I can lend you fifty quid" or, "If you put in for discretionary support, we'll help you fill out the form. You give us fifty quid, and you'll get the rest". That is non-stop, and the pressure that it puts on some communities is unbearable. That is where we need to work together. That is a solution that should not exist for someone who is living in poverty. We need to make sure that, when we fund and support those community and voluntary organisations, we support them to stop that activity. It is important. Our local police also have a role in that.

I say this to all of our community and voluntary organisations: I know that you are on the front line, and I know that you find it tough, but we need you. I only hope that, with the anti-poverty strategy and fuel poverty strategy coming forward, there will be help for the too many people in Northern Ireland living in poverty.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and, indeed, congratulate the Member for securing it. I am sure that she and others in the Chamber will have heard the jokes and guffaws around the Building today about our debating the issue of poverty in North Down, as if that is somewhere where poverty could not or should not exist. However, we know that poverty does not stop at constituency boundaries. Yes, we have areas, as we have in my constituency, that are considered to be affluent, but, right next door, you have areas of deep deprivation. Therefore, it is right that we have this debate and talk about what we can do to help. I give the firm commitment that I am every bit as keen to make sure that we tackle poverty in North Down as I am to tackling it everywhere else in Northern Ireland. I give my commitment that I will do everything that I can to tackle the issue.

We have already done and continue to do many things in the North Down area to help those who are in need. For example, over the past year, the Make the Call outreach team has helped 1,159 people in North Down, securing additional benefits of £6·57 million that they were entitled to. We have secured the winter fuel payment support; the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has invested almost £7 million in 660 homes; £3·25 million of private-sector grants and support has been made available; and there has been £500,000 for projects in 13 neighbourhood renewal areas, £138,000 for independent advice services, £820,000 for labour market partnerships and £135,000 for social supermarkets. I know that there is more to be done and more that we need to do, but that demonstrates that support is going into the North Down constituency, and that will continue.

Of course, much more needs to be done to tackle the issue. First, I will pick up on one issue that was raised by most Members who spoke this evening: working families. Members are absolutely right to highlight the fact that many of those who experience the effects of poverty most acutely are in working households. We see that time and time again. I want to stand up and speak up for them, because they are doing the right thing — they are going to work; they are trying to do their best; and they are playing by the rules — but they find time and time again that they miss out on support that is available to others. Understandably, they can say to themselves, "Why am I doing this? Why am I knocking my pan in when I'm actually hurting myself by excluding myself from some of the support that is available?". That is what we need to change, and it is why I have two areas of focus for working families.

The first relates to housing. We know the impact that housing can have — the costs of rent and mortgages. We need to do a better job of building more homes and of doing more to address the cost of housing, because we know that it is one of the biggest outgoings for any family.

That is why we are taking action and why the housing supply strategy is in place. We have put in place other initiatives, such as using financial transactions capital (FTC) in new and innovative ways through the intermediate rent scheme, which will help people who find themselves stuck because they do not qualify for social housing but cannot afford the rents that we see in the private rented sector. FTC was underutilised; we are using it. We are building more homes, and we are using reduced rent to help people.

The social housing development programme is also important, and I am pleased that we are making progress on that. With the budget that was available in June, we were going to be able to build only 1,000 homes across Northern Ireland this year, but, working with my Executive colleagues, after today's announcement, we will be able to build 1,750 homes, which is really close to our target and should be welcomed. The loan to acquire —.

I will happily give way to the Member.

Ms Egan: Thank you. Everybody in the Chamber wants to see more social homes being built. Do you have the figures? How many of the 1,750 homes will be in our constituency?

Mr Lyons: That is still being finalised. We got the extra funding only today, but I will provide that information to the Member when it becomes available.

We are trying to do many other things in housing. Over the past 20 months, we have tried many innovative ways of increasing housing supply, and, after discussions with the Finance Minister, I will bring a paper to the Executive about what we can do with public-sector land to increase housebuilding in Northern Ireland.

Fuel poverty is the second issue; addressing that could help working families. Huge amounts of money go out to pay for rent or mortgages, and one of the next biggest outgoings is the cost of heating homes. I am pleased to say that the fuel poverty strategy will be with the Executive this month; I look forward to Mr Muir's contribution to the discussion. The strategy will be ambitious, and I will be looking for a significant capital investment in energy efficiency measures in particular because those things could make a real difference. Every year, we spend lots of money on helping people, when we could have helped them earlier and for longer. Changes to the energy efficiency of a home can have a recurring benefit every year. That is where our focus should be, and it is what you will see in the fuel poverty strategy.

I will address a couple of the other issues that were raised. The Member who secured the debate expressed some concern about my approach to getting people into work. I acknowledge that many people are in work and still find themselves squeezed financially, and that is why I want to help in the ways that I have just outlined. One reason why I want to make sure that we get more people into work is that it frees up money that we can use to help people in other ways. I have already mentioned the disability and work strategy. That is about getting 50,000 more people into work and bringing the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, which is the rate in the rest of the UK. That will save £750 million that otherwise would be paid out in benefits or would not come in through National Insurance and income tax payments. That £750 million will go to the Treasury, but think of how that could give working households some of the extra support that we want to see. I am keen to get people into work and to provide support with the additional funding that that frees up.

The Member who secured the Adjournment debate also mentioned the need to avoid short-term measures: sticking plasters. That is exactly what has driven me in the development of the anti-poverty strategy. It is not about asking, year by year, what additional mitigations we can put in place or what other help we can give to those who are in need; it is about how we can spend the money sooner and in a better way so that it will have a lasting impact. In 2022, we got extra money because of the rising cost of energy, and we gave the money directly to people. I want to see such money spent earlier on energy efficiency measures to help people who face difficulties with their home every year, rather than their being given one-off support. The anti-poverty strategy is entirely about spending the money that we have earlier and in a better way so that we can achieve longer lasting benefits.

The Chair of the Communities Committee said that we need to see a strengthening of the anti-poverty strategy. I am open to that. I am open to any and all measures that will make a lasting and real difference to people.

We absolutely need to support people now. We absolutely need to provide immediate support and relief, as we do through discretionary support. However, we need to get real: we need to start doing things that will make a long-term difference. We need to invest rather than just handing out money in that way. That is what I am determined to do, and I will not be found wanting on that.

Another issue that was raised by Ms Armstrong was around fraud. She might be getting sick of me saying this, but let me just say that this is not about those who are in need. This is not about those who have made mistakes. This is about people who are misrepresenting their circumstances in order to get money, and, sometimes, we are talking about £30,000 or £40,000 and, in one case, £65,000. That is money that they are not entitled to, so I will happily crack down on fraud and on the error that takes place in my Department. I want that money to go towards helping people who need it most, and I will continue to address that.

I will address one more issue, which is around the hardship fund. It is another example of sticking plasters. I want to make sure that we spend that money better as well.

One thing that was missing from the debate was the issue of creating wealth. We need to be in the position to do that. We need to make sure that we are generating more in our economy. We need to make sure that we have more productivity in our economy so that we can help people and put that towards those need it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister —.

Mr Lyons: You are being very generous. I was thinking for a second there —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are going off tack with another party political broadcast.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry. You gave me so much latitude that I thought I had an extra minute because I had given an intervention. My time is up. This is the last debate in this place for the year. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone here at the Assembly a very merry Christmas.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Before we adjourn, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year, and, hopefully, I will not see you until the new year. That is particularly what I want.