Official Report: Tuesday 13 January 2026

Mr McHugh: A chairde,

I congratulate Haemochromatosis UK, a registered charity, and welcome the fact that it will offer up to 23,500 households free genetic screening kits in Irvinestown, Portadown, Ballymena and Magherafelt. The kits are normally priced at £130, and it is offering them free of charge. In the near future, households in the relevant postcodes will receive information about genetic haemochromatosis and access to counselling to help them to understand the test results and impact of the disease. Haemochromatosis is an iron overload, which can cause severe fatigue, joint pain, memory issues and abdominal pain. If left undiagnosed, it can have a major impact on one's health, affecting major organs such as the heart and the liver, yet, as a genetic disorder, it is easily treated with therapeutic blood removal.

As someone who has haemochromatosis, I usually attend the venesection clinic at Omagh hospital three times each year to have bloods taken off, thus reducing the amount of iron in my system. Haemochromatosis, also known as the "Celtic disease", is the most common inherited disease in the North of Ireland, particularly in the north-west counties of Tyrone, Donegal and Derry. It is vital that accurate statistics are obtained for those who have the disorder to ensure that they benefit from early intervention to negative the harmful effects of the disease. It is also important that the Department of Health is provided with information on the extent of the problem and distribution of the disease, so that appropriate measures are in place to deal with its consequences.

The initiative taken by Haemochromatosis UK will go a long way to addressing that need and is to be welcomed by all. Gabhaim buíochas agus buíochas mór le Haemochromatosis UK.

Mr Kingston: The proposal by Commonwealth Games Northern Ireland (CGNI) to stop using the Northern Ireland flag is deeply political and totally unacceptable to the DUP. To remove the flag of our country from such a high-profile squad representing Northern Ireland would not be a neutral act and would damage community relations.

The Northern Ireland flag, known as the "Ulster banner" and, to many, as the "Ulster flag", has been used for many decades by Northern Ireland teams at the Commonwealth Games, as well as in many individual sports, including football, golf, darts, snooker and netball. In all those sports, we see people from all religious and community backgrounds ready to compete under the Ulster banner when representing Northern Ireland.

Any proposed change is overtly political and should be left to elected politicians. In this political institution — the Assembly — it is a fundamental principle that cross-community consent is required to make any change on controversial matters, such as those in the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report. In the absence of consensus on alternative arrangements, the current arrangements should continue. I know that certain people in Commonwealth Games Northern Ireland have been pushing the issue for some time, but there is no political mandate for CGNI to impose its own change on national representation.

CGNI operates under funding from Sport NI, which is accountable to the Department for Communities. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, has written to the chief executive of CGNI, stating:

To those who question the official status of the Ulster banner, I say this: it is indisputably established by custom and practice as the flag of Northern Ireland. We refute the suggestion that it is a controversial flag. Against the red cross, which has represented Ulster, the flag includes the red hand of Ulster, a six-pointed star for the six counties and a crown signifying our place in the United Kingdom. Given that the British monarch is the head of the Commonwealth, it can hardly be deemed controversial for the Commonwealth Games. Northern Ireland takes part only because it is part of a Commonwealth nation: the United Kingdom.

We will continue to speak against and oppose the proposal. Keep the Ulster banner for teams representing Northern Ireland, as it always has done.

Mr Dickson: I once again mark Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week. I do so as chair of the all-party group on cancer and, personally, as a survivor of one of one of those less survivable cancers: oesophageal cancer. As a volunteer, I will make five new oesophageal cancer patient calls this week.

This is an important opportunity to raise awareness of the six less survivable common cancers, which are lung cancer, liver cancer, brain cancer, oesophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer and stomach cancer. I invite the Assembly to note with deep concern that those cancers account for a significant proportion of cancer deaths and continue to have some of the poorest survival outcomes. We should further recognise that, despite their impact, less survivable cancers receive a disproportionately low share of cancer research funding, limiting progress on early diagnosis, treatment and, indeed, survival.

I acknowledge the work of the United Kingdom Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce in representing those affected by those cancers and highlighting the urgent need to close the research gap. I recognise the importance of the high-quality cancer research undertaken across all regions of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to improve outcomes for patients and to support innovation in the health system, particularly the work of the Johnston Cancer Research Centre at Queen's University. During Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, it is important to highlight research activity and to engage patients, charities and researchers. Less survivable cancers receive just 19% of research funding, despite causing 40% of cancer deaths.

Today, I call on the Health Minister to work with his Executive colleagues, the Department of Health and our academic institutions to ensure that cancer research funding is better targeted towards less survivable cancers and to address the long-standing inequalities in research investment to improve early diagnosis and support the development and treatment that ultimately saves lives.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I congratulate you and the Assembly staff for choosing Macmillan Cancer Support as the Assembly's charity of the year.

Mr Beattie: Yesterday's statement by the Justice Minister about the dispute with the Criminal Bar Association was timely, full, accurate and important. Unfortunately, it gave no solutions. I have a real fear that there is now a stand-off between the Bar and the Department of Justice. The only people who will suffer are the victims. I have also a real concern that the Executive's flagship ending violence against women and girls strategy will be irreparably damaged if we do not act on this quickly.

We can talk about the Chloe Mitchell case, which is incredibly important, and the Natalie McNally case, which is close to my heart and also incredibly important. However, I met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday, and he informed me that crimes of a sexual nature, sexual violence and domestic abuse have gone up by 60%, and a lot of those would be heard in the Crown Court but now will not be. That will just increase as the days, weeks and months go by, and we really need to come up with a solution.

I had already raised the issue of non-fatal strangulation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. If we remember, hundreds of cases of non-fatal strangulation were being heard in the Magistrates' Court with a maximum sentence of two years, when they should have been heard in the Crown Court with a maximum sentence of 14 years. We all know that with a little extra pressure on the neck or holding it for a little longer, non-fatal strangulation suddenly becomes attempted murder or even murder. That has been changed, so non-fatal strangulation will now be heard in the Crown Court. That is a success, but without the Crown Court sitting at full capacity, none of those cases will be heard.

Yesterday, I thought that the questions were good, and the Minister gave fair and accurate answers, but no solutions were given, and we need solutions to this real problem. What are the solutions? We could give extra powers to the Magistrates' Courts and increase their sentencing powers to allow them to hear those cases. We could allow the cases to go to the Magistrates' Court for trial, but sentencing would happen in the Crown Court, so that the power to give stiffer sentences would not be lost. What is clear without a shadow of a doubt is that we cannot sit on our hands and complain about minutiae that are not really important, when victims, survivors and witnesses will suffer time and again over an industrial dispute that should have been dealt with months ago.

Mr McCrossan: The state of our health service is no longer just a crisis; it is an absolute failure — a failure of the shambolic Executive to get a handle on it. The cost of that failure is being felt every day by families across our communities. As MLAs, we hear about those challenges every day. Poor access to care has severe consequences: late diagnosis, delayed treatment and overstretched services are directly impacting on outcomes, particularly for cancer patients. When people are diagnosed late, treatment is more aggressive, more traumatic and far less likely to succeed. That is not just unavoidable; it is the result of systemic failure.

What makes the situation even worse is the lack of accountability in our health service. When things go wrong, no one seems to be responsible; families cannot get answers; complaints go unanswered; and lessons are not learned. Communication is often poor or non-existent at the very moment when people are frightened, vulnerable and desperate for clarity. That is just poor administration and is totally unacceptable.

It is not abstract to me. Over the Christmas period — a difficult time for a lot of people — I lost a very good friend, Pat McLaughlin. He was diagnosed with cancer and survived for only a few short weeks. He passed away, surrounded by his family, on Boxing Day. His family were robbed of time that they should have had, and his story is a stark reminder of the brutal reality of late diagnosis.

As I speak, another good friend of mine, Martina Ward, aged 62, is being laid to rest. Martina fought that illness with courage and dignity, but she, too, has been taken far too soon. Her family is burying a loved one today, and, sadly, is far from alone. On behalf of the House, I offer my condolences to her son Adam and the Ward family.

Constituents now tell me that they are anxious about going to hospital, anxious about overcrowding, anxious about cancelled appointments, anxious about being left waiting without explanation, and anxious about a system that they no longer trust to be there when they need it most. That fear should shame those who are responsible for running our health service. That may be blunt but, unfortunately, it is very much the reality. Let us be clear: the system is in disarray. It is a shadow of its former self and all that the NHS was designed to achieve. Staff are exhausted and demoralised, holding together a broken system through sheer dedication, whilst political leadership has failed to deliver the reform and urgency required. It is not acceptable. The Executive have had years to act and have failed for years to do so. Behind every delay is a family living with fear, and behind every late diagnosis is a life put at risk. Accountability cannot be optional. Time is critical, and action must be swift in order to save lives. The people whom we represent deserve a health service that saves lives, not excuses from the Executive, who are clearly not delivering on the issue. They need to be honest with the people about whether they are up for the job or not. The Executive need to stop dithering and start delivering, with fewer fights over flags. Let us see this place actually fight for the health service and for the people who are affected each and every day.

Mr Gaston: The prospect of Northern Ireland's going to the Commonwealth Games without a flag due to the politicking of the local Commonwealth Games Association amounts to outrageous interference in a settled position. The Ulster banner has proudly represented us at the games since 1934. Why change it now? The simple fact of the matter is that there is no equivalent with broad consent that is recognised across the world as a flag that symbolises Northern Ireland. Whatever spin some may seek to put on it, the reality is that the world associates the Ulster banner with Northern Ireland in the very same way that a red dragon is a symbol of Wales. The Ulster banner is the flag under which generations of athletes from Northern Ireland have competed, won medals and been recognised. Furthermore, it recognises the agreed position under the Belfast Agreement that Northern Ireland is and remains part of the United Kingdom. Moving away from a flag that beautifully marries distinctly Irish and British symbols is an attack upon that constitutional reality.

Finally, I remind the House that in many sports — athletics, boxing, cycling and a host of others — sportsmen and women must compete under the Irish tricolour at the Olympics. Tellingly, none of those who have been vocal about binning the Ulster banner have had much to say, if anything, about that inequality. This morning, I lodged a motion on the issue with the Business Office. I encourage those who share my concerns to sign my motion or, indeed, to put down their own, and I will be happy to support it and sign it. It is time for the Commonwealth Games Association to leave politics to the politicians, and the Ulster banner must continue to be used as the flag that represents Northern Ireland athletics.

Mr Dunne: I rise to address an issue that affects every community across Northern Ireland, which is road safety, and to highlight the tragic year that we had on our roads in 2025. According to figures provided by the PSNI, 57 lives were lost on our roads last year. Whilst that represents a modest reduction compared with the previous year, when 69 lives were lost, each of those deaths is a real tragedy, leaving a family devastated, lives cut short and communities grieving. One death on our roads is one too many, and, sadly, two lives, as well as the life of an unborn baby, have already been lost just days into the current year. What is particularly concerning is the continuing vulnerability of pedestrians, cyclists and young drivers, and too many lives are being lost due to speeding, distraction, drink or drug driving and simple lapses in judgement and concentration.

Those are not abstract statistics or figures; they are often preventable tragedies and real lives.

Road safety is not solely the responsibility of government or enforcement agencies; it is a shared responsibility. Every time that any of us gets behind the wheel, we all have a duty and a sense of responsibility. Whether we are crossing a road or setting off on a journey, we all have choices to make that can either save or cost lives.

I acknowledge the work of members of our emergency services, who often have to deal with very tragic circumstances upon their arrival at road traffic incidents; road safety partnerships; community organisations and groups such as Road Safe NI; and road victims' groups that are scattered across the country. They work tirelessly all year round, educating, enforcing and responding, often in very difficult circumstances. I thank them for their commitment. However, more must be done. We need to see further investment in safer roads infrastructure, improved road design, better road maintenance and lighting and targeted education campaigns for young and new drivers.

Enforcement alone is not enough. Prevention must be at the heart of our approach. I know that the Executive agreed the road safety strategy 2030, which, rightly, recognises that progress depends not just on enforcement but on education, engineering and ongoing public engagement. As we move through 2026, it is worth noting that the associated road safety action plan 2025-26 has yet to be published, despite our receiving assurances from the Infrastructure Minister on several occasions that it would be published in the summer.

As we remember the 57 lives lost last year, the most meaningful way to honour them is through a renewed commitment to providing safer roads and effective policy and to doing all that we can to prevent more families from suffering the same tragic loss.

Mr McReynolds: Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence for a few moments to acknowledge the birth of my recently born son, Ethan McReynolds. Ethan was born just a few short weeks ago and has completely changed my and my wife's life and thinking. On behalf of us both, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all the consultants, midwives, nurses and staff at the Ulster Hospital and the Holywood Arches medical centre in east Belfast for their input and expertise over the past year and during my wife's pregnancy. I also thank my party leadership and colleagues, who have greatly helped us over the past while with the changes that have come before us as a family.

Friends told me recently when they first met Ethan that 2025-26 is a pretty scary time to welcome a child into the world, and they were right. The manosphere is a thing. Men such as Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson and HSTikkyTokky provide a platform for toxic masculinity for the next generation to consume, and their views are seen as normal and commonplace. My wife and I want to raise Ethan in a way that is loving, empathetic, forward-looking and compassionate in order for him to always help others, be the best that he can be and, ultimately, respect women while doing so. That is so important in this day and age, given the Wild West that is social media, where, in the name of so-called free speech, anything goes but respect.

We see disturbing scenes coming out of America every day, as men, women and children are rounded up and removed from society. Most recently, Renee Good, who had links to Northern Ireland, was murdered in cold blood just days ago by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The US president represents the hatred that he has emboldened, and the vice president has suggested that ICE go door to door to check residency papers. History is now repeating itself.

We are a small country, but we continually punch above our weight. We in the Assembly have a year and a half to make a difference to the lives of everyone here in Northern Ireland, including newborns such as Ethan. Let us do just that by embracing positive politics, showing leadership and not wasting the time that we have left.

Mr Harvey: Christmas is a time of warmth, hope and togetherness, as families are reunited and the busyness of life subsides for a brief moment. Sadly, however, the Christmas period is often a time of great tragedy in our communities. Unfortunately, last Christmas was no different. The sudden death of Mr Callum McVeigh from my constituency following a work-based accident on Christmas Eve has left his family and the community reeling with shock.

Callum was a talented young man in many respects, but he was best known for his abilities on the football pitch, having played for Killyleagh Youth Club Football Club, Knockbreda Football Club, Ards Football Club and Linfield Swifts.

The tributes paid by those clubs and rival clubs over the past few weeks are a testament to how well respected Callum was by all who knew him.

Callum was a member of the loyal orders and Inch Flute Band, and he was formerly a member of Holymount Pipe Band. He was heavily involved in those organisations throughout his teenage years and into his twenties, and he was liked and admired by all who knew him. The tragedy has touched many individuals across the area, in part due to how involved Callum was in community life.

The McVeigh family, well known in the Crossgar area, faced unimaginable grief as they laid their eldest son to rest on 29 December. Few of us could even begin to contemplate what pain and heartache they have experienced since Christmas Eve. There is one, however, who knows it all. I know that the family will take great comfort from the fact that Callum's Saviour, the Lord Jesus, is able to bind their broken hearts, and they can rest in the knowledge that, as a young lad of 21 years of age, at a gospel tent mission in Comber, Callum put his faith and trust in Christ and is now with him, which is far better.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. I call the deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a statement on the forty-fourth summit of the British-Irish Council, which the First Minister and I attended on 4 and 5 December 2025.

The summit was hosted by the Welsh Government in the Vale Resort, South Glamorgan. Heads of delegation were welcomed by the First Minister, Eluned Morgan. The UK Government delegation was led by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer; the Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach; and the Scottish Government were led by their First Minister. The Government of Guernsey were represented by the Chief Minister; the Government of Jersey by the Chief Minister; and the Isle of Man Government by their Chief Minister. A full list of the principal delegates is attached to the statement that has been provided to Members.

The theme of the summit was, "A creative future: unlocking the potential of the creative industries across these islands". The plenary focused on discussion of the development of the screen sectors in each of the member Administrations. The Council discussed the importance of the sector to the creative industries culturally and economically, as well as the opportunities and challenges faced by the sector and the efforts by Administrations to support the industry and those working in it.

The discussion provided us with the opportunity to highlight the positive creative and economic impact that productions such as 'Derry Girls' — as I would call it, "Londonderry Girls" — 'Game of Thrones', 'How to Train your Dragon' and 'Blue Lights' have had, putting us on screens across the world, boosting tourism and our economy, inspiring pride and telling our story. We spoke about sustainability, well-being and diversity in the sector, highlighting initiatives such as NI Screen’s creative industries new entrants (CINE) programme, which widens access to the industry and has a strong focus on those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

We also discussed the importance of collaboration, citing the legacy project of Studio Ulster, which is also legendary, as a transformative investment and an exemplar of partnership working. The impact of innovation and technology was raised, particularly in the context of nurturing and developing talent, as was the need for Governments to work together to attract investment and address shared challenges, such as rising costs and market uncertainty.

Council members briefed colleagues on significant developments in their Administrations and reflected on a number of domestic and international topics of mutual interest. Addressing the recent Budget, we welcomed the removal of the two-child benefit cap and the increase to the minimum wage and the living wage. However, we expressed concern about the decision to freeze income tax thresholds and stressed the need to support business and workers and their families. We also highlighted the pressures faced in particular by our business community .

We advised of the Executive's plans to set their first multi-year Budget in over a decade, providing our Departments with the certainty needed to plan on a longer-term, strategic basis and creating the conditions to drive transformative change in the delivery of public services. In addition, we highlighted the importance of economic growth in improving our public services — a challenge faced by all British-Irish Council members.

Finally, we spoke about the opportunities for collaboration between Governments on the delivery of key infrastructure and in areas such as cybersecurity and energy security.

The Council noted that the next BIC summit will be hosted by the States of Guernsey in July 2026.

Miss Dolan: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. Deputy First Minister, you highlighted the global impact of productions such as 'Derry Girls', 'Game of Thrones' and 'Blue Lights'. Will you confirm that growing the creative industries remains a key strategic priority?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Absolutely. The growth and development of our creative industries has been such a success story for Northern Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years. The fact that Northern Ireland could attract a big HBO production such as 'Game of Thrones' shows how well we are doing to attract investment in that global marketplace. We want to build on that. The money and investment that comes with those big productions has enabled the development of the sector, not just in studio space. Frankly, through the investment from region city deals, we have an absolutely world-leading studio space in Studio Ulster and other facilities in Northern Ireland, but we also have a lot of talent and experience in everything from set and clothes design and make-up for film and TV production to all the logistical aspects. A lot of people do not realise how wide the industry is when it comes to the number of roles and different skills, and we have really developed that. It is a really interesting and exciting opportunity not just for Northern Ireland but for young people who want to get into the industry. When you get those skills, you do not just get the opportunity to work in Northern Ireland; people with those skills can travel to work on productions all over the world. The industry is incredibly important for us.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for the statement, deputy First Minister. I am incredibly proud of the creative industries in Northern Ireland. We punch way above our weight in many aspects of the creative industries. You talked about the ambition that we have in Northern Ireland and about unlocking potential. A lot of that starts in our communities. It is our community facilities that help us grow the creative industries and drive our economy. I am really concerned that we are cutting support for that lifeblood of our creative industries. In recent months, a number of arts sector organisations have been closed down in Derry because of a lack of good relations funding and funding from the Department for Communities.

Mr Speaker: Can we have the question? We have had the speech.

Ms McLaughlin: Some 70% of Arts Council funding goes to the greater Belfast area. What are we going to do to create regional balance in growing the real potential that we have in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We have an incredible third sector — the community and social sector — in Northern Ireland. I have said it before from this position, but I truly believe that we have one of the best third sectors, if not the best one, anywhere on the globe. That has come about not by accident but because of sustained investment from the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Government and through some of the big international funds, be that PEACE funding or US funding. That has supported our third sector, but the sector would not be what it is without the incredible talent that exists and the hard work that is done in communities throughout Northern Ireland. At times, things can be fiscally difficult. The demand will, of course, always outstrip supply, and we try our best to support as many organisations as possible. I am aware of the particular challenges caused by the ending of the funding that the Member referenced. I have received correspondence about that. The key thing is to mainstream the sense of creativity and the arts focus by using not just Arts Council funds but the funds that we supply through Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), Urban Villages, the Community Relations Council, race relations funding and, indeed, even the ending violence against women and girls strategy, because focusing on the activities and groups in that space can be really useful as well.

We see a good commonality across all our funds, but you are absolutely right that organisations need additional support. We want to sustain that support. It is an important pipeline for young people to come into those types of careers, which we really want and need them to come into.

Ms Bradshaw: Apologies, Mr Speaker, that I was late for the start of the speech, and thank you, deputy First Minister, for the statement. It seems that it was a positive meeting. That is exactly what the British-Irish Council should meet about. My concern is that, as well as collaborating, we are competing across these islands. Much of your statement related to future-proofing the sector, which will require investment. Will you update the House on the draft investment strategy 2050?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The investment strategy is under active consideration. There have been a number of key developments, including the opportunity of a four-year capital Budget, which needs to be fed into that process. The Finance Minister put some proposals out for consultation. The Member will be aware that part of the challenge with capital investment is that the tail of delivery on capital projects is such that much of the capital that we have and will have over the next three to four years will be spent on projects that were announced five or 10 years ago. That is a challenge. As is the case with any Administration, the Executive have ambition. We have our priorities for what we want to do. It is key that we look at how we can best use that capital investment and maximise it.

The Member raised an important point, which we raised at the plenary session of the British-Irish Council, about the need for us to collaborate, not compete. At a previous session of the British-Irish Council, we looked at renewable energy and green technologies. That sector is similar, in that it is one in which we should not be competing with each other by developing similar facilities across different parts of the UK, which will subsequently compete for work. Instead, we should look at taking a complementary, supplementary approach.

We highlighted Studio Ulster, which saw huge investment through the Belfast region city deal. That is unique across these isles; it is at the cutting edge of technology. I do not profess to understand all the details of what it can do, but its potential is huge. We will, hopefully, use that, as we should, to attract big investments on a global scale. We do not, however, want to compete with other parts of these islands with the same facility. It is incredibly important that we continue to collaborate. The British-Irish Council and other such forums are ideal for that, not just during the plenary sessions but at all the bilaterals and other discussions.

Mr Brett: I welcome the deputy First Minister's statement. I thank her for showcasing Studio Ulster in particular, not just because it is in the heart of my constituency but because the funding was secured under this party's confidence-and-supply agreement. The global premiere of 'A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms', a prequel to 'Game of Thrones', will take place on Sunday. That will put Northern Ireland on the world map once again.

In your statement, deputy First Minister, you referenced market uncertainty. One of the greatest market uncertainties is for car dealerships in Northern Ireland and is a result of the Windsor framework, which is supported by the parties opposite. The National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) has been clear that —

Mr Speaker: A question, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: — jobs will be lost if changes are not made. What representations did you make to the UK Government so that we can ensure that car dealerships in Northern Ireland are not another victim of EU overreach?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is critical that every member of the Executive and every Member in this place takes every opportunity to champion our industries in Northern Ireland; that includes our creative industries, which includes Studio Ulster. That investment will be realised only if we can showcase and promote it so that there is an international awareness of it, and that we therefore secure incoming contracts.

The Member also pointed out, rightly, that there are a number of challenges to our economy, including some of the continued uncertainty and, indeed, barriers that continue to be put up by the Windsor framework. One of the big benefits of the British-Irish Council is not just the plenary sessions and the topic of focus but the fact that we can have a series of political bilaterals not only with representatives from the other devolved regions and nations, such as Scotland and Wales, with whom we had bilaterals, but with the Prime Minister. That was an opportunity for the First Minister and me to raise a large number of issues. We took that opportunity, and I raised the issue of GB-registered cars with the Prime Minister. There was a commitment from him to look at the issue. The Member will be aware of further developments and considerations by the UK Government to try to deal with the issue. I believe that highlighting that issue directly to the Prime Minister in early December helped to try to get that moving. I understand that a paper had been circulated to Cabinet Ministers and that it had not moved. Raising the issue with the Prime Minister directly will, hopefully, have helped to get movement on that decision.

That shows the benefit of having direct engagement with the Prime Minister on issues of importance to Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, deputy First Minister. I declare an interest as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) Committee A. I note from your statement that there were discussions about energy security and cybersecurity. When you had the opportunity, did you raise the concerns that many have expressed about the Irish Government's lack of security in looking after our critical national infrastructure, which includes cables, gas pipelines and particularly our cyber-links?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. Those are relevant global issues for every jurisdiction: for us, the rest of the UK and, indeed, these isles. The British-Irish Council is an opportunity to bring together not just the nations and regions and the central Government of the UK but all the isles around the British Isles and the Irish Government. It is a good opportunity to raise such issues. We had bilaterals not just with the Prime Minister but with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (CDL) — I think that he goes by a different title at the moment, but, effectively, it is that role that he plays — at which we raised that issue. We also raised it with the Taoiseach, particularly in relation to underground and underwater cables and the threats to them in the context of global security.

As I said, the previous BIC meeting was on green and renewable energies and technologies, while this one was on the creative industries. I took the opportunity at both meetings to raise energy security and broader security issues. Technology can play an important part. For example, I visited a very good company, Camlin, in my constituency that does an awful lot of pipe security work, and it uses technology to check on the security of such cables. There is huge potential with that when it comes to our defence requirements as well. I urge the Prime Minister and, indeed, the CDL to seize the opportunities from those emerging technologies and to recognise in a real way, as we saw during storm Éowyn, how critical electricity security, energy security and other issues are to absolutely everything that we do.

Ms Murphy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. She commented on the multi-year Budget, but does she agree that the Budget settlement from Westminster is grossly inadequate and falls far short of what we require in order to deliver high-quality public services for everyone?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The multi-year Budget process presents a really good opportunity for all of us to try to secure something that builds the foundations for growth and for stable, positive and good public services in Northern Ireland. We should seize that opportunity.

The Member is right that there is not a significant amount of additional money to go towards priorities, and that is why I have urged the Finance Minister to look at each of the departmental baselines. What happens during the Budget process is that we tend to roll forward the baselines that existed in the previous Budget period. The hundreds of budget lines that sit within those baselines need to be rigorously examined, particularly for prioritisation and efficiency and to drive down waste. We need to look not just at how much money is required but at how we use that money. It is taxpayers' money, so we have an obligation and a responsibility to use it in the best way possible. There are opportunities, and I urge the Finance Minister to look at the feedback from the consultation and then try to reach consensus across the Executive on a Budget that builds the foundations for the economic growth and strong public services that Northern Ireland not just needs but deserves.

Mr Kingston: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. It is welcome that the theme at the summit of the British-Irish Council was the creative industries, which is a particular strength and growth sector of the Northern Ireland economy. I am sure that the deputy First Minister pointed out that, as part of the confidence-and-supply agreement, it was the DUP that secured funding for the city and growth deals, which are a major funder of Studio Ulster. It was a pleasure to attend the launch of Studio Ulster last year along with the deputy First Minister and others. Will she say more about how Studio Ulster is a world-class facility and outline its significance in driving forward our creative industries?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question and, indeed, for highlighting the origin of that funding. When I look back at the 2017-19 Parliament, I recall many challenges and memories, both good and bad, but I am deeply proud that the DUP negotiated hard through the confidence-and-supply deal to secure the city and growth deals for Northern Ireland for the first time. It had been talked about for some time for Northern Ireland. We had not been able to get it over the line with the UK Government, but, through hard negotiation, we secured agreement not just of the Belfast city and growth deal but of multiple deals.

I always find that, when I reference that, there is a sense of discomfort from some other parties, but the reality is that we live in a political world where many people try to claim the success of everything despite playing no part in it. On this one, we were absolutely responsible — 100%, on the record — for securing the city and growth deals, and I am proud of that because we are seeing the results of that in the legacy projects. Studio Ulster is one of those projects. I am pleased that, in my constituency of Lagan Valley, we were able just yesterday to secure planning permission for a £50 million-plus investment in Royal Hillsborough, and that is a direct result of the DUP's confidence-and-supply agreement.

Studio Ulster is a world-class facility, and it is something we should be deeply proud of. There is a real opportunity. If we are developing something that is on the cutting edge of technology, we also need to be acutely aware that it moves on rapidly. We have a window where the facility is world-leading, and we need to take the opportunity in the next number of weeks, months and years to make sure that we seize the opportunity presented by a world-leading facility to secure the contracts now, before other places catch up in two, three or four years' time. It is an amazing facility, and I encourage everybody thinking about investing to come and look at it, and we are more than happy to facilitate visits from investment groups to Northern Ireland to see what we have to offer in that space.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement and the update. In her answers, she mentioned collaboration a number of times: does she agree that all our people here are best served by working together on a North/South, east-west basis consistent with the Good Friday Agreement?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Of course, the ideal is that everyone collaborates. I note that, shortly after the British-Irish Council, the Irish Government announced a tax incentive to try to draw screen productions to the Republic of Ireland, and we do not have that tool in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I urged the Prime Minister to look at some of those tax-reduction incentives to encourage film and high-end TV production not just in the UK as a whole but regionally. London and the south-east of England attract a lot of high-end TV production in comparison with the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland’s achievement of attracting Game of Thrones was a good example of how, if other regions attract such productions, there is a huge benefit for them. That point was backed up by the Welsh, Scottish and other Governments. The UK Government should look at a differential tax incentive package to encourage investment outside London, particularly for high-end TV work, and they should look at the Republic of Ireland's experience and success in using tax incentive packages to attract such international investments to their jurisdiction.

Mr Brooks: I thank the deputy First Minister for her contribution so far. I represent a constituency that has Titanic Studios and Loop Studios, as well as myriad other creative industries, and they will be glad to hear about the work that is going on on their behalf.

I will move on to one of the other important issues, and the deputy First Minister touched on something similar earlier. Did she take the opportunity to raise the important issue of veterinary medicines with the Prime Minister during the summit?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: While I have mentioned Studio Ulster quite a bit, I also want to recognise the other excellent studios, including those that the Member mentioned — Titanic Studios and Loop Studios in his constituency — which do incredible work and are also expanding, and that is good to see.

Again, the Member is absolutely right. As highlighted, while the focus was on the creative industries, there were opportunities to have bilateral discussions directly with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other key members of the UK Government and to work with our colleagues — the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland, and others — in support of what we are trying to do.

The issue that the Member referenced in relation to veterinary medicines is particular to Northern Ireland. It is something that I have consistently raised at every single meeting with the Prime Minister; Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is the lead in relation to the EU-UK negotiations; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and others. Unfortunately, I feel that there was a slowness in taking those issues into account, but I am on record as raising it at every single opportunity. We had the opportunity of direct engagement with Nick Thomas-Symonds a couple of months ago, and I raised with him the many emails that I had received from pet owners, particularly in relation to the company-to-consumer supply chain. At that meeting, he asked me to forward some of that information, so I put out a call on social media for people who had received those emails to forward them to me to evidence the concerns on the issues, and many people did that. I forwarded those emails to Nick Thomas-Symonds, and he responded to me. The UK Government have taken a series of actions on the back of that, but they are not sufficient. They are better than they were, but they are not sufficient.

I have urged the UK Government to address that issue fundamentally, and I took the opportunity at the British-Irish Council to raise directly with the Prime Minister the significant concerns and problems that the continued lack of EU-UK agreement on veterinary medicines for Northern Ireland is creating. The UK Government need to address this urgently. The current arrangement should only be a transitional arrangement pending a full and substantive agreement with the European Union to sort out the issue and to ensure that consumers and vets here in Northern Ireland are able to fully access all GB veterinary medicines.

Mr Gildernew: I think the deputy First Minister for the statement. I note that the Minister has advised that the Executive plan to set their first multi-year Budget in over a decade, providing Departments with the certainty needed to plan on a longer-term strategic basis and creating the conditions to drive improvements in public services and provide better support to our creative and artistic sector. Notwithstanding the damage done by years of austerity and sustained underfunding by the British Government, does the deputy First Minister agree that our collective focus must now be on developing the multi-year Budget that she referenced so that Departments can plan more strategically?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important and timely question. That is the task for the Executive. That is the challenge that we all have: to try to secure that agreement and get a multi-year Budget. There is a great opportunity here. As I have indicated, that opportunity is to build the foundations for growth, build strong foundations for good public services for everyone and make sure that we set down the foundations that we need to address those long-standing issues, should those be in relation to the lack of capital investment for special educational need facilities, giving the Communities Minister sufficient money to be able to build social houses to meet the target as set out in the Programme for Government, giving the Education Minister enough money to ensure teacher pay parity and make sure that our young people get the education that they deserve, or addressing the capital issues in water and sewerage infrastructure. We need a credible plan that addresses and resolves those issues within a credible time frame. Those are all key. There is an opportunity do that, and I urge the Finance Minister to work with colleagues to seize that opportunity, and not just with the additional money that is there. We know that the additional money is not going to be sufficient. That efficiency needs to be driven right across government to make sure that we reprioritise that money to where it needs to be in order to build a stronger, better Northern Ireland and provide better public services for everybody.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. The creative industries have had huge economic benefit, but it goes deeper than that. There is a psychological impact where young people feel proud to live here and can imagine having the opportunity to work in those industries. At times of financial constraint, the arts are usually the first to lose funding, and space is something that we hear about from the sector, whether it is 'Blue Lights' using Netherleigh House or artists in the city centre needing studio space. Was there any discussion about how we can be more creative in facilitating our creative industries? Is there any discussion around how we could even use the Civil Service estate in the meantime or to support our industries, given that investment is hard to come by? What else can we do to support our industries?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is a very relevant question and is probably one that is more for the Executive and Departments here to look at. She is absolutely right; we are sitting on an estate with some historic properties that are perhaps underutilised. We should try, right across Northern Ireland, to be a creative industries-friendly place, so that we can facilitate some of those productions. That has the benefit not just of bringing jobs and investment but of showcasing the best of Northern Ireland. Global audiences are looking at that, even in the sports space. The North West 200 and the golf are great productions that showcase our physical and built environment, and that attracts people who say, "Wow, I would not mind visiting there". There is a huge opportunity with that.

The British-Irish Council summit provided an opportunity to talk about where we can collaborate on an isles basis. When the Prime Minister was there, we took the opportunity to make a pitch around what he could be doing to support those industries. That is why my number-one ask in my contribution was a tax incentive package, particularly in relation to high-end television productions. We had a good briefing from NI Screen before that, and I know that that was something that NI Screen particularly wanted us to raise. I believe that we got a really good opportunity to make that pitch. Fortunately, a number of other places came in to back that up as well. That is certainly something that we will be following up on.

Mr Gaston: It would appear, from reading the statement, that at no stage during the summit did the Northern Ireland delegation raise the most pressing problem that faces Northern Ireland in the context of the British Isles, namely the border in the Irish Sea, which, day by day, erodes our Union. That is not mentioned at all in your statement, deputy First Minister, under "Latest political developments". Did you raise it at that stage and, if so, why is not in your statement? Did you fail the unionist people by not raising it during the main summit, when you had each nation sitting at the same table? It is a problem that affects not just Northern Ireland but businesses in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr Speaker: Deputy First Minister?

Mr Gaston: Did you raise it at that stage?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is clear that the Member did not bother to listen to some of the questions that I have already responded to. The Member will be aware that the statement highlights the broad issues. I am here to answer questions about the detail of that. I have mentioned those issues on a number of occasions in the Chamber, but he has, nevertheless, decided to read out his pre-written question. I can assure the Member and the Assembly that, as I have already indicated, I raised the matter a number of times, including in the plenary session but particularly in the bilateral with the Prime Minister, and with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I also raised the very particular issues of veterinary medicines, the potential ending of the derogation in relation to GB-registered vehicles and the continued unnecessary and disproportionate barriers faced by businesses. The First Minister is in the House, and she will know that I relentlessly raise those issues at every meeting. It is a big issue that does not need to be there, and the UK Government need to step up and address it. It is an issue that only the UK Government can address. Look at acute issues such as veterinary medicines: we got a statement put out in late December, and we got some mitigations, despite the fact that I had been raising concerns about that directly for 18 months. Even what came out of that, however, is not adequate. I will continue to make that case, because I absolutely believe that many of the barriers that still exist because of the Windsor framework are there because the UK Government have not stepped up and done what they promised to do, which was to ensure unfettered trade across this United Kingdom. Those aspects are completely disproportionate and unnecessary, and they should be removed. I will continue to raise those issues at every opportunity.

Mr Martin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. Was there much discussion at BIC regarding the recent UK Budget? Does she agree that, as we approach our own Budget discussions in Northern Ireland, it is incredibly important that we fund the PFG priorities adequately?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my previous answer, there is always a focus at the British-Irish Council on that subject, but there is also always an opportunity to raise a wide range of issues. The First Minister raises a number of issues; we raise issues jointly; and I raise issues. We do that at the plenary session and at the bilaterals.

I take every opportunity to champion Northern Ireland and to raise a wide range of issues, including the Budget. Again, at every opportunity when we have engaged with the UK Government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, we have urged a Budget that supports public services but also economic growth. I raised directly with the Prime Minister that I believe that all of the Budget events under this Labour Government have been missed opportunities for building a Budget for economic growth across the UK. We need economic growth in Northern Ireland, but, importantly, we need economic growth across the UK to raise tax income and get the economy going in order to invest in our public services. We know that our public services, particularly in health and education, are crying out for funds. Everyone who sees a pothole on a road or a bucket in a school corridor knows that that is not good enough. We want to be able to invest and address those issues.

We raised a number of issues. We welcomed the abolition of the two-child limit, but I raised concern that that was being lifted on the back of a tax threshold freeze for ordinary working families. We should not raise benefits on the back of hard-working, squeezed-middle families. The UK Government need to rethink their approach. While we called for the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and that happened, the freezing of income tax thresholds will have an impact on the pockets of every hard-working family across Northern Ireland. That was a missed opportunity, and we once again urge the Government to invest in public services and ensure in future economic events that they invest in growing the economy.

In particular, I raised the issue of a VAT pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. That has been pushed for hard. Hospitality organisations across the UK are content that Northern Ireland hold a pilot on that. Our hospitality industry is under huge pressure. Every week, we see pubs, restaurants and cafes closing. They are really struggling because of the increase in food inflation and other issues. They need support, and I fully support a VAT reduction, even on a pilot basis initially. I urged the Prime Minister to do that pilot, and he undertook to have conversations about how it could happen. That is certainly an issue that we will follow up on robustly.

Mr Honeyford: Mr Speaker, apologies for missing the very start of the statement.

I really welcome the statement: it is essential that our voice is heard at the British-Irish Council, and it is positive that opportunities are created at it. The focus this time was on economic collaboration, which is vital for us, especially our arts and screen industries. I really welcome that.

You talked about giving a bit more detail, Minister. I heard a lot of your statement, but can you give us any more detail on how, practically, that collaboration will work and lead to a result for people on the ground through jobs, skills and opportunities? How will it work out in practice?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I see this working at different levels and layers. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister attended. He was there throughout the entire plenary session, and he was able to listen not just to what we have to offer but to what we said about the challenges facing the industry.

There are challenges facing the industry. The global investment context is competitive, so we need to constantly evolve and invest, and we need the right tools to attract that investment. That is why, as I said, at the top level, it is very much about getting the UK Government to get their policies right, which potentially includes looking at enhancing the tax reduction incentives that the Government can offer.

As I mentioned, the Republic of Ireland has long had tax-reduction incentives for the creative industries, and it has had huge success in its creative industries on the back of those. Since the British-Irish Council meeting, which was very recent, the Republic of Ireland Government have announced a further tax incentive package for the creative industries. I would like to see the UK Government doing the same because, if we are competing in the global marketplace for that investment and both we and the Republic of Ireland are making a pitch, there is an element of competition, and what you can offer productions is key.

I am really proud of the people who work in the sector. We have high-class, high-quality and highly skilled people in the industry, and we have some of the best built and natural heritage as an offering. However, we need to not be at a disadvantage when it comes to the tax incentive packages that Northern Ireland Screen can offer as part of those negotiations. In addition, we must make sure that this is mainstreamed within the skills agenda in the Department for the Economy and through working with our further and higher education colleges. Indeed, it has to start earlier than that: we want to encourage young people from primary school up to look at creative industries on both the imagination and the technical sides of things, because we will need all those skills if our creative industries are to fulfil their potential and our ambition for them.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the deputy First Minister for her welcome statement on the British-Irish Council. I also thank her for shouting loud and proud for Northern Ireland in every direction that she can. I had the pleasure of working with the deputy First Minister for a considerable time, and I saw at first hand her passion and love for this place and everybody in it.

I want to give the deputy First Minister another opportunity to tell us more about how, when she was with the Prime Minister, she raised the issue of taxation — VAT in particular — in relation to our incredibly vital tourism and hospitality sector.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank Pam for her question and for all the hard work that she put into the junior Minister position. It was a real honour and pleasure to work with Pam over that period, and I thank her for her kind words.

I am deeply proud of Northern Ireland. We have so many incredible strengths here, not just in innovation, creativity and the strength of our businesses but in our highly skilled, dedicated and passionate people, who can give so much. I am so proud to have the opportunity to champion Northern Ireland, not just in Northern Ireland at business events, dinners, breakfasts and everything else but on the global stage. It is often a very easy sell, when we talk about all the incredible strengths that Northern Ireland has. We need to build on that. Northern Ireland needs champions. We need to send the message loud and clear not only that Northern Ireland is open for business but that Northern Ireland, with our skills and what else we have to offer, has so much to give to those global companies and to other jurisdictions.

The Member is absolutely right: we and the UK Government need to get the foundations for growth right. The UK needs economic growth. That will not happen by accident; it will happen with the right budget, the right tax framework and the right investment in and encouragement of skills to make not just the UK but Northern Ireland attractive for that investment. I will keep championing that cause with the UK Government to ensure that the tools that we get are real game changers in getting the economic growth that allows Northern Ireland to truly flourish.

Ms Brownlee: I apologise for not being here at the start of the statement.

Deputy First Minister, I welcome the statement. As has been discussed, there is clearly a strong theme regarding the creative industries, which are absolutely critical to the Northern Ireland economy. Will you provide some more detail on how critical the creative industries are to the economy? What can we do to ensure that we remain competitive in a highly competitive global market so that we are front and centre and achieve what we want to?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware of the successes, some of which I have referenced. It is not just high-end international film production such as 'Game of Thrones'; locally made programmes, such as 'Derry Girls' and 'Blue Lights', which employ huge numbers of people, are also so important and showcase so many of our locations. We all watch them and see our towns, villages and areas, which is excellent. We need to have an approach that targets all types of creative industry investment. That includes films. 'How to Train Your Dragon' was filmed in part in Northern Ireland, and it was another big global success recently. There is the high-end TV production and then local production.

We will get that creativity only if we invest in and encourage the right skills and education. That is very much what we want to do. When we look back over the past 10 to 15 years, we see that there have been significant developments in our sectors. Some of those are in professional services. This morning, we had the opportunity to meet the Australian Acting High Commissioner to talk about the growth in professional legal services, advanced engineering and other sectors. However, the creative industries are another sector in which there has been huge growth . It is very much one of the key sectors that we continue to champion at every investment opportunity and meeting that we attend.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Brooks: I beg to move

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

David, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The motion goes to the very heart of what the DUP has consistently said: Northern Ireland should not and must not be treated as a place apart within the United Kingdom. When it is, the result is damaging for ordinary men and women, consumers, families and businesses. Under the protocol, businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland remain at the mercy of EU customs rules when buying online. The absurdity of the situation is that parcels that arrive from Great Britain — from within our own country — are perversely regarded as trade from a third country. That is not just bureaucratic nonsense; it clearly undermines the principle of consent enshrined in agreements to which some Members in the Chamber have feigned devotion but which, when it has suited them, they have shown a willingness to dispatch when it better fits their own aspirations.

The motion is necessary because Brussels has decided to impose a new €3 customs duty on small parcels from 1 July 2026 on consignments below €150. That charge is part of broader EU customs reform that aims to abolish the exemption on parcels of €150 altogether and may be accompanied by additional handling fees later in 2026. Whether we call it a "levy" or "fee", it remains an additional cost on parcels levied by a foreign, unaccountable authority whose writ should have no place in Northern Ireland. If the charges were to be applied to movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, prices here would rise, and choice would shrink again. Small businesses would have to navigate needless hoops again. Customers would be bitten by Brussels again.

Let us remember how we got here. Article 5 of the protocol entrenched EU customs law in Northern Ireland for goods movements, and the EU's customs code continues to apply when goods enter Northern Ireland. That is not good for Northern Ireland consumers, its businesses or its economy. When the Europhiles on the Benches opposite zealously defend the EU like a football fan who has picked their team and will see no fault in it, we should recognise — indeed, they should recognise — that, in doing so, they are actively picking the interests of the EU over solutions for Northern Ireland and our people. When Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance chose in late 2024 to support the continuation of arrangements that kept article 5 intact, which kept Northern Ireland aligned to EU customs rules, that was a disservice. They are now posturing by speaking against tax rises from London while tolerating Brussels picking the pockets of people in Northern Ireland with levies that are not applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom.

We have been on similar ground before. My party's action prior to the Windsor framework forced changes on parcels. Our pressure meant that many of the worst bureaucratic demands on parcels were set aside. However, we also warned that it was not a permanent fix; it was a political sticking plaster. It merely treated symptoms rather than the cause: the recurring parasite of the continued primacy of EU law. Meanwhile, real-world consequences have mounted. The Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has tracked shrinkage in choice, noting that, even by February 2025, a significant number of retailers still did not deliver to Northern Ireland. That is a tangible, measurable loss to households.

When the new EU general product safety regulation (GPSR) came into force here in December 2024, we all heard about small UK firms stopping shipments to Northern Ireland rather than add to their compliance burden. That is the impact of the imposition of EU law on Northern Ireland.

Some will argue that the measure is aimed at small parcels from China in order to counter Chinese fast fashion from companies such as SHEIN or at the influx of cheap foreign goods from platforms such as Temu and DHgate. It seems that the primary aim is to try to close off the incentive that sees such companies send large-value orders in smaller packages of under €150 in order to avoid paying fees. The UK grapples with similar issues, although, as with many issues that we deal with on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the differing timelines leave Northern Ireland consumers vulnerable to charges, costs and obstacles that are not applicable elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The question therefore is this: why must the measure apply to Northern Ireland? I hope that other parties in this place would choose Northern Ireland interests over the needless zealotry of Brussels bureaucracy. It goes back to the point that we have made repeatedly at the Committee, which is that, often, the subjectively positive aims of the EU's legislating on any issue, and whether such legislation would be successful in achieving something deemed positive, unless properly balanced against all its impacts on Northern Ireland businesses and communities, should have no bearing.

Although I respect the interests of other nations and their right to make their own decisions, I care much less about what legislation achieves for people in France or Italy than I do about its impact here. How does the measure impact on consumers? How does it impact on our businesses and our communities? It is why the UK, and, in devolved areas, the Assembly, not foreign powers, should have responsibility for its own laws. Even where we have similar interests, we should have the freedom to decide how we choose to deal with issues. If we had Brexit, we would. Those, however, who tell us repeatedly that that is the cost of Brexit deliberately ignore the fact that this is evidence that we have never been granted the Brexit that the largest ever democratic exercise in this country voted for. Instead, we have special status, or rigorous implementation — call the constitutional outrage what you will — but it is not the Brexit that was promised by Vote Leave or warned about by Remain, which would have seen Northern Ireland treated similarly to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Currently, goods brought into Northern Ireland from Great Britain face no customs fees if the applicable EU rate of duty is zero. If imposed, however, the EU's new flat fee per item will potentially require more local businesses to be signed up to the UK's internal market system, with all the time, cost and upheaval that that entails. That scheme currently allows goods staying within the UK to maintain some level of facilitation when moving to our part of the United Kingdom, even where the relevant EU tariff is higher than the UK's. How the Government respond to that threat will ultimately be a test of whether they have the backbone or inclination to resist the emergence of additional trade barriers within the United Kingdom. It is concerning that the announcement seems to have caught officials off guard, and it adds to the concern that is often raised at the Committee about the lack of appropriate horizon scanning or engagement at Whitehall. Those cannot be solely desktop, tick-box exercises.

Our circumstances are as a result of UK Government actions. A sitting UK Government must own and live up to their responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. That Whitehall was blindsided by the Council of the EU's decision undermines the trust that the UK Government expect the people and politicians of Northern Ireland to place in them. Businesses need clarity now. Complexity is already evident in Royal Mail and carrier guidance. There are also UK internal market scheme (UKIMS) registrations, reduced datasets and risk-based interventions, with the slightest EU changes able to shift the ground under our traders. We know that independent retailers and microsellers have already struggled with GPSR compliance. Adding customs fees and handling charges to low-value items is and will be for some a bridge too far. Consumers here will pay more than their counterparts in Great Britain if the EU-imposed costs are passed on to them. The disconnect between the EU and the UK timetables only worsens uncertainty. Legal and trade experts are already warning that the EU reform brings in platform responsibilities, new fee lines and administrative weight.

The motion is not abstract but a test of the Starmer Government's mettle.

The UK Government must explicitly reject any new customs duty on parcels moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. They must restore sovereignty and decision-making over UK trade, and they must defend the integrity of the UK internal market, ensuring that there is no disparity in the treatment of low-value parcels between GB and NI. Where facilitations under the UK internal market scheme or partial easements no longer provide equal protection, Ministers must use the framework's legal mechanisms and notify the Joint Committee. However, if Brussels then refuses to listen within 30 days, and we revert to the original protocol provisions, that simply demonstrates the democratic deficit that we have condemned from day 1.

The clear solution is the end of EU law in Northern Ireland, but, short of the UK Government coming to that realisation in the immediate term, there are practical and reasonable steps that the UK Government must take. They must guarantee that consumer parcels from GB face no customs duty or handling fee not applied by the UK Government across the UK and that the parcels staying within the UK internal market are shielded, without the imposition of further registration burdens on honest traders. If the EU's own regulation preamble claims that 2023 parcel simplifications are not affected, we must codify an explicit exemption for Northern Ireland for movements from GB. We don't need warm words but guarantees.

Unionists have been consistent: no internal borders in our own country; no foreign customs codes over our domestic trade. The people of Northern Ireland should not pay to receive a birthday present from Glasgow or a spare part from Birmingham.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Brooks: We must stand up for local traders and households.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time's up, David.

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Ms Ferguson: Here we are again, with the DUP attempting to stoke up fears in relation to customs in the full knowledge that global customs are undergoing significant changes in relation to e-commerce in the EU, the US and, indeed, Britain, including in the removal of low-value import exemptions in major markets. However, I stand confident as ever that the public see the motion for the political stunt that it is. Rather than breathing any air into it, I remind those in the Benches opposite that, despite the DUP's backing Britain's failed Brexit agenda, we managed to mitigate some of the very worst excesses of their act of political sabotage on our island, on our businesses and on our people. We protected dual market access and provided businesses with strengthened trade continuity and economic stability through the implementation of the Windsor framework agreement. Whilst it is now for the European Union and the British Government to work through the challenges arising from Britain's failed Brexit agenda, in truth, the DUP is all too aware of that, too. However, with elections looming, its Members want to bring another nonsense motion as though they can rehash fundamental protections that we have already managed to secure.

While the DUP dismissed the real warnings that Brexit would be bad for so many sectors in the North and for our economy, and whilst the British Government ignored the democratic mandate of our people, we began working to secure fundamental protections against the very worst excesses. We continue to refuse to allow you to mix and stir real fear amidst our working-class communities in the full knowledge that Brexit is a child of the DUP. Let us be clear here: responsibility for the current Brexit outworkings stands firmly at your door. That is an indisputable fact. It is time to own that fact.

Mr Tennyson: In a similar vein to Ms Ferguson, I say, "You won, lads. Cheer up". You won the referendum; you got the Brexit that you wanted. I appreciate that Mr Brooks said:

I agree that it was not, but the rest of us knew. The rest of us knew not to throw our lot in with Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or the European Research Group (ERG). The rest of us knew that, no matter what was written on the side of the big, red bus about £350 million for the NHS, the DUP would inevitably end up under that bus.

I take issue with what was said on consistency. It was claimed that the DUP has always been consistent on these issues, so let us put that to bed. In January 2024, the then leader of the DUP, Jeffrey Donaldson, said:

In February 2024, Gavin Robinson, crowing about what the DUP had delivered, said:

We are now being told, quite openly, by Members from the same party that that was not true.

Let us ground ourselves in the facts of the issues. The fact is that, when you come out of the customs union, you create a customs border. It then becomes a question of whether that customs border is on land, at a porous land border that people and communities cross daily, or whether it happens in the Irish Sea. The Windsor framework, which the motion decries, includes flexibilities and safeguards, and the legislative text of the EU customs reform says that it will not diminish the protections that have arisen from the Windsor framework, such as the UK internal market scheme for business-to-business trade and the UK carrier scheme and arrangements for business-to-consumer and consumer-to-consumer parcels, so there will be protections. We should be vigilant, of course, as the EU legislation progresses, so that the UK Government stand up for our concerns and ensure that there are no additional barriers. I absolutely would support a call for that, but that is not what the motion seeks to achieve.

The obvious solution, which the DUP is not prepared to grapple with, is a UK-EU customs border to ensure that the UK and the EU collaborate on the issues and that there are no barriers, checks or tensions anywhere on these islands. That is essential for us as a shared and interdependent society and a shared and interdependent economy. I welcome the fact that a ten-minute rule Bill was moved in the House of Commons by the Lib Dems — it passed narrowly, by one vote — to introduce a Bill to open negotiations on a UK-EU customs union. That would solve many of the challenges that the party opposite has raised. I just wish that it would join me in my calls and be honest about the steps that need to be taken if we are to remove that Brexit bureaucracy.

Far from creating certainty for businesses and enabling further growth for our businesses, simply rejecting the protections in article 5 of the Windsor framework that the Assembly previously voted for would plunge those businesses into the very same chaos and instability. It is time for honesty. It is time for people to own the consequences of their actions and to level with the public about the trade-offs and choices. We have always been honest about those tensions and trade-offs. What we are interested in now is practical and pragmatic solutions, so that we can continue to build a vibrant and strong economy. I am proud that, under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland's economy has continued to outperform the rest of the UK, and I hope that that can continue, with a bit of pragmatism and flexibility.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the proposer of the motion for raising this important topic. The UUP will support it. I will bring it back to the topic of the EU parcels. We are where we are. Once again, local traders and consumers in Northern Ireland find themselves on the back foot, facing yet another threat of divergence within our United Kingdom. The European Union claims that the new fixed customs fee on small parcels, due from July 2026, is about tackling unfair competition, but, if it is imposed in Northern Ireland, the opposite will happen: prices will rise, choice will fall and small businesses will be hit hardest. The motion is absolutely right. Any additional —.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Given that she seems to be opposed to the idea of removing the small parcel threshold, is she similarly opposed to the proposals that the UK Government are consulting on for the same measure?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diana, you have an extra minute. Thank you.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for that. I just inform you that they will not be debating that until 2029.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Certainly, yes.

Mr Brett: Does the Member agree that our opposition to it is because a decision should be made by our sovereign Government, the United Kingdom Government, not a foreign Government — the EU — which they seem to have more interest in?

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member, who is my colleague on the Economy Committee. He is absolutely right, and I support his comments.

Any additional charge applied here but not in Great Britain creates inequality in the United Kingdom. Suppliers may simply stop shipping to Northern Ireland or pass the cost directly to our consumers.

Let us be clear: that is the reality of the Windsor framework. Those parties that voted in December 2024 to sustain article 5 of the protocol/Windsor framework knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that it would leave Northern Ireland exposed to changes in EU trade policy over which we have no democratic control; yet they proceeded anyway.

We already see the damage in the data. The Office for National Statistics shows that between 2020 and 2024-25, the proportion of GB businesses selling to Northern Ireland fell from 5·7% to 3·9%. In the year up to April 2025, 15·1% of GB firms reported a decline in sales to Northern Ireland. Only 6·2% reported an increase, and 8·3% stopped trading altogether with Northern Ireland. That is not theoretical; that is happening now. Many of our retailers rely on GB suppliers for everyday and niche products. When those supply chains dry up, local businesses just cannot compete, and consumers lose access to goods that are standard elsewhere in the UK.

Some may argue that €3 per parcel sounds minor, but, for low-value items, that is a huge price tag, and, for small businesses shipping high volumes of small goods, those costs spiral rapidly. The result is a two-tier UK economy where people in Northern Ireland pay more and get less. The Assembly should reject that. The UK Government must stand up for Northern Ireland's traders and consumers, restore sovereignty over all aspects of UK trade and make it absolutely clear that no new customs duties will apply to parcels moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Anything less accepts permanent disadvantage for this part of the United Kingdom, and the House should never support that.

Ms McLaughlin: I want to begin by grounding the debate in the reality facing businesses right across Northern Ireland, particularly small and medium-sized firms that are already under pressure from rising costs, labour shortages and fragile supply chains. I meet such businesses regularly, as does every other Member from across the House, and I am acutely aware of the challenges that they face when trading with GB. For many, the Windsor framework has introduced added complexity, additional paperwork and uncertainty that they simply do not have the capacity to absorb, and new customs fees for small parcels will put additional pressure on those small businesses. Those concerns are real. They are legitimate, and they must be addressed.

Small businesses are not interested in constitutional point-scoring. They want predictability, clarity and workable solutions that allow them to trade, grow and provide goods in their local communities. That is why I have consistently said that the issue is not black and white. Yes, the Windsor framework has created real difficulties for traders, particularly, as I said, for small firms moving goods from GB to Northern Ireland, and we need to be honest about that. However, it is also true that the framework plays a critical role in avoiding a hard border on this island and in protecting the peace and stability on which our economy depends. The challenge before us is to deal with both realities at the same time. We need to dismantle the barriers that are making it harder for businesses here to trade with GB while maximising the opportunities that come from our unique dual market access. The dual market access has the potential to be a genuine economic advantage but only if it is supported by serious policy choices and meaningful engagement.

What concerns me about the motion is that it does not meaningfully engage with that complexity. Instead, it reduces a deeply complicated issue to a political dividing line. Motions such as it are rarely genuine attempts to work across parties to chart a better way forward. Too often, they rehearse the old arguments — I am as guilty of that as anybody else — while offering little in the way of practical solutions for the businesses that are struggling now. That brings me to multiple questions that the DUP needs to answer. If the DUP is genuinely concerned about Northern Ireland being subject to decisions that are taken elsewhere, is it now calling for closer alignment with the European Union? Does it support the Prime Minister's call to reset the EU-UK relationship? Does it support the re-establishment of youth mobility? If not, why not? What we see time and time again is a party that stands in the Chamber lamenting a lack of influence whilst rejecting every serious proposal that could deepen engagement —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: If you just let me finish this, I will let you in.

— rebuild trust or give Northern Ireland a stronger voice, whether that is for an EU Commission office in Belfast or observer status in the European Parliament. The DUP cannot argue for influence whilst refusing engagement. You cannot claim to stand up for businesses while you oppose the very steps that would reduce that friction and rebuild confidence.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Her speech is very interesting. She asked us to clarify whether we support the UK's intention to move to closer realignment. Whilst there are vastly different opinions among the parties on that, the core concept for this party is the UK moving in lockstep to ensure that there is reduced friction for businesses in Northern Ireland and, indeed, consumer choice.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for your intervention, Jonny, but this is a classic case of the DUP of cutting off its nose to spite its face. If we are serious about addressing the ongoing damage caused by Brexit, we must also be serious about the solutions. One such solution is for the UK Government to seek negotiations on a UK-EU customs union, which would eliminate much of the duplication, paperwork and uncertainty that our small businesses face whilst boosting economic growth across these islands. That is not about relitigating the past; it is about dealing responsibly with the realities that our business sector faces.

The motion calls for the UK Government to restore:

It does not, however, acknowledge the central truth: we are in this position because of Brexit, which fundamentally reshaped our trading relationships and left Northern Ireland uniquely exposed. Those consequences were foreseeable. They were warned about repeatedly, and they cannot now be disowned.

That does not absolve the UK Government of responsibility. The Secretary of State must recognise the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in and act accordingly, particularly when it comes to protecting small businesses from disproportionate costs and disruption. Anything less would be a failure of leadership, but leadership also means honesty —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: — and I want the DUP to remember that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Much appreciated.

Mr Kearney: The proposed additional charge that the motion references represents an unfair additional burden on customers who are already carrying the pressures of an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. However, the context is the imposition of Brexit, which is the definitive political folly of our times. Of course, the supporters of Brexit were repeatedly told that it would result in predictable and unpredictable adverse consequences, and the charges referenced in the motion are one such example.

Brexit has created new customs and trade conditions for the North, which need to be managed. The Windsor framework has protected our businesses from much of the damage caused by Brexit, but it is not a panacea. The issue of duties on parcels is a friction that requires a practical and pragmatic solution. As I once again said in the Chamber yesterday evening, we must be solution-focused. A resolution to this issue requires engagement by all relevant stakeholders.

Our businesses, customers and consumers do not want to hear spurious attempts to conflate issues of post-Brexit fallout with the rhetoric around the loss of sovereignty. Here is a wee reality check, folks: this is not a constitutional crisis. Our businesses, customers and consumers want us to lobby for the removal of that duty. They will want a solution. What is required here is pragmatism, not posturing. At all times, our focus should be on minimising the frictions created by Brexit and maximising the opportunities of our dual market access, not indulging in the politics of Project Fear.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion, and I thank my colleagues for tabling it. This is a test of which side Members of the House stand. Over the weekend, I read and listened with interest to statements and interviews given by political parties from across the House, in which they said that, when this place returned, they wanted to ensure that politicians are on the side of businesses and consumers. Today, they have an opportunity to do that. Do they stand with consumers in Northern Ireland who, as a result of EU overreach, could have an additional charge of €3 imposed on every single thing that they order from GB that is under €150? Do they stand on the side of businesses that will have their supply chain reduced and their costs increased while the cost of doing business continues to rise?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will not, Eóin. You had five minutes to speak, but you only took three of them. You have had your opportunity to speak.

Today will be that test. Going by the remarks that have been made to date, it is clear on which side the party opposite stands. The Sinn Féin Members who made contributions had an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes in the House. Between them, however, their combined speeches lasted fewer than four minutes. In that time, they could not find it within themselves to criticise the proposals put forward by the European Union. I do not expect the parties opposite to share my objections to the Windsor framework, the constitutional outrage that laws here are made by the European Union, which is not accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, and the fact that this part of the United Kingdom is subject to laws that other parts of the UK are not. However, what I expect them to do is share my concern for consumers and business owners, many of whom are not unionists and do not vote DUP but who see us standing up for them on such important issues.

It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party Member opened by saying that his remarks would be similar to those of the Sinn Féin Member who had just spoken. Well, surprise, surprise; shock, shock. In Mr Tennyson's three-minute contribution on the issue of parcel charges, he could not bring himself to criticise the proposals by the European Union. Instead, he tried to rehash and relive the debate that took place here in 2016.

I pay tribute to the Member from the official Opposition, who has a totally different view from me on the constitutional position and the position of the European Union here in Northern Ireland, because she was the only person who was able to articulate the difficulties that the proposals will have for consumers and businesses. She does not share my view that this is a constitutional outrage, but she spoke about the real and tangible impact that it will have on her constituents and businesses in Foyle. That is why I hope that she will join us in the Lobby to support the motion, providing a clear example that we want to stand up for our businesses and consumers.

I agree with one of the remarks made by Mr Tennyson: the United Kingdom Government, under Keir Starmer, have failed the people of Northern Ireland. He made promises to the people of Northern Ireland and my party that he would fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, and he has failed to do that. I am very happy to stand here and criticise him for his failure to do that. That is why we, like other unionist parties, do not support handing over all the power of this place to that very man.

I will use my voice and my vote in the Assembly to stand up for businesses and consumers across Northern Ireland while I, as a unionist, yes, continue to highlight that absolute constitutional outrage. Today, the people of Northern Ireland will see how their politicians voted. Did they vote to be on their side? Did they vote to put money in the pockets of the European Union or to protect the hard-working people of Northern Ireland?

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: Today's record will reflect that. I will give way.

Ms McLaughlin: Does the Member agree that the words in the motion were used on purpose to divide the House? If you had left out a couple of lines, you would probably have had unanimous support for the motion, but you purposely made it a constitutional issue by using those words. That is why the SDLP will not follow you through the Aye Lobby.

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

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

Parties have opportunities to table motions. The contents of the motion are the beliefs of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Members have the opportunity to table amendments. When the Assembly returned for its first day back yesterday, the opportunity was taken to debate a motion not about the cost-of-living crisis or other issues facing our people but about opening a European Union office in Belfast, and you happily trooped through the Lobbies to support Sinn Féin.

Today, a message will be sent to the people of Northern Ireland. Where does the Alliance Party stand? Where does the SDLP stand? Where does Sinn Féin stand? It is clear: you own this [Interruption.]

You voted for the continuation of the fees, and you have the opportunity to reject them. You can laugh all you want, Mr Tennyson, but, ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland and Upper Bann will have their say very shortly. I am not sure that you will be laughing then.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is Kate Nicholl. Up until now, Mr Brett is the only Member who has not really addressed the substance of the motion but has used it to criticise others. That is democracy, however; that is what this place is for.

Kate, if you do not mind, address the motion. Away you go.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will do my best, but I need to address some things.

The primary issue is that there are question marks about the motivation behind the motion. I agree that it was a deliberate tactic to make it a constitutional question. If a business were to tune in to listen to the debate because it wanted to know the Assembly's view on the new EU customs fee on small parcels, would it feel as if the DUP was standing up for them? I do not know, because most of the contributions have been on the Windsor framework and the impact on democracy. I am sorry, but I do not think that sovereignty is the primary concern when it comes to how you keep your business going, get food on the table and pay your staff. Incidentally, the UK Parliament voted for this; it had its say as a sovereign Parliament.

As an Assembly, we need to talk about practical solutions and to be pragmatic. There are, of course, complexities to the issue. As was said in the opening speech, e-commerce and how we deal with such things is changing. It is something that we will monitor closely. Of course, we care deeply about businesses, how they are impacted and costs to consumers, but I also care deeply about fast fashion, its impact on the environment and on local producers and about how it is a risk to our producers. Those things are complex, and they require considered thought. They do not require politicking, and they do not require us to come back to this conversation. It has been 10 years of saying, "It was Brexit", "It was the Windsor framework" and, again, "It was Brexit". Let us stop having that conversation.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: I will give way. Go ahead.

Mr Brett: I have listened with interest to the discussions. I really admire your commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and to trying to get a solution, but, yesterday, there was a debate about an EU office in Belfast and your party raised no objection. It seems that you criticise us when we bring our concerns about the Brexit process, but you do not criticise the other side when it brings similar issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kate, you have an extra minute.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Here is my issue. Brexit happened. We are on an island, and Brexit forced a border into existence that was going to be either in the sea or on the land. That created friction and change, and there needed to be solutions. We have worked hard to find the best solutions possible. We now have the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit. We look at legislation that is coming forward that will impact on Northern Ireland. We look at it at the very end of the process. I support having an office here, having EU status and having whatever influence we can have, because I care about people in Northern Ireland and about how we make things simpler for them.

The problem is that, whenever we try to have the conversations, it seems as though the DUP's primary concern is how to stave off TUV voters. Its concern is not how to find pragmatic solutions but how to make sure that we are not aligned with the EU in any way and stand against anything that has a tint of EU to it. Let us not do that. We know that you voted for Brexit. We did not want it — we wanted to remain in the EU — but that is how it is. We now need to come up with practical solutions, and we need to look at the issue through that lens. The Chair of the Economy Committee said that businesses from across the political spectrum and with different identities care about this and will be watching, so let us have a conversation about how we can make things simpler for them. Let us stop the politicking. Let us stop blaming one another.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she not accept that the genuine concerns that I have about how our relationship with our UK internal market has been decimated in many ways are legitimate and right to hold and are not held on the basis of what a different party might think or feel? That is legitimately how I and, indeed, my colleagues feel when we continue to face the challenges personally and through our constituents?

Ms Nicholl: There are certainly examples of negative impacts; I do not deny that. I can also see, however, that there has been growth in Northern Ireland. Where we deal with so much of this is with the UK Government. My issue is that there are solutions, as my colleague said. In the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) survey, 50% of businesses said that customs bureaucracy was the biggest problem. A UK EU customs border would bring £25 billion into the Exchequer. There are things that we can do that the DUP just will not consider, and that is because they are to do with the EU. It feels so deeply political. I understand that you have to speak for your base and the people who vote for you, but, ultimately, this place has to deliver for everyone in our society.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member accept that we have a difference of opinion on what would solve the problem? Equally, being entirely in the UK would solve the issues. Sovereignty is not disconnected from the realities of the situation that businesses face with parcels and so on. It is about taking a decision about which side of a customs border we want to be on, so the problem could be solved on either side.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thanks, David. Interventions need to be short.

Kate, you are into your last seconds.

Ms Nicholl: A border would then be on the island, and it would be even bigger. We just need to work together on solutions.

Dr Aiken: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to know that I will talk about the motion and about parcels.

Unless Members sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, they may not be aware of EU regulation 2023/258 and its annex, which is a:

along with SEC(2023) 198 and the opinions of the regulatory scrutiny board, the assessment board and the impact assessment.

Those regulations are absolutely germane to what we are talking about. They initially set out EU revenue-raising customs proposals in e-commerce that were to apply from 1 March 2028. The changes ruled that the duty relief regulation exemption from customs duty for consignments valued under €150 amended the combined nomenclature, which is to say that it changed the definition of existing goods, packaging requirements, digital registration and coding. That was to allow for non-excise goods to be imported without identifying tariff classification, customs value and origin, which are subject to customs duty. It was to remove the limit of €150 per consignment that was applied to the deemed supplier and related administrative provisions.

Members will be aware that our Chancellor, in the recent Budget, had set out to follow suit, with the United Kingdom deciding to remove similar low-value import relief on goods worth £135 or less from March 2029. Members will note that originally the UK date was displaced by one year from the EU customs code proposals after HM Treasury had discussions with the European authorities. In November last year, however, Maroš Šefcovic, a name that may be familiar to some, announced that the European Council, in order to stifle what it saw as low-value imports coming from China, the United Kingdom and the USA, would now apply a fixed customs duty of €3 on small parcels of that value or less that were entering the EU. The date was advanced to 1 July 2026.
The EU has called it a "temporary measure", although it is a measure that will not be repealed. The duty of €3 per item:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is EU-speak for, "€3 is the minimum that will be applied to everything" in whatever category and at whatever value the EU agrees to.

The so-called temporary levy is distinct from another stealth tax: the proposed so-called handling fee of around €2 for every parcel, which is also planned under the Union Customs Code. When it is fully ratified as part of a customs reform package, that consumer tax will be utilised to fund the EU customs organisation. That is in addition to the €3 customs fee for all parcels that are external to the EU, so an additional cost of €5 for each parcel will be applied to the people of Northern Ireland.

Yesterday, we talked about revenue raising. Members will note that, while we do not have accurate data on parcels below the €150 threshold that are sent to Northern Ireland, the number goes into the millions. That means that €3 or €5 of revenue, multiplied by millions of parcels, will go not to the Northern Ireland Executive but to the European Union. Regrettably, even our own Government are unsure of the implications, with HMRC stating in a recent explanatory note:

That is HMRC-speak for, "You're going to pay it".

There is no clarity on whether all parcels under the threshold value of €150 that do not originate in the EU will be subject to red-lane or green-lane approaches. In particular, GB suppliers have no certainty as to which duty exemptions, if any, will apply or where costs will fall — with the supplier, the distributor or, as is likely in reality, the customer.

We are only six months away from implementation. Ironically, His Majesty's Government have stated that the Stormont brake may be the suitable safeguard. I cannot see how any Member who has any regard for the consumers, retailers and distributors of Northern Ireland or the people of Northern Ireland could, in all conscience, not support the motion.

Mr Gaston: The motion addresses something that goes to the very heart of daily life in Northern Ireland. The European Union intends to introduce, from 1 July 2026, a new customs fee on small parcels. That decision was taken not by Members of the Assembly or by Members of Parliament, and it certainly was not taken by the people of Northern Ireland or anyone elected by them. If the measure is imposed here, however, it will land directly on local traders, families and consumers, increasing the costs of goods from Great Britain and shrinking choice even further. That is the central injustice that the motion deals with. Parties will be judged on how they vote today.

Once again, decisions that affect our economy and our cost of living are being made elsewhere, under a customs code over which we have no democratic control but to which we remain bound. It is not about international trade with the European Union; it is about parcels moving within the United Kingdom: a pensioner ordering clothing from England; a small business sourcing parts from Scotland; or a parent ordering school items from Wales. Those are everyday transactions, but they are now being treated as if they were imports to a foreign customs territory. That is not normal; it is not sustainable; and it is not compatible with the claim that Northern Ireland enjoys equal footing in the United Kingdom.

A wider political truth must be confronted. The motion has exposed the fact that unionists returned to the Executive in February 2024 while the protocol remained fully in force.

Claims made in the House that a deal had been secured that met unionists' demands were, bluntly, untrue. That decision to resume devolved Government without the restoration of sovereignty over trade normalised the arrangements and signalled acceptance of the consequences.

You cannot return to Government under the protocol and then fake surprise when Brussels continues to legislate for Northern Ireland. You cannot accept foreign customs control in February and then express alarm in July when new fees are introduced. You cannot brand Jim Allister a "dead-end unionist" for spelling out the truth on those issues almost two years ago and then, later, bring a motion to the House that underscores the fact that he was dead right all along.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He will know very well that I share every concern that he has about the undemocratic nature of the arrangements that are in place and the harm that they are causing from the trade and sovereignty perspectives. However, will he accept that, if the devolved institutions were not here, he and I could have no faith that Keir Starmer would deliver a different result?

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

Mr Gaston: I accept the Member's intervention and am glad that he agreed with everything that I have said in my speech. However, I put it to him and his party that, by going back into the Executive, they gave up the only thing that unionism had: leverage to try to get rid of the protocol. The DUP mis-sold a deal to unionists to come back into this place in February 2024. Indeed, his party has spent the past year trying to unravel and unpick the deal and say that, no, it did not say whatever. However, the fact is that the Member's party sold a deal to unionism to restore this place that was bluntly untrue. It contained lies. His party lied to the electorate, and it will be judged in 2027 for the stance that it has taken.

We only have to look back a number of weeks to a ten-minute rule Bill. It was a Rejoiner's private Member's Bill to bring closer ties between the UK and the EU. Where were the DUP MPs during that debate? I know where your party leader was. He was stopping your Members trooping through the Lobbies to vote against it, and, because of that inaction, that vote passed, whereas it could have been snuffed out with DUP support. If we want consistency on these issues —. I know that the Member will probably take grave exception to how his party voted in that vote, but by its actions, it will be judged. In 2027, the electorate will give its decision on how the DUP mis-sold to the people of Northern Ireland the 'Safeguarding the Union' Command Paper, which has fallen apart.

I will get back to my closing comments. The customs code and customs charge are not an accident or an oversight; they are the logical and foreseeable consequence of surrendering control over our internal UK trade. That is something that no unionist should be complicit in, and, by sitting in the Executive day in, day out, those unionists and their parties are complicit in that taking place in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Jonathan, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the Members who contributed to the debate.

I want to say this at the very outset: the motion is fundamentally about protecting Northern Ireland businesses and consumers from the unintended consequences of a new EU fee on small parcels. Why does that matter to Northern Ireland and to our businesses? Parcels moving from GB to Northern Ireland, which should be entirely UK internal trade, will face new costs, bureaucracy and uncertainty. This will undermine consumer choice and competitiveness. We are often accused of debating matters in the House that have no relevance to the outside world. Well, I argue that there is no more pressing concern for our consumers. I may be the only one, but, since I got married three years ago, I have felt like I have shares in Amazon, because there is a regular parcel delivery at my house. That is replicated right across Northern Ireland. Our parcel delivery system with e-commerce is totally different from that of just 10 years ago.

The imposition of the charges will increase the cost of goods sourced from GB. As Dr Steve Aiken, my colleague on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, pointed out, it relates to millions of parcels right across Northern Ireland. Those parcels affect business: business-to-business trade and that of business to consumers. What are the impacts likely to look like? We have already seen evidence that shows a reduction in consumer choice, with 85 to 96 GB retailers no longer delivering to Northern Ireland. That is becoming a common, everyday occurrence. Businesses already face many problems in relation to the complexities and bureaucracy placed on them by the Windsor framework and their trading position, but consumers are also acutely facing the challenge. We already know about the reduction in choice for the consumer. When Mr Kearney spoke, for a split second, in his first line, I thought that he was reading from one of my scripts, but then came the "but", and Mr Kearney, who is the chief architect of political posturing, reverted to type and wanted to reassure us that it is not about constitutional issues or sovereignty, when every motion that he has brought to the House has been about exactly that — EU offices, EU observer status. Mr Kearney has never come to the House with a clean, clear desire to address the issues that affect our consumers and businesses.

That gets us to the second part of the motion, which most Members from across the House have taken issue with: how did we get here? Previously at Committee, I used a CS Lewis quote, and I will use it again today because it is very relevant. CS Lewis talked about "chronological snobbery", and we see it every day in the House, particularly when we discuss the issue of Brexit. It may come as a shock to some Members, but Brexit was not a vote by the DUP. I know that that is a constant accusation. It was not a vote by the TUV or the Conservatives. It was a democratic vote by the British people. It was one of the largest democratic exercises in our sovereign history. That delivered a result that some Members may not have agreed with, and they are totally entitled to argue against it. However, in looking at that chronological history, and to ensure that we do not inject the snobbery as we often do in this place, let us look at what we have today, because every vote since the Brexit referendum — the vote by the people — has the imprint of political decision makers. Therefore, when Alliance comes to the House to chastise and say, "Come on, lads, you got what you voted for", I say right back, "Look in the mirror", because, come on, lads and ladies, you got exactly what you voted for; whether it was shouting for the rigorous implementation of agreements such as the protocol, which, we knew, would hammer our businesses, you called for it. You went to Dublin to call for its imposition. You deliberately undermined your sovereign Government to ensure that a deal with the European Union hammered businesses and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. That was a choice made by you. So right back at you. Come on, lads, you got what you voted for.

Mr Kearney: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I absolutely will, because I hope that I do not have to say, "Come on, lads, you got what you voted for" to Mr Kearney.

Mr Kearney: No problem, big fella. [Laughter.]

Does the Member agree that Brexit was a sucker punch, and not only did you walk straight into it, but you stuck your chin out?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. I will say, "Come on, big fella", because here is the point: the DUP has been consistent in its position. The DUP has always believed in the concept of Brexit; perhaps you have not been so clear and consistent, Mr Kearney. I look at statements that Mr Kearney has made in the past — they stretch from Venezuela to the other side of the world — and there are plenty of statements about his approach to the European Union. The sucker punch is right back on you, Mr Kearney, because the arrangements that you supported have ensured that businesses and consumers have reduced choice and increased bureaucracy and continue to suffer. We will therefore take no lectures from a chief architect of that.

Moving on to the chronological order of events, there was a vote in this place on 10 December 2024 on whether to hand over democratic scrutiny and decision-making over more than 300 areas of law to a foreign entity. That vote was passed at the behest of Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Not one single unionist put their name to such arrangements.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, if I have time. I want to develop this point. It was warned in that debate that the Irish Sea border that existed on 10 December 2024 would harden and that consumers and businesses would continue to face challenges. Let us look at some of them: issues with veterinary medicine supplies; a cliff edge for new car registrations; and a reduction in over-the-counter medicines. We could go on and on. Many of the issues on the list that I read out on 10 December 2024 remain unresolved. A constitutional debate can be had because Members — I include the Alliance Party Members in that — have constitutional preferences and opinions, but the debate today is purely about the challenges that businesses and consumers continue to face.

That vote handed over power on the customs code, so cost that is associated with the new arrangement is on Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. You cannot shout about the challenges that businesses face. There is some attempt to do that by the SDLP, and it is welcome that it recognises the challenges. On the other hand, your actions are how you will know them. You voted for those very arrangements over which there is no democratic scrutiny.

I will move on to the points that were made by Mr Gaston. In the Chamber, he and I agree on many points, and I have outlined some of them in regard to the arrangements that exist. He talked about the leverage that was lost with the return of the institutions. I have often pondered that very question. However, no sane unionist would forfeit the right of Mr Gaston to eloquently put forward his point in the Chamber and of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP or others to challenge, fight for change and ensure that we can prosper. I can tell you with categorical assurance that no such challenge would happen under Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. The presence of five, six or seven unionists at Westminster has not changed that very opinion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until Question Time at 2.00 pm.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I made a commitment in the reset plan to developing a neighbourhood model to deliver greater levels of care to our citizens in their local communities. The model will see community pharmacies, GPs and their federations, voluntary and community organisations, trusts and independent providers working closely together in formal partnerships to provide integrated care. It is an important enabler for my commitment to shift left.

Building a neighbourhood model will require providers to work in new ways. It will be built around 17 integrated neighbourhood teams, which will act as provider alliances. They will operate within trusts or within an area-integrated partnership board footprint at GP federation level. They will serve an average population of 115,000 people. Integrated neighbourhood teams will know the populations that they serve and will work together as a team of teams, leading and driving the delivery of the neighbourhood's core functions and priorities for care closer to home. They will work with smaller neighbourhoods within the footprint, which are the communities to which people feel they naturally belong.

We will take a phased approach to developing and implementing the model. The design phase has involved significant research, stakeholder engagement and launching a call for evidence to identify existing good practice. In addition, learning from my Live Better initiative will be taken into account. We are about to move into phase 2, which is the build phase, identifying neighbourhood sites and activities and establishing systems for delivery, as well as the funding arrangements. Implementation will commence from April 2026, when we will have worked through the operational details and will move into the delivery phase.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I am very intrigued by your answer, in which you mentioned the 17 integrated neighbourhood teams. However, one of the groups of people who have not been included are the patients. Co-production and co-design are core, underpinning themes of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly. How will the 17 integrated neighbourhood teams work in partnership with communities, particularly isolated rural communities, LGBTQIA communities, asylum seekers and so on?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her observation. Of course, I want patients and communities to be involved in the model. Without their buy-in, it will be very difficult to achieve. For me, the starting point has to be talking to the experts who know how to deliver a neighbourhood scheme. I will take you back to what Professor Bengoa said to me when he was last here: "Be very tight on your outcomes but very loose on how you achieve them, because you are not a nurse, a doctor, a GP, a clinician, a surgeon or, indeed, a health service administrator.

I mentioned my Live Better initiative to look at health inequalities, which began in two demonstration areas. Those models were based on liaison with populations that we were there to serve. Those two different populations — one urban population in Derry/Londonderry and one urban population in Belfast — came up with different desires. It is my desire that rolling out the neighbourhood model will not be a one-size-fits-all but will, indeed, reflect the desires of local populations.

Mr McGuigan: In your response, Minister, you mentioned the importance of GPs, pharmacies, the independent sector, domiciliary carers etc, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. It will be no surprise to the Minister that, when some of those groups come to the Health Committee, they express their unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the current levels of core funding, which have caused issues. In your engagement with those groups, have you found that current issues are creating obstacles? What is the level of engagement to ensure that your proposed model will be a success?

Mr Nesbitt: The core funding budget is not satisfactory for anybody, including me and the Department. When you break it down into GPs, community pharmacies or the hospital trusts, which are having to save hundreds of millions of pounds in this financial year, as they did last year, that is at the core of the problem.

I have a number of concerns, but at the top of my list is the shortfall in next year's budget to do everything that I want to do. When you look at what we must do, which is to keep the current health service functioning, the question is this: how much money can we release for this "save to shift" rather than "spend to save"? Can we spend to move to the shift left model? That will be incredibly challenging in the next year, but the idea is to try to get everybody, or, at least, as many people as possible, to the starting line for 1 April. Rolling out a neighbourhood model will not be done in a month or a year or even in this mandate. It could be a five- to-10-year project, but the idea is to start it on 1 April in certain areas at least and prove evidentially that it works, so that we create the desire around the rest of the country to be next in line to join the model.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I have said many times that the neighbourhood model, which delivers healthcare closer to people in their communities, is the right way forward. However, it will take a lot of time, and we need a health service that is working and functioning for patients in the here and now.

I really would like some clarity on a message that I got earlier today, which told me that the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service is about to call a critical state and that there are currently 160 emergency and critical calls from those who are waiting for ambulances that cannot be answered. Can you provide clarity for the House?

Mr Nesbitt: I am unaware of those details, but, obviously, I will check that as soon as I am able to leave the Chamber.

Mr Durkan: My supplementary question relates to the original question on the neighbourhood model. That model sounds fantastic in theory and looks great on paper, but I refer to Mr McGuigan's point: are you convinced that the agencies on which you are dependent to deliver it are all on board? What funding has been identified or earmarked to roll it out?

Mr Nesbitt: I am certainly not aware of any partnership or organisation that is not up for looking at it. Since I took up post, right from the get-go, everybody whom I have spoken to who is involved in delivering health and social care in any way, including those in the voluntary and community sector, has been up for a reset, for reform and for a shift left, because I think that everybody realises that the current model is not sustainable. The question of finance remains the critical one. Can we release enough money to make a significant impact in the next financial year and set a direction of travel by the end of the mandate that the next Minister of Health feels compelled to follow? To be honest, that has to be an open question, but it is one that I am determined to try to close.

Mr Speaker: Moving on, I call Maurice Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you said that 17 —.

Mr Speaker: Question 2, Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: I thought that you were calling me for a supplementary question. My apologies.

Mr Nesbitt: Was "moving on" the clue?

Mr Nesbitt: Where a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, the diagnosing trust leads a review of all elements of the woman's screening history for the 10 years prior to diagnosis. That is done if such a history exists; not all women will have one. The audit will involve a review of every element of the screening pathway, including the invitation process, laboratory services and colposcopy service, and it includes a review of their cervical smear tests, where those are held. The regional 'Framework for the Audit of Invasive Cervical Cancers and Disclosure of Findings' was issued to health and social care trusts by the Public Health Agency (PHA) in March 2019. It included advice to trusts that all audits of cervical cancer diagnosed from 1 January 2019 should be managed in line with that framework. Monthly monitoring returns of those audit activities are provided by the trusts and collated by the Public Health Agency, and assurances are provided to the Department's cervical screening oversight and assurance group.

The Northern Trust's monitoring return on the audit of invasive cervical cancer includes data for women who have had a diagnosis of cervical cancer made by services in the Northern Trust between January 2022 and December 2024. Data for those diagnosed in 2025 is not yet complete. I advise the Member that 43 women who were diagnosed with cervical cancer by the Northern Trust during the three-year period from January 2022 to December 2024 had a review of previous cytology slides undertaken. There has been no wider re-examination of cervical smear tests in the Northern Trust in the past three years.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. I believe that a small number of patients in the Northern Trust have had their smear tests re-examined. The Minister is unable to give me the figures, because he does not have them to hand at the moment. Is that a poor reflection of how our hospitals are being managed? Will he undertake a review of how trusts are managing staff and services to ensure equality of opportunity and services across Northern Ireland, not just in urban centres?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I am not sure that I quite understood the question, but equality of access and service is 100% what I want. I have said many times that I want standardised, regionalised services. On patients who have missed out, I am aware of an issue with patient samples from a number of GP practices in the Southern Trust that were not processed. I understand that some women have unfortunately been asked to give a further sample. I stress that, as Minister, I expect the processes to be managed carefully from end to end. An investigation is being completed, but, until we know more about what happened and why, I do not want to speculate or comment further.

Mrs Dillon: Based on the answer that you have just given, Minister, can we get more detail, possibly in writing, on why tests in the Southern Trust were not sent off? Am I correct in saying that GPs took samples but that those were not forwarded for testing and that women have since had to provide a second sample? I would like to get more detail on that, particularly given the Southern Trust's previous issues.

Given the real concerns that are being raised, not only about cervical smears but about women's health in general, can we also be given some sense of where we are at with the women's health action plan, please?

Mr Nesbitt: On the first question, I understand that there was a migration from one IT system to a second. That should have gone smoothly. There should not have been any issues, but it appears to me that issues arose. I want to understand fully what those issues were and why they were not spotted when the changeover from an old IT system to a new one was done. I will certainly engage with the Committee once I have surety about what happened and why it happened.

I do not have an update on the women's health action plan to give the Member at the moment, but she may be aware that I have a weekly meeting with the permanent secretary, and it is certainly on my agenda for this week's meeting.

Mrs Guy: Minister, I am sure that you are aware that January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month. It is absolutely imperative that we encourage women to come for screening and that they have confidence in the system when they do come. We hear today about concerns in the Northern Trust. We know what happened in the Southern Trust, and there have been concerns raised in the Western Trust as well. To ensure that women have confidence in the system, when will you call a public inquiry into the concerns in the Southern Trust and into cervical screening generally?

Mr Nesbitt: I have not committed to a public inquiry, but I have not ruled one out. I have consistently said that I want to establish what happened, why it happened, including who was responsible for its happening, and what we do either to prevent it from happening again or to make sure that we have done everything in our power to minimise the chances of its happening again.

I am therefore determined to get a full understanding of what happened. As I say, I have not ruled out holding a statutory public inquiry. It is, however, a complex issue. As the Member knows, it stretches back to 2008. We have had many reports, and I have now asked Professor Sir Frank Atherton, previously the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in Wales, who is completely independent of the Southern Trust, the Public Health Agency and my Department, to look at all the work that has been done to date and to be my eyes and ears, because I am not on expert in the field. Having spoken with Ladies with Letters and others, rather than ask him to confine himself to the reports published to date, which Ladies with Letters fear do not cover every aspect, I have asked Professor Atherton to have a meeting exclusively with Ladies with Letters and that they discuss between themselves what else the professor may need to look at, beyond what is written in those reports, so that he takes a comprehensive view when he reports back to me.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, can you give a commitment that Professor Frank Atherton will be given space to report his findings directly to you without any influence from officials in the Southern Trust, the PHA or, indeed, your Department?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. I have asked Professor Sir Frank Atherton to look at all the work that has been done to date and beyond the actual reports. I give the Member this assurance: he will report his findings directly to me. There will be no influence from officials in the Southern Trust, the Public Health Agency or the Department of Health. I will liaise directly with the professor.

Mr Nesbitt: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 14 together.

The multidisciplinary team model remains central to stabilising primary care services to ensure that they can continue to deliver high-quality care to our communities now and in the future. In line with the Department's commitment to the wider transformation agenda, £61 million is being secured for the MDT programme over the next four years. Recognising the significant staffing and funding pressures across Health, roll-out will follow a two-phase approach over the next seven to eight years. Phase 1, which has started and runs to 2028-29, will complete MDT implementation in the seven existing GP Federation areas and expand it to five additional areas this year, including north Belfast and the south-west.

The federation in north Belfast comprises 21 GP practices, serving 114,353 patients. Plans are well advanced to introduce MDTs in 18 practices this financial year, with the remainder next year, subject to premises readiness. Selection was informed by premises suitability, clinical need, ICT preparedness and risk of contract hand-back. Over four years, 11·4 whole-time equivalents of each role — first-contact physios, social workers, social work assistants and mental health practitioners — will be employed to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being through accessible, high-quality services.

In the south-west, the federation covers 20 practices serving 129,044 patients. Thirteen practices are scheduled to adopt MDTs this financial year, with the rest next year, subject to infrastructure readiness. Over four years, 12·9 whole-time equivalents of each professional role will be recruited. A hub-based delivery model is also under consideration, with services being delivered from the Omagh Hospital and Primary Care Complex, Erne Health Centre and Maple GP surgery. That approach aims to ensure equity of access —

Mr Speaker: Minister, you are well past your two minutes now.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg your pardon.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. This is crucial not only to stabilisation but to any efforts to shift left and transform.

Given the difficulties, which have been acknowledged across the system, of recruiting GPs in rural areas, particularly rural border areas, can you commit to a clear timeline for full implementation? Can you also commit to prioritising the roll-out of those MDTs to the areas where they are needed most?

Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly talk about prioritising the roll-out to where they are needed most. As the Member knows, recruitment and retention is a difficulty across the piece, particularly in rural areas. We have to be imaginative in how we make the packages attractive to people to come and work in rural areas. It is not just about the salary. Like all of us, people coming into a profession want to see the prospect of progression, so we need to be imaginative about how we can package and, effectively, sell the idea of working in a rural area as being not just good for patients and that rural community but good for the workforce. We need to listen to the workforce and the rural community. I need to listen to the experts who know best how to do it. The problem is not particular to Northern Ireland: any country has rural areas with similar challenges.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer and that detail on the roll-out in north Belfast. I welcome the roll-out of the multidisciplinary team. It is a great model and a good use of the transformation fund to bring in those extra services. I think that the Minister mentioned physiotherapy, mental health practitioners and social workers.

The Minister mentioned, I think, 21 practices and 18 in the next year. Has the detail about what extra professionals will go into which GP services been worked out? Were all GP services offered the opportunity to participate? I am happy to receive that information in writing if he does not have it to hand, but perhaps he has a bit more now.

Mr Nesbitt: That is a very interesting question. The focus at the moment is on making sure that there are MDTs across Northern Ireland. We have not got across all the federations — as I said, it will take seven or eight years to complete that journey — but I am already thinking about whether we are right to have MDTs that are basically a one-size-fits-all where you get a first contact physio, a social worker, maybe a social work assistant and a mental health practitioner. The Member is well aware that north Belfast was at the heart of what we so euphemistically call "our Troubles" for 30 years, so legacy mental health issues are particularly severe in his constituency. The question is whether we should have two mental health practitioners in an MDT, but, if you have that, is that an additional whole-time-equivalent staffer, or do you do without some other specialism? That debate will come, but, at the moment, my focus remains on the roll-out over the next number of years.

Mr Donnelly: As an East Antrim MLA, I very much welcome the MDT roll-out. It will benefit GP practices and patients. The Minister mentioned the professions that will be involved. He will also be aware of the high vacancy rates in social work across Northern Ireland; they are as high as 50% in some areas. What is the Minister doing to bring those vacancy rates down so that the MDT roll-out can include social work?

Mr Nesbitt: We are continuously talking about the challenge of vacancies not just in social work but across the full Health and Social Care (HSC) workforce. It is always a priority. I constantly meet those in the Department who are engaged in workforce planning. We are very aware of the vacancies and of the impact that they have on health and social care delivery, but there is no magic bullet or magic wand to fix the problem.

Mr Chambers: Minister, there have been recent calls for you to divert the departmental budget that is being used for the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams to other budget lines. While such action would not be desirable, given the success of the teams, can you confirm that it is not an option that is open to you?

Mr Nesbitt: I can give that confirmation to the Member. I am aware that some have said, "Take the £61 million for MDTs and use it for another purpose", but that is not possible for this reason: that £61 million is not Department of Health budget; indeed, it is not even Northern Ireland Executive budget. It is Northern Ireland Office budget, allocated after a competitive process in its transformation schedule. We won that competitive process, and we have £61 million. I stress that it is not £61 million in one financial year; it is over four years. Either it gets spent on the roll-out of MDTs, or it does not get spent.

Mr McNulty: It is wonderful that, today, Macmillan Cancer Support has been made the Assembly's charity of the year. That will have such a positive impact on the Macmillan team and so many people and on multidisciplinary teams.

Minister, it has taken so long to roll out multidisciplinary teams in areas that do not have them that those who have had them for over a decade now question their effectiveness. What conversations have you had with existing providers to extract learning for future roll-outs?

Mr Nesbitt: I can tell the Member, hand on heart, that I have had no discussions with people involved in the roll-out of MDTs who question their worth; quite the opposite.

Mr Nesbitt: Last September, I launched Northern Ireland's first strategy focused on the sustainable use of medicines. My Department's valuing medicines strategy aims to support improvements in the use of medicines in Health and Social Care to ensure that they add value to health, that they are cost-effective and that they are environmentally sustainable.

My Department already delivers significant efficiencies from the prescribing budget through the medicines optimisation regional efficiency programme. That saves around £20 million a year. The valuing medicines strategy sets out how my Department and the health and social care system will go further in helping to ensure the sustainable use of medicines and embed a culture of valuing medicines within HSC. GPs and other primary care prescribers in Northern Ireland are supported to choose cost-effective and clinically effective medicines.

Mr Burrows: Can the Minister provide any data that demonstrates improvements in cost-effective prescribing by our GPs?

Mr Nesbitt: There are a number of indicators that the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) can gauge, using improvement in cost-effective prescribing as its test. For example, generic prescribing continues to perform strongly. Current rates, exceeding 82% across Northern Ireland, reflect consistent selection of clinically appropriate but lower-cost medicines, which helps to reduce unnecessary spend on branded equivalents. The prescribing decision support system in general practice continues to perform well through the active curation of messaging. The system delivered £2·69 million in savings in 2024-25, which demonstrated a return on investment of over 700%. In addition, targeted efficiency projects have delivered sustainable results. For example, through work on melatonin, which is a medication used to treat sleep disorders in children, updated guidance produced with clinical specialists and strong engagement with GPs has led to more appropriate product choice and over £1·6 million in savings in the 2024-25 financial year on that project alone.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I welcome those savings through the important initiative that your Department has undertaken. You are aware, of course, that local prescribing levels for anti-depressants are the highest across the islands. Are any conversations under way with GPs and clinicians on how we can reduce those prescribing levels and replace those anti-depressants with cost-effective treatments that are not necessarily medication?

Mr Nesbitt: I put a lot of store on non-medicinal social prescribing. In fact, we talked about MDTs in the answer to a previous question, and I would love it if we could add a social prescribing specialist to MDTs, or perhaps do so at a federation level.

Yes, conversations about the alternatives to medicines are ongoing. Pills and tablets obviously have their place, but, when it comes to mental health in particular, I remember my wife's episode of clinical depression. While medication was part of the cure for her, we both believe that the key to her recovery involved sitting in the kitchen with the community psychiatrist nurse and having conversations.

Mr McGlone: Minister, the people whom we cannot forget in the middle of all this are those in community pharmacies who dispense the medication. What steps are you taking to ensure that the claw-back mechanism in community pharmacy funding does not run the risk of shutting the pharmacy down? We have had concerns expressed to us by community pharmacists.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of those concerns. I have had discussions with representatives of community pharmacies, who look fondly to the Scottish model. The Department and my officials do not believe that the read-across is just as community pharmacy would wish us to understand it. That is part of the ongoing debate that we have with GPs, surgeons and hospital trusts. It is part of the human condition to have different views on different topics. I will meet representatives of community pharmacy in the very near future to talk about the next phase of our engagement, particularly including the neighbourhood team. Certainly, if they wish to bring up claw-back and propose a better way of doing business, I am open to listening.

Mr Carroll: To what extent does the procurement process take account of pharmaceutical companies engaging in price-gouging to determine which drugs are utilised or purchased? It is well documented that, quite often, the big pharmaceutical companies engage in that on the regular.

Mr Nesbitt: For the large global pharmaceutical companies, Northern Ireland and the health and social care system are pretty small players — I hope that the Member will understand that — so, when it comes to those big-ticket issues, we rely on the health and social care system in London — on Secretary of State Streeting and his fellow Ministers — to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

We are concerned about getting the best medicines at the best price and to the patients who need them, and, yes, one of the obstacles to that are pharmaceutical companies that put their prices up. We have recently seen an example, with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) — weight-loss — injections, which shows that we have limited powers of persuasion, argument and negotiation in that context. I am living in a practical world, and, effectively, I look to Big Brother in London to do that heavy lifting.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I am listening. Last Wednesday, I spent a few hours in an ambulance. We visited patients, and we took them to a couple of emergency departments. I listened carefully to the crew talk about their issues, and, indeed, during one handover period, I was able to talk to other crews. I was also able to talk to crews who were waiting for a handover in those emergency departments.

I am listening, and I am aware, but the Member should know that the solution is not easy. The Member has been to London, and we are hoping to adopt more of the London model. We are, by and large, bringing down wait times, but that is not to say that there are not examples of people waiting far, far, far too long. I met an elderly woman who was waiting in an ambulance outside one of the EDs last Wednesday. If that is uncomfortable for me, what is it like for her? What is it like for somebody in their 80s who has several very serious conditions to lie on a trolley in the back of an ambulance, unable even to get into the hospital?

The problem, which I discussed as recently as yesterday in a meeting with the chief execs of all five geographic trusts, is community capacity. We do not have enough community capacity. There are patients who are clinically, medically fit for discharge from our acute hospitals who are still in beds in those acute hospitals because we do not have beds in care homes or packages of care to send to them in their homes. We all agree on that, and we all agree that the fix could take five years or more.

Mr McGrath: I am almost speechless at your saying that it will take five years or more to fix our Ambulance Service. That will be real comfort for the people who are experiencing long waits because the system is not working. The problems are not new, nor are the solutions. You gathered the senior managers from across the health service last year to help fill out a blank page for the winter preparedness plan. That has failed, has it not?

Mr Nesbitt: It has not failed, and I did not say that it would take five years to fix the Ambulance Service. I said that it could take five years to build the community capacity to ensure that we do not have so many people who are medically fit for discharge still in acute beds. When I was at the Ulster Hospital on Wednesday, there were 104 people who were medically fit for discharge but were not being discharged. By the way, at Lagan Valley Hospital, they told me that there were 35 such people, which is a smaller number but is 40% of the beds there. If you do not trust me, ask any of the chief execs whom I spoke to yesterday.

To build that community capacity will take time, but, in the meantime, a lot is being done: Phone First, urgent care centres and ambulatory centres. They are imaginative ways of trying to keep people out of emergency departments to relieve the pressure on EDs and create space for people to come in.

Let me tell the Member one other thing. Last week, I visited three EDs, which were all extremely busy, but I visited a fourth ED in the past month: Antrim Area Hospital emergency department. At 10.30 am on Christmas Day, two people were waiting in reception, and, on the far side, most of the cubicles were empty. My question is this: if that can be done on 25 December, why can it not be done on 25 January?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that, following concerns raised by Executive colleagues, I asked Baroness Cass to conduct an assessment of the service model proposed in Northern Ireland. A draft report has been submitted to my officials for consideration. The Baroness and her team have determined that the network model that currently exists between child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), Knowing Our Identity (KOI) and integrated social service processes is a key asset of the Northern Ireland approach, as is the chance to have a seamless interface across the age range.

Baroness Cass and her team have made six key recommendations. Recommendations 1 to 3 relate to workforce, integration with paediatric services and clinical leadership within the under-18 service. The suggestion is to make the Northern Ireland service consistent with the English services, regardless of whether there is a decision to join the UK national provider network and research programme. Acceptance of recommendations 4 to 6 is required to enable Northern Ireland to join the UK national provider network and participate in the research programme, which we have already outlined our intention to do.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that puberty blockers were banned because they could cause harm to individual children, and given that children under the age of 16, which is the age range in this pathway trial, cannot give consent to participate in the trial themselves, what safeguards will be in place for those children post-trial and as they move into adulthood, if puberty blockers are found to have created irreversible damage?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not wish to fall out with my colleague, but there was not a ban as such. If he is saying that a ban arose from the recommendations of the Cass report, I want to be clear that what the Baroness actually said was that there is not sufficient evidence to support the use of puberty blockers beyond a clinical trial, which is the position that we have come to. I, again, thank Executive colleagues for supporting me when I proposed that we joined the indefinite ban of the prescribing, by private prescribers, of puberty blockers to new patients, pending the outcome of the trial.

With regard to keeping people safe, I will be relying on clinicians to do the right thing, as we all do when we engage with Health and Social Care. When we go into a hospital and allow ourselves to go under a general anaesthetic ahead of a procedure, we are trusting the doctors, nurses, clinicians and hospital administrators to keep us right. I would certainly expect that nobody involved in the trial would allow anything to happen that might endanger a young person's future.

Mr Nesbitt: With any prescription, we rely on the clinicians and the experts to make a clinical assessment and to do the right thing. The Member will be aware that, before we get to that point with GLP-1 medication, for example, bodies in England — the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence — will have examined those medications and either approved or not approved them. Therefore, by the time that they are on the market, we have a reasonable expectation that they have been approved and are safe, and then we rely on the prescribing clinicians to do the right thing.

Miss McIlveen: The Minister will be aware that weight loss medications are available over the internet and have become increasingly accessible without a GP prescription. Will he consider public health messaging on the potential risks associated with the long-term health and side effects that are caused by taking that type of medication without medical supervision?

Mr Nesbitt: I will certainly take that away and have a discussion. As I said, I have a weekly catch-up meeting with the permanent secretary, and I am more than happy to put that issue on the agenda. However, it is not just about weight loss medication; a lot of cosmetic medications give me a lot of concern because, to my mind, they are not sufficiently robustly protected in legislation.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. It was set up by the permanent secretary. I am not minded to look at structural reform in Health and Social Care, despite the fact that I question whether we should have set up five geographic trusts in Northern Ireland. To go for structural reform would absorb so much energy and be a big distraction.

When Mike Farrar arrived, he knew that I had already been talking to the trusts and saying, "Stop competing, and start cooperating and collaborating". As part of that, we set up a committee in common to discuss common issues, perhaps, for example, around clinical issues. As an extension of that, Mike wanted that whole-systems financial unit to be set up, so that the trusts can work much more like a single body, which makes sense to me on every level.

Miss McAllister: At a Committee session last month, the interim financial director admitted that that had not been done before and that getting all the trusts together to deliver efficiencies was a new idea. Why did it take until 2025 to truly look at transforming the health service by running efficiencies and savings across all trusts?

Mr Nesbitt: I have no idea. All I can say to the Member is that, when I took up post, I decided that I wanted the five trusts to work together and collaborate on financial management. Collaborating on financial management and discussing financial challenges is consistent with my direction of travel, so I hope that the Member is not trying to beat me up for the perceived failures of previous Ministers.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have an update on developments on that for the Member. I am sure that he is aware that our capital budget is highly constrained, and one of the biggest pressures is the maintenance backlog. We really could use £1·6 billion, and we are getting far short of that. The first concern is keeping our buildings safe for service users, patients and staff.

I have been in the ED at Altnagelvin. It is the oldest of our type 1 EDs, and it looks and feels it, and that reflects really negatively on the patient experience. The Western Trust is putting significant investment into the current ED to try to make it a better experience for those who use it. I still want to see the new ED, but I am afraid that I cannot see it coming within the next five years.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. The Minister is quite right: the Altnagelvin emergency department is now 40 years old, and it was designed to cater for around 35,000 patients back then.

Does he believe that the reconfiguration of the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) is adding to the numbers attending Altnagelvin A&E?

Mr Nesbitt: I have no evidence to that effect. If the Member is talking about emergency general surgery in the South West Acute Hospital, yes, that is still subject to a temporary suspension and patients are diverted primarily to Altnagelvin.

We became aware some months ago of double examinations, whereby patients who had reported to and been assessed at the SWAH ED were assessed for a second time after being sent to Altnagelvin. By and large, that has stopped. It should have stopped totally. People should have only one assessment, which should be done at the SWAH.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions to the Minister of Health. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr McGuigan: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan, please open the debate on the motion.

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

The North does not have a paediatric pathology service. That has been the case since 2019, and it is a glaring, important deficit in the health service here. I will ask questions and make suggestions to the Minister later in my speech. At the heart of the debate, however, are not structures and strategies but families facing the unimaginable loss of a child. Since 2019, bereaved parents in the North have been forced to endure not only their grief but the added trauma of knowing that their child must be taken across the Irish Sea for a post-mortem examination, should one be required. At that time of unbearable loss, families are confronted with distance, delay, unfamiliar systems and the pain of separation. No parent should have to watch on as their child is transported away because our health system cannot provide what should be a basic compassionate service here.

Following the resignation of the last specialist consultant in the field here, post-mortem examinations for babies and young children from the North have been carried out at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. I acknowledge the professionalism, expertise and compassion of the staff at Alder Hey, as well as the dedication of our Health and Social Care (HSC) professionals here who support the families through the process, but the reality remains that the arrangement places an additional emotional and logistical burden on grieving families at an already unimaginably difficult time. For many families, travelling to Liverpool is not just distressing but overwhelming. It creates delays in funeral arrangements and places an emotional and financial burden on people who are already broken by loss. Parents have spoken of feeling powerless, excluded and retraumatised by a process over which they have no control.

I recognise that the situation is driven in large part by a global shortage of the highly specialised skills required in paediatric and perinatal pathology, and I acknowledge that restoring a service here is made more challenging by the need to recruit three specialists simultaneously in order to establish a safe, sustainable and resilient service. There is no doubt that workforce pressures in the sector are significant. The Royal College of Pathologists, which I met recently, has highlighted the fact that there are only 52 consultant paediatric and perinatal pathologists in Britain, with up to 25% expected to retire within the next five years. Some regions across the water in England — the south-west and the Midlands — have no consultants in post, so it is clear that there are difficulties across these islands. However, recognising the scale of the challenge does not remove the responsibility to act with urgency, transparency and compassion to find a remedy.

The Minister has previously stated that his Department has commissioned an evaluation of paediatric pathology services. It was undertaken by Queen's University with support from the Public Health Agency (PHA) and had input from key stakeholders, including Sands and Cruse Bereavement Support. I welcome the involvement of bereavement organisations in the process. It is vital to ensure the centrality of families' experiences, their voices and needs in shaping the delivery of services in the future. The Minister has also stated that all 21 recommendations in the report have been accepted and are being actioned. It would be helpful if the Minister, when responding to today's debate, could update the House on the detail of those recommendations and outline the progress that he has made to date in implementing them and, perhaps, commit to bringing forward an implementation plan that would set out clear time frames on how and when the essential service will be restored. I recognise that there is no quick fix to the issue, but it has been seven years, and there is a need to make progress.

It is vital that we get a sense of what is happening in workforce planning and of what proactive recruitment measures are being taken, what training opportunities are available currently and how they can be made accessible to people here in the short term in the absence of the necessary training infrastructure. During my meeting with the Royal College of Pathologists, I was informed that a number of the people who are carrying out the service in Scotland and Liverpool come from the North, so we have people from here who are doing those jobs elsewhere. We need to get people from here able to practise here and provide the service here.

New and emerging post-mortem methods, including digital pathways such as CT imaging, could also be utilised in some circumstances. Are they being explored? If so, to what extent?

The Minister has also spoken about the potential for an all-island approach, referencing discussions with his Southern counterparts — the former Minister Stephen Donnelly and, more recently, Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill. Clearly, I welcome those discussions and again ask the Minister to give us an update on those discussions in his response to the debate. A joined-up paediatric pathology service on this island makes perfect sense. All-island cooperation has the real potential to form part of any sustainable, future model. Indeed, in previous health debates in the Chamber, it has been clearly evident that collaboration across the island can bring clear benefits to citizens the length and breadth of Ireland, particularly in areas requiring highly specialised expertise. We have already seen that work effectively in Altnagelvin's North West Cancer Centre and the children's cardiology unit at St Vincent's Hospital in Dublin. Today, I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that tangible progress is being made in that regard, as discussions alone cannot become a substitute for decisive action.

Paediatric and perinatal pathology is an essential service. It plays a vital role in providing answers, supporting learning and offering compassionate care to families who have experienced a profound and life-altering loss. I hope that, by bringing focus to the issue today, we can respectfully acknowledge the depth of grief carried by those families and commit to doing all that we can to lessen the burden placed on them when pathology services are required.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for highlighting the issues. There is nothing worse than to hear of the death of a child, then to be put in the position of needing to have a post-mortem carried out on that child and then for that post-mortem to have to be carried out in Liverpool at Alder Hey Hospital. The separation, anxiety and trauma are almost unbearable.

The current service for families in Northern Ireland has been provided, as has been said, through Alder Hey Children's Hospital since January 2019. If there is a positive in the middle of this really difficult situation, it is that it seems to be a relatively efficient service where parents receive results more quickly than before. It is important that parents receive those results, not just to know what happened to their child but, particularly for young parents who may be planning to have other children, to diagnose the conditions that may have been present.

We have a suboptimal situation that we should not tolerate in Northern Ireland, and it is traumatic for parents. In this difficult situation, as Mr McGuigan said, it is important that we explore any alternatives or even digital solutions that we can — whether we need to have a specific autopsy; whether we can do some investigations through X-rays, ultrasounds or CT scans; and whether we actually need to take children to Alder Hey. I am absolutely no expert, but experts tell me that, increasingly, we should be able to do some of the work remotely. That would aid in the issue of separation and would speed up the release of the child to the family.

I am interested in the Republic of Ireland's ability to aid us in bringing forward a solution to the problem. We should explore all solutions. We should not play politics or play around with this. It is so important and so difficult. I note that, in August, the 'Sunday Independent' reported that grieving families in the Republic were experiencing significant delays in arranging for loved ones to be buried because of a nationwide shortage of pathologists. For example, Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan said that there was a crisis in pathology services in the South. Some Dublin hospitals have pulled out of the service. It is important that we evaluate that. Minister, I will be interested in any ongoing discussions that you have with your counterparts in the Republic to determine whether there is even capacity for the South to take on some of the work or, as with children's heart surgery, to have a joint service.

That is important.

It is not just in the Republic of Ireland that the service is in crisis. In the United Kingdom, 37% of paediatric pathology consultant posts are vacant. That is a huge gap in the workforce. There are only 13 resident doctors currently in training posts. That crisis will be exacerbated by the fact that 25% —

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

Mrs Dodds: — of the consultant workforce is expected to retire —

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

Mrs Dodds: — within five years. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Mr Donnelly: Since early 2019, paediatric pathology services in Northern Ireland have effectively ceased. Instead of those essential examinations being carried out locally, hundreds of families have had to send their babies to Liverpool for post-mortem examinations, with the figure being, I think, 1,105 infants and children since 2019. That arrangement was put in place as a temporary measure. The HSC website states:

At what point does it stop being an interim measure? Can we really describe seven years of practice as an interim measure? The HSC website also states:

When reading a news report, from just two days before Christmas, stating that active recruitment for a paediatric pathologist in the Belfast Trust did not begin until two years after the post became vacant and that senior staff believed that advertising started a year and a half earlier than it did, it is hard to believe that the efforts have been significant enough. That leaves a profound and unsettling sense of hopelessness about the state of our health service and the systems that are meant to govern it. I can only imagine that a parent who has lost a child needs every accommodation and comfort that they can possibly get. They need support from the system and do not need the additional burden of having to navigate the logistical complexities of the situation as it stands.

Dr Bernie Croal, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, has emphasised the fact that paediatric pathology services are absent in entire regions, with no consultants in post in Northern Ireland, the south-west of England or the Midlands. The outlook is further complicated by the age profile of the existing workforce, which was mentioned by the previous Member to speak. More than one fifth of consultant paediatric and perinatal pathologists are expected to retire in the next five years, and that pressure is not being offset by new entrants. Training numbers remain too low, which means that there will not be enough doctors to replace those who retire, let alone to fill the posts that have been vacant for years. Long-standing vacancies already sit at around 40%, which leaves the service fragile and families exposed to the consequences.

No one denies the challenges that the services face. The reality makes the absence of a local service more understandable, but it does not justify endemic delay. Although there has been some action from the Department through ongoing discussions to explore the options for an all-Ireland network model to provide the service, discussions alone are not enough to give timely answers to bereaved families, and discussions alone will not urgently stabilise or strengthen paediatric or perinatal pathology services. The HSC website refers to the feasibility of an all-Ireland approach and to the fact that it is deliverable only in the long term: but how long is "long term"? I know that the Minister has no issue in looking at all-Ireland services, especially with regard to such a sensitive issue.

I often fear that the narrative that "change cannot happen overnight" is a way of avoiding responsibility for implementing any actions. Why not start now, so that we are not in the same position in another seven years, hearing the same excuses, while families face the same burdens in the midst of their unimaginable suffering? Calling for a comprehensive implementation plan is easier said than done, but we cannot continue with the cycle of bottom-line budgets without considering efficiencies. If we do that, not only will we still be here in another seven years but we will likely be worse off. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the consequences of looking only at cutting the numbers, without considering the human cost. I urge him to at least make a start now.

Mr Chambers: This subject, rightly, commands care and sensitivity. Understandably, it has been the topic of much discussion in the Chamber. The loss of a child is unimaginable for families, yet that is the absolutely heartbreaking reality that occurs right across our small Province each and every week. For those parents, the days and weeks that follow are often a blur of grief and, sometimes, debilitating heartbreak. At such a time, families deserve a wrap-around service that works as effectively as possible.

As we all know, from the moment that paediatric pathology services became unavailable locally and families were required to rely on arrangements outside Northern Ireland, the already immense burden in those circumstances became heavier still. Since 2019, post-mortem examinations for children here have most often been carried out in England. That situation cannot sit easily with anyone in the House.

In a small Province such as Northern Ireland, the lack of a necessary population scale to maintain a sustainable paediatric pathology service places additional unnecessary strain on families at the most vulnerable point of their lives, so neither the Chamber nor any Minister of Health should ever seek to explain away the situation. To its credit, the Department has never sought to explain it away. Instead, the Minister has fully embraced the previous independent evaluation of the paediatric pathology service. That evaluation resulted in 21 recommendations that focused on improving how the service operates and, critically, how families are supported through it. Every one of those recommendations was accepted in full by the Minister. Those recommendations address issues that families have raised and points that have variously been raised in the Chamber before: the timeliness of reporting; the quality of communication; the consistency of contact; clearer explanations; and improved bereavement support. Those are practical steps that are aimed at making a deeply sensitive process more humane and more responsive to the needs of parents.

There is no doubt that the severe workforce constraints in such a specialised field are a major barrier, but, sadly, Northern Ireland is not unique in that regard. That is why we should continue to explore every avenue possible. I welcome the ongoing work to explore cross-border and all-Ireland cooperation. In a region of our size, with a highly specialised service and limited numbers of trained professionals, collaboration is often not only sensible but necessary. As has been demonstrated in a number of services, building resilient networks can deliver real benefits for families here. I hope that an all-island paediatric pathology service may, in the future, be another service that could support families equally on both sides of the border when dealing with such a major and heartbreaking episode in their lives.

I want to put on record — I am sure that everyone in the House will agree — that this is probably one of the most sensitive and saddest debates that we have had in the Chamber in recent months, and I commend my colleagues on the other side of the House for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue.

Mr McGrath: I echo the final remarks from my colleague across the House that this is one of those issues that brings everybody together and allows us to respond in a sympathetic and caring way while acknowledging the pain and suffering that people go through. It does not matter which community you are from or where you are from, when this happens in your household, it is an absolute tragedy and causes immense pain and suffering.

We need to acknowledge that, when that moment comes, as if things are not bad enough, the fact that the remains need to be physically moved to England to have this procedure carried out adds to the pain and contributes to the suffering that parents are facing at a moment that is totally unimaginable to those who have not been through that process. They cannot go through that process locally, and that logistical issue must add to the pain. Trying to sort out the paperwork, the timings and the arrangements must surely add to the suffering and pain.

When we think about how we deliver all elements of our health service but specifically that part, we must all come together to try to find a way to overcome the issue, so that people do not have to face that should the unimaginable happen. Is there a way to provide an accessible service that can be carried out professionally and quickly to allow families to move on with their grieving process? The separation or travel at the start of a grief process does not help people with what they have to go through. It is not simply a neutral administrative issue; it is something that places a totally unfair burden on families. The Department commissioned the independent evaluation and accepted all 21 recommendations, and it is now exploring options including an all-Ireland collaboration. That is welcome. Given that we have been told that there are not sufficient numbers in the North to deal with the issue, there should be an opportunity to deliver the service on an all-Ireland basis.

The motion is simple and very reasonable as it aims to reach out and help people in that moment. It calls for the urgent publication of a clear, comprehensive implementation plan to restore the service, so that families know what will change, when it will change and that the issue is finally being treated with the seriousness that it deserves. We owe it to bereaved families to do better. We owe them care that is local, timely and compassionate. Above all, we owe them dignity at the very worst moment of their lives. It is good to know that we are all on the same page, and I hope that that means that we can move towards a solution for those families.

Ms Flynn: Members have touched on all the key points and the motivation for bringing the motion to the House. Diane Dodds made a point that I want to repeat. When we talk about all-island cooperation and collaboration, at times, people make assessments and judgements that the discussions are political, but that is not what this is about. I hope that everyone recognises that, regardless of which party tabled the motion, the motivation at its heart is to try to take away the absolutely dreadful decision-making process that families have had to go through for the past seven years. Alan and Colin very eloquently said that we are talking about the most unimaginable pain. Families are going through this situation daily. As a mother, I cannot even imagine the grief of losing a child. On top of that loss, families are having to make a decision about putting their child on a boat or an aeroplane to go across the water for a post-mortem. It is hard to put yourself into the shoes of the families who have had to go through that process.

I acknowledge that the Health Minister referenced the issue in the Chamber a number of months ago. As the Minister and his predecessor will know, we have raised the issue at the Health Committee over the past number of years. We welcome the ongoing discussions to try to find a solution that will keep the service on the island. It is my understanding — the Minister can correct me if I am wrong — that we had moved closer to a position where he could make a decision and movement was imminent but that that has changed. His latest update to the Assembly Chamber was that, regrettably, the South is now facing its own capacity issues, with two out of three of its paediatric pathologists due to retire soon. We do not have any paediatric pathologists. The South is facing its own shortage and difficulties, and we have heard about how widespread that situation is in Britain and possibly globally.

It is really important to make the point that we need to have any conversations or explore any options that we can with the South for the sake of every citizen living across the island. I do not know how achievable that is, but no one wants to be in the position of putting a baby or child on a boat or a plane for a post-mortem. Therefore, trying to find an all-island, localised solution would benefit the South as much as us. That might not happen in the short term or even in the medium term. Looking at such specialities will probably require a broader discussion about workforce and training on the island. That is probably being done, but, if it is not, it needs to be, so that, at least, we can give reassurance and comfort to families who have already gone through that terrible situation that we are trying to change it.

My colleague Philip McGuigan, who is Chair of the Health Committee, mentioned the other good examples of children's heart surgery and the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin. It is important for the public to realise that we really care, and, if we find a solution, even around the digital stuff, let us look at it. We need to stop what is happening at the minute, because no one wants to be in that position.

Mr Robinson: I thank the proposer of the motion. We should all be concerned that, more than six years after paediatric post-mortem services were outsourced, we still do not have a full, locally based service. I use the words "interim arrangements" loosely, because what was supposed to be a temporary solution has now become entrenched.

There is no doubt that the transport of deceased infants or children to England imposes a devastating emotional challenge on families. A mother whose baby was stillborn described the cruel heartbreak of having to send her son to Alder Hey hospital for the post-mortem. Families are forced to make really tough decisions in their darkest hour while away from all their family support networks, sometimes at an added cost and with greater distress.

A local councillor has also expressed her dismay. As recently as February 2025, Julie Flaherty, in recalling her loss, called it "disgraceful" that, after six years, we still call the arrangements "interim". Another mother, Victoria Buckley, lost her baby Ollie in 2024. She described how she was told that her child would be taken to Liverpool for a post-mortem. She told 'The Independent' that:

Parents or family members who wish to travel with their baby to Liverpool are supposed to be given the option to do so, but Mrs Buckley said that she was not made aware of that.

To understand how we got here, we have to look back. The problem originates from the resignation of the sole paediatric pathologist at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Multiple national and international recruitment drives followed, but, despite those efforts, there is still an unfilled specialist post. In 2018, a report by the Institute of Anatomical Sciences noted that around 240 paediatric post-mortem examinations are carried out in the Province annually. The vast majority involve stillborn babies, miscarriages or infants who die shortly after birth. In a specialty so small and delicate, even a single vacancy can collapse the entire service.

It is important to acknowledge that the issue is not unique to here. Paediatric and perinatal pathology is one of the smallest specialties in the UK, with only approximately 52 consultants. According to the Royal College of Pathologists, there are significant workforce challenges. Many consultant posts are unfilled, and it is my understanding that training posts in Northern Ireland are non-existent. Recent figures state that there are 43 consultants in England, seven in Scotland and two in Wales and that there are 30 positions that need filling, leaving a vacancy gap of 37%. Many specialists are approaching retirement. The royal college estimates that 23% intend to retire in the next five years, thus compounding the shortage. The pressures are similar in the Republic of Ireland.

I have to be fair to the Department, however, as the matter has not been totally ignored. As we have all referred to, the Department of Health entered into formal arrangements with Alder Hey Children's Hospital, and many families say that they have been supported sensitively during a difficult process. The Department commissioned an independent evaluation, conducted by Queen's University, that produced a set of 21 recommendations to improve the service. The Department has accepted those recommendations in full, and they are being actioned.

In tandem, as part of longer-term planning, the Northern Ireland Pathology Network is working on workforce transformation. As a result of the June 2024 regional strategic workforce review of pathology services, a board was formed to drive implementation. All those steps are important, and they must be recognised and welcomed.

Families, however, say that progress has been too slow. They also say that shipping off grieving families and their children to another country for a post-mortem is cruel. The north coast, which I represent, is not around the corner from somewhere like Dublin, which is a three-hour drive away. Either way, specialist care locally should be our goal. Requiring parents to travel long distances, wait and navigate their way through a distressing process adds to the trauma that they have just experienced. It multiplies emotional trauma for bereaved families in their darkest hour.

Ms Ennis: I thank colleagues in the Chamber for their compassionate approach to the debate. Paediatric pathology is an essential component of our healthcare system. It is important for us to state and understand that, because it provides crucial insights into the causes of illness and death among children, gives grieving families answers and enables advancements in medical research.

The lack of a dedicated paediatric pathology service in the North since 2019 represents a gap in our healthcare system that can no longer be ignored. Not only does the absence of a paediatric pathology service place an undue burden on families, healthcare professionals and the broader medical community but, as we have heard today, it means that cases must often be referred to other places, such as Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. That creates a delay in diagnosis and increases families' distress. Furthermore — this point is crucial — it denies us the opportunity to build local expertise and a comprehensive understanding of the unique health issues and challenges that children in the North face.

The death of a child is an agonising experience for families. I acknowledge the families who have shared their experience with me. Despite going through the most unimaginable pain that any parent could endure, they have resolved to ensure that no other family should have their pain and trauma compounded owing to that gap in our healthcare system. I have sat with grieving parents in their living room as they recounted the trauma of being told that, in order to understand the cause of death of their child, they must go to Liverpool for a post-mortem. Sometimes, it is not possible for one parent or both to accompany their child on that journey to Liverpool. There is then the agonising wait for the result of the post-mortem and for their child to be returned home for burial.

I would like colleagues across the Chamber to listen to and reflect on the words of two mothers from my constituency and for us to recommit to ensuring that no other family has to face such a situation. One mother told me:

Another mother from South Down told me that it was extremely disappointing that the situation has not been resolved since the loss of her son in 2020. She said that words can never express the pain of the added stress and trauma for her family in their darkest of times.

As colleagues across the Chamber have said, repeated attempts to recruit a full-time paediatric pathologist in the North have proved unsuccessful. I reflect on Diane's comments on the issues that the population in the South is also experiencing, but a problem shared is a problem halved. I would like the health services North and South to plan a way through this together, because that would ease the burden on families who are already experiencing the most unimaginable trauma once their child has passed away. I know that the Minister gets that and that he wants to see the matter resolved, and I know that his predecessor was also committed to resolving the matter. I have much correspondence from him, dating back to 2020, outlining his attempts to resolve it with his counterpart in the South, so I know that there is the will to resolve this, and I acknowledge that. We now need to see action, and everyone in the House is calling for that. We need to see details and a plan for how we can sustain the service at home.

Since the paediatric services ceased in the North in 2019, Sinn Féin, along with colleagues across the Chamber, has been calling for the all-island paediatric pathology option to be explored. We have seen the value of cross-border cooperation in healthcare through the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin and the all-island paediatric cardiology service, so there is no reason why we cannot see the same cooperation on paediatric pathology.

The families whom I have spoken to call simply for a common-sense approach to the matter to ease the burden on families who are already experiencing significant trauma in grief. We need to do better for families who, unfortunately, need to access post-mortem services following the death of their child. That is the least that we can do for families at that time.

Mr Gildernew: I am delighted to join the debate. It is a really important topic and one that I have raised with the Minister, including during my time as Chair of the Health Committee. During that time, I visited the children's hospital in Crumlin, where the issue was raised with me. Staff there pointed out the fact that, to staff a full and proper rota, allowing people to have training opportunities, weekends and time with families and to cover emergencies, you need a minimum of four consultants. In their assessment, to justify that type of rota, you need a population of approximately seven million. They were making the point that they do not have that in the Twenty-six Counties and we clearly do not have it in the North but, together, we would have that. At the very end of the previous mandate, the Health Committee produced a legacy report — Alan was a colleague of mine on that Committee — where we identified the fact that, if we are going to provide world-class services for all of our people, we must work together better and, where we can, effectively across the island to provide those types of health services.

Finally, the reality of it is felt, as everyone has mentioned, in the impact that it is having on people. It is really desperate. I know of one case in my constituency of a mother who had to take her child to England for a post-mortem and did not even know, throughout her journey, whether she would be able to take her child's body home with her again. That is a horrendous situation to put people in, and we can do better.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I speak with frustration because, a few years ago, I addressed this. My colleague from West Belfast on the Health Committee then and now spoke about the issue as well, so I feel frustration for those affected. I agree with others that the absence of a paediatric pathology service in the North is a complete disgrace.

Since 2019, as we have heard, grieving parents who have lost babies and young children have been forced to send their loved ones to Liverpool for post-mortem examinations. That is nearly 1,000 children — almost five a week — going to and coming from England. Behind all of those statistics — it is a big enough figure — is, obviously, a family experiencing unimaginable heartbreak, as Members have stated. Essentially, it is made worse when their grief is compounded by a system that forces them to be separated from their child at the most traumatic moment of their lives.

Understandably, many families simply cannot face that unnatural and cruel process. They go without a post-mortem and without answers and are denied closure, because the Department of Health cannot provide that basic service locally — and it is a basic service. The Department is failing bereaved families.

Fundamentally, it is a workforce crisis, and there are no paediatric pathology consultants in post here, as we have heard, due to a recruitment and staffing crisis that strains services right across our health service. I note the comments from the Chair of the Health Committee, who said that we have people training in the sector who, in theory, could be supported to become consultants or a step away from that. I do not know what the Minister is doing to try to keep those trained, skilled people here. Meanwhile, families wait months, and sometimes over a year, for post-mortem reports. That is totally unacceptable. All-island collaboration, as Members from a range of parties have mentioned, offers an important way forward. The Minister has apparently had positive discussions with his counterpart in the South — I am sure that he will say something to that effect — about developing some kind of all-Ireland pathology network service. Like other Members, I would welcome an update on those discussions, but people need more than to hear about discussions or reports from discussions. They want action, and that is essential.

With around 100,000 births across the island each year and a relatively small population, we should be pooling resources, sharing expertise and making sure that no family faces the unnecessary trauma of lengthy travel and separation. Collaboration alone is not enough. We need properly funded local services. As other Members have said, the so-called temporary arrangements with Alder Hey Hospital have been in place for six years. That is anything but temporary: it is moving towards permanent. It has become the new normal, and it is completely and totally unacceptable.

We urgently need investment in infrastructure, training, recruitment and fair pay for all healthcare workers to restore local services. In the meantime, the Department needs to develop sustainable all-island provision. Families here deserve better. They deserve compassionate care close to home, timely answers and support networks that they can access without travelling across the Irish Sea. They are not getting that as things stand. They have not been getting that for the past six years. Our bereaved families have waited far too long already. The Minister has to publish a comprehensive implementation plan with concrete timelines and invest in the restoration of this essential service, otherwise I fear that families will be failed for a further six or seven years or for generations to come.

I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you have 15 minutes to respond.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I thank the signatories to the motion. I particularly acknowledge Philip McGuigan for setting the tone in his opening remarks by reminding us that it is not about systems or structures but about people and families.

Mr Donnelly gave a figure of just over 1,000. The statistics that I was given for Alder Hey over the past five years are remarkably consistent: it is in and around 200 babies per year so, over five years, we are up at 1,000. Can you imagine if we took one year's cohort and 200 families were beyond those doors in the Great Hall or upstairs in the Long Gallery? It is a pretty stark visual illustration of how deeply the problem runs. It is 200 babies a year, and there is no sign of that changing any time soon.

I acknowledge that, while Alder Hey is obviously not the optimum solution, it is the only one that we have at the moment. It is vital. It is a high-quality service, and it is one that I value because it ensures that families continue to have access to the full range of perinatal and paediatric pathology services. Since we started the service level agreement with Alder Hey, we have worked closely with local charities to try to ensure that every baby and every child who requires a post-mortem is treated with the utmost respect at all stages of the process and that the families receive the care, support and information — it is really important to communicate — that they need during those very traumatic circumstances. That having been said, I accept that there have been occasions when those standards have not been met. It is important to thank those families who have spoken about their experiences — not just positively but negatively — because we have to understand them if we are to maintain those high standards.

I will come on to the evaluation and action plan in a moment. In the meantime, it is clear to me that we would all like the situation to be different and to be able to remove the sea journey by restoring the service locally. I remain committed to exploring all possibilities, including an all-island service. It is important, however, that we ground this important discussion in what is feasible and realistic. Members are aware — it is well documented — that there is a global — not a local or national, but global — shortage of paediatric pathologists. A sustainable local service would require a team of at least three specialists alongside long-term training and retention strategies. I am interested in what Mr Gildernew said about needing a minimum of four for a population of seven million. Whatever the numbers are, it remains a challenge; one that is not unique to Northern Ireland but is felt across the UK and internationally. The need to train and retain more paediatric and perinatal pathologists over the next decade has been widely recognised as essential for successional planning and sustainability.

That makes the restoration of the former service here in Belfast, as the motion calls for, very challenging. That being the case, although it is far from straightforward, I am seeking to develop the service on an all-island basis. It is one of those rare occasions when money is not the issue: the issue is the workforce. One of my earliest actions as Minister was to raise that question with the former Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland, Minister Stephen Donnelly. In fact, the first time that I met him, the two things that were at the top of my agenda were paediatric pathology and a mother-and-baby unit. We had detailed discussions on both issues. On this issue particularly, Minister Donnelly was supportive. Likewise, his successor, Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, has continued in that vein.

However, as we have talked about capacity, let me make it clear: at no point in my discussions, particularly at the beginning with Minister Donnelly, was it the case that either he or I believed that the Republic had adequate capacity to provide paediatric pathology in that jurisdiction. Therefore, it was not a simple case of additionality to cater for Northern Ireland, but it was a case of, "He needs more, and I need more". To be clear: the current situation is that officials in the Health Departments in both jurisdictions are scoping out what they think that we need in Northern Ireland and what we think that the Republic needs down south. Once we have done that, we will come together, contrast and compare and then, hopefully, decide on the best way forward, whether that is to have separate paediatric pathology services in Belfast and Dublin or to go for an all-island solution. I have no political or ideological skin in that game. The skin that I have in that game is what will deliver the best outcomes for the families who are suffering that unimaginable loss. As I said, it is clear from our conversations that Ireland does not currently have the capacity for themselves or to take on additional post-mortems from Northern Ireland.

As those services move to more centralised models nationally, my priority is to ensure that bereaved parents continue to have access to reliable, timely and compassionate care through our current arrangements with Alder Hey and that those arrangements meet the highest standards of compassion and care that we would all wish. To that end, the Department has commissioned an independent evaluation, as many Members have mentioned, which was carried out by Queen's but supported by the Public Health Agency and guided by a stakeholder steering group that included two voluntary and community organisations, Sands and Cruse Bereavement Support. The evaluation has provided a largely reassuring assessment of the service at Alder Hey, with the majority of parents and staff generally positive about their experiences. However, that has not consistently been the case, and it is clear that further work is required to improve the timeliness of post-mortem reports and the communication between trusts and families at every stage of the process. We need to enhance the clinical education of those involved and ensure that there is robust follow-up care for the parents.

As Members have noted, the report contains 21 recommendations, including enhancements to reporting, communication, clinical education and follow-up for parents. I have accepted all 21, and they have been shared with trust chief executives and the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency. The report also concludes that, subject to those improvements, the current service remains the most appropriate and viable option for parents and families. I have also approved a draft action plan to support delivery against the recommendations, and work has commenced with local trusts, Alder Hey and other stakeholders to take forward the action plan. However, to be clear, that is an implementation plan for the recommendations; there is no separate implementation plan for the restoration of those services locally or on an all-island basis at this stage. We are still scoping our respective jurisdictions.

We have made strong progress in delivering key actions that truly matter to families and staff. The minimum dataset with Alder Hey is now agreed, key performance indicator measures are in place, and the service level agreement has been updated to include children up to 16 years of age. We have also put clear processes in place for parents who wish to accompany their baby for a post-mortem. That is a rare occurrence. Trusts have assured us that staff now have protected time to report and discuss results with those parents. Those are important steps forward.

There has, however, been a slight delay in achieving a number of recommendations, which has been caused by challenges that are often outside our control. That includes a short delay in rolling out the regional consent process and bereavement care guidance, where timescales have been impacted on by changes to national consent forms and the need to realign them with the agreed Northern Ireland consent form. I am pleased to say that that will be completed by the end of this month. The standardisation of the bereavement midwife role has been extended to the spring of this year. Training and education initiatives, including e-learning and video resources, along with bereavement support pathways, mandatory training and research projects, remain firmly on track for completion by March 2026.

Other work includes, as I said, the initial scoping of options for cross-border cooperation and for a less invasive post-mortem approach, which many Members mentioned. We are talking about the use of scans: taking them locally, where possible, and having them reviewed remotely. I think that we all agree that non-invasive techniques, which are in the foothills of development, are to be supported. We are moving forward with determination. Although there are challenges, the commitment across all partners remains strong.

As I come to my conclusion, I cannot be anything other than straightforward: there is no quick fix to this issue. Any future model, whether local or all-island, will require significant investment in training and service development to build the necessary expertise and capacity. Although the challenges are considerable, I thank Members for their contributions and reaffirm to them that I continue to have a commitment to do everything possible to explore viable options for improving those services for families at the most difficult time that they will ever face. In my determination, I will bear in mind not an empty Great Hall or Long Gallery but a Long Gallery filled with 200 families, representing just one year of babies whom we are sending across the water.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you. I call Linda Dillon to conclude and wind up the debate. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank all the Members who have spoken to the motion today, and the Minister for responding. I reiterate his words about the tone of the debate.

There is little difference between what anybody in the Chamber has said. As I rise to wind on the motion, my sense of responsibility is much the same as everybody else's. This is not an abstract policy issue; it is about the children and the bereaved parents and families and about how we, as a society, respond at the very moment that families are at their most vulnerable.

For far too long, we have had no paediatric pathology service here. That means that, when the unthinkable happens and a child dies in circumstances that require a post-mortem examination, families are told that their child must go to England. Let us be clear about what that means in real life. It means that families who are already shattered by grief are asked to consent to their child's body being transported to another country. It means delays in funeral arrangements. It means additional paperwork, additional waiting and additional uncertainty. For many families, it means additional trauma and the unbearable pain of knowing that their child is alone, far from home, at the very time that the family want to go through the grieving process and make funeral arrangements. They need to be close to their child. No family should have to endure that on top of their loss. We often talk in the Chamber about trauma-informed services and about dignity and compassion in healthcare. We cannot accept a situation that adds avoidable distress to families at the worst moment of their lives. It is not good enough.

The motion rightly acknowledges that the Department of Health has commissioned an independent evaluation, accepted 21 recommendations and is exploring options, including all-island collaboration. That is welcome. However, acknowledgement is not action; exploration is not implementation; and families cannot be comforted by process alone. Families need certainty. They need to know that this essential service will be restored. They need to know when, how and on what basis it will be restored.

I want to address the issue of all-island collaboration directly, because I want to be absolutely clear: this is not about ideology or constitutional arguments; it is about what is practical, workable, compassionate and the right thing to do. If we can work together to create a resilient, sustainable, safe service, that is what we must do. If the expertise, capacity and sustainability of paediatric pathology services can best be achieved through cooperation across the island, it is our duty to pursue that and to support the Minister in doing so, not because of symbolism but because of service delivery and because of people. When a family have just lost a child, they ask, "Will our child be treated with dignity? Will we get answers? Will we be spared further suffering?". An all-island approach, if it delivers timely, high-quality care closer to home, is not a political statement but a humane one. We owe it to the children whose lives were too short; we owe it to the families, who deserve answers without added trauma; and we owe it to ourselves as legislators to ensure that our health system reflects not only clinical competence but basic, human decency.

Philip and others outlined the workforce challenges across these islands. If anything, that makes it even more important to look at how we create a sustainable, safe service on the island, wherever that may be, North or South. It is clear from the figures that have been quoted that the option of using Alder Hey may not be open to us in the future, because, if there are serious workforce challenges in England, babies in England will be prioritised — I understand that — in the same way as we will prioritise our babies, children and families here, as is our responsibility.

I want to understand — Órlaithí spoke about it — about all-island workforce planning and training in specialities and not just in paediatric pathology services, although that is what we are talking to today. I would be happy to give way to the Minister, when I have finished my speech, if he wants to answer on whether discussions have been had with the Minister in the South around workforce planning and training for this speciality. It is not just about how we develop the service; it is about whether we have looked at it from the very beginning. Colm and others also referred to that, and it is important to acknowledge it.

Results are important for parents, particularly when planning future pregnancies. Both Diane and Sinéad referred to that. It is an extremely important issue. I thank other Members, including Alan, for their empathetic comments and understanding of what the motion is about. It is about delivering for families. It is about making sure that we — the Assembly, the legislature, the Health Department and the Minister — do not create additional trauma for families where it need not be the case. Colm identified that the combined population North and South is required to sustain the service, so, again, I am happy to let the Minister reference that issue around workforce planning.

I am glad to hear from the Minister's commentary that, on this occasion, the issue is not money but workforce, and it is about how we deliver the service in the best possible way; I acknowledge that.

The Minister said that his Department had worked closely with the Sands and Cruse bereavement services, and it is important that we acknowledge them, because, when families have to make the decisions, they absolutely need support from specialist services not only to cope with the trauma but to deal with the logistics. There are organisations out there that help them with that, and it is important that we acknowledge them.

Again, I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to respond to this point: I appreciate that the scoping work is ongoing, but we are seven years down the line. I would really appreciate it if the Committee could have regular updates on the scoping work, with timelines, outcomes and recommendations, because that is where we need to be. I accept that there is no quick fix — I totally understand that — but we need to know what the fix is and how long it will take.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I am no longer on the Health Committee, as she knows, but she is. Can the Member indicate whether families who have to travel to England are financially supported by the trusts or the Department, or does that cost come out of their pocket? I genuinely do not know, and I would appreciate the answer to that question, if she or the Committee has it.

Mrs Dillon: I have offered the Minister the opportunity to intervene, but, from his reference to that issue at the end of his commentary, my understanding is that they are supported to travel with their children.

Does the Minister want to address that point?

Mr Nesbitt: Families can travel with the baby, but I understand that it is rare for them to do so, because the post-mortem, as you will understand, is a clinical process. There is no role for the families beyond waiting outside where the process is being undertaken. I believe that it is very rare.

We have a service-level agreement with Alder Hey, so, for it to reach the point at which it says, "English babies come first", as the Member described, there would have to be a break in the service-level agreement or it would have to run out.

I will respond to your other point about workforce planning. We are scoping what, we think, we would need if we were to have a dedicated service in Belfast for Northern Ireland — that would be my first preference — so that people do not have to travel even across the border. The Dublin Government are doing the same thing for their jurisdiction. Once those two scoping exercises are down on paper, we will come together and ask, "Are we better doing the all-Ireland service?". At that point, you look at the all-island workforce. There is a logic and a sequence to that workforce planning.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member and the Minister for their interventions. I understand your point, Minister, but I would probably come at it from a different angle and say that the logic is this: let us look at what workforce we need and work from there. We know that the workforce does not exist and that, if we try to recruit, we will be competing against all the other places that cannot recruit either, so we need to look seriously at what our starting point is. Is it about working together to train people? I have raised other issues about many specialities with you, as you know, but we are talking about one speciality in particular today. We need the Ministers to have a really focused conversation about the best way to come at it. Is it about making the starting point workforce planning and training and then ensuring that we have a resilient workforce to go forward so that we can deliver the service for families here?

I am sure that many in the Chamber will have been through the experience of losing a child in their wider family circle; I know that I have. That was pre-2019, so that decision did not have to be made, thank God. I would not want to see any member of my family or anybody I care about having to make such a decision. My heart is with the mummies who have been in that position and have had to make that decision, and I thank Sinéad for reflecting their specific words. It is important that their words are heard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease to allow for a change at the Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diane Forsythe to raise the matter of recurrent flooding and the lack of recovery actions in South Down.

Diane, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister and my South Down colleagues for being here today. I am sure that we are united in our desire to make real improvements and to address the issue of recurrent flooding and the lack of recovery actions in South Down.

We all know that living in, working in and representing a rural constituency such as South Down brings with it some really specific challenges. Some of the infrastructure issues are very different from those in urban areas. I know that the Minister represents a constituency that is also quite rural and thus understands the issues. In South Down, we do not have rail links, motorways, big dual carriageways or significant road networks. It is a smaller rural road network that we travel on and very much rely on. Long before I was elected as an MLA, I remember the same areas flooding over and over again. Some of those areas have moved a little, but they are largely the same. That frustrates me, as a resident and a commuter, and I completely understand why people in my constituency are so annoyed at this being a repeated issue, because I am one of them. The flooding is so visible, and it affects everyone.

Constituents of mine are rightly frustrated. They feel exasperated, and they keep asking, "What is anyone doing about it? What are our politicians doing?". I raise the issues regularly and frequently and genuinely do my best to make the case for the people in my area, as do my team on the local council, as well as other elected representatives in the Chamber and on the council. It is frustrating to see nothing change. We need to do something to address the public concern. I have therefore taken the opportunity to bring the topic to the House today to demonstrate how seriously I take it and to give the Minister for Infrastructure the opportunity to hear about some of the very real issues.

As I said, the rural road network in South Down is critical to all of us who live and work there. One of the most significant roads is the A2, which runs right down the coast from Newcastle to Warrenpoint. When there is a problem on the road, it causes absolute mayhem. Large haulage vehicles and buses struggle with back-road diversions when the roads are blocked. Ambulances and emergency services cannot get through, and things come to a standstill. Along the A2, one of the worst areas for significant and recurrent flooding is the stretch from the Shannaghmore Outdoor Learning Centre to Bloody Bridge. From when I was a child, I can remember how badly the area flooded, which was almost every time that there was heavy rain. In one of the most recent lots of heavy rain, it flooded so quickly that cars had to be abandoned and the PSNI had to issue a notice for drivers to avoid the road. It was a crisis situation. When that part of the road floods so badly that the road is closed, the diversion route is up through Bryansford, which had a number of floods of its own during the most recent bad rain.

People turn to me, as an elected representative, to ask, "What can we do differently?". I just do not know, so I raise the matter in the House today in the hope that, together, we can come up with some type of solution. When you approach the area between Shannaghmore and Bloody Bridge and see the flooding, there is something really ironic about looking at a road flooded like a swimming pool, when its outside wall is literally on the coast and you can see the sea. I am not an engineer or an expert in any way, but is there no way in which those huge floods can be helped out to sea in order to clear the road?

That was one of the first significant road issues that came up when I was elected, and there just seems to be continual clearing and crisis management, but nothing fully resolves that issue, and the road itself deteriorates further. There needs to be a serious permanent solution and action plan.

There is a clear lack of recovery action also in assessing and maintaining the roads after they have been flooded, and that does not inspire public confidence either, as the roads are visibly eroding where they have collapsed in places, and claims for damage to cars increase. I see those increasingly coming through my constituency office, obviously since the recent frosts but after floods as well. Erosion was particularly prevalent further along the A2 at Kilkeel a couple of years ago, where recurrent flooding caused the main road to collapse inwardly with a sinkhole just below Riverside, which cut the town off completely. Following that, I called for a full review of the road structure. Segments of it were of extreme concern as the cliffs corrode into the beach.

In December 2024, I tabled a motion on local roads. Following that, the previous Infrastructure Minister took action and approved a review, and a few miles of resurfacing was done on the A2 from Kilkeel to Ballymartin. There needs to be a full review of the road, our main access point in the Mournes. The previous Minister promised that, and I asked you about it, Minister, when you took office, but we have not seen it progressed. Councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council wrote to you on the matter, and I appeal to you to urgently review that road.

Also along the A2, we have significant, recurrent flooding on dangerous corners at Glassdrumman and Killowen. Killowen was on the news during recent flooding, with people using canoes to bring people their grocery shopping, so badly was it cut off. When that happens, the entire area is shut down. People are literally stranded in their homes. Every time there is severe flooding, it is the same story. The people who live there are just devastated by damage to their homes, and they are not seeing action. I understand that there is a range of issues, but they do need to be actioned. There are a number of local estates with issues, including Grahamville Estate, Kilkeel, where the river through the estate has never been addressed, and homes in the park keep getting flooded due to the same issues every time. People deserve better. They cannot raise the issues more forcefully, and as an elected representative, I do not know where else to raise them.

We then have Newcastle, where recurrent flooding has been so bad that the Newcastle regional community resilience group (RCRG) was set up. I know, Minister, that you met the group, and I appreciate your coming to the constituency and doing that. That community organisation was established following a perceived lack of government agency support, with homes submerged in 2019 and 2023, causing severe damage and insurance policy hikes. Minister, things are still terrible, and I agree with the group that the sticking-plaster solutions have left them on the verge of collapse. Recent flooding on Tullybrannigan Road was horrific and was cited as being the worst in 40 years. I was at it, and I just could not believe some of the things that I saw.

Minister, we need to sort out, once and for all, the horrendous drainage problems in the Newcastle area. Out-of-sewer flooding and drains surcharge occurred, yet again, on 19 October 2025 on Marguerite Avenue, an area that has been flooded many times. The inadequate pumping station in Marguerite, which is not fit for purpose, needs to be replaced. The emergency protocol currently in place, whereby a temporary pump is brought in at short notice, is only a sticking plaster as the pump was, once again, found to be ineffective during the heavy rainfall in October past, when floodwater spilled out, yet again, into the avenue, with five gullies under floodwater at 5.30 pm, even when the rain had eased. The area was badly flooded in autumn 2023 despite flood walls being in place. I support the calls of the RCRG and of the wider Newcastle community, and I urge NI Water and you, Minister, to sort out that issue once and for all, before we have another catastrophic flooding incident. As a local representative, I do not want to be taking media calls on catastrophes in my constituency. I want to see the issues addressed.

Finally, on some specific recurrent issues, I highlight Downpatrick. We have discussed the longstanding issues there in the Chamber a number of times, which, just like those in Newcastle, need a permanent solution. For too long, planning has not taken account of the local floodplains. As local elected representatives, we joined together in 2023 when the heart was completely ripped out of the county town after it was submerged in water. It seemed as though everything that could go wrong at the one time came together, with a slow and poorly communicated series of recovery actions that led to huge delays, devastating many businesses, which have never recovered, and the Downpatrick and County Down Railway. It has been, quite frankly, soul-destroying for the people of Downpatrick to see the low response and the lack of recovery actions on a long-term basis to date. Minister, I ask you today to please outline what steps you will take to address the issue going forward for the people of Downpatrick.

Minister, I know that you are one person and that you cannot solve everything, but, by taking on board the issues, you can show the people of South Down that you are listening and taking the recurrent flooding seriously, and direct a plan of action. We all need to work together to tackle those important issues, because we need to restore public confidence in what we can achieve together. We cannot continue like this, with people panicking about every single weather warning. There have been plenty of weather warnings lately, and every time that there is one for heavy rain, I have people on panicking, looking for sandbags, asking for crisis numbers and stocking up their homes.

In South Down, the floods and storms of 2023 caused land slippages and partial road closures. The Shore Road, Rostrevor, was partially closed for over a year, and the Kilkeel Road, Hilltown, is still reduced to one lane over two years on. Minister, I, like many members of the public, want to know the cost of the temporary traffic lights there. I am sure that it is eye-watering. Two years on, the lack of visible progress on that busy main road through the mountains is such a frustration for local people who regularly travel from Kilkeel to Hilltown and Rathfriland and to and from the Mournes. I am pleased to hear that work will progress on that soon following the appointment of a contractor. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some more detail on that.

Minister, overall, I believe that we all want the same thing here: we do not want recurrent flooding issues to cripple my constituency or anywhere else. I understand the financial pressures that you are under, but as I have said to you before — I will say it in the House today — my constituents are frustrated and exasperated. They have asked what you and other politicians are doing and why no one is looking at this. I have raised it repeatedly, and I have brought it to the House today, because I do not know what more I can do. Minister, I ask you to please recognise the issues and make a public commitment today to take some meaningful action on the recurrent flooding across South Down. It has been going on for too long, and our local people deserve better.

I thank everyone who stayed for the Adjournment debate. I hope that we take this opportunity to join together and that we see some action.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. All other Members will have approximately six minutes.

Mrs Mason: First, I thank Diane Forsythe for securing the Adjournment debate. Extreme weather is no longer the exception; it is our reality, and it is our reality in South Down. As has been mentioned, the Downpatrick flood in 2023 and the recurring flooding in Newcastle have caused concern and fear among the local community. I mention Downpatrick and Newcastle specifically, but, of course, many areas and many homes are at risk of localised flooding, and those are areas that have never flooded before.

There is a clear need for all Departments to tailor their responses, with the frequency and severity of extreme weather events making that increasingly clear. Many homes in Newcastle were only millimetres away from being flooded again in October last year. At the early stages of the potential flooding, the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, acted swiftly to make sure that upwards of 1,200 extra sandbags were made available to prevent flood damage to households in that area. DFI Roads and Rivers officials were on the ground monitoring water levels at Shimna river and clearing large stones and debris to help relieve the rising water. The advice from the Infrastructure Minister was consistent, and immediate action was taken to prevent extreme flood damage. I pay tribute to those DFI Rivers and Roads officials and, of course, our council staff, who are always on the ground battling the elements during such events. As Diane mentioned, we are fortunate to have the strong support of our local community and, particularly, the Newcastle regional community resilience group, which provided vital communication throughout the flooding, and, of course, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, which, in that instance, brought a stranded hiker down to safety from the Mournes.

Whilst great strides have been made to protect homes and businesses, there are, of course, lessons that need to be learned by all Departments so that they can ensure that they are ready and able to respond to storm and flood risks, especially in South Down. That applies across the board. We must ensure that lessons are learned in order to aid recovery. Lessons must be learned from the Education Minister and EA's delays in closing schools during storm Amy. The lack of clear and timely communication caused chaos for schools and families. There needs to be better communication and coordination between the Department of Education and the Met Office in preparation for school closures across South Down.

When extreme weather conditions cause a threat to those who are homeless — something that we saw during the recent cold snap — the Department for Communities, the Housing Executive and our councils must be able to enact their severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) to protect those who are most vulnerable. The reality is that, at present, there is not sufficient emergency accommodation across the North to ensure that every person can access safe and local emergency accommodation if and when they need it. Just today, we have seen the shocking figures that show that housing waiting times in South Down are the longest in the North. Some families are having to wait approximately 45 months. That leaves families who are already in vulnerable living arrangements at risk of having no safe shelter during storms. I think that everyone will agree that that is not acceptable in this day and age. We need the Communities Minister to work alongside everyone to ensure that emergency accommodation is available always, but, at the very least, when we see extreme conditions.

We are still dealing with the aftermath of the devastating flooding that affected Downpatrick and Newcastle in 2023. It had a severe impact on the whole local area. Despite extremely challenging circumstances, the resilience of our small and family-owned local businesses and remarkable community spirit shone through when everyone came together to support one another. We saw the former Economy Minister, Conor Murphy's, announcement of the flood support scheme, which provided vital relief to small and family traders, helping them to restore their premises and continue serving their communities. I also acknowledge the work of former Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, who laid important groundwork. Of course, I also thank the current Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, for her continued engagement and, I have to say, compassion for the residents and businesses in Newcastle and Downpatrick as she has listened to the concerns and worked to prevent a repeat of such devastating floods. Those responses show the importance of all Departments working together not only to reduce damage from extreme weather but to support our communities to recover and rebuild. When storms and extreme weather strike, every Department needs to step up and play its part. We are better when we work together, as we always see. That means not only delivering the interventions that are required to prevent destruction and damage but intervening and helping communities to recover and rebuild after disaster strikes.

Mr McMurray: I thank Ms Forsythe for securing the Adjournment debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. There can be no doubt that the recurrent flooding and, at times, lack of recovery action is one of the top issues that I have been dealing with over the past two years.

Three large towns and, by connection, villages in my constituency have been directly affected by flooding events. Downpatrick has seen its business area severely affected; Newcastle has seen the flooding of residential areas and properties; and, as Ms Forsythe rightly said and felt the brunt of, residents of Kilkeel have regularly seen their main commuting routes in and out of the town affected, be that due to structural road defects or the roads being flooded or partially flooded, making it impossible to pass on them. The Member referenced Shannaghmore. I remember standing outside the centre in my welly boots and a high-vis trying to get some of the gullies cleared, so I know and understand how difficult it can be.

The Economy Minister set aside funding for recovery after the 2023 floods, but the distribution of that money was not without difficulties for many of the businesses affected. The ramifications of that are still being worked out. The way in which flood relief grants to businesses are distributed must be looked at and reviewed.

Business groups in Downpatrick are keen to see more investment in the town, which is still reeling from the effects of the recent flooding. There has been frustration with the Infrastructure Department's response. A flood alleviation scheme has been promised, but that will take years to deliver, and it is still unclear whether funding will become available and work will start any time soon. Indeed, given the Budget situation, I worry, as do many in Downpatrick, about the timelines for that delivery.

In the meantime, there has been a lack of interim measures. Just before Christmas, the Market Place car park partially flooded. There had been a period of wet weather, but it was nothing unusual for Northern Ireland. The fields along the Ballydugan Road were saturated, and then came a yellow rain warning. I witnessed a car park being flooded by 6 to 9 inches of water. Without interim or permanent solutions, Downpatrick is only a few days of rain and a high tide away from flooding again.

We have seen the repeated flooding of residential properties in Newcastle. The homeowner flood protection grant has helped to protect properties in Newcastle and is appreciated, although the delivery of it could have been faster. In the Infrastructure Committee, we have been looking at the future of that grant as part of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. One thing that witnesses have raised a lot is the need for wider eligibility criteria so that commercial and rental properties can also be protected. That would be helpful for traders in Downpatrick.

Kilkeel and Killowen have seen prolonged disruption due to the physical degradation of roads. The road between Annalong and Newcastle is regularly closed after heavy rain, due to localised flooding. I have wondered about the effect of gravity there: you have cliffs on one side and hills on the other, yet the water sometimes still does not seem to drain away.

All those issues are exacerbated by climate change. Regardless of the causes of that, although the science points in a particular way, storms of increasing energy are affecting us, be that through wind or rain.

There is also frustration among the public at inconsistent communication. The flood resilience group in Newcastle has been referenced. While it is appreciative to a point, it feels despondent at times at how the Department communicates with it. That is particularly significant because, although DFI promotes such groups as being the main line of defence against flooding, at times it provides them with little support. The Newcastle group is considering its future role. It wants to be and must be more than just guardians of a container of sandbags. That said, many thanks must be given to the DFI front-line workers and the groups that were mentioned who responded to the flooding issues in the town.

Another issue that has been raised with me is the lack of written protocols. NI Water and DFI do not appear to have formal, written protocols for situations in which there is a risk of flooding. The response is more likely to be the result of an established work habit. That works OK for now, but there is a real worry that, if an engineer who is in charge moves on, all that muscle memory will be lost. There is a feeling that a formal, written protocol would give the affected communities a lot more confidence in the process.

I say again that what we are seeing is climate change in action. Severe weather will only get worse, so it is important that we are as prepared as possible. I have heard noises from the Department that it is hopeful that a flood forecasting centre can be set up in the not-too-distant future. I would like to hear an update on that. We have heard about climate adaptability, but there is also climate preparedness, which is how we deal with infrastructure in the context of increasingly severe weather events.

Mr McGrath: I thank my constituency colleague for securing the Adjournment debate. It is really important that we give a voice to the numerous residents and businesses in locations across South Down who feel isolated and left behind and feel that they get no assistance in times of flooding, which is when they need it most.

People in Downpatrick were told that lessons would be learned following the devastating floods in November 2023. A report was commissioned, findings were published and assurances were given, yet here we are, more than two years on, and nothing has changed materially for people on the ground. There is no meaningful preventative action, no visible works and no reassurance that the next series of storms will not force water into homes, businesses and streets once again. As Andy mentioned, just before Christmas, we saw the water starting to rise. You can sense that levels of concern among the business community and local residents are starting to rise. That turns to anger, and people ask, "What is being done?". They ask what has been done that is materially different to stop that water from getting into their businesses and causing exactly the same problems.

A report without delivery is not progress; it is a holding exercise. The people of Downpatrick know that all too well. They also know all too well that, despite press releases about outline business cases, nothing has materially changed, and we do not know when it will change. That is the reality. In fact, in a response from the Department to a question for written answer, there is reference to an outline business case

The scheme is not confirmed or funded; it is just a maybe. How does that help our business community to plan? How does that help organisations such as Downpatrick and County Down Railway, which lost fortunes in money, investment and volunteer hours? It saw all of that wash away in front of it. An outline business case is "expected" by spring 2026: there is an awful lot of ambiguity in that.

The contrast with Newcastle could not be starker. Following flooding in 2020, it saw a flood alleviation scheme designed, funded and delivered in a short time. Fast-forward to October 2025, however, when flooding in Sunningdale Park forced water violently down roads, tearing up surfaces and cascading towards Tullybrannigan Road and Shan Slieve Drive. What followed was not action; in many cases, it was agencies arguing with each other. One Minister said that it was Northern Ireland Electricity's responsibility; another said that it was down to DFI Rivers; and somebody else said that it was a Forest Service issue. Meanwhile, residents were left watching the water rise again. That is not coordination of organisations; it is an abdication of responsibility by Departments wanting to pass it on to somebody else. The community is left to pick up the pieces and be the front line. We have seen that with the Newcastle regional community resilience groups, when, on many occasions, they have to do the heavy lifting because the Departments are too busy blaming each other.

Flooding in Killowen in 2023 triggered a landslide that closed a lane of the road for months on end. The reality is that the repair work took only a few weeks to complete, but the local residents had to wait months and months for it to be done. The road was partially closed, causing disruption, isolation and real frustration among local people as the delay to the recovery became another form of neglect. In Warrenpoint and Rostrevor, storm Bram left entire towns impassable, with roads cut off, communities stranded and, once again, people asking the same question: "How did we allow ourselves to end up so unprepared?". What a dire picture.

We know that climate change is real and is driving more intense and unpredictable weather. That reality does not excuse inaction but demands urgency. Preventative work should be under way already: drainage, gully clearing, culvert clearing, river management and work on woodland and land use. Our planning sector make decisions that can contribute to flooding locally, rather than preventing it. All of that must be joined up and properly funded. What preventative work is being delivered now? I am not asking what is being studied or scoped; I am asking what is being delivered. What confidence can the public have that lessons have truly been learned and that there will be fixes for the problems? Right now, every time rain falls heavily, people in Downpatrick, Newcastle, Killowen and Warrenpoint — not to mention the other areas — brace themselves for the worst. The honest truth is that, while flooding may be driven by climate change, the damage that it causes in South Down is driven by political decisions by the Executive on whether or not to act.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call the Minister, do you want in, Harry?

Mr Harvey: No, it is fine.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK. It is over to you, Minister. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank Diane Forsythe for initiating the debate. As you said in your introductory remarks, Diane, the issue unites us all. As an MLA and resident of Newry and Armagh, I share the concerns about the issues that all the MLAs here have articulated. I, too, want to see solutions, not just sticking plasters. I want solutions that will have real impacts for the people whom we all represent and the communities that we all live in.

I have listened intently to the contributions and the issues that have been raised by Members, and I have heard loud and clear the concerns about flooding in South Down. I have heard those concerns directly from the people in South Down whom I have met over the last number of months since being appointed as Minister. I have been focused on doing what I can to improve the lives of people here, and an important part of that focus is my Department's flood management activities. Unfortunately, from listening to the debate, you would think that nothing is happening, but a huge amount of work is happening. Some of that will take time, because such incidents and their frequency are still relatively new to us when it comes to how they impact on our constituencies across the North and how we deal with that effectively so that we are not just firefighting all the time.

The activities that the Department is focusing on are aimed at reducing the potential adverse consequences of significant floods, primarily those that relate to human health and safety, economic activity and the environment. However, it has to be said that, as Members will be aware, like all Departments, we are limited in resources and funding, and, no matter how many times people try to dispute it, that is a result of year after year of underinvestment and austerity by successive British Governments. That is not an excuse; it is a fact and a reality. That has led us all to a place where we are constantly trying to play catch-up and get our houses in order so that we can deal with not just the challenges that face us now but those that we have been trying to tackle for many years.

Without continued and adequate investment in infrastructure, many of the services that we provide will continue to be under strain. For example, approximately 45,000 properties here, which is approximately 5% of all properties across the North, are currently identified as being at flood risk from rivers, the sea or surface water. When climate change is taken into consideration, the number of properties that will be at risk increases by approximately 14,800.

I am confident that my Department has been proactive in managing flood risk from rivers and the sea in recent years. Flood risk management plans were published in 2015 and refreshed in 2021. Those plans identify the measures that need to be implemented to manage flood risk here. Managing flood risk involves numerous interventions, and the most effective method of doing so is to prevent, as far as possible, the risk occurring in the first place.

Members mentioned planning. My Department is a statutory consultee in the planning process. Advice on flood risk matters is provided to planning authorities to inform their local development plans and the determination of planning applications. If the Member has examples of where we have contributed to flooding issues, he should bring them forward, because I certainly know that we are continually lobbied by applicants who potentially cannot get their applications approved because there is an identified flood risk. That is part of the Department's work to mitigate risk, so that we do not see developments destroyed through flooding in the future.

Following the restructuring of central government Departments in May 2016, my Department assumed the lead role in the strategic coordination of the response to all severe weather emergencies. It is responsible for a number of key functions, including working with other organisations to ensure that emergency preparations are as good as they can be and providing knowledge and expertise to help inform the actions of any multi-agency response to severe weather emergencies. To support that multi-agency response, mock deployment exercises are held to train staff and test equipment that is used during a flooding emergency. That has resulted in ongoing, continuous improvement to my Department's emergency response to flooding. That is an important point. The Alliance Member for South Down said that there were no protocols, but I challenge that point, because we are continually learning and are willing to learn to see what else we can do. We carry out intensive work to train staff and ensure that we have the proper protocols in place to respond.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. My point is that the protocols are not written down or easily available to members of the public.

I do not disagree that there are protocols in place, but the emotional strain when it rains affects people, as has been said. When people ask to see said protocols, they are not there, and that is to what I was referring. Yes, there are protocols in place, but sometimes they are not written down, so having them written down would help some members of the public with their emotional well-being.

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the huge anxiety, stress and devastation that even one flooding incident can cause and the long-term impact that it can have on individuals, communities and business owners. We referenced the regional community resilience groups that are in place, and the Newcastle RCRG is a shining example, and I say that not to be patronising. The group is an exemplar of what an RCRG should look like. The Department jointly chairs the multi-agency RCRG, which has continued to engage with the communities that are at risk from severe weather across the North over the past 10 years. To give a sense of how vast the issue is, we are now supporting over 50 communities across the North, and I have no doubt that that number will continue to rise.

The Department is not stepping away from its flood-risk responsibilities. In fact, its work with communities helps develop local response plans, because no two areas are the same. Local expertise and knowledge are critical to our response, and they complement the engineering and practical solutions that can be put in place, such as putting sandbags in the right locations and articulating weather information and alerts, where appropriate. The work of RCRGs across the North is acknowledged as one of the best approaches to that type of initiative, not only here but in neighbouring jurisdictions. I will mention the work that has been done with DFI Rivers and the business resilience group that has been developed in Newry under the leadership of Eamonn Connolly and the Newry business improvement district. They have created something really important and effective in order to protect businesses, and other communities that were devastated by the 2023 floods, such as Downpatrick, could look to that model as they move forward.

As Members will be aware, in December 2025, my officials, working alongside multi-agency partners, delivered a presentation on storm preparedness in the Assembly as part of the parliamentary excellence programme. The presentation was well received, but it was extremely poorly attended. That was an opportunity for MLAs to hear from and speak directly to officials who work on those issues and develop solutions to manage flood risk in the impacted communities that we represent. Unfortunately, not too many showed up for that event. If the opportunity were to arise again — I am not trying to be smart — it would offer MLAs a good opportunity to do something and to hear in greater detail from the people who are working on such initiatives.

I am conscious of the time, so, with your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

, I will try to get through as much as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, do not feel constrained by time.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you. DFI Rivers has a 10-year capital works programme to help plan the investment in new flood defences and existing drainage infrastructure. Projects can be identified through the flood risk management planning process, in which we have used predictive flood modelling to identify locations that are most at risk of flooding. In addition, projects can be identified through our local knowledge of places with a history of flooding, and the RCRGs have a key role to play in that process. Projects are then prioritised based on a range of criteria, including the current level of flood risk, the estimated cost of flood alleviation works and the benefit:cost ratio of potential works. We currently have more than 50 separate projects on the programme, with over half of them at different stages of progress.

On timescales for the flood alleviation projects, I would be strongly criticised if I were to rush any of them through without going through the proper procedures. Like Members and officials, I can become frustrated at the length of time that such projects take, but we have to ensure that we are following the proper procedures and also demonstrating due diligence. The delay is therefore not intentional or deliberate, but, rather, because the projects have the potential to be transformative for the communities that they are intended to protect, we have to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. It is important that we get it right. We do not have too many chances to do that, particularly as the issues are becoming worse.

In relation to South Down specifically, a feasibility study for Downpatrick has identified viable solutions to protect over 100 properties. As Members have said, further work is being undertaken to develop the business case for the scheme, including a detailed assessment to determine whether the preferred option will be economically feasible. The business case is expected to be completed by spring of this year.

I am also very well aware of the recent flooding incidents in Newcastle and the ongoing issues at Marguerite Avenue. I have met the RCRG there, as I mentioned, and the temporary solution there has alleviated the problem to an extent, but I recognise that it is not an adequate long-term solution.

On the back of that meeting, I engaged with NI Water and asked what it can do to deliver a long-term solution, and it has provided some updates on that. Those have been shared with the RCRG, and modelling has been taking place to see what will work. I do not think that it is as straightforward as we had hoped, and I am conscious that it has taken time. However, that work is ongoing, and I hope to have further updates on that in the near future.

Members also mentioned the more recent events at Tullybrannigan. While it may seem as though Departments are arguing with one another over who has responsibility for that, it is much more complex than saying that it is one Department's fault. The fact that the flooding was the result of a huge amount of water running off the side of the mountain indicates that there is a complex issue there. DFI has looked into it, and no amount of gully clearing there would have been able to alleviate the volumes of water that came down the side of that mountain. Therefore, the onus is on all the Departments responsible to come together to look at what caused that flooding and what we can do to mitigate it. That is being looked at.

In relation to some of the other points that have been raised about the A2, I am pleased to say that there has been some progress, notwithstanding the huge challenges and the length of time that it is taking. As Members have said, there has been a lot of development in that area in recent years, and that has caused more rapid surface water run-off in heavy rain than previously, which will overwhelm the drainage system. DFI Roads recently completed an investigation of the existing road drainage infrastructure, including jetting of pipes and cleaning of gullies, and we have identified several locations that require further consideration. A programme of works is being developed to complete the necessary repairs to address those issues.

Likewise, at Kilkeel Road in Hilltown, a section of the road collapsed following the flooding of 2023, and there have been traffic controls in place since. However, again, given the complexity of the location, the steepness of the adjacent land necessitated detailed design and ground investigation works, which, I am pleased to say, are now complete. I can also confirm that landowner agreement is in place, a works instruction has been issued, and we await the programme from the contractor and hope that works will commence on site early next month, with an expected time frame of six weeks for completion.

I want to give Members confidence that the issues are not unheard, but solutions take time. When you look at the long list of areas where problems seem to have accumulated in quite a short time, you will see that there is a lot of work to do.

I thank all Members who spoke. I am happy to engage at any point, if I did not cover some points, as a lot has been discussed this afternoon. It is certainly my intention to keep Members and the community updated because I understand how important the issue is. I will continue to work with my officials, other MLAs and my Executive colleagues to secure the investment needed and deliver the solutions that are needed to give people the reassurance and confidence that they will be protected.

I thank everyone, particularly Diane Forsythe who secured the debate, for the discussion and the tone of the debate this evening.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you for taking the opportunity to answer all the questions from Members.