Official Report: Monday 19 January 2026

Mr Speaker: Members will have been saddened to learn of the passing of Mickey Brady, a former Assembly Member for Newry and Armagh. As with all Members, because I have been here for all that time, I knew Mickey over the years as well. He was, first of all, a community representative whom I know worked for many years in that background, on citizens' advice and all that. He gave many years of sterling service to helping people with their benefits and so forth, and, in politics, his heart really lay in helping people who were less well-off. He was in the Assembly for eight years and, as a consequence of his previous work, he served on the then Social Development Committee and the Health Committee. He went on to serve as the Member of Parliament for Newry and Armagh. We pass on our condolences to his party colleagues and to his wife, Caroline, their family Saoirse, Michael, Seán, Niall and Lewis, and their grandchildren.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle

, for your condolences. It was with deep sadness that we learned on Friday evening of the untimely death of our dear friend and party colleague Mickey Brady. Mickey was, of course, a former Member of the Assembly, and then a proud abstentionist MP for Newry and Armagh, until his recent retirement as an elected representative in 2024.

Mickey was a lifelong champion for the people of Newry and Armagh. He dedicated more than five decades of his life to his community and to Irish politics. He really was an exemplar for political activism grounded in his community, but he was also engaged in politics at national and international levels. He had a deep-seated passion for his community and its people, always fighting their corner with boundless energy, and he had a prolific knowledge of welfare advice. Then, as a Sinn Féin MLA and MP for the area, his door was always open to people right across the community. He gave of his time so generously to everyone who sought his help. He loved the people of Newry and Armagh, and they loved him in return.

As an Irish republican from his involvement in the civil rights movement through to the peace process, Mickey witnessed and often spoke with great pride about the strides forward towards justice and equality and towards a new and united Ireland. I certainly will always remember Mickey for his sharp wit and the captivating stories that he told us all with such natural skill and enthusiasm, stories that were always populated with a whole cast of countless Newry characters because, in Newry, Mickey knew everyone and everyone did know Mickey. As everyone who knew him will know, he really did have that rare ability to lift spirits. He had the ability to bring smiles wherever he went. He was a gentleman and a deeply insightful, skilled and committed political activist. I certainly will miss him profoundly, as will all here in the Sinn Féin team.

My thoughts today are with his wife, Caroline; his daughter, Saoirse; his sons Michael, Seán, Niall and Lewis; and the wider family. His family have lost a kind and deeply devoted father and grandfather. Newry and our wider society and we in Sinn Féin have lost a giant of our community. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Miss McIlveen: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I express my sympathy to the family and loved ones of Mickey Brady following his passing. They have lost someone dear to them, and my thoughts and prayers are with them at this very difficult time. Like many colleagues across the Chamber, I served alongside Mickey in the Assembly, including on the Social Development Committee. While our political positions and aspirations could not have been more different, we worked on a number of issues on the Committee that were motivated by the shared responsibility of public service. He was an active Assembly Member who represented his constituents in Newry and Armagh over many years, and I am conscious that, like all elected representatives, he will have helped many people on day-to-day issues, bread-and-butter issues and things that matter to families and communities. At moments such as this, it is right to acknowledge the loss felt by those closest to him and to recognise his role as a public representative. My condolences go to his family and to those who worked with him.

Ms Nicholl: I extend my and my party's condolences to Mickey Brady's family and to his wider Sinn Féin family. When I worked for Anna Lo, Mickey was an MLA and attended the all-party group on ethnic minorities among a number of others that Anna sat on. He was a kind man, and you could feel that when you were in his presence. In 2015, back in the days when Alliance did not have that many party members, I was selected as a paper candidate to run in Newry and Armagh. I remember going to the count, and it was just my husband and I who were there. We did not have high hopes of my becoming the Alliance MP for Newry and Armagh at that time. I remember him and Megan Fearon being really excited for me because I received one vote in Crossmaglen. They came around and said, "You've got a vote in Crossmaglen".

Mickey was just a really decent person. You knew that when you were talking to him. He was really funny and really kind. I actually had a family connection with him. I remember going to his nephew Dave's wedding in Barcelona, and, when we were coming out the chapel, I said to my husband, "There is a man there who looks so like Mickey Brady". It was only a little later that I realised that it was Mickey Brady, and we shared some of those stories later on that evening. I always enjoyed seeing him, and I know that you will be feeling his loss and that the whole family will. Five decades of community work is impressive, and I am just so sorry that he did not get the time to enjoy his retirement, which he deserved after such dedication. To his wife, Caroline, to the wider family, to his political family and to everyone who came across him in Newry and Armagh, we send our deepest condolences. We will be thinking of you in the days ahead.

Mr McNulty: Mickey Brady, a man from a different strand of republicanism than me, was a proud a Newry man and a proud Irishman. He did his best to represent the people of Newry and Armagh as an MLA and as an MP. Mickey was one of the first paid welfare advice officers in the North, and the advice that he provided was very popular and vital for people. The relationships and the trust that he built stood him in good stead when he entered electoral politics.

A family man first, Mickey Brady's hallmarks were his cordial and friendly nature; his history and storytelling; and the advice that he gave to people who needed help.

Politics is a tough business: Mickey stuck with it for 17 years, which takes stamina and fortitude. Dedicated to his beloved Ballybot, Mickey came from a well-known and respected Newry family. I offer my sincere sympathies to his family and to his friends, colleagues and community. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Mr Nesbitt: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I offer sympathies and condolences to Mickey Brady's family, friends and political colleagues in Sinn Féin.

With certain people, just seeing their name or picture conjures up word association: with Mickey Brady, those words were "benefits" and "state entitlements". I have often said that we have grossly overcomplicated how we deliver large parts of government, not least health. However, the thing that fried my head, when I was first elected in 2011, was constituents coming to me with problems with their state entitlements, because it is so deeply complex. There are three exemplars — to use the First Minister's word — of those who are or were expert in it: Andy Allen, who is particularly good today; the late Professor Eileen Evason; and Mickey Brady. It is a tribute to Mickey that he was so across the fine detail. As Mr McNulty said, constituents really loved and appreciated his advice, because it was really good advice.

I do not want to cast Mickey in a two-dimensional sense; he was a three-dimensional person. I found him to be quite quiet in the corridors of this Building — friendly but quiet. If you took the time to speak to him and try to get to know him, you found a guy who was warm and could be very funny. As you said, Mr Speaker, he was fundamentally a community worker. This Building and Chamber were all the better and richer for him. I am sure that he will be sadly missed.

Ms Kimmins: What can you say about Mickey Brady? He was someone whom I am proud to have known and grown to love. He was a kind, gentle and warm person. The news of his passing on Friday evening has sent shock waves across our community and, I would go so far as to say, these islands.

Mickey had time for everyone. He was first appointed as a welfare adviser, the first of its kind in the North, in 1981. A senior member of the Belfast Law Society stated that, in 1984-85, Mickey represented more social security tribunal cases than all the solicitors in the North of Ireland. That, in itself, encapsulates the dedication and the commitment of Mickey, as a person, to bettering people's lives. Mickey literally put food on the table for many families over the years. Through hard times, he ensured that they got what they were rightly entitled to. The legacy of the decades of work that Mickey gave to our community but also more broadly than Newry has been carried through. The outpouring of tributes over the past few days is a testament to the high esteem that he was held in by people from all backgrounds and communities.

The Mickey whom I knew was a warm, witty, fun person to be around. He had a brilliant memory and could take you back to the early 60s and what happened in his student days in Liverpool and his days in Frederick Street and Bridge Street in Newry through to the antics that he, Fra McCann and others got up to in Stormont. Many across the Chamber and the Building are aware of those. Mickey had a great ability for slagging. If you came in with something on you that was a wee bit different, Mickey would not be long in pointing that out. That is the type of person who Mickey was. He was so kind and so caring, as has been reflected over the past few days.

My children were practically reared in my constituency office. Mickey was always there if you needed someone to hold the baby, quite literally. My children have great memories of him.

When we opened our constituency office in Monaghan Street, I was proud to have my name alongside Mickey Brady's name and share that office with him, because, for the people of Newry, Mickey Brady defined what we call "a legend". That is not an exaggeration. He was always a joy to canvass with and, especially, for, but it took a long time to get round the doors, because he knew absolutely everybody and everyone wanted to talk to him. He was a fierce advocate for Daisy Hill Hospital, Palestine and, indeed, welfare rights and equality. First and foremost, however, he was a family man who absolutely adored his family. He spoke daily about his late wife, Rose, whom he lost at a very young age; his wife, Caroline; his children; and, more recently, his grandchildren, whom he adored. I know that their loss is immeasurable.

Our loss is huge. We cannot imagine life without Mickey Brady. He has been our constant. Right up until a few weeks ago, he was still doing appointments and filling in forms with people during what was meant to be his retirement. Mickey was the people's champion; there is no more fitting term for somebody like Mickey Brady. We will miss him dearly.

Mr Boylan: It is with great sadness that I rise. Sinn Féin has lost a great friend, colleague and comrade. Mickey Brady was a pure gentleman and a great advocate for the people of Newry and Armagh. He was an expert in welfare rights and helped everyone who crossed his doorstep or asked for advice. He was my great companion on many's a campaign trail, and he had a great wit and humour about him. He made a wonderful contribution to politics in this Building and locally and was well respected by comrades and community alike. He will be sadly missed. I extend my sympathies and condolences to Caroline, his children, his grandchildren and the wider Brady clan. Farewell to a working-class hero. Farewell to the people's champion.

Ms Finnegan: I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Mickey Brady, a man whose impact on people's lives cannot be measured by titles or roles but by the dignity that he restored, the hope that he gave and the doors that he opened for those who had nowhere else to turn. I had the honour of calling Mickey a friend and comrade. He always showed his love for people through his compassion, quiet confidence and quick wit. I was privileged to be mentored by him on the welfare system, when he passed on not only his deep knowledge but his belief that public service must always be rooted in dignity and fairness. He taught compassion and persistence. He taught us that behind every case was a human being who was often frightened, struggling and unheard.

Mickey had a rare power. He could sit with someone at their lowest point and make them feel seen, respected and believed in. He understood the system inside and out. More important, he understood people. He fought relentlessly for those who were sick, struggling or worn down by a system that, too often, worked against them. He did so without ever seeking recognition. There truly was no one like him.

Mickey dedicated his life to helping people and political activism. In doing so, he understood a fundamental truth: building a better Ireland meant bringing everyone with us. He believed that justice, equality and dignity were values that transcended tradition and backgrounds. In his work, Mickey represented not only his fellow republicans but those from unionist and other backgrounds, treating every person who came through his door with the same respect, determination and humanity. For decades, Mickey stood as a shield between ordinary people and an often unforgiving system. He carried the weight of their worries as though they were his own, quietly and confidently, day after day. Families across Newry and Armagh may never fully know the extent of what he did for them, but their lives are better because he was there.

Mickey believed deeply in a united Ireland, not as a distant aspiration but as a fairer society where no one is left behind, where compassion sits at the heart of public service and where dignity is something that every person can expect, not something that they have to fight for. His absence will be deeply felt. His voice, guidance and quiet strength will be sorely missed. My sincere condolences go to his family — his wife, his children and his grandchildren — and his many friends.

Mickey, all of us in Newry and Armagh, in the Thirty-two Counties and in Sinn Féin will miss you profoundly.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on President Trump's tariffs decision that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Mr Gaston, you have up to three minutes, as will all other Members who speak.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Today, we are witnessing an international debate over sovereignty, self-determination and economic bullying. The people of Greenland have made it abundantly clear that their future is not for sale to the highest bidder. However, in recent days, the president of the United States has escalated the situation by threatening to impose punitive tariffs on European nations, including the United Kingdom, if they do not acquiesce to pressure over Greenland. This morning, our Prime Minister rightly condemned the tariff threat, stating that penalising allies over joint security commitments in the Arctic is completely wrong. He affirmed that decisions about Greenland's future lie with its people and Denmark, as they should. However, while the Prime Minister claims to champion sovereignty abroad, he accepts a protocol that subjects the people of this part of the United Kingdom to rule by Brussels in over 300 areas of law. While Members will rail against President Trump, they will doff their cap to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. It is profoundly contradictory to claim that you stand with Denmark and Greenland against external coercion while accepting arrangements that undermine the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland.

Let us be clear: Greenland's future belongs to the Greenlanders and should be decided by their elected representatives and their sovereign Parliament. The future of Northern Ireland should be decided by those whom we elect and our sovereign Parliament. Trump has been condemned for rhetorical and hypothetical interference in Greenland, while the EU acts as a real colonial power over people in a non-member state, facilitated by the UK Government and parties in Stormont. Whether colonialism be from Washington or Brussels, it should be rejected. To condemn one and accept the other is rank hypocrisy.

Mr Tennyson: Donald Trump's latest threat to impose tariffs on the UK and a swathe of European NATO allies is an outrageous abuse of power and an attack on the principle of national self-determination. That hostile act will ultimately lead to higher costs for ordinary workers and families, including those in Northern Ireland.

Let us be clear: the sovereignty of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark to decide. While we have long enjoyed a close relationship with the United States, which has supported jobs, investment and our political process, it is increasingly clear that this president is no ally of Northern Ireland, the UK or Europe. Trump's assertion that he no longer feels an obligation to think "purely of peace" just because he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize shows how much the president's strategy is driven by vanity and self-service. The Prime Minister's policy of appeasing the increasingly erratic and self-serving president has failed. Flattering a man who has bullied the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, been found liable for sexual assault and torn up international law and is overseeing democratic backsliding in his own country does not go far enough; Starmer must now stand up to the bully in the White House.

The UK must work with its European partners and allies on a robust response and make it clear that there will be no state visit this year if that course of action continues.

If we are serious about protecting jobs and businesses, we must deepen cooperation across the Continent and rejoin the customs union so that we are not dependent on the fleeting favour of one unreliable ally. It is telling that many in the Chamber who claim to put Northern Ireland first, including the Member who spoke previously, are such fanboys of Donald Trump and fanboys for his dangerous approach to politics that they can barely utter a word of condemnation of the tariffs, which will hurt businesses and consumers in the United States and here in Northern Ireland.

To repeat a phrase, it is time to take back control. It is time to show genuine backbone against the attacks from Trump, to stand up for Greenland's self-determination and to pursue deeper ties with our European neighbours and allies.

Ms Sheerin: Like others in the Chamber, I watched with shock and disbelief as the news unfolded this weekend and at the confusion that it has created. Like the Member for North Antrim, I am appalled by colonialism and have always stood against it.

Our Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, has written to the British and Irish Governments with our concerns in a quest to seek clarity on what the proposed tariffs might mean for us. Tariffs benefit no one, and economic bullying must be stood up to. As has already been said, it is for the people of Greenland — there are indigenous people in Greenland — to decide their future. We support their right to self-determination, just as we support our own right.

Mr Buckley: Members will forgive me for thinking that, having listened to the Alliance Party's contribution, I had stumbled across a foreign affairs seminar at a Sinn Féin party conference. Apparently, in the world view of Eóin Tennyson, unionism is in some way implicated in the United States' position on Greenland.

Let me be absolutely clear. There are many issues on which many of my constituents and I agree with our friends and neighbours in the US Administration. I make no apology for saying so. I proudly support their strong stance on gender and the protection of women's safe spaces and their ensuring that men no longer compete in women's sport. I stand with them in their pursuit of peace in the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia alongside their NATO allies. I stand with them in their belief that a strong nation must have strong borders. All those issues fall short of Mr Tennyson's world view, but here is the point: I can agree with the US Administration on all those issues yet still hold firm to the position that Greenland, the territory of a NATO ally, is not hostile territory for the United States and its people. It is for Greenlanders and the people of the Kingdom of Denmark to decide their constitutional future.

Here is where the irony is almost breathtaking. The knock-off Emmanuel Macron, Mr Tennyson, waxes lyrical about Greenland's sovereignty, yet tell me this: has anyone ever heard the Alliance Party, or, indeed, Mr Tennyson, show one ounce of concern for Northern Ireland's sovereignty? I have certainly not heard him take that position. If anything, he has held it in outright contempt. From day 1, Alliance was a rigorous implementer of a Northern Ireland protocol that classed Northern Ireland in trading terms as a foreign entity. From day 1, Mr Tennyson and his colleagues in Alliance ran to collaborate with people who wanted to punish Northern Ireland because of a democratic vote that happened nationwide. Although Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin lament the potential loss of sovereignty in Greenland, Mr Tennyson cannot spare one single thought for the consequences of the protocol here for the people of Northern Ireland.

The House deserves consistency and honesty, and it will get that from me at each and every turn.

Dr Aiken: I make a declaration of interest in that I previously worked for His Majesty's Government on the Arctic, and I also worked with the Arctic Council. Here at the Assembly recently, I gave a lecture to the Royal Geographical Society on Arctic security, of which Greenland formed a part.

There is no doubt that there is a security challenge in the Arctic, its growth driven by the climate emergency. Previously unsustainable areas and maritime routes have opened up, and the melting of permafrost has made access to strategic minerals, rare earths and oil and gas that much easier. Greenland is central to the opening of the Arctic and has attracted considerable interest from China and other areas. The United States, however, despite the Alaska North Slope, has, until now, taken little interest in the Arctic. The USA has only one operational icebreaker, the 50-year-old Polar Star. Canada has 20-plus of them, the Russians have 57 and even Denmark has four.

The United States had nine or 10 bases in Greenland; it now has only one. If the United States has security concerns, there is nothing to prevent it from reopening bases in Greenland. Indeed, Denmark and Greenland would actively welcome that because of the importance of building infrastructure, which is what they have done.

The United States introducing tariff change to get what it wants does not make any sense. Anyone who served with the Danes in Afghanistan knows that they fought bravely in support of the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Proportionately, Denmark gave more lives and had more people injured than virtually any other nation in NATO.

This crisis is manufactured, and — I will say it again — it is not in US interests. It would not be in the interests of Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan. It is time for the United States president to reconsider the issues, as he has done on many occasions. Given everything else that is going on in the world, now is not the time to pick a fight with the Danes and the rest of NATO.

Mr O'Toole: I frequently disagree with Dr Aiken, but I am encouraged that, on the Trump Administration's actions, there is, at least, a little difference between him and a couple of the other unionist Members who spoke. I would have been concerned had every unionist representative who stood up today refused to properly and clearly condemn the actions of, frankly, a madman in the White House. A madman.

Donald Trump is not the United States. There are lots of robust, legitimate criticisms of the actions of the United States, now and in the past, including, most recently, on the genocide in Gaza. There are also lots of reasons to believe that the United States can, when it chooses, be an extremely positive force in the world, including in our peace process. We make a mistake, however, when we talk about Donald Trump as if he were a normal US president. That man is, it appears, a madman. I say that genuinely; I do not mean to be histrionic or offensive, but one can draw no other conclusion from his actions. As was said, there can be no serious security reason for his threatening to annex sovereign territory against the wishes of the people who live there and no reason other than his vanity and his wish to see another thing on the map stamped with his name. That is egomania and insanity — it is florid — and it is scary that it is happening.

It is scary that is has taken until now for European leaders and, indeed, Prime Minister Starmer to stand up to that individual and to say clearly to him, "No: this is completely unacceptable". We have seen grotesque actions, including, of course, in Gaza, and increasingly grotesque, preposterous things: his humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office, his actions in Venezuela, and, last week, the preposterous scenario of a winner of the Nobel Prize for peace grovelling to that man and giving him the prize — he acted like a spoilt nine-year-old in receiving it. The rest of us are supposed to act as though that is normal or that that person is worthy of negotiating or engaging with in a serious way.

I genuinely hope that the people of the United States send a message to Donald Trump in November, but, until that happens, leaders across the world, including in the EU and the UK, need to be clear with Trump that there will be economic and trade consequences for threatening an independent sovereign state in such a way. He cannot and must not get away with it.

To some of the Trump fanboys in the Chamber, I say this: he does not care about you. He does not care about anybody in the Chamber. He does not care about the protocol or the Windsor framework. Let us be clear: he does not care about anybody on this planet other than himself. That is why this is so scary and why it is important that there be a robust diplomatic response. To those people who indulge and flatter that individual, I say: grow up and look at what is happening in front of you.

Mr Carroll: Another week has gone by, and another attempt by the US president to engage in a land grab for resources, regardless of the impact on a sovereign people who already live in a sovereign country. Much was made of this president being a non-interventionalist by Jonathan Company — I mean Jonathan Buckley

— but the actions a few weeks ago, with the capturing of Maduro, and now the actions towards Greenland show that Trump and his regime are willing to go anywhere that suits to meet the needs of US capitalism and empire. I disagree with Mr O'Toole: I do not think that Trump is a madman. These are the illogical actions of a man at the head of a declining empire. As much as I welcome the unionist parties standing up for sovereignty, although they mentioned Greenland, there was no mention of Venezuela, Iran or Palestine.

Normally, before an invasion, the US, Britain and others promise to bring democracy or other liberal "Western values" to a land of natives through the barrel of a gun. However, this time has been completely different, and Trump has engaged, as I said, in pure naked imperialism. Trump is a gangster, like many presidents before him. He is brazen, upfront and grotesque about his aims and goals. Nunarput, which is the indigenous name for Greenland, belongs to the people who live there. It is up to them to determine their future and how they govern themselves, notwithstanding the crimes of the Danish state against the Greenlanders, including the forced sterilisation of women and other things. There is a real fear about what US intervention and annexation by the Americans could result in.

We remember Afghanistan and Fallujah and what intervention, empire and occupation result in, and we know the brutality of empire. People have the right to stand up against it, in Greenland and elsewhere. The whole saga calls into question this state and this island's approach to the United States. It is long past the time that the Executive stopped facilitating the US war machine through Aldergrove, which no one has mentioned so far. It is long past the time for this Administration to stop cosying up to US presidents and diplomats. It is time to shun this gangster and to stand up against the terror state. The solution will not be found in more EU weapons and more war from EU member states. We need to build an anti-war and an anti-empire movement right across Greenland, Scandinavia and the world.

Ms Flynn: Today, on what is often referred to as Blue Monday, I want to pause and speak directly to the reality behind that phrase. While Blue Monday is sometimes described as the most difficult day of the year for many people in our constituencies, emotional distress, loneliness and despair are not confined to one Monday in January; they are daily realities shaped by social isolation, poverty, trauma, poor mental health services and ongoing pressures facing individuals and families. As a society, we must be careful not to trivialise those experiences, but instead use moments like this to recommit ourselves to meaningful action, compassion and prevention. In my community in West Belfast, we can see at first hand the impact that poor mental health and suicide have had on families and communities, which highlights the urgent need for more support.

Tomorrow, the all-party group on suicide prevention will mark an important and solemn moment here at Parliament Buildings. At 1.00 pm in room 342, we will come together for the official launch of an inquiry into cross-departmental funding for suicide prevention. I welcome the confirmation that the Health Minister will formally launch the inquiry, which underlines the seriousness and urgency of the work. With 290 suicides registered in the North in 2024, the inquiry could not be more timely. Suicide does not sit with one Department; it genuinely needs a whole-of-government approach.

I know that notification was sent out, but I inform Members that, immediately following the meeting in room 342, we will meet at 1.45 pm, when Members can gather outside Parliament Buildings for a moment of reflection to remember each of the 290 lives that have been lost to suicide. Family members and community and voluntary groups will be there, and the Minister of Health will be in attendance. Members are all more than welcome and, hopefully, can come along. The moment of reflection will be quiet, dignified and deeply human. It is an opportunity for us all not just to remember but to recommit to doing better and acting earlier to ensure that no family feels abandoned in its darkest hour. If colleagues are available, I encourage them to attend and join some of the families at 1.45 pm tomorrow.

Mr K Buchanan: The past weekend marked another anniversary of one of the most harrowing atrocities of the Troubles: the Teebane bombing on 17 January 1992. On that winter evening, eight Protestant workmen were murdered and five others injured when a massive IRA roadside bomb destroyed their minibus at Teebane crossroads between Cookstown and Omagh. They were tradesmen — tradesmen; nothing more — ordinary, hard-working individuals returning home after a day's work at Lisanelly army barracks. They were targeted solely because of the contracts that their employer, Karl Construction, undertook. Their murder was an act of pure brutality. The blast was heard for many miles; indeed, it shook the windows of my home. The Provisional IRA's Tyrone brigade — "brigade"? I say "cowards" — claimed responsibility, attempting to justify the unjustifiable by labelling the men as collaborators. That narrative was as false then as it is now.

To this day, no one has been convicted for that atrocity — no one. That continuing absence of justice deepens the pain for the families left behind. There must never be a hierarchy of victims. Every life taken during the Troubles deserves truth, accountability and remembrance. I again urge anyone with information about terrorist activity during that period to take it to the police. Silence only protects those who inflicted suffering on their neighbours.

To those who carried out the attack and fled the scene, I say this, and I want you to listen and listen clearly: you may have evaded earthly justice, but you will never escape justice on the weight of what you did. Every day, you will think about what you did. You will think about the sight of that minibus coming down that road and how you pressed the button. You know who you are. To the people who rang to tell them that the minibus was on its way, I also say, "You know who you are". You have evaded justice here, but you will never evade it in the next world. That is fundamentally clear. Not a day will pass when the memory of your actions does not return to haunt you — it will — and there will be a reckoning beyond this world that no one — absolutely no one — can avoid. When you look at your children or grandchildren at Christmas, tell them what you did; tell them the coward that you were to kill absolutely innocent people. If tragedies happen to you, your family or your community, have a good, long think about what you did and what you inflicted. It will come back on you.

Today, we remember with respect eight decent men whose lives were stolen: Gary Bleeks, Cecil Caldwell, Robert Dunseath, Oswald Gilchrist, David Harkness, Bobby Irons, Richard McConnell and Nigel McKee.

Mr Tennyson: I commend the campaign of my constituent Dr Jonathan Dillon, a respected Banbridge GP who has spent his career caring for others. In February 2024, Jonathan was diagnosed with bowel cancer; a diagnosis that, in his own words, came as a bolt from the blue. Jonathan had no obvious symptoms, no family history, a healthy lifestyle and nothing that would have placed him in a high-risk category; yet a 7cm tumour was discovered during a scope. He underwent major surgery just two days after his fiftieth birthday. Since then, he has spoken bravely and openly about the physical and emotional toll of his diagnosis, the long recovery and the extraordinary support that he received from colleagues, friends and family.

Jonathan has also spoken candidly and with remarkable clarity about what that experience must mean for public policy. He reminds us that 13% of bowel cancers are diagnosed in people between the ages of 50 and 59, yet the screening age in Northern Ireland remains at 60. The evidence is clear: screening from the age of 50 significantly increases the likelihood of detecting cancer at stage 1, where the five-year survival rate is over 93%. Early detection saves lives but only if people are offered screening early enough.

Jonathan is now using his voice to raise awareness, to fundraise for research and to encourage others to seek help. His courage is inspiring, but it should not fall to individuals to highlight gaps in our system. We have the evidence; we have the strategy; we have the lived experience of people such as Dr Jonathan Dillon. What we need now is action to accelerate the lowering of the screening age to 50 in line with the rest of the UK. That step would align with the Minister's commitment to move towards a more preventative system of healthcare that avoids complex surgeries; reduces emergency admissions and long-term needs; helps people to return to work sooner and healthier; and, above all, saves lives.

Dr Aiken: Members may not be aware of European Commission regulations COM/2023/258 final and 2023/0156 (COD) and their annexes. The regulations set out EU revenue-raising customs proposals on e-commerce that were to apply from 1 March 2028 but have now been brought forward to July 2026. The names of the regulations are a mouthful to recite, so, for the rest of my statement, I will simplify them by calling them the "tax of the rigorous implementers", which can be shortened to the "Alliance tax".

The changes rule that the duty relief and regulation exemption from customs duty for consignments valued at under €150 are to be rescinded and that a flat €3 fee will be applied to all non-excise goods that are imported. In simple terms, that will mean that any parcel coming in from outside the EU to an EU-designated customs area such as Northern Ireland will be subject to that charge. Additionally, in order to pay for the new EU Customs Authority, an extra charge of €2 per item will be added to the Alliance tax in the near future, bringing it up to €5 per item. The Alliance tax raise will be collected by HMRC and then passed to the EU.

Detailed data on parcel transactions is not available. However, having done some calculations on the Alliance tax, I would like to share with you some of my initial outline figures. There are 768,900 households in Northern Ireland. If we assume that those households receive three parcels a week — I know that many homes, including mine, receive more — from the likes of Amazon, Evri or whatever, the revenue from normal parcel traffic — that figure times three, times 52, times five — would equal €599·7 million per annum. If we added to that our business traffic, with 81,135 registered businesses in Northern Ireland — the maths for that is that figure times 10, times 52, times five — the revenue would equal €210·9 million. That would mean a total Alliance tax of €810·6 million or £703·7 million per annum going to Brussels. That is £703·7 million of revenue that will be sucked out of Northern Ireland families, businesses, farmers and our economy.

That £703 million Alliance tax could go a long way towards fixing our crumbling water infrastructure, paying for 7,500 PSNI officers, fixing our education system and even helping to fix Lough Neagh. However, the Alliance tax will go straight to the EU, not our Northern Ireland Executive. The Alliance tax is just one of many Windsor framework charges that we will be subject to. When the Alliance tax is extorted from us, let that name remind you just who champions the EU at every opportunity.

Mr McGrath: In my constituency lies the town of Warrenpoint, where people, be they young families, older residents, sports club members or those in local community groups, enjoy their local community and have an excellent community spirit. That is why the long-promised Warrenpoint community centre matters so deeply to local people. However, residents are increasingly frustrated by the shifting story around it.

Two years ago, local people were told by the council that the facility would require an investment of £7·1 million and that the work would be completed by December 2025. That expectation was set clearly and publicly. Then, in February last year, residents were told something different. They were told by the largest party on the council, Sinn Féin, that £8 million had been secured and that the work would commence in the coming months. People believed that. They planned around it and took reassurance from it. I was told by the council that the project would be on the October planning committee agenda, but that did not happen.

There was no decision, no clarity and no explanation. Now, residents are being told by a local rep that he anticipates that a decision will be made by January or February, maybe. I wrote to the council, seeking clear timelines and straight answers on the delays and siting of the project. While I received an update, there is nothing new and no indication of when the centre will progress to that crucial planning committee meeting. However, I have been told that the cost of the centre is now £7·3 million, which the council has committed.

The people of Warrenpoint ask not for special treatment but honesty, consistency and respect. Residents must be kept informed and be properly listened to, not led up the garden path by changing narratives and political claims. If the centre is to be built in Clonallon Park, as proposed, and if it is to deliver health, well-being and community benefits, as promised, the process must be transparent and decisive. People in Warrenpoint deserve certainty on how the funding will be used, whether the timelines are credible and when a final decision will be taken. The project has been talked about for years, but talk is no longer enough. It is time for clarity, accountability and delivery, because Warrenpoint deserves nothing less. Let us get the Warrenpoint community centre built.

Mr Frew: It is concerning that the Justice Minister is having to clarify her words and apologise for inaccuracies around important matters that impact on victims' lives, their upcoming court cases and people's livelihoods and jobs. We need the Justice Minister to do all in her power to prioritise the recommencement of criminal court cases. We need the Criminal Bar Association to do all that it can to end its strike. Putting out inaccurate information will not help anyone, not least the victims of some of the most heinous crimes in our recent history.

I have spoken with some of the victims' families who have been desperately awaiting trial. That is not an easy thing. Their worlds were cut asunder when they lost loved ones to murder. People's lives were cut asunder when their loved one was a victim of a sexual crime. However, those people have to wait and then prepare themselves for a trial in which all the details will be laid bare for all to see. That is not easy, yet those victims and their families are now faced with an intolerable anxiety and wait, because not only do they have to live with that delay but they have no idea of when their loved ones will receive justice. They have not got a date, which could even be delayed again, or a time, meaning that they cannot prepare themselves. That in itself is criminal.

Again, I ask the Justice Minister to reprioritise the issue, stay off the microphone, get around the table with the representatives from the Criminal Bar Association and step up to resolve the issue for the victims of crime.

Mr Sheehan: Labhraím inniu le haird a tharraingt ar chás Liam Óig ó Kneepcap, a bhí os comhair na cúirte sa Bhreatain arís eile an tseachtain seo caite, agus le mo thacaíocht dó a chur in iúl. Níl sa tseanchas seo uilig ach ag iarraidh dallamullóg a chur ar dhaoine. Is léir gur iarracht é Kneecap a chur ina dtost, cionn is go bhfuil siad ag tarraingt aird an domhain ar an chinedhíothú atá ar siúl in Gaza.

Tugadh rialú cúirte cheana féin go bhfuil an cúiseamh i gcoinne Liam Óig neamhdhleathach. Ba chóir do Rialtas na Breataine glacadh leis sin agus a n-aird a dhíriú ar lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe, chan ar na daoine atá ag tarraingt aird air. Ba chóir do Rialtas na Breataine díriú ar Iosrael a thabhairt chun cuntais, nó mharaigh an Stát sin breis agus 440 duine ó cuireadh an sos cogaidh i bhfeidhm — sos cogaidh, mar dhea.

Níor bhain cás Liam Óig riamh le sábháilteacht an phobail ná le riar an cheartais ach baineann sé le húsáid chumhacht an stáit le ceoltóir a ghéarleanúint cionn is go labhraíonn sé amach go neamhbhalbh ar chúrsaí polaitíochta. Molaim Liam Óg agus Kneecap as an fhód a sheasamh go daingean nuair atá daoine eile ar a seacht ndícheall lena gcur ina dtost. Níl aon amhras orm ná go gcoinneoidh siad leo an gléas cainte atá acu a úsáid leis an éagóir a thabhairt chun solais, ainneoin dhícheall Rialtas na Breataine coirpigh a dhéanamh díobh agus a gcur ina dtost.

Leanfaimid orainn ag seasamh le Liam Óg agus é ag troid a cháis, agus leanfaimid orainn ag labhairt amach i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe agus ag tacú le muintir na Palaistíne.

Mr Martin: In 2015, my DUP colleague Lord Morrow got his Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill through the Assembly, and it became law. I am thankful to him for that. I am also thankful to Christian Action Research and Education, a Christian social policy charity, for its work at that time and its ongoing focus on the issue. However, human trafficking remains a pervasive, adaptive and deeply entrenched issue. Criminal networks continue to exploit gaps between immigration systems, labour markets and social protections, and technology has accelerated recruitment and control. As the chair of the newly formed all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I am keen to push forward with our inquiry into the operation and impact of pimping websites in Northern Ireland.

Globally, growing evidence shows that websites that cynically attempt to label themselves as "adult services" websites profit from the trafficking, exploitation and abuse of women and girls. Such websites are often heralded as providing women with empowerment. Instead, they are full of adverts for women who have been trafficked, deceived and manipulated. A House of Commons Committee recently found that the advertising of sexual services has moved increasingly online and that adult services websites are "the most significant enabler" of trafficking for sexual exploitation.

I will pause briefly to thank the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, for her excellent work and research in the area. I also bring the Assembly's attention to the brilliant work of Ruth Breslin, who is the director of the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute in the South.

Critical to addressing commercial sexual exploitation is tackling the persistent myth of choice. The presence of money does not negate the presence of coercion. Where there is an imbalance of power, or where there is vulnerability, fear or a lack of viable alternatives, consent is rendered meaningless. I am proud that my party, the DUP, introduced that legislation to protect women. However, we must all now refocus and adapt our energy to combat the new and pervasive enemy that is in our midst. If we are to call ourselves a society that values dignity and justice, we must ensure that exploitation is neither tolerated nor ignored. The measure of our commitment will be found not in words but in the protection that we offer our most vulnerable.

Mr Gaston: In July last year, a GAA summer camp in Comber was cancelled. Almost immediately, a narrative was constructed and amplified by the BBC that suggested that the cancellation was caused by opposition from the Goldsprings of Comber Loyal Orange Lodge. That narrative is wrong. That is not just my opinion but the conclusion of an independent regulator.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation upheld the complaint taken against the 'Belfast Telegraph' on precisely that point, finding that its reporting had given the false impression that the lodge's social media post had caused the cancellation, when the cricket club itself confirmed that that was not the case. When UTV was challenged by Ofcom to provide evidence for its reporting, it could not produce first-hand verification; instead, it produced screenshots from the BBC website. One media organisation was relying on another's untested reporting as evidence, creating an echo chamber in which assumption hardened into facts.

UTV has apologised; 'The Irish News' has apologised; and the local newspaper has apologised; but guess what? The BBC has not. Six months on from broadcasting the story, the BBC is still considering the complaint. For a publicly funded broadcaster that routinely lectures others about transparency and accountability, that delay is indefensible and means that a voluntary organisation continues to carry reputational damage from an allegation that has already been shown to be false.

The BBC is paid for by compulsory licence fees. With that privilege comes responsibility. The BBC must, without further delay, conclude considering the complaint and correct the record with the same prominence as was given to the original allegation. Anything less is not impartiality. It is just the latest reason that many of us in unionism want to defund the BBC. It is partial, agenda-driven and does not reflect the grassroots community.

Mrs Guy: I express my deep concern at reports of AI-generated explicit images being circulated among children in school settings in Northern Ireland. The incidents are serious enough to warrant police investigation. The misuse of that technology and the way in which it is proliferating without guard rails is a profound safeguarding issue. It causes devastating and lasting harm to the children targeted by the doctored images, and it exposes those creating or sharing them to the risk of committing serious criminal offences.

I welcome the work being taken forward by my party colleagues Justice Minister Naomi Long and Kate Nicholl MLA to ensure that the creation and sharing of sexually explicit AI-generated images is clearly and robustly criminalised, along with the apps that create them. It is an important step in ensuring that the law keeps pace with technological change and provides meaningful protection for victims.

We all know that legislation alone will not be enough, however. The speed of change and the abuse of AI, combined with the widespread use of smartphones and social media, present daily challenges for schools, families and young people. There are, however, things that we can do as an Executive and an Assembly. For example, current guidance on mobile phone use in schools is non-statutory, yet the risks of unrestricted access are well evidenced and include cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. In that context, it is time for the Education Minister to consider giving stronger backing, potentially through legislation, to guidance on mobile phone use in schools and to require schools to demonstrate how they meet their safeguarding responsibilities through the inspection process.

Of course, actions are not just for the Justice and Education Ministers to take. It is an issue on which the Executive and Assembly can and must work together more, so my ask today is that we give the area more attention, whether that be by demanding that Ofcom use all its powers to ensure that companies comply with the Online Safety Act 2023, by asking the Chief Medical Officers to look again at the evidence on the harms of social media or by coming together to a joint position on further social media regulation.

I will end by saying that, while we work on the issues, support is out there for children and families. The PSNI, the NSPCC, Safer Schools NI, the Marie Collins Foundation and the UK Safer Internet Centre are there to provide advice. Technological progress is welcome, but we need to say together that it is not welcome at any cost, especially when it comes to the welfare of our children and young people.

Mr Delargy: Since February 2024, the number of students at Magee has increased by 22% and now stands at 6,500.

We are on track to reach 10,000 students by 2032. It is a clear sign of Sinn Féin's commitment to Derry and the north-west to unlock the potential of our city, because Sinn Féin Ministers have been key drivers for the north-west and have created true regional balance.

My grandparents were part of the campaign to create expanded and proper provision in Magee College, and my generation now has a chance to realise the benefits of that. We have a Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, who is from Derry and delivering for Derry, and our city is changing. It is transforming for the future, and that is a future for all. The expansion and transformation of Magee must reach all communities. That is why Sinn Féin, through the Department for the Economy, has set up an expert working group to support the delivery of student accommodation. It is about listening to residents and making sure that the expansion of Magee reaches all communities. We need everyone on board to do that, because it is an Executive commitment. Of course, it will deliver change in Derry and the north-west, but it will create change in further and higher education right across Ireland.

I thank the task force and Ulster University for their commitment to delivery and expansion in Derry because without that commitment, none of this would have happened. Sinn Féin Ministers continue to deliver and prioritise the north-west and ensure that regional balance is not just something on paper but is felt in all our communities. This is an exciting time for everyone, particularly for students who now have the opportunity to study, work, live and build a life in Derry. Sinn Féin Ministers will continue to build that future and lead that change.

Ms Brownlee: Fire safety affects families, our neighbours and our communities right across Northern Ireland each and every day. Last year saw the highest number of fatal house fires in Northern Ireland in 25 years, and that is not just a headline; it is a serious warning. Behind every statistic is a life lost and a family grieving, often the result of entirely preventable incidents.

Most fatal fires happen in the home. They are linked to cooking, smoking or electrical faults — risks that we all know how to reduce. Testing your smoke alarms to make sure that they work, safer night-time routines and a clear escape plan do save lives, yet prevention depends not just on individual behaviour but on public awareness. That is why it is deeply concerning that, despite the rise in fatalities, we have had no sustained public fire safety advertising campaign in recent years.

The annual spend on fire safety messaging by the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has plummeted from around £1 million in 2010-11 to zero in 2022-23, as was discovered by a recent FOI request. Fire safety messaging is vital to reinforce those basic life-saving messages. If prevention is our first line of defence, silence is not an option. We rightly praise the brave professional Fire and Rescue Service staff, whole-time and on-call, who respond at all hours and often in extremely difficult conditions.

Firefighters will say that the best fire is one that never happens. Fire safety starts long before the alert sounds. It starts in education in our schools and communities through outreach and in messages that reach older people who live alone, those using alternative heating and families under pressure. I remind everybody here today, and anybody who is watching, that the Fire and Rescue Service offers free fire safety checks. They are offered online for everyone, but there is an in-person, at-home safety check for those individuals who are at an additional risk.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that fire safety is treated as a public health priority, and that means backing prevention, supporting awareness campaigns and ensuring that fire safety remains visible, consistent and adequately resourced, because when the warning signs are clear, inaction costs lives.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Cheryl. That ends Members' statements.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Happy new year to you and to everyone in the Assembly. I am afraid that, so far, it has not been a new year blessed with delivery, focus and purpose from the Northern Ireland Executive. If you were to turn to the Executive Office website, the Executive Office being the Department that is the organising hub of devolved Government, you might expect to see a new year message, perhaps from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of purpose, focus and energy, telling the public of the North what they can expect to see in this last full year of the Executive mandate. If you were to go on that website, you might expect to see clarity about what the priorities are for the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the entire Executive. If you thought that, you would be wrong, because, if you go to the Executive Office website, the last communication from that Department that you will see is from 11 December. Some statistics were published a day or two after that, but the last message is about a visit to London by the junior Ministers. I am sure that was very important and a useful engagement. The last piece of public communication from the Executive Office was more than a month ago. That speaks to something deeply troubling about our devolved Government. We are drifting towards the end of the mandate without any focus, purpose or urgency to deliver for the public of the North, and I do not think that it is good enough.

No doubt I will be accused today of being negative. It is an accusation that is often levelled at me and my colleagues in the Opposition, and that is fine. Opposition politicians are there to be robust and to hold Ministers to account. That is our job, so we do not worry about being accused of being negative, but the public of Northern Ireland are far ahead of the Opposition. If you think that we are negative, you should go out and talk to your constituents, knock on the doors, stand on the street and hear what they have to say about delivery by the Executive. I promise you that it will be a hell of a lot more negative than I am and a hell of a lot more negative and scathing than my colleagues in the Opposition, because the public are deeply frustrated and insulted by what passes for devolved Government here in Northern Ireland.

Two years ago, we were promised that a restored Executive would focus on doing what matters most. In fact, we were promised a programme for delivery. The First Minister and deputy First Minister both promised that there would be a focus on delivery. There is apparently a new delivery unit. We were told that we would have regular, annual updates on delivery against the Programme for Government targets. As far as I am aware, there has not been a single report yet. I am not aware of any report on the update on the delivery of the Programme for Government. In fact, it would be a pretty short update were it to come. It could almost be one line, because delivery has not been good enough.

Our motion today is not simply about casting blame; it is about finding a way forward. It is about finding a better and more constructive way forward because the truth is that we simply cannot go on like this. The two main Executive parties are at one another's throats. They cannot agree on a draft multi-year Budget. They are indulging in petty sham fights in order to generate attention and to distract from their abysmal failure to deliver, and the public are over it. They have had it now for nearly two decades.

All the while, waiting lists have got worse; environmental degradation has intensified; our public services have declined; and the public simply want better. The bare minimum that they were promised two years ago was clarity and a plan. The Executive have failed consistently to deliver that.

Let me take the issues in turn, the first of which is the Executive's legislative programme. In spring 2024, the Executive published a very mild and fairly unambitious legislative programme. It was so unambitious that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister were at pains to say that it was not the limit of their aspirations. Well, they still have not delivered that 2024 legislative programme. Of the, I believe, 18 pieces of legislation that were promised in the programme, only a handful have made it to the statute book so far. Where are the landmark pieces of legislation that we were promised?

I will pick out two in particular, because we need to be focused on specific areas where there has not been delivery. The first is the 'good jobs' Bill. We have been told consistently for more than two years that the delivery of a 'good jobs' Bill would be a major priority of the new Sinn Féin Economy Minister. Conor Murphy launched a consultation, which we welcomed, way back in early 2024. We are now two years on from that point. I do not know where the 'good jobs' Bill is, nor do I know whether the First Minister and the deputy First Minister know where it is. The public and the workers should be told, because they were promised landmark generational employment rights legislation, but we do not know where it is. If it is not introduced soon, it will be difficult for it to pass before the end of the mandate. I worry that that is the plan. I worry that the plan is to delay, delay, delay, and, if the Bill is not passed, someone else can be blamed. The Sinn Féin Minister can blame the DUP for blocking it in the Executive, or the Assembly can be blamed for not progressing it.

I will move on to another piece of legislation: the legislation on hate crime. I am picking only two pieces of legislation, though I could pick a lot. The Alliance Party manifesto promised stand-alone hate crime legislation. Since we have been back, we have seen the epidemic of hate crime spike online and in person. There was a hate fest — a riot — in the middle of Belfast in August 2024. People ran riot through my constituency. There was a near-pogrom on the streets of Ballymena last year. You would have expected the Executive to show more urgency, not just on the racial equality strategy, which has not yet been updated, but on hate crime legislation. I do not know where the hate crime legislation is. The Justice Minister says that it is due to be part of the sentencing Bill, but I do not know where the sentencing Bill is.

I could go on. I could go through the legislative programme and the vague, waffly Programme for Government, such as it is, and talk about the lack of delivery. The Programme for Government talked about social houses. In one of its very few areas of specific promise, it said that the Executive would seek to build 5,800 homes. That was admirably specific, compared with the rest of the Programme for Government. However, we know, almost definitely, that the Executive will not deliver 5,800 social homes. They may come nowhere near to meeting that target.

We know that the Executive promised the transformation of healthcare. The Bengoa report was published 10 years ago, when the First Minister was Health Minister. A decade has passed since the Bengoa report was launched, and we still have no clarity. It has been sitting for so long that there probably are people who have finally managed to have their hips or knees replaced while they have been waiting for the Bengoa report to be implemented. Nothing has happened.

The justice system continues to be shamefully slow. It continues to clog up victims and witnesses in a process that does not deliver for them. The list goes on and on.

The multi-year Budget, which was announced by the Finance Minister, a couple of weeks ago, is not a draft multi-year Budget at all; in fact, it is a draft draft multi-year Budget. The first thing that happened after the apposition was that the other main party in government, the DUP, came out and said, "We do not agree with the draft multi-year Budget". What are the public in the North supposed to make of a Government who publish a draft Budget that they cannot even agree on amongst themselves in the Executive? [Interruption.]

I see the deputy First Minister there: I am happy to allow her to intervene if she wants to give me an update on the agreement on the draft multi-year Budget.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Maybe the Member will clarify how the SDLP voted on draft Budgets and Budgets when it was in government. I do not believe that it supported a single one.

Mr O'Toole: That is not true, but here is the thing, deputy First Minister: we are not debating the SDLP's record in government. You jointly lead the Government now, so, deputy First Minister, if you are not going to support a draft multi-year Budget — something that you promised — come clean and tell the public. Two years ago, the two of you were good at taking photo opportunities together. Now, you do not even do that, because you see a joint political interest, as we get close to an election, in simply picking fights with one another — in having fights over flags and falling out theatrically. It does not really matter whether the public get an improved health service, whether potholes get filled or whether schools get built, as long as the DUP and Sinn Féin can fall out theatrically before an election, as they always do. All the things that I have said today about the legislative programme not being delivered and a draft multi-year Budget not being agreed do not really matter.

I will get sneering looks from Sinn Féin and DUP Members, but you should ask yourselves why the public have such contempt for our politics. They have such contempt for our politics, because your parties cannot and will not deliver. Shame on the Executive and their failure to deliver, and shame on you for the contempt that you have held the public in for far too long. The Executive are not delivering. We will continue to hold you to account for that, and we will offer constructive solutions as to how to do it better. I hope that you take us up on those offers.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Paula. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Paula, please open the debate on the amendment.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to propose the Alliance Party amendment. Members, Christmas is a time for reflection. For many of us, the period between Christmas and New Year offers space to take stock of the year just passed and the year ahead. It was during that period that I felt deep frustration at the lack of political progress and, more important, the limited tangible difference that the Executive have made to people's lives over the past 12 months. That frustration is widely held across our society. Two years on from the restoration of devolution, many people still feel that improvements to their day-to-day lives — improvements that they were promised and, indeed, are entitled to expect — have not been brought about.

Alliance remains steadfast in our support for devolution, because we believe that decisions are best made here on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. However, we have long been clear that siloed decision-making is not simply a cultural issue but a structural one. Ministers remain primarily accountable for their own Departments rather than taking a shared view of the outcomes from the Executive. Too often, cooperation depends on goodwill rather than obligation, and goodwill alone is not a reliable basis for delivery. Departments are operating in an extremely challenging financial environment after more than a decade without a properly agreed multi-year Budget. Some are chronically underfunded, while others suffer from poor budgetary control. The absence of long-term certainty has made planning and reform difficult, pushing Departments towards short-term reactive decisions and delaying vital long-term transformational projects.

The effects of that are clear. Over the past decade, the Department of Justice's share of the block grant has fallen while demand has continued to grow. Its 2025-26 outcome means that, in real terms, it is more than £220 million worse off than it would be had funding kept pace with inflation. At the same time, DAERA received the smallest percentage increase of any Department in 2025-26, despite increasingly demanding obligations. If Departments are expected to deliver, they must be properly resourced to do so. Alliance supports the principle of an ambitious, sustainable multi-year Budget, because meaningful reform cannot happen without long-term stability. While the draft Budget that is out for consultation is a step forward, it falls well short of what several Departments require to deliver Programme for Government commitments. We agreed that it should go out for consultation, but we are clear that it is not acceptable in its current form.

Funding alone does not explain our current position. Poor decision-making, lack of reform and entrenched inequalities, particularly in health and education and with the cost of division, have all played a role. The Departments with the largest budgets are often those that overspend the most, as they continue to invest in systems that have not been adequately reformed. Nowhere is that clearer than in Health, where spending per head is among the highest in the UK yet outcomes remain among the poorest. That points to a failure of reform, not funding alone.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office has repeatedly highlighted the difficulty in clearly linking spending to outcomes across Departments. Where that clarity is absent, scrutiny becomes reactive rather than preventative, and accountability follows failure rather than driving improvement. Alliance has consistently argued for a fair funding settlement from Westminster, but that case is weakened when public money is not used effectively. We will continue to engage constructively to push for sustainable funding and better value for money while being honest about the limits of what is possible in the current financial climate.

Budget reform, however, will not fix a system that lacks transparency and accountability. Progress reporting remains a significant weakness. Too often, Members receive little clarity on delivery against Programme for Government commitments until targets have already been missed, leaving us to use Chamber time simply to establish the basic facts. The Committee for the Executive Office works hard to scrutinise the Executive, but that scrutiny is only as effective as the information that it receives. The delivery unit is now operational, but it will ultimately be judged by its impact. The delivery unit must sit at the centre, maintain focus on priorities and be able to say clearly what is and is not on track and why. If updates are being produced, there should be no difficulty in setting out what is being delivered, where progress is slipping and what corrective action is being taken. Honest reporting would strengthen scrutiny and give the public confidence that problems are being actively addressed.

Delivery is also constrained by how our institutions operate. Since restoration, Alliance Ministers have brought forward proposals for reform and long-term improvement only to see progress repeatedly being stalled at the Executive table. The Assembly must also reflect on its role. We cannot criticise slow delivery while contributing to delays through excessive scrutiny or, conversely, by rushing legislation through without proper consideration.

Ultimately, the public do not want excuses; they want delivery. They want to see that government works and that the decisions taken in Departments and the Chamber make a real difference to their lives. As we begin a new year, it is both an opportunity for and a responsibility on us all to do better and be more honest about the challenges that we face, more principled in decision-making and more focused on actions rather than words.

The Alliance Party supports the motion and asks Members to support our amendment, because it represents the reality that we all face. It recognises pressures on public services, acknowledges the funding challenges that sit alongside weaknesses in decision-making and focuses on improving how government operates to deliver the Programme for Government commitments. If we are serious about restoring public confidence in politics, improved delivery, stronger reporting and genuine collective decision-making are essential. Our amendment asks not for miracles but for honesty, coordination and delivery. If we cannot commit to that, we owe it to the public to be honest about why. I urge Members to support our amendment.

Mr Sheehan: It is not easy to govern in a four-party Executive in which each party has different political priorities. It requires compromise and a commitment to work together. At times, that has been challenging, but it is wrong and unfair to suggest that no progress has been made. The leader of the Opposition spoke for 10 minutes, and not once did he acknowledge any of the progress that has been made.

The greatest challenge that faces the Executive is the continued underfunding of our public services. Despite promises of change from London after the previous election and 12 or 13 years of Tory austerity, austerity has not ended, and the Executive continue to operate with limited financial levers and little fiscal flexibility.

Within those constraints, Ministers have worked collectively to deliver. The Finance Minister has relentlessly pursued fair funding and secured an additional £600 million for public services. In December alone, £273 million was allocated to Departments, including over £100 million to support Health and Education and for pay settlements. Almost £30 million has been invested in building much-needed social housing.

We have also seen delivery on economic development and regional balance. Investment in the north-west is finally materialising, with major job creation, business expansion and the continued growth of the Magee campus, which now has over 6,500 students and is well on its way to reaching the target of 10,000 students.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Sheehan: Sure.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member outline the major job numbers and investments in Derry?

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

Mr Sheehan: What I will outline is the fact that enough land has been purchased to ensure that there will be student accommodation and further expansion of Magee College. That, in itself, will create jobs in the north-west.

Infrastructure and all-island cooperation are delivering tangible benefits, including record rail passenger numbers and renewed connectivity. None of that is to say that more does not need to be done: of course it does. A multi-year Budget, stronger cooperation between Departments and clear delivery on the Programme for Government are essential, but progress can be made only when parties come together and work in common purpose.

The Executive are not perfect — show me a Government who are — but they are delivering in difficult circumstances. Our focus must remain on working together to deliver for the people whom we represent.

Mrs Cameron: The Opposition motion claims that, two years after the restoration of devolved Government, the Executive have failed the public. I fundamentally reject that claim. The truth is very different. Yes, there are pressures; yes, public services are stretched. However, the public do not want constant negativity: they want delivery. That is exactly what DUP Ministers are providing.

We are dealing with the most difficult financial environment that Northern Ireland has faced in decades, yet, even in that context, the Executive — in particular, DUP Ministers — have delivered real, tangible outcomes for working families, schools and communities. Since restoration, we have seen £273 million invested in public services, including funding for public-sector pay, social housing, health, education, roads, water and rail. We have seen over £30 million allocated to new social housing, £25 million invested in the Health estate and IT and £22 million provided for education and higher education. That is not failure: it is delivery. In Education alone, the DUP Minister has delivered expanded free school meals, increased uniform grants and introduced the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill to tackle rising costs to parents. My party has expanded preschool provision, increased inclusion support and launched the TransformED teacher development fund. We have delivered a £55 million childcare package to support working families. Those are not slogans: they are policies that are already helping people across Northern Ireland.

On the Budget, let us be clear: the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has published a draft Budget without Executive agreement. Of course, that document cannot be treated as settled. The DUP wants a multi-year Budget, but it must be fair, balanced and focused on front-line services and our agreed Programme for Government priorities. We will not rubber-stamp a Budget that protects waste whilst squeezing our public services. We want consensus, but we do not want coercion.

The motion talks about the failure of delivery but ignores the reality that governing through a five-party coalition is not simple. That requires compromise, leadership and responsibility. DUP Ministers are not hiding from difficult decisions: they are taking them. While some Members prefer to chase sound bites, talk this place down or even argue for its collapse, the DUP is focused on making devolution work, because Stormont, imperfect as it is, is far better than being ruled from Westminster by a Labour Government who have cut winter fuel payments, hit family farms and caused the economy to stagnate. If it were not for DUP Ministers, pensioners here would not even have their winter fuel payments today.

Devolution means local Ministers making local decisions on schools, housing, health and community investment. That matters. The Programme for Government is a road map for growth, stability and opportunity, and the DUP is committed to delivering it. We take responsibility seriously. Governing is harder than heckling. We are here to govern. The people of Northern Ireland deserve solutions, not collapse, and that is exactly what the DUP is delivering.

Dr Aiken: Executive progress has, by anybody's definition, been marked. It is clear that there are challenges with government delivery. Over the decade that I have been in politics, the habit of government has been diluted by the years during which the Executive were brought down by Sinn Féin and the DUP. The need to deliver, over the desire to show that we just exist, has been largely forgotten. We have a status quo government machine that is very resistant to change and accountability. One has only to look at the stovepiping to realise how difficult it is to make government work. External reports on COVID and the renewable heat incentive (RHI) show clearly that the machinery of government, particularly the Civil Service at the highest levels, does not deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. There is a significant executive problem with how we deliver services for Northern Ireland.

We have a Budget of £60-odd billion over the next three years, with an additional year for capital. That is a hugely significant amount of public resource. It is clear that the ways do not necessarily meet the means, but we need to look at what we can do over that three-year period to achieve sufficient efficiencies in the delivery of public services. Last year, the Department of Health — Mike Nesbitt worked closely with John O'Dowd on this — managed to achieve efficiencies of about 3·5%, which was close to £300 million. If we were to achieve efficiencies of 3·5% across the entire Executive Budget, that would lead to savings of close to three quarters of a billion pounds over the next budgetary period, and those savings could then go towards public services. You cannot tell me that we cannot achieve efficiencies of less than 5% in a public service environment. In a sense, Northern Ireland is a large corporation, and the bit of it for which we are responsible costs somewhere in the region of £20 billion a year to run. Can you imagine if those responsible for running a similar-sized corporation could not achieve such efficiencies? The board and its chair would be sacked. In our case, the co-chairs would be sacked. We therefore need to do much better when it comes to looking at achieving efficiencies and managing money.

We hear a lot about what is going wrong with government. We talk a lot about the Department of Health's budget accounting for approximately half of the budgetary push, yet things do not seem to be changing. Things are changing, however. We are putting reforms in place. We know that our waiting lists are far too long, but we have seen significant reductions in long-term waiting lists: the waiting list for colonoscopies is down by 63%; the waiting list for common procedures is down by 70%; and the waiting lists for procedures such as hernia operations and hip and knee replacements are down by 90%. I still, however, appreciate the fact that waiting lists are far too long. We need to be able to fix them. The Executive have rightly made health their number-one priority. As we come back here over the next couple of years, I ask that it remain the number-one commitment.

I started by saying that our biggest problems are structural as well as budgetary. We need to work out how we boost our prosperity. One of the easiest ways in which to do that would probably not cost very much money, and it is to reform the planning system so that it works, meaning that we do not have to wait years to get things built. We should be able to do that. We also need to look at how we use financial transactions capital (FTC). The biggest blockage to our prosperity at the moment is the fact that we cannot build for our economy because we do not have waste water infrastructure that is up to spec. We should prioritise our FTC, which, according to the Finance Minister, we do not have to pay back — I do not quite know how that works — in order to sort out our water system. We have an opportunity here. Let us not be negative about it. Let us grasp the opportunities and go for it.

Miss Dolan: The motion highlights many of the challenges that the Executive face. However, it is noteworthy that it fails to mention the root cause of the problems that our public services face: the impact of over 15 years of underfunding by successive British Governments. That is why the Executive and the existing Finance Minister, and his predecessor, in particular, have focused on negotiating a new fiscal framework since the institutions were restored two years ago. That has resulted in an additional £600 million for public services and prevented our public services from being in an even more challenging position.

I also take this opportunity to remind the proposer of the motion that, under our existing constitutional arrangements, being tied to London means that spending decisions taken there have direct consequences for our finances, and this Labour Government have chosen to invest public money in militarisation rather than in public services and improving the lives of ordinary people and workers. We therefore have less money to spend on our schools, hospitals and roads. Protecting people from every negative spending decision made by London is not possible, given our financial and political limitations. However, the ongoing support for welfare mitigations is an example of how the Executive have helped shield some of our most vulnerable from further damage as a result of austerity policies, and it costs £50 million annually.

The local economy in my constituency has received a recent boost following the extension of Fáilte Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand to County Fermanagh. I thank the Economy Minister for helping to deliver that. Marketing our county alongside our neighbouring counties in the South as one tourism brand makes sense and is another step towards overcoming artificial barriers that were imposed by partition. Progress on key infrastructure projects is vital to creating regional balance, and commitments to fund the delivery of the A4 Enniskillen bypass, through the Mid South West growth deal, and the A5 by the Executive are recognition of that. It is simply disingenuous of the Opposition to state in their motion that the difficulties that we face in delivering public services are due to the "failure" of the institutions but not to reference partition and decisions made in London.

I recognise that we face many ongoing challenges. However, there are examples of progress and achievements that have been made since the Executive and Assembly were restored. As a public representative, I will continue to do all that I can to make life better for citizens in the here and now. However, only when we achieve constitutional change and have full control over our own affairs will we be able to deliver sustainable public services and reach our full potential.

Mr Brett: It is always a great pleasure to have the privilege of speaking in an Opposition day debate. I agree with some of the items in the motion tabled by the leader of the Opposition. That is about the need to agree a multi-year Budget. This party and I are clear that we want to see a multi-year Budget agreed by the Executive; one that can be codified clearly with the Programme for Government, and one that puts the needs of my constituents and the needs of the constituents of every Member in the House first. The DUP will not be found wanting during that process to ensure that we have a Budget that meets those needs and those targets.

I am also happy to speak in the debate because I can stand over the record of DUP Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important to put their achievements on the record because, having listened to some of the other contributors today, I feel that they have washed over them. Public-sector pay was one of the first items that the Executive and our Ministers prioritised. Teachers have received the pay that they deserve, as have our healthcare workers, with pay parity across the United Kingdom secured. Sign language legislation was one of the first Bills introduced by the House under the stewardship of a DUP Minister. While others jumped up and down, talking about language rights and minority rights, it took a DUP Minister to introduce that Bill.

We also have, for the first time here, a childcare subsidy scheme, which helps working families in every corner of Northern Ireland; a women's World Cup secured for Northern Ireland as a result of the work of the Executive; a flagship Royal Portrush golf tournament, delivered last summer in the heart of east Londonderry, as a result of the work of the Executive; and late-night public transport all year round finally in place, delivered by the Executive. Members across the Chamber rightly called for the removal of intimidation points by the Department for Communities. That was delivered by the Executive and a DUP Minister, and legislation to remove problem tenants who are moved from one development to another, terrorising local communities, was introduced and delivered by a DUP Minister.

I could go on, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The context in which the —.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way; I trust that his list of achievements is complete. Will the Member elaborate on the legislation that has been introduced on problem tenants?

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

Mr Brett: I appreciate that.

The Housing Bill, which will be approved by the Executive, will include that legislation.

As we are talking about delivery, I will say that I had a look at the 'Belfast Telegraph' archive, which has a picture of Mr Mark H Durkan, who was, unlike me, a Minister. I read with interest that his decision-making process as a Minister was "irretrievably flawed", with the result that his decision on Casement Park was struck down in the courts. That was the record of the SDLP in the Executive.

Hearing the leader of the Opposition speak, you would not have thought that, until two years ago, when the people of Northern Ireland voted their party out of it, they had been in government since 1998. Let us look at their record in the Executive. Mr Durkan, with his smiling face, was on the front of the 'Belfast Telegraph' when the Casement Park decision was struck down after he illegally approved it. There was another picture of the smiling face of Mr Durkan, who illegally approved the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP), which was struck down in the courts. Ministers also presided over MOT fiascos. What did the previous SDLP Minister deliver for the people of Northern Ireland? A walking champion. That is the record of delivery. The leader of the Opposition invited me to go out on to the streets and speak to the public: I will put my record in North Belfast and that of my party against that of the Opposition any day of the week. We will see what happens in the election next year. Mr McCrossan can laugh, but I will quietly predict that, in my constituency of North Belfast and, indeed, in his of West Tyrone, the Democratic Unionist Party will secure many more votes than the SDLP.

We will not support the Alliance amendment. I welcome the comments of the Alliance Member who called for better budget management and said that public money should not be wasted and that, indeed, commitments to spend public money should not be made when the budget is not there. I trust that, when she reflects on decisions made in Committees, she will follow the advice that she has put forward today.

Government in Northern Ireland is not easy, and it is not perfect. We all know the alternative agenda that the SDLP would want to deliver if it were in the Executive. That is what is being delivered by its sister party, the UK Labour Party. The SDLP would support the stripping of winter fuel payments and the removal of welfare support, while the Executive have stepped forward to continue welfare mitigations, deliver winter fuel payments and protect farmers. It will saddle up with its sister party in London to deliver those cuts to the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive will ignore its nonsense and get on with delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: The motion invites the Assembly to reflect on what is politely described as a failure of delivery by the Executive. The SDLP has provided the opportunity for the four Executive parties to mark their own homework during their contributions. What we have heard is pre-election sound bites ahead of the 2027 Assembly election, with the odd poke of the eye put in for good measure.

I make it clear at the outset that this is not a matter of poor implementation, missed targets or insufficient ambition; it is a problem of structure and of design. The SDLP cannot admit that, of course, because the structures that this place operates under are a product of its making. Time and again, the public have been promised stability, progress and delivery.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: You are always kind in giving way; I appreciate it.

Does the Member agree that it is not so much about the design of the structures per se but the abuse of the structures by the two lead partners in the Government? They are pretending that they cannot work together. They have realised that division is profitable for them and that it is a distraction from the fact that they have failed to deliver anything notable.

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

Mr Gaston: Absolutely not. It is the structure of this place. A mandatory coalition will never work — never ever, ever — without the best sound bites of what we have heard from the Floor today.

My goodness, what have we heard? The public have been promised stability, progress and delivery. Those were the very pledges and the justification given by those who wanted to bin all that and say, "Our promise on the protocol does not matter, because we need to get back to this place, and all our ills will be in the rear-view mirror". That has not happened, and the reality has been drift, delay and dysfunction. There is no agreed Budget; rather, you have Ministers openly attacking each other over the proposed Budget that is out for consultation. There is no flow of Executive legislation, and the Programme for Government promises nothing of substance.

But fear not: the SDLP has the solution. What we need is a statutory duty to cooperate with each other. The problem is not that Ministers are not cooperating; the problem is that the system itself is built to fail. The Executive model created by the Belfast Agreement requires the participation of parties that do not even believe in the continued existence of Northern Ireland. It embeds veto and rewards inaction. That is how the system is designed.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way quickly.

Mr O'Toole: I will be quick. If that is the case, does the Member support a programme of reform of the institutions?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to set that out at the end, along with a solution to our current problems, but I will get back to what I was saying.

So long as the Executive can exist only with Sinn Féin at their heart and so long as Sinn Féin's political objective is the destruction of our Union, this place will continue to fail the people whom it is meant to serve. For 25 years, they have been promised that the next restoration, the next Government or the next reset will finally make devolution work. What do we have to show for it? Repeated collapse, chronic instability and an Executive incapable of taking hard decisions. Many people have understandably concluded that Stormont should simply be scrapped altogether, and I understand that frustration. For my part, let me be clear: if the choice is between dysfunctional and terrorist-inclusive government and British rule from Westminster, I know the side that I will be on.

Let us not make that choice, however. The Executive have failed comprehensively and repeatedly, but the Assembly itself, in its legislative role and scrutiny powers, has not. What fatally undermined scrutiny in the past was the simple fact that Ministers were being scrutinised by parties that were themselves part of the Executive that they were meant to be holding to account. I say this: remove the failed Executive model, retain the Assembly and its legislative authority and retain and strengthen its scrutiny role. Under such a system, legislation would be brought forward by Westminster Ministers but shaped, examined, amended and challenged locally by elected representatives. Committees would no longer be tamed by Executive loyalty but would robustly interrogate those exercising executive power. That is not direct rule by default or joint authority by stealth; it is a form of devolution that maximises local democratic input without handing the levers of government to those determined to wreck it.

The choice before us is not between the failed Executive and permanent rule from London. There is a middle way, one that, I argue, is a better way; a way that accepts 25 years of evidence and removes structural sabotage from the heart of government. If you want to talk about reform, that is an option. With 25 years of experience of failed mandatory coalition —

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

Mr Gaston: — let us see what the reformers want to talk about.

Mr Carroll: There is no doubt that the Executive are failing to deliver on their core responsibilities and that the public have been completely and utterly let down. Most of the Executive's legislative programme consists of technical or catch-up Bills. Executive parties are too busy sticking the boot into one another to govern properly. They came together to veto incredibly modest proposals for a nutrients action programme to protect Lough Neagh. The DUP is obviously blocking the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency and obstructing progress on Irish language at every turn and will spend plenary time tomorrow debating illegal Sinn Féin billboards. It would be absolutely hilarious if it was not using time for that whilst our communities crumble under real issues.

The issues referenced in the motion — not delivering on Programme for Government targets, siloed working, lack of an agreed multi-year Budget, underfunding and Budget mismanagement — are all hindering progress. However, none of that, I am afraid, gets to the core of the problem. People have lost faith in the Executive, because the Executive have failed to break with the regressive and punitive economic strategy advanced by the Treasury and successive British Governments. How many times has the Finance Minister told Departments to live within their means? Instead of charting a new course, the Executive have simply accepted Westminster's failed economic model wholesale. Year after year, the rich line their pockets at the expense of ordinary people. Those people are doomed to languish on health waiting lists unless they have money to go private. People are forced to pay extortionate rents, because they cannot get on the property ladder. Others are raising their kids in temporary accommodation, waiting years for a permanent social home. Ordinary people are working for a minimum wage, while the top 100 businesses make profits of around £2 billion. That is the reality of the system that the Executive are maintaining. They cheerlead, promote and celebrate that figure.

This is what sticks in the throat of the ordinary person: there is plenty of wealth in the North, but the Executive refuse to touch it. They will not challenge the corporations that are hoarding billions. They will not touch the industrial derating that sees tens of millions handed to big businesses every year. They talk about hard choices but refuse to make the only choice that matters by forcing those who can afford to pay their fair share to pay up. That is where the official Opposition falls short. It is unable or, I would say, unwilling to hold the Executive to account over their failure to tackle wealth inequality, because it hopes to get its hands on the levers of power again one day. The official Opposition will not challenge the economic orthodoxy, because it wants to manage it and not dismantle it.

The Pivotal report painted a stark picture. We are now almost two years on, and there have been no tangible improvements to people's lives. That is not just me speaking; that comes from Pivotal. It is more than mere incompetence; it is a political choice to manage decline rather than challenge the economic model that is failing working-class people in my community and elsewhere every day of the week. Executive parties could tax wealth, end corporate handouts and build a progressive alternative, but they fail to do so. They will not do so, because, fundamentally, they are wedded to the same failed system. Fundamentally, until we break with neoliberalism and build an economy that puts people before profit, nothing will change in this place.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the deputy First Minister will respond to the debate.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Ending violence against women and girls is a Programme for Government priority, and "working better together" is one of the six outcomes of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. We are working collaboratively with Executive colleagues in a number of key work areas in the delivery plan, including through our sectoral groups on safer socialising, the workplace and tertiary education. We are working with the Department of Education, which is leading on the development of an action plan to coordinate interventions that are targeted at children and young people and are focused on healthy relationships.

We recently contributed to a collaborative funding model for the extended late-night public transport pilot, led by the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy, in recognition of the need for safe and accessible public transport to achieve safer socialising. We are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Finance on the development of NICS-wide training on the root causes of violence against women and girls and to support staff in preventing and responding to it.

We will continue to develop future actions, including campaigns and communication materials, with colleagues across Departments. Successful delivery depends on strong, ongoing collaboration, which we oversee through the direct involvement of our junior Ministers as chairs of the oversight board.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, First Minister. We know that violence can take many forms, including online abuse. That was highlighted over the past week through the cesspool that is X. Legislation will be required to deal with those issues here. What specific meetings has the First Minister had with the Justice Minister to progress such legislation?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member's concerns, which we all expressed last week, about what we now see as a norm. Such issues are increasingly coming to the fore, even in a school scenario, as reported today. We all need to do our due diligence and work together on the issue. It will be a combined effort. It is about the legislation and the role of Ofcom and what it can do to ensure that such companies do the right thing and have very clear structures around what they can allow. In no world should Grok or any other social media tool be able to create deepfakes or indecent images that are criminal of women, girls or anybody in society.

It will be a combination of the Ofcom work and the legislation. I welcome the fact that Ofcom has started an investigation into what happened with Grok in particular. I also welcome the fact that the Justice Minister has committed to bringing forward legislation to address the issue where the legislation from London falls short. We raised that at the Executive last week. We had a conversation about the Minister's plans to introduce legislation for us to debate in the House. I want to work with the Minister, as, I think, all of us do, to ensure that we get it right and that we use the opportunity that we have to bring forward fit-for-purpose legislation.

Ms Ní Chuilín: First Minister, you answered a concern that I had. Do you agree that the Executive need to look at opportunities to try to end the scourge of AI tools such as Grok that are being used to degrade women and girls on social media?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Again, it is so important that we do everything that we can. We all were alarmed when we saw what was reported last week and even this week about how some pupils may be using it against other pupils in a school setting. That is so detrimental to the people who will be negatively and horribly impacted on by it.

There will be a number of tracks, as I said, including the Ofcom work. Just last week, our junior Ministers attended an Ofcom event to discuss its new guidance, which is all about a safer life online for women and girls.

I underline and highlight the brilliant work that is being done as a direct result of our ending violence against women and girls strategy. The approach is very much organic. It is about listening to young people and identifying, community by community, townland by townland, where projects are needed. We are funding work that reaches right into our communities in order to listen to young people, in particular, about their concerns, and that, in response, creates and targets programmes that are all about education and prevention to help young people understand what a healthy relationship looks like, what a bad relationship looks like and what coercive control looks like.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the continued, important work towards eliminating violence against women and girls across the board. I appreciate the update on the work that is happening across Departments, but will the First Minister give an assurance that there is no duplication of that work across Departments?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member will know, there are many threads to the programme. The beauty of the change fund work is that projects are coming organically from local community groups and sports organisations. They know best how to reach young people, particularly our boys, and they know best how to engage with them and get messages across. That is a huge strength. There will, therefore, be duplication among those types of projects.

All of us have signed up to the ending violence against women and girls strategy. It dovetails very much with a number of other strategies across Justice, Health and Education. It is important that we are collaborative in how we join up and that we do not duplicate on the bigger strategic pieces. The strategy is there to ensure that we do not have that duplication. As the Member will be aware, some of the work that has been done thus far, in the early days of the strategy, has been promising. We are already getting feedback to say that it is making a difference.

Ms K Armstrong: Given the cross-departmental nature of the strategy, how are the First Minister and the deputy First Minister ensuring that Departments are being held accountable for delivery? What mechanisms are in place to address underperformance?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said earlier, the strategy's success depends on our collaboration and cooperation. I mentioned a number of other strategies, such as the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, that run across other Departments. Every Department has a remit to monitor how successful its strategy has been, but we have oversight at programme board and oversight board level. We look at what is successful and, hopefully, identify what is not successful. We use all the feedback that we receive to steer towards what the next version will look like. We are already looking at the second delivery plan, as is the oversight board. The external and internal oversight boards are inbuilt to the strategy, and external bodies, including some of the regional organisations that are delivering some of the big projects, sit on those boards.

Mrs O'Neill: We have been clear that we want to realise the immense potential of the site for the benefit of all and that decisions are needed on the overall way forward for the site. The Committee for the Executive Office visited the site on 5 November and received a briefing from the development corporation staff. We understand that the Committee is keen to see regeneration progress but has differing views on how that could be achieved. We recognise that it will require us to move with consensus and sensitivity, and we are committed to working with the MLK Development Corporation to achieve that.

It is clear that there are no straightforward solutions, but we can assure the Member that the future of the site remains a live issue, which we are committed to resolving. We are considering advice on short- to medium-term priorities and options for the board. Discussions at official level are ongoing, and we expect to receive further input to help frame our consideration for the way forward.

Mr Honeyford: The Maze/Long Kesh site shows how vetoes are being used to block progress completely. Power-sharing was designed to help us work through difficult issues to share this place, not to place them indefinitely in the too-difficult-to-deal-with drawer. Does the First Minister accept that, while safeguards are essential, permanent vetoes undermine public confidence in the Executive? How will she and the deputy First Minister start to deliver the regeneration of the Maze/Long Kesh site, while reassuring communities, bringing them together and taking them on that journey?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will, perhaps, have heard me say in answer to a previous question that I see the enormous potential of the site from an economic, historical and reconciliation perspective. It is important that we reach for the huge opportunity that we have with that huge potential, of which I know the Member is only too aware. However, we have to have agreement on the areas in which to progress. The immense potential in that site is, I think, recognised by all. I assure the Member that I will do all that I can to continue to try to get us to the juncture where we have an agreed way forward. I want to unlock the potential of the site. I make that commitment again today.

Ms Murphy: During the site visit, I got to see at first hand the social and economic potential of the site and the regeneration that it could offer from a historical perspective, from economic opportunities and from sporting facilities. Does the First Minister agree that those benefits could be transformative and need to happen immediately?

Mrs O'Neill: I will build on my previous answer. The site's potential is immense. There is a genuine opportunity for us to invest in it, but we have to view investment in the round. I would like to think that we will continue to work together to get to the point at which we can have housing on the site as well as provide economic opportunity, with businesses being established there.

We do not have to look far to see historical sites with a complex history and heritage that have previously been regenerated. We have only to look to the regeneration of Ebrington Barracks in Derry or of the Crumlin Road Gaol in Belfast. When it came to managing complexity, the issues there were similar to those at the site, so we know that it is not beyond us to do that for there as well. I will continue to do everything that I can to unlock the site's potential. It will be a longer-term project but one to which we need to turn our attentions if we are to ensure that we unlock the site's potential.

Mr Brett: The First Minister says that she wishes to see economic development at the site. If I take her at her word, she agrees with our position. Will she therefore commit to supporting our calls for the economic development of the site and oppose the creation of any shrine to terrorists there?

Mrs O'Neill: Therein lies the problem. If we were able to look at the issue through a different lens and come at it with the mindset of wanting to get something done and of dealing with the fact that it is a historical site with reconciliation potential and the potential to have immense economic benefit, we might find a way to walk forward together to unlock that potential. That is what I am committed to doing, and perhaps the Member will join me in supporting that.

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive Office has no ongoing financial relationship with Stonewall. Our arm's-length bodies operate with statutory and operational independence. Decisions on engagement with external organisations, including Stonewall, are a matter for those bodies.

Mr Gaston: Across the UK, Departments, and even the BBC, have withdrawn money from Stonewall's scheme, citing concerns about impartiality and value for money. The organisation is now reported to be in financial difficulty. In response to a question for written answer, the Executive Office confirmed to me that £875 of public money had been paid to Stonewall since the restoration of devolution. First Minister, will you give a clear commitment and assurance that neither your Department nor its arm's-length bodies will make any further payments to that discredited organisation?

Mrs O'Neill: It is a matter for the organisation itself if it finds itself in some sort of financial difficulty. We have no remit for it. As far as I am concerned, the Executive Office does not provide any direct funding to Stonewall. As a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme, however, the Civil Service does, via the Department of Finance.

Stonewall's purpose is to provide education on how to create inclusive workplaces. The Member might get advantage from receiving some such guidance and training.

Ms Sheerin: Does the First Minister agree that celebrating equality and diversity is positive for society across the board and key to building a more inclusive society?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely do. We live in a rich and diverse society, and we should celebrate, respect and nurture it. We need to learn from one another, understand one another a lot better and create a tone, particularly in the political sphere, that allows conversations to be inclusive and people to have healthy exchanges, not exchanges that are divisive or that are othering of some sections of society. It is our job to try to create an inclusive society. That is what motivates me every day. It is the kind of society that I want to build. I genuinely believe that the will of many of those who have been elected to the Assembly, as well as that of people more widely, is to have a society that is based on equality and that celebrates that society's diversity.

Mr Buckley: Stonewall has argued that children as young as two can be transexual and that workplaces should replace the word "mother" with the term "parent who has given birth".

Does the First Minister agree that language such as a "parent who has given birth" will never replace our precious mothers — not in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland or in any sane, sensible country?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not speak for Stonewall. I refer you to what I said earlier. Stonewall's role in our being a diversity champion is about inclusive workspaces. I am better placed than you to speak about who is a mother: I am one.

Mrs O'Neill: Funding for victims' groups is a key element of the Executive's strategy for victims and survivors. As Ministers, we are committed to continuing to ensure that victims and survivors are supported and that their needs are met. The Victims and Survivors Service is responsible for providing support for individuals and distributing funding to victims' groups in response to assessed and agreed need. The indicative value of funding allocated to victims' groups by the Victims and Survivors Service over the last 12 months was approximately £11·6 million.

Since agreement of the strategy, the main focus has been the design and implementation of the latest victims' support programme, and it is anticipated that allocations under the new scheme will be finalised by March this year. Delivery of the programme will contribute to many of the commitments set out in the strategy and will also provide continuing support and acknowledgement for victims and survivors here.

Miss McIlveen: On 5 January, we marked the 50th anniversary of the Kingsmills massacre and, just this weekend, the 34th anniversary of the Teebane massacre. Given the brutal loss of life and the trauma inflicted upon the victims and their families to this very day by IRA cowards, does the First Minister wish to retract her statement that there was no alternative to the murder of innocent workmen at the side of the road?

Mrs O'Neill: As you know, the heart of our victims and survivors strategy is about being trauma-informed and about being mindful of the needs of victims. It is very much victim-centred. It is about dealing with the past, but it is also about supporting victims in the here and now. Equally, it is about building a shared future.

I have always said that I regret the loss of every life without exception. That is what my position will be today, tomorrow and the day after. The job of all of us together is to try to meet the needs of victims and survivors and to ensure that we have the right strategy and the right supports in place through the five regional organisations that we work with and through the 40 groups that we work with on a more local basis. Let us continue to do everything that we can to support victims and survivors in the here and now and look towards healing the wounds of the past. That has always been my endeavour.

Mrs Dillon: First Minister, in line with what you just said about victims, can you give us some details and provide an update on the victims' payments scheme and also provide some detail on the type of support that is available for victims in order to help them with the trauma that they suffered, including the victims whom the Member across the way mentioned?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I mentioned some of the figures. The Executive Office has also provided funding of over £7 million to victims and survivors through the representative groups, including through the Victims and Survivors Service to assist applicants with the application process. It is also about additional funding for health and well-being support. I mentioned the five regional groups, which are Relatives for Justice, WAVE Trauma Centre, the Ashton Community Trust, the Ely Centre and the South East Fermanagh Foundation. They do sterling work in supporting victims and survivors, and, through our strategy, our work is about trying to ensure that we give them the tools that they need to support all victims and survivors. That is at the heart of our strategy.

I should mention that concerns have been expressed many times in the Chamber about delays in processing applications. I assure Members that we continue to do all that we can to look for ways to improve how those applications are processed and to ensure that we get them done as quickly as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible, albeit with many complexities.

Miss McAllister: To ensure transparency around decisions and to ensure that funding allocations are made in line with what victims need, how are the decisions on amounts made?

Mrs O'Neill: I will get that information to the Member in writing, because I do not want to give her any misinformation. There are transparent processes. Every case is complex, as the Member will know. The Victims' Payments Board has to navigate its way through that, and that sometimes leads to the delays that have been raised in the Chamber, not least by the Member's party colleagues. I will outline the process for the Member in written form, including how it goes through and how it can be transparent and accountable.

Mr Carroll: Can you elaborate on what work is being done to look at the role of religious institutions, either as part of the historical institutional abuse Bill or separately? Do you believe that assets and wealth should be seized from those institutions if they destroy records or fail to compensate the victims and survivors adequately?

Mrs O'Neill: On the latter part of your question, I absolutely agree that the institutions need to pay up and make reparation for their role in the harrowing circumstances that so many people have come through. The Committee is actively looking at that issue in the legislation. We are obliged to chase every institution down, and we have had a process in place for some time to negotiate with them. However, where that is not forthcoming, we have to look at other ways to do that. You will be aware of the previous historical institutional abuse work and the three additional pieces of research on clerical abuse, which we are actively working through the details of now. None of that is simple, given the passage of time in a lot of the cases, but it is the right thing to do, and we will continue to work our way through that.

Mrs O'Neill: Our statement of 3 October 2025 on the Executive’s legislative programme listed the 21 Bills that Ministers intended to bring forward for introduction in the Assembly before the beginning of the summer recess in July. That is in addition to the 19 Bills from the 2024-25 programme that have either been enacted or are currently in Committee. The current position is that, of those 21 Bills, two have been introduced and four are currently the subject of consultation within the Executive Committee. The other Bills are either progressing through the policy development stage or are the subject of instructions to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC).

We acknowledge the small number of Bills that have been introduced to date. However, to place those figures in their proper context, it is important to emphasise that the introduction of a Bill is possible only at the end of a detailed and lengthy process of policy development and legislative drafting to ensure that it is good legislation and will achieve the desired policy aims. All Bills must also have the agreement of the Executive in relation both to the underlying policy and the provisions in the Bill itself. Departments are working through those processes and remain committed to introducing their Bills before the summer recess.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, thank you for the update. I am afraid that you at least confirmed the frankly preposterous situation where, three months into the legislation programme, less than 10% of what has been promised has been introduced. Perhaps we should not be surprised, because the original 2024 legislative programme has still not been completed by January 2026. We only have less than a handful of Bills from the 2024 legislative programme now on the statute book. I am accused of being negative and difficult as leader of the Opposition, but, First Minister, do you agree that, whatever else happens, the record of the Executive on legislative delivery has been abysmal?

Mrs O'Neill: No. What is most important is that we have good legislation. It was touched on earlier as part of the debate that a number of Bills have been introduced and some more will come very shortly. Some are going through the scrutiny process in the Committees and rightly so. Perhaps there will even be amendments where appropriate, if the legislation can be improved. We also have a lot of legislation being drafted by OLC.

I have set out where we are with all of that, and I suspect that, over the coming months, we will see a raft of legislation coming to the floor of the House for fulsome debate. I look forward to that engagement. There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf Bill; I wish it were that easy. If we could all reach for on-the-shelf legislation, we would be at a more advanced stage, but we want good legislation and we want every part of the Administration to play its part, whether that is the Executive Committee's scrutiny or in the Chamber itself.

Mr Gildernew: Can the First Minister confirm that Ministers are still on track to introduce the race and equality Bill as planned?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for the question. Yes, I can confirm that the Bill is at the policy development stage. There is ongoing engagement with the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and it is on track for introduction. We want to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose in 2026 and beyond and to ensure that equality and rights are protected in our society. We are determined to work in our Department, across the Executive and across our communities and beyond to build a society that is defined by inclusion and a commitment to equality and human rights and a future where everyone can live safely and free from threat or harm. Yes, we are on track, and I am committed to ensuring that the legislation comes through.

Mr Dunne: Does the First Minister agree that any employment rights Bill must not only come before the Executive for approval but have the full support and buy-in of our local businesses and their representative bodies?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, and I commend the Economy Minister for the work that she is doing. It is such ambitious legislation and is the most progressive workers' rights legislation that we have ever seen. She is going out and about and engaging with business organisations and representative bodies. It is all about listening, engaging and being able to move forward in an agreed way. Therefore, I commend her for that work and for the consultation work that she has done generally. It is a good news story for the Assembly and the Executive, and I look forward to the Bill coming to the Floor for debate.

Mrs O'Neill: We have taken every opportunity to raise the issue of the removal of barriers to trade in the internal market, including at meetings of the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council, the Interministerial Standing Committee and the East-West Council. Representations have been made in the context of discussions on the Windsor framework and the strategic partnership through engagement in the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations and in our meetings with Minister Thomas-Symonds.

We are encouraged by the fact that there is at least proactive engagement. There is a willingness to engage; however, further work remains. We will continue to engage through all relevant forums to ensure that our unique circumstances are considered at the earliest stage of policy development and not at the further end when decisions have perhaps been taken and are so far advanced. We want to be in at the earliest stage of policy development and strategic decision-making, with the aim of reducing trade barriers and supporting businesses and consumers here.

Mr Stewart: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does the First Minister agree that it is essential for Northern Ireland's economy that the Executive speak with one voice on the issue? Can she assure me that the Executive are working together on a single policy, when dealing with His Majesty's Government, that internal UK trade should again be free and unfettered and that barriers east–west should be removed after being created under the Windsor framework?

Mrs O'Neill: I can say to the Member that I do not want to see any trade barriers erected. I want to seek to enhance our North/South and east–west trade. Where barriers exist, we should flag those and ask for pragmatism and solutions. Some of that has been forthcoming, and some has yet to be forthcoming, but changes are coming down the track, particularly in relation to a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, that will iron out some of the issues. However, there are issues outside of that, and I will continue to raise them.

Through the remit of the Department for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald continues to engage with businesses on issues that they have identified as needing to be addressed. She continues to raise those at British Government level, as do we on all the other occasions that I outlined in the initial answer.

Mr Kearney: Minister, you will be aware that the Murphy review states:

Do you agree that the opening of an EU office in the North would be of assistance in optimising that potential?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. Yes, I absolutely agree. It makes common sense. The House has debated it, albeit not with agreement, but I think that it would greatly assist our local businesses if they had that type of access.

We all know the damage that has come as a direct result of the post–Brexit world that we now live in. It is an unmitigated economic disaster on many fronts. We have had to make the case for our special and unique circumstances, and we have to continue to make that case at every turn. My goodness, events over the weekend speak volumes about why we need to really assert the need to grow our economy and protect against trade wars that are happening elsewhere.

The Murphy review concluded that a one-stop shop to simplify administrative processes would be an advantage, and, in my view, that recommendation should be implemented. Establishing an EU office in Belfast would really help to align that work and would make it easier for businesses that are finding it difficult to trade in a post-Brexit world.

Mrs O'Neill: We acknowledge the devastating impact of clerical child abuse and express our deepest sympathy to all victims and survivors of that terrible abuse. We have been carefully considering the research reports, and, as the Member will appreciate, it is an important, complex and sensitive issue.

Throughout the process, the junior Ministers have engaged with victims and survivors to hear their stories and their views on what is needed. We are very grateful to all those who have participated in the process and shared their experiences. In November 2025, we met Lisa Caldwell, the former independent chair of the interdepartmental working group, to discuss the reports. We know that Lisa was in touch with victims and survivors after that meeting. We remain committed to keeping victims and survivors informed of progress, and we will absolutely take their views into account as we move forward.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she give a date by which she will respond to survivors' letters? When does she intend to announce her decision on the group's recommendations? What financial allocation does she foresee being required?

Mrs O'Neill: Some of those questions, such as on the amounts of money, will be answered further down the line. Those are policy decisions that we will have to take together. Suffice to say, however, that those people have been traumatised by their life experience. We now have the research in our hands. We met Lisa Caldwell, the chair of the board, and are actively working with officials on the next steps. I know that victims and survivors will want to hear that from us today. I can assure the Member that we want to do everything that we can to ensure that we get the right package in place. This is the last part of the historical institutional abuse work that was started many years ago. Having started work on one piece of research, we have had to break it into three pieces because it is so complicated and complex. We want the message to victims and survivors to be that we will do everything that we can to progress this matter.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: I am very proud of my time in the Department of Health, and I was very proud to be the Minister who brought forward 'Health and Wellbeing 2026: Delivering Together', which was the response to the Bengoa report. That was the blueprint. Many of those recommendations have been implemented, and I commend that and much more. It is very clear, however, that we need to continue to transform our health service. There have been significant improvements even in the past year. We look forward to the next year and even more improvements, because we have to get to a point where people's health outcomes are much better. I will work constructively with the Health Minister to ensure that we have in place transformation plans that will make a meaningful difference to people's outcomes. Ultimately, it needs to be about how we can improve people's lives.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I appreciate that you say that you want to work together with Ministers. You are very good at saying that you want to work together and at expressing warm sentiments, but you did not, I am afraid, accept any accountability for the failure so far to fully transform the health service in Northern Ireland or to offer any meaningful improvement. There is another anniversary coming up: if my calculations are correct, by the end of this mandate, you will be the longest-serving Minister in the history of these institutions, post 1998. When you were the Agriculture Minister, you advanced Going for Growth, which has, in part, contributed to the death of Lough Neagh. We have talked about your record in the health service. We all know about your record on COVID-19. First Minister, I think that the public would have much more trust in our institutions if politicians like you were willing to stand up and be accountable for the failure to deliver for them.

Mrs O'Neill: I am very accountable to the public. I stand before them at every election and ask them for their vote. I tell them what I am going to try to do with that mandate. We can, very confidently, stand over the fact we have achieved quite a lot the first two years of this Administration. Have we much more to do? Absolutely. Instead of eye-poking, as you like to refer to it, let us be constructive about what has been achieved and what else we can achieve. I believe that we have made significant improvements. We can see things turning when it comes to waiting lists. Is it enough? No, it is not. We can see advances in the numbers of preschool places for young people. Is that enough? No, we want to do more. We have seen change and improvement in childcare. We have a Lough Neagh action plan. We have unlocked 5,000 homes in the north-west through our investment in waste water infrastructure. We have lots to sing about, but that is not to be complacent, because there is an awful lot more to be done. I am here to work with other Ministers, to roll my sleeves up and to try to deliver the transformation. I believe that that is the will of all of us in the Executive.

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, I talked earlier about engaging with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. There are some challenges because of the amount of legislation that is coming forward and the challenge of drafting it. However, I am confident that the Minister will make her proposals and that we will debate them on the Floor of the House. It is really progressive legislation and a good thing for all our constituents, and it is important that we get it right. Therefore, I commend the Minister for the Economy's approach, and I look forward to the legislation coming to the Floor for debate.

Mr Brett: Does the First Minister stand over the claims by the Economy Minister and, indeed, her party's national chairman, who said in hundreds of thousands of leaflets that were delivered across Northern Ireland that the Bill would be introduced to the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly by January? We have 12 days left in this month. Will that be achieved?

Mrs O'Neill: I assure you that the legislation will come to the Floor of the Assembly. I could stand here all day and pick holes to do with delays involving DUP Ministers and other Ministers who have not been able to introduce legislation. Let us just focus on getting the thing done and on getting the most progressive piece of legislation over the line. Let us focus on working together to ensure that we complete it before the end of the mandate. You can shake your head all you like, but that is the prize that I am going for.

Mrs O'Neill: I think that we are all aghast, and developments are coming thick and fast. It is another breach of international law and an attempt to snatch territory. It is deeply concerning. It is, quite frankly, shocking for the US to take an approach on trade to bully others into kowtowing to the position that it has adopted, and international leaders need to take it very seriously. You cannot bully another country to get it to support your whim; international law needs to prevail. I am deeply concerned about what the proposed economic tariffs might mean for us. We have a special and unique circumstance in a post-Brexit world, and what happens across the EU, in Britain and elsewhere has a real impact on us. We need to stand firmly against what is being proposed, and we need calm heads to deal with the tariffs and get a resolution that supports our local industry.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as a freagra.

What actions can the Executive and the Assembly take to protect our people and economy from the consequences of those threats to Greenland?

Mrs O'Neill: My point about our unique circumstances is one that has to be highlighted continually. Over the weekend, Caoimhe Archibald, as the Economy Minister, wrote to the British Government and the Irish Government to rehearse that argument again. She has convened a meeting of her tariff working group, which looks at the concerns of local businesses, to make sure that we reflect the concerns of industry when we have those engagements. We will have a series of different meetings this week where we will raise our concerns about what the tariffs might mean. As the Member will know, trade wars are a race to the bottom and will serve nobody well in the longer term. We want our unique circumstances to be taken into account, regardless of what scenario unfolds next.

Mrs O'Neill: Where shall I start? That might be a better question. There are many challenges in delivering on the Programme for Government commitments, to be truthful and honest about it. However, we are committed to working together to try to deliver on the commitments that we set out. We want to do that with a multi-year Budget. We should all be reaching for the prize of a three-year Budget. That would allow a bit more medium-term planning, which we have not had for over a decade; instead, we have limped from year to year.

Look at the progress that has been made across the Programme for Government commitments. I pointed to some of it earlier: the advancements that have been made on waste water infrastructure connections, preschool places and the childcare strategy, which is out for consultation. People may have their own view of its effectiveness, but look at the advancements that have been made in Health and all the other things that we have been able to achieve thus far in this short mandate. We have an awful lot more to do, so it will be challenging. The size of the Budget — the fact that there is not enough money in that pie — makes it even more challenging for us all to do the transformation work that we want to do.

Mr Butler: I thank the First Minister for that. She is right to point out that there are multiple challenges facing the delivery of all and any of the commitments. However, there are suggestions that a number of papers are not being authorised for the Executive agenda. Will the Minister detail or outline any of the pressures in that respect?

Mrs O'Neill: I will not speak outside the confidence of the Executive. At different times, different Ministers will be frustrated at the pace at which they can get clearance. All Ministers circulate papers, and we have to come back with our feedback. There is no doubt that there are Ministers who are frustrated by the delays, but I hope that that can be rectified, and I encourage ongoing discussion at spad and ministerial level so that we can get as many things as possible cleared over the Executive table. We are committed to advancing as many pieces of legislation as we can. We are coming towards a juncture in the mandate where there are only 15 or 16 months left before this place goes into purdah prior to an election. We want to maximise what we can do in that period with all that legislation.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: That is a topical issue at the moment. As I said earlier, we hear reports about AI being used in schools. It is everywhere: AI is all around us. It is part of life, but responsibility in its use is important. We can talk a lot about individual responsibility, but we need to focus on the responsibility of the large social media companies that profit greatly from those platforms.

Last week, we discovered that X's Grok-2 had the capability to create sexualised deepfake images of anybody, and of children in particular. That is absolutely atrocious, and we must do all that we can to protect people online. We do some of that work under the ending violence against women and girls strategy. It is for all of us in political leadership to call out that abuse when we see it, and I know that everybody in the House has done so. It is also about working with agencies such as Ofcom on online safety and, alongside that, with the Justice Minister here, who is looking at introducing legislation to make it an offence to create what is, in essence, illegal material. I look forward to working with the Minister and pledge my support to do what we can in our legislature to address the issue.

Mr Boylan: I thank the First Minister for that. She mentioned the social media companies. What more can be done to hold those companies to account?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, responsibility lies with the social media companies, but there needs to be firm, straight guidance in legislation that governs how they carry out their business and what they make available. In the first instance, the buck stops directly with the companies. Nobody should have a platform that allows you to do that type of activity. When the companies do not go far enough, Governments have to be able to step in. I commend that approach.

The Ofcom investigation into the matter, which was raised last week, is to be welcomed. I also welcome the plans to introduce legislation to make the publication of non-consensual intimate images illegal. As I said, I will work with the Justice Minister on that, because we want to do everything that we can to tackle the ugliness that exists in the social media world. Social media can be so powerful in so many ways in the presentation of messages and in communicating with the public, but it can be such a murky world, particularly for our children and young people.

As a mummy and a granny, I think that we all view such things through the lens of our families and what it means for them. I certainly want us to do everything that we can to legislate.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): NI Water has advised my Department that, on the basis of analysis of pre-development enquiry responses, waste water impact assessment applications, planning applications and the NI Housing Executive's three-year social housing development programme, approximately 17,200 residential properties and 200 commercial properties are unable to connect to the waste water network. However, following my predecessor's and my ring-fencing of funding to NI Water, which will unlock capacity for over 5,300 of those properties, that number comes down to around 12,000. The 5,300 properties to which we have provided funding to unlock is above NI Water's original plans for 4,500 properties in the period of 2021-27 under price control 21 (PC21) and represents a significant achievement by my Department and NI Water in delivering much-needed waste water infrastructure.

I note, however, that the properties that require a connection to the sewerage infrastructure are at various stages of the planning system. For example, some have conditional planning in place and can connect only when the waste water infrastructure has been upgraded. Others are not yet planning-approved but have been submitted for planning. Much of the process is dependent on actions from developers, and I encourage developers to continue working with NI Water through the pre-development process, as there may be developer-led solutions available for some of the properties.

It remains a fact that there are many areas across the North where NI Water will need to upgrade the relevant waste water infrastructure. Unfortunately, as Members know, the Budget that the Executive receive from London continues to be substantially short of what is needed. As a result, my Department does not have funding for everything that we want or need to do. Prioritisation is therefore required.

To help address capacity issues further and encourage economic growth across the North, I will continue to develop the three-pronged approach that is already in place by working with Executive colleagues to ensure appropriate investment for NI Water, as well as bringing forward my Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which was recently introduced in the Assembly. We have also recently consulted on options to introduce developer contributions, which will help fund waste water infrastructure improvements. The consultation responses are currently with the Department.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for her response. The numbers that she has shared with the Chamber are shocking. While she has outlined some of the obstacles that she wishes to remove, given that she has accepted that inadequate waste water infrastructure and inherent delays in the planning system are the biggest obstacles to economic growth in Northern Ireland, what is she planning to do about the issues with consultee response times, staff turnover and failure to adopt best practice from other jurisdictions in order to address the gridlock in our planning system?

Ms Kimmins: I am pleased to say that significant work has been taking place on planning improvement. The Department has been working through a planning improvement programme in conjunction with the 11 councils across the North for all the reasons that the Member has outlined. We recognise that good progress has been made since planning was devolved to councils just over 10 years ago. We also recognise, however, that there are challenges and that more work needs to be done.

We recently introduced apprenticeship schemes. As I said, we have been working with councils to identify key issues in their areas and key issues that are common to all council areas, and we have been looking at what else we can do. We have introduced a validation checklist, which is about streamlining the processes and ensuring that applications can then be front-loaded with the information required to ensure that we can have a more straightforward and efficient service.

We have seen improvements. This year or possibly at the end of last year, we saw for the first time our major applications targets being met. That indicates some of the progress that is being made. There is more to be done — I have no doubt about that — but we will continue to do that work, and we will do it in partnership with all stakeholders that have an interest in or are involved in the process.

Mr Boylan: Minister, what progress have you made on unlocking waste water capacity?

Ms Kimmins: As I outlined in my previous answer, we have made significant progress in ensuring that, where we can secure additional funding, it is targeted to unlock capacity. I referenced the ring-fenced capital money that will unlock over 5,000 properties across the North, which is a higher number than NI Water originally planned to connect if fully funded by the end of the price control period, which is in 2028. We are only at the beginning of 2026.

My predecessor, John O'Dowd, allocated £19·5 million to NI Water in October 2024 monitoring, which delivered capacity for 2,300 new properties in five council areas across Antrim, Derry and Tyrone. In June monitoring last year, I provided NI Water with an additional £11 million of capital funding that will be used to release waste water capacity and enable over 2,000 homes as part of the H2 project in Derry to be connected in the next two or three years and another 1,000 homes in the Waterside area to be connected. In addition, my officials are working collaboratively with our colleagues in DAERA and DFC to identify and enable the unlocking of waste water capacity in areas of housing need, thereby contributing to the aims and objectives of the Executive's housing supply strategy.

We continue to look at everything available to us to try to drive progress and ensure that we deliver capacity through our waste water network. We recognise the constraints, but we have made good progress and will continue to drive it forward.

Mr Stewart: As you know, Minister, the lack of capacity in waste water infrastructure is having not only a massive environmental impact but a huge economic impact. On the current trajectory, what is your assessment of the total cost and time frame needed to bring the entire sewerage network up to standard and relieve the capacity issues that we face?

Ms Kimmins: NI Water has indicated that billions of pounds are required. However, as Members will have seen, particularly over the past number of months, we have been working on ways to use innovation and different technologies, albeit that those will not be long-term or permanent solutions. We recognise that there is still work to be done, but that can help us to progressively unlock capacity and upgrade the system in a more managed way within the budgetary envelope.

What we have been able to do through ring-fenced allocations or even through monitoring rounds is not ideal, but, if we can target that investment, we can make a real difference. I mentioned in my answer to Miss McIlveen that over 17,000 properties will require connection at some stage if they get planning approval. Through two monitoring rounds, we have been able to reduce that by just under a third. That might not seem like much, but that is within a number of months, so, where we can work collaboratively, particularly with our Executive colleagues, we can make a difference. That is what I am determined to do.

Mr McGlone: Minister, will you provide us with some detail about what efforts are being made to enhance sewage disposal provision for the towns of Dungannon and Cookstown? It is inhibiting the development of social and private housing, and it is a factor in driving up house prices in general.

Ms Kimmins: I had the pleasure recently of visiting one of the waste water treatment plants that has received investment in Dungannon. It will unlock further capacity. However, I am aware that there are other constraints that still exist. We continue to look at those with NI Water to see what options are available and what funding is required to address them. It is fair to say that we have made good progress, but I recognise that there is more to be done because we know what the impact of that is. It is important that we address that.

Mr McMurray: Minister, developer contributions are a key part of the three-pronged approach of your proposals to address waste water capacity, but some of their feedback in the consultation was critical. What conclusions has the Department reached, and is there a timeline for how those will be progressed?

Ms Kimmins: The responses have not been published yet, so I will not go into them in too much detail. As you know, the consultation closed last summer. A total of 293 responses were received, which is significant and important for us to be able to get a broad range of views. As I said, the responses are being considered. We have a view to publishing the report on those responses in the coming weeks. I hope to be able to update the House further on that. It is important that we do the consultation and hear from people so that we can potentially factor that into any next steps.

Ms Kimmins: I am committed to increasing investment in active travel across the North and recognise its benefits to the lives of people who want greater choice in how they travel, particularly for shorter, everyday journeys. Since the publication of the Belfast cycling network delivery plan in 2022, significant progress has been made. A number of projects that have already been delivered, with schemes in Lagmore Avenue, west Belfast greenway phase 1 and Island Street currently under construction across Belfast. In South Belfast, the Stranmillis embankment scheme was completed last summer. I had the opportunity to cycle it and was pleased to see the difference that the new red surfacing has made and the linkage improvements between the embankment, Queen's University Physical Education Centre (PEC) and Botanic Gardens through the provision of a new pedestrian crossing. My Department has also provided funding to Belfast City Council to progress the next phase of Lagan Gateway. Within the South Belfast area, design work is substantially complete on the Ravenhill Road scheme as part of the Belfast cycling network, and officials are preparing documentation to commence the traffic regulation order process in the coming months.

Prioritisation of future active travel schemes within the Belfast cycling network is currently being considered. That will take account of the emerging eastern transport plan and other significant changes that have occurred in Belfast in recent years, not least the relocation of Ulster University and the increased number of students whom we now see living in the city centre.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for her answer. Over the past few days, I have travelled the length and breadth of my constituency. Even outside peak times, there is congestion on our arterial routes and the connecting routes like the embankment. Those cycling routes are not just a nice-to-have; they are a necessity. Is there any way to prioritise taking into account the growing population in South Belfast and the growing need for alternative transport routes?

Ms Kimmins: I absolutely agree with the Member. Many seem to have the view that it is a nice-to-have, but you are right: it is absolutely essential. It provides people with options not just to make those shorter journeys without having to get into a private car but to do so safely. That is key in all of this. As I mentioned, this will align with the eastern transport plan that covers a wide area outside Belfast city centre, and the Belfast cycling network will complement its overarching principles for all of the reasons that you have outlined. The consideration that I mentioned about the increasing number of students in the city centre and surrounding areas is a key part of that. All of that should be looked at as we go forward with this. We want to give people better options. If we want to encourage them to get out of the private car, we have to make sure that they have the ability to do so, and I am keen to do that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the fact that you are committed, in broad terms, to the Ravenhill cycle network, and it is important that we see urgent prioritisation of it. There are five schools and two parks — Ormeau and Cherryvale — along that route. It is, no pun intended, the Rosetta Stone of active travel in that part of south-east Belfast. Everyone who got that pun enjoyed it. You say that it is coming soon: can we have an actual date? Will we get that order updated and the network shovel-ready before the summer? The Stranmillis embankment was welcome, but it was already a separated, well-used cycle network. Getting the Ravenhill one in place is critical. When will it happen?

Ms Kimmins: I can write to the Member to provide a more detailed update on that, just to be specific in case there are any changes, but I am not aware of that at this stage. You are right in relation to Stranmillis. It helped to highlight the benefit of something like this and encourage more people to come out. It was in dire need of an upgrade, and it is a good example of what we can do and what we can do more of.

Mr McHugh: What is your Department doing to improve active travel around schools?

Ms Kimmins: That is a really important aspect of our active travel work, particularly to ensure that children and young people can get to and from school safely. Prioritisation of active travel improvements on routes to schools was a key consideration in the consultation on the active travel delivery plan. The plan is being finalised, and I hope to approve its publication in the coming months. My Department is also updating design guidance for active travel, including the development of a toolkit for measures that can be implemented around schools to encourage walking, wheeling or cycling for the school run. Some of the measures that designers might consider include the provision of greater pedestrian priority at crossing points in the vicinity of schools, as well as measures to discourage inconsiderate parking that can cause difficulties for people cycling or walking.

Other gateway features to make motorists aware of the presence of schoolchildren walking, wheeling and cycling in the area will also be part of that.

The implementation of 20 mph zones outside schools has been another good example of how we can improve those routes and make them safer. I recently visited St Ita's Primary School in south Belfast and saw its use of pencil bollards. That is a good example of something creative that really highlights the fact that children and young people are coming to and from the area.

There are lots of things that we can do to make big changes and to ensure that our children and young people can get to school safely in a way that benefits their health and well-being.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, on the A29 at Cookstown, you are delivering a £430,000 active travel scheme that is being built as we speak. Like others, no doubt, I could point to loads of areas where that money could be far better spent. I want you to tell the people of Cookstown why we are building a £430,000 active travel scheme to literally nowhere when the state of the roads is absolutely atrocious and there is no money to fix potholes; I hear that day and daily from your engineers. What do you say to the people of Cookstown who ask me, "Why are they building that?"

Ms Kimmins: The Member is fully aware of my responsibilities in relation to active travel spend. It is set in legislation that 10% of the budget is required to go towards active travel. I am working towards that and am committed to it. However, we are still in a very difficult budget situation, so that is a challenge.

We should not have to choose one thing over the other: I would like to be able to do both. There are pots of money within the allocation for things that I have to do, and there are other allocations for road maintenance, as the Member will be aware. The area is another one that is extremely important to me, which is why, in the most recent monitoring round, I used the money that I got to target road maintenance, particularly on rural roads, because I know how important that is.

It is not feasible to compare like for like, because the two things are not alike: the money comes from separate allocations, as the Member will know, which is set by legislation.

Mr Allen: In several of her answers, the Minister referred to the need to deliver active travel safely. What recent steps has the Department taken to ensure that active travel is delivered in a way that is safe for all members of our society, including those with a disability, so that we do not see a repeat of examples such as the dangerous bus stop boarder on the Dublin Road?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The Member may be aware that one of the seven foundations that I have outlined as part of my Department's plans is about inclusion. We work closely with organisations such as the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) to ensure that everything that we do is inclusive and safe for all users, particularly people with disabilities. That has been extremely important, because it has not only helped to inform and educate my officials but informed what we do going forward. When we look at things such as inconsiderate pavement parking and other safety measures, we ensure that we take that on board. We regularly engage with the likes of IMTAC to hear its perspective and suggestions of how we can make that better.

I am alive to the fact that we have to make sure that, whatever the work that we do, we consider all road users, whether motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, parents with buggies — there are so many different ways of looking at it — and that we have to ensure that we do our best to cater for all.

Ms Kimmins: To date, I have not had any discussion with the Minister of Finance regarding an infrastructure levy. Any decision to apply an additional levy to rates bills would be a cross-cutting matter to be considered at Executive level, and substantive changes would need to be made to rating legislation and the rating administration system in respect of such a change.

I have met the NI Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Construction Employers Federation and the NI Federation of Housing Associations to consider their report that proposed increasing rates by means of a hypothecated infrastructure levy to fund waste water infrastructure. For me, that represents a form of water charging, which, I have said clearly, I will not introduce. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that I will not add to the financial burden faced by people here by imposing any form of water charges.

I recognise, as we all do, the constrained financial situation. We face that collectively, with difficult decisions being required, and will continue to look at innovative, new ways of maximising the delivery of vital infrastructure. As I mentioned, we will do that through the three-pronged approach, which I do not need to go into the details of again. We will also seek additional funding where possible, whether through the Budget or the monitoring rounds. Whilst that levy has been put forward as a solution, it is one that, I think, would lead to water charges. However, such a levy concerns rates, so I could not make a decision on that. As I said, it is an Executive matter.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her answer. Quite separate from the issue of water charges, as the Minister has described it, will the Minister outline what options have been considered to incorporate other forms of revenue-raising to meet the Budget shortfall? I ask that with particular regard to the investment required to provide flood risk management and mitigation?

Ms Kimmins: I have talked about the three-pronged approach. That is about looking at what else we can do in different ways. It is not all about raising money, although we have considered that through developer contributions. It is about looking at natural drainage solutions, as the Member will know, and a Bill on that is coming through the Assembly. It is also about working with Executive colleagues to secure additional investment. I outlined earlier what we have been able to do with additional investment on a very short-term basis. It is very important to say what we can do when we get such investment. I continue to work through that. I will never shirk my responsibility for what we have to consider and the difficult decisions that have to be taken. However, for me, adding a financial burden to households that are already struggling is not the answer, because it would just compound the challenges faced by the people who we all represent.

Mr McAleer: Will the Minister assure us that she will continue to protect people from the burden of water charges?

Ms Kimmins: I have said on a number of occasions in the House that I will not introduce water charges. That is not done just for the sake of saying, "I'm not doing it". We all recognise that we have to look at things to see how we can maximise the Budget and do what we can to get proper investment in our services. However, in reality, why should the people across the North pay the price for years upon years of underinvestment by successive British Governments? People have said that that is a sound bite or an excuse. It is absolutely not an excuse; it is a reality. I will not stop reminding people of that, because it is important. We cannot give cover to a failure to deliver a Budget amount that meets the needs of people here. People here are taxpayers, and they are as entitled to good services and good investment as anyone else across these islands is. We will continue to make that case to the British Treasury to ensure that they understand the impact of decisions that have been taken over many years.

Mr Dunne: Will the Minister outline her assessment of the Finance Minister's recent draft Budget with regard to addressing the waste water crisis, which she and her predecessors have overseen? Many would concur that we have seen little or no real action to deal with that crisis.

Ms Kimmins: I do not agree that there has been little or no action. I have outlined some of the actions that have been taken even in the past number of months. However, I recognise that we still have a huge amount of work to do, and we will continue to drive forward with that.

On the draft Budget, no Minister around the Executive table could be happy with the allocations that have been put forward. However, there is only a small pie, and it can only go so far. If I were to reject it and say, "I'm not happy with it. We can't move forward", who would face the consequences? We all have a responsibility to deliver public services for the people across the North. We have to continue to work together: that is the key. As I have said, we need to make that case strongly and unitedly to the British Government, because they know it — they stated it clearly when the Assembly was restored in 2024. It is important to remember that every decision that is taken has a consequence for another Minister. How do we share that collectively? How do we work together to make the most of what we have and get the best outcomes with the Budget amount that has been given to us?

Ms Kimmins: The interim Regional Planning Commission has concluded its work programme. It submitted its report to me in November 2025. The report, which is titled, 'The Next Decade: A Framework for Change in the NI Planning System', summarises the work undertaken by the commission as part of the agreed work programme since February 2023. It also suggests a 10-year vision for planning in the North, including eight key recommendations to support that vision.
7
My officials and I are undertaking a detailed review of the report. A formal response will be published in due course, outlining my consideration of the report in the context of its original aims and objectives and the wider planning improvement agenda.

Ms K Armstrong: As the Minister said, the report was given to her Department in November 2025. When does the Minister anticipate the publication of that report, and why is it taking so long?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member said, it was November 2025, which is just a few weeks ago. It is important that we properly consider and scrutinise the report before coming to our conclusions. I intend to publish it at the earliest possible stage. It is an important piece of work, and I want to see what has come out of the report in order to maximise its impact and inform the next steps.

Miss Dolan: Minister, how does the work of the interim Regional Planning Commission contribute to the planning improvement agenda?

Ms Kimmins: The work of the commission contributes to the planning improvement agenda by providing independent evidence-based insight to inform the overall direction and delivery of planning improvement measures and initiatives. By bringing together cross-sectoral expertise and a comprehensive programme of engagement, the commission can ensure that the agenda is informed by real-world experience and stakeholder perspectives. Its evidence-led approach will ensure that current and future improvement actions and initiatives align with its overarching aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system for all.

The commission explored a range of topics, including best-practice planning in other jurisdictions across England, Scotland and Wales and particular differences and planning improvements in each system. It also explored current issues in development management and local development plan making, including key areas of delay, potential improvements and lessons learned. Sessions sought the experiences of the business, environment and housing sectors in relation to barriers in the planning system and potential improvements to service delivery from a legislative, procedural and administrative perspective. As I have said in answer to previous questions from Members, that underpins a lot of the work that the Department has been doing to address and recognise key issues in our planning system.

Mr Harvey: Minister, there are significant disparities in the operation of council planning functions, a fact that is raised repeatedly by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the interim commission. What can be done to ensure greater efficiency and sharing of best practice across the 11 councils?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that question, because it is an opportunity to reflect on the work that we have been doing through the planning improvement programme. We do that work for all those reasons. You and I are former councillors, so we have been there from the early days of the devolution of planning to councils. It has been a journey, to say the least, as people have come to understand and deliver planning in council areas.

The planning improvement work set out to identify the key areas of challenge, where there are commonalities and how to share good practice on what does and does not work well in some council areas and how that can work together. That work has been ongoing. We are also targeting efficiency, as I mentioned, through the new validation checklist and by introducing trainee planners. That will help to speed up the process for applicants and ensure that more senior planners can get on with the work that they need to do.

Ms Kimmins: The A1 junctions phase 2 project will deliver enhanced safety measures along 25 kilometres of the A1 between Loughbrickland and Hillsborough, costing in the region of £120 million to £130 million. It will include the closing up of all gaps in the central median and the provision of a number of new grade-separated junctions. The scheme was confirmed by my predecessor as a single package of works on 2 July 2024, and a restricted list was notified to tenderers on 9 May 2025. That list will remain live until 5 February this year.

Since the judgement on the A5 project and the Department's appeal, I have taken time to carefully consider the implications of that and the potential impact on other projects as they move through the next stages of their delivery. That includes the A1 junctions phase 2 project. We have to await the Court of Appeal's ruling, because it is important that we consider it fully when looking at the next steps for all major roads projects, because we do not want to be in a scenario where we face challenges on everything.

Whilst I want to see the project delivered at the earliest possible stage, it is critical that we consider the outcome of the appeal before taking the next steps.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I offer you my condolences on the loss of your dear friend, colleague and mentor Mickey Brady.

Ms Kimmins: I thank my constituency colleague for his kind words. We reflected on the incredible Mickey Brady earlier today. That is testament to the person he was.

I have said that we need to take the time to properly scrutinise the report that the Member referenced and ensure that we understand what exactly is being proposed and what that would look like in reality. The report is worth exploring. We will look at it in the round, as we would any report. We are aware of the infrastructure challenges, but we also need to recognise the challenges across all our public services. We have to consider the fact that, if it is not properly resourced, an influx of 6,000 new houses could put further strain on services. There is a lot to consider before coming to any conclusion on the report. It has positive soundings and gives us something to look to for the future. However, as decision makers and legislators, we have to be cognisant of the pressures that are already on services across the North. I am happy to speak to my counterparts in the South to see what their thoughts are on it and what that may look like in the future.

Mr McNulty: Minister, it is clear that you have not read the report, because it proposes solutions, through existing funding mechanisms, to the infrastructure challenges that are faced. It would not put strain on existing services but create more services and more homes.

The report, authored by businessmen Paschal Taggart and Ger Perdisatt and endorsed by Martin McAleese, is a plan on a plate for your Executive. Will your party and your Executive commit to fully and properly exploring that exciting proposal, which could be a game changer not only for Newry but for the North and this island by moving us towards a unified, new Ireland, which I am passionate about, and which, I hope, you, your party and your Executive can lead us towards?

Ms Kimmins: I think that I have just secured the ownership of the Executive.

To my knowledge, the report was made available about a week ago. It is important that we look at it in great detail and do not jump to conclusions until we have had time to carefully consider it, as we would do for any proposal of that scale. It would be irresponsible to take a position on it at this early stage before properly looking at it, looking at the resources available to us and, most importantly, looking at the impact on the people, the community and the local economy. From early sight of it, there are definitely positives, but a balanced view has to be taken, and that is what I am keen to do. The report identifies and highlights just how important Newry is on the Belfast-Dublin economic corridor and shows that it is a very attractive location for commuters. Given that it is a significant proposal — 6,000 new houses — lots of things have to be taken into consideration before any decisions are made.

Ms Kimmins: On Saturday 10 January at approximately 12.45 pm, officials were advised that the traffic signals on Clifton Street, at the junction with the A12, were not operating. By 1.45 pm on the same day, a maintenance team was on-site trying to identify the issue. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of the repair that was required, the signals could not be made operational again until lunchtime on Monday 12 January. The location of the traffic signals on the Clifton Street bridge presents unique maintenance challenges, so the defective parts could not be repaired over the weekend. I appreciate the frustration. I send my best wishes to the Member's constituent. When such things happen, they present huge challenges and issues arise, which are sometimes beyond our control. I assure the Member, however, that staff were on-site at the earliest possible stage after my departmental officials had been made aware of the situation.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. I wonder whether we might learn lessons for the future from what happened over that weekend. I have submitted a number of questions for written answer and written a number of letters to the Minister about the Clifton Gateway scheme, which is about more than what the area looks like. It is about more than just the York Street interchange. Rather, it is about the whole area. While we are waiting for progress to be made on the interchange and on the Glider scheme, is there any way in which the Minister's Department can, in the near future, focus on the Clifton Gateway scheme and work with the Department for Communities to improve the area so that it is safe and so that we do not have any more accidents or deaths, as we had recently?

Ms Kimmins: I am happy to speak to officials to see where we are at with that and to determine what the next steps will be. I will come back to the Member in writing, if that suits. I am happy to take the issue on board and see what we can do, particularly given that road safety is a priority for the area.

Ms Kimmins: Did you say "community nurses"?

Mr Honeyford: No. I asked about the community in the Ayrshire development.

Ms Kimmins: Apologies, I could not hear you. The issue is one that is prevalent across the North. It is frustrating, and I appreciate that. I hope that the Member understands the difficult position that the Department is in when it comes to its getting involved. It is the developer's responsibility, and a number of steps have been taken to ensure that the developer meets its responsibility. I do not have the details of the case to hand, but if the Member would like to provide me with more detail, I will look into it to see where the development stands. I know that it is a huge challenge, however. As the Member will know, I announced changes for unadopted roads earlier in the year. Hopefully, those changes might help in that scenario. If the Member wants to provide me with more detail, however, I can update him accordingly.

Mr Honeyford: I have raised the issue with the Department repeatedly, and it keeps coming back to me with talk about budgetary pressures. Frankly, the residents there should not be bearing the cost. The situation has been going on for more than 10 years. I welcome the Minister's response, however. I will send her the information so that she can look at it in order to try to arrive at a conclusion for the residents.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you. We will have a look at it.

Ms Kimmins: On the back of the challenges that we saw at Christmas 2024, John, when he was Infrastructure Minister, and I, when I took up the role, just under a year ago, felt that it was important to work closely with key stakeholders in the city centre. That involved listening carefully to them and taking on board what they felt would work well. I announced that I was bringing forward the embargo on Christmas roadworks by two weeks to help strike a balance between the need to deliver key infrastructure projects for the public and the need to support our business, retail and hospitality sectors. The reopening of Durham Street after a year's closure also helped ease traffic congestion significantly in that part of the city. As part of my commitment to delivering an effective and reliable public transport service, particularly over the Christmas period, I extended weekday bus lane hours on eight busy corridors, including the Ormeau Road, the Malone Road and the lower Lisburn Road, from 7.30 am to 9.30 am and 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm. Doing that helped minimise the impact on Translink services of peak-hour traffic jams and allowed them to operate more reliably.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

I welcome reports that, in December, the footfall increased by 31% from 2024. I also welcome the success of the late-night transport services, as the Minister mentioned. Will those measures feature in the Department's vision for the eastern transport plan 2035, as it is developed?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. The collaboration that took place, even across Departments, to develop those measures shows what can be achieved when we work together well with a common goal to make improvements for people. That will align naturally with what goes into the eastern transport plan. I encourage as many people as possible to respond to the consultation on that plan, because that is a good opportunity for everyone to shape the future of public transport routes and other ways of travelling in our city centres. We will be able to learn from that. That is a positive part of the work that will happen.

Mr Speaker: Topical question 5 has been withdrawn.

Ms Kimmins: Approximately £7 million funding has been allocated from the Belfast region city deal to taking forward the environmental improvement works in Royal Hillsborough. The works are expected to commence in March 2027. As part of those works, the council intends to install a pedestrian crossing at lower Main Street, with my Department taking forward the installation of a crossing outside Downshire Primary School as part of its 2026 programme.

Whilst I recognise that resurfacing is required in much of Hillsborough, progressing that ahead of any public realm works would not be an appropriate use of my Department's resources. Work on the large-scale patching at the Ballynahinch Road junction and wider resurfacing needs will be considered in the context of the public realm works, and consideration must be given to the potential of having to come back to do additional work. It is my understanding that that is the rationale for that decision.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her fulsome answer. Unfortunately, some of the residents feel let down because they have seen numerous false dawns. The Minister will be aware of the increasing volume of HGV traffic in Hillsborough, which has been an ongoing challenge. It would seem a shame to miss the opportunity to address that next year. Will part of the discussions with Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council be about addressing, once and for all, traffic congestion in Hillsborough.

Ms Kimmins: I had the pleasure of meeting some of the residents there, so I know how much of an issue that is. In fact, I worked in Hillsborough health centre for a short while, so I am very familiar with the village. Officials in my Department have commissioned an assessment of alternative routes for HGV traffic to inform the relative merits of the proposal for a weight limit, particularly its impacts on road safety in the village and on the surrounding road network. The report of that assessment is with my officials, who will consider the detail before determining next steps. I expect to receive an update next month and hope to be able to provide further information. There are lots of aspects to the issue, and there is no easy solution, but I gave a commitment that we will do as much as we can to find a solution that will help residents with the issues that they have raised.

Ms Kimmins: I welcome the new MLA for Newry and Armagh. It is a pleasure to meet you, and I look forward to working with you in the time ahead.

I live in south Armagh and represent the constituency. I am aware of the significant challenges with the condition of our roads. The recent cold snap has led to the further deterioration of roads, and we all see potholes popping up everywhere. I look at them myself and report them when I see them. It absolutely is not the responsibility of a local group to take on that role. We have a mechanism for reporting potholes on the nidirect website, which is a straightforward way of doing that, and we see teams acting as quickly as they can, obviously within the limited service policy that exists. Due to constraints on funding and limited resources, they have to prioritise. However, as I mentioned, I have invested an additional £4 million in this financial year, particularly for rural roads. I hope that that reassures the public of my commitment and my determination to tackle the issues going forward.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion questions to the Minister. Members should take their ease while we change the Table, after which we will move back to the debate.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): We thank Members for their contributions, and we welcome the opportunity to debate Executive progress. The people whom we serve expect and demand delivery; it is what we are here to do. Almost two years ago, when the institutions were restored, we came together as an Executive and committed ourselves to working collectively to deliver what matters most to our communities. We committed to ensuring that we build a better future for all our people and deliver the key priorities for people here. We do not take that responsibility lightly. We know that the people whom we serve expect us to deliver.

In February 2025, the Executive agreed a Programme for Government to deliver on what matters most. As the first new PFG agreed in 13 years, that was a positive milestone for both government and the people of Northern Ireland. Significant progress has been made towards achieving the Programme for Government priorities, and, as we head towards the one-year anniversary, we will publish the update report on that. I know that people across Northern Ireland can be frustrated by what they see as a lack of delivery on key issues that matter to them. If you are on a health waiting list, you want that health waiting list to move more quickly. If you are in a school where you can see buckets in the corridors or see work that needs to happen, of course you want that to happen sooner rather than later. We understand people's frustrations, and that is why there is a commitment across the Executive to deliver for people.

I will touch briefly on some of the key deliverables, because, frankly, listening to some of the debate in this place —. The leader of the Opposition said that he would be accused of being negative: he is accused of being negative because he is being negative.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: He said at the outset two years ago that he hoped to lead a constructive Opposition, but we do not see much of that constructiveness, because of course he failed to recognise any — any — of the achievements of the Executive. That includes agreeing a Programme for Government, agreeing a Budget last year and this year and delivering £55 million of childcare support for hard-working families. That is real money in real people's pockets. We delivered over 164,000 more outpatient, diagnostic and inpatient procedures by the end of October 2025. When that reports again, that number will have increased significantly. We have committed more than £5 million to community-led and other initiatives to tackle violence against women and girls.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The strategy is out; the delivery plan is out; and money is on the ground making a difference on the key issues that matter to people.

The Northern Ireland Executive stepped in and delivered a £100 winter fuel payment, when Scotland and other jurisdictions could not deliver that because the Labour Party in London decided to cut it at the last moment. The school uniform legislation passed by the DUP Education Minister protects working families and tries to drive down the costs that hit them hard.

The Women's World Cup was agreed on by the Executive, and we will work to make that happen. The year-round, late-night transport for Belfast has finally been delivered.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The cultural commissioners have been appointed. We moved quickly to deal with the long-standing, long-running irritation of the issue of rates on condemned buildings. The housing supply strategy is out. We have delivered a delivery unit and the office of AI and digital. For the first time in Northern Ireland, we appointed a Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser. We are driving forward a data strategy and the AI strategy to make Northern Ireland fit for purpose for the future.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We opened Studio Ulster after working incredibly hard. Frankly, if there had not been a Northern Ireland Executive to push and ensure that the pause on the much-needed region and city deals was lifted, we would not have that game changer for our creative industries.

There were numerous meetings to push the UK Government to make sure that Post Office postmasters across Northern Ireland were included in the UK-wide legislation to remedy that injustice, and we succeeded.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We hosted an extremely successful golf Open Championship and Irish Open last year, building on the successes of the Northern Ireland Executive's past commitments and pushing forward to achieve them for the future.

Mr Brett: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Deputy First Minister, will you take your seat? OK.

I cannot hear with Phillip "Hear, hear"-ing, and Members will not let the Minister be heard. Can we have a bit of manners, please? Thank you. Continue.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you.

Not only that, we have been able to step in when challenges have faced not just the Northern Ireland Executive but the entirety of Northern Ireland. After storm Éowyn, it was the First Minister, me and others who got on the phone to the Prime Minister, sat at the COBRA meeting and asked for the additional supports that were so necessary, such as the extra water and people to help to get the electricity fixed and the lights back on throughout Northern Ireland. Indeed, when we faced the terrible race disorder over the past number of summers, we took a strong, united and firm stand against it.

All those things matter, and there are so many more. We moved immediately to address the public-sector pay issues that had lingered for years and to resolve those issues, difficult as that may have been. We have also driven an ambitious agenda of transformation across government, and that is critical.

I am not naive. Do I want to deliver faster for the people of Northern Ireland? Yes. Do I want to deliver more for the people of Northern Ireland? Absolutely. However, the challenge that we face is the same as that faced by Governments throughout these isles and democracies across the globe, and that is making sure that we can deliver for the people whom we serve.

Just this week, I heard something that was relevant to the frustrations that many people feel and that I can feel in this role, and it was about the challenge between process and progress. We face the frustration that people feel about delays and the time that it takes to get delivery when we meet the head of the Civil Service, officials and the arm's-length bodies. When we look at some of the big things that are often criticised in this place for not being delivered, we see that the issue was not a lack of political agreement. Those issues were agreed; they made their way into the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI), flagship projects and Executive papers and announcements of the past, and yet some of them have not been delivered five years, 10 years or 15 years later because the process often bogs down the big issues and is a hindrance to progress. We must tackle that, and we absolutely hear that from people. We must deliver for the people whom we serve; otherwise what value will they see in this place?

The Chamber is not a place for simply shouting at one another. The leader of the Opposition often comes in here with his big, angry head on and shouts at all of us about this, that and the other. He does not want to reflect, and he does not like it when the lack of delivery from SDLP Ministers is pointed out to him. Look at the portfolios that the SDLP held: on Casement, no progress; on the A5, no progress; and on the environmental issues that sat in those portfolios, no progress. When the SDLP has not held the FM or DFM position in an Executive, it has not voted in support of a single draft Budget or substantive Budget.

It is important to highlight that the draft Budget is out for consultation. We have to get it right. There is an opportunity to get it right, to build the foundations that we need to tackle inefficiency in our system and to get the right people with the right skills in the places where they need to be to push forward that delivery, particularly in respect of capital infrastructure. People feel frustrated that many of the projects around them are not delivered on time or on budget, but what does that mean? It means that, in future years, we are spending, against the same projects, hundreds of millions of pounds more than the original cost because of delays and lack of delivery and because the process is a hindrance to progress. That is a challenge that we are up to meeting. That is why we are trying to drive a focus on specialist skills in the Civil Service. That is why, through the Strategic Investment Board, we are looking at the planning system and trying to ensure that the key barriers to progress are removed. That is why we are looking at the accountability mechanisms in the key targets and priorities in the Programme for Government.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for giving way, deputy First Minister. You said that I had a big angry head: I am afraid that I cannot do much about that. I was born ginger. I will do my best to look happier and smile more. I do not know if your comment was about that; I am sure that it was not.

Anyway, on the point about me being negative, I genuinely think that lots of people will be listening to her and thinking, "Some of that's fair enough", but it appears that it is being said in a parallel universe to what is happening on the Benches around you. You tell me that I am being negative: at Question Time, the gentleman sitting next to you, Mr Brett, and the First Minister had an absolutely vituperative exchange. There is this idea that you guys are a unified, coherent Government, when the Chairperson of the Economy Committee and the First Minister were shooting daggers at each other literally minutes ago in the Chamber. I do not know whether you did not hear or see it, but that is what happened.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am shocked to hear that they were "literally" shooting daggers at each other across the Chamber.

Mr O'Toole: Fair enough. Apologies. I should have said "figuratively".

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Figuratively. As many people will know, I have a big angry head on at times, because I want to push forward on delivery as well. However, the Member touches on an incredibly important point. The leader of the Opposition probably has more angry exchanges with Members in the Chamber in one day than the Executive have had over the past 12 months to two years. Some seem to have an obsession with focusing on and talking up disagreement and talking down delivery.

Moving forward with new policies, new legislation and new ways of doing things to make sure that we can deliver better takes time. Every Government in the world faces that, unless you are some form of dictator or otherwise who can simply force things through with the click of your fingers. These things take time. Do I believe that the processes are much too difficult? Do I believe that the processes are a hindrance to delivery? Yes, and we need to improve those. Part of the reason why we are in these positions is to try to drive that forward.

I have said this before, I will no doubt say it say again on many occasions and it will come as no surprise to Members and to people across Northern Ireland: the First Minister and I do not agree on everything; of course, we do not. We are in a mandatory coalition with four parties from four very different ideological positions. I hear Members talk about issues being blocked. The system of government that we have in the Executive is designed to ensure that things that are significant, cross-cutting or controversial will move forward only with consensus. This is the thing: if there is no consensus, they will not be agreed. My party and I play a role in the Executive as a safeguard by scrutinising the detail to see whether something can command consensus across the Executive and the House. Frankly, I would worry about the nonsense that would be in place were it not for those safeguards. That is the product of a system that was designed by the very party that now jumps up and down and criticises it.

If there is no consensus, the only alternative is to force something through without agreement, but that is not the system that we have in the Executive.

I assure people throughout Northern Ireland of my deep commitment to deliver. Yes, our system is slow; that is the way that it was designed. Can it be improved? Of course it can, but, in the meantime, we must all commit to doing our best to find where we have agreement. I am a firm believer that there is so much more that we agree on, whether it is fixing our health service, ensuring that education gets the funding that it needs or supporting special educational needs capital projects. We know what our needs are. We need to grow our economy, support our small businesses and send a united message to the UK Government about reducing VAT for our hospitality businesses. We need to encourage our arts and creative industries that do so well and to recognise all that is incredible about this wonderful place that we call home.

We should facilitate that delivery by working together. Of course, we will not agree on everything, and progress will not be as fast as we want it to be. I can, however, say this clearly: we are committed to doing all that we can to improve the process, work together and drive forward. That is why I am in this post, and my colleagues and I will do that. Yes, there will be disagreements, but the focus is on the nine key priorities and on trying to ensure that we can get movement in order to build the better, brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland that, I know, we all want to see.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I call Stewart Dickson to make his winding-up speech on the Alliance Party's amendment. Stewart, you have five minutes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It has, I think, been very useful. There is much in the motion with which my party agrees. Therefore, I encourage the party that tabled the motion to support our amendment.

We all agree that delivery has been too slow. Too often, Programmes for Government from the Executive represent, in reality, a collection of Departments doing their own thing, rather than what might be expected from such a document from a single Government, which would work towards shared outcomes that make a difference to people's lives. We have heard that in the debate. That is not to suggest some good and important work is not being done, to which the deputy first Minister made reference. It appears, however, to be piecemeal and, more often than not, dysfunctional. That is why we believe that a statutory duty to cooperate and address cross-cutting issues is essential. Those concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously.

It is also important, however, to be honest about why we find ourselves here and about what would actually change things. If we are serious about improving delivery, we have to be clear about the causes of failure and the limits of what private Members' motions — a more accurate description might be "party motions" — alone have been able to achieve so far. Day in, day out, we hear debates in the Chamber on motions that call on Ministers to do this or that. Sadly, the vast majority are ignored or used for political point-scoring.

My colleagues and I were elected to the Assembly to be legislators in order to improve the lives of our constituents and change them by improving our laws. Yet, so far in this mandate, precious little has been achieved. We would rather sit in this place and engage in divisive and sterile debates, often on things over which we have little influence. Indeed, with a few ministerial exceptions, more tumbleweed than legislation comes into the Chamber for debate and decision.

The problems that the motion identifies did not emerge in this mandate alone. Silo working, weak collective decision-making and the absence of long-term planning, despite Programmes for Government, have characterised the Executive for many years — not accounting, of course, for all the downtime — including previous mandates during which the party that is now in opposition held ministerial office for significant periods. That context matters, because if we misdiagnose the problem, we will not be able to fix it.

At the same time, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the significant and, frankly, malign inertia that continues to exist at the centre of the Government. Too often, the Executive Office and the First Minister and deputy First Minister's structures are slow — to the point of inertia — to drive collective action, grip delivery and provide the leadership that is needed to turn agreed priorities into real progress. Frankly, a mixture of what I perceive as laziness and political point-scoring seems to be the hallmark of our Executive Office. Without effective leadership and coordination at the centre, even good decisions struggle to be translated into outcomes. However, the public do not benefit from or need a blame game between the Government and the Opposition. What we need is structural reform, clear accountability and a system that is designed to deliver rather than one that fails to deliver.

My party, the Alliance Party, is in the Executive not to defend their shortcomings but to change how they operate. We believe that the Government should work as a single team focused on outcomes rather than as a set of competing departmental silos. That is why we have been arguing for change for more than a decade. We have argued for multi-year Budgets because, without them, Departments are forced into short-term decision-making. We have argued for a statutory duty on Ministers and Departments to cooperate, because cross-cutting challenges in areas such as health, infrastructure, climate and education cannot be solved in isolation. That is why we have been clear that the Programme for Government must be more than a document that is agreed at the start of a mandate.

The Opposition play a vital role, but the Opposition alone are not a substitution for reform. If we want different outcomes, we need different systems. That means reforming how our Executive take decisions, strengthening collective responsibility and ensuring that progress against a Programme for Government commitment is transparent and measurable and is reported openly to the Assembly.

We have clear signs of what we might call reckless budget management by others in the Assembly. The two highest-spending Departments in the Executive, Education and Health —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Stewart.

Mr Dickson: — are the worst offenders when it comes to overspending or throwing good money after bad, and they are unreformed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Stewart, time is up. Thank you.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on the motion on behalf of the Opposition. Colin, you have 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. As I close the debate, what I feel most strongly is not anger but disappointment. I am a democrat, and I believe in our democratic institutions. As a nationalist, I believe that, if we want to shape a new Ireland, the institutions must work and deliver. Two years ago, when our institutions, including the Executive, were restored, people were promised better than this. They were promised delivery, cooperation and a Government who would focus on what matters most. Measured against those promises, the Executive have failed to deliver. There is still no Executive-agreed multi-year Budget; the progress made on Executive legislation has been limited; and delivery against Programme for Government commitments is, at best, patchy and, at worst, absent. That is not the change that people were told to expect. The Assembly was promised momentum, but we have seen drift. We were promised transformation, but, instead, we have delay.

The evidence of that failure is visible in promise after promise that has gone unfulfilled. Indeed, the deputy First Minister just said that she is proud to have used her veto to stop "nonsense" from progressing. Is that nonsense such as the A5, which is still mired in delay? Is it nonsense such as Casement Park, which, years on, is still unresolved? Is it nonsense such as waste water infrastructure, the lack of action on which is holding back housing and economic growth across the North? Is it nonsense such as Lough Neagh, which still has not seen the decisive action that people were promised? Is it nonsense such as the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition report, which was published and then parked? Is it nonsense such as the housing crisis, which is deepening, with too few homes being built and too many families being left waiting? Those are not merely Opposition demands; they were Executive commitments, and we have not seen them.

When so many headlines made promises and those remain undelivered, people are entitled to ask what the Executive have been doing with their time. Nowhere is that question more pressing than in health. The Ulster Unionist Party sought the Health portfolio, arguing that it would bring leadership and reform to a system that was under enormous strain. Two years on, people are still waiting to see that change. Waiting lists remain stubbornly high; ambulance delays continue to shock; staff are exhausted; and patients are losing confidence.

Of course the pressures are real, but leadership is about outcomes, not explanations, and the reality is that the health service feels no closer now to witnessing the transformation that was promised 10 years ago by our First Minister, who was then the Minister of Health. Health cannot be fixed by slogans or ownership alone. Rather, fixing it requires coordination across Departments, social care capacity, workforce planning and even things such as housing support.

That brings me on to the amendment from the Alliance Party. Alliance entered the mandate promising reform of the institutions. It promised to change how Stormont works, not simply to keep it ticking over. Reform is not something that is talked about only in manifestos but something that has to be driven from the Executive table. Alliance has instead chosen to prop up the existing two-party structure, offering stability to a system that continues to under-deliver. People see the consequences of that every day. For example, in Warrenpoint, residents have been living with persistent foul odours that affect their homes and quality of life. The Agriculture Minister has a responsibility there. He could reform waste management in the North and end the foul odours with the stroke of a pen, but there is no action from him.

There is a danger when reform becomes rhetoric and a catchy election slogan. The motion is not about tearing down devolution. Rather, it is about being honest about where devolution is falling short. The public voted not for excuses but for delivery, for an agreed, ambitious multi-year Budget and for Departments that genuinely cooperate rather than operate in silos. Think about that for a moment. When I reflect on all the contributions, I note that each of the Executive parties' representatives stood up and said, to a tee, "Things are not too bad, because guess what our Ministers are doing at the Executive?". It is therefore all about what Ministers do individually, when, instead, what we are crying out for is collective work across the Executive. Clear reporting on the Programme for Government commitments so that progress can be measured and judged is critical. Is that really too much to ask for?

We know that the Government will not get it right all the time. We understand that people are human and that there is only so much that Ministers can do with the budget that they have, but constantly painting a picture that everything is fine when anybody has the audacity to ask a question about what they are doing, to seek transparency or to say that things are not good enough is, as I said at the start, just disappointing.

Look at some of the remarks that were made during the debate. For example, there were attacks made on my colleague Mark about the fact that he was a Minister 13 years ago. What have we had in those 13 years from the party that threw out the accusations? We have had the renewable heat incentive, the collapse of the institutions and any amount of lack of Government and delivery. If you cannot remove the plank in your own eye, I do not know where we go in the future.

We had a contribution from the TUV about something. It wants more rule from London. If the polls are right, and we are to have a Reform Government, do we really want Reform looking after our affairs and having the final say on them? Absolutely not.

I could go on about some of the remarks that individual representatives have made. From one, the words "useless", "out of touch" and "do-nothing" were used. They were said by the leader of the Sinn Féin Opposition in Dublin, when talking about the Government down there, but if we look at delivery from the Dublin Government, it far surpasses anything that is happening here. If that is "useless", "out of touch" and "do-nothing", the Sinn Féin leader might want to come up and have a look to see exactly what is happening in this place.

We want to see joined-up government and more delivery. That is something on which everyone in the House can agree. We want to see better delivery for people and to have public services that work. For the debate to have become one of ignorance of our remarks, and for there to have been an attitude of "How dare you raise issues", when we are simply trying to seek the best for our constituents, that will not wash.

I therefore hope that the motion passes and that we see better delivery from our Government in the future.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The previous Member who spoke disgracefully and erroneously insinuated that the A5 has been prevented from progressing due to a DUP veto in the Executive. It is a matter of fact that the Executive agreed to progress the A5 and that it is indeed the courts that have stopped that progress due to a range of different issues. I ask that the Member addresses that issue and corrects the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but you have got your concerns on the record.

Mr McGrath: You know the context that [Inaudible.] [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Whenever you are finished, Colin.

Mr McGrath: You know the context.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Are you finished? [Inaudible.]

Mr McGrath: No?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am appalled by the party that accuses everyone else in the Chamber of toxicity. Will you make a ruling on whether the Member for South Down was in breach of Standing Order 65(e) when he shouted across the Chamber at the deputy First Minister that she was "stupid"? [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: First, I will ask the Speaker to review that and to certainly review the proceedings. If that is the case, I have absolutely no doubt that we will be back to this again. OK.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. First, if I misused the word "literally", in terms of accountability, I will be held accountable, so I should not have done that. I literally should not be misusing. However, on a specific point —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me; sorry. Could you actually get to your point of order? [Laughter.]

Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will get to my point of order. Just a moment ago, the First Minister and other senior Ministers walked through the Lobby to vote for an amendment to our motion that criticised fundamentally the performance of the Executive. I ask the Speaker's Office to give a ruling on the meaning of that: when a motion is passed that means Ministers supporting fundamental criticisms of Executive performance, is there any upshot? Is there any accountability for Ministers who do that?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is called "democracy". That is what happens. However, in fairness to you, because you are leader of the Opposition, I will ask the Speaker's Office to review it.

Are there any more non-points of order before I move on? [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, I ask you to take your ease before we move on to the next item.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If offence was caused by my remark, I apologise for that but also clarify that it was the content that I referred to as being stupid, not the individual who was delivering it. I think that that was patently clear, but, if offence was taken, I withdraw the remark and offer an apology.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McGrath, that is noted and will, I am sure, be considered when it is referred to the Speaker's Office, which it will be.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

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

Mr Durkan: On behalf of the SDLP, I will propose a couple of measures to mitigate a housing crisis that has not just arrived overnight but is the inevitable result of political choices made in the Chamber. They allowed rises in rents to go unchecked and the stripping away of social housing stock to continue. Repeated warnings from not just the SDLP but the sector and even others in the Chamber were ignored. The consequences of those decisions are felt now by tens of thousands of families across all of our constituencies. Rents have surged, living costs have exploded, and wages have not kept pace. For too many households, rent now swallows an unsustainable share of income, forcing people to choose between housing and basics such as food, heat and childcare. It is no longer a fringe issue; it is hitting working families, older people and those on fixed incomes.

The scale of the problem is clear in the gap between local housing allowance (LHA) and the rents that are charged. By May 2024, almost 60,000 private renters in the North were paying that shortfall, yet LHA rates remain frozen. At the same time, discretionary housing payments designed to plug that gap have been stripped back. Eligibility has halved, awards have been capped, and £4·5 million — as it is put, the £4·5 million "easement" — is left unspent while households struggle. That does not seem like efficiency; it seems more like the quiet withdrawal of support.

Social housing waiting lists now sit at close to 50,000 households. With supply failing to keep pace, people are pushed into the private rented sector, which drives up demand and rents, particularly at the lower end of the market. Unsurprisingly, the loss of private rented accommodation remains one of the leading causes of homelessness. Tenant protections here lag behind other jurisdictions, although, I suppose, we saw limited progress through the Private Tenancies Act 2022. A landlord can now increase the rent only annually, but there is still no limit on the extent of the increase. No-fault evictions remain here, and further promised reforms have stalled. In that context, inaction is not neutral; it entrenches insecurity. That is why we believe that third-generation rent controls must form part of the response. They are not crude rent freezes. I understand the Minister, the sector and others' concerns about that approach, but they are targeted, evidence-based measures that allow reasonable increases while preventing sudden destabilising hikes. They provide stability for tenants and clarity and certainty for landlords.

Rent controls alone will not work while we continue to hollow out our social housing stock. Since the house sales scheme began in 1979, over 122,000 Housing Executive homes have been sold. That is more than the number currently owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; it has about 83,000 homes remaining. Replacement has never come close. At current build rates, it would take nearly 80 years just to replace what has already been lost, and that does not take into account increasing demand or anything like that. That matters not just for supply in the here and now but for the future of the Housing Executive itself. Every home sold weakens the Housing Executive's balance sheet, reduces rental income and undermines its asset base. Inevitably, that directly limits its ability to borrow, invest and build at scale.

Parties across the Chamber say that they support giving the Housing Executive the power to borrow, yet they continue to back policies that strip away the very assets that lenders look for. You cannot talk up borrowing powers while selling off collateral. I get that parties have different ideological views on the right-to-buy scheme. We all know people who have aspired to and achieved homeownership through that scheme. It has been extremely popular, and that may be why this is so difficult for some parties. However, selling social homes during a housing emergency is indefensible.

The Assembly had a real chance to stop the scheme through legislation in 2020, but, when I tabled an amendment to the legislation to do that, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, Alliance and, bizarrely, Sinn Féin all voted against it. Since that vote in 2020, over 1,500 more Housing Executive homes have been lost. That is virtually a year's worth of homes. Those decisions have consequences: higher rents, longer waiting lists and deeper housing insecurity. We cannot afford to keep doing that. I am not even asking to scrap the scheme now, just to press "Pause", Minister. When I asked the Minister, through a question for written answer, whether he had assessed the impact of the house sales scheme on housing stock and homelessness, I received a one-word reply: "Yes". I have had no detail, no transparency and no accountability, but, hopefully, he can elaborate on that consideration or assessment later in the debate.

Meanwhile, Scotland and Wales have ended right-to-buy. In Scotland alone, over 15,500 homes that would have been sold are now retained in the social rented sector. That is what acting in the public interest looks like. The Minister characterises himself as someone who will do things differently to get better results. The jury is still out on the impact that the cuts that he has made to the housing association grant rate will have. The Minister points to an intermediate rents scheme: that is welcome, but it falls well short of the scale of action required. This is not a routine policy challenge; it is a housing emergency, and the response thus far, sadly, does not meet the reality.

The Minister seeks acclaim for his role, whatever that might be, in allowing the Housing Executive now to buy back hundreds of those homes to help address the cost of temporary accommodation. We in the SDLP believe that housing is a public good. That means protecting renters from unaffordable increases and stopping the permanent loss of social housing, not just for today but to ensure that the Housing Executive has the strength to build for and in the future. The cost of delay is already visible: rising homelessness, worsening child poverty, declining mental health and communities being hollowed out as people are priced out of their areas. Stabilising rents and placing a moratorium on the house sales scheme will not solve everything, but, without them, nothing else will either. The evidence is clear; the consequences are real; the crisis is deepening. If the Minister is serious about doing things differently, now is the time to prove it.

I commend the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Durkan. I call Pam Cameron to move amendment No 1.

Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP amendment allows the Assembly not only to acknowledge the real pressures that tenants face but to focus on the solutions that will improve affordability in the long-term.

There is no dispute about the scale of the challenge. Average private rents in Northern Ireland increased by 6·4% in the year to September 2025, rising to £871 a month, with rents in Belfast being significantly higher at over £1,100. At the same time, house prices continued to rise, making it harder for people to move from renting into homeownership. We can all agree that rents need to be affordable. There are working families paying far too much of their income on rent — families who do not qualify for social housing but are locked out of homeownership as well. That reality must be recognised by us all.

It is vital, however, that the Assembly be honest about what is driving those pressures. The fundamental issue is supply. Demand for housing continues to outstrip supply in the social and affordable housing sectors in particular, and the imbalance places sustained pressure on the private rented sector. When social housing stock is insufficient, more households are pushed into private renting. That increases competition for a limited number of properties and inevitably puts upward pressure on rents. Until that imbalance is addressed, no single regulatory intervention will deliver lasting affordability. That is why our amendment is important. It recognises that existing measures alone are insufficient, as demand outstrips supply, and correctly identifies the loss of social housing stock as a contributor to rent inflation.

Housing is now rightly recognised as a core Executive priority. Under DUP leadership, the Minister for Communities has delivered an ambitious housing supply strategy, setting out a clear framework to deliver at least 100,000 homes across all tenures. The strategy recognises housing as foundational, underpinning health, education, economic participation and community stability. Crucially, the Minister is not simply setting out his ambition but delivering action in extremely challenging financial circumstances.

Significant capital investment is being directed into new social housing, with reforms to funding models that are designed to stretch limited budgets further and build more homes. Thousands of new social homes targeted at areas of greatest housing need are under construction across Northern Ireland. Alongside that, the DUP Minister has taken decisive action to support working households in the private rented sector through the introduction of the intermediate rent scheme. The scheme delivers high-quality homes at around a 20% discount on market rents, providing greater affordability, improved quality and better security of tenure for those who struggle with rising costs. The Minister has also acted to address homelessness and the escalating cost of temporary accommodation by approving the purchase of hundreds of homes for that purpose, thus reducing the reliance on hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, while delivering better outcomes for vulnerable families and better value for the taxpayer. Those are practical, responsible interventions that focus on delivery, not on ideology.

Members must be honest about the risks associated with universal or blunt rent controls. Independent research has highlighted the fact that a large proportion of landlords — in some cases, up to 60% — may exit the private rented sector if tighter rent controls are imposed. In an already stretched market, losing that level of supply would make the situation much worse, not better. There is also evidence that some landlords may move properties into the short-term holiday let market, reducing further the availability of long-term private rentals. The research is clear: the most effective way to relieve pressure on rents is to increase housing supply and ensure that the benefits system properly reflects the cost of housing.

It is important to note that Northern Ireland already has third-generation rent regulation in place. Under reforms delivered by Minister Lyons, rents can be increased only once in a 12-month period, and tenants must receive three months' written notice of any increase. That system has broad stakeholder support and strikes the right balance between tenant protection and market stability. It makes sense to monitor and evaluate that framework before rushing into introducing further controls that could have unintended consequences.

I will address the call for a review of the house sales scheme. Homeownership remains an important aspiration, and the DUP continues to support that aspiration. It is, however, also responsible to recognise that, in a period of high housing stress, the ongoing loss of social housing stock must be carefully considered. A review will allow us to ensure that policies remain balanced, sustainable and appropriate to current housing need. It is not about ending aspiration but about ensuring that the system works as a whole.

Finally, the cost-of-living crisis has made saving for a deposit increasingly difficult, placing additional pressure on the private rented sector. The DUP Minister has responded to that by raising the upper property value limit for co-ownership, thus helping more people move into homeownership and easing the pressure on private rentals. He has delivered a balanced package, an ambitious housing supply strategy and intermediate rent scheme, enhanced standards in the private rented sector and reforms that improve security and quality for tenants while maintaining stability in the market.

Our amendment reflects a balanced approach, acknowledges the real pressures, avoids policies that will shrink supply and focuses on solutions that will work. Housing is too important for a

driven policy. The DUP believes in delivery, sustainability and long-term affordability. I urge Members across the House to support the DUP amendment.

Ms Ferguson: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Ms Ferguson: I begin by reiterating the fact that the right to housing is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. Every person should have the right to live in security, peace and dignity, but, as of 30 September 2025, there were 49,588 household applicants on our social housing waiting list. Of those, over 77% were deemed to be in acute housing stress. Furthermore, significant concerns exist in relation to the continuation of an unregulated, unaffordable and insecure private rented sector. Coupled with the lack of support to date from the British Treasury to allow our largest social housing sector landlord to borrow more money to build more social homes, that means that we face an ever-worsening situation where demand far outstrips supply, fuelling unaffordability, substandard conditions and housing insecurity.

I commend the Finance Minister for allocating £29·8 million to meet in full the Department for Communities bid for the social housing development programme, enabling the much-needed delivery of up to 1,750 new home starts in 2025-26. I also acknowledge the role of the Minister for Infrastructure in continually emphasising the historical underfunding of our water infrastructure and working to secure additional funding through in-year monitoring and strengthening collaboration and innovation to tackle that ongoing challenge. Notably, it is welcome that, since autumn 2024, her Department has been able to unlock waste water capacity to enable future connections for almost 5,000 new homes, including the allocation of an additional £19·5 million to NI Water from the October monitoring round, enabling the building and connection of 2,300 new homes across Derry, Antrim and Tyrone.

I commend the proposer on the motion's intention, particularly the recognition of the ongoing challenge of rapidly rising rents across the region. Last April, our data was incorporated into the price index of private rent and house prices, which found that, as of September 2025, average rents had increased by 6·4% on the previous year to £871 and average house prices had increased by 7·1% from the same quarter in the previous year to £193,000. Our amendment calls on the Minister to:

and to establish:

We ask all parties to support us.

Folks, we know about the incredibly worrying situation for low-income and vulnerable households in particular. The ever-increasing shortfall between tenants' financial housing support and rental costs leaves many families facing arrears or looming homelessness. The recent decision by the British Government to freeze the rate at which housing benefit is set until at least 2027, against a backdrop of insufficient supply and rising rents, is shameful and will lead directly to homelessness.

I thank the Institute for Fiscal Studies for outlining that a tight financial situation is no excuse for a system that creates uncertainty for renters and unfairness between areas. It has outlined the poor policymaking on local housing allowance rates, which are upgraded only occasionally and then frozen for years at a time. We have a duty to recognise the failure of Britain's policy and to do all that we can to explore local options for a more regulated and fairer private rented sector. We ask for support for our amendment, which calls on the Minister for Communities:

and for the establishment of:

As of October 2025, 5,408 households here were living in temporary accommodation. That is an increase of 85% over the past five years and includes 4,834 children under the age of 18. Rising house prices, rising rents and rising homelessness cannot be adequately addressed without tackling the chronic undersupply of social housing and developing more genuinely affordable housing. While we very much welcome the move by the previous Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, in 2022 to abolish Housing Association tenants' statutory right to buy, the need to address the continued loss of Housing Executive properties remains.

In 1974, there were approximately 455,500 dwellings across all housing sectors in the region; now, we have 841,872. While around 34% of housing back then was social rented accommodation and almost all of that was owned or managed by the Housing Executive, Thatcher's unmitigated disaster of a policy means that, despite that growth, we have been left with approximately 80,000 Housing Executive homes. To put that in context, we lost 212 homes in 2024 and 2025 alone. Meanwhile, the Housing Executive's annual spend on temporary accommodation increased by 16% last year to nearly £40 million. That included a spend of almost £17 million on non-standard accommodation, such as hotels and B&Bs, with Derry accounting for over half of that figure. Those two realities existing in tandem is not only totally illogical but irreconcilable and fiscally irresponsible.

I emphasise to the Minister for Communities that it is unjustifiable in that context for his party's amendment to suggest a review of the house sales scheme. The Minister has been in office for almost two years, during which time he has enabled the continuation of a scheme that sells our public social housing stock at a discounted rate of up to £24,000. That is a far cry from the radical action on housing that is desperately needed. We must plan properly, invest consistently and treat housing as essential infrastructure that underpins education, health, employment and community life. Delivering social housing at scale and delivering better housing policy are not optional extras; they are the measures of our commitment to the people we represent.

Ms K Armstrong: Across Northern Ireland, more than 300,000 people live in the private rented sector: that is one in every six households. Those renters are families, young professionals, students, older people and those who are simply trying to get by. For far too many of them, renting here means living with constant anxiety about rising rents, insecure tenancies and whether they will still have a roof over their heads in a month. We know that the reality is that finding safe, secure and affordable housing in Northern Ireland has become increasingly difficult. Rents are rising faster than inflation. Today, the DUP mentioned that rents can be updated only once every 12 months: they can be doubled or trebled if a landlord so chooses. It does not matter whether somebody is given three months' notice: if their rent is unaffordable, it is unaffordable. No-fault evictions continue to push people into instability. The rapid growth of short-term holiday lets and the selling off of Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes has squeezed the supply of long-term homes, leaving renters competing for fewer and fewer options. That is why rents are going through the roof.

The problems are not new. They have been allowed to grow year after year because successive Communities Ministers have failed to act. Almost two years since the Assembly's return, we have seen no meaningful progress from the current Minister. That is simply not good enough. Everyone deserves access to a safe, secure and affordable home. That is why the Alliance Party brought forward solutions, publishing our comprehensive policy paper, 'A New Deal for Private Renters', a detailed set of proposals designed to fix a broken system and deliver fairness for renters across Northern Ireland.

Our paper sets out clear practical reforms and calls for an affordable rent triple lock — a mechanism designed to prevent the kind of unstable rent hikes that are forcing people into hardship. It proposes a ban on no-fault evictions to give renters the security that they need to build stable lives. It recommends capping short-term holiday lets to ensure that homes are used for local people, not just tourism profit. It also explores the creation of a statutory housing ombudsman with real legal powers to enforce standards and protect tenants when things go wrong — a housing ombudsman that would look at all types of housing.

As Oscar Wilde said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I welcome the SDLP's repetition of Alliance's position as set out in our 'A New Deal for Private Renters' paper. Those are not radical ideas. They are reasonable, evidence-based and in line with protections that renters already enjoy in other parts of the UK and Ireland. They represent fairness for the thousands of people who are currently paying too much, living with too little security and receiving too few protections.

The Communities Minister has the power to act, and the Assembly has the ability to deliver change, but, without political will, renters will continue to struggle. That is why we are calling once again for urgent action, not after the next election but now. Our private renters deserve better. They deserve the same protections enjoyed elsewhere in these islands. They deserve a system that works for them, not against them, and, with the proposals set out in 'A New Deal for Private Renters', we have a clear, credible pathway to deliver exactly that. We have a chance to transform the rental market, lift the stress carried by so many of our constituents from them and build a fairer, more secure housing system for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I will finish by confirming that Alliance will not support the DUP's amendment, because a review of the house sales scheme is not enough. We will support Sinn Féin's moratorium and rent controls.

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, and I intend to set out why we will support amendment No 1 from the DUP.

There is no dispute about the scale of the challenge that we face. Private rents across Northern Ireland have risen sharply, and, for many households, those increases are now matching or are ahead of their incomes. Like many Members, I see that regularly through my constituency office, and I reiterate the point that the number-one issue that comes through my door in Lagan Valley is housing-related matters. At a time when people are already dealing with rising energy bills, increasing food costs and everyday pressures, rent has become a major factor, pushing individuals and families into housing insecurity. The private rented sector now carries far more of that weight in our housing system than it was ever designed to or has been asked to bear, and, sadly, that has not happened by accident. It is the result of a long-standing failure to build enough social and affordable homes. Successive Executives have not delivered at the scale required, and demand has inevitably spilled into the private sector.

Many landlords in Northern Ireland are small-scale. Very often, they are looked at as if they are some kind of monolith, but, often, they own one or two properties, sometimes linked to retirement planning or family circumstances, and there is no single landlord profile and no universal framework that neatly fits every situation. However, recognising that reality does not mean accepting unfair or unjustifiable rent increases. That is why a proportionate, evidence-based approach is essential. The Department's work on rent regulation makes it clear that there is no one-size-fits-all model that can simply be lifted from elsewhere and applied here in Northern Ireland. Crucially, it also warns that poorly designed rent controls in supply-constrained markets can reduce availability and investment, which, ultimately, could make things worse for tenants. It is kind of an inverse perverse incentive.

At the same time, it is equally clear that tenants need stronger protection than currently exists. We absolutely support that. Those two points should not be looked at as if they are in conflict, and that is why we will support the introduction of a rent adjudicator. A rent adjudicator provides balance and gives tenants a clear route to challenge excessive or unjustifiable increases whilst allowing landlords to demonstrate where increases are reasonable and are linked to genuine costs. It moves us away from blunt instruments and towards independent judgement, transparency and fairness. That is the right direction of travel, but it cannot be a sop or a substitute for delivering an ambitious housing transformation programme.

Amendment No 1 strengthens the motion by grounding it in absolute reality. It recognises that existing measures alone are insufficient, not because of one single failure but because demand continues to outstrip supply. It correctly identifies insufficient capital investment in social housing as a key driver of rent inflation, and that matters. The pressure on rents is structural, not simply regulatory. Amendment No 1 also calls for a review of the house sales scheme, and that is both reasonable and necessary. When Members come to these non-binding motions, we need to remember that we have around 14 months left in the mandate and be honest with people about what we can deliver.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. During my proposal, I referred to an attempt, some five years ago, to stop, through legislation, the right to buy for Housing Executive properties. Is he aware of whether legislation would be required to introduce a moratorium?

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

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that. Perhaps the Minister can pick up on that. I do not sit on the Communities Committee, but it is a good question. Obviously, the Member, as a former Minister, has significant experience.

Mr Durkan: A bad one.

Mr Butler: A bad one. [Laughter.]

The scheme is not beyond reform. Its original policy intent was sound. It had the legitimate aim of supporting long-term tenants to move into home ownership, providing stability for families. The issue is with how the scheme has worked in practice. Too often, homes sold under the scheme are lost from the social housing sector and not replaced with like-for-like homes. That point has already been made. At a time of acute housing need, it is a serious concern. The scheme can and should be strengthened so that, when homes leave the social sector, they are replaced.

We also need to be honest about what the scheme does and does not achieve. In the short term, most properties that are purchased are already occupied by long-term tenants who will remain in those homes whether they buy them or not. The idea that the scheme frees up social housing in the here and now simply does not reflect the reality on the ground. I know that, over the past 10 years, the rules have been changed to reflect that and fix what is an imperfect scheme. That is why, rather than a blunt moratorium, we would prefer the sensible course of action that is hinted at in amendment No 1. It is also right to recognise the positive steps that have already been taken. The Minister’s work on intermediate rent and an affordable housing model is welcome and should be expanded. Those schemes provide real options for the households that fall between social housing and the private rented market. We need more of that ambition.

I ask Members to reflect on what is deliverable. We must be honest with the people whom we represent. We have significant issues in our housing stock. It is the number-one issue in my Lagan Valley office, but I will be honest about what we can deliver in the rest of the mandate.

Ms Mulholland: I support the motion because affordable housing is a poverty issue, a mental health issue, a child well-being issue and, increasingly, an equality of opportunity issue. It is another clear example of why we need a Government in which all Departments work together to address what has become a serious societal crisis that is like a loop on repeat. We do not need the Office for National Statistics analysis to tell us that private rented accommodation in Northern Ireland has become less affordable since 2020 as rents have increased more rapidly than pay. We hear that from our constituents every day. Like for Mr Butler, week after week and month after month, it is, by a country mile, the issue that is brought into my constituency office most commonly. In North Antrim, I regularly hear from people who are paying so much more in rent than they would pay if they had a mortgage, yet they are unable to access a secure, high-quality home in the private rented sector. In the north of my constituency, that pressure is compounded by the loss of long-term private rentals to short-term holiday accommodation. Homes that once housed local families are increasingly being priced and repurposed away from the local need. To be clear: this is not about opposing tourism. Tourism is vital to our economy. I live in a very tourist-centric town. However, without regulation, unrestrained short-term lets reduce supply, drive up rents and force local people to compete for fewer homes. That is destroying communities across my North Antrim constituency amongst others. Maybe the Minister could confirm whether he has had any conversations with local councils about the issue recently. A quick update would be really helpful.

Fuel poverty is also a key issue in the picture, particularly in the private rented sector. Many renters live in poorly insulated, energy-inefficient homes, with little power or capacity to be able to improve them. Too often, landlords will not invest in energy efficiency, leaving tenants to be hit twice, once by their high rents and, again, by their high energy bills, both of which directly feed into poverty.

I hear all the time from constituents, particularly younger renters and their families, that they would never challenge poor conditions or unsafe repairs for fear of eviction or sudden rent increases. Housing instability is one of the most significant stressors that a person can face. When it becomes widespread, it not only harms the individual but places additional strain on our health services. I imagine that all MLAs have had people who have come in with health issues relating to mould in rental properties. It places additional strain on our homelessness systems and emergency accommodation, all of which are costly reactive responses to a problem that should be prevented rather than constantly reacted to. All that we have talked about is overlaid by the fact that housing policy is unable to keep pace with reality.

The continued loss of social housing stock, which many of us have mentioned, intensifies pressure right across the system. As Mrs Cameron mentioned, I understand the importance of the opportunity to buy your own home, but how can that be justified when the housing crisis is being driven by the fact that not enough homes are being built at a time when social housing stock has been sold off and not replaced? Every social home that is lost does not just disappear; it reappears as pressure elsewhere. That is why the call in the motion for "robust third generation rent controls", alongside stronger tenant protection, matters.

As my colleague Ms Armstrong outlined, we support practical, achievable reforms, an affordable rent triple lock to stop damaging rent hikes and an end to no-fault evictions, so renters can put down roots. There should be limits on short-term holiday lets to protect homes for members of the community, and we should at least look at the viability of a statutory housing ombudsman with the powers that would be needed to uphold standards and protect tenants when things go wrong.

Regardless of what happens, the direction of travel needs to change immediately, because housing is not just a commodity; it is the foundation of people's lives, and it is a human rights issue. Anything that we can do within our scope at the moment has to be prioritised.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Members for tabling the motion. It is not often that I get the opportunity to speak on issues outside my portfolio, given the volume of motions and debates that come up on health. However, given the importance of the issue and its impact on my constituency of North Belfast, I want to touch on some aspects of it.

I join all MLAs in the Chamber who expressed their frustration around the lack of affordable housing, whether it relates to getting on the property ladder as a first-time buyer, renting or accessing social housing. In my constituency of North Belfast, we have a growing demand for housing. A few short years ago, houses in some areas sold for under £200,000, but you would be hard-pressed to find anything even close to that now. Rent is a necessity, not a luxury, and it should be treated as such.

For as long as people cannot get on the property ladder, people will need to rent. There enters the lack of regulation and the issues that we see when it comes to some — I must stress the word "some" — landlords. That includes the ability to increase rents at short notice or as much as possible and the lack of repairs; the list goes on, whether it is a private landlord or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Where there are loopholes and opportunities in a system, there will be those few who will abuse it and destroy it for as many as possible.

As well as first-time buyers, people who should be availing themselves of social homes are turning to rental properties. We all know the story. We hear it every day in our constituency offices. People are on waiting lists for a social home, and many single parents — mostly, in my experience, mothers, who have one, two or three children — and they are waiting for a social home, yet they have to turn to privately rented properties.

In my constituency, those rents can be over £900 per calendar month. That is simply not affordable. Those £900-plus per calendar month rents are having to be paid by people who are unable to get on the property ladder. They cannot get approved for mortgages but can get approved to pay rents of £900 a month for a home.

I also want to touch on Airbnbs and holiday rentals. Those issues are creeping up not just along the north coast. I understand that the crisis there is far worse than in my constituency, but the issues are still relevant to the residents who are affected. In North Belfast, we have had many complaints about absentee landlords who own and rent Airbnbs. The landlords allow ridiculous behaviours from tenants, who are torturing local residents. The rentals continue even without licensing from Belfast City Council.

My colleagues who sit on the Communities Committee have outlined the steps that Alliance would take, whether that is ensuring that there is a freeze on the house sales scheme, ensuring that proper tenancies are imposed in order to reflect legitimate and defined increases in costs for landlords or introducing a scoping exercise for a possible new housing ombudsman. Supporting any initiative to address the lack of affordable housing and social housing and the increase in rental fees is important in everyone's constituency.

I thank the proposer of the motion. As my colleagues outlined, we will not support the DUP amendment, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the actions that he will take to address the housing crisis.

Mr Gaston: No one in the House can deny that rents are rising sharply and that families across Northern Ireland are being squeezed. In my constituency, young couples cannot get started, families are stuck in temporary accommodation and working people are spending an even greater share of their wages just to keep a roof over their heads. The motion, however, completely misdiagnoses the main cause of rents being driven up.

It comes down to supply and demand. One of the main reasons that we cannot build in Northern Ireland is the failure of Northern Ireland Water. That creates the demand. We simply do not have the supply to meet the demand.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way and for his critique of our motion. I do not dispute what he said about factors such as supply and the role of water infrastructure. Will he acknowledge that, as an Opposition, we have brought numerous motions on both those issues to the Assembly over the past couple of years?

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

Mr Gaston: I acknowledge that fact, Mr Durkan, and I intend to use my time to reinforce that point. I acknowledge that the Opposition have previously tabled motions on the subject.

We heard the Sinn Féin contributor blame the Brits, just like her Minister, but she ignored the reality that her Minister presides over the failure of Northern Ireland Water. Currently, 73 waste water treatment works are at capacity. Developers are now paying out of their own pockets for makeshift engineering fixes just to free up capacity. When those efforts fall short, ordinary people are left in the lurch.

Let us look at a real, live case that I have in North Antrim. Back in July 2025, in response to a question for written answer, the Minister for Infrastructure said that Cullybackey is served by Ballymena waste water treatment works:

That sounds good. She went on to say:

In January 2026, NI Water said:

In essence, that area in my constituency is closed, and the Minister does not want to know. That is a major problem that adds to the backlog.

The next issue that I will cover is HMOs, which are adding further strain to supply and demand. Members may not want to face up to the fact, but houses in multiple occupation are pushing up rents in working-class areas and hollowing out settled communities. The current centralised system is outdated and detached from local reality. Councils must own the responsibility for HMOs in their area.

There is another issue that the motion avoids, and it is that of asylum accommodation. We are housing asylum seekers in hotels and private properties at taxpayers' expense while failing to build enough social houses for our own people.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I have given you considerable latitude. I ask that you return to the issue of social housing affordability.

Mr Gaston: I am coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the case that the company at the centre of that is Mears, which is a government contractor that is hoovering up housing stock right across Northern Ireland. That has led to an issue with supply and demand once again. The more houses that Mears hoovers up, the fewer houses that there are for local people to avail themselves of. That, in turn, pushes up rents in other areas. Last May, the Executive Office told me that 288 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels. That is not compassionate policy but, rather, reckless mismanagement that shrinks housing —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — supply, drives up rents and fuels tensions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you will stop when I stand. If that is the only way in which I can get you to stop, that is how I will do it. Will you return to the issue of social housing affordability?

Mr Gaston: As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Social housing affordability.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said in my last breath, that reckless mismanagement shrinks housing supply, drives up rents and fuels tensions. Instead of confronting that reality, Members opposite want to impose so-called third-generation rent controls on people.

Where does the SDLP also want to take us? Would we be better off under Dublin? That is its long-term goal. The average rent south of the border in Dublin is now €2,000 a month. House prices are currently beyond the reach of ordinary working people. We absolutely have challenges here, but we need to confront the reality. Unless we get our waste water infrastructure right, we are always going to have that problem. Demand is greater than supply. We need to get supply right, and that can come about only —

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

Mr Gaston: — through getting our waste water infrastructure right.

Mr Carroll: In response to the Member, I say that it is landlords who are pushing up rents, not students or asylum seekers.

I support the motion. It raises two important demands: rent controls, which are long overdue, and a moratorium on the house sales scheme. I will not be supporting either amendment, because I think that they weaken the motion's demands. I do not think that we need another exploration of options or another review. Rather, we need urgent and radical action, which is what people are crying out for. I certainly support the proposal in the Sinn Féin amendment to have a body to regulate the private rented sector, but its removal of the demand for rent controls would weaken the motion.

The housing emergency is a perfect storm. Private rents are skyrocketing, and housing insecurity is at crisis levels. Landlords can evict tenants in order to hike rents or as retaliation for requesting basic repairs, as happens on the regular. The social housing waiting list grows longer by the day, and, at current construction rates, it will take 60 years to clear. In the middle of all of that, the Housing Executive continues to sell off its best-quality housing stock. I understand why people in my constituency or elsewhere want to buy their Housing Executive home, as doing so gives them stability and security in a very turbulent housing market, but if enough social housing is not being built simultaneously, that policy is a recipe for disaster. The figures speak for themselves. In 1981, two in five people lived in a Housing Executive home. By 2020, it was just one in 10. The house sales scheme is a major reason that social housing stock is being decimated, and the most outrageous part of it is that many homes sold through that scheme have not stayed in the ownership of the families who need them. They have ended up in the hands of private landlords. In 2019, around one quarter of the houses sold were being rented out privately. We do not even know today's numbers: I suspect that they are even higher. It is a tragedy that the Housing Executive is losing its best homes to private landlords, while working-class families wait years for housing.

While selling off desperately needed homes, the Housing Executive is needlessly evicting grieving tenants through its cruel succession policy.

The motion calls for "third generation rent controls". I welcome the fact that other parties, including the SDLP and the Executive parties, have, in the debate, finally embraced rent control. However, weak, third-generation rent controls will not cut it. They only apply to people in tenancy: they only apply to in-tenancy increases. Without a no-fault eviction ban, nothing prevents profiteering landlords from evicting tenants to hike rents.

Last week on 'The Nolan Show', the Communities Minister quoted a Swedish economist who claimed that rent controls destroy cities. Rather than quoting neoliberal orthodoxy as though it were gospel, the Minister should listen to his own constituents who cannot afford to keep a roof over their head. He should also listen to housing experts, including Housing Rights, who argue that opposition to rent controls relies on oversimplified economic models that treat housing like a competitive commodity, which is not working. Rent controls clearly work. They work for renters. Landlords do not like them, because they will be out of pocket.

Vienna has rent ceilings and the lowest housing costs in western Europe. Stockholm's tenant unions negotiate for half a million members, and rents there would be 68% higher without rent controls in place. Berlin's rent break keeps cost at £13.09 per square metre, versus London's £37. Catalonia recently won rent controls, and rents fell by about 9% last year.

Maybe the Minister defends landlords because so many of his party colleagues are landlords. In fact, one in five MLAs, at least, in this Chamber, are landlords as well. I think that it is outrageous that people who are profiteering from the system are allowed to legislate and vote on housing policy.

We need rent controls that reduce rents, an end to the social housing fire-sale scheme and a massive programme of social housebuilding. Working class communities did not create this crisis, but they are paying for it, and the Executive must stop making it worse. That is, of course, not to mention that there are at least 20,000 empty homes across the North and that number could, indeed, be much higher.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and all those who have contributed to today's debate. I fully recognise the depth of concern expressed by Members about rising rents. It is something that I experience, week after week, in my constituency, through those who come to me. As recently as Friday, I was dealing with someone who has gone through that experience, and it left her and her family in a very difficult situation. It is something that we are all aware of; we all know about the problem that exists. I will not go over the facts and figures that have been provided, rightly, by other Members in the Assembly.

The private rented sector is experiencing strong and sustained rental growth. That has primarily been driven by a shortage of available properties. That is the issue that we face: supply. That does not mean that we have not taken action to address issues around affordability. In April last year, I introduced legislation to restrict rent increases to once in any 12-month period, with a requirement for three months' written notice. That provides important protections for tenants by offering certainty and preventing multiple or unexpected rent increases in a short time frame.

Let me touch on one of the issues that has been replicated in the motion and the amendments, and that is rent control. A report commissioned by my Department on rent freezes, known as first-generation rent controls, clearly outlined the potential negative impacts of these types of controls on the sector. In particular, the report highlighted the risk that a large proportion of landlords might exit the private rented market and that that would result in a drop in the supply of private rented properties in an already stretched market.

As Mr Carroll referred to earlier, I have previously quoted the UN rapporteur on housing, who came to the Building. He quoted a famous, perhaps the most famous, Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, who famously said:

That tells you all that you need to know. The Welsh Government commissioned their own research and agreed with that assessment. They have rejected rent controls outright, as they would deter investment and risk reducing supply.

There is more. The Republic of Ireland and Scotland have continued with versions of first-generation rent controls, and reviews have highlighted impacts such as increased initial rents for new tenants, reductions in property maintenance and reduced new supply, especially of build-to-rent homes. The clear lesson from those experiences is that addressing housing supply across all tenures is the most important challenge for the long-term sustainability of the rental sector.

It is not the first time that rent control has been discussed in the Assembly. It is worth noting that, over a year ago, I asked Mr Carroll to provide the evidence that, he said, he had that first-generation rent control policies worked. I am waiting for that evidence; I think that I will be waiting for it for some time.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way to Mr Durkan.

Mr Durkan: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. He has spent a couple of minutes dismissing first-generation rent controls. Our motion clearly calls for consideration of the introduction of third-generation rent controls. I do not know whether he has any quotes from economists on the continuation of the right-to-buy scheme or what any economist thinks of that.

Mr Lyons: I will come to that. I am able to read: I saw what is referred to in your motion. There has, however, been a wider discussion on rent controls. In particular, the Sinn Féin position is not about third-generation rent controls; its amendment calls for "robust rent controls". I have the right to reply to other parties in the Chamber, Mr Durkan. It is not all about you and your motion. It is right that we have that debate.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: No. I am sorry: I gave you a year. I gave the Member a year to come back to me. He did not take me up on that, so I will move on.

I was referring to the Sinn Féin amendment and why I will not support it this evening. One of the other things that it wants to see happen is the establishment of a body to regulate the rental sector. I have trouble with that simply because of the cost. I am aware of no attempt by those who have called for such a body to be established to quantify those costs or explain where the money would come from. Perhaps, in winding up, Sinn Féin will provide that information. For comparison, the Irish Residential Tenancies Board cost €32 million in 2024. We know the situation regarding rents in the Republic of Ireland, and we wonder whether that would be good value for money. I am, however, happy to hear from the party opposite when it responds.

Constrained housing supply will always place pressure on the private rented sector first. That is why I am committed to a balanced approach, protecting tenants while safeguarding investment and supply. I am focused on delivering more affordable homes across Northern Ireland. That is exactly what the housing supply strategy does. We have a target of 100,000 homes over the next 15 years, including 33,000 social homes. Meeting that ambition will be essential for people who rely on access to social housing and cannot depend on the private rented sector, which is not suitable for everyone.

Following December monitoring, the budget for new social housing in this financial year is around £207 million. That will deliver 1,750 new starts this year. In cash terms, it is the largest-ever allocation of budget to the programme. I am also taking forward a fundamental review of both grant support and design standards to ensure that we deliver the most appropriate value-for-money homes and more social homes per pound from the Department's budget. It is imperative that the Executive also commit to doing everything that they can to ensure that sufficient budget can be allocated to the social housing development programme as early as possible in order to give us the best chance of achieving our Programme for Government target. I have sought a commitment from the Executive to provide sufficient funds for that programme in line with their Programme for Government commitment so that we can deliver 5,850 new social housing starts within the mandate.

The housing sales scheme has undoubtedly been successful in providing people in Northern Ireland who might not otherwise have been able to buy with an affordable route into homeownership. While it has changed the tenure of those homes, the sales scheme has offered and still offers a valuable opportunity for those living in the social sector to acquire and remain in their home. House sales completed through the scheme have steeply declined since 2011, albeit with a small increase in recent years, so we are no longer talking about the many thousands of homes sold during the early years of the scheme. However, while I believe that the Housing Executive's statutory house sales scheme should be retained, I acknowledge that some changes may be necessary to protect certain types of social housing for future generations. It is for that reason that I recently agreed that the Housing Executive should launch a public consultation on several amendments that it has proposed to its sales scheme. Following the consultation, any changes to the scheme will require the Department's approval.

Some of the amendments are about the sale of adapted or accessible dwellings that have been subject to major adaptations and the extension of the duration of the option to purchase provision from 10 years to 20 years so that social housing providers will have first refusal for up to 20 years post sale should the property owner decide to sell the property. They will also exclude the sale of flats and leasehold properties and the resale to former leaseholders of sold flats that have been re-acquired by the Housing Executive and exclude time spent as a secure tenant in a registered housing association dwelling for the purposes of the calculation of discount.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. A particular bugbear of mine when it comes to what we often term "pensioners' bungalows" is that they can no longer be bought by the tenant. We are not building enough of them; we have a desire to build more apartments and flats. Are we looking at single-storey dwellings for pensioners?

Mr Lyons: It is important that we build the homes that are needed where they are needed. We look at that sort of accommodation. The Member will be aware in particular of what is provided for over-55s. I am not sure whether he is quite in that —.

Mr Butler: I declare an interest as someone who is nearly 55.

Mr Lyons: He is nearly 55, so that interest can be properly declared.

That is a commitment to making sure that we retain the housing sales scheme in an appropriate way, so that we do not lose out in the way in which, some people fear, we might.

I will now refer to some of the comments made in the debate that I have not yet addressed. I cannot help but pick up on Mr Durkan's comment about my desire to do things differently. I hope that Members can see, whether they like it or not, that we are doing some things differently in the Department with regard to housing policy. We have brought in — we will see the benefits of it within the next year — the intermediate rent policy. I am glad that Mr Durkan supports that, because I want to see it ramped up even further and for us to use more financial transactions capital to achieve that. We have tried to deal with the temporary accommodation issues by using Housing Executive reserves to buy homes so that we can save £75 million over the next seven years. We have ring-fenced budget for homelessness provision, which has not been done before. I have brought forward a housing supply strategy so that we have joined-up work. We have a Programme for Government commitment on housing. Next week, I will bring to the Executive a paper on how we can better utilise public land. We have made significant progress on the revitalisation of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have made changes to the housing association rate so that we can go further and make changes to the design guide, which is something that housing associations were calling for and that can reduce the cost of building social homes. We have also invested £153 million of financial transactions capital in co-ownership.

Mr Durkan scoffs and shakes his head, but those are things that have been done differently or are being done for the first time and will benefit people in Northern Ireland. He rolled his eyes when I started to talk about some of those achievements. I will certainly give way if he would like to tell us about how much he welcomes the changes that are being brought in and how we are doing things differently.

Time is running short. Sian Mulholland raised a legitimate point on the issue of tourism lets facing the north coast in particular. That is being dealt with through the housing supply strategy. Councils have an opportunity and responsibility to act on that through local development plans and the planning process, which will also be taken forward by actions in the housing supply strategy.

I welcome Nuala McAllister's taking part in the debate. She says that she does not normally stray from her health portfolio, but, of course, she will recognise that this is a health issue as well. Many of the issues impact directly on the health and well-being of our people, and she is right to raise those issues.

Mr Gaston's made a point about Northern Ireland Water. It is absolutely the case that, if we are to make progress and ensure that we have more homes across all tenures in Northern Ireland, we need to make sure that we have the capacity and stand ready to work with the Infrastructure Minister and, indeed, the whole Executive. Lack of progress in that area is holding up development and preventing more homes from being built. That needs to be got on top of, and I have highlighted it as something that should be a priority for the Executive.

What do we need to do? We need to deliver a housing system that provides security, affordability and high standards. We need to address pressures in the private rented sector without undermining supply. I assure the House that I will continue to focus on practical solutions to increase supply while improving protections for tenants, because stability and affordability go hand in hand. We have considerable evidence of progress that has been made, but far more progress needs to be made. I look forward to working with Executive colleagues and others in the Chamber to make sure that we deliver on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew to wind up on amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes.

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

I thank Members for tabling the motion on such a hugely important issue. The lack of housing supply has caused house prices and private rents to skyrocket in recent years. Rents have risen by over 50% in the past decade, far beyond the rate of inflation and, crucially, far beyond the growth in household incomes. In practice, that means that rents have become unaffordable for many renters, with many struggling households falling below the poverty line as a result. The situation is unsustainable. We need to see more support delivered to renters in both the immediate term and the longer term.

The root cause of the problem is the lack of housing supply, so we urgently need to see more homes being built. The housing supply strategy sets an ambitious target of at least 100,000 new homes over the next 15 years, with one third of those being social homes. It is absolutely vital that we start meeting that target now, or we will end up with a target that cannot be achieved in later years. We have debated many times in the Chamber the steps that need to be taken to meet the targets for social homes. I appreciate that the underfunding of the Executive by the British Government has made that a difficult task. However, I welcome the decision by the Finance Minister to prioritise social housing in recent monitoring rounds and in his draft multi-year Budget, in which he has allocated £423 million to social housing over the next four years. However, we also need to see progress on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive, which would give the Housing Executive the power to borrow against its assets and allow it to build more homes. I would appreciate the Minister giving an update on that revitalisation at some point and further detail on when he expects to publish the first action plan of the housing supply strategy.

We need to do more to protect renters from unfair rent increases. The Private Tenancies Act introduced by Deirdre Hargey during her time as Minister ushered in significant protections such as the limiting of rent increases to once a year. Now is the time to build on that by exploring other forms of rent control and learning from other jurisdictions that have successfully introduced such measures.

It is deeply regrettable that the British Government have decided to freeze the local housing allowance rates for the upcoming year. That decision will undoubtedly make it harder for renters on low incomes to sustain their tenancies, which will push more people into the social sector and further increase homelessness levels. The Minister will be acutely aware of the already unacceptably high numbers of people who are homeless and the extreme pressures on organisations that provide support under the Supporting People programme.

Homelessness prevention should be prioritised, and I look forward to working with the Minister on the issue, as I hope to introduce my homelessness prevention Bill in the Assembly in the near future.

The motion calls on the Minister to introduce a moratorium on the house sales scheme, known as the right-to-buy scheme. Sinn Féin believes that that is a necessary step to stabilise our existing social housing stock. It is counter-intuitive to say that we must do all we can to build more social and affordable homes in order to reduce the waiting list while continuing to sell off hundreds of social homes per year under the house sales scheme. A moratorium or, better still, the outright ending of the right-to-buy scheme is now imperative if we want to get to grips with the housing crisis. The sooner that the Minister recognises that fact, the better, because the longer that he delays that decision, the worse off we will all be in the long run.

I take this opportunity to raise directly with the Minister the huge concern about his decision to reduce the housing association grant. A recent report by the Federation of Housing Associations states that the vast majority of housing schemes in places such as Belfast and Lisburn may become unviable and that that will impact heavily on the number of homes being built. It would be helpful if the Minister could share with Members the data that his Department holds that supports his assertion that the change will lead to more homes being built.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have up to five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak to our amendment, which is grounded in a simple proposition: if we are serious about stabilising rents and improving affordability, we must address not only the demand pressures in the private rented sector but the policy choices that are steadily shrinking the supply of genuinely affordable homes.

In the debate, Members across the House recognised the sharp rise in private rents and the strain that that places on working households, families and those on fixed incomes. Our amendment adds value by connecting the rent crisis to one of its structural drivers: insufficient capital investment in social housing, which pushes more and more people into the private rented sector and intensifies competition for a limited supply. In that context, our call for a review of the house sales scheme is a practical, targeted step. It asks the Minister to examine whether current arrangements unintentionally reduce social stock, weakening the system's capacity to absorb need and, ultimately, contributing to rent inflation.

That is not an ideological point; it is a stabilisation measure. It is about ensuring that public housing assets are managed in a way that protects affordability, supports housing security and reduces upward pressure on rents while the Executive work to increase overall supply. However, lack of infrastructure investment sees the construction industry willing and able to build but shackled, through the lack of water, waste water and sewage capacity, in taking projects forward, which further increases strain on the available housing stock.

I highlight the increase in the number of former Housing Executive properties that are bought by speculators to become private rented accommodation or HMOs. My office is like those of other MLAs in having a massive caseload of constituents seeking housing. However, living in the north coast area exacerbates a problem that exists across Northern Ireland. It does so in a monumental way, forcing the indigenous population out of their community to seek properties elsewhere.

I commend our amendment to the House and ask Members to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Cara Hunter to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the discussion, although I am sad that we have to continue to have it. Across the House, we have different political beliefs and come from different backgrounds, but housing is the one issue that unites us. We recognise the suffering in our communities and the significant distress that it causes to people whom we meet each and every day. We have a shared desire to see the issue resolved, albeit we have different reasons or pathways in how we try to get there.

With rents rising every day, our constituents ask desperately, "Where do we go from here?". As of March 2025, over 49,000 households were waiting for social housing, which is the highest that that number has been for over a decade. Every day, children are spending their childhoods — their Christmases and birthdays — in hostels. Speaking for each and every one of us across the House, I know that that is something that we never want to see. Its continuation is truly unforgivable. Homelessness creates a sense of hopelessness, and, right now, over 10,000 households in Northern Ireland are viewed as being homeless. Two families in my constituency recently faced homelessness, in the week of Christmas, and that was undoubtedly one of the most emotional cases that I have worked on in my nearly six years as an MLA. Two families, one of which had seven children and the other a single mother of two girls, were traumatised by the delay in getting access to adequate housing. The imagery of how they described putting up a small Christmas tree inside a hostel would have moved anybody. It was very emotional to listen to the stress that they had experienced, and I would not wish it on anybody. Those are the people whom we are talking about today.

Rent affordability in my constituency, as Members across the House mentioned, continues to price people out of the very communities and streets in which they grew up and were raised, which is eroding a sense of community almost entirely. We know, all too well, the impact of that in East Derry. From Castlerock to Portrush, Portstewart or Portballantrae, many places are completely unrecognisable due to second homeownership, which has shot up so sharply over the past number of years. It is leaving locals, with whom I grew up, being forced to move their families away from the support networks and the familiarity with which they grew up. We also need more social housing immediately.

I will move on to Members' comments, and I will do my best to get in as many as possible. Pam Cameron mentioned that the cost of living is having a profound impact on potential buyers, particularly young couples who are trying to save for a deposit, who are already having an extremely stressful time.

Ciara Ferguson, who, I know, does great work as part of the all-party group on homelessness, talked about the importance of the security, peace and dignity that come with having a stable life in a home. It is something that everybody wants, but thousands are in acute need. I agree wholeheartedly with her about the impact on the mental health of those who are experiencing homelessness.

Kellie Armstrong articulated the anxiety that so many feel when wondering whether they will have a roof over their head because of unaffordable rent. That can feel suffocating and cause significant distress. She also echoed concerns about coastal homes. She was followed by Ms Mulholland, who stated that we hear about that issue every day. She and I have beautiful coastal constituencies, but we share the downside of that, which is that local people are struggling and suffering due to there being no regulation, data or monitoring of coastal homes. The Minister for Communities is no stranger to my torturing him about the issue, so I welcome any movement from his Department on engaging with the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council in particular, as the issue continues to impact on businesses, schools and local families, including young families who are just starting out and want to have a home and a stable life.

Robbie Butler mentioned that housing insecurity did not happen in isolation. It is an outcome of successive Executives, who have contributed to the issue through the lack of available social housing. We need to be honest about what is deliverable in the coming months in the mandate.

Timothy Gaston touched on the importance of the NI Water issue and waste water infrastructure, articulating again the problem for young couples who want to get on their feet. It is so important to highlight that today.

Mr Carroll gave voice to one of the most profound points in the debate when he said that working-class people did not create this crisis but, sadly, will suffer the most because of it. That really summarises the entire debate today.

We are blessed to be in the position that we are in. We have the capacity not only to put some of our constituents' concerns to the House but to articulate some solutions. In the SDLP, we find it deeply regrettable that the housing situation has been allowed to deteriorate. We are bringing forward practical solutions, such as the importance of robust rent controls and the issue of supply and rebuilding. We encourage Members to support our motion and to continue debating the issues to find a way forward that ensures that every family, regardless of who they are or where they live, has a right to a safe and happy home.

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Top Table before the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole: After a day of heated and, sometimes, fairly oppositional debate, I trust that we can have a debate on something that can hopefully not just unify us around a simple issue but inspire us. I hope that the debate can unify us in our diversity and allow us to celebrate the diversity of the cultural traditions in this part of the world, on this island and, indeed, further afield.

Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann has never been staged in Belfast before. This year is the 75th anniversary of the fleadh. It has come north of the border just once: an extraordinarily successful trip to Derry when it was the City of Culture in 2013. That was an extraordinary experience for anybody who participated in it: performers and attendees alike. I happened to be in Derry at the time; in fact, I was on holiday nearby and had some English friends with me. I insisted that we all go to experience the fleadh and soak up the atmosphere in Derry in that week in August 2013. To say that it was inspiring and enjoyable is the understatement of the century.

The fleadh in Derry was amazing. Part of why it was amazing was that we saw the richness of Irish traditional culture: dance, traditional music, language and all of that cultural diversity. As part of it, we also had the participation of the Apprentice Boys and, more broadly, the band tradition in this part of the island. That is what gave the fleadh a particular note of resonance and, in a sense, what made it so inspiring. We have the opportunity not just to repeat that success in Belfast but — no offence to Derry — to do even more.

Although it is important to say it, I do not want to labour the point, but, too often in this part of the world, it goes without saying that our culture — how we express ourselves, how we express what makes our communities and how we express our sense of place and belonging through art, music and song — can be a source of division or, at least, political debate. It really does not have to be. In the real world, most people do not live with cultural binaries; they live in a world where they embrace the richness of their own cultural inheritance and the world more broadly. On this island, we have an extraordinary and unique cultural inheritance that stretches across Irish traditional music, the language and song. The band tradition in this part of the island is an integral and important part of that cultural inheritance, as are some of the things that will be celebrated tomorrow at the Speaker's event to mark Burns Day and the Scots tradition.

Hundreds of thousands of people will attend Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in this city. The current estimate is that there will be 800,000 people, but up to a million people could arrive in the city. That will have an extraordinary economic impact for people and businesses in Belfast. It is an extraordinary tourism opportunity, and I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Economy is here to talk about it.

As well as being 75 years since the first all-Ireland fleadh, it is 50 years since the first branch in this part of the world of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann was set up in Ards. Along with other agencies, it has spearheaded delivery of the fleadh, and it will spearhead it in Belfast. There are specific issues that will need to be worked through by statutory authorities.

We will not divide on Mr Carroll's amendment. He draws attention to some important points that people will be thinking about. It is important that we get this right to maximise the economic opportunities and the extraordinary cultural opportunities that the fleadh can bring to us. At the core DNA of our party — I hope that it is true of other parties — is a belief in celebrating difference. It is not about being imprisoned by a belief that difference has to divide but about a belief that difference is not just natural but can be wonderful and inspirational.

As we are talking about the fleadh, there are, hopefully, lots of music lovers in the Chamber. Van Morrison, who was born about half a mile from here in Orangefield, produced an album in 1988 called 'Irish Heartbeat', recorded with The Chieftains. It includes a version of 'I'll Tell Me Ma', which is a famous Irish folk song associated with this part of the world. About two thirds of the way through, Matt Molloy, the famous flautist with The Chieftains, starts playing a reel, and the reel is 'The Sash'. If you ever listen to that bit of music —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: It is inspiring, and it can be inspiring. Culture can bring us together in its diversity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to finish that thought, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate it.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion. There is no doubt that Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann is a fantastic and world-renowned cultural event for people who love traditional Irish music and culture more generally. It is a real positive that that amazing event is coming to Belfast, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of people, and maybe that will touch on a million people, if the previous Member who spoke and others are correct.

It is a real chance to showcase the fact that, despite the problems, historical and contemporary, that we have in this city, we have a rich tapestry of music and culture and that, for the most part, we are a welcoming city and, across the North, are, mostly, a welcoming region. My amendment is an attempt to strengthen the motion and ensure that the experience for everyone at the fleadh is the best that it can be, both for performers and the public more generally. Too often in this place, we have Executive parties making a song and dance about sport or cultural events that come here. They want the press and the publicity — I do not begrudge them that — but they do not want to implement the measures needed to make sure that those events can be enhanced and improved for spectators, participants and other people who attend them. As was mentioned, this will be the second time that the fleadh has been in the North, and I think that an application has been submitted for it to be in Belfast next year, if all goes well.

I want to say, "Go raibh maith agat" to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann

for its briefing ahead of the debate. It mentioned some issues that I want to draw attention to. It has stated that the event needs to be inclusive and enduring and that that depends on continued investment in the cultural infrastructure and organisations that make the fleadh possible, and I echo that. Part of my amendment deals with that.

I have referred to the hiking of prices before sporting and cultural events. At the golf tournament that took place last summer in Portrush, people were forced to pay an eye-watering sum — a fortune — for accommodation. Part of that is because of the overuse of homes through Airbnb and other apps. That was referred to in the previous debate. It is also because there is a complete lack of regulation of the private rented sector in general and of holiday lets specifically. The Communities Minister needs to introduce regulations in that regard and work alongside appropriate bodies to prevent the hiking of accommodation costs for visitors participating in or watching the fleadh.

I know of constituents who have been evicted from non-standard accommodation during previous big sporting and cultural events. The reason for that is that it is much more lucrative to charge tourists — it usually is tourists — higher prices than to provide housing at a previously agreed price to people in need. That is totally unacceptable. It should not be allowed and should be prevented from happening in the run-up to the fleadh.

Many attendees at fleadhanna

bring tents and camp out. Some work is going on on that. I appreciate the Minister's being here, and I ask her to elaborate on the work being done on that. I would like to know how far that has developed. Additionally, the Communities Minister, probably alongside the Economy Minister, needs to provide some level of communal sleeping in community halls or other appropriate buildings, so that people who are able to and want to can sleep together.

The amendment further mentions the need for free public transport to be provided for attendees at events at the fleadh. That was provided in Port Láirge

or Wexford two or three years ago. This could be an important contribution to what could be the best fleadh, if not just in the North, then ever. It would be an important way to ease congestion, reduce the usage of cars and prevent traffic chaos. If implemented, it would make the fleadh an excellent event.

While they are not contained in the motion, I will mention in closing a few other issues that have been raised with me in the last few days and ask whether there are any updates on them. The greater pedestrianisation of Belfast: we saw the disaster of Hill Street, and we need to make sure that the city centre and other areas are more friendly for people walking and wheeling. Bar curfews should be relaxed, and there should be later opening of venues, especially those that are not also serving alcohol. Street food, late-night bus services throughout the week, access to bathrooms — there are many other issues which I do not have time to go through.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Carroll: I will indeed. For those to be impacted, we need to ensure that our hospitality workers are properly supported and paid, including a zero-tolerance policy on harassment, and employers should make sure that they get home safely and that they are not out of pocket.

Thank you for letting me go on a wee bit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Jemma, you have three minutes.

Miss Dolan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann is recognised as the biggest annual celebration of Irish traditional music, song, dance and language, and I look forward to seeing it in Belfast this August. While the fleadh will be centred in the city, its spirit and influences reach far beyond Belfast into counties such as mine, where Irish traditional music and culture continue to thrive in communities large and small. While the fleadh is the pinnacle of the annual calendar of Comhaltas events, I recognise the work of all its branches, including those across Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which promote their local fleadhanna. Those local events play a vital role in developing musicians, singers and dancers, passing traditions from one generation to the next and promoting and protecting Irish cultural identity in rural as well as urban areas.

The all-Ireland fleadh attracts participants from all corners of Ireland, including many talented performers from Fermanagh, such as Aaron Faux, Cara Heaney, Aoife O'Reilly, Lily Keaney, Chris Maguire and John McCann — I could continue; we are very talented — as well as members of the diaspora who have brought our culture with them to other parts of the globe. The hosting of the fleadh provides Belfast with a fantastic opportunity to showcase itself as a cultural destination, while shining a light on the wider region and the depth of Irish traditional music, language and dance that exists across the North.

As well as attracting several thousand participants, the eight-day festival is expected to see up to 800,000 visitors come to the city, providing the local economy with tens of millions of pounds, delivering a significant boost to the hospitality sector in particular and helping local businesses. The experiences of previous fleadhanna is that, as well as attending competitions and shows, tourists visit other local attractions, meaning that the economic and cultural benefits can be felt well beyond Belfast. I encourage all communities to embrace Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann . By working together in an inclusive way, we can ensure that the event is a resounding success and leaves a lasting cultural, social and economic legacy.

Mr Brett: I often use my platform here to speak up for the great city of Belfast that I am proud to represent, for the cultural diversity that the city has to offer and for ensuring that our city continues to be the economic driver of our country. With that in mind, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. It would be churlish not to warmly welcome the fact that up to 700,000 people could come to our capital city to celebrate and reflect on this part of these islands and the cultural history that we have. We have been to the fore on Belfast City Council in supporting the event to ensure that it is delivered in a way that truly reflects the cultural diversity and ambitions of our city.

I was delighted that our Lord Mayor, Tracy Kelly, could travel down to the Republic of Ireland to see the fleadh take place, send her best wishes and invite those from the Republic of Ireland to take part here in Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to the organisers of the fleadh, who have gone out of their way to engage with those who may have had reservations about the events to make clear their commitment to ensuring that they are respectful and celebrate all forms of culture here in Northern Ireland. I hope that those who engage in fringe events and organise events on the back of the main programme will continue in that spirit. It has been unfortunate that, at previous events, "culture" has included chants of "Ooh ahh, up the 'RA", as well as:

and the flags and emblems of terrorists. If the city is truly to move forward, it is important that we all, in the House, unite to send a clear message that we want the event to be successful and to celebrate the cultural diversity of Northern Ireland, and that all participants, parties and people with influence stand up and say, "If you want to engage in any event that may offend or undermine the cultural diversity of these events, stay away". It is an opportunity for us all to celebrate our shared history and, hopefully, our shared future.

With that, I wish the organisers of the fleadh well. I look forward to attending a number of the events across our city, and I trust that all those who are in positions of influence will use their collective voice to ensure that the fleadh truly reflects Belfast and is something that everyone can say that they attended, celebrated and enjoyed.

Ms Mulholland: I love the fact that the world's largest festival of Irish music and dance will take place in Belfast this year. At a time when there is so much doom and gloom, we could all do with a bit of ceol

to lift the spirits. I want to start by paying tribute to the Ards branch of the Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, especially Niall, Bronagh and Mervyn, who have worked tirelessly with Belfast City Council to bring the fleadh here. It is no small achievement. Maith sibh agus comhghairdeas

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Ms Egan: Does the Member agree that Ards CCE has been at the forefront of ensuring that the fleadh is an inclusive festival that everybody — people from Northern Ireland and visitors alike — can take part in?

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you.

Yes. Inclusion has been not only talked about but acted on. Belfast City Council has actively engaged with the Belfast Bands Forum and the Orange Order, recognising that inclusion is not accidental: it is intentional. That outreach by Ards CCE has sent a powerful message — one that I could not agree with more — that culture can be a space for celebration, not division. That approach was further strengthened by the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association Northern Ireland, which has written in support of the dual approach in Bangor, where the Ulster Pipe Band Championships and a fleadh fringe event will take place on the same day. That intervention really matters because it comes directly from the bands community and people who actually know what they are talking about. It shows that the people who live and breathe those traditions do not see culture as a zero-sum game.

Unfortunately, there has been a wee bit of predictable negativity around the event in Bangor. Despite reassurances from council officials, clear support from the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association and the obvious economic and cultural benefits, some people seem determined to look at a celebration of music and search for something about which to be annoyed. Apparently, to have two music events on the same day is not an opportunity but a crisis for some people. The TUV representative is not here, but it was his party colleagues who made those comments. If the bands community can see the value in sharing space, audiences and energy, it is very hard to understand why some politicians cannot.

If we get this right, the fleadh can leave more than just memories: it can leave confidence, skills, connections and a renewed belief that culture, at its very best, brings people together. Obviously, my party will support the motion. We will also support Mr Carroll's amendment, which calls for a working group. Ádh mór oraibh

to the organisers. Tá fáilte romhaibh

to the nearly one million visitors, hopefully, who will come to Belfast. Like Sister Maria, I look forward to seeing the city:

Mr Chambers: I was not due to speak on this motion, but, unfortunately, our chosen Member to speak was called away, so the privilege has fallen on me, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, to warmly welcome the fleadh coming to Belfast in August this year. It will provide a major economic boost to the city and, more importantly, create a feel-good factor. I congratulate those who put together the successful bid. The committee includes members of the McClean family from the Bangor and Ards area. I am confident that they will deliver a memorable event. That family give freely of their time to encourage and teach young musicians in the Bangor and Ards area. I thank them for that.

When the fleadh was held in Wexford last year, 800,000 people visited it, and I am told that it provided an economic boost of €60 million. Tourism Northern Ireland forecasts that it will bring £60 million into the local economy. Bangor will also benefit: as we have heard, it will host a one-day fringe event. I love traditional music. Ulster-Scots emigrants took many of the tunes and reels to America with them, and they came back to us as bluegrass and country music, which is another genre of music that I really appreciate.

I am looking forward to August, particularly to the weekend before the launch of the fleadh in Belfast, when there will be a fringe event in Bangor. The Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association will hold its biennial event in Bangor on the same day and will march through the town at its conclusion. I am really looking forward to that. What a musical treat, and what diversity of music tradition, for the people of not just Bangor but Northern Ireland to look forward to.

Miss Hargey: I am delighted that Fleadh Cheoil is coming to Belfast for the first time and to the North for only the second time. It has been around eight years in the planning and represents a major opportunity to build on the success of the fleadh in Derry in 2013, which attracted over 400,000 visitors and delivered significant economic benefit and a lasting cultural legacy.

Belfast is a city with a deep, rich and living tradition of Irish music, language and culture. It was here that those traditions were preserved and revitalised through activism, organising and community commitment. In 1792, Belfast hosted the Belfast Harp Festival, a landmark moment in the preservation of ancient Irish music during an era of Gaelic revival. That festival took place in the Assembly Rooms, a building that was recently returned to public ownership by Belfast City Council. It is hoped that it will play a role in this year's fleadh, connecting our past to our future.

Belfast's contribution to Irish music includes Edward Bunting and his vital work in collecting and publishing ancient airs, supported by figures such as Mary Ann and Henry Joy McCracken. The Irish Harp Society was also based on Cromac Street, which is in the Market area of my constituency and community in the city, reminding us that that cultural legacy is also rooted in our communities.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. It is on exactly that point about its being rooted in our communities. I am sure that you will agree that we should commend all the branches of Comhaltas across this island and further afield that feed into the fleadh. I specifically namecheck Coalisland Clonoe Comhaltas.

Miss Hargey: Absolutely.

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

Miss Hargey: It would not have been possible without Comhaltas or Belfast City Council.

That legacy remains strong today. Belfast's designation as a UNESCO city of music in 2021 reflects the strength of our tradition and builds on the success of festivals such as Belfast TradFest, Féile an Phobail, Woodvale Festival and, in my constituency, Fe´ile na hAbhann, which is now in its fifth year. This year's fleadh will also include Seachtain na Gaeilge, creating an inclusive cultural space in which an Gaeilge

is central and celebrated.

The fleadh is arguably the largest annual celebration of Irish music, song, dance and language anywhere in the world. Our streets, venues and communities will be alive with competitions and performances, as hundreds of thousands of visitors, families, young people and musicians come together to celebrate that rich cultural heritage. It also offers an opportunity to build connections across these islands, highlighting our shared musical and cultural traditions. I think of the poetry of Robert Burns, such as 'A Parcel of Rogues', which has been embraced by the Irish traditional music scene and sung by Luke Kelly — one of my favourite musicians — and The Dubliners. We are reminded that culture can cross and has crossed boundaries and has brought people together. The fleadh represents a huge opportunity for Belfast and beyond to showcase talent, support our local economy, strengthen our community arts infrastructure, honour our collective history and inspire a new generation to carry on that rich cultural tradition.

We will support the amendment. I note the transport issue. We are aware that we are working within constrained financial budgets, but I am sure that the Minister and, indeed, all of us are committed to ensuring that we have the most successful Fleadh Cheoil that we can. Obviously, we endeavour to work together with other partners to deliver that.

Ms K Armstrong: Like others, I, of course, welcome the fleadh coming to Belfast, and I send my best wishes to all the organisations, volunteers, community groups and public bodies involved in the preparations for what promises to be an extraordinary event for Northern Ireland. We talk about a million people being in Belfast during August. That represents not just people who will be at the fleadh: remember that a lot of cruise ships come in at the same time, so the opportunities are huge.

Others talked about the opportunities that people will have with the fleadh in Belfast, but I say to this to the Minister for the Economy about the point that Gerry introduced about transport and protecting people so that others do not make a lot of money from providing space in homes that should have been kept for local people: we should look beyond Belfast. A lot of the people who go to the fleadh come along for the dancing, the singing and the music. That is wonderful, but, after that, they stay in the place. They will move beyond Belfast to elsewhere in Northern Ireland, so there are huge opportunities for families and other people, if we can bring them together and provide more enjoyment, music, song and dance in other parts of Northern Ireland. When the working group comes together, I would love to hear about how it looks at Belfast and at how we can keep people in Northern Ireland so that they do not disappear but enjoy what we have to offer.

I believe in a shared society and a shared history. We in Northern Ireland can provide such a fantastic opportunity not just for Irish traditional music but for Ulster-Scots music and dance. I was a festival Irish dancer until I was 18, though it does not look like it now, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. That is the crossover between Irish dancing and Scottish dancing.

I cannot wait to see the fleadh, but we need to think about our central business district of Belfast. Pedestrianising the area, removing cars from it and providing free transport are things that the fleadh has brought to other places. We need to bring our businesses on board to make sure that they understand that doing so will not only enable the free flow of people and the events but will give them opportunities. I absolutely support the ideas of having the pubs open later. Would that not be fantastic? We can keep the night-time economy going.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Ms K Armstrong: The fleadh is not just an event for 2026 and 2027 but a catalyst for cultural development, civic pride and a deeper understanding of the traditional arts: Irish, Ulster Scots and beyond. It is part of our wider tapestry of who we are here. I am really looking forward to it. It is a massive opportunity for us to showcase Belfast and the wider Northern Ireland, as people stay on after the fleadh to take those opportunities. On behalf of the Ards CCÉ, the Ards peninsula is very open to whoever —

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

Ms K Armstrong: — wants to come down and enjoy all that we have.

Mr Gildernew: I am delighted to take part in the debate. I was absolutely delighted when Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann announced that Belfast would host this year's Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. It is a monumental achievement and a huge cultural and economic boost not only to Belfast but to places across the North, as other Members pointed out.

Mar Ghaeilgeoir, agus mar bhall de Chomhaltas Thír Eoghain, is maith a thuigim an tionchar cultúrtha a imríonn ár dteanga agus ár gceol ar gach duine a ghlacann leo.

It will be a brilliant showcase for our rich music and culture, as well as a significant artistic and social event.

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas le gach duine agus le gach eagraíocht a d'oibrigh gan stad leis an ócáid sin a phleanáil.

My colleagues have touched on the huge economic benefits that the fleadh will bring, so I will focus my remarks on its cultural significance.

Ní bheidh ann seo ach an dara huair riamh a bheidh an fhleadh sa Tuaisceart, i ndiaidh na fleidhe thar a bheith rathúil i nDoire sa bhliain 2013.

Indeed, I attended that fleadh in Derry and have attended many fleadha throughout my life. They are hugely dynamic, entertaining and enriching experiences, and I encourage everyone in the Chamber not to miss the fleadh coming to our city.

The decision to host the fleadh in Belfast reflects the growing interest in Irish culture in the North in recent years. A 227% surge in the number of students enrolling in Irish classes in Queen's University was reported recently, and last year saw record numbers of people attend Oireachtas na Samhna in Belfast.

We cannot deny the positive role that our current crop of musicians, groups and individuals have played in bringing Irish culture into the mainstream like never before, particularly to a new, young audience. The word "revival" has been used, and that sums up well what is happening with culture at present. We should all recognise the real potential that can be found when young people find new and exciting ways of expressing their identity positively.

Irish culture and music have a unique way of bringing together communities and creating a better understanding of the shared history of all the people on this island. It is also important to recognise that the fleadh is a global phenomenon: many, many visitors from other countries will come to participate in and enjoy the event.

I look forward to attending the fleadh this year and to celebrating what, I am sure, will be a historic day for all of us in Belfast and across the island.

Ms Egan: I give my enthusiastic support to the forthcoming fleadh in Belfast for the enriching musical and cultural experience that it will create and the opportunity that it will present for a boost to economic and tourist activity across our region.

This place has long had a rich tapestry of musical talent and heritage, and it is fantastic that the opportunity has come up for us to present it on the world stage. The efforts to bid for the fleadh would not have been possible without the host branch, Ards CCÉ, a group of musicians from across the North Down and Ards area who have long championed the need to give a platform to traditional music across all our communities. It has been a pleasure to engage with my constituents Bronagh and Niall and everyone on the committee at Ards CCÉ on their vision for the fleadh and to attend the announcement at Belfast City Hall, where musicians of different traditions and cultures came together to celebrate the legacy of music in Northern Ireland.

I am particularly pleased that the first fringe event will take place in my home town of Bangor the day before the fleadh's official opening. The city has long been seen as a destination for celebrating music of all genres and traditions, whether it be the hugely successful Snow Patrol and Two Door Cinema Club, up-and-coming bands such as the Florentinas or music that is at the heart of our local communities, such as that of Ards CCÉ, our local pipe band association or Bangor Ladies Choir. Bangor has always been a place of talent worthy of the world stage, and the fleadh fringe event will be a brilliant opportunity to demonstrate our rich musical heritage. That is emphasised by the fact that the UK Pipe Band Championships are scheduled to take place in Bangor on the same day, creating ample opportunity for residents and tourists to experience an abundance of musical talent. Organisers of both events have welcomed that crossover, appreciating the positive opportunity that it will present.

Our local community is already excited, with town centre businesses and community organisations having established an informal committee to help local businesses, hospitality providers and retailers to prepare the offering for the day. The amendment to the motion mentions ensuring ample accommodation for visitors to the fleadh during its week-long programme. I encourage attendees to come to places such as Bangor: it has lots of family-run B&Bs and is only a short train journey from Belfast city centre.

Music is meant to be shared from person to person and tradition to tradition. The fleadh's presence in Northern Ireland is an excellent example of building our legacy of belonging and world-class talent, and I am really looking forward to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to welcome the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann to Belfast. As many Members in the Chamber have already said, it is only the second time that the fleadh has been hosted in the North, so it is a hugely significant event. The fleadh is not just a competition but a celebration of music, culture and community. It also delivers a major economic boost that is estimated at over £50 million each year. Over eight days, hundreds of thousands of visitors will come to Belfast, which underlines the value of traditional Irish music in attracting tourists. Matthew and other Members talked about how successful the fleadh in Derry was in 2013 and expressed a desire for it to be bigger and better in Belfast, and I genuinely think that it can and will be. Over recent years, we have had a lot of experience of and learning from delivering big events, and we have got pretty good at it.

As Members have reflected, Tourism NI will encourage visitors to extend their stay and experience other parts of the North so that the benefits are felt across our region. Visitors who have a good experience will be more likely to come back and more likely to encourage friends and family to visit here, so I encourage all businesses to keep their prices at a fair level and provide visitors with real value for money.

Many government agencies need to work together to ensure that the fleadh is a success. To that end, my Department and others will work closely with Belfast City Council, which is leading on the fleadh. A good example of that will be work on transport, which will be key to the fleadh's success. Members will know that a number of Departments came together to pilot the Night Mover service. That initiative will provide reliable late-night transport for people who come into the city centre to enjoy the fleadh, and, as Gerry mentioned, it will support people to get home safely, including those who are working. Last year, we successfully hosted the Open Championship at Portrush, so a successful fleadh will further strengthen our international reputation for delivering world-class events.

I thank Belfast City Council and Ards Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann for bringing the fleadh to Belfast. I have had the opportunity to meet some of those who have been involved in organising it, and I wish them the very best. As Economy Minister, I supported the bid from the beginning, and I intend to ensure that it delivers cultural and economic benefits for Belfast and for the North as a whole. I look forward to getting along to some of the events in August.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Minister. I call Gerry Carroll. Gerry, you have up to three minutes for your winding-up speech on the amendment.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I will not be able to go through every point, given the time limit, but I thank the parties that are supporting my amendment.

I will cover a couple of the comments. Jemma Dolan said that the fleadh is the biggest and best event for Irish music. She was optimistic that the benefits will stretch to Fermanagh. I like her optimism, and I hope so as well, as I do for other constituencies across the North.

Phillip Brett welcomed the fact that the fleadh is coming to Belfast. He mentioned that people might have reservations about it and praised the organisers for reaching out to them, if I heard him correctly. I said in passing to someone before the debate that I wondered how some would try to connect the fleadh to the IRA, and I think that Mr Brett did so quite creatively.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, sure.

Mr Brett: It was not an attempt to do that creatively at all, Mr Carroll. The point that I was making was that we are happy to support the event. I was just saying that I do not want to see a repeat of what we saw at the West Belfast Festival at the fleadh, because that would diminish everyone's standing in the community, given that we have stood together to support the event. Anything that alienates people should be roundly rejected by everyone. I think that that is a fairly acceptable position.

Mr Carroll: OK. The Member is comparing two different events, but he has made his point. As a general point, if jigs and reels are not inclusive, terrify certain people or make them recoil, that says a lot about their perspective on inclusivity and their prejudices. Before anyone gets offended, I say that as a general point.

Kellie Armstrong made the point about the need for the establishment of a working group and said that she supports the amendment, for which I thank her. Hopefully, if not through the Economy Minister — I thank the Minister for being here — we will get an update in the weeks and months ahead. If the amendment and motion pass, updates on that would be useful. Pedestrianisation — "pedestrianising": that word that I always get correct — is important because we want people to feel safe and secure and not having to traverse a road with vehicles in the centre of Belfast or elsewhere. There are important points in that.

The Minister spoke in general about bigger events coming to the city and the North. It would be a mistake not to mention in passing the wrestling match in the Odyssey tonight where CM Punk is battling Finn Bálor for the world heavyweight championship. It is an important cultural event for many people in this Building and elsewhere — that is just a passing comment, Mr Deputy Speaker — and I am sure that the Minister would agree.

I talked about the need for later bar opening, public bathrooms and other additional services. We need to ensure that hospitality workers are supported, protected and remunerated for the work that they do and the extra hours that they take on. That should include a zero tolerance policy for harassment and a requirement for employers to make sure that workers get home safely and are not out of pocket. This is about doing what we can to make sure that we have the best fleadh possible but also to start to reimagine how our city can look.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will give way, yes.

Mr McNulty: Is it not a terrible shame that, for Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann coming to Belfast in August 2026, Casement Park is not complete? There will be no events in Casement Park. Is that not a shame?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have four seconds, Gerry. [Laughter.]

Mr Carroll: More on that later. I move the amendment. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for moving the amendment. I call Patsy McGlone, and you have up to five minutes.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Fáiltíonn an SDLP roimh an méid a chuir Comhaltaí anseo inniu leis an díospóireacht ar ár rún.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, is é seo comóradh 75 bliana Fhleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. Is í féile bhliantúil cheoil, amhránacíochta agus dhamhsa na hÉireann is mó ar domhan í. Is féile í fosta ina gcuirtear fáilte roimh gach aon duine agus ina bhfuil soicheall roimh gach duine. Meallann sí cuairteoirí, infheistíocht agus aird dhomhanda cibé áit a reáchtáiltear í.

Is é seo an dara huair ina stair a tháinig sí chun an Tuaiscirt, i ndiaidh na fleidhe thar a bheith rathúil i nDoire in 2013. Agus is é chéad uair a reáchtálfar i mBéal Feirste í, an t-aon Chathair Cheoil amháin de chuid UNESCO ar oileán na hÉireann. Tá comhghairdeas tuillte ag Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste agus ag craobh na hArda de Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, ag an chraobh de Chomhaltas atá i mBéal Feirste, agus ag daoine eile, as a gcuid oibre chun an Fhleadh Cheoil stairiúil seo a thabhairt go Béal Feirste. Ó thus deireadh na fleidhe, cuirfear fáilte roimh na céadta mílte ceoltóirí, damhsóirí agus cuairteoirí a bhfuil suim acu páirt a ghlacadh sna féilte i mBéal Feirste. Is deis í seo chun ceol, cultúr agus pobal a cheiliúradh ar bhealach a dtugann daoine le chéile. Mar is féile chuimsitheach í an fhleadh i gcónaí. Chruthaigh Doire é sin in 2013.

Oireann an fhleadh go foirfe freisin d’fhís an phlean gníomhaíochta 10 mbliana don turasóireacht a foilsíodh anuraidh. Tá an turasóireacht ar cheann de scéalta ratha Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta; is ceann dár dtiománaithe eacnamaíochta is tábhachtaí í, ag cuidiú le saibhreas agus poist a chruthú ar fud an réigiúin. Tá an earnáil ag téarnamh go rathúil freisin ó phaindéim COVID. Beidh borradh breise faoin turasóireacht de thairbhe na fleidhe, ag tabhairt buntáistí móra eacnamaíochta, agus ag tacú le gnólachtaí áitiúla i mBéal Feirste agus ar fud an Tuaiscirt. Chomh maith le bheith ina himeacht iontach inti féin, is deis í an fhleadh chun ár gcáil mar óstach d’imeachtaí eile den mhéid agus den chaighdeán céanna a fheabhsú. I gcás go leor de na céadta mílte cuairteoirí chuig an fhleadh, is í seo a gcéad uair sa réigiún seo. Is orainne atá an fhreagracht chomhchoiteann as a chinntiú go mbeidh eispéireas sábháilte agus lúcháireach acu agus iad anseo, agus go mbeidh siad ag tnúth le filleadh agus teach tar ais go cathair Bhéal Feirste ar dógh. Sna míonna deireanacha den ullmhúchán don fhleadh, tá sé tábhachtach go ndéanfaidh an Tionól, agus an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin, gach rud atá inár gcumhacht chun a chinntiú go n-éireoidh leis an tseachtain féile chomh maith agus a bheifí ag súil leis. Mar a dúirt Ardmhéara Bhéal Feirste, an Comhairleoir Tracy Kelly de chuid an DUP:

Cuirimid fáilte ó chroí roimh an deis sin, agus an seans a ghabhann léi cuimsiú, rannpháirtíocht chultúrtha chomhroinnte agus nasc pobail a chur chun cinn. Níl aon am níos fearr ar domhan ná anois chun na luachanna sin a cheiliúradh agus a chur chun cinn agus a chur chun tosaigh. Ba chóir don Tionól a bheith ag labhairt le haon ghuth inniu i dtaca le fleadh shábháilte, chuimsitheach agus rathúil, fleadh a fhágfaidh oidhreacht dhearfach agus bhuan do Bhéal Feirste agus do phobail ar fud na hÉireann agus níos faide i gcéin. Iarrann an SDLP ar an Tionól tacú leis an gceiliúradh agus a bheith ag obair go cuiditheach chun cabhrú leis an rath a bhaint amach do chách.