Official Report: Monday 16 February 2026

Mr Speaker: Today will see the first Members' Bill of the mandate introduced to the Assembly, and it will be followed by others in the next few weeks. Thus far, eight Members' Bills have been given approval to progress towards introduction in the Assembly, and a number of others await my consideration. However, Members will know that, from the outset, I have stated that we must avoid the position of the last mandate, when the sheer number of Members' Bills coming forward within a tight time frame was to the detriment of the scrutiny that the Assembly and Committees could give to both Executive and Members' Bills. We cannot see the system flooded again, and I have repeatedly communicated to Members that it will not be possible to progress the majority of Members' Bill proposals put forward in this mandate. There will not be enough time available to conduct proper scrutiny.

Next month will mark a year until the Assembly is dissolved for elections. I have been pressing the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the timing of the introduction of the Bills in the Executive’s legislative programme. The delay in Executive legislation coming forward will mean that we will again see significant congestion in the number of Executive Bills coming back to the House from Committees in the final months of the mandate, if not more so than last time. Therefore, we are reaching the point where we will have as many Members' Bills in line to be introduced to the Assembly as we can properly deal with in the next few weeks, and I will review the position in relation to how many further Members' Bills can realistically be accommodated.

Finally, I have been engaging with officials and reflecting on a range of issues that arose from the last mandate to consider how Members can be given additional support to strengthen the legislative culture in the Assembly. I will be reviewing advice over the next few weeks, but I expect that I will be informing Members of the introduction of a number of new measures to ensure that the Assembly is able to give proper consideration to when and how it legislates and that it is fully informed when it does so.

Let us move on.

Mr Speaker: Declan Kearney has been given leave to make a statement on the High Court ruling that the ban on Palestine Action is unlawful that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members who wish to be called should stand. All Members will have three minutes.

Mr Kearney: Friday's High Court ruling is hugely significant. It vindicates the position of thousands of activists, including the brave hunger strikers, that highlighting genocide is not a crime. State suppression of the Palestinian solidarity movement has failed in its attempt to silence those exposing Israeli war crimes, which have been aided and abetted by the British state. Instead of pursuing an appeal, the British Government must now lift the ban on Palestine Action without delay and bring their anti-democratic crackdown on Palestinian solidarity activists to an immediate end. The British Government should, with immediate effect, quash the convictions and end the prosecutions of those brought before the courts under that outrageous, draconian and now deemed unlawful legislation.

Friday was a positive day for decency and humanity. We must continue to speak up for the besieged people of Gaza and never allow any world power to undermine that basic right. The British Government now have to fundamentally change their position on the rights of the Palestinian people. They should end their complicity in the illegal occupation of Palestine, the ongoing genocide and the annexation and get on the right side of global humanity and international law.

Mr Carroll: The High Court decision in London last week confirmed what everybody had known for some time: the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful and disproportionate. Keir Starmer and his Government have acted like some of the most brutal dictators in the world by arresting almost 3,000 people in Britain for having the temerity to hold a sign, wear a T-shirt or simply declare their support for a peaceful civil disobedience organisation. I commend those who have stood up to the repressive British Government and refused to back down, despite the arrests and the heavy-handed approach from the police and the state.

People on these shores were not immune from harassment and repression for holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt. What about the so-called defenders of free speech on the unionist Benches in the House? They did not utter a word; they were tight-lipped in their support for Keir Starmer and his clampdown. Clearly, in anybody's eyes, using a tin of spray paint is not a violent act. I recognise the role played by my party colleagues in Derry, including Eamonn McCann, a former Member of the House, who were threatened with arrest and suppression because of their support for Palestine Action. Máire Mhic an Fhailí, who is a constituent of mine, was stopped and interrogated at an anti-racism demonstration in Belfast and put in the back of a police jeep for having a Palestine Action T-shirt.

The British Government need to drop their appeal in the case and instead put Keir Starmer, David Lammy and the genocide enablers in the dock for their war crimes and support of such crimes. Despite the establishment's attempts to silence and misrepresent the solidarity movement, people are going nowhere. Their sights are on the Republic of Ireland's upcoming football matches with Israel. Football and politics have always been connected and gone side by side. It has usually been up to those at the grassroots across the world to stand up for what is right. I call on the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) to pull out of those matches. If it does not, the players will need to lead the way, and I hope that they do, backed by people across the island who have no time for apartheid Israel.

Mr Buckley: The irony will not be lost on many people in Northern Ireland when Sinn Féin lectures them and says that the British should:

Tell that to the hundreds of innocent victims across Northern Ireland whose loved ones were killed by its barbaric Provo wing. Tell that to those who have empty places at the dinner table and still suffer the consequences of a long war of terror imposed on them by members of Sinn Féin's armed wing.

The courts are a pillar of our democracy. Their independence should be closely guarded. However, judicial independence does not place the courts above scrutiny, particularly when decisions affect national security. I believe that, in this instance, the High Court overstepped its remit when it ruled that the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful. There is now a pending judicial review (JR). The judgement was not simply a technical legal exercise; it touched directly on national security assessments made by Ministers who had access to classified intelligence, security briefings and operational advice that the courts do not fully see and cannot fully test in open court proceedings.

There is a constitutional balance to be struck in all of this. Parliament makes the law. The Government, who are accountable to Parliament, make national security judgements based on sensitive intelligence. The courts then review the process and its legality, but they are not — I repeat it clearly — an intelligence agency. They are not elected to weigh up security risks in the way in which Ministers are. The Terrorism Act 2000 — something that Sinn Féin knows about very well, given the number of former terrorists in its organisation — allows for proscription not only where there has been violence causing injury or loss of life but where there has been serious, politically motivated damage that is intended to influence government policy. That threshold exists precisely because we should not wait until such escalation results in violence.

With regard to Palestine Action, we are not discussing peaceful protest or the use of a tin of spray paint, as Mr Carroll said, but coordinated, repeated attacks, including industrial sabotage that targets defence-linked facilities, causing significant property damage and deliberately seeking to disrupt operations tied to national security. That must be our central focus when discussing such matters.

Dr Aiken: It is interesting that people here describe Palestine Action as some form of peaceful organisation. Before I talk about the serious attack on a policewoman, I remind Members that Palestine Action attacked two Royal Air Force aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Royal Air Force aircraft at Brize Norton are probe-and-drogue refuelling aircraft, which, as everybody knows, Israel does not have. Everybody will also know that, at the moment, those probe-and-drogue refuelling aircraft are specifically supporting NATO air operations in the Baltic, over the Black Sea and in eastern Europe. In order to realise what has been going on

— it is not particularly funny to have to listen to that across the Chamber — we have to ask these questions: who is behind Palestine Action, who funds it and who directs it?
Questions have already been asked about defence industry companies. We have talked about attacks on Elbit Systems, which is an Israeli-owned company. It is also doing an awful lot of work to support Ukraine, however. We have two clear examples — one of aircraft that have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in Israel or the Middle East being attacked and one of a defence company that is supporting Ukraine being attacked — so we have to ask these fundamental questions: exactly why is Palestine Action doing that, who is directing it and who are its fellow travellers?

The most egregious thing, however, was the attack on Sergeant Kate Evans. Sergeant Evans had her spine fractured with a sledgehammer. Please tell me what peace activists go around using a sledgehammer to attack somebody and fracture their spine? What message does that send to the good members of law enforcement organisations across our nation, be they in the police or wherever they happen to be? It is that the justice system does not support them. What does the ruling say to those who put themselves on the line every day to protect us? What does it say about the justice system?

I will say no more, because the Government are now, I imagine, progressing towards an appeal. I hope that they stand firm and deal with the issue, because the ruling is something that cannot be allowed to stand. You really have to ask what the motives are of people who support the like of Palestine Action and what it does.

Mr Gaston: The judgement is one that I am deeply troubled about. Palestine Action is guilty of serious offences, including the attack with a sledgehammer on a female police officer that left her with serious injuries to her back. That might be Mr Carroll's version of free speech, but it is certainly not mine or that of unionism. The court has, effectively, suggested that it is not enough for an organisation to meet the statutory test for proscription. Instead, Ministers are told that they should weigh up so-called mitigation factors, including the group's size, its presence in the UK, the threat that it poses and even diplomatic considerations in the global fight against terrorism. Let me be clear: terrorism is not negated by geography, terror is not softened by scale, and the law should not become a balancing exercise whereby barbarity is excused because it is inconvenient to confront.

At a time when we see continued Palestinian terror violence glorified and justified on our streets, the ruling sends precisely the wrong signal: that proscription is negotiable. If the judgement stands — I trust that it will not — it will not take much imagination to see the consequences for Northern Ireland. What is to stop a judicial review arguing that the IRA's proscription should be reconsidered on similar grounds? The Government must urgently appeal the ruling and reassert that terrorist organisations are proscribed because of what they are, not because of how politically awkward it is to say so.

It is no surprise that Sinn Féin has brought this Matter of the Day to the House. Its Members are cheerleaders of the terror that we have seen the length and breadth of this country for the past 40 or 50 years. Now they believe that they are the righteous ones to stand up for Palestine Action. Given their history, their stance and their continued glorification — Mr Baker sits there smirking away; my goodness, that is the state that Northern Ireland has got into. We have terrorists in suits sitting to my left who glorify murder and killing, and it is no wonder that they are sticking up for their bedfellows in Palestine Action. Shame on the House; shame on Members on my left-hand side; and shame on anybody who supports that group.

Mr Brett: The interpretation of the law and the rulings of the courts have never been a strength for some Members. Let us be clear about what the court ruling did and did not do. Palestine Action remains an illegal organisation and a proscribed terrorist organisation; the courts have made that clear. There are Members on my left and straight ahead of me who stand up in the House to praise the work of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

It is rather surprising that some Members who claim to take every opportunity to stand up and speak up for the rights of women have remained silent when the opportunity to speak on this issue has arisen. I will read into the record some of the actions that Palestine Action has been involved in: a female police sergeant was left unable to drive, unable to shower and unable to dress herself as a result of an attack with a sledgehammer by Palestine Action. It is no wonder that the SDLP and Alliance Benches have remained silent on the issue. Those parties take every opportunity to claim that they stand up and speak up for the rights of women, but that terrorist organisation attacked a female police officer with a sledgehammer. Where are the remarks from the party opposite on that attack? Nowhere to be seen.

My party warmly welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary will appeal the judgement. Let me be clear: it is for Parliament to set the law and for government to ensure that it is policed. The courts in this country will never set the law. Politicians voted to proscribe that organisation as a terrorist organisation — that is what it is; that is what it remains — and those who champion a terrorist organisation should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms Flynn: I rise with deep sadness and concern following publication of the latest NISRA figures on alcohol-specific deaths in the North. In 2024 alone, 397 people died from alcohol-specific causes: that is 397 lives cut short and 397 families devastated and left with an unbearable absence in their homes. Such deaths now account for 2·2% of all deaths registered here. The trend is deeply alarming. Since 2014, the number of alcohol-related deaths has increased by more than 80%. That is not a stable situation; it is a worsening public health crisis that is unfolding in plain sight.

The figures show stark inequality. Over the most recent five-year period, there were almost four times as many alcohol deaths in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived. We know what that means in real terms. Communities that already face hardship carry the heaviest burden of addiction, illness and loss. Men continue to be disproportionately affected — almost two thirds of those who died were male — but the rate among women has risen sharply over the decade. Most of those dying are in midlife, between 45 and 64 years of age. Those are people who should still be at the heart of their families and communities.

As Sinn Féin spokesperson for addiction and suicide prevention, I want to be clear that alcohol dependence does not exist in isolation; those deaths are inseparable from the reality of co-occurring mental ill health, such as depression, anxiety and deep trauma, that too often goes untreated. Many people who struggle with their mental health turn to alcohol to cope. Over time, harmful alcohol use worsens mental health — it deepens isolation and increases the risk of suicide — and there emerges a cycle that people and families feel trapped within. Therefore, when we speak about alcohol deaths, we are also speaking about mental health services, waiting lists, crisis support and the absence of accessible care that treats addiction and mental ill health together rather than separately. What is needed now is urgent and sustained investment in community addiction services, early intervention, family support and properly resourced mental health care that recognises the reality of co-occurring addictions.

Today, I acknowledge the families who live with the pain of those losses every day: the grief, the questions and the sense of what might have been had help come sooner. The people who died were not statistics; they were loved, valued and needed, and their loss must compel us, collectively, to do much better.

Mr Frew: There is good news and an answer to prayer in that we found out today that the trial for the murder of Chloe Mitchell is scheduled to start on 9 March. I welcome the exemption of the upcoming trial relating to Chloe's murder. I spoke recently to Chloe's father, George, and I know how much that decision will mean to the wider family. It is right that their search for justice is not further delayed. I know what that family has gone through, trying to prepare for a trial for the murder of their daughter and sister without knowing a start date.

I place on record my thanks for the collegiate and combined work of all the elected representatives of North Antrim. We came together to help a family in need and were able to deliver results. That speaks volumes for the work that we can do in our constituencies and in this place. I thank all the elected representatives for coming together. I also thank the Justice Minister for meeting, along with Sian Mulholland, the Mitchell family last week. The family was really thankful for and appreciative of the Minister taking the time to go and hear their story and about how the delay was having a massive impact on their health. I thank, and give credit to, the Justice Minister for that meeting.

I welcome the resumption of talks between the Department of Justice and the Criminal Bar Association and the clear commitment to continue that engagement into this week. It is vital that heads come together to resolve the strike action and stop the delay in criminal court cases.

The Mitchell family is only one family caught up in the delay; there are many more who do not know when their trial will start or how they can prepare for it when they do not know a date. It is really important that we come together to find a resolution to the delay.

I have sympathy for the Criminal Bar Association; it has warned for so many years about the stress, strains and issues that barristers have been crying out about. It feels as though the Department has not been listening. I appeal to the Justice Minister to meet the CBA, get around the table and resolve the situation for all the families who have been caught up in such heinous crimes.

Ms Mulholland: I, too, will speak about Chloe. I have just come from the court, where I was with her family. A court date has been set — 9 March — and the relief is absolutely palpable. Setting a trial date is important, and I recognise that today is an incredibly emotional day for the family. I told them that I would speak about Chloe in the Chamber so that her name would be on the record.

Chloe was loved and cherished. She adored make-up and clothes. I have seen her bedroom, including the make-up and the wardrobe. Her hair was her pride and joy. She loved her family and especially loved her role as an auntie. She needs to be remembered for who she was, not for how she died. Chloe was the baby of the house and was absolutely adored. That shines through in every statement that the family have made and in every meeting that I have had with them. Let her legacy be that other families get their day in court. I welcome the continued contributions by the Justice Minister and the CBA to allow that to happen. I pay tribute to the family — Jordy and Georgina and Chloe's brother and sisters. Their strength and dignity through what they have faced has been unbelievable. No other family should have to walk the path that they have had to walk, and no other family should have to fight for justice in the way that they did.

The family want me to put on record their thanks to all who supported their fight for an exemption to the strike action. I thank my fellow MLAs and the MP for North Antrim, who agreed to send the joint letter and meet the CBA on the family's behalf. That meant an awful lot, and it shows that we are stronger when we work together and realise that politics does not have to be the defining thing that we talk about: humanity can shine through. The family also want to put on record their thanks to Inspector Jock McToal for going above and beyond in what he did to support the family. I thank Jock for the support that he has shown to me in his role as well.

Georgina Mitchell told the Justice Minister and me that every day that her daughter's trial was delayed, she felt that she was failing Chloe — that she was failing her daughter. I say this directly to Georgina: every day since Chloe passed, you have done nothing but fight for Chloe, as you will on every day ahead. You should be incredibly proud of yourself, because there is no way that you have failed your daughter. We continue to stand with the Mitchell family as they fight for justice.

Dr Aiken: The Munich security conference at the weekend further highlighted the critical situation of the world that we live in, especially in Europe. Russia is continuing its wanton destruction of Ukraine, focusing its ballistic missiles and drones not on Ukraine's armed forces but on its power infrastructure. It is doing that to destroy the resolve of the Ukrainian people, as the Russian army cannot advance more than a few kilometers in the presence of Ukraine's strong defences. The Russian navy is confined to a few ports on the Black Sea, terrified to put to sea because of the Ukrainian control of those places, and the Russian air force is limited to launching missiles from well inside its airspace and can barely defend against Ukraine's counter-attacks, particularly those happening now on Russia's oil sector. The Ukrainian people will not be defeated by Russia.

Our Prime Minister, realising that hype and spin no longer cut it, is tackling the Treasury to increase our defence spending by up to £18 billion, but he must do more, accelerating our spending on defence and security to reach the total of 5% of GDP that many of our friends and allies in Europe already spend. Indeed, the European Union has agreed a €90 billion loan package to Ukraine; it did so in the European Parliament last week. That was a strong indication of the importance that Europe places on the survival of Ukraine and on waking up and defending itself. Well, it was not all of Europe. While there were 473 votes for the Ukraine support loan, there were a few notable exceptions. Sinn Féin's MEPs, Kathleen Funchion and Lynn Boylan, were joined by such paragons of democracy and freedom as Alternative for Germany, the Freedom Party of Austria and the Rassemblement National in opposing it.

Members should not be so surprised by Sinn Féin's affection for the far right. After all, it was 86 years ago that the Nazis provided a submerged lift to Seán Russell, a fascist supporter of the IRA much venerated across the isles. The freedom-loving people of Ukraine, and those of us in Europe and in the Assembly who do not want to be dictated to by fascists such as Putin and his fellow travellers, deserve much better, particularly from elected representatives in the European Parliament. Slava Ukraini.

Mr McNulty: Abbey, Abbey, Abbey. I am proud to speak about the victorious Abbey team who, on Friday night in the Armagh BOX-IT Athletic Grounds, won the MacRory Cup final replay. That is an extraordinary achievement, given that Abbey was 10 points down in the drawn match. The Abbey players and management team carried the hopes and dreams of so many on their shoulders. Coaches before them cleared the path, and some of them got to the mountaintop. Gerry Brown, Val Kane, Tony McMahon, Jim McCartan, Dr MacDonald and Pat Mooney. A special mention goes to Jody Gormley, whose initials the players wore on their jersey sleeves and whose character and legacy inspired this great victory.

I pay tribute to Abbey's coaches and management team: Dan Gordon, Kevin McKernan, Sean Gallagher, Mark Grogan, Robbie Hannan and Stephen Dyas. I also pay tribute to all the teachers and the principal of Abbey Christian Brothers' Grammar School, and to the players' parents, clubs and communities. They all played a part in this wonderful achievement. I give a special mention to the Dromintee club, which had six players on the starting team and seven on the squad. That is just amazing. In the ilk of Jody Gormley, the players demonstrated a defiance and a refusal to accept defeat. It is a monumental achievement for each of the players and for the management team. Each of them can feel very proud of it and take huge confidence from it. I wish them well as they progress to the Hogan Cup and the finals on Saturday week.

Ms Kimmins: Comhghairdeas

to Abbey Grammar in Newry on a superb win in the MacRory Cup final replay last Friday night in the Athletic Grounds. It certainly lifted the spirits of everybody across Newry, south Armagh and south Down, particularly the clubs of the boys who participated in what was a fantastic game and a fantastic win: the pride of Dromintee, Cullyhanna, Crossmaglen, Newry Shamrocks, Saval and many more clubs across our council district. The win that we saw on Friday night, which is the first in over 20 years, will be celebrated for a long, long time. It has certainly made our community immensely proud of the boys, their coaches and teachers and the whole community, all of whom are delighted for them.

In a poignant tribute, the team dedicated their win to the late Jody Gormley. They held him in such high esteem and recognised him in their matches, and he undoubtedly inspired this great win for the team, which was a win for our whole area. Maith sibh

to Abbey Grammar and everybody who was involved. We wish them all the very best as they go forward to the Hogan Cup.

Mr T Buchanan: I pay tribute to a dear friend and colleague Mr Bert Johnston, who passed away peacefully at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen yesterday evening. I pass on our sympathies to his dear wife, Olive; his sons Mark and Paul; his grandchildren; the wider family circle; and all others who knew him.

Bert was one of this world's gentlemen; a man who was always courteous and compassionate to all with whom he came in contact. He was well known not only in Fermanagh but throughout Northern Ireland and much further afield for the successful upholstery business that he ran from beside his home in Ballinamallard, which continues to flourish. He also had a successful political career as a DUP councillor for Erne North for 38 years and served as the last chairman of Fermanagh District Council before the Fermanagh and Omagh councils amalgamated.

Bert served as a councillor for the DUP from its earliest days back in 1976 and 1977. He never wavered in his commitment and loyalty to the party. He stood strong in his belief, despite the challenges that there were back in those early days to even be associated with the Democratic Unionist Party. He was a founding member of the local community association in Ballinamallard and had a heart and a genuine love for his constituents and his home village. My colleague Deborah Erskine referred to him as "Mr Ballinamallard", who paved the way for all who came after him: that sums it up well. He also became an MBE for his commitment and dedication to his work among the community and was held in high esteem by all who knew him.

While he was successful in business and in a long political career, his success was founded in his strong Christian faith. He knew the Lord Jesus Christ as his own and personal saviour and, day by day, was guided in all that he did by his strong and unwavering faith. Today, we can surely say that heaven's gain is earth's loss. While he is with the saviour whom he loved and served, we — his family, friends, the community and all who knew him and mourn for him today — can say in the words of 1 Samuel 20:18:

Ms Nicholl: Last week, the all-party group on international development had a moving event with members of the Sudanese community in Northern Ireland. They said that they feel forgotten, so I said that I would read some of their words to the Chamber. This is what they said:

At last week's meeting, members of the Sudanese community here spoke at length about the importance of providing more aid to civilians in Sudan. Over 33 million people, which is more than two thirds of the populace, need basic support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Kate.

Mr McCrossan: I will speak about the future of rail across this island, in particular what that future means for the west: for my home town of Strabane and for Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh, Donegal and, of course, the maiden city of Derry. The all-island strategic rail review represents a significant and long-awaited step forward. For the first time, we have a shared, cross-border vision for rail development until 2050. It is one that is grounded in sustainability, regional balance and economic growth. It must not leave out Fermanagh, however.

Strategies alone will not deliver much-needed change. Vision must be matched by political will and by real investment on the ground. For communities in the west, this moment matters so deeply, because, for generations, towns such as mine and counties such as Tyrone have been left outside of the rail network, resulting in their being cut off from the opportunity, investment and connectivity that other places rightly take for granted.

That is why I place on record the tremendous work of Into the West. Its advocacy, research and unwavering commitment have kept the vision of rail for the north-west alive. Its work has not simply been nostalgic. Rather, it has been forward-looking, evidence-based and rooted in the clear belief that having a balanced regional economy is essential for the future of this island. Into the West has shown what is possible, and it is now for the Executive to latch on to that vision. Central to delivery must be stronger rail connectivity to places such as Derry, which is our regional economic and education hub in the north-west.

Connecting to the maiden city of Derry and extending that connectivity to Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh and, of course, Donegal would transform how people live, work, study and do business across the entire western corridor. The benefits of rail investment are clear. Such investment would drive regional economic growth and regeneration; expand access to education, healthcare and employment; unlock the tourism potential of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Donegal and Derry; reduce congestion and emissions, in line with the climate responsibilities that many speak passionately about in the House; and deliver genuine, practical North/South cooperation.

It is not about restoring the past or what once was. Instead, it is about building a fairer, more connected future for all our people. The all-island strategic rail review has opened the door to that future, but people in the west will judge success not by reports or announcements but by track laid, stations built and trains running in those communities that have waited the longest. It is time to act and time to deliver for people.

Mr Kearney: Ba mhaith liom fearadh na fáilte a chur roimh ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge i mBéal Feirste ag deireadh na seachtaine seo chugainn. Is mór againn gur roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le hArd-Fheis na bliana seo a óstáil, nó tá an chathair ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na Gaeilge.

Choinnigh pobail i mBéal Feirste, agus pobail in áiteanna eile sna Sé Chontae, choinnigh sin an teanga beo in ainneoin cruatain, leatroim agus géarleanúna. Thóg muintir na cathrach seo Gaeltacht Bhóthar Seoighe. Thóg siad Gaelscoileanna, chruthaigh siad acmhainní agus d’fhorbair siad bonneagar nuair nach raibh a leithéid ann. Tá torthaí an tsaothair sin le feiceáil go soiléir inniu: tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth i ngach aon chearn de Bhéal Feirste.

D’imir Conradh na Gaeilge ról lárnach in athbheochan na teanga ón bhliain 1893 go dtí an lá atá inniu ann. Neartaigh a fheachtais agus a dhíograis an Ghaeilge ar fud na hÉireann. Inniu, tá an t-aos óg chun tosaigh ag coinneáil brí agus fuinneamh faoi fhás na teanga. Is é ‘An Ghaeilge in Éirinn Aontaithe: Éire Nua a Thógáil do na Glúnta atá le Teacht’ téama ard-fheis na bliana seo. Is tráthúil tábhachtach an comhrá é, nó tá an mhian chuig Éirinn athaontaithe ag cruinniú nirt ar fud an oileáin.

Caithfidh Éire nua a bheith cuimsitheach. Caithfidh gach duine dá gcónaíonn inti a bheith páirteach ina dearadh. Beidh an Ghaeilge lárnach sa tsaol chomhchoiteann atá le teacht. Is cuid dár gcultúr comhchoiteann, í is linn uilig í. Ceanglaíonn sí daoine, ní scarann sí iad. Cuireann sí leis an chiall atá againn dár ndúchas, dár bhféiniúlacht, agus don dáimh atá againn le daoine eile.

Mar sin de, guím gach rath ar ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge ag an deireadh seachtaine, agus tá mé ag tnúth le bheith páirteach sna himeachtaí sin. Go gcoinní Conradh na Gaeilge leis ag imirt tionchar ar ról na Gaeilge i dtodhchaí an náisiúin.

Miss McIlveen: I will highlight a matter of urgent concern for our fishing communities, particularly those in my constituency of Strangford and in south Down. Once again, their livelihoods are under threat as a result of action taken by the Isle of Man Government. New Manx immigration rules mean that any vessel operating with crew members holding a UK transit visa or a UK skilled worker visa cannot fish commercially in Manx territorial waters. If such a vessel does so, its owner is deemed to have committed an offence. In practical terms, crew members must now hold an Isle of Man visa to work in those waters. To secure such a visa, the employing business must be registered in the Isle of Man.

The change will have a huge impact on local fishermen and businesses. For many years, our fleet has faced real and persistent difficulties in recruiting local crew. As a result, around 70% of those working on vessels registered in Northern Ireland are overseas workers. They work hard and contribute to our coastal economy, yet the new approach takes no account of that reality and places compliant vessels at a serious disadvantage. The consequences are evident: Northern Ireland vessels, despite having lawfully purchased licences and fished the waters for generations, will effectively be shut out from operating within the Isle of Man's 12-nautical-mile limit. That will be felt most sharply in the scallop and nephrop sectors, both of which are central to the viability of our trawl fleet.

The challenge is not the first that our fleet has faced in Manx waters. Two years ago, exclusion zones were introduced that prevented Northern Ireland’s trawl fleet from accessing key fishing grounds. Those measures were presented on environmental grounds, but many in the industry believed that they disproportionately favoured Manx vessels. We now see a similar outcome achieved by different means, this time through immigration rules rather than fisheries policy.

There has been little meaningful consultation, limited notice and scant regard for the economic circumstances of our fishing industry. The change comes at a time when the sector is already under severe pressure: fuel costs remain high, labour shortages persist and regulatory demands continue to grow. Many vessel owners operate on tight margins; removing access to traditional fishing grounds places their businesses in genuine jeopardy. I have written to the Minister responsible for fisheries, Andrew Muir, setting out the concerns and calling for urgent engagement. The Minister must bring industry representatives together without delay and open direct discussions with the Isle of Man authorities to seek a resolution. I have also written to the Isle of Man Government.

Our fishermen are not asking for preferential treatment; they are asking for fairness, recognition of long-established fishing practice and firm support from the Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you have two minutes.

Mr Gaston: As Members are aware, questions for written answer must be answered within 10 days, yet the Health Minister has time and again shown contempt for that rule. I could cite many examples, but, for the sake of time, I will give two. A question on his plans for a palliative care strategy tabled on 24 September 2024 was answered on 12 January 2026: in not 10 days but 475 days. A question on cancer screening tabled on 5 September 2024 was answered on 11 December 2025: in not 10 days but 462 days. Other questions went unanswered for a full year until a freedom of information request was submitted to his Department.

The response to that FOI request reveals something that should shock and concern every MLA. In response, the Department stated that it does not retain draft answers and emails between officials, which are routinely destroyed. There is no audit trail of what the Minister saw, when he saw it or who caused that delay. Under section 46 of the code of practice issued under FOI law, public bodies are expected to keep proper records of key decisions and processes. That is why I have referred the response to the Information Commissioner. If Ministers can sit on questions for over a year, and then destroy the trail, accountability in the House becomes meaningless.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions and long-winded introductions will not be permitted.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in special EU programmes sectoral format, which was held at Monaghan Peace Campus on 23 January 2026. As Minister of Finance, I represented the Executive and was accompanied by Minister Givan. The Irish Government were represented by Minister Jack Chambers TD, who is responsible for the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. The statement has been agreed with Minister Givan, and I make it on behalf of us both.

The Council offered condolences to the family, friends and work colleagues of Mr Paul Beattie, the Special EU Programmes Body’s (SEUPB) managing authority director, following his sudden passing on 13 September 2025.

The NSMC received a report from the Special EU Programmes Body chief executive on the closure of the 2014-2020 PEACE IV and INTERREG Va programmes. Ministers noted that all EU expenditure targets to date have been met, and both programmes are currently forecast to achieve full expenditure in line with total programme allocations. The Council was also updated by the Special EU Programmes Body chief executive on the progress of the 2021-27 PEACE PLUS programme. The Council was advised that calls have opened for all 22 of the programme's investment areas and that, in total, 145 projects have been approved for funding. That represents a commitment of €1 billion, 94% of the programme value. Additional steering committees will be held throughout this year to allocate further funding.

Ministers noted that the body had produced a business plan for 2026 and a corporate plan outlining its key objectives for 2026-28. The Council approved the corporate and business plans, with the latter including the 2026 budget provision. The Council noted that the 2024 SEUPB annual accounts are currently under review by the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions.

Ministers welcomed the commitment made on a successor to the current PEACE PLUS programme and noted that further engagement will need to be undertaken on the details of that programme. The Council welcomed the presentations made on the Shankill Shared Women’s Centre and congratulated the project on its work. The project was awarded funding of €8·58 million from the Peace IV programme and received a prestigious EU REGIOSTARS award in Brussels in October 2025. The award category was "A Europe Closer to the Citizens", with the award recognising the centre's work in fostering community cohesion and delivering support for women and their families in a shared space.

The Council agreed to hold its next special EU programmes meeting in May 2026.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. First, I associate myself and my party with the Minister's words on the sad passing of Mr Beattie, the director. Clearly, that was very sad news for his family and colleagues.

Was the connected European social fund, which was used to fund economic inactivity, then became the Shared Prosperity Fund and is now the local growth fund, discussed? We know that there is concern in our local sector about the loss of funding. I cannot put my finger on what the situation is for this financial year. I know your Department is taking responsibility for 2027-28 onwards, Minister, but will you give us an update for the coming financial year, 2026-27?

Mr O'Dowd: That was not discussed as part of the programme, because, unfortunately, as a result of Brexit, the funding that used to come directly from Europe was lost. The British Government then replaced it with less funding, as the Member will recall, and there has been a further reduction in funding this year. You can draw a straight line from Brexit to the implications of what is happening now as a result of that decision. I do not have the full details in front of me on the coming financial year, but I am happy to provide that to the Member in writing.

Miss Hargey: Minister, will you outline what funding calls are open at the moment and what will be opened in the time ahead?

Mr O'Dowd: The change maker funding investment areas 1.2 and 6.2 are currently open for calls on a rolling basis. The change maker fund provides small grants of up to €100,000 and focuses on activities that advance community cohesion and bring communities and groups together on a cross-community basis. Further funding calls are anticipated to open in the first half of this year for SME development and transition, strategic planning and engagement and empowering communities. All information on current funding calls is available on the SEUPB website.

Mr Harvey: Minister, why has there been a delay in certifying the 2024 SEUPB accounts, and when are they likely to be certified?

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of no specific reason why there has been a delay. As I said in my statement, they are with the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions, and it will be up to them to set the schedule as to when they will sign off on them and when those further steps will take place.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House with the update. Can you give some further information about whether discussions were had about a successor to the PEACE PLUS programme and whether there is a timeline for when such a successor programme will be in place?

Mr O'Dowd: Both Governments and the EU have agreed in principle that there will be a successor to PEACE PLUS, and we await further details on that. Everybody is hopeful that there will be a continuation of the PEACE PLUS programme. It has been successful across the island in bringing communities together and ensuring that the peace embeds and people see real change as a result of it. As I say, both Governments and the EU have agreed to that in principle, but we await further detail.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, what benefits did Peace IV and INTERREG Va deliver?

Mr O'Dowd: I will give some examples. A total of 154,000 children and over 500 schools participated in shared education schemes, and over 2,700 teachers were trained in delivering shared education. Over 23,000 children and young people developed their soft skills in respect of diversity, and 1,617 marginalised and disadvantaged young people developed their soft skills in respect of diversity. Some 24 new shared spaces were made available, and I mentioned some examples in my statement: Shankill Shared Women's Centre; Black Mountain Shared Space project; Waterside Shared Village; Connecting Pomeroy; the Bushmills Courthouse shared space; and Newforge shared space. It has made a huge contribution to this society.

Mr Kingston: Since the signing of the withdrawal agreement in January 2020, the United Kingdom has paid around £40 billion to the EU under the terms of that agreement. Therefore, we welcome any opportunity to get some of that money back. The Minister referred to the successor to PEACE PLUS and advised how that was being taken forward: is his office or the Northern Ireland Executive playing any role in advancing that?

Mr O'Dowd: Engagement and discussions with the two Governments are ongoing, and we will use that opportunity, when possible, to emphasise the importance of a future PEACE PLUS programme. The fact that the two Governments and the EU have agreed to that in principle is a sign of the collective will across the institutions for that to succeed, but we will have to continue the engagement on that.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the 'Newry Next' idea is a big-picture proposal from Paschal Taggart and Ger Perdissat on the potential for 6,000 new homes in Newry and its districts, which is for Newry and people around that area first, is a plan on a plate, potentially, for the Executive.

Obviously, that plan's success is contingent on drainage investment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr McNulty: Was the 'Newry Next' proposal discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting? Is it possible for PEACE PLUS funding to be accessed for that proposal's development?

Mr O'Dowd: It was not discussed. It would not be normal practice for us to discuss individual planning applications or proposals in that manner. The purpose of the NSMC sectoral meetings is to engage on policy and practice, including highlighting the successes of previous programmes etc. If those who are behind the proposal to which the Member refers believe that it is worthy of EU funding and PEACE PLUS funding, and that it fits the criteria of the PEACE PLUS programme, they should first contact the SEUPB and submit a bid.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the Minister's statement. Members should take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Minister, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion forward. I do not propose to cover in detail the background and operation of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS). I am, however, happy to address any clarification questions that Members may have. Members, and, in particular, members of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, have engaged positively with my Department on the emissions trading scheme. There is good understanding across the Chamber of the importance of that UK-wide decarbonisation scheme to our climate targets and those of the UK Government.

The proposals that are contained in the draft Order, which make changes to the free allocation element of the scheme, were subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders through two joint UK-wide consultations on a review of free allocation methodology and distribution in the UK ETS. The free allocation of UK ETS allowances is the main policy instrument through which carbon leakage risk is currently addressed in the UK. The free provision allowances to operators that are considered to be at risk of carbon leakage reduces their carbon price exposure to lessen the risk of offshoring production.

Alongside my counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland, I agreed to the content and subsequent publication on 26 November 2025 of the UK ETS authority response to those consultations, which included commitments to make three technical changes to UK ETS free allocation policy. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 was laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure before both Houses of Parliament on 16 December 2025 and before the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly on 17 December 2025 under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the Order be laid in draft and debated in each legislature where it is to have effect. So far, the draft Order has been debated and approved by the Welsh Senedd and the Houses of Parliament.

If the draft Order is approved by the House, it will make the following three changes to the calculation of free allocation for the 2027-2030 allocation period. The first is an adjustment to account for COVID-19 impact. ETS installations' historical activity and emissions levels during a defined baseline period are a key component of the free allocation entitlement calculation. To account for the disruption that was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the draft Order will allow participants the option to exclude activity data for the year 2020, or 2020 plus 2021, as potentially reduced levels of activity during those years of COVID disruption could result in baseline data reports being unrepresentative of normal activity, potentially unfairly affecting free allocation entitlement. That approach aims to ensure a fair representation of typical activity levels for the 2027-2030 allocation period.

The second change relates to the benchmarks used in the free allocation calculation. Benchmarks are set at an average of the top 10% most efficient operators in each industrial sector, with operators closer to those benchmarks receiving a higher proportion of free allowances. Efficiency is measured on the basis of emissions generated per unit of product, with lower emissions per unit indicating higher efficiency. That ensures that free allocation continues to reward and incentivise decarbonisation efforts. The UK ETS benchmark values have been aligned with EU values since the implementation of the scheme in 2021. This instrument retains current benchmark values for the 2027 scheme year and provides for the adoption of updated EU benchmark values for the 2028-2030 scheme years, once those values are available. The decision across the UK to retain alignment with EU benchmarks has been considered in the context of the UK and EU's announcement that they will work towards linking their respective emissions trading schemes. I welcome that. Maintaining alignment with the EU approach should avoid the creation of competitive distortions between the schemes and increase consistency in decarbonisation incentives. The approach has been welcomed by business and industry here.

The third amendment allows for the phased reduction of free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). From January 2027, CBAM will be introduced, and it will eventually replace ETS free allocation as the main carbon leakage mitigation tool for the sectors in scope, with the gradual phase-out of free allocation coinciding with the UK CBAM introduction. A carbon border adjustment mechanism works on the principle of placing a carbon price on imports of goods from certain sectors, with the aim of creating a level playing field by ensuring that imported goods face the same carbon price as those produced domestically. The CBAM should, therefore, ensure that highly traded carbon-intensive products that are imported from overseas face a carbon price comparable to that which is payable for products produced in the UK and that UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas. The draft Order enables the reduction of free allocation annually during the period 2027-2030 for UK ETS operators covered by the UK CBAM. This approach will ensure a gradual transition for UK industries from free allocation to the UK CBAM as the primary carbon leakage mitigation measure.

Those are the main elements of the Order. It will make three technical changes to the UK ETS free allocation regulations that relate to historical activity data, an update to sector-specific benchmarks and the introduction of the phased reduction of free allocation for sectors that overlap with UK CBAM. The amendments are necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of the scheme and will help to ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in incentivising greenhouse gas emission reduction in Northern Ireland and across the UK by ensuring that free allocation is targeted to the sectors most at risk of carbon leakage. Accordingly, I commend the Order to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I rise on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to represent its views on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Committee's scrutiny began at our meeting on 4 December, when we considered a letter from DAERA that gave advance notice of the laying of the draft SI and a summary of the proposed amendments. The Committee noted that Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure, and it was laid simultaneously as an Order in Council before the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. On 15 January, the Committee held an oral evidence session with officials from DAERA's climate change and green growth policy division. The Committee noted that the aim of free allocation in the UK ETS is to support climate policy and emission reduction goals and mitigate the risks of carbon leakage. This can occur when companies relocate their production to countries with less stringent climate laws, resulting in an increase in overall global emissions.

The Committee also noted that the Order makes the following amendments to the calculation of free allocation for the 2027-2030 period. First, adjustments to historical activity data used in the free allocation equation to account for COVID-19-related disruption. Secondly, updates to sector-specific benchmarks used in free allocation calculations. Thirdly, the phased reduction and eventual replacement of free allocation for sectors that overlap with the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, known as, as the Minister said, CBAM. DAERA officials advised that the amendments are technical and operational and that they are necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the scheme. When questioned by the Committee on any financial impact, officials responded that, although the UK ETS comes at a cost to industry — currently, in the region of £15 million a year to Northern Ireland business — the draft Order will not mean a significant change to cost. The Committee also heard that, since the UK ETS came into force on 1 January 2021, it has raised in the region of £19 billion for the UK Treasury.

The Committee enquired whether the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) had enough resources to deal with the UK ETS. Officials advised that sufficient resources are in place at present and that officials can call on the support and knowledge of the regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions if required.

I highlight that the process of the draft SI did not run entirely smoothly due to a number of drafting errors. The draft Order was originally laid on 1 December 2025 but was subsequently withdrawn following the identification of typographical drafting errors. An amended version of the Order was shared with the Committee on 18 December, which was some delightful Christmas reading for members. At the briefing on the SI from officials on 15 January, Committee members pressed them for more information on how the errors were missed in the checking process and sought assurances that checking procedures have been tightened. Officials apologised for the errors and highlighted the case for introducing further safeguards to strengthen the robustness of checks on draft legislation. The Committee was assured that they were minor errors that did not impact on the policy or the operability of the SI. However, the Committee was later notified that a further minor typographical error had been identified on 19 January.

The Committee noted at its meeting on 5 February correspondence from the Department detailing how the UK ETS authority will now enhance its internal checking and scrutiny processes to minimise the risk of similar issues arising in the future. Further assurances were given that officials are working with colleagues in the Departmental Solicitor's Office to improve the robustness of drafting checks.

Overall, the Committee was content that the amendments contained in the SI are of a technical and operational nature and that the errors discovered, although indicating a weakness in the checks, did not impact on the Committee's consideration of the policy. The Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

Ms Finnegan: I support the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. While the Order is technical in nature, it sits within a broader strategic context. Since Brexit, the North participates in both the UK emissions trading scheme and, in respect of electricity generation under the Windsor framework, the EU emissions trading scheme. That unique position brings complexity, but it also creates opportunity.

In 2025, participation in the EU ETS generated approximately £53·5 million in auction revenue associated with activity here. Revenue linked to the UK ETS also represents a significant sum depending on carbon prices and allocations. That is why the ongoing joint work between the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, and the AERA Minister, Andrew Muir, is so important, in particular their efforts to secure improved access to the EU ETS innovation fund and relevant UK ETS funding streams. If we are contributing to those schemes, it is only right that the Executive are positioned to draw down funding to help meet our climate commitments under the Climate Change Act.

Turning to the amendments, excluding the COVID-period data from baseline calculations is a sensible step, as emissions during that period are artificially suppressed. Aligning UK benchmarks with EU benchmarks provides consistency and supports fair competition. The phased reduction of free allocation for sectors covered by the carbon border adjustment mechanism reflect the introduction of a UK CBAM from 2027, helping to prevent carbon leakage and create a level playing field. Those are proportionate, technical updates that maintain coherence in the scheme. For those reasons, we support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The question is —. Sorry, Minister: I nearly ploughed on without you. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to respond to the debate. Go for it.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have a 15-minute winding-up speech. [Laughter.]

No, I do not.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate.

To summarise, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 will implement three technical changes to the UK ETS. It will adjust the historical activity level to take account of the disruption caused by COVID-19, update benchmarks so that they continue to align with those adopted by the EU ETS for the allocation period 2026-2030 and phase the reduction of the free allocation for CBAM-covered sectors.

I thank the Committee for its engagement. It is important that we are able to provide certainty on the issue. I commend the Order to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Dr Archibald: I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The statutory rule (SR), which has been made under the Energy Prices Act 2022, seeks to close formally schemes under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.

The British Government introduced the schemes in response to the energy crisis. The purpose of the instrument is to bring us into line with the equivalent amendments already made in Britain, thus ensuring regulatory parity. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has already enacted similar scheme closures in Britain, including extending the relevant period to 26 months, which enables my Department to amend the regulations and legislatively close the schemes. It is appropriate and necessary that we implement the same approach here.

Financially, there are no implications arising from the instrument. The schemes were always intended to be temporary, and their closure simply marks the end of the support period.

In summary, following the enactment of similar regulations in Britain, this is a necessary measure, and I would welcome the Assembly's support.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion. As the Minister indicated, the rule will close the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. The schemes were introduced across the UK during COVID. The energy bill relief scheme, which effectively closed on 1 April 2023, provided for discounts on the wholesale portion of energy bills for non-domestic users in the United Kingdom. The energy bills discount scheme, which closed on 31 March 2024, replaced the energy bill relief scheme and offered similar benefits to businesses.

As the Minister outlined, the Department made it clear that the original legislation created an obligation on suppliers to continue to provide a discount while the regulations were in place without the right to reclaim costs from the UK Government. The Committee was therefore content to support the rule. We pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for their hard work and dedication on the issue.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House today, because, at its core, the Bill is about ensuring that the insolvency framework in the North remains modern, fair and aligned with best practice. Insolvency law may not always — apologies: I will be speaking on that subject tomorrow.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Did you do a Justin?

Mr Delargy: Yes. [Laughter.]

I welcome the statutory rule.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. That is good to know. We know what you are going to say tomorrow.

Mr Honeyford: I do not know what to say, Pádraig.

The regulations came at a time when they were absolutely needed for families and businesses It was a time when, across the UK and Northern Ireland, bills were doubling and trebling, so they were essential for the many small firms, manufacturers, hospitality settings and community organisations that were under threat. The schemes were necessary in order to stabilise costs and prevent closures. We therefore welcome the fact that the schemes happened and are thankful for what they did.

I will make one point. A lot of Members talk about the cost of renewables. Taxation being spent on fossil-fuel generation in order to keep prices down is part of that discussion. That element is not always included when we look at the cost of energy, but it is a point that needs to be made. As we move forward, we have an opportunity to take energy to the next level and create a pillar in our economy that means that it is viable for businesses to invest in it and that, alongside dual market access, allows them to grow. When we look at taxation, we can start to build a system that allows us to move forward, grow our economy and protect people and their families in the long term.

I encourage the Minister to get moving on energy so that we see a master plan with elements that will enable our people to avail themselves of all the benefits of the single market and the North/South interconnector. I support the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: I, too, welcome the regulations amending the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme in Northern Ireland. The regulations bring Northern Ireland into alignment with Great Britain, which is precisely where we should be. Consistency across the United Kingdom in the operation and conclusion of the schemes is important for clarity, stability and confidence in our energy markets. The measures ensure that the support schemes are brought to a close properly, responsibly and fairly. They were never intended to be permanent fixtures in our energy system; they were emergency stabilisers that were introduced at a time of exceptional volatility in global energy markets.

The UK Government acted through the Energy Prices Act 2022 to provide temporary and targeted intervention when households and businesses faced unprecedented pressures. That intervention was necessary and proportionate, and it served its purpose. However, in order for Northern Ireland to function effectively within the wider United Kingdom framework, legislative loose ends must be tied up and potential loopholes addressed: the regulations do exactly that.

As we conclude the emergency schemes, we must turn our attention to long-term energy resilience. That means strengthening grid infrastructure, accelerating the development of renewables, supporting business competitiveness and ensuring that households are better insulated from future global shocks. The Ulster Unionist Party has consistently supported targeted intervention in times of crisis coupled with a responsible return to normal market operation once conditions stabilise. The amendments reflect that principle, and I am pleased to support them.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude and make her winding-up speech on the motion.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions today and the Chair and members of the Committee for the Economy for their consideration of the regulations. As has been outlined, they were introduced in an emergency situation in which electricity and energy costs were going through the roof. That highlights the volatility associated with reliance on fossil fuels. As Members on all sides of the Chamber have indicated today, we want a secure, resilient and affordable energy supply for households and businesses, and that is what we are working to deliver over the next months and years.

As has been set out, the regulations close the temporary support schemes as intended and ensure parity with Britain. I commend the motion to the House and thank Members for their contributions.

Mr McAleer: I beg to introduce the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill [NIA 24/22-27], which is a Bill to require the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to make regulations under the Agriculture Act 2020 as to payments for areas with natural constraints.

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

Mr Dunne: 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. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The roads network across Northern Ireland has reached crisis point. The poor, dangerous and, often, shocking condition of our roads affects every corner of Northern Ireland. It is not confined to one constituency or, indeed, one council area. From city centres to country lanes, from commuter routes to residential developments, the deterioration is visible and worsening day by day. That is the case in my constituency of North Down and right across our country. I am sure that many of my colleagues will reaffirm that during the debate.

The pothole pandemic needs a cure, and this Minister does not seem to have one. Our constituents are paying the price in repair bills, damage, insurance excesses, lost time and personal injuries. That is simply unacceptable and cannot go on. They deserve better than this Department for failure. The current Minister has blamed everything: the weather, the Tories and cuts. The only thing that she will not do is take responsibility and fix our roads. The amendment claims that the draft roads maintenance strategy sets out a clear vision. The reality is that the document is as clear as mud and lacks the ambition that is required. The amendment, tabled by Sinn Féin, the Minister's party, says to the public, "Nothing to see here", which is certainly not the case on the roads network right across Northern Ireland. That is why we cannot support it.

Recently, storm Chandra, the winter freeze and heavy rainfall have left their mark. In the past three months alone, almost 50,000 defects were recorded on our roads, and I am sure that that figure, even in the past week, has been added to considerably. That is close to half the total for the whole of the previous year. Let us not pretend, however, that the crisis began just a short number of weeks ago with one storm. We had Storm Éowyn, a significant storm, just over a year ago, we have had many more in the past and no doubt we will have many more in the future. The weather has, however, exposed weaknesses that have been building for years across the roads network.

Last year, over 127,000 surface defects were recorded, with almost 100,000 of those being potholes. That is not routine wear and tear; that is systematic deterioration and failure. For over a decade — we are now in the eleventh year — the Department has been operating what it calls a limited maintenance service. It is limited in ambition, limited in intervention and limited in outcome and very limited in delivery. Only the highest-priority defects are repaired, and even then, only the minimum work necessary is carried out to remove the immediate safety risk of potholes of over 50mm. That has left its mark.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: No, not at this stage. There is one hour and 45 minutes for the debate, so there will be a good opportunity for everybody to contribute, and we look forward to hearing remarks from right across the House.

Eleven years of limited service inevitably produces limited results and, ultimately, failure, and we are now living with the consequences. It is the public who are living with the consequences, and they deserve better. The maintenance backlog has tripled in the past five years and now sits at over £3 billion. Public liability claims alone for vehicle damage and personal injury have more than doubled since 2019-2020, only a few years ago. Those figures come from the Department's draft roads maintenance strategy, and they are a stark admission that the current model has failed and is failing again and again.

Yes, we welcome the £7·85 million winter recovery fund that was announced recently by the Minister after considerable lobbying, certainly from these Benches. However, let us be honest: that cannot simply be another sticking plaster approach as we have seen to date. Temporary repairs that have failed or will fail after the next downpour or period of frost are of no use to anyone and only cost money and staff time, and they frustrate the general public. With a transport budget of over £850 million, lack of money alone cannot be an excuse. Yet £85 million is earmarked for schemes such as cycle lanes to nowhere in some cases, and my colleagues will highlight examples of those in their constituencies. If money is the issue, that funding should be prioritised for maintaining the basic roads network.

The Minister and her Department really need to get to grips with poor repairs. The Minister continues to remind us that her Department does not have enough money, but how can her Department have no money to deal effectively with the issues facing our roads while having no reservations about spending taxpayers' money on unwanted, unnecessary Irish language signage, such as that in Grand Central station? It is clear where the Sinn Féin Minister's priorities lie: unfortunately, to date, they have not been on fixing our roads.

It is more important than ever that the Minister properly resources her Department to deal with the crisis that we face. It is not just an inconvenience issue; it is a real road safety issue. Indeed, the dangerous condition of our roads compromises the important road safety messaging from her Department. For motorists, a pothole can mean a burst tyre, wrecked wheels or damage to suspension or alignment. However, for cyclists and motorcyclists, it can mean much more, and, often, the consequences can be more severe. A deep, unmarked pothole has the potential to throw a rider into the path of oncoming traffic, and the potential consequences are lethal. That links into other forms of active travel: for pedestrians, including our older residents, uneven surfaces and broken carriageways present a real risk of falling and personal injury.

The Department subjects vehicles to rigorous annual roadworthiness tests and expects cars to meet high standards of quality and safety, yet the roads that they are driven on fail the most basic tests themselves. We must also address an important factor that is often overlooked: the significant role of utility companies and the mark that they leave and toll that they take on our roads. Across urban and rural Northern Ireland, we see repeated openings of carriageways for water, gas, electricity and telecoms works. Those works are necessary, but, often, the quality of reinstatement leaves a lot to be desired and is substandard. Poor reinstatement leads to further break-up and, ultimately, surface failure. There must be much stronger oversight and quality control by the Department. Reinstatement standards must be improved, and follow-up inspections must be routine, robust and meaningful. Despite a 2024 Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report into road openings by utility companies, the very draft strategy that is being hailed as a game changer makes absolutely no mention in its 18 pages of the role of utility companies. That is very disappointing, but there is an opportunity for the Minister to address that. The utility companies should be held accountable and required to put the situation right at their own expense rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.

The draft road maintenance strategy speaks of governance structures and enhanced metrics, but it lacks ambition and what really matters, which is a detailed action plan, detailed costings and time-bound delivery. That is what the public want and rightly expect to be done, and that will be the measuring tool for improved roads. We also need to have an honest conversation about the balancing of budgets. When our core roads network is crumbling and we have so many potholes — 100,000 in a single year — across the country, it is legitimate to question whether the balance is right or whether the pendulum has swung too far. That needs to be considered in such debates and across the country.

I recently discovered that the Department for Infrastructure has spent £5·4 million on external consultants in the past five years alone as part of its active travel plan, £4 million of which was spent within the past two financial years. There are certainly more questions to be answered on those matters. We need to see a major reset. That is what led to our proposing this important motion. The Minister has an opportunity, which she has not taken to date, to get a grip on the issue. We need to end the decade-long reliance on limited maintenance as the simple default position. We need to look at permanent, higher-quality repairs, utilising technology and best practice from across the globe. We need deliverable targets that address the Department's workforce pressures, strengthen enforcement around utility reinstatements and deliver improved inspections and real accountability. We also need to restore balance in the transport budget and get the basics right.

The public rightly expect safe roads. They expect that, when a problem of this scale is identified, decisive action will follow. The pothole pandemic will not fix itself: it is time for action beyond warm words and short-term funds.

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

Mr Dunne: Minister, fix our roads. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Mr Boylan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will haves 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

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

I welcome the motion, but not for the reasons that it was brought, because, in tabling the original wording of the motion, its movers have demonstrated that they are more interested in party politics than in the pothole problem. When the Minister came to the Chamber two weeks ago, she was clear, not only as a Minister but as an MLA for a rural constituency, that she is all too aware of the condition that our roads are in. Not once did the Minister shirk her responsibilities on the issue; instead, she very clearly laid out what she is doing to improve the condition of our roads. In short, we tabled our amendment to bring clarity and honesty to the debate, while also supporting the calls for urgent action, as each of us will have examples of roads in our communities that are in a dire state.

Let us be honest. Will the motion fix the potholes overnight? No. As I said, our amendment seeks to add some honesty to the debate. Our amendment, if supported by other parties in the Chamber, would send a clear message to the public that we hear them and are working to fix the problem. The draft road maintenance strategy published by the Minister acknowledges that we need a different approach. It acknowledges the need for and commits to the increased use of technology to ensure that we target resources where they are needed most, addressing the most high-risk surface defects. In addition, the Minister is clear on the need for additional funding and resourcing to enable her to carry out much-needed resurfacing schemes as opposed to patching roads that are in poor condition. I have seen it —.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boylan: The Member can put his name down, just like Mr Dunne said.

In my constituency, I have seen £590,000 for a road improvement scheme on the A29 Armagh Road, Keady and a £375,000 scheme on the Farnaloy Road, Madden allocated by Minister Kimmins.

In supporting our amendment, all the parties in the Chamber can show that they are not here just to play the blame game but want to work with the Minister to see additional funding going to roads, just as we saw before Christmas, when an additional £30 million was invested, £4 million of which was targeted at improving rural roads. Further to that, the additional investment of £7·85 million in the wake of storm Chandra highlights the fact that the Minister is working to increase the funding that is available to her.

Let us use this debate to send a signal that we all want to see the roads improved, rather than trying to pin the blame on one Minister. As I have said already, the road problem will not be addressed overnight, in the same way as it did not arrive overnight. We need increased investment in order to undo the years of underfunding of public services; we need the updated road maintenance strategy and detailed action plan to be completed urgently; and we need to work together to find solutions.

I commend the Minister for her efforts and look forward to working with her and others to improve our roads.

Mr McMurray: During the course of a rumbustious debate in the Chamber, the Alliance Party will very often be referenced as being this or that, none of which I will credit or repeat. One such reference, however, is that we are simply a middle-of-the-road party. Dare I say that many of us are middle of the road at the minute, given the state of the roads. It is hard to disagree with the basic concept of the motion and the case that it makes about the state of our roads. It is a major constituency issue for every Member

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: He has only started, the poor fella.

Mr McMurray: I will give way.

Mr K Buchanan: You referred to being the middle-of-the-road party. Where are you at with active travel? I will give you a brief example: if you were looking to replace the kitchen in your house, but your roof was leaking, which would you attend to first?

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

Mr McMurray: I acknowledge the remark, but I will stick to the motion at hand about the state of the roads, thank you, Mr Buchanan.

It is hard to disagree with the motion. It is not because there is not money going towards the roads; in fact, huge sums are being spent on road maintenance every year, but they do not translate into better outcomes.

One pound of every five spent on road maintenance goes into small-scale patching, but those repairs never last. Additionally, the Department has spent almost £33 million on public liability claims in the past five years. The number of claims has doubled in that time.

The motion refers to the Department's policy of limited service in repairing only the highest priority defects, and it carries out only a minimal patch job at that. That is not an efficient or effective way of maintaining or repairing roads. Making repairs to only the most severe defects means that the road surface is left to deteriorate instead of its being repaired and that the public see no discernible improvement. Indeed, I cannot imagine that it is a policy or strategy that the Minister or those carrying out the repairs would choose.

The Minister will make the case, as her predecessor has done, that it is the result of having her hand forced due to underfunding by the British Government, but the Department for Infrastructure already receives the highest capital budget in the Executive. DFI's opening capital budget in this year was the greatest in the history of devolution. It is up to the Infrastructure Minister to manage her Department within that very substantial funding envelope. If she needs more money to do so, it is up to her to make the necessary policy decisions. The fact remains that successive Infrastructure Ministers have indeed chosen the policy of limited service. They have chosen where to allocate their block grant in the many different areas of their Department. They know that none of those areas is funded to the requirement needed to make a tangible difference. Successive Ministers have avoided decisions to make the fundamental changes that would have allowed them to maintain our roads to a better standard, sort out our significant waste water and flooding issues, improve our public transport and provide for active travel. The list goes on.

How to spend and raise money and what to fund are all fundamental policy decisions. I welcome in principle the new draft road maintenance strategy. It proposes a much more efficient and effective way of carrying out road repairs than current practice. I am sure that it represents best practice. However, unless the Minister can provide the funding required to implement the draft road maintenance strategy, that strategy, like others, will fall short of delivery. That is why we do not see any costed and time-bound actions or targets as part of the draft road maintenance strategy.

Climate change is leading to more frequent and extreme weather, and that will only increase the challenges for our infrastructure. We have wetter winters: last month was the wettest January in 194 years, and close to 200% of February's rain has already fallen and we are only halfway through the month. The rain has exacerbated the problem of road repairs. I worry how the Department will cope with the changes in our weather patterns.

I ask the Minister what she intends to do differently to manage within her funding allocation in the future. How will the success of the policy be measured? How will she fund better-quality repairs while maintaining the current level of service? What changes does the Minister propose to enable the new policy implementation?

Mr Stewart: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is obviously a critical issue that affects every one of our constituents. Across the country, our roads are in a diabolical state: that is not an exaggeration. Today, we are not debating minor wear and tear, seasonal deterioration or the usual spikes and complaints after bad weather. We are debating the cumulative failure of road asset management across Northern Ireland; a failure of strategy and of prioritisation of long-term planning that has left our road network in a visibly deteriorating state.

Recent storm damage, of which there is much, did not create the problem: it merely exposed it. The motion states that over 127,000 surface defects were recorded in a single year, including 98,000 potholes. That is not simply a result of weather events: it is the product of a maintenance model that has been reactive, under-resourced and strategically unfocused for too long.

Across Northern Ireland and specifically in my constituency of East Antrim, which I can talk to, the situation is stark. From rural routes connecting villages and farms to arterial routes carrying commuters into Carrickfergus and Larne, the condition of our surface roads is simply unacceptable. Residents are not raising cosmetic concerns: they are reporting damaged suspension, burst tyres, unsafe journeys and roads that seem to have been totally neglected. Aside from the destruction and damage and the risk to public safety, it is a huge burden on the public purse, with millions already spent on compensation every year. Those defects are not statistics on a departmental briefing note: they are wheel-busting, axle-damaging craters, hazards for cyclists navigating uneven roads, and trip hazards for pedestrians, particularly older residents with mobility issues.

The Minister continues to defend an approach that intervenes only at the highest-priority level, and, even then, only with the minimum standard of work required to remove the immediate liability. That is not stewardship of a multibillion-pound public asset; it is crisis management. We would not run our health service by treating only emergencies and abandoning preventative care. We would not maintain public buildings by waiting for structural failure before acting. That is what is happening with our roads.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: Yes.

Mr Chambers: Does the Member agree that the current methodology for fixing potholes does not represent good value for money? I ask that because it seems to me that when a bucket of material is thrown into it and then hit with the back of a shovel, the pothole reappears a week later.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his intervention. It will come as no shock to him that I absolutely agree. It is a case of being penny wise and pound foolish. The model that we are pursuing at the minute is to find a temporary solution to the problem and move on to the next one. Reactive patching is not a strategy but a short-term fix that accelerates long-term decline. Every temporary repair that fails within months increases the life-cycle costs. Every delayed resurfacing programme compounds the structural destruction of the network. The financial argument for planned preventative maintenance is overwhelming, yet it is not being translated into policy.

We heard from the Member who proposed the motion about increased insurance costs and their impacts. Those are real experiences that are affecting people. We also heard about the draft road maintenance strategy. It has been talked about for some time, yet it contains a total lack of clarity and operational detail. For example, where are the five-year resurfacing targets broken down by road classification? Where are the measurable reductions in repeat defect rates? Where is the transparent assessment of the maintenance backlog and the trajectory for reducing it? Where are the quarterly accountability metrics that will allow the Assembly to scrutinise any progress? The reality is that they are all absent. Instead, we have broad language about resilience and sustainability with which none of us will necessarily disagree, but it comes without a costed action plan to deliver either.

We have talked about funding pressures. No one disagrees that that is the case, but the reality is this: the Department for Infrastructure has a £1·55 billion budget a year, so there can be costings done and savings found within that. No one disputes that there are pressures, and they have been there for some time. Leadership, however, is demonstrated by structuring and prioritising limited resources and then defending their use. Allowing assets to deteriorate to the point of structural failure does not save money; it defers costs and ultimately multiplies them.

Rural communities are particularly exposed. In my constituency of East Antrim, agricultural traffic routes, school transport routes and key economic corridors are suffering. Businesses cannot operate effectively on fractured infrastructure, and there is an impact on emergency response times.

As I have said, there are hidden costs to the public. Motorists across Northern Ireland are being forced to claim compensation for vehicle damage that runs into thousands and millions of pounds each year. Insurance premiums are rising accordingly. For anyone who owns a car, we have some of the highest insurance rates anywhere on these islands. That is having a massive impact.

We need a fully costed, multi-year road maintenance strategy; a transparent quantification of the maintenance backlog and annual reduction targets; a decisive shift from reactive patching to planned resurfacing with clear, published performance metrics; and a funding model for asset preservation, not short-term expediency. Those are key issues, and the Minister needs to act as quickly as possible.

Mr McNulty: I welcome the motion and thank the Members who tabled it. Potholes are no mere inconvenience; they are a daily hazard for people in Newry and Armagh and in the North more generally. There are 6,281 reported potholes in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area and the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. Across the North, there are 11,797 reported potholes in total. Minister, more than half the potholes in the North are in your constituency: what is going on?

My office is inundated with calls from constituents who are fed up with and furious at the state of our roads. They speak of burst tyres, cracked alloys and broken suspensions, as well as of danger avoidance, with cars attempting to miss craters having to swerve into the pathway of oncoming traffic. That is extraordinarily dangerous. Constituents describe roads as resembling the crater surface of the far side of the moon. They talk about crater after crater, potholes within potholes and temporary fixes that break at the first sign of rain or frost.

Last Wednesday, I posted on social media to ask people where the dangerous potholes are across my constituency of Newry and Armagh, which is also the Minister's constituency. By the next morning, there were 500 comments that identified more than 300 locations — 300 hazards; 300 daily risks — in Newry and Armagh. I thank everyone who took the time to engage with the post. That is not anecdotal frustration; it is overwhelming evidence of systematic and systemic failure.

Miss Dolan: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: Yes.

Miss Dolan: You say that it is systemic failure. Your party colleague was the Infrastructure Minister for longer than Liz: what did she do about it?

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

Mr McNulty: Talk about being political. On that point — thank you for bringing it up — the Member who tabled the amendment, Mr Boylan, who is also from Newry and Armagh, asked our Minister 228 questions about roads. In this mandate, when there is a Sinn Féin Minister, how many questions has he asked? You can count the number on the fingers of two hands. Who is being political?

I have written to the Minister — I have lost my place. Forgive me.

The depth of the potholes is surpassed only by the depth of the frustration felt by our constituents in Newry and Armagh and across the North. It is a public safety issue. It is about the mother driving her children to school, the shift worker commuting before dawn, the farmer transporting livestock and the cyclist navigating traffic. Every one of those people deserves roads that are safe and fit for purpose. Road maintenance is not a luxury; it is the core function of government. When potholes are left to multiply, when repairs are cosmetic rather than structural and when communities are told year after year to be patient, trust in public services erodes. People rightly ask, "Where are our taxes going?".

I have written to the Minister to detail the location of each pothole that was identified in response my social media post, and I again thank everyone who responded. Minister, I hope that you will join me in thanking the hundreds of people who took the time to outline the location of those dangerous potholes and that you will attempt to get the potholes filled and make the roads in our constituency safer. I recognise the scale of the challenge faced by the Minister, but leadership means taking responsibility, and people need solutions. It is farcical for a so-called republican Infrastructure Minister to deflect blame indefinitely on the British Government and the bad Tories while our roads continue to crumble beneath us.

The recently announced £7·85 million winter recovery road fund is welcome. It presents an opportunity, but it cannot become another headline without delivery. The Sinn Féin amendment ignores the severity of the issue and merely pats the Minister and her party on the back for the worst potholes we have seen in a generation. No, we cannot support that.

The funding must translate into visible, durable resurfacing, not temporary patches that wash away by winter's end. Something must be done urgently to make our roads safer and easier to navigate. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do not want more excuses from the Minister or her party. They do not want the potholes photographed or new technology that maps out where they are. They want the Minister to send somebody out with a tin of yellow paint and fill the bloody potholes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): 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 and the questions for urgent oral answer, when the first Member to speak will be Harry Harvey.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): The Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations 2025 were affirmed by the Assembly and made by the Executive Office on 8 April 2025. They came into force on 9 April 2025. The regulations provide the legal authority for TEO to appoint a Climate Commissioner. Since then, officials have been undertaking work to establish the commissioner's office. That work includes the preparatory work for a public appointment process to be run in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, which will lead to the appointment of a Climate Commissioner.

Supporting work has been progressing on the drafting of an appropriate business case and on working through the approvals that are required by the Department of Finance. That also involves consideration of the most appropriate staffing structure for the office; identification of suitable office accommodation; and arranging the key systems for human resources, IT, records management and finance. An indicative budget of £3 million — £1 million per annum for three years — to support the operation of the office has been included in the draft Budget, which is out for consultation, and will need Executive consideration before being agreed.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the First Minister for her response. Extreme heat, as a direct consequence of climate change, is predicted to result in 100 deaths a year in Northern Ireland. Flooding and heavy rainfall can have devastating consequences for farmers, families, businesses and coastal communities. With Northern Ireland producing more CO2 per year per person than China, does the First Minister share the view of the deputy First Minister who recently told the Executive Office Committee that a local climate change commissioner would not add any value?

Mrs O'Neill: We have a difference of opinion on that. It is the will of the Assembly that we establish a Climate Commissioner. As I said, we are going through all the processes, including the business case, and carrying out the due diligence work that is required. The role of the commissioner will be really important for us. We only have to look at the extreme rain that we have seen since Christmas: weather events that, previously, would have been described as once in a lifetime events, or events that occurred once every 50 years, are now a very regular occurrence. That is a direct result of climate change. We have to play our part and do something about it.

There are lots of things going on across all Departments, but the sooner that we get our commissioner in place — one who can work in tandem with everybody — the sooner that we can fulfil our responsibilities around climate change obligations. I believe that the majority of people will do, and want to do, that. It is about having a just transition — a fair transition — and allowing people, particularly our farmers, to play their part. Farmers have always said that they are part of the solution. I believe that that is the case. Let us get to work with a commissioner. We will come back to the House with next stages when we have the business case and everything else complete.

Ms Murphy: First Minister, you mentioned something very important in your response: a just and fair transition. What will that mean for farmers, families and workers?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member represents a rural constituency so she will know from engagement with farm families that they want to play their part, and will play their part, but they want fairness, and they want support to adjust and transition towards playing their part.

Our ambitious target of achieving net zero by 2050 is challenging. We are slightly behind other jurisdictions, but the pathway has been set. The commissioner will provide a unique opportunity to enable us to target specific sectors to look at what can be done and how we can work with individual sectors. Some will be able to do more than others. That is the approach that we need to see. Confronting a climate crisis — I do not think that anybody can deny that that is what it is — means reshaping our economy to create a more equal and more sustainable society. In essence, that is what the just transition is all about. It has to be planned. The commissioner will allow us the ability to do that and to have conversations with farmers, citizens and businesses, all of whom will have a role to play in making sure that the transition is implemented fairly and equitably across the board. We are slightly behind other jurisdictions in the emission reductions that we have achieved thus far, but, by working across the House and all sectors, we can reach those targets and do more.

Mr Brett: First Minister, at a time when our public services are crumbling, the vast majority of the public will be appalled that you want to spend £3 million on yet another quango. When I asked you this question at Committee, you called me "a climate change denier", without any evidence to back up that claim. Could you outline to the House Northern Ireland's contribution to global emissions on an annual basis, please?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member took the opportunity to set that out very clearly at the Committee, and I had no doubt that he was going to ask a similar question today. Instead of running away from the climate crisis — we do have a crisis — we need to do something about it. We need to find ways to work with our farmers and our business industry leaders to make sure that we can all play our part in doing right by the climate. Our public services will continue to be decimated if we have to keep investing in roads that have been dug up because of extreme weather, such as snow and ice. The climate has a real-life impact on our public services. We need to work together on the climate crisis and do everything that we can. We are protecting the future for our children and grandchildren, and we are protecting this world that we live in, but we should be able to do that in a joined-up way by working constructively with people. We should also do it through a just transition that allows people to navigate from where they are to where they need to get to and to play their part.

Mr Carroll: I have a concern that the Executive have, for too long, operated in the interests of the big agri-food sector. I hope that that does not continue. You mentioned a figure of £3 million for the Climate Commissioner and the staffing structure. How many staff will that include, and will the commissioner have teeth to intervene and impose fines, if necessary? What happens if the deputy First Minister does not agree to the commissioner being established?

Mrs O'Neill: We will take one problem at a time. We have to work our way through this. The deputy First Minister may take her own position, but it is the will of this Assembly to bring forward legislation. We are going through the business case process and doing all the due diligence at this time. It is very clear that the Members on the opposite Benches do not agree with the approach that the rest of us have agreed to. This is about us trying, as custodians, to play our part in protecting the place in which we live for future generations. The commissioner will be able to provide advice and make recommendations to various Departments on the operation of the Act. They will be able to do research, which will inform how we move forward. They will monitor and implement the climate action plans and sectoral policies. They have reports to publish. There is a lot to be done.

The Member asked about the staffing of the office. We are working our way through the business case with the Department of Finance, and we will then be able to say more about that. Obviously, budgets will be crucial to what we can do in the office. As I said in the initial answer, as part of the three-year Budget, we have looked at the allocation that we have asked for. That is still to be decided. That will definitely have an impact on what we can do, but suffice it to say that the office needs to provide value for money and needs to pass the business case test. We are actively working, at official level, with Department of Finance officials.

Mrs O'Neill: The armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted here.

Mrs Dodds: The brevity of the answer and the style in which it was delivered explains a lot to many of our people. First Minister, will you explain to the innocent victims of IRA violence, many of whom still live with life-changing injuries, and the brave members of our armed forces, who stood in the gap during a terrible terrorist campaign, why you can find endless ways to show respect to convicted IRA criminals but cannot deliver on the most modest task of ensuring housing, job opportunities and support for our armed forces?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said in the original answer, there is no agreement. That is a matter for the British Government. It is their policy, and it is for them to protect their serving forces.

Mr Delargy: The First Minister will be very aware that, in my constituency, in Derry, people's reality of the British Army is enshrined by the fact that 14 people were murdered on the streets of my city on Bloody Sunday, and many more were injured. That has been the impact of the British Army in my city. When the British Government defended those soldiers in court with £4·3 million of public money, that was very clearly a role that they took on. Therefore, can the First Minister confirm that this is not the responsibility of this Assembly but of the British Government?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I concur. Unlike others, I do not look at it through one particular lens. I think that there were many tragedies and injustices in our past, and I think that we all have a duty to acknowledge that. In fact, the first stage in trying to heal is to recognise that people have different perspectives, different lived experiences and different narratives. For the people of the city that you represent, that is very much the case.

I noted with disgust the commentary by the DUP leader, who told the Bloody Sunday families to "move on" and stop their endless pursuit of others. That is just crass, insulting and provocative. It does nothing to serve the needs of victims and survivors, which should be the business of everybody in the House. The Member will know that, when I took up office, I said that I would never ask people to "move on"; I would ask them to move forward. Let us try to find ways of dealing with the past that allow families to get access to truth and justice. I want that for every single person. I want that for every family out there in society. Despite the noise and disgusting language that we have heard, particularly from the DUP leader, I still implore all political leaders to work together to find a way of dealing properly with the past that will allow those families to get access to truth, justice and information, and allow them to look towards a brighter future. That is certainly my resolve. I will continue to work with people who are in the same frame of mind.

Mr Allen: The First Minister has rightly called out abuse when it has been directed at politicians and other members of society. Will she join me in calling out abuse directed at members of the armed forces as being wrong and intolerable, and stating that those who are behind it should face the consequences?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not want to see anybody's being abused. There are realities of our past and the many tragedies and injustices that happened here, but we all have a duty, particularly those of us who are elected, to be responsible in our public utterances and about what we hear and see around us. I certainly will not be found wanting in that regard. I think that we have all experienced quite a rise in online abuse, and in the disgraceful and disgusting commentary that is directed towards anyone who steps forward for public office. That is not tolerable for anybody in society, including those who have chosen to step forward for public office or to take up a public role.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, you mentioned moving forward together. The Assembly passed a motion on the armed forces covenant. It is my firm belief that, if we are going to have peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, the North or whatever you want to call it, that has to include everybody. It is very clear that members of the armed forces, after they have served and return to civilian life, will experience some level of discrimination and marginalisation. How do you square that circle if you are going to be the "First Minister for all"?

Mrs O'Neill: I have demonstrated from day 1 that I live up to my word. I said that I would be a First Minister for all, and I have done that. It has been laid bare for all to see. My track record speaks for itself. I am very confident about that.

The Member will be aware of the conflict here, the fact that there were so many tragedies and injustices, and the role of state forces. I believe in equality for everybody, but I do not believe in preferential treatment. That is the distinct difference.

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

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Violence against women and girls is an issue that affects all our communities, but we know that rural women and girls often face unique challenges. Often, living far from services and having fewer support options can increase their vulnerability and make it harder for them to get help, protection and justice.

Together with the Agriculture Minister, we launched the community-led review on rural women and girls in October 2025. That review is led by the Rural Community Network and the NI Rural Women's Network; two organisations that are embedded in rural communities. The aim of the review is to investigate gender-based violence against rural women and girls through lived experience in order to understand fully the experiences and barriers facing women and girls, as well as the drivers of that violence, abuse and harm. The review will develop practical, rural-sensitive recommendations to shape and improve future policy and practice. The work is progressing well. We will absolutely share the results with you when it has concluded.

Ms Egan: Thank you, junior Minister. Obviously, that was part of the ending violence against women and girls delivery plan for 2024-26, so we are in the year in which that expires. Will you therefore outline the work that the Executive Office is undertaking for the next phase of the delivery plan?

Ms Reilly: Yes, absolutely. The second delivery plan will continue to focus on community investment, collaboration and campaigns, in line with the objectives of the strategic framework. That approach will allow us to build on the momentum that we have already established through the first delivery plan. It will ensure continuity and consolidate good practice and lessons learned.

It will allow for the scaling of initiatives that have been proven to be effective. That does not mean that we are complacent. It is a live strategy, and we have to move when we see what is working well, what might not be working well and how to adapt to those things.

The new delivery plan has been informed by feedback from delivery partners that indicated that the current delivery models, particularly around the change fund, seemed to work well. We have also reflected on lessons learned from the first phase. The next delivery plan will be brought to the Executive very shortly, and, as I said, we will keep Members informed when that happens.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Junior Minister, you have already answered part of my question in your answer to Connie Egan. In relation to the second delivery plan and the insight, can you give an update on engagement you have had that has shaped your thinking for the next phase of the work to end the scourge of violence against women and girls in all our communities?

Ms Reilly: In my previous answer, I outlined some of that. If the strategy is to work, it has to reflect the real challenges and issues that face women and girls in our society. That means actively listening directly to women and girls, local service providers and the community and voluntary organisations on the ground. It also means co-designing solutions, rather than just imposing them on people. It is about making sure that funding, outreach models and service delivery are flexible and capable of meeting everybody's needs.

Mrs Cameron: I am sure that the junior Minister agrees that the loss of even one life is one too many. Dealing with the loss of a loved one is clearly an already excruciating experience for family and friends, but waiting periods in the legal system can and do amplify that hurt. What work is being undertaken as part of the ending violence against women and girls strategy with the Department of Justice to address those concerns?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for that question, because it reinforces the fact that the ending violence against women and girls strategy is not just about one Department; it needs a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. I absolutely concur with the Member's comments: waiting for long periods is extremely challenging for victims and families, particularly when they are going through the justice system, whether or not that is to do with a conviction. They have already been through a great deal, and delays, particularly in the justice system, further impact on that. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice, which sits on the oversight board and gives important feedback, and other Departments to make sure that we put systems in place and that we have the confidence of victims, survivors and the public.

Ms Hunter: Junior Minister, will you outline your Department's recent engagement with organisations such as Women's Aid to ensure that the strategy is having the intended impact on the ground, particularly in the north-west, where gender-based violence is, sadly, so prevalent?

Ms Reilly: Absolutely. I have touched on that continued approach, particularly with the oversight board and departmental colleagues. It is so important that we continually engage with the partners who deliver services on the ground, because our commitment to ending violence against women and girls is for everyone across society. Safety, dignity and access to support cannot depend on a particular delivery partner. We will continue to work closely with communities and delivery partners to shape delivery and make sure that all women and girls, no matter where they live, are protected and supported.

Mrs O'Neill: The deputy First Minister and I launched the Office of AI and Digital on 11 June last year. Its remit is to support the adoption of AI technologies across government to improve service delivery. The potential for AI is extraordinary: it can revolutionise how we work and study, drive economic growth and prosperity and help to transform our public services. There are a number of positive examples of AI deployment that are improving service delivery. In TEO, for example, Microsoft Copilot is being used to support staff in enhancing personal productivity and streamlining administrative tasks, such as the preparation of routine briefing materials. The Office of AI and Digital is compiling a register of the deployment of AI technologies across NICS Departments to improve collaboration and avoid duplication.

When it comes to digital and data, the roll-out of the Encompass programme represents a significant investment to improve service delivery through the creation of single digital care records for every citizen here. The data underpinning Encompass will enable improved communication with patients and continuity of care. However, as everyone knows, the adoption of AI carries some risk. The Office of AI and Digital has developed a draft AI strategy that will provide some guard rails for the ethical use of AI, with human oversight as a fundamental principle. That is particularly important in the use of AI public-sector transformation, as the potential of AI will never be realised without it having public trust.

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

First Minister, you outlined that there are some guard rails that you want to put in place to ensure that there is no negativity as a result of the use of AI. What concerns do you have regarding AI and the fears in our community that it could lead to the loss of jobs in the long term?

Mrs O'Neill: That has become increasingly topical of late, not least because people are fearful that, at the end of the day, AI will completely replace people in the workplace. That is why we have to have our guard rails around ethical procurement and ethical frameworks. We have to be ethically responsible. AI has to be socially beneficial: people have to feel a difference from it and know that it will make a difference. It has to be aligned with human values and very much grounded in the principles of trust, transparency and fairness.

People have concerns about it replacing people. There are genuine concerns about what it means for them in the future. How we use it will be important, and having a really strong framework in place will be important. For example, how can we use AI to excel in repetitive tasks that happen across public service, such as data entry, scheduling or root cause analysis? If you automate those tasks, that will free up our teams to focus on what truly matters, which is more strategic thinking, complex problem-solving and delivering high-impact outcomes for citizens.

You cannot take away from the fact that human judgement and the empathy that we feel as people when we are making decisions all have to be part and parcel of it. There is no algorithm out there that can replace that instinct, so it is important that those things are baked into what we do. It is about being responsible, having an ethical procurement framework and taking the opportunity to allow us to be more agile in how we transform and deliver public services. We also need to keep people at the heart of what we do so that the public do not lose trust in it when it comes to their ability to access some digital services. There is also an issue with digital inclusion that needs to be addressed.

Mr McGlone: We have AI, artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the potential for artificial superintelligence (ASI). The potential that can arise from all that is developing at a very fast rate. Therefore, what specialist expert opinion has the Department engaged to make sure that Departments keep pace with or, at least, try to keep pace with that and to engage in monitoring and supervision to make sure that AI does not travel too far ahead or too fast ahead of the normal expectations of society?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member. That is part and parcel of the strategy that we have been developing. We are very lucky that we have Helen McCarthy as the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser. That role did not exist in the Executive Office before, but she is now fully in place. She has been working on the advances with other stakeholders, such as our universities and people in industry.

The Member is absolutely right: technology is moving so fast that people find it frightening at times, and I understand that. I even see it myself when I try to keep up with some of the advances. Therefore, the guard rails are necessary, and the ethical element is necessary to ensure that the public can have trust in it. You need to be able to stand over data and things that are inputted to certain systems.

The goal here is to improve how we deliver public services, to use AI for the betterment of the public and to have those very strong principles of fairness, responsibility, accountability and ethical responsibility around what we do. I assure you that we work with all our groups. As I said, we need to make sure that there is inclusion, particularly for rural dwellers, and that people have access to the internet and can use some of the tools that are becoming increasingly available.

Mrs O'Neill: We discussed Budget issues at length with the British Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Cabinet Office at a recent meeting on 22 January. Alongside that, discussions have been ongoing between Treasury and the Finance Minister for some time.

We acknowledge the confirmation of the £400 million reserve claim, which allows us to stabilise some public finances this year. It is important to recognise, however, that it is repayable funding that we have achieved and will therefore place additional pressure on future Budgets. It is vital that we get to an agreed position on the multi-year Budget as soon as possible. No Minister will stand in the House and say anything other than, "This is an extremely challenging Budget process in which we are engaged". It has been clear from day 1, as all parties in the House recognise, that we have been underfunded. The fact that the stabilisation fund will run out this year puts us in a very difficult and precarious position when it comes to being able to fund public services and meet all our Programme for Government (PFG) commitments. That having been said, the case continues to be made at every available opportunity.

The draft Budget is out for consultation. It is now the job of all of us to try to get to the point at which we have a three-year Budget. We are on a dual run: we are trying to deal with public services here while continuing to make the case for why we need transformation and reform funding and additional funding to allow us to deliver good public services.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the First Minister for her answer. While the efforts of the Finance Minister in particular and his Executive colleagues to secure access to a £400 million reserve claim are certainly welcome, does the First Minister agree that access to the reserve claim is in itself a clear statement that British Government funding for the North is fundamentally inadequate and that what we really need are greater fiscal powers to allow us to make our own financial decisions?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely agree. On day 1, the message from the House was that we had been underfunded for well over a decade. Every party in the Chamber agreed, and that remains the case. We have certainly made advances in shoring up the case for us to be funded according to the needs of the people here. In the short period that we have been in office in the past two years, the additional funding that the Finance Minister has secured on the Executive's behalf is to be welcomed, but it does not touch the surface of what we need in order to transform our public services.

At our most recent engagement, the deputy First Minister and I made the Secretary of State very aware of the position in which we find ourselves. We are making the case so strongly. We have a stabilisation fund, but that is about to fall off the edge. How will we transform public services if we are underfunded? How will we fix healthcare and education and do everything else that we want to do if we are underfunded? I often hear people use the begging bowl analogy: I do not accept that. What we are asking for is what is right for people here. What we are asking for is right for the people whom we represent. What we are asking for is appropriate support to address the many years of underfunding of this place and, ultimately, more fiscal levers in order for us to be able to do more things here through investing in policy proposals and in public services.

Mr Buckley: There absolutely is a need for an adequate Budget, and every Member in the House supports that. Among the general public, however, there is a perception that there is huge system mismanagement, with our roads in absolute chaos, persistently high hospital waiting lists and huge underinvestment in our school estate. What can the First Minister do to reassure the public that every effort is being made to ensure that there is not system mismanagement? I look particularly at the Audit Office report that showed that £50 million a year was spent on sick leave payments in the Civil Service. What will the First Minister do to address that wastage and ensure that the money goes to front-line services?

Mrs O'Neill: There is no doubt that there is wastage in our system. We are doing all that we can to transform our public services. You have only to look at the state of the Department of Education budget and the fact that that Department has overspent so significantly or at the Department of Health budget to see that that leaves the whole of the Executive in a difficult position. There is no doubt that our public services are under huge pressure because of years of underinvestment. Our day-1 argument needs to remain our day-1 argument: we need to fight for more money to invest in public services here.

Alongside that, we need to do the transformation work, and I believe that we are all up for doing it. We can deliver public services better and more efficiently through a range of measures, be they transformation projects that try to reform — for example, reforming how planning applications are dealt with — or improve, and we have seen such improvements across the Department of Health with the roll-out of Encompass.

We also need to get right to the heart of the wastage in our system. That is a big issue that we are all committed to addressing. A raft of proposals has been taken forward at Department of Finance level and head of the Civil Service (HOCS) level to deal with wastage in the system as a result of absences and everything else.

There are strategies in place to deal with that; we might just have to wait a bit longer to see the benefits of them. There are, however, a number of things in train that will make a significant difference.

Our day-1 argument, which should be that of everybody in the Chamber, is that this place has been underfunded for over a decade and that we are trying to pick up the pieces. The British Government need to pay for public services that they have underinvested in for over a decade.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: That is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but we do our very best to support the Ukrainian refugees who are under our care. In our society, people have been excellent at opening their doors and welcoming people: long may that continue. My party's policy positions are not relevant to the Executive Office per se. However, we should all be increasingly concerned that, whilst all public services are struggling, the approach of the British Government and that of international communities is to move towards a militarisation agenda as opposed to investing in people. I have concerns about that and I take issue with it.

Mr O'Toole: First, I get about two questions once a month, so I will ask you about issues that pertain to wider questions, including decisions that your party has made. It has nothing to do with the British Government; it was a vote taken in the European Parliament by your colleagues, including on the subject of civil and humanitarian aid. I understand that your colleagues are talking about defence spending, but you do not have to endorse every part of that spending. Your party could, for example, have abstained: your party chose not to. When those of us who want a united and new Ireland back in the European Union are asking for European solidarity now and in the future, is it defensible for your party to stand against humanitarian aid to people in Ukraine?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, that is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but we can clearly stand over our position. Nothing in life is black and white, and neither are positions that are adopted in the European Parliament. Sometimes, you have to go with one part or another of a motion. I am confident that — [Interruption.]

Well, this is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but I am very confident in our party position, and I know that we can stand over it.

Mrs O'Neill: We are actively looking at our investment strategy, including the role of SIB. As the Member will know, there was a review of the strategy. When the three-year Budget process is in place, it will inform the investment strategy. We are actively looking at the SIB's role: what it does and how it does it. We will have a particular ask of the SIB and what it will do within its remit, and we will be more than happy to share that with Members.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I sit on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). When the SIB appeared before the PAC, I was unclear as to what power it has. Will you give a timescale for that comprehensive review so that we can ensure that we get value for money for the public?

Mrs O'Neill: I agree that we have to get value for money. The role of SIB has morphed over the years, and many people who were initially in the SIB are now in the Department on a longer-term basis. The DFM and I have raised that issue, because we want to be clear about our ask and the added value of SIB, particularly when it comes to rolling out our investment strategy. We will be open about the role of the SIB and what we have asked of it; that is really important. We are actively working our way through the investment strategy, and a considerable amount of work has gone into that. Some of the work underlying the investment strategy is around nine key enabling actions that will help us to do things better and to transform and invest in infrastructure, alongside other things. I look forward to when we are back in the House debating the investment strategy, because it is something that we all want to see.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. I have confirmed my decision publicly. I gave serious consideration to my attendance at the White House this year, understanding and recognising, as we all do, the fact that there are very deep and historic bonds between Ireland and the United States. I said that I would make the decision based on the prevailing context and circumstance, and it is very clear that what is happening in Palestine has not improved. What we are seeing unfold in front of our eyes is very clear: families are still under attack and the genocide is still occurring. That is a context in which I cannot attend. For me, it was about taking a principled stand and not attending the White House on this occasion.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. Does the First Minister agree that all political leaders have a responsibility to stand against the inhumanity that Israel is displaying towards the Palestinian people?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. This is an opportunity to do so. We have a small voice, but it is important to use it at times that like this. This is the genocide of our generation. When you reflect on all of that, you have to use your political platform and your voice to be on the right side of humanity and the right side of history. That is why I have taken the decision that I have. Whilst there is a ceasefire in name, there is not a ceasefire in reality. That is the very clear lived experience of the people of Palestine. When you still see homes being destroyed, families being killed and indiscriminate fire daily and nightly, that should alarm us all. We should all be proactive in using our voice. As I said, there are times in history when you have to stand on the right side of humanity. I will always be able to confidently say to my grandchildren that I stood on the right side of humanity.

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member will be aware, we have spoken quite often in the House about our engagement with Chinese officials here and the Economy Minister's recent visit to China. We make very clear our view on China's human rights abuses — we always underline that in our visits. Both the deputy First Minister and I are on record in all of our meetings with Chinese officials as saying that we are concerned about their human rights abuses. They are very clear about our position on that.

Mr Burrows: That is really a non-answer, because you are still prepared to have the Economy Minister go to China, a regime that drips in blood, crushes dissent, is a humanitarian abuser and oppresses Christians. You are happy to have a senior member of your party shake the bloody hand of Beijing, but you give false reasons for why you will not attend the White House.

Mrs O'Neill: My reasons for not attending the White House this year are very similar to the reasons that I gave last year. There is a genocide — a genocide — that is unique to our generation. It is important to stand on the right side of humanity on that issue. Unfortunately, many Members on the Benches opposite will be on the wrong side of history. I have made my voice clear. I am taking a stand on the role of the United States and the way in which the international community has turned the other way and failed. I want to see a two-state solution in the Middle East. Our society tells you that there is always a road out of conflict. Our society tells you that dialogue will get you to that point. I encourage the international community to do more. I am taking distinct approaches when it comes to what we do in Washington and what we will do in China on trade and relationships. I am very confident that our Economy Minister is more than capable of raising all of those human rights concerns, which we all share.

Mrs O'Neill: I am quite sure that your colleagues are not briefing outside the Executive, because that would be a breach of Executive confidentiality. There are many papers sitting in the Executive waiting to be cleared. I can tell you that there are very few at my end.

Mr T Buchanan: That was not much of an answer, but whatever. The Communities Minister has raised the important issue of tackling fraud and error in the benefits system. We all know that those who defraud the system are stealing from those who genuinely need that support. Why, then, do you not support the Communities Minister on that important issue rather than preventing further action to address it?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, more talking out of the Executive. We are working our way through all the papers that we have. Some are detailed policies. I was quite concerned about some of your colleague's proposals because he seems to have a disproportionate emphasis on people who are struggling and need benefits, going after them in the courts and naming them and shaming them. [Interruption.]

That is my concern.

I assure the Member that I continue to work with all Executive colleagues because I want to see our papers agreed. Unfortunately, some papers have been stuck in the Executive for over a year. Over a year, could you imagine? That is disgraceful. I want to progress papers as quickly as we possibly can, and I will work with Ministers to do so. We have a short window left in this mandate, and where there are legislative proposals, we should be prioritising them and getting them agreed and back to the House for debate. That would be good because I think that we are going to spend the rest of the mandate debating many pieces of legislation that would be beneficial to people's lives.

Mrs O'Neill: Again, not on behalf of TEO, I joined the Infrastructure Minister in a meeting that we had with the Association of British Insurers, the umbrella body for insurance companies. We raised with them a concern that I know has, no doubt, been raised with many in the House, and that is the cost of insurance here, which is disproportionately high, in particular for young people. Some of the premiums that young people are paying are absolutely extortionate.

We took the opportunity to meet the association because the Infrastructure Minister has announced road safety improvement measures, which are raising awareness of security and safety on the roads. Also, the announcement on graduated driving licences was made. A combination of those should mean that our young drivers are safer on the road. I wanted to make the case that those companies need to stop making such big profits off the backs of young people and let them get on the road at a premium that is fair and reasonable and not disproportionate. That is the case, I think, when you compare the rates here with those in Scotland, Wales and England.

Mr McAleer: On the topic of road safety, does the First Minister agree that the increase in sentencing for drunk divers, that will be proposed in the Justice Minister's sentencing Bill, is welcome?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Obviously, that is a very emotive issue, particularly for anybody who has lost a loved one on the roads, and, unfortunately, there are far too many. I very much welcome the fact that the Bill has moved to the next stage and that the Justice Minister will be bringing it to the House for debate. That proposal is important because increased sentencing guidelines will be a deterrent, and drunk drivers will not get a slap on the wrist for being the cause of someone losing their life. In the Member's own back yard, the family of Enda Dolan have been strong campaigners, using their own tragedy and life experience, for a meaningful change in the law. I commend that family, and I am sure that all Members know families that have been likewise campaigning, so I commend them all for getting to this point. The outworking of local Ministers being close to our communities and able to listen to the changes that they want is that we are able to bring those changes forward through legislation, so I look forward to the sentencing Bill's coming to the House for debate.

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely do. I am very mindful of the family, given that the anniversary of Pat's death has just passed. It has been 37 years of campaigning for truth and justice, 37 years of being let down at every turn by the British Government, and 37 years of promises being made and then reneged on. I commend the family, and I urge the British Government to step forward to do the right thing. They committed to the inquiry but have yet to agree the terms of reference. That is not acceptable or good enough, so they need to get on with it and allow the family the ability to move forward. I make that plea to the British Government today: stop making the Finucane family wait; do the right thing; develop the terms of reference; let the work get under way; and let the family get answers.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will group questions 1 and 8 together for answer.

The planning response team is the single point of contact for planning consultations and environmental queries relating to planning and provides a single, integrated response to each consultation across DAERA's areas of responsibility. Where an elected representative wishes to engage on a planning application, the planning response team, as the coordinating team, will direct the query to the relevant consultee team, or teams, for a response. That is the most effective approach because there are eight consultee teams in DAERA, and an application may need a response from more than one team. The planning response team can be contacted by email at planningresponse.team@daera-ni.gov.uk or via telephone on 028 9056 9604. The contact details are also available on the departmental website.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. As you will know, the NIEA's response to elected representatives is entirely inadequate; in fact, it is poor. The Speaker, in his former role as AERA Minister, made a temporary decision during the previous mandate not to respond to requests for information from MLAs or agents. Is it your intention to keep that decision in place?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Daniel, for your question. As you know, a Northern Ireland Environment Agency improvement plan is under way to review communication and stakeholder engagement, alongside other areas. As a first step in that plan, officials will implement a special exercise to provide an update on all consultations that await a response. The update will be provided to planners through the Northern Ireland consultee hub. The update will confirm receipt of the planning consultation, advise whether the case has been allocated to a case officer and provide an indicative time frame for a response. The indicative response time for each development type will also be published on the DAERA website. I recognise that there is more to do on NIEA planning response times. We have a performance plan in place, and I will visit officials at their site in Lisburn in the coming weeks.

Mr Wilson: Minister, your Department has a seat at the planning consultee forum. The AERA Committee requested that the consultee forum address it. I am concerned that there is a lack of joined-up approach in planning consultees getting their responses back to planning departments. As your Department has a seat at the table, will you back us up in bringing the forum to our Committee so that we can adequately address the concerns of applicants across Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the Committee's deliberations on the matter. You will be aware that, in 2019, there was a review of the planning system in Northern Ireland, with a particular focus on the role of statutory consultees. One of the recommendations was the establishment of a cross-government planning forum of senior leaders. You are aware of what the forum does: it meets quarterly and includes representatives from Departments, public bodies that have a key statutory consultee role as part of the planning process, councils and planning group staff. The director of NIEA's natural environment division in DAERA is part of the forum. I will consider your request, but I am conscious of the forum's remit and the role of the Department for Infrastructure. Let us be clear, however: statutory consultees' responses need to come back more quickly. We need to have a more effective planning system, and I am committed to playing my role in that regard.

Ms Finnegan: It is my understanding that advice has been issued following correspondence between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Shared Environmental Service on the cross-border impacts of agricultural litter and manure spreading on designated sites. Will the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency has considered that advice in relevant planning cases, and will he publish the advice as soon as possible in the interests of transparency?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issue that you have outlined. I am also aware of the role that the Shared Environmental Service plays in it. I am happy to take that away and write to you, because I want to confirm the exact facts. There was a delay in getting the advice, and we told the Shared Environmental Service to proceed in its absence. If the advice has come back, I am happy to write to give you a bit more detail on it. The issue is complex, but I know that it has been of concern to the farming community.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

'Rethinking Our Resources' comprises two work streams that aim to help with the decarbonisation of our economy, improving our environment and building a better and more circular economy. The first stream focuses on specific waste and recycling reforms that are of interest to householders, councils and businesses. The second stream is the waste management strategy, which I launched recently. That will set the policy direction at a strategic level for waste management in Northern Ireland for the next six years.

In 2024, my Department consulted on a range of proposals to improve recycling and waste collections across households and businesses. The responses to the consultation informed a draft departmental response containing recommendations for driving down the volume of residual waste and improving the quality and quantity of material being collected for recycling, supporting local processing.

Action is needed. Recycling rates are stagnating. We are exporting waste to other countries instead of managing our waste locally and we are losing valuable economic resource that could drive investment in local green jobs and support a local circular economy. I have heard at first hand that councils and businesses are seeking clear direction and clarity on our proposals, as they want to make investment decisions for their operations and to know how the proposals will impact on them.

Since the summer of last year, I have been seeking support from my Executive colleagues to publish my departmental response so that I can provide the clarity that councils and businesses require and assure householders that their efforts will boost a local reprocessing industry, creating new good green jobs and enhancing our local circular economy. As stated earlier, my draft waste management strategy has been launched for consultation. The consultation will close on 8 April, and I encourage everyone to respond to it to ensure that their views are heard.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. How can separate recycling streams improve the quality of the recycled product as well as benefiting the circular economy?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. It is of key importance that we improve the quality as well as the quantity of recycling. That will ensure that the resource value of the material collected is maximised. For example, local reprocessors have told us that they are unable to take commingled glass, because high-quality cullet is essential to efficient re-melting. Contamination by ceramics, plastics and other particles reduces furnace efficiency, increases energy use and damages equipment. That means that our local businesses have to import high-quality material, while the collected commingled glass is exported to other nations for cleaning and processing or for downgrading to aggregate. That represents a missed opportunity for our local economy. Separate collections are beneficial because they lead to more local reprocessing, support investment in jobs in reprocessing plants and manufacturing, and reduce waste export volumes and associated emissions.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the strategy is called 'Rethinking Our Resources' and relates to the circular economy. I am afraid that your Department has been doing a lot of thinking, and it feels like it is going round in circles. People in Four Winds and Carryduff in my constituency have been told for years by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council that they cannot get rid of these things called kerbie boxes, which blow all over the high ground in BT8 and, ironically, create more litter. The council tells them that nothing can be done about that until the Minister responds to the consultation that happened two years ago. Now, Minister, you are announcing another consultation. What do you say to my constituents in BT8, who are fed up waiting for consultation after consultation and just want action?

Mr Muir: As I outlined in my response to the question, I are consulting on a waste management strategy. I previously consulted on a recycling strategy, for which I sent a departmental response to my Executive colleagues in the summer of last year. That strategy is ready to go, and I want to be able to issue it to councils, but it is with the Executive, and I cannot publish it until I get their agreement on it. I share your frustration, because it has been sitting there for months. It is important that we help people to recycle. We have done so much good work on the amount of recycling in Northern Ireland — it has been a really good achievement — but we need to go further, because we want to boost our local economy and deal with environmental concerns that result from waste, whether it goes to landfill or incineration.

So the response and the proposed way forward on recycling is ready to go, but I need Executive agreement on it. There are positive elements alongside that, the most recent example being kerbside glass collection by Belfast City Council. My Department has supported that. That is good and popular, and it is important that we embrace it.

Mr T Buchanan: Farmers and businesses are being asked to modernise, decarbonise and invest, yet we have been waiting for months and years for you, as Minister, to publish a consultation response. How is that credible leadership?

Mr Muir: You should ask your own party. [Interruption.]

Mr Muir: I have ambitious goals to protect our environment from plastic pollution, reduce unnecessary waste and promote sustainability. My Department has already taken action with the introduction of legislation to ban single-use vapes and wet wipes containing plastic.

My Department is leading on work to bring forward the plastic pollution plan for Northern Ireland. It is an overarching document with the aim of addressing and tackling the problem of plastic pollution in Northern Ireland. The plan will set the course for Northern Ireland to be part of the plastic solution and become a leader in driving the necessary change. A public consultation ran from 2 July 2025 for 12 weeks, with responses from citizens and businesses. Feedback received will be incorporated into the final plan. The plan will collate the targets incorporated in existing policies and strategies and identify actions that will contribute to eliminating unnecessary plastic in Northern Ireland.

My officials are working to bring forward regulations to transpose the EU single-use plastics directive into Northern Ireland domestic law, which will remove more commonly littered and unnecessary single-use plastic items from circulation. The primary objective of the single-use plastics directive is to protect our environment. Single-use plastic products are a wasteful use of resources, being used only once before being discarded, impacting on our marine and natural environment. The introduction of those regulations will reduce the volume and impact of plastic products on our environment.

Work also continues on the introduction of a deposit return scheme (DRS) for single-use drinks containers, which will launch in Northern Ireland in October 2027.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. What programmes are being supported by the carrier bag levy?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Connie. The carrier bag levy is an example of behavioural change bringing about a positive impact for our environment, with the most recent statistics showing a decrease of almost 6 million bags per annum over a two-year period. The revenue raised helps to support the environment fund. It has delivered a number of projects including Eco-Schools, which engage with young people to further influence positive behaviours and enhance their appreciation of our environment. Both you and I have enjoyed meeting those Eco-Schools. Similarly, the levy also directly funds the Lyric Theatre's eco-project, 'Waste Busters' the musical, which is currently touring schools across all council areas in Northern Ireland, educating and encouraging efforts to protect our resources. I will be attending a production of that in the next few weeks.

Miss McIlveen: Given that plastic makes up 15% to 20% of a nappy, I ask the Minister, further to my debate in January last year, whether he will provide an update on how he is going to divert nappies and absorbent hygiene products away from residual waste and ensure that valuable, recyclable material is extracted and reused?

Mr Muir: That is an important issue, and it is important that councils do all that they can to find a way to reduce the amount of waste that is going to landfill or for incineration. While my officials have been engaging on the matter, one of the key issues is the role that councils can play. Councils have an additional amount of approximately £50 million in extended producer responsibility for packaging money that they can use to improve their ways to recycle. One of the ways in which to improve recycling and reduce waste management is through what the Member has outlined. Officials will continue to engage, but, ultimately, it is for councils to take that forward. It would be good if I could publish the previous departmental response, which set out the proposed way forward.

Mr Carroll: Does the Minister agree that a better approach to tackling plastic pollution is to prevent it from being produced and appearing on shop shelves in the first place? It is ridiculous: you go to a shop to buy bananas, and they are covered in plastic. That is absurd. Will the Minister outline what work he is doing to compel or encourage producers and suppliers to stop using plastic, especially single-use plastics?

Mr Muir: My answer is yes. There is a waste hierarchy, and part of that is about reducing the amount of waste that we produce. There is the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme: that is being brought in across the UK and will, hopefully, incentivise a reduction in the amount of packaging. Furthermore, a scheme is coming into place in October next year. It has been in place down South since February 2024. It is the deposit return scheme, which will encourage people to bring back their bottles, and they will get money for that. It has proven to be very popular down South and in other parts of Europe. I believe that it will be popular here in the North as well.

There is lots that we are doing around this. However, there is more that we should do, because we want to make sure that we are not missing the opportunities from the circular economy.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his reference to the success of the deposit return scheme in the South. We are due to see it in October next year. What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in the South about how the scheme that we will implement here can harmonise with theirs?

Mr Muir: I have spoken briefly to my counterpart in the South about that. There is a desire from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and me to go down South to see the scheme in operation there. One of the key focuses of the deposit return scheme in the UK is that it has to be interoperable with that in the South, which is a key thing that I have been advocating, and I believe that it will be. To be honest, what we have seen in the South is a role model for how we can take forward the scheme in the UK, including Northern Ireland. Staff from the scheme in the South came across to the DRS in the UK and have brought their knowledge with them. It is disappointing that the scheme has not been put in place in the UK sooner, but that is a result of the antics of the previous UK Government on the issue. The new Government, however, are committed to the scheme, and we are rolling it out. It was good to see the operator of the deposit return scheme at an event last week with Retail NI, engaging with local retailers on the issue.

Mr Gaston: Minister, it is good to hear that you are making progress on tackling plastic pollution. Will you take the opportunity to update the House and enlighten us on what progress you are making on reducing the amount of raw sewage that is currently going into our waterways? I know that that issue does not sit with you, but, given that farmers are always being used as a scapegoat for the actions of Northern Ireland Water (NIW), I am interested to know what progress you have made on reducing the 7 million tons of untreated sewage that goes into our waterways each year.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure what plastic has to do with sewage, but I will leave it in your hands, Minister.

Mr Muir: Plastic and sewage are a bit different, but I am happy to answer the Member's question.

What sits with me is regulation and enforcement. A paper will go to the Executive in the next few weeks on how to address the bye ball that NI Water has been given since 2007, when it was unfairly given a special dispensation that other polluters do not have. That needs to be addressed. There is other work in place, which I will outline to the Chamber in the time ahead. The ultimate responsibility for investment in waste water infrastructure and its management sits with the Minister for Infrastructure. We need to be brave and address the issues, because I am acutely aware that not only are they causing harm to our environment but they are affecting housebuilding and economic development in Northern Ireland. Alongside that, we are doing work on plastic pollution, because its wider environmental impact needs to be addressed.

Mr Muir: My Department's 2025-26 business plan includes a commitment to deliver 95% of payments for live farm-based schemes accurately and on time to eligible businesses. I am pleased to report that that commitment was not only achieved but exceeded. In 2025, 98% of payments under the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) and the beef carbon reduction (BCR) scheme were issued on the first day of payment, totalling over £260 million to farm businesses.

Early decisions by the Executive on the final Budget and associated allocations to Departments will be needed to ensure that we can maintain that record for 2026-27. My officials are working hard to prepare for another timely delivery following final decisions on the make-up of the Executive's 2026-27 Budget.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the news about the 98%, but, given that he was able to achieve 98%, why did he set a target of 95% for this year?

Mr Muir: If the Member wants, I am happy to review that target. It is important that we get the payments out on time. I thank staff for delivering 98% of payments on the first day last year.

I will say one thing to the House. We have only a draft Budget, and it is a draft Budget that was issued for consultation by the Finance Minister, rather than being agreed by the Executive. Without a Budget in place, I am seeking guidance from officials on whether I can set entitlements and do farm payments in the next financial year. People need to be cognisant of the need for us to work together to set a Budget for the year ahead so that I can assure the farming community of those payments.

Mr Butler: Like the Member for South Antrim, I say, "Well done" to the Minister for getting the percentage up. We have to look at the raw statistics, however, as percentages can sometimes skew the real figures. How many farm support payment applications were made in that year as against the year before?

Mr Muir: You lifted me up, and you put me down. [Laughter.]

I will need to check the figures, because I do not have them in front of me. I will write to the Member on that.

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency's environmental crime unit (ECU) investigates and prosecutes serious waste crimes in Northern Ireland using its enforcement powers under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Criminal prosecutions may include confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that offenders do not profit and to enforce the "polluter pays principle". To strengthen its enforcement capability, the ECU is recruiting specialist staff and investing in accredited training to embed best practice. The NIEA also works closely with councils through an established fly-tipping protocol.

A multi-agency approach remains central to tackling illegal waste activity. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency collaborates with organisations including the Joint Unit for Waste Crime (JUWC) and the organised crime task force, ensuring that there is coordinated, proactive action across agencies.

My Department is also seeking to increase the maximum penalties associated with waste offences that impact on the water environment. The draft fisheries and water environment Bill provides a legislative solution to ensure that there are consistent penalties across a range of legislation, including the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. That is necessary to deliver penalties that are robust, fair and proportionate to the offences committed. That supports actions that have been committed to in the Lough Neagh action plan.

The public consultation on policies for inclusion in the draft Bill ended on 6 November last year, and officials incorporated the analysis into the policy memorandum, which was agreed by the Executive in late December last year.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. I do not know whether other Members are like me in seeing an increase in fly-tipping and illegal dumping across their constituencies, but there seems to be an upsurge. Minister, will you indicate the annual cost to the public purse of that practice? What are you doing to ensure that the criminals, not the public, pay for it?

Mr Muir: I will have to come back to the Member with the figures, because they will need to be collated by the councils and us.

Waste crime in Northern Ireland has a cost. The biggest example of that is potentially one of the largest illegal dumps in Europe at Mobuoy just outside Derry, which will cost between £100 million and £700 million to remediate. It is important to have strong environmental governance in place so that we do not have a repeat of that. Part of that governance is an independent environmental protection agency.

There is a role for councils in relation to fly-tipping. I am disappointed that two councils have not signed up to the fly-tipping protocol; we will continue to encourage them to do so. We all have a role to play, and waste crime should not pay. Legislation is in place, and it is important that we learn from the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the issue to ensure that our responses to the issue are effective.

Mr K Buchanan: A few years ago, the NIEA and I were made aware of an illegal asbestos dump in my constituency. Basically, a large hole was filled with asbestos and then covered over. The asbestos is still there, and there have been no prosecutions. Obviously, I will not go into the details. However, given that, when an individual moves on, the case seems to fall off the page — it is not passed from one officer to another — is the environmental crime unit working?

Mr Muir: I am happy to speak to the Member afterwards or to correspond with him about the incident that he referenced. There are resourcing challenges in my Department; I have been open about that. We have over 800 vacancies in the Department, and that affects the Northern Ireland Environment Agency as it does other parts of the Department. However, if you have particular concerns, it is important to engage on them, and, if we have to engage with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), I am happy to do so.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, what powers are available to deal with fly-tipping and illegal dumping?

Mr Muir: There is a range of powers in the legislation to deal with the issue. As I have outlined, reporting fly-tipping and illegal dumping to the council or the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is the most fundamental thing that people can do to enable a prompt follow-up. Over the weekend, people contacted me on Facebook to report concerns about water pollution. When I asked whether they had reported it, they said no. People need to report issues promptly to enable investigation.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 6 and 7 together.

The surveillance of bovine TB in the badger population in Northern Ireland is primarily collected through my Department's road traffic accident survey. Over the past five years, the survey has indicated that TB prevalence in badgers is at a steady rate of around 19%, rather than there being a new or emerging outbreak. In April last year, the TB stakeholder body that I established on the recommendation of our Chief Veterinary Officer produced a new blueprint for tackling bovine TB here. I was pleased to endorse the blueprint, which includes actions on the role played by wildlife as one of three pillars of eradication alongside cattle and people measures.

As part of the blueprint's implementation, my officials are preparing a new consultation on the full range of potential wildlife intervention options for launch in the spring. Once that concludes, I will be much better placed to make an informed decision on the best way to address the spread of TB between badgers and cattle. My Department is also working with our stakeholders to prioritise other blueprint actions, and I have instructed my officials to establish a TB transformation programme to oversee that work.
In addition, alongside my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Martin Heydon, I will be launching an innovative cross-border regionalisation initiative supported by Shared Island funding to tackle bovine TB.

Mr Burrows: Minister, you are managing a TB crisis instead of leading the farming community out of it. There was a lot of jargon and management speak there, but there are solutions. When are you going to grip the situation, provide strong leadership and implement the solutions to get us out of this preventable cycle of herd closures and people awaiting compensation?

Mr Muir: I recognise that this is a technical area, but it is important to respect the veterinary science around it all. As I set out in my response, the TB partnership's blueprint recognises that all factors that contribute to the spread and endurance of this terrible disease need to be tackled if we are to set Northern Ireland on a path towards eradication. That means that actions need to be taken across all three key priorities: people, cattle and wildlife. I am committed to that. We have put additional funding towards it, and we are launching a cross-border initiative around it. It is important that when we are looking at wildlife interventions that we do it right and take learnings from the previous intervention, which fell at judicial review.

Mr Dunne: Minister, we share a constituent who recently lost 50 dairy cows to TB. That has wiped £12,000 a month from a family dairy business in milk income; years of breeding and genetics have been lost; and a serious mental toll and stress have been placed on his family. Compensation covers only the basic value of the animals. When will you act decisively to tackle what many farmers see as simply out-of-control TB levels? The Irish Government recently announced the recruitment of 200 staff to tackle the issue. Minister, what willl you do to tackle the issue once and for all?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stephen. I am aware of the case that you outline. While TB has an impact in my Department, the mental health impact that it has on the farming community in Northern Ireland weighs upon me. I am aware of the farmer you cite and the impact that the situation is having on him and his family business. It is something that was unexpected, and it will take a significant financial toll. While we continue with 100% compensation, it does not reflect the full cost of TB on the farm. We are seeking to take action around that. I have a bid in for transformation funding so that we can drive down the level of TB in Northern Ireland. I am waiting for that to come to the Executive for agreement. We are looking forward to consulting on the wildlife interventions alongside the people and cattle measures. The wildlife intervention was announced in the dying days of the previous mandate, and then it was successfully judicially reviewed. We have to take learnings about the issue and make sure that we are doing something right.

Mr McAleer: The judicial review (JR) that you referred to, which took place in 2022, related solely to issues to do with the consultation process as opposed to the legality of a badger cull. What steps has your Department taken to address the procedural failings that gave rise to the JR in the first place?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the judicial review, and I have read the judgement. As the Member outlined, my predecessor's proposed wildlife intervention was split into two parts for the judicial review. The legislative basis needs to be addressed. There is currently no specific primary or secondary legislation that explicitly provides for the culling of badgers in Northern Ireland to address TB disease levels and spread.

I get the urgency around this. We lost two years of the Assembly mandate. It is important that we do it right. We will consult on it, and I will take the difficult decisions.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister outline what progress has been made on the bovine TB cooperation pilot under the Shared Island initiative?

Mr Muir: As I mentioned, Minister Heydon and I are due soon to launch the new bovine TB eradication pilot in north-east Donegal and part of the area covered by Derry City and Strabane District Council. The regionalisation pilot will serve as a proof-of-concept model and will enable us to trial, evaluate and refine interventions in that defined geographical area. The approach to the TB regionalisation project will include implementing and monitoring measures across the three key themes of wildlife, cattle and people. Work on this important issue is already under way. Wildlife sett surveys commenced in January, with land access for the work secured across the vast majority of the designated area. Some 86% of local farmers have granted permission for access. That shows exceptionally strong cooperation and engagement from the farming community. The sett survey work, which will last for 12 weeks, will provide essential ecological information for wildlife intervention and TB breakdown management.

I ask Members to note that that project is entirely separate from the work on wildlife intervention options and is not, and should not be considered as, a predicator for any future decision that I may make on wildlife intervention policy.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: As officials outlined to the Committee, there is a planning performance plan in place. I am going to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency offices in Lisburn to engage directly with officials on the progress of that. I get that it needs to be improved. We are working on it. We need resources, and we need to get people in place to be able to do it. We need to be more agile in how we do it. That is a priority for me.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, it seems that your Department is fond of consultations and talking, as opposed to taking meaningful action. In another written answer to me, you stated that, currently, 48 staff are working in the NIEA marine and fisheries unit, and that there are 23 vacancies. That means that nearly a third of those posts are lying empty. The only way in which to reduce the backlog and resolve the problems that the House raises with you in relation to NIEA is by filling those posts. What are you doing about that problem?

Mr Muir: Daniel, if I were able to fill those posts today, I would. One of the issues is about the Northern Ireland Civil Service HR's being able to get people recruited and into post. Members will be aware of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on that and the need for change. I have engaged with the Finance Minister on that on an ongoing basis. Putting people into post is the key issue, not just in my Department but across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. It takes too long to get people into post, and, as a result, we have too many vacancies, which is impacting on public services. I get that. I know that the Committee considered that issue, and that officials gave evidence on it. It is important that, when we engage on the issue, it is done respectfully at all times, because officials are working under a lot of strain because of the resources available. We need to do better, and I will continue to engage with them on it, but those are civil servants who are working for the public.

Mr Muir: As Minister, I first became aware of that when it was announced, which I am very disappointed about. I am very concerned about the change in the Isle of Man's immigration policy, which is now affecting Northern Ireland fishing vessels' access to Isle of Man waters. I am very disappointed about the lack of prior engagement on that, because it has the potential to have a significant detrimental impact on Northern Ireland's fishing fleet. Fishing sector producer organisations have already highlighted to me how that creates further uncertainty for vessel operators and how it is a threat to fleet viability and access to historical fishing areas. The issue is especially serious for the Northern Ireland fleet, which is heavily reliant on skilled non-UK crew, and it risks undermining established fishing activity that has operated lawfully for many years. I am therefore seeking urgent engagement with the Isle of Man authorities to fully understand the rationale for those changes and to explore practical solutions that avoid that impact on Northern Ireland vessels.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. He has recognised that that is a further blow to a sector that is already under huge pressure. We could list the pressures that the sector has been under for quite some time. Has the Minister made contact with the UK Government about the issue, and will he work with skippers in the sector and the producer organisations to bring forward a strategy that works for the fishing sector by making it sustainable?

Mr Muir: I followed that issue up again today with officials, because it is important that we take action on it. That includes engaging with the UK Government.
I will update Members on the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, which was announced a number of months ago. As you are aware, we are not getting our fair share of that. We are getting approximately 3% of that through Barnett consequentials, rather than the 10% that we are due. I have consistently raised that — I did so recently — with the UK Government to ensure that we have funding support for our fishing community. It is important that we have support in place on this. A lot of this sits with the UK Government. I will continue to engage with them on it. I want to engage with the sector on this move. I am very disappointed with how the Isle of Man has done this.

Mr Muir: The Department is continuing to monitor the situation. I am very conscious that we had the wettest January in around 149 years. That is having an impact across Northern Ireland. Officials are continuing to engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union on this. The legal requirements remain, but we are very aware of the concerns. I have spoken to the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union around this. We continue to engage on the matter.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the rainfall, will the Minister grant flexibility to the farming community this year to allow them to manage through this period of weather and manage their own land?

Mr Muir: I have been asked about this, and there are two issues that we have to be very conscious of: our legal obligations, particularly for the environment, and animal welfare. People have asked questions of me like the one that you have asked but have not provided the detail behind that of what exactly the ask is. I am awaiting that information.

Mr Muir: I am happy for officials to engage with you on that and get more detail. It is a very creative question. We are happy to consider what we can do around that.

Mr Brooks: Thank you. I would welcome the Minister's engagement with Ulster Rugby, the Housing Executive and the other agencies involved. I appreciate his answer. Does he have more information on schemes that are available to replace trees that have fallen during the recent storms?

Mr Muir: Forest Service offers a number of schemes. We have lost a lot of forest cover as a result of recent storms. That is the outworking of climate change: we are having more severe and regular storms in Northern Ireland. Those schemes are in place. However, alongside that, it is important that we have a climate adaptation plan in Northern Ireland so that we can build resilience to those changes.

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, there is an active planning application. I have to respect the process around that. My preference is to recycle and reuse.

Mr Clarke: Your preference may be to recycle and reuse, or whatever other analogy you wish to use. However, the people of Warrenpoint and those who live beside landfill sites have no option but to endure the stink, because none of those options actually works. You are the Minister for Environment and Rural Affairs. Can you not grow a set and make it very clear that you support a solution in Northern Ireland by way of an incineration project in my constituency?

Mr Muir: I do not think that that is appropriate language for this place.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Gerry. We face twin challenges here in relation to the climate crisis and also to nature and biodiversity. It is important that we take action on both fronts, because they are interrelated. That is why we are out to consultation — I know that people are frustrated with consultations, but legally we are required to do them — on the nature recovery strategy for Northern Ireland. Alongside that, we have the fund that you have just mentioned. I thank the environmental non-governmental organisations for the role that they play in helping us to turn nature round. I have been up in the Belfast hills and seen the good work that is taking place, particularly in linking through to those communities. I commend everyone for the work that they do.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

I, too, know that a lot of great work is being done around Cave Hill. Will the Minister provide assurances that the Belfast hills will be enhanced by that funding and safeguarded against further environmental damage? Will he outline some long-term protections that could be put in place and the engagement that has happened with farmers and landowners?

Mr Muir: The whole purpose of the funding and support is to provide those protections. For example, I am very aware of the vulnerability to wildfires in the Belfast hills. Looking after our nature better is a way to prevent that. If there is an interest from the Member and other North Belfast representatives, I would be happy to go to the area with those organisations to see the work that is taking place and profile the area. It is important that we connect nature and biodiversity to all communities in Northern Ireland, most especially North Belfast; Nuala McAllister told me to say that.

Mr Muir: Thank you, David. Northern Ireland is an outlier in the UK and Ireland in its not having an independent environmental protection agency. The case for having one is clear. I commissioned an independent expert panel to look at the issue. It came back with a detailed report that outlined the case and rationale for that agency, its governance structure and function. That report is there. It is wrong that a commitment under the New Decade, New Approach agreement to set up an independent environmental protection agency has not been honoured. The arguments against it are without rhyme or reason. It is important that the UK Government step up and reform these institutions, because it is anti-democratic that one party can block proposals that the Assembly clearly endorsed in November last year.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he go a little bit further and outline the actions that his Department can progress to improve environmental governance?

Mr Muir: We will look through the recommendations that came back from the expert panel to see what we can progress, but a lot of them relate to setting up an independent environmental protection agency. That is why these institutions need to be reformed. It seems to me that one party complains vociferously about an Irish Sea border, but, when it comes to the environment, it is happy to build another one brick by brick.

Mr Muir: As I discussed earlier in Question Time, a planning performance improvement plan is in place for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It is important that we deliver on that. We are very aware that responses are not being provided in an efficient and effective manner, and it is important that we turn that around. I continue to engage with officials, and they will update the Committee on that matter.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. Have you considered what additional resources are required by DFI Rivers to ensure that statutory response targets can be met?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious that DFI Rivers sits in the Department for Infrastructure. All statutory consultees have a role to play. Our planning performance improvement plan has a number of strands, including technical advice and guidance, caseload management, monitoring and reporting on performance, processes and IT systems, and communication and stakeholder engagement. We are committed to playing our part.

Mr Muir: The state of Belfast lough continues to concern me. The fundamental issue is about dealing with the sewage pollution that is occurring. I will bring a paper to my Executive colleagues on stronger regulation and enforcement relating to that sewage pollution. There is also a role to be played, and we need to have a mature conversation about the investment that is required not only for Kinnegar waste water treatment plant, which is in our constituency, but more broadly for Belfast lough and beyond in Northern Ireland. We must take action to address the pollution; otherwise, we face a very bleak future for Belfast lough.

Mr Chambers: Minister, we understand that there is a recorded area of unacceptable pollution just outside Belfast harbour and that its size is increasing. Are the findings of your Department that the area of serious pollution is continuing to increase in size?

Mr Muir: My Department undertakes sampling, whether that is at bathing water sites or other outlets. I am happy to write to the Member with our findings from the recent analysis.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House for a phrase that I used in Question Time to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I realised that it was inappropriate after I had said it. I am passionate about the subject, however. There has been no decision taken on the incinerator for years, and it does seem as though there is a delay in one being taken. I therefore apologise for the term that I used, but I would like to see the Department take action to resolve the issue.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for the apology. We try to ensure that, if at all possible, there is no earthy language used in the Chamber.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I briefly draw Members' attention to the fact that, during questions to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the First Minister challenged me for asking a question that she said was outside the jurisdiction of the Executive Office and instead related to a party decision. She then went on to announce to the House what is, in effect, a party decision. I happen to agree with the latter party decision, but it is worth putting on the record that I challenged her on one thing that she said was illegitimate for me to ask, yet she went on to make a party announcement. It is important to state that for the record.

Mr Speaker: The Member will note that I did not pull him for asking that question. Ministers are here to respond to questions, and if we keep them tightly defined to everything that the Department does all the time, particularly when the Ministers are party leaders, doing so will diminish the ability of Members to hold Ministers to account.

Mr Speaker: Diane Dodds has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should continually rise in their place. Members should note that preliminary legal action has commenced on the matter.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I ask for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I would be most grateful for a short extension to the time permitted, given that it is such an important and sensitive issue.

Let me start by saying that I fully appreciate that the debate around gender is incredibly complex and emotive. Regardless of how strongly individual views may be held on the issue or the toxicity that sometimes surrounds it, when discussing it in the Chamber or anywhere else, it is, however, imperative that we approach the matter with the utmost care and consideration and do so in a person- and family-centred manner.

I do not intend to rehearse the full history of the development of Northern Ireland's gender policy. Members will be aware that, in April 2024, the landmark independent review of gender identity services for children and young people was published. Dr Cass found that there was not good evidence that puberty blockers were safe or effective.

Subsequently, in December 2024, and further informed by recommendations of the expert Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), I asked Ministers to support the legislative proposals for Northern Ireland on the making of an indefinite order. That was a legal ban preventing new patients aged under 18 from beginning to take puberty blockers for the purposes of gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria under the care of private prescribers. I am glad that the request was agreed to: by bringing us into line with the other regions across the UK, it prevented Northern Ireland from potentially becoming a back door for prescriptions.

It was widely discussed and accepted, with no opposition from any other Minister or Executive party, that Northern Ireland would also participate in the clinical trial. That is simply a matter of fact, yet at least one party now seeks to distance itself from the decisions that it fully supported in establishing the service over a decade ago and, more latterly, in Northern Ireland participating in the trial.

In the period since that decision was taken in late 2024, Members will be aware that I appointed Baroness Cass to review Northern Ireland's gender services. Her report was published last week, and I am glad that she has endorsed the position of Northern Ireland moving to a lifespan model.

To be clear, her report was an assessment of Northern Ireland's gender identity service's compliance with her 2024 review; it was not about whether Northern Ireland should participate in the trial.

Members will be aware that, in recent days, I confirmed my decision to suspend Northern Ireland's agreement to participate in the UK-wide trial. That is primarily for two reasons. First, and most importantly, the trial is being challenged through a judicial review. Secondly, it was my political sense that we were on the cusp of an issue developing into another Executive row. Gender identity is too sensitive and too important an issue for that, and I did not wish to see those young people and their parents and the many others on both sides of the debate being dragged through the courts or subjected to the lowest form of debate.

Our participation is now paused and will remain paused. Should the trial ultimately be given the green light to proceed, I shall take the views of Executive colleagues before any potential lifting of the pause. The welfare of all our young people must come first.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. The one thing that we agree on is that our children deserve and need our love, support and reassurance at a time in their lives when many are insecure and unsure.

On Thursday, you and the Ulster Unionist Party claimed that the experimentation on children with puberty blockers was not only necessary but central to securing Sinn Féin and Alliance support for the ban. On Friday evening, you issued a further statement that implemented a pause in Northern Ireland's involvement in the puberty blocker trial. As far as I know, no new evidence or clinical data emerged in those 24 hours. Minister, if the decision to be included in the King's College London trial was unwise on Friday, why was it acceptable on Thursday, when you and your party strongly defended it? If it required DUP pressure and a formal intervention from the Education Minister, how can parents have confidence in your judgement or the safeguards that you and your Department apply to children?

I ask you, Minister, to do the right thing: withdraw Northern Ireland's most vulnerable children from the trial.

Mr Nesbitt: No Northern Ireland child is involved in the trial yet. When the issue came up, the idea of a trial was a concept — there was no detail to it — and the Ulster Unionist Party supported the principle of a clinical trial. Clinical trials have been around for a very long time and they have been, by and large, extremely effective in advancing medical and social care into the 21st century. However, it became clear to me that the judicial review has a chance of success. As I said in my statement, I do not want to drag children and their families unnecessarily into the courts and into a squabble that might descend into party political interests.

I found it a difficult decision, because I have sat with families who want puberty blockers for their young ones, because they believe that that is in their best interests. Those families love their children and want to do the best thing by them. However, Dr Cass and then the Commission on Human Medicines made it clear that it is dangerous, outside a research or clinical setting, to allow children access to puberty blockers.

The Member points out that I have come on a journey, and the position that the journey has taken me to has led me to pause our participation in the clinical trial, pending the outcome of the judicial review.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I have profound concerns that your Department has been captured by outside forces such as the Rainbow Project. You have failed to address those concerns, even though I have asked you questions on the matter. Do you recognise that children should never be guinea pigs for an ideology or experimental medicine?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member's language is most unwelcome. "Guinea pigs" is very emotive. As I said in answer to Mrs Dodds, clinical trials are well established.

I do not believe that any person who is involved with King's College London, which has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in London, or anyone in the Department, the UK Government or this House is out to treat children as guinea pigs or to bring them to any harm. The Member and I disagree on many things, and that is fair enough, but being sensitive to the young people, their families and their communities is more important to me than what the Member thinks.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, given your previous commitments to addressing health inequalities, what are you going to say to the children and young people, their families, their advocates, their GPs and children and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) about your, effectively, discriminating against those children and young people and their ability to access to a clinical trial? This decision of yours — or maybe it is Jon Burrows's decision — is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand the Member's strong feelings. She is echoing the First Minister by calling it a disgraceful decision. All that I can say to the Member is that it was a decision that came to me. Ultimately, it was not about discriminating against people, nor was it about health inequalities. Rather, it was about protecting young people. It seems to me that there is evidence, which we will have aired in the judicial review, on whether or not it is safe to conduct the clinical trial.

Mr Donnelly: Just last week, the Minister's party described Hilary Cass as the UK's pre-eminent expert on these matters. The Minister had so much confidence in her that he commissioned her to assess Northern Ireland's gender identity service's compliance against her original review from 2024. One of the key recommendations of the Cass review was a clinical trial of the long-term effects of puberty blockers. Has the Minister now ditched his expert of choice because it was politically expedient to do so?

Mr Nesbitt: I have not done as the Member suggests. Dr Cass came for, from memory, three days and assessed our gender identity service and our plans for it. The Member will be aware that, as part of all this, I made a promise to make a pretty significant investment — some £806,000, initially — in the gender identity service. That was because, when I sat with those parents and some of the children, they made the point that the only reason that they were going to private providers was because the gender identity service existed in name only. There was not even a waiting list for new patients. New patients could not get into the service. It was because of that that they felt that they had no alternative, and, because they loved their sons and their daughters, they were finding the money to go to private providers.

One of the briefings that I received told me that one private provider is Spanish but lives in Romania and prescribes out of Singapore. There is no way that you can consider that to be a safe way of prescribing something like a puberty blocker, which Dr Cass says is not safe except in a clinical setting. She was talking about the principle of a clinical trial. It appears, however, that the detail of the clinical trial, which has emerged since there was agreement in the Executive in December 2024, is open to question. One way or another, that question will be resolved by the judicial review.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the Minister's decision to suspend participation in the trial. Setting aside the obvious eagerness of one of our local parties to try, unsuccessfully, to distance itself from this policy area as well as previous decisions and new funding confirmations, will the Minister give a commitment that he stands ready to engage with all parties, if necessary, in order to secure wider Executive consensus on a way forward?

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot predetermine or guess the outcome of the judicial review. I have made clear, however, that should the judicial review give a green light to the King's College London clinical trial, I will take that matter back to Executive colleagues to take their views before coming to a view as to whether the Northern Ireland Assembly should continue to support participation in that trial.

Mr McGrath: Minister, you have paused our involvement in the trial, awaiting the outcome of a judicial review. If there is some logic in that, it is at least to get a determination on what the outcome should be. If we were to follow the intent of the original question, it would undoubtedly lead to another judicial review but from the other side. Is it not time to stop using vulnerable people as a political football and allow the scientific and medical experts to complete their trial, so that we will be led by the science?

Mr Nesbitt: At all times since taking up position, I have tried to rely on medical and clinical advice. I am sure that the Member has heard me say before that the best advice that Professor Rafa Bengoa gave me was, "Remember that you want to be really tight in your outcomes but loose in how you get there, because you're not a nurse, a GP, a clinician, a surgeon or a hospital administrator. So, listen to the people who know best". This is an incredibly sensitive, emotive and controversial area where there are different views. I am not using people; I am trying to protect people. The judicial review has become very important in my mind, so I think that it is worth taking that pause to see where that leads us. I do not accept that it necessarily inevitably leads to a second judicial review, but we need to try to get to a reasonable consensus on what is best for those young people.

Mr Robinson: Has the Minister's Department made any assessment of the potential long-term physical harms, including impacts on bone density and fertility, arising from the use of puberty blockers in children?

Mr Nesbitt: That is part of the rationale and the objective of the clinical trial by King's College London.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, will you confirm, first, that any children from Northern Ireland who would have participated in the trial would have done so only on the basis of their consent and that of their parents? Secondly, will you confirm that it would have been a tiny number of children? Thirdly, does he agree that there is an irony, given that the Members opposite who are advocating that children from Northern Ireland be excluded from a trial that is happening in — checks notes — the rest of the United Kingdom are the same people who prevented us from having devolved institutions for many years on the basis of differentiation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will you address those points, please?

Mr Nesbitt: First, to qualify, you would have to have been known to the relevant authorities, as it were, for two years; you would have to have given deemed consent; you would have had to have given your consent and been seen to have the capacity to do so; and you would have needed the consent of at least one parent.

Mr Brooks: Does the Minister believe that children can give informed consent to drugs that were removed from routine clinical use because of serious questions about their impact on brain development, bone density, fertility and mental health?

Mr Nesbitt: I apologise to the Member because I cannot remember the exact names of the two people whose names are attached to the formula, but there is certainly an accepted formula in clinical trials for determining whether a young person is fit to give their consent.

Mr Carroll: Minister, time and again, trans and non-binary people have been let down by you and the Executive, such as when you unanimously endorsed the puberty blocker ban, and when you refused to include people in the trial. The decision is clearly rooted in politics and ideology — the wrong politics and the wrong ideology. Minister, you have not mentioned a single specific medical reason or safety concern for why young people cannot participate in the trials. Do you want to outline any?

Mr Nesbitt: Those reasons will be outlined by the people who are bringing the judicial review against the clinical trial. The Member can certainly criticise me. I am not standing here feeling that I have done particularly well by the trans community. I imagine that that is their perception of me, but I repeat that my objective is to be not just sensitive to them but to protect them. When a person such as Dr Cass and a body such as the Commission on Human Medicines make clear that this is a very dangerous area to be engaging in, I have a duty and a responsibility that the Member does not.

Mrs Cameron: Minister, you did not consult the Executive before backing the trials. You dismissed widespread safeguarding concerns and reversed course only after my party intervened. Is that how major ethical decisions affecting children are now made — quietly, unilaterally and reversed only when political pressure becomes impossible to ignore?

Mr Nesbitt: In December 2024, the Executive unanimously backed my request that we join the UK-wide indefinite ban on puberty blockers for new patients under 18 being prescribed by private prescribers. There was no voice raised against the idea that we would then invest heavily — £806,000 — in the gender identity service. Likewise, there was no dissenting voice to the idea of joining the clinical trials. If I have made a mistake, it is in the fact that the minutes of that meeting record agreement around only the indefinite ban. It is fair to say, therefore, that the Executive had not formally endorsed the other two ideas, and yes, that is on me.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, if the puberty blockers legal case in England was central to pausing Northern Ireland's participation in that trial, why did you wait so long before your announcement?

Mr Nesbitt: The decision followed pretty shortly on the publication of Dr Cass's review of the gender identity service in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I am very disappointed that this has been paused. I listened carefully to Dr Cass yesterday as she was interviewed. It was very respectful and inclusive. She expressed her disappointment in the adults to the right and to the left, but also those in the centre who have been silent on the issue for having done a disservice to children. She said that the trial would be closely monitored, that it was necessary to get the scientific evidence and data, and that there was no evidence whatsoever that children would be in any danger in participating in the trial. That is from the expert and those leading the trial. What makes you wiser than her?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not claim to be wiser. I claim to think that it is prudent to pause and wait on the result of the judicial review.

Mr Kingston: Minister, in the Cass review, the children who presented to gender identity services were described as having a history of trauma, bullying and systemic challenges, and many were known to ASD services. Why, Minister, did you see fit to include such vulnerable children in that experimental trial and to argue for their inclusion as late as Thursday of last week, before your U-turn on Friday evening?

Mr Nesbitt: Those were not specific criteria for any young person to engage with King's College in London. I simply suggest to the Member that he reads Cass and what Cass had to say when she came here to review our gender identity service. The whole focus is moving away from medication or, indeed, body-altering surgery towards psychological interventions. Those interventions are exactly appropriate for people who have gone through the experiences that the Member has just listed.

Mr Buckley: The Minister will be aware of my long-standing and deeply held concerns about the influence of gender ideology in Northern Ireland. That is more acute when it affects young people. Given the biological reality that sex is male and female, and that puberty is a natural process of development grounded in that reality, will the Minister accept that the enrolment of any child in a scheme, now or in the future, designed to tamper with that process is wrong, dangerous and lacking common sense?

Mr Nesbitt: I understand, and it is no surprise to me, that that is the Member's ideological position. What is also normal and natural, and something that he did not mention, is that young people can sometimes feel very confused about who they are, about their body, and about who they are supposed to be, and I am empathetic to that position.

Mr Brett: Minister, I welcome your announcement, but, given that you understand its gravity, why is it that MLAs had to read about your decision on the front page of the 'News Letter' instead of hearing about it in the House, where ministerial announcements should be made?

Mr Nesbitt: That is because it was a response to a direct query from a journalist at the 'News Letter'.

Mr Speaker: That was the final question to the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker: We move to a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Infrastructure. I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question to rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The billboard that was adjacent to the Egyptian Arch was mounted on five posts, some of which appeared to be situated on my Department's land. The other posts were on privately owned land. The unauthorised erection of advertising signs within the boundaries of the public road is an offence under article 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. That article gives my Department discretionary powers to seek to have an advertisement removed or to remove it if considered necessary. Given my Department's ongoing resource limitations, priority is given to the removal of advertising where there is a clear road safety risk. When assessing the risks associated with billboards, the Department evaluates various factors related to road safety, including potential obstructions to vehicles and pedestrians, impairment of sight lines and the likelihood of an errant vehicle colliding with the structure. In cases where unauthorised signage presents a clear safety hazard, its removal will be prioritised. However, when no immediate danger is identified, officials will collaborate closely with key stakeholders to determine an appropriate resolution. Hoardings are typically subject to a planning application, and any breaches of planning regulations are generally addressed under planning legislation, which, in most cases, falls within the jurisdiction of the relevant council.

The billboard was considered to pose a low risk to road safety, because it is set back from the road on an embankment. It did not obstruct sight lines and was within a 30 mph speed limit zone. The Department holds no information about the ownership of the billboard; however, officials were aware that posters displaying the Sinn Féin party logo had been displayed on the billboard in the past as well as on other billboards. As the Member is aware, my Department wrote to some Sinn Féin elected representatives in Newry about the removal of unauthorised advertisements. It was routine operational correspondence that was undertaken by my officials; as my Department's remit is extensive and a large volume of correspondence is issued and received daily, I did not issue it myself. It is my understanding that, after the letters were sent, the billboard was removed. Another billboard was erected that is not a Sinn Féin billboard, and I understand that there is currently no billboard at the Egyptian Arch.

In respect of the Member's question, therefore, I have not declared a conflict of interest, as it was an operational matter that was dealt with by officials in line with their discretionary powers and in an impartial manner.

Mr Martin: Minister, when you were previously in the Chamber, you stated:

Why, then, did your departmental officials write, asking for it to be taken down, to the Sinn Féin constituency office in Newry, then to your colleague the DUP, sorry, the Sinn Féin MP

— that was close — Dáire Hughes, who shares office space with you, and then even to your constituency office manager, Councillor Mathers, a fact that you did not disclose to the Assembly in January? For planning enforcement in Northern Ireland, is there one rule for Sinn Féin and another rule for everyone else?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely not. If the Member had got his timeline correct, he would know that, when we had that debate, there was no Sinn Féin billboard in place. He knows that. [Interruption.]

That is a fact. The correspondence that he mentioned was sent by departmental officials in November. As I said in my answer, the billboard that was there at the time was subsequently removed.

Mr Boylan: Given that we started to debate a motion on potholes earlier

does the Minister agree

that it is important that the Department's limited resources be spent on issues that have a real impact on people's everyday lives? [Interruption.]

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I allow all Members to have their say, so I think that it is rude for people to try to shout over someone. As I said in the debate that we had on the issue previously, the people out there want us to deliver on the issues that are important to them, and that is what I intend to do. We are having a debate today on the condition of our roads, and I am outlining the work that I have been doing to deliver for people. I will continue to focus on issues that are important to people.

Mr Gaston: Minister, will you explain to the House why, on 18 August 2023, a departmental official emailed Aidan Mathers at sinnfein.ie, stating:

and why a letter dated 25 November 2025 also went to Sinn Féin? Sinn Féin was written to, Sinn Féin was told that the billboard was illegal and Sinn Féin was asked to remove it, yet the Sinn Féin-run Department that you lead holds no response. Should people adopt the same attitude and take the same approach to parking tickets, which your Department issues?

Ms Kimmins: As I stated in my previous answer, the two emails from November 2025 were sent to two of my party colleagues, who are elected representatives, in their capacity as elected representatives. They were sent by departmental officials in the local section office. Any correspondence that was sent in 2023 was sent at a time when the Assembly was down, so I was not the Minister. Indeed, no Minister was in place. I therefore cannot speak to that or to any discussions that happened, because I was not involved in those discussions, if there were any. It is impossible for me to answer a question to which I do not know the answer.

Mr McMurray: Whatever about whatever regarding emails going here or there, I struggle to keep up sometimes as to whether it is a Sinn Féin billboard or just a billboard. Is the point that, as the Minister responsible for overseeing planning, you should see to it that the billboard's foundations are removed from that particular site?

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, although I have not been down there in the past few days, my understanding is that no billboard is in place at the minute. I think, however, that the issue has highlighted the fact that there is a need for proper discussion to be had about regulation, because we have seen that that is an issue across the board, be it with advertising, flags or all the other things about which we have regular debates. [Inaudible.]

Ms Kimmins: I am not interested in getting into rows about flags, emblems and

—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Kimmins: — all of that, but this issue has highlighted the need for a proper discussion to be had about regulation and how to deal with such matters appropriately.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I am very confused. I drove past the illegal Sinn Féin billboard this morning. It is still there, plain for all to see. Answers from your predecessor Sinn Féin Minister confirmed, in writing, that the illegal Sinn Féin billboard was on Department for Infrastructure land and that an enforcement notice had been served to Sinn Féin to remove its illegal billboard. That was in a response from your predecessor to a question for written answer in 2024. Will you detail what information you have received, and from whom, that demonstrates that Sinn Féin's illegal billboard at the Egyptian Arch in Newry is no longer an illegal Sinn Féin billboard? If it is not an illegal Sinn Féin billboard, whose billboard is it?

Ms Kimmins: I have not received any correspondence about any billboard or about who does or does not own it. Nothing has been sent to me. I do not know whether Justin wants to try to break the record for how many times someone can say "illegal Sinn Féin billboard" in one contribution, but he has clearly not driven past it, because my understanding is that no billboard is in place at this time and has not been.

When a motion on the matter was debated in the Chamber, I said very clearly that whatever was there has been removed. There was a different billboard — a community billboard — there at Christmastime, which was about an issue that is very important to the people of Newry and Armagh and to people across the globe. I can speak only to the information that I have and to my understanding of the situation.

Mr Burrows: When we get down to the core issue, it is about the rule of law and whether we are all subject to the same laws. Citizens are forced to obey the laws that this place passes. Will the Minister support all republican murals and billboards erected without planning permission being taken down or removed? Yes or no?

Ms Kimmins: My first question to the Member is whether this is just about republicans. That is certainly the tone of the question. I have said and will reiterate that the matter highlights the need to look at proper regulation of how we manage all those things. Not so long ago, we were talking about illegal bonfires with hate messages and sectarian messages on them. Let us have the conversation, if that is what we are talking about. It seems that it is all going in one direction.

I have stated categorically that the billboard that was previously mentioned is no longer in place. I cannot talk about something that is in the past; it has gone. We are talking about the present, so let us look at the facts.

Mr Wilson: The Minister will be aware that Newry, Mourne and Down Council is investigating a breach of planning laws with regard to the illegal Sinn Féin advertising board at the Egyptian Arch in Newry. As confirmed by the historic environment division (HED), the arch has been a B+ listed structure since 1 December 1988. Given that, there will no doubt be a negative response from HED when it is consulted as part of the planning process. Will the Minister inform the House whether a planning application has been made to retain the illegally erected structure and, if so, by whom?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member rightly said, councils have primary responsibility for planning enforcement in their area and are therefore best placed to determine whether enforcement action is appropriate under the Planning Act 2011, which provides a wide range of planning enforcement powers. If the council considers that there has been a breach of planning control, it may take enforcement action. If an investigation is under way, let us see the outcome of that.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you are well aware that there are political billboards and posters all over the North of Ireland. Is the same approach, which is to prioritise health and safety, applied to all?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely, and rightly so. As I have outlined, the health and safety approach that my officials followed in this case applies to everything. I have reiterated time and again the process that is in place. Officials have rightly taken action at an operational level; that should be impartial and be taken following the proper procedures that are in place.

Mr Dunne: Minister, people across Northern Ireland are subject to strict planning enforcement rules that are set by your Department. What do you say to those people, given that it seems that Sinn Féin can ignore planning enforcement and the regulations that apply to many small hard-working local businesses across the country?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said previously, we should all look at the planning legislation and follow it properly. Where enforcement action can be taken, the council can take it, as referenced by the Member who spoke previously.

Mr Clarke: In your response to my colleague's question for urgent oral answer, you talked about your Department's responsibilities and about whether it removes an advertisement or asks others to remove it. You talked about the reasons that you would consider, including sight lines and the danger to the public. Why is that policy not consistent across Northern Ireland? Your section offices routinely take down other billboards, signage and advertising at roundabouts and public highways. There is no issue with sight lines or road traffic, but they routinely take them down. Is it because you are the Minister and they are concerned about embarrassing you by taking down one that belongs to Sinn Féin?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely not. As I have said clearly, that policy should be applied consistently across the board. If there are examples of it not being applied consistently and they are taking things down that do not meet the criteria that I have outlined, provide those examples and I will deal with them, because — [Interruption.]

The Member should let me finish. As I said in my previous answer, that was assessed, and the departmental officials deemed it a low risk. I can speak only to the information that is provided for me by the officials.

Mr Gildernew: Does the Minister agree that we should have a much broader conversation about illegal displays, particularly the annual toxic, hate-filled and illegal bonfires that blight our communities?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely, and this matter highlights the importance of that point. A consistent approach should be taken across all those issues. Week in, week out, we have debates about flags and bonfires: that is not what I want to talk about or what my constituents want me to talk about. They want me to talk about what we are doing to improve our roads, how we are upgrading the waste water infrastructure, what we are doing about our healthcare system and how we are improving education for our children. If we can cut out those debates and deal with the things that are important to the people whom we represent, we should do that.

Dr Aiken: Minister, when were you made aware that it was an illegal structure and by whom?

Ms Kimmins: I have not been made aware of any direct assessment as to its legality or not in terms of me. I am aware that the issue has been raised in the House. I have given the answer on what has happened to date, what action officials have taken, where it is at now and the fact that there is no Sinn Féin billboard now and the issue has moved on. In fact, I am told that there is nothing there at present.

Mr McCrossan: I see that the Minister is rehearsing the typical Sinn Féin mantra of denial: there was never a billboard there. Minister, we all know that it has not gone away, you know. If it really is not Sinn Féin's billboard, will you tell us who you paid for the advertising on it?

Ms Kimmins: That is an allegation: you are insinuating that I paid somebody to advertise, which is quite a damning thing. If we are going to mess about and play at politics, let us get serious and get the facts right.

Mr Buckley: This is like an episode of 'Say Nothing'. We should not be surprised that the Minister is so well versed on the timeline, given that her party put it up; in fact, I would not be surprised if it were to come to light that there was a pre-planning meeting in the Sinn Féin office to determine when to do it.

Minister, the billboard had your party's logo on it. On that, everybody here is categoric. Was it a Sinn Féin billboard when that logo was on it, or did your party pay for somebody to lease it?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said very clearly, any correspondence that happened to date since that letter was issued in November states that the billboard that the Member refers to has since been removed. Where we are now is that we are talking about something that happened in the past. I do not know whether the Member across the Chamber thinks that I go around putting up billboards in my spare time: that is certainly not something that is important to me.

Mr Buckley: If it came to my office, I would know about it.

Ms Kimmins: Well, that is the thing. Look, the Member can cast whatever aspersions he wants. I have laid out clearly the facts around the situation. I have laid out clearly what action my Department has taken in line with the procedures and processes that have been there for some time, and that is where it is.

Mrs Mason: Minister, will you reiterate, as some Members still seem to be confused somehow, whether you agree that it is an operational issue? It is important that it is completely out of your hands. [Laughter.]

That is if you could hear me. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Order.

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely, for all of the reasons that have been widely discussed here, it is important that officials at operational level have the powers and the authority to take appropriate action and can do so in the right manner. That is why they have done what they have done without my input or engagement.

Mrs Cameron: There is clearly an awful lot of confusion here today, and I am among those who are confused. Whether it is a permanent illegal billboard or a pop-up illegal billboard — the Minister has confirmed that it is no longer a Sinn Féin billboard — will the Minister confirm when the billboard stopped being a Sinn Féin billboard?

Ms Kimmins: I am not aware of dates or anything like that. I just know that, when I passed it, it had gone and there was a different billboard in place. There is nothing in place now. I cannot give you exact dates because I have no input into that.

Mrs Dillon: Do you agree that, while some people in the Chamber are obsessed with billboards — I could raise the issue of many a billboard, I assure you, that is up in mid-Ulster and many a poster —

Mr Buckley: So could we.

Mrs Dillon: — that has genuinely offended many families. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Order.

Mrs Dillon: It works both ways, Jonathan. [Interruption.]

It works both ways.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard.

Mrs Dillon: It works both ways. You need to be conscious of that.

While Members in the Chamber cry about a billboard, there are people at home who are in genuine and real strife around the cost of living. That is what we need to address in the Chamber. I think that some of the leaders of other parties said that that was what they wanted to address in the Chamber.

Ms Kimmins: I absolutely agree. Time and again, we show the people what is important to some in the Chamber. Certainly, that is not where my focus is, and I continue to ensure that we do the best for the people whom we represent.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, I ask this to establish clarity: did Sinn Féin councillor Mathers; Dáire Hughes, the Sinn Féin MP for Newry and Armagh; or anyone from Sinn Féin's Newry and Armagh branch make you personally aware that they had been contacted by the Department for Infrastructure — your Department — to request that the billboard be removed and, if so, when?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, correspondence was issued from my Department, and, since then, the billboard has been removed. I do not know what more you want me to say about that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, this is a surreal and unedifying spectacle, and some of your answers are genuinely a bit bewildering. A lot of the Members opposite are deflecting. There are huge challenges, including in my constituency, with loyalist flags and posters that go up. The problem is that the conversation that Colm Gildernew talked about having about all flags and symbols, including party-sponsored posters, is completely undermined when parties — including yours, because we all have a part to play — put up posters and then effectively deny their existence and play weird semantic games. Will you please accept responsibility for the fact that that is your party's poster in your constituency, and accept that you are the Minister who has at least some statutory responsibility? If we all took responsibility for the things that we have some responsibility for, this society would be in a much better place when it comes to symbols.

Ms Kimmins: I have not denied the existence of the billboard at any point. When we had the previous debate in the Chamber, I said that there was no Sinn Féin billboard. The same is true now. Those are the facts. I absolutely agree that the matter has highlighted the fact that some Members cherry-pick issues. We need to have a grown-up and sensible conversation about what is important to the people whom we represent, and about how we deal with the matter as a whole.

Mr Brooks: I think that the public will find it equally as inconceivable that the Minister did not receive anything from her Department previously as they did when the First Minister said that she did not see Michael McMonagle in the Great Hall. I will reiterate my colleague's question: did your office manager, Councillor Mathers, inform you that your Department had written to him about the billboard? If so, when, Minister?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, I am aware that the correspondence was issued, because it was issued by my Department.

Mr Brett: I assure the Member for Mid Ulster that no one in the Chamber is crying; we are standing up for the rule of law. I encourage Sinn Féin to sometimes stand up for the rule of law.

Minister, you have admitted for the first time that a Sinn Féin billboard existed. Would you like to take this opportunity to apologise for your party's, once again, breaking the law?

Ms Kimmins: It is very evident that, at some point, there was a billboard.

Some Members: Oh.

Ms Kimmins: I have never said that there was not a billboard. What I said was that, after the issue was brought to my attention, we had a discussion in the Chamber, and, at that time, there was no Sinn Féin billboard there.

Mr Durkan: The issue is about more than a mere billboard, despite the attempts from the Minister and her colleagues to downplay the importance of it; it is about public confidence in politics and public services, and the need for transparency, accountability and the equal application of the law to everyone. Does the Minister agree that those things are of fundamental importance?

Ms Kimmins: I am not suggesting that such issues are not important. I am saying that we are now talking about something that happened in the past. The billboard was removed subsequent to correspondence being issued. That is a fact. We are now talking about something from the past. I can speak only to the information and the understanding that I have. This highlights the need for a broader discussion about how we properly regulate and deal with issues, so that we are not in the Chamber every other week talking about single-item issues that do not impact on the people whom we represent, who are sitting on a waiting list, trying to put food on their table and trying to get their child a place in a special educational school.

Mr Kingston: Minister, this is about the fundamental principle that those who make the laws should keep the law. Have we made any progress? Do you now accept that there was an illegal Sinn Féin billboard at the Egyptian Arch? If so, when did it cease to be a Sinn Féin billboard?

Ms Kimmins: As I have previously said, correspondence was issued by my Department in November, and, since then, whatever billboards were there previously have been removed.

Mrs Dodds: I think that most of the public who are looking on will find this debate particularly unedifying. I live not that far from the billboard in question. In fact, I pass it as I go to Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry, as do other members of the community. On Saturday, the billboard was alive and well at the Egyptian Arch. It did not have a poster on it, but the structure was certainly there.

Minister, you have spent what is probably a record amount of time in the Chamber saying nothing, denying everything and having no knowledge of anything. Did you get a briefing from your officials before you came here? If so, will you make that briefing available to the rest of the Members so that we can see what your officials told you about the illegal Sinn Féin billboard?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, having been a Minister, of course I engage with my officials before every appearance in the Chamber to ensure that I have the facts at hand. As I did prior to the previous discussion on the issue, I engaged with officials to find out the accurate timeline, what correspondence was issued and where things stand.

Mr Harvey: I attached my name to the motion in the Order Paper to highlight what could arguably be the biggest —

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Leave quietly, please.

Mr Harvey: — the biggest issue affecting the people of Northern Ireland as a collective. Health is important, but not everyone has required a doctor since 2026 began. Equally, not everyone has engaged with our education system in that time or had experience of other areas of government, but every one of us has had to use the roads. There are few issues that unite the Chamber or the public, but the maintenance crisis that is evident across our crumbling road network is one of them. The figures that have been reported in the debate by party colleagues and others lay bare the magnitude of the scandal. Some 49,000 defects have been recorded in the past three months. That figure is a scandal. Equally scandalous are the sums of money that are being handed out on vehicle and personal injury claims. Across 2024-25, £700,000 was the bill to the public purse in one district section area alone.

Our roads are crumbling around us, and we are swerving to avoid potholes the size of craters, but what is the Minister's priority? Cycle lanes to nowhere and political vanity projects that benefit no one's daily life. No doubt, the Minister will reiterate that her Department has not got enough money, but, with a budget of £850 million and yet another injection of £8 million in a winter recovery road fund, she cannot credibly plead poverty. The public are not stupid. If you cannot fix potholes from a budget of £850 million, you are not prioritising potholes; if you are not prioritising potholes, you are not listening to the public. The public do not want climate change target excuses. They want delivery, and delivery is in the gift of this Sinn Féin Minister. It is the Minister who decides where the money is spent, and it is long past time that she started spending some of it on our roads.

There are undoubtedly any number of areas ripe for change that would tangibly benefit from attempts to rectify the current situation. Patch maintenance that lasts no time before the surface crumbles again points to poor materials being used by contractors; skeleton staffing levels in some geographical areas at service delivery level in the Department need urgent attention; and new technologies in use internationally for road maintenance should be implemented. Those are all areas that should be considered. There is an opportunity to reshape how we do road maintenance in its entirety, driving up productivity and overall quality and managing resources effectively for the long term.

Unfortunately, the problems in the Department for Infrastructure are growing by the day. The roads crisis is deepening and urgently requires decisive leadership and delivery. Minister, this is an emergency that requires action by you, so let us not dither and delay. Let us not talk about 10-year plans. Let us get it sorted, and try to do it now.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber. I support the motion. It highlights the serious and worsening issue of potholes — an issue that disproportionately affects those living in rural areas like mine. While road maintenance is a concern across Northern Ireland, the impact is most acute on rural roads. Those roads already contend with poor visibility, limited or no street lighting and inadequate markings. As we have heard today, potholes pose substantial risks to cyclists and, indeed, anyone using our rural road network.

Today, I wish to call out the imbalance in investment in rural roads. For instance, from 2022 until the present, £3·8 million has been spent on resurfacing a road that stretches 2 miles in Belfast, compared with £1·6 million spent on the A4 from Enniskillen to Ballygawley. The A32 Cornamuck upgrade scheme, which is a blue-light road, has been paused. The Enniskillen A4 southern bypass scheme has also been paused. The recently resurfaced Lough Shore Road outside Enniskillen — that resurfacing cost £414,000 — has now seen the collapse of the same road. That reinforces what Mr Harvey said about poor materials and how we need to make sure that, once road resurfacing is done, it remains in place. Those rural roads all need urgent attention.

I will turn to potholes. There is one particular stretch of road in Fermanagh and South Tyrone that I wish to draw attention to: the Cavan Road, which links the hamlet of Bush to Killyman in Dungannon. My office has received numerous reports of extensive potholes and recurring surface defects along that route. They are not minor surface blemishes; they are deep, persistent and, in some cases, unavoidable due to the width of the carriageway. Constituents have described swerving to avoid damage only to risk meeting oncoming traffic on what is an already tight stretch of road. The damage being caused to vehicles is deeply concerning. A constituent contacted our office to report seeing several cars pulled in with hazard lights on after sustaining damaged wheels and tyres on that stretch of road. What is particularly frustrating for residents is that it is not a new problem and is not exclusive to the Cavan Road. Temporary patching is carried out, but the same defects appear year after year, and that suggests a structural weakness in the road surface.

There must be a thorough assessment of persistent problem areas on our road network, especially when potholes re-emerge repeatedly. We require a long-term strategic approach that invests in the proper resurfacing and strengthening of rural roads so that they can withstand the volume and weight of traffic that they now carry. Traffic levels have increased, agricultural machinery is heavier and rural routes are often used as through roads. The infrastructure must reflect that reality. For many in rural communities, there is no viable alternative to private transport. Public transport is not readily accessible, and, in parts of the west of the Province, there has been little meaningful expansion in recent years. People rely on their cars for work, education, healthcare and daily life, and they are entitled to expect roads in rural areas to be safe and fit for purpose.

Mr Dunne mentioned poor-quality road repairs, and we also need reassurance that repairs will be inspected and signed off. There is one pothole that I drive past that, since being repaired, is like a humpback bridge. While I welcome the £7·85 million funding to address road surfaces, the Department for Infrastructure must bring forward a clear, balanced and workable strategy. The current reactive approach is not delivering for rural communities. We need prioritisation based on long-term durability, not short-term patch work. Rural ratepayers and taxpayers deserve the same standard of infrastructure and safety as those in our towns and cities.

Mr Durkan: Across the North, our roads are failing. Potholes are not just inconvenient; they are a visible symptom of crumbling public services. We can all see and feel that. Sometimes, it seems as though DFI does not repair potholes any more but just moves them around so that motorists cannot memorise them. After years of temporary patches and repeated repairs, it is no exaggeration to say that Roads Service is in danger of becoming more like "Roads Circus".

Front-line workers do their jobs in difficult conditions — rain, frost, gales, heavy traffic — and they deserve support and appreciation, not blame. The problem lies with the system, which is underfunded, reactive and failing to plan. DFI continues to rely heavily on monitoring rounds to top up the road maintenance budget, and that restricts its ability to invest in proper strategic resurfacing.

Such an approach is costly, inefficient and unsafe. It leaves roads vulnerable, fails to prevent further deterioration and increases the risk to road users.

We also cannot ignore the impact that five years without a functioning Executive has had on our roads. The signatories to the motion and the Minister's party should reflect on that. During that time, strategic planning was stalled, funding cycles were delayed and roads were left to deteriorate while repairs remained patchwork. There were no monitoring rounds to top up the flat budget that the Department was getting for road maintenance.

Potholes are not just an annoyance but a risk to life. Cyclists and, in particular, motorcyclists run the risk of being thrown from their vehicle. Drivers swerve dangerously. Pedestrians face uneven pavements. Emergency vehicle drivers navigate roads that compromise their safety and the safety of those onboard.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has already warned that inspection and enforcement of road reinstatements is weak. Utility companies come along and dig up roads — we have heard that — but standards are not enforced and repairs fail, and the public then pay the price. Sometimes, they pay it twice. We have heard that, over the past five years, almost 20,000 claims as a result of pothole damage have been made. More than £20·6 million has been paid out in compensation, rising to over £32 million when legal costs are included. That figure is going up every single year. Although motorists may be lucky enough to recoup some of the costs of repairs that their vehicle needs, that goes no way towards making up for the inconvenience that many of them suffer. People rely on their cars for their livelihood and even more so for day-to-day life.

In five years, there have been roughly 400 recorded repairs to vehicles damaged on the Strand Road in Derry, yet no central record of the cost of those repairs exists. That is 400 repairs with no accounting. As recently as last year, I was still being told that that carriageway should be grand until 2035. I welcomed the Minister's recent announcement that resurfacing of that road is to be carried out in the very near future. Again, however, the Strand Road is symptomatic of the state of roads right across my constituency and the rest of the North. I previously made the point in here that Donegal roads used to be the butt of Derry drivers' jokes. The shoe is now very much on the other foot. I am not suggesting that, in a new Ireland, the streets will be paved with gold, but they will at least be paved.

The Department is bringing forward its new road maintenance strategy. We welcome that. It will set out a structured, evidence-based approach to prioritising repairs, investing in durable resurfacing and targeting high-risk routes. We have called for that for a long time. It is important to ensure —.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for taking an intervention. Taxi drivers in Derry tell us repeatedly that potholes are damaging not just their vehicles' tyres and suspension but their income. Does the Member agree that that is a practical, everyday consequence of underinvestment in our roads and infrastructure?

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for her intervention. I made the point about the impact that potholes can have on people who rely on the roads to make their living. Obviously, the more that someone is on our roads, the more exposed that they are to the risk of vehicle damage and to danger.

As we move to having a promised new multi-year Budget, will DFI be sufficiently empowered to implement the road maintenance strategy fully, or will it continue to rely on monitoring rounds to top up its budget? Will it even be able to rely on monitoring rounds to do so? We need proper inspection and quality assurance to ensure that repairs last, coordinated works to protect newly resurfaced roads, transparent cost tracking so that the public can see exactly where and how their money is being spent and sustained multi-year investment to make the road maintenance strategy a reality.

Preventative maintenance is common sense. It saves lives and saves money. We must move from patchwork to proper planning, from reaction to prevention and from frustration to accountability. As I said, our crumbling roads are a symptom of our crumbling public services. It is time that we treated them as such, decisively —

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

Mr Durkan: — visibly and without excuses.

Mr Gaston: The motion is timely because our road network is in the worst condition that it has been in during my lifetime. If it were about any other Department, the Sinn Féin Benches would be bustling, and Members on them would be leading the charge to fight back and call out the Minister for failing road users across Northern Ireland, but no: the amendment is another classic example of Sinn Féin protecting its Minister at all costs. It is time that the copy-and-paste, "Blame the Brits" Minister faced up to the fundamental problems in her Department and did something about them.

Years of prioritising active travel and environmental schemes over basic maintenance is the biggest factor in today's crumbling network.

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr K Buchanan: I have previously referred to Cookstown getting a "footpath to nowhere". Everyone is using that phrase, but it was mine, so I will take the rights to it. It will cost £430,000, and, literally 100 metres away, you cannot drive on the roundabout. Does the Member agree that there is something wrong?

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

Mr Gaston: The Member illustrates something in Mid Ulster, and I am sure that he could go to every constituency in Northern Ireland and illustrate something similar. That is the problem with the policies and shows their absurdity. Active travel has been prioritised over basic maintenance: ridiculous.

Leaving maintenance to the end of the allocation-making in the Department shows me a Department with the wrong priorities. Years of operating with a limited maintenance service has meant that, unless a defect meets a ridiculous threshold, it cannot be fixed. Sporadically throwing pots of money here and there will improve the situation in the short term, but, unless a change in policy direction is enacted, we will continue to have a piecemeal approach that delivers crumbling patchwork quilts rather than the large overlays that many of our roads require.

I often wonder why a bloated and, indeed, top-heavy Civil Service continues down the road of outsourcing patching work to subcontractors, when, surely, it would achieve better value for money and higher quality by employing staff directly instead of continuing to be at the mercy of others. If the Department continues along the route of outsourcing, it must move to a position where, when a road is being patched, all defects must be repaired, rather than wasting money by revisiting roads multiple times when another report is logged on the portal. Time and again, contractors go back to do a patch here and a patch there: how does that pay? That policy, coupled with paying contractors to temporarily repair potholes and return at a later date to carry out a permanent repair, is bad financial management.

Excessive red tape and secrecy when people claim for damage caused by potholes due to our crumbling roads is another issue. I will mention two real-life cases. Number one relates to a North Antrim constituent who hit a pothole on 3 February 2024 on the Holywood Road in Newtownards. Due to the severity of the damage to multiple vehicles, the police were called and had to maintain a presence until the appropriate signage was put in place to warn other drivers. DFI turned down that constituent's claim and to this day hides behind an exemption clause in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as to why that claim was refused. I urge the Minister, who is in the Chamber, to direct that, when MLAs and constituents request basic information on why a claim has been turned down or whether any other individual was successful in claiming compensation relating to the same pothole, such information should be released.

Case number two concerns a constituent who came to see me last week. On 16 November 2025, they hit a crater that was submerged in water on the Old Frosses Road outside Cloughmills. Photos of the pothole and the serious damage to the vehicle were taken, yet their claim was also turned down. DFI outrageously claims that, because the road was inspected on 23 June 2025 and no actionable defects were recorded, it is not liable. Surely, the Department cannot be allowed to absolve itself of liability on the basis of a check that was carried out five months earlier.

Minister, it is simply not good enough. There is no policy in place for slumps in rural roads. There is a poor interactive portal. When somebody logs a call, they do not even receive an email to say that it has been accepted, that an engineer is en route or the outcome of it. The list goes on and on. It is time for the Minister to get to grips with her Department and stop blaming others, because there is much work to do in DFI.

Mr Carroll: In West Belfast, like other constituencies, working-class communities are bearing the brunt of the infrastructure collapse. It is affecting Dunmurry, Lake Glen, St James's, Falls Road and many other areas that I have previously raised in the House and through the "interesting", shall we say, DFI website. Like other Members, I regularly hear reports about burst tyres, damaged suspensions and repair bills that people simply cannot afford during a cost-of-living crisis.

I missed the start of the debate, so I am not sure whether it was reported, but Belfast saw a 38% increase in the number of potholes between 2024 to 2025. People are obviously paying —

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mr McNulty: The Member might like to know that Belfast is the best in the North for potholes recorded, so he is one of the lucky ones.

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether he means that Belfast is the best for having the highest number of potholes or the best for repairing them.

It is hard to see what the Member is holding up from here. I recently got glasses, so I might need to use them for that.

The number of potholes in Belfast has gone up. People are paying for them twice: once through their rates and also through compensation claims. Those topped around £700,000 in north Belfast alone, which is obviously huge. It is a public finance issue. It is more than an inconvenience; it is a public safety crisis. In the news recently, we have seen funeral processions unable to reach Roselawn, with families forced to walk to the crematorium because the road was impassable. On the same day, 12 cars were stranded on the Ballygowan Road. It is dangerous for so many people.

Cyclists, motorcyclists and people who wheel — people with prams, wheelchairs, rollators and other devices — have not been mentioned in the debate. For those people, these are not just potholes; they are potential death traps. I agree with the previous Member to speak that the Department is taking a sticking-plaster approach. As noted in the motion, 97,000 potholes were reported last year, and only two-thirds were fixed. In Belfast, that figure dropped to 44%. The Member for Newry and Armagh might want to listen to that point.

The Minister announced a £30 million package for road resurfacing but admitted that she needs £1·6 billion to bring the roads up to standard. Clearly, the sums do not add up. In my constituency, £135,000 has been announced for the resurfacing scheme for the Old Golf Course Road. That is welcome, but it is just a drop in the ocean. I also note with concern that, in my constituency, although Netherlands Park and Summerhill Road are on the priority resurfacing programme, which you would think would mean that they would be dealt with in a timely manner, we have been told that the works will not be carried out this year, but possibly next year. The cynic might say that it will be March 2027, but I will leave that up to others to decide whether that will be the date or there will be another date.

Our road network was built for a different era. Heavy goods vehicles and higher traffic levels are destroying surfaces that were designed decades ago. Rather than endless resurfacing, we need sustainable transport infrastructure. I defend active travel in the truest meaning of the word, with proper cycling lanes, protected pedestrian routes and free and frequent public transport that reduce car dependency. The draft road maintenance strategy mentions sustainable maintenance but offers no vision at all for reducing the vehicle traffic that is causing the damage. As has been mentioned, cars are getting bigger, and people are being told by marketing companies and car companies to buy bigger cars.

We need a radical rethink of how we move people and goods. The motion demands:

That is the bare minimum. Working-class communities in West Belfast and across the North deserve roads that do not wreck their cars and endanger their lives. I do not think that we are demanding the stars here.

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

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

I welcome the discussion on the condition of the road network here in the North. We have spoken many times, and in recent weeks in particular, about the high numbers of potholes that have been recorded and the increase in expenditure on public liability claims, specifically over the past five years. I note Members' concerns about the longer-term impact of the Department's limited road maintenance service. I also have serious concerns about that and am actively working to try to change it.

I strongly agree that the maintenance of the road network is crucial for the safety of all road users, be they travelling in a vehicle, on a bike or on foot. Investing in the maintenance of our roads is also critical for the movement of goods and the growth of our economy, and to ensuring that our communities are connected. I am well aware of the frustrations and, at times, the significant inconvenience caused by the condition of our roads. People in communities rely on the road network to do business, go to work, go to school and connect with one another. Road safety is an extremely high priority for my Department, and Members will be aware of the work that we have been doing in that regard. We are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and address the needs of all road users.

I am all too aware of the impact of recent storms and cold weather on the road network, and I take the issue very seriously. Although my officials have worked very hard to maintain the road network to the best of their ability, they have nonetheless been forced to concentrate on only the highest-priority road repairs and have had to introduce the limited-service approach to road maintenance, which was mentioned. One Member said that that has been in place for over 10 years. I think that it was put in place in 2015 under the then UUP Regional Development Minister Danny Kennedy and subsequently by the DUP Infrastructure Minister Michelle McIlveen. The issue has impacted on every party in the House that has taken on the Ministry. It is not a new issue, but I am absolutely trying to change the approach, because we all recognise that it is not working for people out there.

As a result of that approach, we have seen the continued deterioration of our infrastructure, with large numbers of potholes and other defects developing across the road network, especially after periods of particularly cold or wet weather. Undoubtedly, the winter period has taken a severe toll on the road network. I am not saying that that is the only issue, but those are the facts. The situation has also been exacerbated by many years of underfunding. As mentioned, in the past three months alone, nearly 50,000 defects have been reported, which is close to half the total for the whole of the previous year. Potholes and other surface defects on the roads are more likely to happen at this time of year because, when it rains, water enters the small cracks, and freeze-thaw cycles expand and break apart the surface. That is what we have seen over the past couple of months. Heavy and prolonged rain damages underlying layers, reducing a road's load-bearing capacity and leading to potholes, rutting and surface deformation. Flooding can also erode sub-base materials, damage embankments and block drainage systems, creating long-term water damage. Overall, adverse weather speeds up both surface wear and structural fatigue, increasing our maintenance needs and reducing the lifespan of the road. That is what we have seen in recent times in particular.

This winter, we have already seen significant rainfall aligned to the changing weather patterns that we are becoming used to. In January alone, we saw the extremes, beginning with below-average temperatures that resulted in snow, moving to record rainfall and, most recently, storm Chandra, which contributed to a new January rainfall record for the North. As I stated previously, it was the highest level since records began.

The motion draws attention to the detrimental consequences of more than a decade of underfunding in our road network. I am committed to delivering essential improvements through the implementation of my Department's road maintenance strategy, which will benefit our citizens, our communities and the wider economy. It is a new approach that will focus our limited resources on safety and value for money. Members on the Benches opposite tell me to get to grips with the issue and take action. That is what I am doing. I have developed that strategy because we recognise that what has been done to date is not working, and that we have to think outside the box. We have to do things differently within the limits of the budget that we have. I have set out my Department's investment needs as part of future Budget exercises, and I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on the investment required in our infrastructure in order to maximise the benefit to our communities and generate economic growth.

Much has been said about the amount of money that is required to properly maintain our entire road network. The Barton report stated that it amounts to around £1·6 billion, which is almost double the capital budget that I have for this year. How do we square that circle, folks? How do we ensure that we are maximising what we have when the money simply is not there?

Like other Departments, my Department has been operating in a very difficult financial environment, due to British Government underfunding and austerity. The Member for Newry and Armagh, Justin McNulty, joked about the big, bad British Government, which comes as no surprise, as his party colleagues continue to cosy up to the British Government on the green Benches at Westminster. Let me be clear, however: no British Government have served or will ever serve the interests of the people here. I certainly will not give them cover for their lack of investment and lack of care, the impact of which continue to be felt by the Executive and the people whom I represent.

I was also asked where our road tax goes. Our road tax goes to Westminster, which then decides what cut we should get. It does not come to the Executive. That is an important point for everyone to remember. If our road tax was directed here, perhaps we could do more with it.

The estimated value of the shortfall in funding between what was needed in order to maintain the network and what was available to be spent between 2014 and 2024 is approximately £1 billion. It is readily apparent that a difference in quality should be expected when such a significant shortfall in maintenance spending occurs. The Executive agreed the 2025-26 Budget, and best use has been made of that funding in order to target road resurfacing. In this financial year, I initially allocated £68 million to capital structural maintenance, which includes resurfacing and surface dressing. I am delivering on my commitment to do all that I can to make our roads better. I was able to reprioritise funding within my Department, and that, along with the outcome of the December monitoring round, meant that I was able to announce additional funding of more than £30 million towards improving our roads, including an additional £4 million that was allocated to the road recovery fund to continue to address the poor condition of our rural road network. Diana Armstrong highlighted the issues that impact on rural areas in particular. As I cover a large rural area myself, I am extremely cognisant of those issues. That is why I have made a concerted effort to maximise the funding that I am able to direct to the road recovery fund. She mentioned the Lough Shore Road outside Enniskillen, and she will know that I previously responded to her question about the very complex issues that affect that particular road, including its structure. I hope that the Member will be reassured that the Department is continually assessing and monitoring that road in order to find a long-term solution. However, it is, unfortunately, not that simple or straightforward.

In addition to the £30 million that I mentioned, I recently allocated, as Members have said, £7·85 million to mitigate the impact of recent winter weather conditions, given how they have affected our road network. That money is being used to deliver an enhanced structural maintenance programme, which includes large-scale patching and resurfacing that is targeted at those areas of greatest need across the North. That work has already commenced.

Whilst the budget for 2025-26 remains challenging, my Department continues to prioritise key essential services, ensuring the delivery of the highest-priority resurfacing, roadside stability and drainage projects. I have set out my Department's investment needs as part of future Budget exercises, and I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues in order to maximise the investment that is required for our infrastructure. It will be challenging to address the years of underfunding, but I am committed to improving our roads, which I have shown through my continued efforts to secure additional funding in-year and through the development of the new road maintenance strategy.

This is an opportunity for us to change how we do things. Some Members asked about action plans and all of that. At this stage, that work is very high level, because the public consultation, which is carried out for any strategy or piece of work by the Department, has just closed. We will analyse the responses to the consultation, which will shape what comes next when we finalise the strategy. Hopefully, we will see a real difference, given the impact of 10 years of limited service and underfunding. On 2 December 2025, I launched the public consultation on the strategy, the main objectives of which are to improve the overall condition of the road network and enhance safety and quality — all of the things that we have talked about today and that are important to us all. The strategy will be implemented through the delivery of a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment and a sustainable maintenance regime. As Members will know, the consultation ended at the end of last month. Initial indications have shown a positive response, but we are continuing to take a detailed look at the responses that have been provided, and we will publish a consultation report and aim to finalise the strategy in due course.

I have also committed to investing £1·3 million in the provision of a groundbreaking full digital survey of the North's entire road network. Members talked about the importance of using digital technology and innovation to make smarter, more effective and more efficient decisions, and that is why we are progressing that aspect. The data that will be provided by the new digital stocktake will assist in targeting resources for routine maintenance activities, such as patching, to ensure the best utilisation of scarce resources. It is not just about looking at what the key issues are now but about recognising what will be problematic in the time ahead and how we can get ahead of that to prevent the situations that we are seeing across the North.

While the quality of repairs is currently monitored as part of routine highway inspections, the new digital survey will be a major advance in the assessment of the condition and durability of repairs on the network as well as the performance of reinstatements associated with utility openings. There are cases in which a road that has been resurfaced and is in good condition is opened by various companies but is not reinstated to the standard that we would expect. Such cases are probably a bugbear for all of us. That is another issue that we are attempting to tackle in the digital survey and the new road maintenance strategy.

I remain committed to prioritising road maintenance, improving repair quality and ensuring a safer and more resilient road network. Implementing the new strategy will be invaluable in meeting those objectives. However, it is important to recognise that those measures on their own will not address the consequences of years of underinvestment, which is why it is important that I work with all Executive colleagues to ensure that appropriate investment is allocated to improve the quality of our road network and contribute to the delivery of the priorities set out in our agreed Programme for Government.

The relentless pressures on public-sector funding have led to significant workforce constraints and operational difficulties that have adversely affected the management and maintenance of the transport network and have contributed to our maintenance backlog. To seek to address those challenges, my officials have been taking forward a transformation programme to reshape how we deliver our transport and road operation and maintenance functions as the funding and workforce challenges are not expected to ease any time soon. We are, therefore, taking a realistic view of the workforce that we expect to have in the future, and the work aims to ensure that we can sustainably and competently deliver our responsibilities in the years ahead. The new strategy is a key part of that wider work.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion and for the contributions that Members have made to the debate. I reiterate that the value of our infrastructure and, in particular, our road network cannot be overstated. Long-term underinvestment in our roads is impacting on the network's integrity, leading to steady deterioration, particularly in our rural roads. That is not what the public nor I or my Department want to see. I continue to work with everyone who is willing to work with me to develop a new road maintenance strategy and to work hard to address the impact of years of underinvestment in roads maintenance. I thank Members for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I look forward to seeing real change in the time ahead: that is what I will continue to strive for.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Maolíosa McHugh to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

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

I am pleased to support the amendment that we tabled because it provides clarity and honesty to the debate, as my colleague articulated. The motion reflects a reality that every MLA and every road user recognises. The condition of our roads has deteriorated to the point where they pose a risk to motorcyclists, pedestrians and motorists. The motion is right to highlight the impact of storm Chandra and the harsh winter that we have endured. It is also right to note the sheer scale of the problem. In 2025, over 127,000 surface defects were recorded across the North, including almost 98,000 potholes. That is not a minor issue. It is a network under serious strain, and communities in every constituency are feeling it. However, the problem did not appear overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight. Years of underinvestment, combined with increasingly severe weather, have left our roads more vulnerable to rapid deterioration. Storm Chandra and the recent winter conditions have made that painfully clear. It is in that context that I acknowledge the work being done by the Minister for Infrastructure and DFI staff.

The amendment, fairly, recognises the practical steps that have been taken.

The £300 million that was secured in December 2025 and the further £7·85 million for targeted road maintenance in response to storm Chandra show that the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Finance are working proactively to increase the resources available to tackle the worst of the damage. That funding will not solve everything, but it will make roads safer and allow urgent works and resurfacing to proceed where they are needed most.

In 2015, when Michelle McIlveen was Minister for Infrastructure, the Department, because of financial pressures, operated a limited maintenance service. I welcome the draft road maintenance strategy consultation, which accepts that we need to take a different approach, one that is more targeted, that is more sustainable and that makes better use of technology and data to direct limited resources to the highest-risk defects. It cannot stop at the draft stage, however. That is why it is right to call for an updated strategy and detailed action plan to be brought forward urgently once the consultation closes.

This should not be a blame game. I agree with my colleague Cathal that the signatories to the motion have demonstrated that they are more interested in playing party politics than in addressing the pothole problem. The state of our roads affects every constituency. If we are serious about turning the situation around, all parties need to support additional, sustained funding for DFI and a long-term plan to rebuild the resilience of the network.

I will share a story with Members. One night, a number of years back, I left Glebe to travel to my home in Castlederg. I went across what is known as Fern Hill, which is a ridge that separates the Derg valley from the Finn valley. The road was the width of my car. It had been newly tarred and stoned. The following day, when a person raised a constituency issue with me about roads, I told them about that road. They said, "If they can do that to a mountain road, why will they not do it to our main roads?". I replied, "The difference is that that road is in the Republic". Perhaps there is a lesson in there for all of us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Peter Martin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak to the motion and summarise the debate as best I can. We have all had front seats to the growing crisis in the Department for Infrastructure over our road network. The Department should be a cornerstone for economic growth and connectivity in Northern Ireland but is instead hamstrung by a level of administrative inertia and a lack of strategic clarity when it comes to tackling potholes and the state of our roads.

The only winners in that battle are the tyre repair centres and those fitting new front suspensions. From Bangor to Ballymena and from Fivemiletown to Fintona, families, commuters, farmers, delivery drivers and owners of small businesses are all paying the price. Tyres are being shredded and suspension systems damaged. I am happy to mention the Member for West Belfast, who cited the fact that motorcyclists and cyclists — he may have been the first in the debate to do so — are at particular risk from potholes. If we hit a pothole in our car, the car can get quite seriously damaged, but if a motorcyclist hits one at 40 mph or a cyclist hits one at 30 mph, they can get seriously injured, so I am grateful to the Member for highlighting that point. I was going to do so myself.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he have any concern that the term "active travel" is often misrepresented in the House? It is presumed that there has been a huge increase in spend on active travel, but the concern is that that includes a lot of general spend on roads on which people could in theory cycle. It does not meet the definition of spend on active travel, however. I am sure that the Member knows what I am talking about. Does he also have a concern about that?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Belfast for his intervention. My understanding is that the legislative priority for active travel is 10% of the overall budget. The Minister probably knows the answer, and the Member beside her is nodding at me, so that is money that should be spent on active travel. My understanding is that it is being spent in a range of ways, and that is correct, because active travel also means that the elderly can use footpaths, and some of our footpaths are badly damaged. We are, however, focusing on roads today.

The Minister cannot continue to cite chronic underfunding. She often blames the British Treasury for a lack of funding; my understanding from Sam McBride is that she has used that excuse 132 times in response to questions for written answer. The fact remains that the 2025-26 DFI budget is the largest that DFI has ever had; in fact, according to the think tank Pivotal, the DFI budget has risen by over 60% in the past eight years and the only Department budget that has risen more is that of the Department of Health.

Ms Kimmins: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will to the Minister.

Ms Kimmins: For accuracy, the Member will agree that the cost of rectifying the impact on our road network of many years of underfunding has also risen. On paper, it may appear that the budget has increased, but we also have to deal with the challenges with our waste water, which comes out of capital funding, and all the other things that, the Member and his party are quick to say, we should have the funding for.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her intervention. She will not take me into the issue of waste water, but I will say that, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I do not have the responsibility or imperative to solve it. That is an imperative for the Minister to solve, because she is the Minister. I will give her this: there are challenges in DFI that require capital funding, but that is her responsibility. She is the Infrastructure Minister.

In one of your most recent press releases, Minister, which was cited here today, you mentioned the additional damage that freezing temperatures had caused over the winter. When I looked at the seasonal weather over that period, I saw that last December had been the warmest that Northern Ireland had had in the past 29 years. It is generally accepted that we have had the mildest winter for a considerable time. That goes to the heart of the issue, which is the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department. It is worth pausing for a second — I think that I just about have time — to mention that. "Effectiveness" and "efficiency" are two words that I hear a lot in the Assembly: they mean different things. Efficiency is doing things right, and effectiveness is doing the right things. When we apply those words to the situation that we are looking at, we see that efficiency is repairing our roads, with their potholes, in an effective and efficient manner that will last for some time, while effectiveness is doing the right things, which means picking the important things and following through with capital investment. That is an issue for the Minister, because she gets to make those strategic decisions.

We have questions around how long a temporary fix might last and when a permanent repair will go in after a temporary fix. The Minister touched on that, but I did not follow exactly what she said; I am sure that the Committee will write to her in that regard. What is the inspection regime for contractors who go in to do fixes, and how does the Department quality-assure them? I am aware that that happens with some contractors who put in cabling along our footpaths, and the Committee will pick up on that.

It is worth hearing from the public in the debate today. I looked at a piece that the BBC recently ran, and I will read out two views that members of the public expressed. Wilson Beggs said that calling a road where he lives "a road" is simply "stretching the imagination" but:

John Smyth, another member of the public, said that he had lost two tyres after hitting a pothole and that, one week after replacing them, he hit another pothole. He said:

Those are real statements that, I believe, represent the views of people across Northern Ireland who may be listening to the debate. In contrast to some Members who spoke, I completely reject the idea that this is a party political point-scoring exercise. If the potholes were situated just in unionist areas or just in nationalist areas, I might have some sympathy with the argument presented on the other side of the House, but every Member knows that that is not the case: the potholes are everywhere. It is the Assembly's job to hold the person responsible — the Minister — to account, and that is what we are doing today. The potholes affect everyone regardless of political opinion, and it is our job to hold the Minister to account on the issue. Through the motion, my party will continue to do that.

I will give myself three minutes to sum up some of the arguments and give everyone their dues. My colleague Stephen Dunne said that constituents deserve better than failure on potholes and cited the repeated failure of the Minister. Cathal Boylan said that supporting his amendment would demonstrate that Members will not play party politics. Andrew McMurray had, perhaps, the quote of the day when he said — I will not get this right, Andrew — that Alliance is often accused of being a "middle-of-the-road party". He said that it would be a brave man or woman who would even go onto our roads today. John Stewart said that there is a critical failure of road assets, that these are not cosmetic concerns and that millions of pounds are being paid out by the Department in insurance costs. Justin McNulty said that potholes are a daily hazard in Newry and Armagh and that constituents are fed up and furious.

My colleague Harry Harvey said that the Minister cannot plead poverty any longer and that the public want fixes, not excuses. Diana Armstrong said that this affects rural constituencies especially — I tend to agree with her: I was in Markethill at the weekend, and some of the roads around there are, frankly, appalling — and highlighted some roads in her constituency that are worthy of note. Mark Durkan said that repairs fail and the public end up paying the price, sometimes financially and certainly through the inconvenience caused to them. Timothy Gaston said that leaving maintenance to the end of the allocation cycle is ridiculous and that pots of money will not solve the problem in the long term. Gerry Carroll talked about the number of potholes in his constituency and highlighted the fact that funeral cortèges have not been able to make it to Roselawn because of the damage that is being caused to them by potholes.

The Minister strongly agreed with, I imagine, all the concerns that she heard today. She said that the road network is crucial and that there is currently concentration on the most urgent repairs but she would like to get out of that cycle.

That will do for summing up. I brought my remarks in just on time. I urge everyone to support our motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease while we change the Table before moving to the next item.

Ms Flynn: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Órlaithí, please open the debate on the motion.

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

The motion is about something simple but absolutely fundamental: whether we can see clearly what is happening in our mental health services. If we cannot see the pressures in the system, we cannot relieve them; if we cannot measure performance, we cannot improve it; and, if we cannot track the need, we cannot meet it. The motion calls on the Minister to prioritise:

with routine public reporting across all health and social care trusts so that we can finally understand waiting times, workforce gaps, service demand, bed capacity, referrals, outcomes and whether investment is reaching patients. That is not a technical request; it is a basic requirement for safe, accountable services.

Members across the Chamber will be aware that mental health services face enormous pressures. In the North, 290 people died by suicide last year. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50. Mental ill-health prevalence is among the highest in these islands. In December 2023, over 17,500 people were waiting for a first mental health appointment. Thousands are waiting for psychological therapies. We are unaware of the number of people on those waiting lists across the board. Members will be aware of this anyway, but the answer from the Minister to a question that I submitted recently stated that the trusts are recording data with low confidence because of the way in which the system is set up.

Despite the numbers waiting and the numbers that are not reflected in those figures, we still cannot produce a current regional waiting-list total. That should shock every Member of the House. As legislators, we cannot scrutinise services that we cannot see. We cannot assess value for money without outcomes, and we cannot reduce inequalities if they are not measured. Without transparent data, postcode inequalities in access to mental healthcare will remain hidden and unaddressed. Oversight bodies have repeatedly warned about that. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) described mental health data as "extremely poor", and the Office for Statistics Regulation identified major gaps. Assembly questions confirmed the unreliable reporting during the Encompass transition. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on how Encompass might be able to help with that, once it has bedded in properly.

Since 2021, public bodies have warned about serious weaknesses in mental health data, but the core problems remain. Members may be surprised to learn that there is no statutory requirement to publish mental health performance data in the North. That would be unthinkable in most other areas of healthcare. There is also no routine public reporting of waiting times or activity across many core services, including adult mental health, psychological therapies, counselling, eating disorder services and wider community provision. At present, there is no interactive dashboard, no routine monthly reporting, no trust-by-trust comparison and no clear visibility of capacity or demand. What makes that even more concerning is the fact that we have strong policy frameworks in the mental health strategy and the Protect Life 2 suicide prevention strategy. We have clear commitments to parity of esteem, early intervention and improved outcomes, but how do we know whether the strategies are working? Almost five years into the mental health strategy, we still do not have a published outcomes framework.

When we are in the scenario that the mental health strategy cannot even receive a good proportion of its funding, it may be silly to talk about how we can monitor its outcomes. However, it is important that, for any investment that we put into the strategies or into mental health as a whole, we are able to assess what outcomes we get from that investment.

The deliverability review confirmed that most actions in the strategy are paused or constrained and that monitoring progress remains limited. Without consistent data, we cannot track delivery. Without measurement, the strategy becomes aspiration rather than transformation. The mental health strategy cannot be delivered in the dark. This is not about capability: in England, Scotland and Wales, Governments publish routine mental health service data covering waiting times, activity, workforce, access and performance. England has a public mental health data hub that is updated regularly. In the North, we have no equivalent as yet. We cannot compare trusts, and we cannot track trends or monitor pressures in real time. That lack of visibility undermines planning, accountability and reform. This is not about technical capability: the same Department delivered one of the most sophisticated public health dashboards that we have ever seen during COVID-19. It provided real-time, transparent and accessible information to the public.

The context is stark. Mental ill health costs our society £3·4 billion every year. Mental health receives around 7% of the Health budget, the lowest share across these islands. Around 80% of the strategy's actions are paused due to funding constraints. Workforce shortages are severe. Child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) waiting lists remain unacceptable, and young people reach services later and in greater distress. That is the reality behind the motion.

I make it clear that the failure here is not with staff. Mental health workers across trusts, community organisations, charities and voluntary groups do extraordinary work under immense pressure. They carry risk daily, support families in crisis, fill gaps left by systemic under-capacity and save lives. I thank clinicians, community organisations, suicide prevention groups, family support services, peer workers and people with lived experience. I also acknowledge organisations such as New Script for Mental Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and many others, who have persistently highlighted the need for better data, investment and reform. They sustain a system that is stretched far beyond what is reasonable.

The motion is not about spreadsheets; it is about safety. Without accurate data, we cannot plan workforce, allocate resources, identify unmet need, target prevention and deliver the strategy or ensure equality of access. We also cannot know whether change is happening. We face one of the highest burdens of mental ill health on these islands. We have strong strategies, clear commitments and dedicated staff and communities, but, without reliable data, we cannot see whether those commitments are being delivered. If we do not measure the system, we cannot fix the system, so I ask Members to support the motion so that we can bring transparency, accountability and real improvement to mental health services in the North.

Mr Robinson: I am content to support the motion today. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report on mental health services in Northern Ireland published in May 2023 highlighted how good data underpins effective services. The report identified weaknesses in the data landscape across healthcare. As far back as 2018, the Commissioner for Children and Young People's 'Still Waiting' report identified gaps in operational data, particularly in relation to young people and children. In 2021, the Office for Statistics Regulation reviewed mental health statistics in Northern Ireland and reached a similar conclusion: that there is limited data, leading to information gaps, that does not provide a complete picture of mental healthcare. In particular, there is an incomplete picture of data relating to outcomes and the effectiveness of treatments. It is difficult to fully assess whether our services are improving people's mental health, and, without outcome measures, you cannot properly evaluate what works. Without that evaluation, it is difficult to be assured that services represent value for money.

Trying to manage reform without being able to see clearly is incredibly difficult and provides only a partial understanding of important aspects of mental health. Nor can it offer the opportunity to determine value for money for services. The Office for Statistics Regulation said that Northern Ireland needs a standardised dataset across all mental health settings, supported by clear regional guidance. It also suggested that the Department should consider developing a dedicated mental health data strategy.

Across Northern Ireland, we have the highest rates of mental health problems and demand for mental health services. Staff are under serious and unrelenting pressure. Health surveys indicate that around one fifth of adults show probable mental health problems, with one in eight children and young people meeting the criteria for depression and anxiety. It is, therefore, vital that the health service here has the best tools to plan for the future and the very best data-driven evidence to support public services and understand how effective they are.

Mr Donnelly: Mental health remains one of the greatest health issues affecting Northern Ireland, and it impacts on the most vulnerable in our society. In 2024, its cost was conservatively estimated at £3·4 billion annually by a PAC report. The findings also pointed to the unacceptable state of mental health data in Northern Ireland: data is limited and overwhelmingly focused on activity rather than impact; there is variation across the trusts; and it is disjointed and inconsistent. The report noted that, even where data exists, access to it is extremely challenging. Most concerning of all, the Committee highlighted that the Department developed the 10-year, £1·2 billion mental health strategy despite having little data on outcomes, no strategic data on the workforce needed and limited data on the voluntary and community sector. If you cannot measure what works, what does not work, where demand is rising or where gaps exist, reform becomes guesswork.

The Minister talks about transformation, prevention and early intervention, but, without reliable, standardised and transparent data, we cannot accurately grasp the need or whether any of it is delivering. The 2023 study by the Simon Community NI and Depaul found that 68% of people experiencing homelessness have a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 19% of the general population. Crucially, 84% received that diagnosis before becoming homeless, and that tells us something vital: when we fail to intervene effectively in mental health, the consequences spill into housing, justice, education and beyond. Crisis is always more expensive than prevention.

Let us take eating disorders as another example. The routine data that we collect reflects those diagnosed in hospital settings with conditions such as anorexia or bulimia. A condition such as binge eating disorder is not considered in the data and does not have clearly defined service pathways, despite being one of the most common eating disorders in the UK. If we are not measuring prevalence properly and there are no clear pathways, we are not intervening early. When we fail to intervene early, we store up greater costs and poorer outcomes down the line. An untreated patient does not disappear; their condition is likely to worsen. They may develop depression, obesity, diabetes or myriad other conditions. They may require more intensive mental health support later, alongside costly physical healthcare. The cost does not vanish; it compounds. What appears to be short-term financial restraint becomes long-term financial pressure, and that pattern continues to repeat across the system.

The Health Committee has heard evidence that the culture in the Department often appears to be focused on managing the immediate financial pressure, rather than designing services around long-term efficiency and outcomes. When the data is incomplete, services are easier to defer, and, if the data is fragmented, reform is fragmented. Thanks to the New Script for Mental Health charity, it has been pointed out that, while we are almost five years into the mental health strategy, there is still no outcomes framework. The Department has previously cited the roll-out of the Encompass system as the reason for the delay, but, as we know, Encompass was completed in May 2025, and the Department of Health's deadline has now passed. The long-overdue progress is welcome, but systems are useful only if they ask the right questions.

Today's debate is not a technical one about data; it is about the strategic need to better understand how to reform our failing systems. If we do not collect meaningful data, we cannot demonstrate need; if we cannot demonstrate need, we do not commission services; and, if we do not commission services, we create avoidable costs to the patient and to our health system. If we are serious about improving our outcomes, reducing long-term costs and restoring public confidence, accurate, consistent and transparent data must be treated as essential infrastructure.

As the New Script for Mental Health campaign has highlighted, without transparent data, MLAs cannot scrutinise performance, public funds cannot be assessed for value against outcomes, inequalities cannot be addressed if they are not being measured and strategies cannot succeed without accountability. Until we can properly measure the problem, we cannot credibly claim to be addressing or solving it.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. The motion goes to the heart of how we deliver safe, accountable and effective mental health services. No one in the House doubts the scale of need across mental health, addiction and suicide prevention services. In every constituency, families rely on those services in their most vulnerable moments. If we are to meet that need responsibly, decisions must be grounded in clear and consistent evidence. The motion addresses a simple but entirely reasonable point, which is that we cannot build a modern mental health system on incomplete or inconsistent information. Historically, data across our trusts has developed in a fragmented way. Different systems and reporting structures have made it quite difficult to assemble a regional picture of demand and of what exactly is being delivered on the ground. That has not come about through neglect. Rather, it reflects a system that has evolved over many years without the benefit of unified digital infrastructure.

An entirely reasonable complaint has often been made that, for a place as small as Northern Ireland, the structure and delivery of healthcare has been overcomplicated. Having five trusts, each working in a similar way but with some important and distinct differences, has resulted in a pretty uneven picture of mental health data. Gaps in information, be they around bed availability, waiting times, referral pathways or performance against targets, make strategic planning more difficult. We, not only as MLAs but as citizens and potential service users, need to know how long services take to access, how resources are being used and whether outcomes are improving. At the same time, we must be realistic. Creating a "single, standardised" system is not as simple as merging a couple of spreadsheets, or, even worse, publishing figures prematurely or publishing something that may not be entirely correct. Doing that would risk undermining trust instead of strengthening it. Having standardised data across all trusts, regularly reported and clearly explained, will support better workforce planning, earlier intervention and a more effective targeting of resources.

The motion ultimately calls for something that is sensible and reasonable: a coherent, region-wide approach to mental health data that underpins evidence-based decision-making and strengthens accountability. If we get it right, the benefits will extend beyond statistics. Accurate data will enable better planning, clearer oversight and public debate that is more informed. Most importantly, accurate data will support a system that responds more effectively to those who depend on it. Our goal must not be better reports for their own sake but, rather, better outcomes for people. That is why I am happy to support the motion. Reliable, standardised and transparent data is hugely important to our moving forward.

Mr McGrath: We are not even near the end of the debate, yet it is amazing that we can already hear a theme being repeated, which is that doing this is simple, basic, fundamental, sensible and reasonable and that we must get it right. I contribute to that view by supporting the motion and saying that it is a simple concept: we need to know what is happening in our mental health system in order to be able to respond effectively. As MLAs, all of us will deal with constituents weekly who are waiting for assessments, therapies, a CAMHS appointment or crisis support. We all know the repetitive queries. They include, "How long will I be waiting?", "Where am I on the list?" and, "What happens to me next?". Too often, however, we cannot answer their questions with any certainty.

We understand that, in the past year, 38% of adults here have reported concerns about their mental health. That means that nearly a third of our population may be in the category of needing some help or assistance from our system. That begs the question: if mental health concerns are so prevalent, why do we not have a standardised approach to mental health support?

In my constituency of South Down, I see incredible, remarkable organisations, such as Life Change Changes Lives, Pop Up Art, MYMY and The Well. They support people at the most challenging and difficult moments of their lives, and I am sure that all MLAs will be able to name organisations in their constituencies that provide such support.

After a conversation at The Well, staff put me in contact with people in England who deal with the preventable deaths tracker. I found that to be of interest because it goes into an area on which research and figures are not readily available. Those people were going into the Coroners' Court, extracting patterns in mental health issues from its reports and flagging them up to the system. What I note from that is this: if we rely too much on Encompass, we will go down the route of using a hospital-based health service alone to look for information, but that is not the only place where we need to shine a light. There are lots of other places where we could go, such as to the police, who deal with people who have mental health episodes. They might have records of people who are dealing with mental health issues but who may not be known to the Encompass system. The judicial system might also have information, and, as I mentioned, the preventable deaths tracker goes into the Coroners' Court.

There are lots of places where people with mental health problems will present, and it is about trying to bring that information together so that we can start to see patterns. Then, if we can see the patterns, we can start to provide the service response where it is needed most. The problem is that, if we do not look for that information, we will not know about it and will not be able to respond. There are lots of ways of approaching this, and we need to look beyond Encompass, even though that is a good place to get some of that information.

Members have referenced the establishment of the mental health strategy, which is a 10-year plan. We know that, many years into it, only about 13% of the outcomes have been funded, yet we are at the halfway mark of that process. It seems a bit strange and as though we are doing things back to front or upside down, because we have not mapped all the data, yet we are trying to come up with a strategy that we are not even funding. It feels like we are approaching the issue of mental health in the wrong way.

The spirit of the motion is to say, "There is lots of data. Let's grab that data, put it together and see what story it tells us, and then let's see if we can match that data to the need in our community". Provided that we can match that with finance, that will help to address the problem, because we will be helping the people who need our help the most.

I am delighted to support the motion, and I hope that others will do so as well.

Mrs Dillon: As has been said, the object of the motion is not an abstract debate about data, systems or IT infrastructure. It is about whether the Assembly and the Minister's Department are serious about improving mental health services or whether we are content to continue to make policy in a vacuum without reliable data. I agree with what Colin McGrath said about there being many places to capture data, but we should certainly start with Encompass, which cost £360 million; that is a very important place to start.

At present, we do not have a clear, consistent or transparent picture of mental health services across our health and social care trusts. Such a picture should include all the organisations. Our trusts should understand what services are available in their trust area, whether they are trust-run or not. That is extremely important, and they absolutely should have that data.

Another problem is that they do not collect that information and do not make it easily available to those who need services.

We cannot reliably answer basic questions about how many people are waiting for assessment or therapy, how long they are waiting, where the gaps in provision lie, whether spending matches what was planned or whether services are actually improving people's outcomes. In too many cases, we simply do not know. That should concern everybody in the Chamber.

Without accurate and comparable data, we cannot plan services properly. Without transparent data, we cannot hold the system to account. Other jurisdictions routinely publish that information. Here, families, service users and even MLAs, too often, rely on freedom of information requests, partial snapshots or outdated figures. That is not how a modern, accountable health system should operate.

The data deficit has real consequences. It means that unmet need can remain hidden, inequalities between trust areas can go unchallenged, and decisions about service redesign and investment are made without a full picture of demand, capacity and effectiveness. Front-line staff continue to work under immense pressure, but the system around them lacks the basic tools that are needed to support strategic planning and accountability. Accountability is really important, particularly for the Health Committee.

We all know that the Minister is operating under severe budgetary constraints. Resources are tight, pressures are enormous and difficult choices have to be made every day. That is precisely why the motion matters. When funding is limited, it becomes even more important that every pound is spent where it will make the greatest difference. Good data is not a luxury in a tight financial climate; it is an absolute necessity. Without accurate information on demand, capacity and outcomes, scarce resources risk being directed to the wrong places. Inefficiencies go unchallenged, and those with the greatest need can be the very people who are overlooked.

The call for a single, standardised mental health data system with regular public reporting across all trusts is not radical; it is basic good governance. If we are serious about parity of esteem between mental and physical health, mental health data must be treated with the same seriousness, visibility and rigour. If we are serious about suicide prevention, early intervention and tackling waiting lists, we must be prepared to measure what is happening, where it is happening, for whom and by whom.

The motion should be seen as constructive. It is not about criticism for its own sake but about strengthening the foundations on which policy decisions are made. Transparency builds trust, evidence improves outcomes and accountability is essential if reform is to mean anything at all. For all those reasons, my party brought the motion to the House.

I pay particular tribute to Órlaithí Flynn, who has done an immense amount of work in the area. She works very closely with many organisations to understand what can make the greatest difference. The reason that I have the information is because Órlaithí ensures that we know what is happening in mental health services, where the problems are and what we can do, potentially, to resolve them.

Ms Nicholl: A lot of people have said that it is not about data but about services. I actually want to talk a little bit about the data. I welcome the motion. It identifies a problem that has held Northern Ireland back for so long, which is that we cannot improve mental health services without accurate, consistent and accessible mental health data. Right now, we simply do not have it.

I chair the all-party group on policy and public data. I have a real interest in how we improve our collection, use and links to the information that we have. Secretariat support is provided by the Administrative Data Research Centre. I will be really honest: when I was first approached about the group, I thought that it sounded so boring. Then, I attended the first meeting. I listened to Dr Aideen Maguire talking about data and how we are so data rich in Northern Ireland — it is captured from the minute that we are born until the minute that we die — but because each Department is, ultimately, a kind of silo, we do not share the information. We could produce the best policy solutions to all the most pressing issues that we have in society if we were to use those larger datasets responsibly.

When it comes to mental health, we are not short of data but short of access to it. There is rich data sitting in each trust on referrals, bed occupancy, crisis presentations, waiting lists, community support, addiction services and spend versus demand, but because that information is held in silos, you cannot see the full picture.

This morning, at a meeting of the all-party group on policy and public data, we looked specifically at homelessness. As with all such issues, it is intersectional. It is not about just one thing; there are so many elements. Colin touched on that, and we see it when we look at prisons. There are so many factors that come into play, so we need to look at the full data. One of the researchers at the meeting made a really good point: he said that the motion is really good and that it provides an insight into how we, as policymakers, view things. We see that there is an issue with waiting lists, and we need the data so that we can address it. However, when those in the research community look at data, they do not look just at the problem in the here and now; they look at why there is an issue and at its root causes. We can create policy solutions for the future through larger datasets. I would really love for all of you to join that all-party group, because it is so interesting.

There were concerns about creating a single, standardised mental health data system. Encompass will eventually be transformative, but, as the PAC report stated, even if the solution comes in five or 10 years, it cannot help us today, because it does not capture the large volume of work delivered by the community and voluntary sector. Waiting for Encompass alone is not realistic or responsible. In the meantime, we can do more things with what we have. We can be more creative in how we link up. We heard from someone who works in the trust, and there has been really innovative work with the Prison Service. That is proof that progress is possible when we choose to use the tools that we already have. The question is not about whether we need a perfect system; it is about whether we are willing to use the imperfect but valuable data that we already hold to improve lives now.

One question that keeps coming up is about the legislation on the secondary use of data. I have tabled a question for written answer to the Minister about that, and it is wonderful that he is here. There was an indication that that legislation would be introduced in the Assembly in early 2026, which is now. Some people have said that, without the legislation and clear legal permission for linking and using health data, no matter how sophisticated a new system is, it will never be able to deliver what we need. It would be wonderful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give us an update on that.

Data is about quality. It is not just about waiting times or, as Danny said, activity. It is about outcomes. The Assembly should absolutely be ambitious, but we should also be practical. We need to develop a long-term integrated data system. That is a matter not just for Health but for all the Departments. There is so much work that we need to do and that we can do, especially when finances are so constrained. It is so important to see how we can work better together to share information and design long-term policy solutions.

I really welcome the motion. Mental health services deserve better data, as do the staff and, most important, the patients and families. Ultimately, data is about transparency and accountability. Seeing how to make it more accessible will always be important.

Mrs Dodds: Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate.

As the previous contributor said, data is a really important issue not just for the outcomes that it might improve for people but for the services that we provide now and in the future. It is about assessing whether those services provide value for money, for example. Do they do what they are supposed to do? What are the positive or negative impacts on patients? The debate is on a very important issue.

I was looking at the issue for the debate, and I came across the fact that, in 2021, the Office for Statistics Regulation highlighted significant limitations in mental health data in Northern Ireland, with the scarcity of robust data leading to significant gaps. Again, that comes back to a point that has been made. It highlighted the issue particularly in relation to mental health services. It also highlighted the fact that the Department and the health and social care trusts cannot determine whether services are value for money or whether they improve patients' lives and have good outcomes if they do not have an appropriate dataset against which to measure them.

In 2023, the Northern Ireland Audit Office also reported on the issue. It concluded that there were:

The Public Accounts Committee reported in 2024, so this is not a new issue. What is persistent in all of those examples is the lack of real progress in trying to join the dots and make the data available, whether that is from the Department or from the trusts. Encompass will help us to do some of that, but only if we can significantly interrogate the data and have outcomes that are transparent and available.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, I will.

Mr Donnelly: As a fellow Health Committee member, are you concerned about the lack of data that we have been able to interrogate from Encompass so far?

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you.

That question is really pertinent to the debate. When we get cancer waiting lists, for example, there are always exemptions. There is always a problem that means that Encompass is not able to fulfil its purpose. I hope that, when it settles, it will, but that is really important.

Halfway through the mental health strategy, we still do not have the outcomes framework that was promised. It is really important that we make some progress towards that following the debate. I also want to draw attention to the NHS mental health data hub and mental health dashboard that is prevalent in England as a way of providing information about mental health in a more open, transparent and understandable way. That is something that we should consider in order to provide the data that we need. I also understand that the Scottish Government are taking forward some work in that area. I see no reason why, when we have Encompass and the ability to do some of those things, we should not be able to produce a dashboard that gives us up-to-date information in relation to mental health.

At the end of the day, all of this is about the choices that you make as Health Minister. In Northern Ireland, despite there being a population with very poor mental health and many mental health issues, and a Minister who, to be fair, has said that he prioritises mental health, we only spend 7% of our budget on it. That means that the wards in our hospitals are consistently overoccupied. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends an upper limit for bed occupancy of 85%. In response to a question that I submitted, I was told that we had occupancy of up to 123%. There is a reason why space is required: the more pressure the wards are under, the poorer the outcomes we tend to get.

I hope that we can make progress towards getting a better set of data on mental health. It will be good not just for patients and for people who suffer from mental ill health to have trust in the system, but for helping us to decide what services work, what services provide value for money and what services we should continue into the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until after 7.00 pm or until business is completed, if earlier. Minister, over to you. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you.

I thank the sponsors of the motion. Data has to be the fundamental foundation if we are going to deliver consistent, standardised, regional services. It is the key to planning best services, targeting resources, monitoring safety, measuring outcomes and learning what truly helps. Without it, there is a real risk that people will design services for the benefit of the system rather than for the benefit of the individuals. That simply cannot stand.

Let me be candid about where we are today. Trust-level information is drawn, as Members noted, from the new Encompass workflows. I think that Members were expressing frustration that Encompass is taking a long time to bed in and move to truly validated statistical reporting. In parallel with that, the Public Health Agency receives quarterly aggregated returns from the community and voluntary sector on mental health, addictions and suicide prevention services. Those are really useful for understanding demand, waiting times and indicative outcomes, but they are not patient-level datasets, so it cannot yet unlock fully standardised pathway-level analysis right across the region. Alongside those resources, we use some specialist datasets, including annual suicide stats from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and PSNI stats on sudden death notifications to support real-time surveillance. Mr McGrath mentioned the PSNI. Of course, as it moves to Right Care, Right Person, it will not deal as often with patients with mental health issues, and the reporting of data may, correspondingly, decline. There is also the self-harm registry, covering ED attendances for self-harm and suicidal ideation, and the substance misuse database and impact measurement tool for addiction-related monitoring. Each adds value. None on its own provides the complete, integrated picture that clinicians, planners and the public deserve and that Members have, rightly, called for.

During the roll-out of Encompass, temporary discrepancies have arisen, as historical data is cleansed, workflows are aligned and staff are retrained. That is normal in a transformation of that scale. Some trusts have, understandably, reported lower confidence in certain waiting-time and activity metrics during the early phase. That is why governance has been strengthened and validation has been intensified while we stabilise the new reporting logic.

As Members noted, the Public Accounts Committee has been forthright about the historical quality of mental health data and the need for urgent improvement. I welcome that scrutiny. It helps to focus attention on what matters: consistent activity measures; clinically meaningful outcomes; and transparency so that the public can see what is improving and where there is still work to do. Public confidence is key here. The Department's responses make it clear that a single, standardised dataset and regular public reporting are the direction of travel. The PAC's specific expectations also align with our priorities, which are to use outcomes in order to improve services; benchmark consistently across the trusts; and publish mental health data regularly, once validated. It is not about creating league tables; it is about creating a shared language that reflects quality, safety and effectiveness, which, in turn, helps teams to learn from one other and helps us to see where to invest for the greatest impact.

The cornerstone of improvement is, as I said, Encompass: our unified, electronic health and care record. Its region-wide roll-out concluded on 8 May 2025. We are now in a structured two-year stabilisation and optimisation phase. Again, I recognise that Members may think that two years is a long time. I am not a techie: I think that it is a long time. Encompass replaces dozens of legacy systems with consistent, coded workflows across mental health, CAMHS, addictions, crisis and dementia services. As it matures, Encompass will provide real-time, comparable regional data for planning, public reporting and accountability. It is the biggest digital modernisation that our Health and Social Care system has undertaken ever, because it covers both health and social care, and it has been incredibly ambitious.

Kate Nicholl mentioned the fact that no system can operate effectively if we do not have the proper use of secondary data. Yes, we need to correct an error from previous legislation. It remains my intention to introduce legislation on secondary data and have it passed into law in this mandate.

To turn a single record into meaningful data, we need a single set of rules. The regional reporting group, which was established in 2024, brings together all five geographic trusts, the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), Digital Health and Care NI and Encompass reporting specialists to standardise definitions, align workflows and test report logic.

Task and finish groups are fixing the hard problems, such as waiting-time definitions, post-discharge follow-up, referral routing, activity reporting and bed occupancy. That is the patient, detailed work that translates an IT platform into a repository for reliable and comparable statistics.

I am particularly pleased that, as is envisaged under the mental health strategy, a mental health outcomes framework not only has been developed but is being embedded in Encompass. The framework focuses on three linked questions, which concern quantity, quality and effect: how much did we do, how well did we do it, and is anybody better off? Those measures bring together activity, experience and clinical impact in a way in which clinicians recognise and service users value. Implementing outcomes measurement is a long-term commitment that requires engagement, training and practice development but that also enables teams to see improvement, reduce variation and address long waits in a disciplined way.

A key objective has also been to understand our waiting times. Epic Systems/Encompass reports are now being used to extract monthly mental health waiting-time data in line with system oversight measures (SOMs), with each trust validating its figures against regionally agreed definitions and deadlines. It is, by design, management information during that validation period, but the direction of travel is the right one.

One of the clearest lessons learned in the past two years is that referral quality matters. The CAMHS referral audit identified duplication, incomplete clinical information and inconsistent thresholds right across the trusts. Those are not just abstract issues. Rather, they affect children and families who are waiting for help. The audit is now being used to standardise pathways, improve coding and target training for referrers so that referrals are timely, complete and clinically appropriate right from the outset. Those are practical, front-line improvements that will make a difference to access and to patient experience.

A range of improvements will be made in the near future, including, for example, validated waiting-time reporting. Each trust is validating mental health waiting-time data, which is extracted from Encompass and aligned with SOM definitions and timelines. As confidence rises, we will transition from internal management information to regular public reporting that is comparable across the region. Another example is the filling of legacy gaps. Report logic is being developed in Encompass with the SPPG and the trusts to address historical gaps in demand and capacity indicators: for example, for referrals and activity in non-inpatient services. Once that report logic has been developed, the indicators will go through extensive validation before being used in decisions and in public reports. Furthermore, pathway-level outcomes will be addressed. With the mental health outcomes framework embedded, teams will have a clearer view of activity, of experience and of clinical change for service users. That will support better triage, more timely psychological therapies and better insight into what works for whom.

Members rightly ask why we do not publish everything now. The answer is straightforward, and it is that publication confers public authority, and with that must come public trust. Publication must be based on validated data that is consistent across the trusts and correctly interpreted. During stabilisation, we are deliberately treating Encompass outputs as management information while we complete validation and align workflows. It is not about hiding. Rather, it is about ensuring that what we publish is reliable and does not mislead service users or policymakers.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Once validated milestones are met, routine publication will follow, and the system will be better for it. I will give way to the Member.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister. I want to ask you about that. We were promised that Encompass was going to be data-heavy, with all the bells and whistles available in order to improve services. Are you able to give us a timeline for when that data will be available, when it will be able to be used and when it will be publicly produced?

Mr Nesbitt: As I said earlier, Epic Systems wants a two-year timeline from final implementation. The final two trusts came on board on 8 May 2025. Again, I have asked colleagues who work in digital why it will take so long to get to that point. I was at an internal conference not that long ago at which somebody made the point that Encompass is like something that we have designed to take us to the moon but that, at the moment, we are using only for a short break in Spain. That is probably unfair, but it is a pretty solid and memorable point to make. There is a lot more that Encompass can do. Like you, I am eager to see us get there sooner with it than we plan to.

Having said all that, I pay tribute to the people who are making this happen: the front-line clinicians and the teams who are adapting to new workflows and coding standards while continuing, under real pressure, to deliver care to people. Trust informatics staff, SPPG analysts and Encompass specialists who are working together to reconcile definitions, to fix report logic and to test outputs trust by trust have my thanks. I also thank community and voluntary partners, who provide essential therapies and supports and submit returns that inform the regional picture, and public health and statistics colleagues, especially in NISRA, whose careful stewardship of suicide statistics ensures the highest standards for a uniquely sensitive dataset. Their work is meticulous. It is not always visible, but it is essential, and I acknowledge it publicly.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: OK.

Mr McGrath: It is a constructive point. Lots of what has been said is, I fear, about looking back at what we have done in putting together all the information on how we have achieved something. Is somebody interrogating the information to look for patterns to pre-emptively provide interventions that may prevent people's conditions from getting worse, which, if they do so, costs more down the line and causes people more harm?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I believe that the work is forward-looking. If you were to visit the digital care unit in Linenhall Street, you would see big screens full of data. I do not understand it — it is just numbers and letters — but the unit is able to identify, for example, a pattern in the greater Ballymena area with regard to a certain condition. Over time, the real value of Encompass, Epic and all the digital stuff will be in public health initiatives: understanding where patterns are emerging and making early interventions. When will that happen? For my money, I say that it will happen as soon as possible, but it is starting to happen. I have seen the unit at work, and it is impressive. I do not know whether the Health Committee has considered paying it a visit, but it might want to do so.

The mental health strategy promised transformation, but transformation without measurement is just an aspiration, is it not? It is not an accountable way to go forward. We want better targeting, on the basis of knowing where waits are longest and outcomes are weakest, so that we can direct our therapies, our crisis response and our specialist capacity to where they will have the most impact. We want earlier intervention. Consistent referral and triage data allows us to see where early intervention helps services reduce pressures and to scale those models. We need workforce planning. Standardised activity and outcome data inform skills mix and training needs across the trusts and, indeed, our community partners. Finally, we need public accountability. As I said, regular and reliable publication of mental health data supports the strategy's promise of transparency and is not to point fingers but to build trust; you do that through an evidence base.

I will close, as I began, with thanks and a commitment to partnership. To our staff, our community partners, our analysts and our statisticians, I say thank you for your patience and your persistence. To Members across the House, I say thank you for the scrutiny that keeps the Department focused. We are not where we want to be yet, but the path is clear: a unified record, standard definitions, validated reporting and outcomes that mean something to the people whom we serve, alongside publications that build public trust. That is how we will turn data into decisions, decisions into better outcomes and better outcomes into lives changed for the better.

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

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

This is an easy debate to wind up on because there has been unanimous agreement. The only point of disharmony has been on the pronunciation of the word "data": without causing any controversy, I will opt for "dah-ta".

Alan Chambers said that the asks in the motion are sensible and reasonable, and that just about covers it. The motion addresses a fundamental weakness in dealing with the North's mental health crisis, which is the absence of accurate, consistent and centralised data at a time when the need could not be clearer. Across CAMHS, community mental health teams, addiction services and suicide prevention pathways, demand continues to rise faster than the system can respond.

I concur with my colleague Linda in praising Órlaithí Flynn for pushing, highlighting and promoting this issue and for, sometimes, asking uncomfortable questions. I was struck when she said that there were 290 deaths by suicide last year. That is an unbelievable and shocking statistic. We talked today about that important information, and that was not lost on Members, because everybody spoke about the importance of how we use data to transform our health services and improve the lives of the people we represent. In some cases, hopefully with those 290 people in mind as we move forward, we can save lives among the people whom we represent.

The mental health strategy, which, as the Minister pointed out, was meant to provide a decade-long transformation and progress, has been constrained by underfunding relative to the original commitments, and the consequences are plain to see in the services and outcomes across the North. Against that backdrop, poor data is not a technicality but a structural barrier to good care. At present, key information across trusts is fragmented, inconsistent and, in some areas, unavailable. The gaps make it harder to understand demand, plan capacity or evaluate outcomes. That is not fair to service users and their families or to the staff who deliver care, often in challenging and outdated facilities.

The mental health strategy recognises the importance of data and outcomes as core enablers, but our system still lacks a single, standardised platform with regular public reporting. I was interested in hearing what the Minister had to say. We all know about the potential of Encompass. We wait to see it achieve its full potential, but I was heartened to hear the Minister talk about that potential. I am disappointed, however, that we will have to wait for a time to see that.

As other Members said, other jurisdictions on these islands already regularly publish comparable mental health data. That transparency supports service planning, accountability and public trust. There is no reason why the public in the North should expect less. Poor mental health provision, as we know, does not stay within a silo of the health service. When early intervention is unavailable and waiting lists grow, pressure is displaced on to schools that are managing rising anxiety and self-harm; on to emergency departments, where people in crisis present because no alternative exists; and on to the PSNI and the justice system, which deal with the consequences rather than the causes.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. We have mentioned the PSNI and the justice system. I understand the point that may have been made earlier about capturing data, and if it is the PSNI intervening, it is not captured. It actually is captured but just at the wrong point because the PSNI will probably end up bringing those individuals to an emergency department, but that is not where they should be. It should be dealt with in the community.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for her intervention. She makes a very valid point.

All this is central to the mental health strategy's stated aim and to public accountability. There is great value in exploring where mental health data should and could be gathered and aligned on an all-Ireland basis. Mental health challenges do not recognise borders. Harmonised metrics and data sharing would improve comparability and strengthen early warning for suicide clusters and self-harm trends, and, importantly, it would support research and funding bids.

The Minister concurred with the secondary use of data that Kate Nicholl mentioned. That is something that I have asked for, and it would be important on an all-Ireland basis. We could improve our economy using greater research and access greater funding with secondary use of data. The South already has well-established public reporting. Pairing that with data from here would enable better cross-border insight, especially for border communities, into shared risk factors such as rural isolation and youth mental health. All-island alignment would also, as I said, unlock research and innovation. Larger data sets and more robust evaluation of what works in prevention crisis, response and recovery would mean greater learning.

Kate Nicholl approaches most contributions here with a smile, and she was particularly happy today. I think that she really enjoys talking about the subject, but it is an important one and, as I said, we can use it to our benefit not only for patient outcomes but for greater research.

The Minister thanked the clinicians, which is clearly right and appropriate. They provide a service and do their best in difficult circumstances. In my constituency, for example, they are helped by outstanding community organisations that step up every day to provide support to mental ill health sufferers and their families. I record my appreciation of Solas Wellbeing in Ballycastle, whose representatives I met last week. It is an excellent example of a community-based charitable organisation that provides mental health and emotional well-being for the people of Ballycastle, the glens, the Ballymoney area and further afield. It provides positive support to over 5,000 users every year and should be commended. I also thank Turning Point, which operates a mental health crisis hub in Ballymena. It provides drop-in support, counselling and suicide prevention services and is a lifeline for many individuals and families. I give particular credit to Compass Advocacy Network, which is based at Lislagan farm just outside Ballymoney. It provides support and services for people with learning disability, autism and mental health needs. Aware NI, which operates in North Antrim as well, is also worthy of mention.

The motion is about giving our clinicians, planners and communities the tools to succeed. The Minister described it well when he talked about having a system and services that are not just there for the benefit of the system but need to be there for the patient. That is what we are talking about today: it is so that services can be planned, delivered and evaluated to the standard that the people whom we represent expect and that exists elsewhere in the healthcare system.