Official Report: Monday 02 March 2026

Mr Speaker: The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill has received Royal Assent. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 25 February 2026. It is chapter 2.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the escalating conflict involving Iran and the implications for the United Kingdom that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called to speak, they should indicate in the normal manner that they wish to do so.

Mr Gaston: For almost half a century, the people of Iran have lived under the jackboot of an Islamist dictatorship. In recent days, we were reminded of how that regime maintains its grip on power, when thousands were gunned down on the streets for daring to protest. Christians in Iran face persecution simply for professing the name of Jesus. The Open Doors' world watch list 2026 has Iran ranked number 10 owing to the extreme level of persecution that Christians face. None of that appears to trouble some in the House, however. Take the First Minister of no alternative, who could not find time to attend a security briefing on the situation yet could find time to tweet:

That kind of moral outrage from Mrs O'Neill seems to be deployed selectively. There was no moral outrage over the shooting of 10 men on the side of the road because they were Protestants; no moral outrage over the blowing up of people who were remembering the war dead; no moral outrage over the firebombing of a dog charity dinner dance; and no moral outrage over the murder of a mother of 10 in a nationalist area. The First Minister maintains that there was no alternative to any of those murders, yet bombing a murderous dictatorship is a "deeply troubling" violation of the UN charter.

For as long as the Members to my left continue to defend the blood-soaked IRA, they will be treated with contempt when they profess concern for the lives of innocent civilians, including Iranians and Palestinians. The truth is that Sinn Féin has never had much difficulty finding common ground with those oppressive regimes abroad. When Sinn Féin looked around the world for someone willing to honour the furniture shop bomber Bobby Sands by naming a street after him, Iran was the only place to put its hand up to do so. Those who defend terrorism at home have forfeited their right to lecture anyone about violence abroad.

Mr Carroll: Another week and another act of huge violence and aggression by the United States Government. The supposed president of peace has, once again, launched a war on people who pose no threat to the citizens of the United States. I fear that the Pandora's box has well and truly been opened. We saw the effects of the violence of the Iraq war: one million Iraqis killed and the creation of ISIS. I wonder and am terrified about what will happen as a result of this war.

It is worth saying that, until Friday, the United States was in deep negotiations with representatives of the Iranian Government. Trump and Netanyahu launched a war precisely because the negotiations were advancing and, by all accounts, going well. It is often said that the first casualty in war is truth, and we are already seeing apologists for the US and Israel, both here and across the world, trying to spin a war of aggression. The enablers and implementers of a genocide in Palestine have no interest in or concern about democracy or human rights for anybody in the world. They are best mates with the Saudi Arabian regime, which kills journalists and puts them in bags. We need to call out this latest war as an act of aggression. It is a war that is about US interests and Israel expanding its role in the Middle East.

Parties, especially ones to my right, cannot justify a war in which missiles are launched from the sky to bomb people. It will never bring freedom or liberation. On day 1 of "liberation" — [Interruption.]

They can laugh all they want. On day 1 of "liberation", 165 schoolchildren were killed in Iran. Is that liberation? Is that freedom? Is that democracy? Do those people's lives not matter? Do they not count? Obviously not to the Members to my right. We need to challenge that, challenge the repetition of the strategy that was used pre the war in Iraq in 2003 and challenge the lies that are being put out about Iran. It is worth saying that the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in full compliance with its obligations around nuclear weapons.

We also have to challenge and call out Keir Starmer for putting people in the region at risk. Obviously, that includes ordinary Iranians, but it also includes people in the region with a British or Irish passport. I call on him to make sure that Belfast International Airport — Aldergrove — is not used to join the US and Israeli war against Iran or any other country in the Middle East. We need peace and de-escalation. We do not need people in this House or elsewhere banging the war drums.

Mr Kearney: The US/Israeli actions at the weekend, in starting this war against Iran and across the Middle East, are a flagrant violation of the United Nations charter and international law. Yet again, the multilateral system has been fundamentally damaged. This is the second time in nine months that the United States has mounted a war in the midst of a live negotiation, and, as a result, the Middle East has been taken to the abyss.

This war is not a legitimate response to the human rights violations, the lack of democracy and the breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Iran, but the war is set to spiral, with mass killings and mass destruction. It is a mindless act, and the British Government's decision to join the war is equally reckless. The spectres of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan loom large.

Let me be clear: we must not be complicit in Britain's latest Middle Eastern war. We must be a voice for reason, peace and diplomacy. The killings and attacks must stop on all sides. All hostilities must end. There must be de-escalation. The United Nations charter must be paramount. Dialogue, engagement and peaceful coexistence are the only way forward.

Mr Frew: I rise to consider the people of Iran, who, for decades, have lived under a totalitarian and draconian dictatorship. Those people deserve freedom, as we enjoy freedom. I hope and pray that we in the UK can do all that we can to have an influence on that freedom spreading to Iran and that the Iranian people will be able to pick their own Government and their own way of life in freedom.

I have no doubt, although I have no intelligence, that Iran poses a real, clear and present danger and a direct threat to people's freedom in the Middle East. We have seen that in its reach over the last number of days. That is happening overtly, but, covertly, Iran has been funding terrorism across the region and the world for many decades. That has led to the innocent deaths of thousands of people.

As we look at the actions over the weekend, we hope and pray that, as a result of those actions, the people of Iran will be free and the people of the Middle East will be safer. That has to be the goal for the free Western society and all the countries that are now involved.

It is right that the UK moves to protect its people and its interests in the Middle East, and it is right and proper that it should be supported to do so. That is where we should land.

It is galling to hear people on the opposite Benches talk about human rights when many of the actions of the ayatollah and the regime in Iran were played out in places such as Londonderry and west Belfast during the Troubles. People were tied to lamp posts and tarred and feathered, and people were executed for daring to speak to the police and the authorities. They murdered their own people who wanted to be part of the governing structures here, even to the point of murdering someone who was collecting census forms. That is the history of Sinn Féin and its military wing, the IRA. It is no coincidence that those people have been funded many times over for many years by regimes in the Middle East, including Iran and Libya. We will take no lectures from Sinn Féin.

Mr Tennyson: First of all, I express my solidarity with the people of Iran and the wider region and with the citizens from Northern Ireland who now find themselves stranded and uncertain as a result of the events that unfolded over the weekend. I also condemn outright the brutal and barbaric Iranian regime, which has been guilty of vile human rights abuses, repressing Iranian civil society and placing restrictions on civil liberties, with many peaceful protesters brutally beaten down in the streets.

Iran must cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the legal obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Assembly has endorsed a peaceful democratic future for Iran and called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK Government. However, illegal and unilateral action is unlikely to secure that future. What we have seen over the weekend is a dangerous escalation that could threaten stability in the Middle East and beyond. Alliance calls for maximum restraint, the protection of civilians and full respect for international law, including the UN charter and international humanitarian law.

We must now see a return to diplomatic engagement. The future of Iran should be grounded in democratic principles with respect for equality, human rights and the freedoms of the Iranian people. Ultimately, it is for the Iranian people to determine their future, not for anyone else.

Mr Beattie: War is not a video game. Some of us may be looking at the situation in a voyeuristic way as we see it play out on television. However, let us not minimise the effect that it is having on the people of the region. It is having a real effect on innocent people throughout the region. It is right to debate the matter, because it affects our citizens who are working in, holidaying in or transiting through the region. It affects our citizens who are members of the UK armed forces — the Royal Navy, the army and the Royal Air Force — and their families, who will be worried at this time. That is why it was right that the deputy First Minister attended a security briefing to understand how the situation affects our citizens. If you did not attend it, you failed our citizens.

Iran and its proxies — Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas — are the largest sponsor of global terrorism. Many Members seem to want to forget about the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, who have literally butchered thousands of their own citizens, and about the repression of women in that country. Just imagine a terrorist state such as Iran having nuclear weapons. We all think of ballistic nuclear weapons, but we do not think about the nuclear weapons — the so-called dirty bombs — that you can stick in a suitcase. We are in a dangerous place. Right now, Iran is indiscriminately attacking the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and Incirlik in Turkey. Those are places that I know well, because I have visited them. We are on the brink of a regional war that Russia and China may exploit in order to achieve what they want in Ukraine and Taiwan.

Do I like President Trump's foreign policies? Absolutely not: I genuinely think that he is unhinged. However, do I think that Iran should be prevented from having any form of nuclear weapons? Absolutely I do. Do I think that the UK should join the coalition of states to achieve that? Yes, I do. Should Aldergrove be used, if it is needed, for that action? Yes, it should, in exactly the same way as Shannon Airport in the Irish Republic is being used. Nobody complains about that, yet it is used every day to move men, materials, weapons and munitions through Irish airspace to the Middle East and north Africa (MENA).

Mr Speaker: Matthew O'Toole.

Mr Beattie: Let us remember what we are trying to achieve: an Iran that is not nuclear.

Mr O'Toole: To touch on Mr Beattie's point, I hope that what we are trying to achieve is a peaceful world in which international law is respected and people all over it can live in peace, prosperity and dignity. I am afraid that, if that is the end goal, doing what Donald Trump and his regime did over the weekend, which was to launch unilateral strikes on Iran, is not the way to do it. The Iranian Government are reprehensible and indefensible — they have committed human rights abuses and are authoritarian and unacceptable — just as Saddam Hussein's secular regime, which was an entirely different type of Middle Eastern regime, was reprehensible and unacceptable more than 20 years ago. However, the American Government and their allies should have realised by now that, even if the regime in question is appalling, reprehensible and indefensible, bombing it from the air has not proven to be a successful means of engendering something better, democratic and stable in the region. I am afraid that simply bombing the Middle East from the air has not produced stable, democratic government there. There is much truth in what Members on the Benches opposite say about Iran: it is a reprehensible regime that is causing instability elsewhere. They are not wrong, but my question is whether bombing it from the air has proven to be a successful means of dealing with it.

The Iranian people deserve better than what they have under the ayatollahs. They deserve to live in freedom, and they deserve to live in peace. Thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered by the Iranian regime, but that does not mean that the correct way to address the situation with Iran is to bomb it from the sky. That is already causing instability. We read today about a conflagration with consequences across the Middle East in terms of, yes, organisations such as Hezbollah that are sponsored by Iran. The Middle East has been destabilised, and I do not know what the consequences will be, because I do not think that the consequences have been planned for. I think that Donald Trump is, to quote Mr Beattie, a madman. His Government do not care about stability and do not have a plan. The idea that this is some kind of carefully thought-through way of disarming Iran is complete nonsense. This is utterly destabilising, and it is frightening for the public here and around the world, including the Irish and British citizens who are caught up in the Middle East.

There will be a range of other consequences, including for the many people in this part of the world who fill their oil tank up with home heating oil, because oil prices have gone up. I ask people who cheerlead such irresponsible, illegal action in the same way as they cheerled the illegal action of genocide in Gaza, to think through the consequences for the world that we live in and for our children and grandchildren. Nothing that happened at the weekend gives me faith in stability for the future.

Mr Brooks: The past day or two may prove a defining moment in world history, a moment when the forces of tyranny and terror are again confronted head-on by those who still believe in freedom and security. Nobody on these Benches will cry any tears for Ayatollah Khamenei. In recent days, the United States and Israel have rightly undertaken decisive military action against the hard-line theocratic regime in Iran, a regime that has long sponsored violence, terrorism and the brutal suppression of its own people and those across the Middle East. The joint operation, launched after years of Iranian threats and proxy aggression, has struck the leadership and military infrastructure of a state that has never abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons, never curtailed its support for organisations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis and never shown respect for the fundamental rights of its own citizens.

Let there be no mistake: this was not an act of wanton aggression. It was a strike against those who have sought for decades to destabilise the Middle East, to foster terror and to hold millions of voices in chains. Many thousands of Iranians — ordinary people caught between oppression and fear — have publicly celebrated the weakening of a regime that silenced dissent and crushed protest with lethal force. This is a stark reminder that tyranny eventually reaps the hatred of the very people it seeks to control. Yet here I have heard voices that would excuse or apologise for the Iranian regime and would cast blame instead on the United States or Israel. Marxist and Irish republican sympathies, unsurprisingly but bafflingly nonetheless, are untethered from global realities. They would see Tehran as a cause to be celebrated, but let us be candid: Iran's state ideology is antithetical to every freedom-loving tradition that we cherish here. Its proxies do not promote liberty; they promote fear and violence. They murder and maim, just like their IRA friends did on this island. Any voice that defends them is not advancing justice but obscuring it. We rightly condemn violence when it targets citizens, but we cannot fall into moral equivalence that equates the oppressed with the oppressor.

The actions now being taken by the United States and Israel are directed at a regime that refuses to negotiate seriously on nuclear restraints, continues to fund extremist militias and has brutally suppressed protests within its own borders. After years of sabre-rattling and obstruction, force has been used to try to create a lasting peace, not merely to punish but to prevent further atrocities and avert a future in which nuclear weapons give terror states global reach. Surely, in Ulster, we know too well the cost of violence and the perils of extremism. We recognise that there comes a time when action must be taken against those who reject peace and embrace intimidation. We understand the anguish of communities facing threats from militias backed by Tehran. We know the fear felt by Jewish communities under constant missile bombardment from Iranian proxies.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Martin: I am glad that at least some Members have talked about the Iranian people in the middle of the debate, and I reflect the fact that 'Channel 4 News', which is hardly GB News, reported over the weekend that Iranians in the UK have welcomed the death of the ayatollah. It is a moment that many Iranians have dreamt of: that maybe, just maybe, the man responsible for the decades-long crushing oppression and death of tens of thousands of his people has met his demise. There was celebration on the streets of north London: people draped in Iran's pre-Islamic revolution flag, dancing in the streets as Israel and the US attacked Iran. They are Muslims — British citizens in our country — celebrating an attack by the US and Israel.

I heard the Sinn Féin Member for South Antrim on the radio this morning — the First Minister, I think, was unavailable — when he said that he condemned the Zionist attacks and believed in self-determination for Iran. I say to Members that Iran will never enjoy self-determination. Members have used that phrase today. Any dissent in Iran results in one of three things: torture, imprisonment or death. That is a lesson that many people in Northern Ireland learned at the hands of terrorists. At the weekend, an Iranian woman said that her nephew was imprisoned in Iran. She did not know whether he was still alive or dead, but she welcomed the attack by the US and Israel and said that it was the only choice available.

Mr Gaston mentioned the persecution of Christians in Iran. Anyone is persecuted. Muslims are persecuted in Iran if they do not meet the standards of Islamic law. Human Rights Watch said at the weekend that waves of arrests have continued following the countrywide massacres of 8 January. Authorities have subjected detainees to torture and ill treatment. Those detained are at serious risk of death in custody, unfair trials and secret summary executions. That is the regime that we are talking about.

When I was at the House of Commons, I met Iranian dissidents in the UK. They pleaded with me to ask His Majesty's Government to do anything that the Government could to overthrow the regime. This party completely supports the British Government in defensive actions supporting our citizens in the region. I hope that what we saw at the weekend will result in the overthrow of the appalling regime in Iran.

Mr Buckley: On Saturday, the world was liberated from a dictator and head of global terrorism: the Iranian supreme leader. There should be no tears shed over his taking out. There should be no tears shed for others in his regime who, over decades of oppression, systematically destroyed family after family not only in Iran but across the world.

On the domestic front, that regime, just a number of months ago, was responsible for up to 40,000 of its citizens being killed on the streets of Iran as they protested for freedom. In 2022, it murdered thousands of women who protested for life and freedom after the murder of one of its citizens. That is domestic: when we look internationally, we see how Iran under the regime led by the ayatollah has had disastrous impacts globally through its sponsorship of proxy terror organisations across the world such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis, Shia militants; I could go on. Look at Iran supplying Russia with over 50,000 drones for use against the Ukrainian people. That is the head of the snake, and I, for one, believe that the world is a safer place with him not in it.

That said, I recognise the huge concern across the Middle East and, indeed, the world for those who have been caught up in the conflict, whether on travel or otherwise. The UK Government's first duty should be to protect our citizens and, indeed, our military bases and armed forces. The current position that UK bases will be used is welcome — indeed, it is — but I fear that the dithering to get to that position has caused the UK harm.

The PM continues to hide behind a maximalist interpretation of international law that is becoming an embarrassment and is a threat to our effective security at home and abroad. It is a UK interpretation of international law that prevents the Royal Navy from protecting our shores from those arriving on small boats, prevents us from deporting foreign criminals, paedophiles and rapists and continues to leave our citizens under threat.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: Perhaps it is time for that interpretation to be assigned to the same dustbin.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Delargy: The weekend marked an important milestone, as we celebrated 10 years of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann Bhaile na gCailleach

in Derry, and I had the opportunity to attend the branch's 10th anniversary celebrations. They reflected the steady growth and development of the branch since its creation a decade ago. As dearcáin bheaga a fhásann na crainn is airde.

Over the past 10 years, the branch has played a significant role in promoting traditional Irish music, song, dance and language across Derry. Through weekly classes, it has created opportunities for young people and adults alike to learn, perform and celebrate our culture. The branch has been actively involved in major cultural events across our city. Last year, it hosted Fleadh Mhór Dhoire and welcomed competitors and visitors for a weekend of competitions, concerts and traditional sessions. Its members have also performed on 'Céilí House' on RTÉ Radio 1, which came to Derry to record the renowned show on two occasions, as well as at the annual St Patrick's Day celebrations in Guildhall Square and at a plethora of other prestigious events in Derry and further afield. Success at Feis Dhoire Cholmcille and other competitions highlights the branch's high standards and reflects the consistent work of tutors, volunteers and others over many years.

Reaching 10 years is a notable achievement for any voluntary organisation. It represents commitment, organisation and sustained community support. The branch's success is down to its founding members, the Molloy family, as well as to the committee members, tutors, volunteers and families who have committed to its continued development. As the milestone is marked, there is every reason to believe that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann Bhaile na gCailleach will continue to contribute positively to cultural life in Derry in the years ahead. As we welcome the fleadh to Belfast this year, I have no doubt that we will see the branch represented and contributing to the celebrations there. Go n-éirí an bóthar leo agus go maire a gceol go deo.

Miss McIlveen: The House and the people of Northern Ireland deserve an explanation for the absence of the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, from Saturday evening's emergency security briefing, which was convened by the UK Cabinet Office. It was not a routine briefing. Rather, it was called in response to a rapidly escalating crisis in the Middle East, as hostilities between the US, Israel and Iran intensified, raising the real prospect of a wider regional conflict. International partners were assessing the risks to regional stability, to energy markets and to the safety of UK nationals overseas, including those from Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations were brought together to ensure coordination, preparedness and clarity. The First Ministers of Scotland and Wales attended. Northern Ireland was represented by my party colleague the deputy First Minister but not by the First Minister. At such a moment, attendance is not a diary preference. It was the kind of high-level briefing that Northern Ireland's most senior office-bearer should be expected to attend.

People across Northern Ireland are not detached observers of events in the Middle East. Many have family members, colleagues, employees and business interests in the region. There is real anxiety. They want reassurance. They want to know that their Government are fully informed and fully engaged.

If the First Minister was genuinely unable to attend, the public deserves to know why. If she was unavailable, why was another senior Minister not nominated in order to ensure full Executive representation? Leadership is most evident in moments of uncertainty, and this was such a moment. An explanation is required. Beyond that, we need confirmation that Northern Ireland will be fully engaged in all further coordination with HM Government, so that clear advice, robust planning and visible leadership are provided to the people whom we serve.

Miss McAllister: I rise to support the 20's Plenty campaign to have a default 20 mph maximum speed limit on streets where people live, work, play and go to school. Across North Belfast, school councils have been engaging with their representatives and parents to get even more people behind the campaign. Just last week, we saw more support from active travel users from the Shore Road, Glengormley, Cavehill, Oldpark and across North Belfast. We want to ensure that many more people get on board and support the campaign.

Too many people are killed and seriously injured on our roads. We are supposed to feel safe in our homes and on the streets where we live, but, when we venture out without the supposed protection of the car, we are at the mercy of speeding, distracted or, at times, just incapable motorists. I want my and other children to enjoy the freedoms that we all had when we were younger: for them to be able to go to school or play outside by themselves, free from the risk of road violence. In large parts of my North Belfast constituency, fewer than half of all households have a car, yet all are forced to endure pollution and congestion on their residential streets. Twice a day, our roads are jammed with traffic as people ferry their children around or go to and from work. Often, the journeys are not substantial distances — just down the road or round the corner — and could be done on foot or by bike. However, as we all know, most of us take the car because life is busy. Using the car is often easier when life is busy and gets in the way.

What if the infrastructure was already there? What if it was already safe to travel, either by car or bike? Provision of 20 mph zones is not a panacea, but it can provide drastic improvements in road safety. Since the introduction of such zones in Wales, for example, casualties in former 30 mph zones are down 25%. That means a reduction in the demand for police and health service resources and, most importantly, 25% fewer devastated families. For context, every year for the past 10 years, an average of 75 children have been seriously injured or killed on our roads. Last year, the number was 105. Our emergency services have been under immense strain for many years; we can take action to take some of that strain off their plate.

There are already temporary 20 mph zones, typically for 30 minutes at a time, along short stretches of road outside a number of schools across North Belfast. However, with over 600 preschools, nurseries, day-care facilities, primary schools, post-primary schools and after-school facilities in my constituency alone, we know that such zones at just a few schools are not enough. We do not want to punish drivers — we know that life is busy and that many people need to use a car — but we want children and pedestrians of all abilities to be safe. Sign restrictions and enforcement alone will not deliver that; we need traffic-calming measures that reflect the nature of our roads.

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Miss McAllister: This call comes from our children.

Mr Beattie: As we all debate global politics, few will know the name Rosmund Evans. Rosmund was not an academic, scientist or scholar; she cleaned my constituency office. We never really saw Rosmund during the day, because she cleaned the office at nighttime after we had done a day's work. She emptied the bins, hoovered and cleaned. She also had a cleaning job in the mornings. In between, she dedicated herself to her children and grandchildren.

I very rarely saw Rosmund, but, when I was working late, she would come in and we would have a good conversation. It is great to get a backstory, and I got Rosmund's backstory. She got married and had twin boys. Three years later, she had a daughter, Katherine Evans. Sadly, Rosmund's husband, Mark, died seven weeks later. He was a serviceman. Rosmund grew up looking after the three kids by herself. Rosmund's children then had kids.

Rosmund spent all her time looking after the grandkids, and do you know what? That is what an awful lot of women in our society do. Rosmund was smart, articulate and intelligent. She could do anything that she wanted to do. Instead, so that she could commit to her family, children and grandchildren, she took cleaning jobs early in the morning and late at night: a real hero of society, whom we do not get to hear about.

Sadly, on Tuesday last week, Rosmund passed away unexpectedly and suddenly. She was only 65 years of age. We buried her on Saturday. Where I lost an employee, a colleague and, dare I say, a friend, Simon, David and Katherine lost their mum.

Sometimes, we do not stand up and remember those people who do the jobs that make our constituency office work. My constituency office would not have worked without Rosmund Evans being part of it. She was part of my team, as important as anybody in this Chamber, anybody in my team or anybody else in government. It is right and proper that I stand here and pay tribute to Rosmund Evans.

Mr McNulty: On Saturday night, on a famous talent show, in front of millions of viewers, our own Niamh Noade, from the mountain roads in Lislea, wowed the world with a mesmerising musical performance through her reimagined cover of Alex Warren's 'Ordinary'. Niamh comes from two proud traditions: the Noade and Murphy traditions of Irish music, culture, drama, poetry, arts and community. With powerful Celtic musicality and her spellbinding skills on the harp, Niamh has spoken of Irish folk and traditional music as:

Niamh, through your music and singing, through your trailblazing, through your exploration and genius, you are uplifting our souls and honouring the legacy of all those who have gone before you. Keep wowing the world, Niamh. We are so excited to see what comes next. Ádh mór ort, a Niamh.

Ms Ennis: The people of Warrenpoint have been without a modern, fit-for-purpose community hub for over 20 years. That long wait ended when planning permission was finally granted for the new Warrenpoint community health and well-being hub last week that will see £7·3 million invested in my community.

My colleague councillor Mickey Ruane first made the case for a community facility in Warrenpoint over 20 years ago. We have managed to deliver something that far exceeds anyone's expectations, including his. We have delivered a modern, two-storey building that will provide community space and fit-for-purpose facilities for the local community and community groups across South Down. Sinn Féin has listened to the local community and has helped shape the new facility that will include reception and office spaces; a main hall; changing facilities and outdoor changing spaces; an Education Authority resource room; a playgroup room with kitchenette and office facilities; a sensory room; a dance studio; a music room; meeting space and office space.

We will also see the development of the outdoor space at Clonallon Park, where the new community health and well-being hub will be located, and a sensory garden that will create a welcoming and inclusive space for people. The new community hub will also provide a space for bowls for the winter months. Local soccer and football teams will be able to avail themselves of the new changing rooms that will be located at the hub as well.

I thank everyone who has worked with us over the past 20 years to see the new community health and well-being hub finally become a reality, including those who engaged with us last summer, when we did our community engagement exercise and collected over 300 letters of support from the local community for the new community facility in Warrenpoint.

It will be a game changer for our town, and I assure the community that we will work with the council to ensure that diggers are on site at Clonallon Park and building work begins as soon as possible.

Mr Kingston: Last Friday, a number of masked individuals carried out a paint attack on the statue of Queen Victoria at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. Those responsible claim that the attack was about events that occurred over 125 years ago during the reign of Queen Victoria, but, in truth, they are just pathetic attention-seekers who carried out a hate crime. They have demonstrated once again that Irish republicanism readily descends into hatred, intolerance and, indeed, violence against what republicans consider to be British symbols, British culture and, indeed, British people. Where is the respect for cultural wealth and diversity?

Those responsible said in a statement:

That is a disgraceful and chilling threat. The vandalism belongs to the same category of so-called cultural cleansing as the actions of the Islamic State in Syria, when it systematically destroyed and damaged pre-Islamic world heritage sites at Palmyra and elsewhere because it wanted to erase items that did not suit its narrow view of cultural heritage.

Regarding the vandalism of the statue, where are the words of condemnation of that criminal act of intolerance and hate crime from the Sinn Féin MP for West Belfast, Paul Maskey, and the four Sinn Féin MLAs for West Belfast? Will they speak about the matter in the Chamber today? The Royal Victoria Hospital is the major trauma hospital for Belfast and beyond, where doctors, nurses and staff work tirelessly to save lives. People visit the site in times of emergency, as well as for the full gamut of medical procedures, including maternity services. The hospital was renamed after Queen Victoria in 1899, which is before any of us were born. It should not be targeted in violent political protest. If it is not possible for a major hospital to be a safe place in west Belfast, how could a major sporting venue or even a concert venue be viewed as a safe place to visit?

Let me be clear to those who think that they can erase the British identity from Northern Ireland: we are going nowhere.

Ms Ferguson: The imposition of the two-child limit was one of the cruellest examples of the austerity policy imposed by Westminster. Its removal next month is welcome and long overdue. Thousands of children and families have been harmed by the policy, which strips vital support from those who need it most. Sinn Féin opposed and challenged the measure from the moment that it was introduced because targeting vulnerable children is indefensible. When a Government choose to penalise struggling families, it tells us exactly where their priorities lie. Time and again, decisions taken in London have ignored the realities facing people in the North, regardless of their community. The continuation of cuts under Labour only reinforces that truth.

Whilst the removal of the limit is progress, it is not enough, because the system has been built and designed to penalise the very people whom it should strive to protect. The answer is not to depend on savage British Governments who impose punitive policies on our people and treat dignity as conditional; it is to build a new and united Ireland that protects children, supports workers and families, and puts the most vulnerable first.

Mr Brett: The party opposite never tires of telling us that it is the party of transparency and the working class, but, according to a remarkable investigation by the 'Sunday Life', it may also be the party with the most successful invisible bookshop in history.

Green Cross (Art and Bookshop) Ltd, a company directed by a former Sinn Féin finance director and other senior republican figures, has accumulated more than £220,000 in assets. However, there appears to be one small problem: there is no bookshop. There are no premises, no customers, no staff and, indeed, no books. Most bookshops that I visit rely on people coming in, browsing the shelves and buying something; this one appears to rely on no one coming in and no one buying anything, yet it has somehow ended up with £220,000 in its bank account. Clearly, it is less a retail association and more a work of fiction.

Perhaps the most revealing part of all of this is that, when the 'Sunday Life' approached Sinn Féin, it refused to comment. We are used to the well-known title 'Say Nothing', but that is hugely disappointing. If the bookshop were genuine, Sinn Féin could have told us where it was; it could have invited us in to have a look; it could have shown us the shelves; and, indeed, it could have recommended us a good read. Instead, it was a case of 'Say Nothing' and 'The Sound of Silence', which suggests that the only thing that is harder to find than the bookshop is Sinn Féin's willingness to answer questions about it.

Ordinary working people whom I represent do not have the luxury of silence when asked about their finances. They cannot refuse to respond to the bank; they cannot ignore the electricity bills; and they cannot pretend that questions do not exist. That is the difference: working-class people live in the real world. They do not operate mystery companies with six-figure assets but no visible business; they do not have invisible customers and silent balance sheets; and they certainly do not get to walk away when asked reasonable questions. If Sinn Féin wants to be taken seriously, it needs to tell us where the bookshop is and where it got the £220,000. However, perhaps the best-selling title in this mystery bookshop is 'The Invisible Man', because, just like that book, Sinn Féin's honesty does not exist.

Seo againn Seachtain na Gaeilge, an fhéile Ghaeilge is mó in Éirinn agus ar fud an domhain. Is féile idirnáisiúnta Ghaeilge í Seachtain na Gaeilge. Tá sí ar cheann de na ceiliúrthaí is mó dár dteanga agus dár gcultúr dúchais, agus bíonn sí ar siúl in Éirinn agus in go leor tíortha eile gach bliain.

Tugtar deis do gach duine le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge sult a bhaint as an Ghaeilge trí bheith páirteach san fhéile, idir chainteoirí dúchais, fhoghlaimeoirí agus lucht an chúpla focal ar aon. Bíonn imeachtaí ann a riarfaidh ort, cuma cén aois thú ná cad é an chiall atá agat do chuideachta. Beidh tús áite ag an cheol i rith Sheachtain na Gaeilge 2026. Déanann téama na bliana seo "A Ghaeilge, mo cheol thú" déanann sin ceiliúradh ar an nasc dhomhain bhuan idir an Ghaeilge agus an ceol. Beidh tréan imeachtaí ceoil ann i mbliana, rud a thabharfaidh léargas dúinn ar an phléisiúr atá i ndán don chathair nuair a thiocfaidh an fhleadh sa tsamhradh. Beidh Féile an Earraigh, Féile Trad Trail agus Ceiliúradh Mór na Féile Pádraig ar na himeachtaí lena gcuirfear bailchríoch ar cheiliúradh Lá Fhéile Pádraig.

Molaim do Chomhaltaí eolas a chur ar na himeachtaí atá ar siúl thart orthu nó a mbeidh suim acu iontu. Is le gach duine agus le gach pobal Seachtain na Gaeilge. Bain úsáid as cibé Gaeilge atá agat. Bí páirteach inti.

Mr K Buchanan: I place on record my deep concern that, once again, the reputation of our agri-food sector has been unfairly damaged. There are more than 26,000 farming families across Northern Ireland, and they deserve accuracy and respect in public discourse, not misleading claims that undermine confidence in a sector that is already under immense pressure.

At a meeting of Mid Ulster District Council on 26 February 2026, a representative of NI Water, a body that is under the Minister's remit, stated as fact — I repeat: as fact — that 70% of water pollution originates from agriculture. That is factually incorrect. That figure was presented as being accurate despite its being incorrect and not reflective of the scientific modelling on which it was claimed that it was based. Since then, NI Water has had to issue a statement admitting that nutrient modelling is only an estimate that is based on assumptions and available data and that cannot be treated as definite fact. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has stepped in to confirm that the figures quoted by NI Water do not match AFBI's modelling. AFBI stressed that all modelling carries uncertainty and must be explained properly, with the limitations being clearly understood.

In recent years, farming has faced increasing pressure and tighter rules because of concerns about Lough Neagh. That includes strict controls on nutrient management and farm run-off. Farmers have invested heavily in storage and followed complex regulations, and they work extremely hard, especially at times such as during the recent wet weather, to manage their nutrient responsibilities. At the same time, many farmers and residents continue to report what they believe to be raw sewage discharges into rivers and streams; only last week, we saw images of what appears to be discharge going into a river in Omagh.

NI Water is the second-largest landowner in Northern Ireland and is responsible for a significant share of the pollution that enters Lough Neagh. That is why public statements from NI Water must be accurate and balanced. The figures quoted at the council meeting were not even correct. Officials claimed that agriculture was responsible for 70% of phosphorus run-off and NI Water for 21%. Scientific modelling states that the figures are 62% and 24%. It is not about the 6%; it is about the fact that, first, it is modelling and, secondly, the 70% figure is not accurate, based on modelling. The Ulster Farmers' Union, rightly, called the comments "misleading and inappropriate". It has contacted NI Water to request a retraction and an apology.

My colleague Deborah Armstrong has previously raised the issue of those figures at Infrastructure Committee meetings and has now written to the Minister to seek clarification, following the meeting on Thursday evening. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation, to retract the inaccurate statement that was made by NI Water and to outline how she intends to restore confidence in the organisation, following that incident. The public, especially our farming families, deserve accuracy, fairness and accountability.

Mr Gaston: For the first time in my 20 months as an MLA, I will use the terms "Stormont" and "efficient" in the same sentence: Stormont has discovered how to be efficient, but only when it comes to MLA pay. Two weeks ago, we were told that there is no time left in the mandate to legislate on support for children with special educational needs when they leave school, but there was no problem finding space in the Order Paper to rush through a Bill to implement a massive 27% rise in MLA pay.

Of course, that is only because of the independent remuneration board, my detractors tell me, saying, "But, it's an independent board: it's nothing to do with me, guv'". Let us examine that fig leaf. The only meaningful amendment to the legislation that established the board was to insert the term "independent" into its title. The amendments that would have made the board genuinely independent were voted down, and the amendments that would have allowed for real public consultation were rejected by the House. When MLAs made it a requirement for the board to benchmark salaries against other roles for which pay is higher, they knew exactly what they were doing. The dice were loaded from the outset. The press were told, "This is out for consultation", and the Assembly even sent the press an email address, which was carried in some outlets, but there is no public consultation: the only people being asked to comment are MLAs and pension trustees.

At a time when households are struggling and we cannot fix our potholes, Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP constructed a process that excludes the public. That is not independence; it is a process that will result only in this place sinking lower in the public's estimation. If there was ever a sign of a Government being out of kilter with their people, a £14,000 pay increase for MLAs is it. I call on each MLA present to make their response public when the consultation closes on Thursday. Failure to do so will speak volumes on where they stand on the issue.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

Mr K Buchanan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House and to my colleague Deborah Erskine, whom I referred to as Deborah Armstrong. I had forgotten that she got married a few years back.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that clarification.

Mr Speaker: Earlier today, I had the pleasure of welcoming an Honorary Consul of East Timor to the Building and spending some time with him. I welcome him to the Chamber today. We have a community of about 4,000 East Timorese in Northern Ireland, who carry out essential work, mainly in the food industry but also in other industries.

Mr Speaker: Ms Kate Nicholl has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present the petition on behalf of residents and road users in Carryduff who are deeply concerned about pedestrian safety along a stretch of road beside the Eurospar. This is not a party political petition. It was started by my Alliance Party colleague Councillor Jamie Harpur, but it has the support of colleagues from across the political spectrum, and that is because it concerns a practical and urgent road safety matter that has been raised by people — parents, older residents, young people, shoppers and those accessing nearby services — who use the area every day.

The section of road experiences very high footfall alongside steady vehicle traffic. The current road layout, however, does not adequately protect pedestrians. There are significant dark spots owing to insufficient street lighting, and those are particularly noticeable during the evenings, winter months and periods of poor weather, making it harder for drivers to see pedestrians and more difficult for pedestrians to cross the road safely. Residents have also raised concerns that the existing pedestrian crossing arrangements are not sufficient for the volume of people using the stretch of road, leading to frequent near misses and understandable anxiety over the risk of a serious accident. The urgency of the petition comes in the wake of the death of a constituent from Carryduff who was killed on that road. So many people signed the petition in her memory to ensure that such a death never happens again. Our thoughts are very much with her family and friends.

The petitioners call on the Department for Infrastructure to take three straightforward and reasonable steps: to carry out an urgent pedestrian safety assessment of the location; to improve street lighting in order to eliminate dangerous dark spots; and to upgrade or install pedestrian crossing facilities that reflect the level of use in the area. Those proportionate measures are aimed solely at preventing harm and are ultimately about protecting life. The people who signed the petition are not asking for anything excessive, only that that busy local road be made safer for everyone who uses it.

I am pleased to present the petition to the Assembly today and ask that it be forwarded to the Department for Infrastructure for careful consideration.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee for Infrastructure.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change to the Chair before the statement from the Minister for the Economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Without further ado, Minister.

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

In accordance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement on the British-Irish Council (BIC) ministerial meeting in energy work sector format, which was held on Thursday 12 February. The British Government in London hosted the meeting, which was jointly chaired by the British and Scottish Governments as co-chairs of the energy work sector. I attended the meeting, virtually, along with Minister Lyons who attended as the accompanying Minister. The meeting brought together Ministers with responsibility for energy policy to consider how the eight member Administrations can continue to work together to address shared challenges.

Ministers discussed and reviewed the 'BIC Energy Work Sector 2022-2025' policy report and the work sector's activities across the period. We also reviewed and endorsed a new work plan. The 'Energy Work Sector 2022-2025' policy report paper reports on activities since the previous meeting in February 2022. The themes are decarbonising heat; offshore renewables, including wind, marine, grid and interconnection; new and emerging technologies, including hydrogen and carbon capture in storage; and local and community energy. The policy report paper also demonstrates the real value of the work sector in sharing learning, identifying challenges early and building momentum together across these islands. I take this opportunity to commend the extensive work that has taken place across the four themes over the past three years.

I was also pleased to see the report highlight the GeoEnergy project — a flagship geothermal demonstrator that we launched in 2023. That project is exploring the potential of the natural heat beneath our feet — work that should lead to heating homes, public buildings and businesses using clean, indigenous heat. I was especially encouraged that we hosted the energy work sector meeting in February 2024. Officials from the other member Administrations visited the Titanic Quarter in Belfast and had an opportunity to experience a commute on a Translink hydrogen bus and to visit CATAGEN and Artemis, which showcased the development and implementation of world-leading innovation in net zero technologies. Those companies represent the ambition of our region and the economic opportunity of the net zero transition.

Ministers also discussed and agreed the themes of the next forward work plan. I welcome and endorse that draft forward work plan and fully support its direction. The priority areas identified — public acceptance; just transition; supply chains and skills; and peer review — certainly align closely with the challenges that face our Administration. It is a practical, focused plan that recognises that accelerating decarbonisation requires not only technology and investment but public confidence, consumer buy-in, skilled people and strong supply chains.

I am particularly pleased that we will lead the theme of public acceptance. Our energy strategy places people at the heart of the transition. Public support cannot be taken for granted. People must be able to understand and experience the benefits of new energy technologies and systems in their everyday lives: stable energy prices, warmer homes, cleaner air and good jobs in their communities. They must have the opportunity to form citizen energy communities where local energy generation and consumption contributes to renewable energy sources and reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, while increasing social and community engagement and delivering local economic benefits. Ownership of clean, affordable, renewable energy is essential to reducing energy poverty, and those energy communities play a crucial role in the energy transition, as they help to create a sustainable and just energy future for us all. In leading that theme, we will collaborate with other Administrations to share experiences and learn collectively from our challenges and successes.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It demonstrates how quickly things can change in the energy sector. Minister, given the escalation of violence in the Middle East and the 10% jump in oil prices this morning, and particularly in light of the fact that more than two thirds of our households rely on home heating oil, what progress has been made towards linking the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) with the EU ETS ahead of Ireland's forthcoming EU presidency? How could that help to protect consumers from further price shocks, which, as we stand here today, seem inevitable?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is quite right: the past 48 hours have, again, demonstrated how our reliance on fossil fuels impacts on people's pockets. Therefore, it is important that we continue the work to transition away from fossil fuels and ensure that there is a genuine just transition in that regard.

The linking of the two schemes is work in progress between the British Government and the EU. We are being kept updated on that, and officials are engaged in understanding what that will mean, including any cost impacts, although we do not believe that there will be any. It will be a positive initiative and will be very welcome, but, as I say, it is work in progress.

Miss Dolan: Minister, now that Executive approval has been secured to ban petroleum licensing and exploration, including fracking, what are the next steps?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The next step is for me to write formally to the Speaker to outline my intention to put the petroleum exploration and licensing (repeal) Bill before the Assembly on 24 March. It is my intention that that Bill will pass into law during the current mandate. The Bill will introduce a permanent ban on issuing licences for all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production, including fracking. The Bill is an important step in supporting our decarbonisation journey, and it aligns with the Climate Change Act's emission reduction targets, the policy direction set in the energy strategy and the conclusions of independent research. Exploration for oil and gas would run contrary to those commitments and is unlikely to bring meaningful benefits to the local economy or consumers. Therefore, it is the right thing for us to do.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. Having moved to the Economy Committee last week, I look forward to working with her again.

Minister, this morning, I attended the all-party group on fuel poverty, at which Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, outlined progress in that area. In line with the wider Executive anti-poverty strategy, how do you think that some of the measures related to renewables and energy will help address fuel poverty?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question, and I wish her luck on the Economy Committee. I look forward to working with her.

The themes that have been set out in the next programme of work are ones that are really tangible to people and communities and are about ensuring that people understand and feel the benefits. When it comes to public acceptance, that is a particular theme that we will be leading on, because it is crucial that people understand what the transition will mean and how it can benefit them. There are also other issues around skills and supply chains that are, again, very tangible in ensuring that we are prepared for the transition and are able to take the full opportunities that are presented to us. That means that we have to have skills programmes in place, and it means that we need supply chains that will support the renewables sector more generally to deliver. That is really important work.

It is also really important for tackling fuel poverty, and Minister Lyons attended the meeting with me. It was particularly pertinent for him to have attended, given his role in retrofitting and in other initiatives that the Department for Communities leads on. There is a lot of cross-departmental work under all those themes that we can certainly pursue together.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. As has been said, what is happening in the Middle East will affect all our constituents because the price of energy is increasing, and energy security is coming back into focus.

You talked about public confidence moving forward.

That needs a plan-led approach. You talked about a strategy, but, with respect, a strategy is not a plan. When will we see a plan-led approach to give the public confidence as we move to transition?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As a member of the Economy Committee, he will know that we published the review of the energy strategy just before Christmas. It was a timely opportunity to look at the progress that has been made and at the areas where there are still challenges and opportunities to be grasped to meet those targets.

He will also know that a number of significant areas of policy development are progressing. A number of consultations that have concluded recently will contribute to the work to meet our targets. That is all really important. It is all set within the framework of the energy strategy, which guides us in the targets that we have set ourselves to align with the Climate Change Act. Working along those lines will help us to deliver against those targets. We are taking the approach of looking at the various areas and ensuring that we meet the milestones that have been set.

The Member will be aware of the number of areas of work that we would really like to see progress on before the end of the mandate. That will be challenging, but I believe that we can do it.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Was the development of biomethane as a renewable source discussed at the meeting? What potential is there for cross-border collaboration in the development of anaerobic digestion plants?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Biomethane has been discussed, not just in that forum but in other forums where we have cross-jurisdictional input in relation to energy. We have really good on-the-ground examples of it already happening. The work in the Department, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, is progressing and has had a new focus placed upon it.

I had the opportunity to meet some businesses that are pursuing that work and are keen to see it benefiting local communities, including those in Fermanagh. The Department is putting considerable focus on that, in collaboration with DAERA, and we hope to see good progress on it in the coming months.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for that important statement. When will the new policy on grid connections come into effect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Since the publication of my decision, the Utility Regulator has been progressing the necessary licence modifications for NIE Networks and undertaken the regulatory scrutiny of the detailed charging arrangements. Subject to the completion of that regulatory process, NIE Networks is expected to publish a new statement of connection charges before the end of June 2026, enabling the new fairer connection charging arrangements to then take effect for customers.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Minister, for your remarks so far. On the issue of the decarbonisation agenda, at a recent meeting that I attended in the Oireachtas, I was surprised that Cathy Bennett TD stated that there was no need for renewables to be transferred out of the island of Ireland, particularly out of the Republic of Ireland, and that, therefore, there was no need for the North/South interconnector. Did you and the Irish Government Minister who attended discuss that issue? Is the North/South interconnector still a priority for both Governments?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The North/South interconnector is important for our security of supply. We need to see that progressed in lines with the terms under which it was approved.

Mr Gaston: What activities has the Minister's Department been involved in to build a hydrogen economy here in Northern Ireland? Wrightbus in my constituency is a world leader in building hydrogen buses, but, due to there being no investment in local infrastructure, its hydrogen buses are being exported. When will we see proper investment in hydrogen development in Northern Ireland to make Ballymena the home of hydrogen in Northern Ireland?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, you have got a lot on the record. There you go, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I will be meeting Wrightbus in the near future, and I look forward to hearing about its plans. As the Member will be aware, there are plans in the growth deal for a hydrogen hub, which is really welcome. There are considerable opportunities, and Wrightbus is one example. There are others, such as CATAGEN, that are doing really important work that we will be able to show the benefits of. We can show how we are a leader in this technology. Along with Invest NI and others, my Department is working to support that. I am also happy to continue to work with the Member in relation to his constituency interests.

Mr Brett: I apologise to the House for being late for the Minister's statement. Thank you, Minister, for your statement and your important work on this matter. Can you expand on the relationship with GB Energy? I see that as a really important opportunity to get some much-needed financial support, particularly for community-led energy projects, which I know you are committed to delivering. Can you outline ongoing work in that important regard?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My officials have been working with Ministers in Britain to understand the priorities that GB Energy has now agreed. In particular, it has placed a focus on local power plans and community-led projects. I want us to lean into that in order to make sure that communities here are able to access the supports that are available from GB Energy and the funding that will flow from them. My officials are engaging on that, and I have asked them to put a new focus on it so that we can make sure that we gain from any arrangements that are being put in place.

Ms Nicholl: I also apologise for missing the start of the Minister's statement. Thank you for your update, Minister. So much positive and ambitious work is happening in this space, but the right people with the right skills will be required to deliver. What conversations have you had about that and plans to deliver?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. That is one of the themes of the new work plan. We all recognise that if we are to harness the benefits of the transition to net zero, we will need people with skills. The Department published the green skills action plan a number of months ago, which sets out how we plan to ensure that we have the people and the pipeline of skills coming through across the different disciplines that are going to be required. Having that as one of the themes in the work plan across all eight jurisdictions means that we can learn from work that others are doing, and they can do likewise. It also means that, where challenges are presented, we will have the opportunity to look at what others are doing and learn from that. I am really pleased that that is one of the themes. We need to continue to focus on that and make sure that we continue to engage with industry in order to understand its needs. That was one of the aspects of the green skills action plan that I was particularly pleased about, because it was genuinely industry-led and responded to the industry's needs. We need to keep that under review and iteratively update our action plans in order to ensure that they continue to be relevant.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The question on stand part will be put on each clause, followed by that on the schedules and the long title. If that is clear, I am just going to go through all this.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Members should also note that Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill is scheduled for tomorrow. The window for tabling amendments for Further Consideration Stage will open immediately on the conclusion of this item of business and close one hour thereafter.

Mr Chambers (The Chairperson of the Audit Committee): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Chambers: On behalf of the Audit Committee, I ask the House to support the motion. Article 4(1) of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 provides for the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) to be determined by a resolution of the Assembly. Standing Order 58(2) provides for the Audit Committee to table any motion relating to the salary. Under the legislation, the salary must not exceed:

and it cannot be decreased by the Assembly. The proposals remain within those limits. The salary is charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Assembly cannot pass a resolution that:

unless the Minister of Finance makes a recommendation. I can confirm that the Minister was content to make a recommendation in this case.

The Committee has taken every available opportunity to emphasise the enormous value of the C&AG's work and the great responsibility that the postholder has for the external audit of central government bodies in Northern Ireland, including Executive Departments, their agencies and a wide range of other public-sector bodies. The postholder is also head of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO), which works closely with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in its scrutiny of public spending. The C&AG's salary should equate to that level of responsibility. That is not only fair but essential for safeguarding public accountability.

The salary has not been reviewed since March 2022, at which time the Committee recommended a salary level of £154,527, which was in line with the judicial group 5 salary at the time. In the plenary debate, however, the then Committee Chairperson acknowledged that there was a question about whether judicial group 5 was the most appropriate group against which the salary should be benchmarked. The then Committee therefore recommended that the Committee consider reviewing the options open to it to determine the salary in the future. The current Comptroller and Auditor General was appointed on a fixed salary of £154,041. In anticipation of a fuller review of the arrangements, however, the terms of appointment were not referenced to a judicial salary scale, nor was reference made to annual revalorisation.

It would not be reasonable or logical for the Committee to recommend that the Assembly return to the link with judicial group 5 salary, which is approaching a figure of £190,000 per annum, without robust evidence to indicate that that salary level or linking the office of the C&AG with that of a judge was appropriate. Having considered the available evidence and the legal position, the Committee is not recommending that the Assembly return to the link with judicial group 5 as the salary mechanism for the reasons set out in its report.

Having completed the review set out in the Committee's report, the Committee recommends to the Assembly that it increase the salary by 4% for the period 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. That is in line with the percentage pay award made to Assembly Commission staff and represents an increase of £6,181 to £160,708. We also recommend that that salary level be applied retrospectively to make an allowance for inflation from the beginning of the financial year 2023-24, which was the first full financial year in which the current postholder was in office.

The Committee considered longer-term salary-setting options, such as linking the C&AG salary to Senior Civil Service salaries, and those options are set out in the report. In the end, there was not a sufficient evidence base on which to make a robust recommendation. Importantly, the Committee has identified the need for further work in this regard and recommends that a feasibility study on a full job evaluation exercise be carried out in line with the timescales for the appointment of the next C&AG.

I, again, thank the incumbent C&AG, Dorinnia Carville, and the NIAO for their invaluable work in safeguarding public accountability in Northern Ireland. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr McCrossan: The motion is interesting and raises issues that go far beyond the simple question of salary or administrative arrangements. We are dealing with the independence of one of the most important scrutiny roles in Northern Ireland: the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The C&AG plays a vital and effective role in protecting the public interest. Through the work of the Audit Office, the C&AG uncovers waste, inefficiency and failure in public services, identifies where public money is not delivering and highlights the outcomes that people deserve. That work is real and effective, and it matters. It went on when the Assembly did not function; in fact, in the absence of these structures functioning, the only governance that existed in this place came from the Audit Office. Without the C&AG, the Assembly would have far less ability to scrutinise government and hold Departments to account. I am Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, so I see at first hand the vital work that the C&AG and the Northern Ireland Audit Office carry out.

The evidence gathered by the Audit Office raises a number of questions. Its independence is absolutely fundamental. This is a key question: should politicians set the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General in Northern Ireland? Surely that raises a question about the independence of the role and about political interference in and influence over the role of the watchdog in Northern Ireland.

There are serious concerns about the direction being taken by the Audit Committee. As a previous Audit Committee Chair, I had the honour of adopting a clear and principled position that linked the Comptroller and Auditor General's remuneration to the judicial group 5 rate. That was a cross-party agreement. I do not know why the Executive parties are deviating from the decision that was previously reached. A lot of evidence was brought before the Committee at that time that established that that was the right direction of travel. That approach was deliberate. It provided a transparent benchmark, removed political discretion and protected the independence of that fundamental and vital office. It ensured that politicians were not placed in the position of deciding the pay of the very individual responsible for scrutinising how public money is spent. That was the right approach then, and the same approach should be taken now. This question must be asked: why has the Audit Committee deviated from that position? What is the rationale for abandoning a system that provided clarity, independence and objectivity? No convincing explanation has been offered; instead, we are presented with a proposal to set a cash figure until further notice, without reference to any recognised benchmark and without any clear mechanism for future adjustment, which is the very opposite of what the independent body is doing on MLAs' pay. That is not good governance, it is not transparent and it is not acceptable.

Let us be honest about what the proposal means. Under the proposal, in effect, politicians will determine the salary of the C&AG, the office responsible for scrutinising those politicians and the Departments that they oversee. That creates a clear and unavoidable conflict. It is not healthy for the Assembly, for scrutiny or for public confidence. The previous Audit Committee, which I chaired, linked the C&AG's salary to the judicial group 5 rate precisely in order to remove any perception of political interference. Perception matters: independence must not only exist; it must be seen to exist.

I am particularly concerned that the change is being driven by Executive parties that sit on the Audit Committee — the same parties that hold ministerial office and control the Departments that the C&AG holds to account and are time and again the core feature of the Audit Office's reports. It is deeply troubling that the Executive parties appear willing to abandon a system designed to protect independence in favour of one that increases political control. That sends entirely the wrong message. It is extremely dangerous territory for the Assembly to encroach on.

The Comptroller and Auditor General must be free to follow evidence wherever it leads, free to expose waste, free to challenge Departments and free to speak truth to power without fear, favour or political influence. The role exists to hold government to account. It is not the role of government to exert influence over that office, yet the Audit Committee's actions do exactly that. Why deviate from the previous position? It was well set out in the Assembly, during the previous mandate, why the Committee reached that position. I believe that you do a disservice to that office, to the C&AG, who is a fantastic leader in that area, and to the Assembly. The Audit Committee is making a huge mistake, and we will not support it.

Ms D Armstrong: I will make a short contribution to the debate. I welcome the motion and thank the Audit Committee for the work that it has undertaken to bring it to this point. However, I have one question that may be covered in the winding-up of the debate: why does the report not recommend that the salary be linked to judicial salary group 5?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Forsythe to wind up the debate on the Committee motion.

Ms Forsythe: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As the Committee Chairperson said, there is no underestimating the value of the work carried out by the C&AG and the great responsibility of the postholder. It is therefore important that the salary is fair, appropriately reflects the complexity and responsibilities of the role and is set using an objective evidence-based and transparent process. That is why the Committee recommends further work to establish an appropriate evidence-based mechanism for the longer term, potentially through the completion of a full-job evaluation exercise if that is found to be feasible.

I will highlight it briefly that the Committee has reviewed its own role in terms of the appropriateness of making recommendations to the Assembly on the C&AG's salary. While it considered several options that are set out in the report, including transferring the responsibility to the Assembly Commission, it does not recommend any changes to the current arrangements, as it understands that that would require significant legislative change to safeguard the independence of the C&AG.

The Committee is aware that, in continuing to make salary recommendations to the Assembly, there is a continued risk of the political context impacting on decisions to review the salary. For that reason, the Committee recommends the introduction of new processes and procedures to help ensure that there is a consistent approach to salary reviews going forward. The role of the Assembly in setting the salary of the C&AG appropriately reflects the independence of the office from government. However, it is fair and appropriate that that is done in a consistent and predictable manner.

I also acknowledge that the salary of the office of C&AG is set in public, which is unique to the role of C&AG here. That reflects the existing legislation. However, we must remember that, while the Assembly debates the appropriate salary for the office, an individual is in post, and, therefore, I take the opportunity to thank the incumbent C&AG, Dorinnia Carville, for her unwavering commitment to —

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Chambers: Does the Member agree that the work carried out by the Audit Committee was done under the auspices of long-standing legislation and that the work of the Committee was in no way influenced by party political interests?

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

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention and agree that the Committee took the role seriously, and politics did not come into it. The review and the processes were followed as set out and to the best ability of the Committee.

I thank the incumbent C&AG for her unwavering commitment to ensuring effective public accountability and leadership of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

I will comment on some of the contributions. Daniel McCrossan, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, referenced the importance and exceptional work of the C&AG. As a former Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I concur with him on that. He also mentioned that he previously chaired the Audit Committee, and it was recorded in the plenary debate, as the Chairperson, Mr Chambers, said, that there was a question about whether judicial group 5 was the most appropriate group against which the salary should be benchmarked. The former Audit Committee recommended that this Committee consider reviewing the options in determining the salary in future.
I will address Diana Armstrong's point about why we are not recommending that the salary be linked with judicial salary group 5. The Senior Salaries Review Body recommended for 2026 for judicial group 5 a salary level heading towards £190,000.

Historically, C&AG salaries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been linked to the salary of a judge in the judicial salary group 5. However, England, Scotland and Wales have been moving away from that approach since the review of the National Audit Office's corporate governance by John Tyner, which was published in January 2008. It recommended that the link with judicial salaries be broken in England. Previous Audit Committees considered the benefits of the historical link, but they also acknowledged the question of its appropriateness.

In the debate on 22 March 2022, the former Chair stated:

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Deputy Chair of the Audit Committee's giving way. Would it not have been better to retain the peg or benchmark with judicial salary grade 5 until the review that you have talked about concludes? The review is happening, but we are breaking the link before it has concluded. Would it not have been better to leave that link in place transparently until the review comes up with a thought-through alternative?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for the intervention. On review of the process, it was clear to us that, had we continued in that way, the legislation in place meant that we could not go back and change it. Therefore, if that were put in place, it would not allow for the full job evaluation to carry forward in its fullest and most complete form. It could potentially predetermine the outcome of that. In the Committee's view, it would not be reasonable or logical to recommend returning to the link to that scale without robust evidence indicating that it was appropriate to do so. On balance, the Committee decided not to recommend to the Assembly the linkage to that at this time.

Daniel McCrossan asked why no change was proposed to the arrangement with the Audit Committee.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up. Sorry about that, Diane.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Given that we are running up to Question Time, I will put the Question again afterwards. I will not go through the formal voting mechanisms now. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Bunting will answer the question.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We understand the importance of acknowledgement for victims and survivors and so remain committed to progressing that important legislation. Members will be aware that Committee Stage concluded at the end of January. We thank the Committee for its work and for producing its report. We expect Consideration Stage to take place after the Easter recess, following further engagement with Executive colleagues on key proposed amendments. Our aim is to complete Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage before the summer recess with Royal Assent anticipated during the summer months.

Preparatory work on the necessary secondary legislation is progressing well. We plan to consult on that shortly after the final vote, with the intention of opening the redress scheme before the end of the year. That will represent another important set of milestones in providing victims and survivors with truth and acknowledgement.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as ucht an fhreagra sin.

I acknowledge the work of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on engaging with victims' groups and progressing the historical institutional abuse (HIA) stone memorial. What lessons can be learned from the HIA process?

Ms Bunting: We are building on the strong and well-respected foundations laid by the historical institutional abuse process, in which over 5,000 people received financial redress. The learning from that experience has directly shaped the development of the new redress scheme.

One of the strengths of the HIA process was the commitment and expertise of the staff involved. We are carrying that forward by ensuring that experienced, specialist teams are in place from the outset. They will be people who understand the sensitivity and complexity of the work. Given what people have been through already, that is important. Above all, the central lesson has been the value of keeping victims and survivors at the heart of every stage. That remains our guiding principle as we deliver the scheme. With that in mind, I pay tribute to the team that works on truth recovery. Its members are absolutely dedicated to the work, and they engage frequently with victims and survivors.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, junior Minister, for recognising the work that the Committee did to deliver its report. It is important that victims and survivors can have their situation explained to the public inquiry, when we get to that stage. How will they be involved in shaping the inquiry's terms of reference?

Ms Bunting: The inquiry will open as soon as possible after the relevant primary and secondary legislation comes into force. In my initial answer, I outlined how the time frame for the primary and secondary legislation is progressing well at this stage.

Victims and survivors have been at the heart of the process from the beginning. There are many things that they would like. We need to ensure that every aspect is independent so that they and, indeed, wider society can have confidence in the process. When the Bill passes, there will be consultation on the next steps and on the rules of the inquiry to ensure that the concerns of victims and survivors are addressed and that they are heard and listened to via the consultative forums.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) is one of the most pressing challenges facing society today. That is why we have invested over £5 million in communities to raise awareness of the issue and the role that we all must play in prevention. We have submitted bids that reflect the level of investment required to continue to deliver the strategic framework and to support the programme's longer-term ambitions. We note the Minister of Finance's draft proposals, which are out for consultation and propose that allocations for ending violence against women and girls will be earmarked. Budget planning for the 2026-27 financial year will, however, depend on the outcome of the Executive's Budget process, which has not yet concluded. In the meantime, work continues at pace, and we hope to bring the new ending violence against women and girls delivery plan to the Executive very shortly.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You will probably be aware that, in 2022, Regina Coeli, a women's refuge, closed in my constituency. I commend the people who worked and volunteered there. Since then, there has been no place in West Belfast for women to go if they have been subjected to domestic violence by partners or ex-partners. As part of the strategy that you outlined, will consideration be given to expanding the number of refuges in my constituency and across the North?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is critical that not only the strategy but, indeed, the delivery plan are multifaceted and take into account all aspects. We often talk about the fact that prevention is at the heart of the strategy and that that must start at an early stage — that is why we are working with schools, youth organisations and sporting organisations — but you are absolutely right: there is a critical need at the point at which a woman needs to leave the home due to the violence within it. We know from so much research that the most dangerous time for a woman is the period between telling their partner that they are going to leave and actually leaving. The lack of refuge spaces can cause significant delay. All Departments need to get together to address the issue; it does not just sit with the Executive Office. I hope that the second delivery plan will bring the right people around the table to finally get the issue resolved. Women should have a right to refuge when they need it, and they should be able to get to a place of safety as quickly as possible, recognising all the dangers.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Significant awareness has been raised of the ending violence against women and girls strategy. Will the deputy First Minister outline what work is going on through the change fund and at a community level to raise awareness of the strategy among men and boys?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. That is really important. Often, the people who have been most involved in the campaign to get a strategy, ring-fenced funding and a delivery plan are those who have seen the issue at first hand. They are women who have been the victims of such violence and people who have worked with those women and the organisations that have lobbied. However, of course, change needs to happen at a societal level; it must go much beyond those organisations. That is recognised at the heart of the strategy and the delivery plan. That is why we are reaching out to schools and sporting clubs, including those whose members are predominantly boys, and why, as part of our strategy and delivery plan, we have a course of work that looks at men and boys. Prevention and education are critical. We may not see the benefits of it for many years to come, but we know and recognise from looking at all the expertise that that work needs to happen now to prevent violence towards women and girls in five years, 10 years, 20 years and further into the future.

Ms Forsythe: The need to protect women and girls and all our young people online is a growing concern. In the UK, a public consultation has been launched on whether to ban social media for under-16s. What is TEO doing to address violence against women and girls online?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. That is an absolutely essential issue in an emerging and evolving area. I know that, like me, the Member has been a victim of violence online. It really is disgraceful. Some of the recent deepfakes and other issues demonstrate how the issue continues to evolve as technology advances. The issues continue to evolve, frankly, day by day, and we need to be agile enough to address the emerging threats and risks online.

I know that Ofcom has been really active in that area. Our junior Ministers met Ofcom specifically on the danger to women and girls online. However, I am conscious that more must be done. I once again reiterate that the big social media companies are much too slow to cooperate with the PSNI and other authorities to try to identify some of the perpetrators and get that activity locked down as quickly as possible.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Supported by a £61 million investment from the transformation fund, the delivery unit has been overseeing the implementation of a transformation project to expand multidisciplinary teams in GP practices. That is a core element of the wider health reforms aimed at strengthening early intervention and prevention, shifting care closer to home and supporting the development of a neighbourhood model of care to take the pressure off our overstretched hospitals.

The unit has also had a key role in identifying new transformation opportunities across the public sector with the potential to improve population health and well-being. In addition, it has identified a range of best practice measures to address hospital waiting lists and has explored the implementation of those initiatives with health officials and delivery partners. They include the enhanced triaging of waiting lists; the potential for AI and digital solutions to improve efficiency; and the role of behavioural science in supporting much-needed reform.

Mr Honeyford: Reducing waiting lists and accessing GP services are among the issues that we deal with most: they are our constituents' priority. I welcome the answer, but how can the public take the work of the delivery unit seriously if it has not yet met the Minister who is responsible for health?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the delivery unit is. It is a unit in the Executive Office made up of civil servants. It is a small unit, and it is designed to be small and agile. When we were setting up the unit, we took advice from the experts in delivery units. We spoke to officials in Whitehall about what was happening there, and we spoke to the Welsh First Minister about her delivery unit. We have taken that advice, which is that the units are to be small, agile and answerable directly to the Ministers, who, in this case, are the First Minister and I. The units are also to identify key pieces of work that, they feel, can make the most difference.

I often liken the unit to a small tugboat. The unit is small, but sometimes it can genuinely make a significant difference in turning round big, tricky issues, just as the little tugboat can turn a bigger boat around in the harbour. That is what it is designed to do, and it works. It is an official-level group that works with officials on a number of projects. The health waiting list initiative is led by Health — that is understandable and absolutely right — but our officials are there to work with Health officials to identify research and ideas and feed that back to us, and we respond on that to the Executive. That is the structure.

Mr McGuigan: Deputy First Minister, you have mentioned a number of measures and the work by your officials in the Executive Office and the delivery unit. Subsequent to that, what specific actions has the delivery unit taken to reduce waiting lists?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Again, the delivery unit is designed to work closely with the officials who are taking the lead in the relevant Department. They support them with data analytics, for example, the examination of that data and looking at ideas from elsewhere. We have good people working in our system, but, often, we find that the best people working in the system tend to be the busiest. They have a task, and they are trying to drive that forward. Delivery units are often used because they give a bit of space to look elsewhere and to see some of the ideas that have been implemented in other jurisdictions, which we can magpie and take for possible piloting or implementation in Northern Ireland. We need game changers.

The public are, of course, frustrated when they cannot get through to their GP; when they have been sitting on a waiting list for many years; or when they see some of those big issues in our public services. We cannot keep doing what we are doing. We need to do things differently, and we need the good ideas to enable us to do that. That is exactly what the delivery unit is designed to do.

Mr Kingston: Will the deputy First Minister say a bit more about what the delivery unit is, for the benefit of Members but particularly for the benefit of some from the SDLP who, going by some of their recent Assembly questions, do not seem to have a clear understanding of what it is?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The delivery unit is a new concept for the Northern Ireland Executive and Departments, but it is not a new concept. It is a concept that has been rolled out successfully in many other jurisdictions. Before we set it up, we had conversations at a high level to make sure that whatever structure we put in place was based on the delivery units that have been most effective.

It is a challenge for all of us: it is a challenge for every Committee and every Member. If you see a good idea, experience a policy or change or see something being implemented elsewhere that seems to be producing good results, we want to hear about it.

You can feed that in, and we will get our delivery unit to look at that. We need those good ideas and game changers. We must improve public services, which must mean doing things differently and getting better outcomes for the people whom we serve.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, we are keen to hear, as Mr Kingston said, about what the delivery unit is actually doing. The unit was heavily trailed in the Programme for Government, so it is legitimate to ask about it. So far today, we have heard that it is both a tugboat and a magpie. I am all for mixing metaphors when it is appropriate, but I want to know exactly what the delivery unit has delivered — no pun intended. You said that you and the First Minister would bring recommendations from the delivery unit to the Executive. How many have you brought, and what have they been?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I outlined, the delivery unit works with officials in other Departments. At the moment, it is focused on the nine key priorities in the Programme for Government. However, it is about learning from best practice regarding delivery units. I believe that the Member was involved in London when the delivery unit there was quite successfully rolled out. We have taken the learning from that. It is absolutely key that a delivery unit is not given too many things to look at. It should not be given a top-heavy structure. It is designed to work within the system and for the system, with direct accountability to the First Minister and me. That is the way in which we have set up the delivery unit. It is not about the delivery unit's coming up with an idea, implementing it over the head of another Minister and gaining glory; it is about working collaboratively. One of the big challenges that we have in government is achieving genuine cross-departmental, cross-agency collaborative working. It has been a frustration for much too long. The unit will work across government, and, at the moment, it is focusing on two things: first, supporting the Health Department when it comes to health waiting lists, which is a multifaceted issue, particularly regarding the transformation project; and, secondly, overseeing the transformation and the range of transformation projects.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, junior Minister Bunting will answer the question.

Ms Bunting: Preparations for the redress service are progressing well, and the intention is to launch it later this year, subject to the passage of the legislation. In the interim, a shadow redress service has been established in the Department of Justice. That team includes officials with experience from other redress schemes, and they bring valuable expertise in working in a trauma-informed way. The current work is centred on developing the IT system, progressing staff recruitment and developing the support model so that everything is ready to go. The shadow secretary has met the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum several times and will continue to engage as the application process and support arrangements are further developed. Our officials and the shadow secretary would also welcome the opportunity to brief the Committee on the plans in the coming months. Our collective focus remains on delivering a redress scheme that treats people with sensitivity and dignity, and with the respect that they deserve.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, junior Minister, for that update. It is great to hear that so much work is going on behind the scenes.

Junior Minister, you will be aware that, because the scheme is admissions-based, many victims and survivors and family members are concerned that they will not have the appropriate information about their admission to one of those institutions. What work is ongoing to help people to access their birth or adoption records?

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for her question. We know that access to records is a hugely important issue for victims and survivors, and we are aware that many have faced real obstacles and difficulties in trying to understand their past or trace their family history. Work has been ongoing to improve that experience and make those processes as straightforward and supportive as possible. Applicants to the scheme will have practical support from the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI to help them to navigate what can be a difficult and emotional process. We are also working closely with the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland on digitising records and with the health and social care trusts and the Department of Health on managing any resourcing pressures so that resources can be located and provided as efficiently as possible. However, we have to be realistic and mindful that the removal of the posthumous date could lead to thousands more applications, with many relating to events going back over a century to the beginning of the state. That would have a bearing.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two conversations going on to my left, and it has been —.

Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time —

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, but —.

Mr Speaker: — but I note the comment. If Members wish to engage in loud conversations, they could perhaps do that outside. If they do so quietly, that is a different matter.

Ms Flynn: I thank the junior Minister for her response regarding redress. When will the inquiry chair be appointed, and when will the public inquiry start?

Ms Bunting: The public inquiry will open as soon as possible after the primary and secondary legislation come into force. I have already outlined the time frame for the primary legislation, and the secondary legislation is progressing well. As I said, we are conscious of time, but we are eager to ensure that the decisions that we take, the processes that are in place and the outworkings of those are right for victims and survivors.

With regard to the appointment of the inquiry chair, in its interim report, the independent panel recommended that Ministers consider the early appointment of the chair of the public inquiry. We see a number of benefits to the early appointment of an inquiry chair designate and can confirm that work is ongoing to achieve that. The Department worked in conjunction with victims and survivors on the proposed process and sought appropriate nominations. Approximately 59 nominations were received, of which 29 were from victims and survivors. A shortlist has been agreed, and it is hoped that the inquiry chair designate will be in place as soon as practically possible.

Mr Brett: I welcome the junior Minister back to her place. We are delighted to have her back. In relation to contributions, the Committee was very keen that work be done by the Executive Office team to ensure that the named institutions contributed to the scheme. Can the junior Minister update us on the work that officials have undertaken on that important matter?

Ms Bunting: I am very grateful to the Member for that question. Every right-thinking person has an expectation that institutions found to have caused harm or abuse should absolutely contribute, but timing is critical. Let me be clear: we are absolutely committed to seeking contributions from the organisations deemed responsible, but we must do so at the appropriate time and in a way that does not compromise the delivery of the scheme or the independence of the public inquiry. Where wrongdoing has been found, in my view, there is a moral obligation for institutions to contribute. It is the right thing to do. Society expects it, and, more significantly, for victims and survivors, it is an important aspect of accountability.

However, I must warn that trying to compel contributions through legislation would carry real risks. It could raise compatibility issues with the European Convention on Human Rights and, in turn, create questions for us around the legislative competence of our Bill. There are also issues around property and those promoting current service, which could be jeopardised. There is a lot to think about, and a considered and informed decision is required. We are actively considering the Committee's proposed amendment to place a duty on the Department to publish a report on how contributions will be sought once the inquiry has concluded. We agree with the intention behind the proposal, but we reserve the right to bring forward our own amendment to best reflect the departmental policy and the legalities and to give us the best opportunity to maximise contributions.

I assure the House that we are exploring all avenues in relation to seeking contributions. In February, junior Minister Reilly and I met the Scottish Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to discuss the Scottish approach. Interestingly, Scotland reports on contributions that are received and those that are not, but its scheme also involves a waiver as an incentive, and everything in its scheme is voluntary. We are also planning to meet Minister Norma Foley from the Irish Government on the same issue in the coming months.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up.

Ms Bunting: I assure Members that work is ongoing to shape a fair and legally sound model.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The victims and survivors strategy contains a commitment to work with victims and survivors, and wider society, to develop a designated public space of reflection where people can come together to remember our past. Work in this space is complex and sensitive. Currently, the focus of the strategy is on preparations for the new victim support programme. Final allocations for the programme are expected to be made at the end of March. The delivery of the programme is expected to contribute to a range of commitments in the strategy.

Ms Egan: Thank you, deputy First Minister. The strategy for victims and survivors states that there will be an exploration of:

and how this can be acknowledged. Years have now passed, and many people are elderly, so it is important that the survivors have input into that work. How is that ongoing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have had a briefing from our officials around some early preparatory work. The Member will understand fully that it is a hugely sensitive area that needs to be led by victims and survivors. There will certainly not be a one-size-fits-all approach. I have had the great privilege of working with victims and survivors' groups for many years over the past two decades. I have sat with victims and survivors and seen their tears, and I have heard very clearly how much hurt they still suffer now. Whatever we do needs to be incredibly sensitive to that. There is no doubt that the issue of the definition of "a victim" has been significant in this space over the past 20 to 30 years. We will be working with victims and survivors. I have said it before and will say it again: in my role, I feel that it is my responsibility to do absolutely nothing that would cause further hurt to people. It is in that context that we are exploring some of the options around the matter.

Mr McHugh: The deputy First Minister will know that the VSS is a key pillar in the provision of essential services to victims and survivors of the conflict. Given that, will she explain why there are four outstanding appointments to its board? Those appointments should have been made following a public appointments process.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We always strive to ensure that there is as full a complement as possible. We are conscious that there are vacancies on a number of boards at the moment. We have been going through a process to try to fill those vacancies. A number of proposals have been made in this case, and those are under consideration.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: First, we acknowledge the significant and long-term impact that clerical child abuse has had on victims and survivors and express our sincere sympathy with all those who have been impacted on. We have been carefully considering the research reports. As the Member will appreciate, it is an important, complex and sensitive issue. We are working with officials to explore a number of possible ways forward. That includes support for victims and survivors, improvements to current safeguarding mechanisms and any further action.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, deputy First Minister. You will be aware that there have been calls to publish the research reports and for an explanation as to why they cannot currently be published. Are you able to advise on a summary of the findings and recommendations contained in the reports and whether those can be published?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The reports are significant and lengthy, and they contain a range of observations rather than conclusions, at times. However, they are all very useful in our consideration of the way forward. We decided some time back to commission the research reports because there was a lot that was not known about the issues. The reports definitely give us a better understanding of the complexity of the framework and context. I do not have any particular principled objection to the publication of the reports. However, I advise the Member that they were commissioned not necessarily for publication but to inform the process. We are actively considering that at the moment, because I know that people want to see what is in the reports. That is why we have not published to date, but we are making sure that the issue of publication is part of our consideration.

Mrs Mason: Will the deputy First Minister detail what meetings and engagements have taken place on historical clerical child abuse since the completion of the three research reports and on the independent working group's recommendations?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, of course. We meet officials regularly, and we will do so this week to discuss further the scoping out of a potential way forward. We met on 23 September 2025 to discuss the three research reports. We also met the independent chair on 10 November 2025, and it was a very useful meeting with lots of detail and lots of questions about that important piece of work. We also discussed the issue with the Chief Constable in a meeting in early December 2025. I can assure the Member that there is constant discussion about it. Indeed, the First Minister and I discussed it again just this morning. We are very conscious that there is an expectation and desire out there, and we want to find a way through that best gives victims and survivors the opportunity for truth and justice.

Mr Harvey: As with HIA and truth recovery, it is vital that victims and survivors are at the core of our work on historical clerical child abuse. What has been the contribution of victims and survivors to the process to date?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. At the heart of all that we do must be those most impacted on: the victims and survivors. We acknowledge and put on record that it is incredibly difficult for those who have suffered at times horrendous abuse to come forward and share their story and their reflections to help inform the work and a way forward. I say a huge "Thank you" to all who have done so. There has been participation with the independent chair to inform some of that work, and I know that the junior Ministers have met victims and survivors through the forum on a number of occasions. In addition, many hundreds of victims and survivors came forward to contribute to the research reports. We genuinely thank all of them for that. Their contribution has been invaluable to our considerations. Victims and survivors have absolutely been at the heart of everything that we have done so far.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I will do something that I do not always do and follow up on a question that I have asked before. I asked about the work of the delivery unit: delivery is something that the public across Northern Ireland want but do not feel that they are getting from the Executive. That is clear; it is evident from all the polling and is evident when we go out on the street and talk to the public.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As indicated, the delivery unit is focusing on two areas. One is supporting the Department of Health with its objective, as set out in the Programme for Government (PFG), of reducing health waiting lists, looking in particular at the transformation project to have multidisciplinary teams in GP practices. In addition to that, it is looking elsewhere. For example, the Welsh delivery unit has been working closely with the Welsh Government on triaging lists so that people do not need to be on them any longer than is necessary. It is also looking at mega-clinics and other initiatives. There is a wide range of aspects.

I advise the Member that the delivery unit is a small unit. We hope to introduce small game changers, particularly in Programme for Government delivery. It works hand in glove with the agenda for the new AI and digital unit, the AI strategy and the data strategy. We are conscious that the Department cannot do everything, of course, and we should not try to do everything. The unit is very much a small team of civil servants working with others in Departments to support them in achieving their objectives and outcomes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, deputy First Minister. To be clear, I have no difficulty with the idea of a delivery unit. I used to work in Whitehall: there was one there that did work for a long time, and, as you said, they are used in other devolved jurisdictions. I have no issue with them in principle.

The public in Northern Ireland, however, simply do not see delivery from the Executive, and, worse than that, they see no prioritisation of delivery. They see you and the First Minister struggling even to attend the same meeting. To that end, deputy First Minister, will you update the House on clear and precise priorities not just for the delivery unit but for the whole Executive? Two years on from the restoration of the institutions, whether it is on waiting lists, on which, I understand, work is going on, Casement Park or the Maze, the —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, you have asked your question.

Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — public really feel that delivery is simply not happening.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: When we looked at the Programme for Government, we were absolutely clear that we could not do everything. Governments should not try to do everything, because, if they do, they will do nothing particularly well. That is why, in the Programme for Government, we have prioritised. The Member himself called for there a focus on a smaller number of priorities. I say as clearly as I can that there are nine priorities in the Programme for Government, and their targets are set down clearly. Part of those nine key priorities is a transformation priority. The delivery unit is currently working on two aspects of that. The first is to drive down waiting lists, and the second is to oversee and support the transformation fund.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. There is absolutely no indication that it is a clear breach of international law. I am not privy to all the considerations in how the decision was made. I highlight to the Member, who mentions international law, that it is about moving in to take out or remove an appalling, murderous regime, which, as has been reported, has killed over 30,000 of its own people over recent months because they had the audacity to protest and show dissent on the streets. I am looking at a wide range of reports, including one from Amnesty International, which states:

That is appalling. It is an appalling regime. Regardless of the considerations about action or no action, I will certainly shed no tears that that regime is being removed.

Ms Ferguson: While not condemning unequivocally the breaking of international law, will you join me in calling for an immediate end to the conflict and a return to negotiations as the only way forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I suggest that the Member looks at the reaction of ordinary Iranian people — the people who have been absolutely oppressed by that regime for many decades. I could quote from a number of reports, but I will quote from another Amnesty International report, which states:

At the weekend, I read a report about a 16-year-old girl who was hanged by the regime because she was raped. It is an appalling regime. When it comes down to it, on balance, you need to side with those who are removing a theocratic dictatorship that has been the sponsor of terrorism across the globe and the main source of instability in the Middle East.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. While we can discuss the rights and wrongs of international action, we need to be clear about our role in Northern Ireland. I do not have any role in, nor do I provide feed-in to, military manoeuvres. However, I have a responsibility to do everything that I can to ensure that people from Northern Ireland who are in that region, and who are very apprehensive about what is happening, can get the right support. I attended the briefing on Saturday, and I will attend a briefing later today. The messaging is clear: if you are in the region, get registered. The people who are registered will get, directly to their phones, information about potential evacuation, as well as other alerts and updates. They should stay inside and shelter, because the situation is still very unstable. They should make sure that they reach out if they need help and support. There are people in the region with British passports, Irish passports and both. We are trying to ensure that that information is sent to everybody as clearly as possible through our social media channels. The other key message is for people to make sure that they take their information from official channels. There is a huge amount of rumour and misinformation out there. People must make sure that they are taking their information from official Government channels.

Mrs Guy: I thank the deputy First Minister for that response. What impact do the attacks in the Middle East have on the Executive Office's international relations strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There are three issues that came out of the briefing on Saturday afternoon that impact on Northern Ireland. The first is that we have people from Northern Ireland who serve in the UK armed forces in the area and will be deployed in defensive action. Those people will have families in Northern Ireland. The second issue is the impacts on supply chains. The region, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, is essential to energy supply and other things. I asked for a point of contact in the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that we are aware of the potential economic shocks, particularly supply chain disruption.

Key to this, however, is the fact that we have thousands of people visiting or working in the UAE in particular and across the wider region. Those people have not been able to leave. Many families here are apprehensive about the safety of their loved ones and friends. We want to make sure that the information is given to them. I raised the issue of people who live in Northern Ireland and travel on various passports because my concern in all this is to make sure that people get the right help and support where and when they need it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. My focus in all of it is to make sure that citizens of Northern Ireland can remain safe and get all the advice and messaging that they need at this very difficult time. He is absolutely right: I stand with the Iranians who have suffered from the oppressive, evil regime for many decades. I am absolutely baffled as to why some in the Chamber appear to support that regime. I looked up why that could be, and it was clear that Sinn Féin has had a long-running relationship with the Iranian regime, going back many decades. I do not understand that. That regime oppresses women's rights. It has murdered women for having the audacity to not wear a head shawl. As I said, it has killed people because they are LGBT. It has supported terror, not just across the region but across the globe. It has been an oppressive, evil and murderous regime, and it does not deserve support from any person in the Chamber

Mr Speaker: Mr Martin, in your supplementary, please refrain from asking for an opinion. Over to you.

Mr Martin: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I thank the DFM for going to the security briefings over the weekend and gaining live information that will assist British and Irish passport holders from Northern Ireland who are in the region. We needed someone in that room. Will she share any additional information that is not subject to ongoing security considerations that she wants to get out to British or Irish citizens in the region?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I said, if you are in the region and your family and friends are supporting you at home, the key issue is to make sure that you get your information from the official channels. It is also important that you register. The registration system is designed to give a sense of how many people are in the region. We do not know how long the situation will last, and it may be the case that we move to evacuate. Getting registered is criticaI so that, if it appears that evacuation plans need to be put in place — that is a contingency — people know where you are staying and that you are getting the alerts directly to your phone.

Over the weekend, I put up information about the UK Government's registration scheme and the Irish Government's registration scheme, conscious that people from Northern Ireland have been travelling in the Middle East on both passports. We will continue to ensure that our social media channels are updated. My social media channels are updating. I guarantee that I will do everything that I can to get the information out to people in a timely way. That includes engaging with the UK Government, the Irish Government and others to make sure that the messaging is accurate and that people get the support that they need.

Mr Speaker: I just drew to Mr Martin's attention that Members should not seek opinions from the Minister. Ms Ferguson, too, sought opinions from the Minister. I will hand over to the deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to think that everything that I say is simply factual rather than an opinion.

Let me be clear: war is tragic. It brings about absolutely tragic outcomes. Everyone should do their best to bring about a resolution and peace in the Middle East. I have said that repeatedly.

However, there is a big challenge with what has happened in negotiations over the course of the past number of decades, not just those over the past few months or weeks. The key issue is that you cannot negotiate with people who are murderous or are at the head of a regime that is intent on spreading terror, killing others and oppressing tens of thousands of its own people. Those are not just my words; they are the words of international human rights bodies, including Amnesty International, which have highlighted the fact that Iran is one of the worst offenders in the world when it comes to breaches of human rights. I appeal to the Member to consider that. Of course, every death of a civilian in war is absolutely tragic, but what that regime has been doing is absolutely horrific and must be condemned. It should not be defended by anyone in the Chamber.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Work is under way with the trusts to define the requirements for what will be a modernised, consultant-led model for breast services. That includes expanding the multidisciplinary team and strengthening the skill mix across nursing and allied health professional staff. The objective is to increase capacity, resilience and long-term sustainability. The resource, workforce and training needs emerging from that planning will shape a recurrent investment plan, aligned with the £5 million that was identified under the elective care framework implementation and funding plan.

Recognising that service reform and workforce development take time to establish, a proportion of the funding has been used non-recurrently to deliver immediate improvements that support better outcomes for patients. Given the sustained capacity pressures in breast services, funding has been directed towards additional evening and weekend assessment clinics for red-flag and urgent referrals, ensuring faster access for patients presenting with time-critical symptoms.

Between April 2025 and December 2025, approximately £540,000 enabled the delivery of around 1,230 additional appointments. A bespoke payment-by-results pilot, which was introduced in October last year, has further incentivised the delivery of extra out-of-hours clinics at evenings and weekends, helping to address the breast assessment waiting list backlog.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. I wrote to him on behalf of a constituent who was impacted on by the delays in breast cancer waiting lists. The two-week target is crucial for so many reasons, particularly life expectancy. The Minister said in his response that the temporary delays were linked partly to the roll-out of Encompass. Have those issues been resolved? When will Encompass speed up, rather than slow down, the process?

Mr Nesbitt: As of 8 May last year, Encompass has been rolled out across the five geographic trusts. The trusts are looking for a considerable period of time in which to embed Encompass. I find that a little bit frustrating, because I am not a technician or an IT expert. However, it is certainly moving in the right direction.

I suggest gently to the Member that the most important thing that I said in my original answer to her was about the introduction of a bespoke payment-by-results pilot scheme. Normally, we engage a trust and commission it to do a list. In other words, a team will go into a theatre and work for, say, four hours. It may deliver four, six or more than six procedures, depending on the variance in the trust. The idea of the money's following the patient is being rolled out with payment by results so that there is now an incentive for those teams to deliver more.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, the one thing that I found encouraging from your statement was that the £5 million will be recurrent funding. However, research from Cancer Research UK tells us that, in general, Northern Ireland has the longest cancer waiting lists and the poorest outcomes of anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is a moral and ethical issue that must be resolved. A couple of weeks ago, Wes Streeting launched a cancer plan for England. Will you launch an action plan on cancer services for Northern Ireland that is separate from the elective care plan? The current model simply is not working.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department is working closely with the trusts, progressing the development of a modernised, Northern Ireland-specific breast service model, and we are doing that at speed. However, it is important that we are clear that meaningful, sustainable improvement is not quick or easy to achieve. It cannot happen overnight. Transforming a service of this scale and complexity requires a phased approach over a significant period of time. I am committed to achieving that, and I hope that that is consistent with what the Member is seeking. The vision includes expanding multidisciplinary teams and strengthening the skill mix across the workforce. It will require a substantial lead-in time to support education, training, recruitment and workforce development. I remain committed to ongoing collaboration with the trusts to ensure that all efforts are maximised to support timely patient access to assessment, treatment and care.

Mr McGuigan: I recently met the Lobular Moonshot Project, which is campaigning to raise awareness and research into lobular breast cancer. Are contacts and discussions with Wes Streeting across the water on implementing funding and research here for that particular type of breast cancer on the Minister's radar?

Mr Nesbitt: It was not on my agenda, but, obviously, it is now. If the Member would like to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that, even later this afternoon.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that pockets of unmet need exist in respect of home care provision in parts of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, due to a combination of factors: increasing levels of demand; difficulties with recruitment; and difficulties with retention within the home care workforce. The Department has introduced a range of initiatives to deliver further efficiencies, including early review teams. Initial indications suggest that 47% of individuals who receive an early review of their home care package either no longer require home care or require a lower level of home care, and that releases hours back into the system.

CareLineLive, a real-time digital system, is being implemented across all the trusts. It is capable of delivering 10% efficiencies in home care hours. Work is ongoing to implement a regional home care brokerage system with independent sector providers that will deliver further efficiencies. There has been an extension to block home care contracts, particularly in rural areas with high levels of unmet need. All trusts hold regular recruitment events to build their home care workforce. I have given my commitment to introducing the real living wage for the social care workforce as soon as it is affordable.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, given your stated aim of shifting left, and knowing what we know about the growing and ageing demographics, what, more fundamentally, is happening for the future to ensure that areas such as ours, particularly the rural parts of the constituency, have enough social care workers to deliver the packages that are needed?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The challenges in rural areas are distinct from those in urban areas, and I accept that. When I decided to tackle health inequalities with the Live Better initiative, we started with two urban district electoral areas (DEAs), because it is easier to club together services and flood an area if it is a dense urban area like The Moor DEA in Derry/Londonderry or Court in West Belfast. The challenge now in health inequalities is to deliver in more rural areas. The previous Minister in the Republic of Ireland, Stephen Donnelly, said that he had tried to tackle health inequalities, but he had started with too broad a geographic spread. The challenges of shifting left into the neighbourhood model are there, but, as I have said previously, challenges are there to be overcome, not to be used as obstacles to define why you cannot act.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the increase now being delivered locally, especially given the growing need for social care from the community, and I very much welcome the Minister's commitment to introduce the real living wage. Does he agree that a career in social care is something to be deeply proud of, and one that allows staff to make a positive impact each and every day?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. It might be better answered by the Member who asked the previous question, because that is his background. Absolutely, it is a worthwhile career. If you speak to any service user or their family and friends who observe what is happening with home care, they will tell you that social workers are fantastic people. When you talk to the people who deliver it, they will tell you that it is a worthwhile career. I have to deliver better for them not just with the real living wage but with the whole employment package and the work/life balance. That includes showing them more respect, honouring them, trying to increase the workforce and giving them more prominence.

Mr Donnelly: The problems with patient flow that result in overcrowding in our A&Es and pressure on our Ambulance Service will be solved only by investment in community care services, such as domiciliary care. I am glad to hear that the real living wage will finally be paid to those very important workers in the health service. Can the Minister confirm that it will be this year?

Mr Nesbitt: I can confirm to the Member that it is my plan to introduce the real living wage in this financial year. As the Member is aware, my budget has yet to be confirmed. Indeed, no Department or Minister has had their budget for 2026-27 confirmed yet. As soon as I have that, my two priorities are honouring the wage recommendations from the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration on the one hand and fixing a date for introducing the real living wage on the other. It is my intention that, whatever date is deemed appropriate for the introduction of the real living wage, it will be back paid to 1 April 2026.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, the Save Our Acute Services group is calling for the South West Acute Hospital to be designated as a rural area hospital. Will you support that as part of your reconfiguration plan?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the question that was asked by Mr Gildernew, which was about how social care needs are being addressed in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mr Nesbitt: The children and young people's emotional health and well-being framework proposes an inclusive, needs-based approach to neurodiversity, which, importantly, does not require a formal diagnosis as a prerequisite for support. The model aims to reduce stigma, promote earlier intervention and improve outcomes across health, education and developmental domains. Work is ongoing to define the requirements that will underpin the pathway and inform future commissioning.

Building on the recommendations from the 2023 adult autism services review, work is now under way to update the adult autism care pathway. The review aims to deliver greater consistency in the diagnostic and support services across all trusts, aligned with the NICE guidance and reflective of differing levels of need.

The draft learning disability service model outlines the goals for young people with learning disabilities, including those with SEN, to receive personalised lifelong support that allows for choice and control.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. There is a lot of concern, to put it mildly, that there is no stand-alone legislation coming through to support that community. I pay tribute to Caleb's mother, Alma White, who has campaigned on the issue.

Minister, pupils with complex needs who are leaving school SEN settings will be likely to need one-to-one support. How will your Department meet their needs in a day centre or other day opportunity environment?

Mr Nesbitt: I met Alma White and Caleb, who came into the Building the week before last. It would be fair to say that she was upset and did not understand why, although we are still just over a year away from purdah, there is no time to legislate. She wanted an amendment to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. I had officials with me, and we tried to talk her through the process to explain why it was impossible to legislate this side of purdah. Then, on Monday of last week, the House rose at 4.00 pm. Therefore, I begin to wonder why we cannot look at the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.

I am reassured by my Department that the learning disability service model, which we are starting to think about rolling out together with a delivery plan, matches or exceeds what is available in neighbouring jurisdictions.

We are moving in the right direction, just not as quickly as the Member, I or Alma might like.

Mr Speaker: For the avoidance of doubt, there is no problem in the Chamber with taking legislation from the Executive. I have written to the deputy First Minister and the First Minister on several occasions, requesting that they advance legislation to the House. For the avoidance of doubt for anyone in the public who may think that there is an issue with Assembly time for Executive legislation, there is no issue. We need the legislation to come forward to us.

Mr Baker: Following that, Minister, will you reconsider what you said in the media two weeks ago, which was that you would not have time to legislate on Caleb's cause? Caoimhe Archibald has done what she can do with her piece of the puzzle in creating post-19 pathways. It is now time for the Department of Health to step up. Now that it is clear that there is time, will you give a commitment to work towards that? If you cannot, will you, at the very least, lay the groundwork for it in the next mandate?

Mr Nesbitt: First, I hope that the Speaker did not feel that that was a criticism directed at him.

Mr Speaker: No, I did not.

Mr Nesbitt: Secondly, the Department of Health has already defined its legislative programme between now and purdah, so the question for us is not the availability of Chamber time but the availability of resources in the Department of Health and among those who would draft the legislation [Interruption.]

You can shout at me from a sedentary position —.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard.

Mr Baker: It is a mixed message. It is not fair on Alma.

Mr Speaker: Minister, please carry on.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand that, if I were Alma White, I would see it as a mixed message. I can, however, commit to putting in place some building blocks to ensure that we — or you — can move forward in the next mandate.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, the mixed message has come from your response in the Chamber, not necessarily from Alma. I will follow on from previous questions. You said that you wished that the matter had been brought forward and wondered why it had not, but you have not progressed it. Will you take extraordinary steps to progress it, given your comment that there is time to do so?

Mr Nesbitt: My point was that there is a mixed message, in that people say that there is no room for new legislation, yet the Chamber can rise at 4.00 pm on a Monday. As I said to Mr Baker, our resources for new legislation have been deployed for the rest of the mandate.

Miss McAllister: Minister, I think that Alma would find your initial response deeply insulting. It is not that she lacks the ability to understand but that Alma and many parents like her live every day the experience of having a young person with very complex needs and there being a cliff edge at the age of 19 at which those young people lose access to services. What will you do before the end of the mandate to ensure that kids such as Caleb are not forgotten about and lost in the system because of inaction?

Mr Nesbitt: I respectfully say to the Member that she was not in the room when Alma White said that she did not understand. I am not misinterpreting her; I am quoting her. I will continue to work with other Ministers who have key roles to play in post-19 provision.

Mr Nesbitt: While, in general, rural populations tend to experience better health outcomes, that can mask issues faced by rural communities such as transport connectivity, access to services and isolation. Health inequalities are a key focus for me, as I have said, and we are working across government to tackle the wider social determinants that will improve the well-being of our communities.

Beyond my Live Better initiative, the Executive have a Making Life Better strategy. It sets out our commitment to creating the conditions for individuals, families and communities to take greater control of their lives and to be enabled and supported to lead healthy lives. My Department leads on work on substance use, suicide prevention, tobacco use and obesity prevention, all of which underpin the strategy. Last year, as I said, I tested Live Better, and I hope that it will inform the new neighbourhood model of care that we intend to roll out from April.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. How is rurality factored into policy decisions regarding service configuration and access to urgent care?

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member is aware, we do rural needs impact assessments of all our policies. We liaise with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on future rural policy. A Department of Health Health and Social Care (HSC) forum was established to take forward work to address loneliness and social isolation, and it includes a specific focus on rural areas. My Department and its arm's-length bodies undertake rural needs impact assessments in line with the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. We also engage regularly with many stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland Agri-Rural Health Forum.

Ms Flynn: Minister, in the assessments of health inequalities that are specific to rural populations, have you gathered any information on the impact of health inequalities on women from rural areas? I recently attended a meeting on the issue of endometriosis and heard how barriers to travel and access to treatment impact negatively on women in rural areas.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that I intend to bring forward a women's health action plan, hopefully sooner rather than later. We are in the last phase of the listening exercise, in which we are trying to hear the voices of harder-to-reach women, and that applies particularly to women who live in rural areas. When that comes forward, I hope that it will inform the answer to the Member's question.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that we have the best farmers in the world but it is a particularly taxing and toiling profession? Will the Minister provide an update on the work of the farm families health programme?

Mr Nesbitt: In partnership with DAERA and the Public Health Agency, we have supported the farm families health checks programme for a number of years. The overarching aim is to improve the health and social well-being of rural farmers and farm families; increase local access to health screening services; provide health-related advice and information; and signpost to existing services for further advice and support. The Northern Trust administers the programme with the support of a full-time band 7 nurse coordinator, a part-time band 6 nurse and a band 4 programme administrator. It is also supported by a pool of band 5 nurses across all the trusts.

At last year's Balmoral show, I visited the health check truck that the programme has there. This was not arranged by the farm families health check people, but, in the space of those 60 minutes, two farmers came up to say that they had randomly undertaken a check at another agricultural fair and the results had led to life-saving interventions. It is an excellent service.

Mr Nesbitt: Over the past three years, the Department has spent £508 million directly on digital systems infrastructure and support across the HSC. The wider figure of £2·5 billion refers to the whole-life costs of major digital programmes identified by the Audit Office, including Encompass, new pathology systems and regional imaging. Those are large, multi-year investments that modernise essential clinical and corporate systems. Ensuring that the systems remain up to date and fully utilised is central to our digital strategy. We now have a strong regional governance model across all major programmes that provides clear oversight of performance, risk and standards and aligns with clinical and operational priorities. That, in turn, ensures that systems evolve safely and consistently. I believe that the best example is Encompass, on which we have moved from implementation to continuous optimisation. Trusts, my Department and the supplier partner, Epic, work together to manage upgrades, apply security and functionality upgrades, refine workloads and maintain a clear regional road map. Altogether, that ensures that clinicians and staff have the tools that they need and the system continues to support safe and effective care.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Digital transformation is positive — it modernises and revolutionises to make bureaucracy more efficient — so I am not getting at that at all. I have been told, however, that we are not fully maximising the ability of systems on the ground and that that reduces efficiency. When can we expect Encompass in particular to be fully utilised, including through primary care, and use the data that is there to drive research and innovation?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Data will be and already is king. The ability of Encompass to give us that solid foundation for analysis is absolutely critical. I see the future of Encompass being not just in electronic patient records but in the ability to do population health initiatives based on the trapping and analysis of data. What is the timeline? I believe that I am right in saying that the digital people talked about it taking two years to fully embed.

I get the argument that you should not rush into something and that you need to take solid steps and show that phase 1 has been completed and works really well before moving on to phase 2, rather than trying to get to phase 10 immediately. However, I have a sense of frustration. It is not just me who feels like that; there are some in HSC who feel that there is so much potential in Encompass that we have not yet tapped into. To a certain extent, that is frustrating, because we are missing a trick.

Mr Butler: The Minister rightly pointed out how important the harvesting of data is. Can he give any sense of whether the new systems and investments are directly improving patient care?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. We see clearer, safer and more consistent care. A single digital patient record means that clinicians have the same up-to-date information wherever a patient presents. For example, if you went to Lagan Valley Hospital and the team there decided to send you to the Royal or the Ulster Hospital, they would not give you a big manila folder with a paper-based trail of your condition to take in the ambulance; rather, the intake clinician at the Royal or the Ulster can go on their machine and look through Encompass to see what to expect when you arrive. That is fabulous.

More generally, there is an AI system called Boneview that I have seen at Antrim Area Hospital. That looks at fractures. Within two minutes, it will give a solid analysis — better than the human eye can do. It is particularly useful if you have a major break in your arm as well as two minor breaks. Boneview will make sure that the clinician does not simply focus on the major break and will say, "You do realise that there are two other breaks that you will need to look at". Yes, patient delivery and outcomes are getting better.

Mr Nesbitt: For the 2025-26 financial year, the Department of Health has allocated £30·79 million to address high-risk backlog maintenance across the HSC. I will break that down: £25 million is provided through the Department's core annual backlog maintenance capital budget, and the remaining £5·79 million is received through December monitoring. The funding is allocated to each of the trusts to support priority works that present the greatest potentials to service continuity, statutory compliance and the safety of patients and staff, ensuring that essential infrastructure remains operational and resilient.

I am keen to see standardised backlog maintenance reporting and improve the accuracy of the associated cost and risk data. Given the current financial climate, it is unlikely that the Department will be able to make substantial reductions to the overall backlog maintenance burden. However, my Department will continue to work closely with the trusts with the aim of ensuring that risks are effectively managed, that essential works are prioritised appropriately and that the limited resources available are directed and utilised as efficiently and responsibly as possible.

Mr McGrath: Minister, given that that means that £80 million worth of high-risk work still has to be done, including electrical work such as fire alarm wiring, is it not the case that the Executive are neglecting our health estate and that is putting the lives of patients and staff in danger?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member may know that £251 million worth of high-risk backlog maintenance works are required: £44 million in the Northern Trust; £17 million in the South Eastern Trust; £14 million in the Southern Trust; £17 million in the Belfast Trust; £1 million in the Fire and Rescue Service; and £158 million in the Western Trust.

It is a serious issue. I wish that there were more money for the backlog maintenance because, if you do not address those issues, they will get worse. However, I assure the Member that the money that we have is prioritised to the most urgent safety issues.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not believe that there is any specific ring-fenced money for ADHD services. The Member is aware that we have published Northern Ireland's first needs assessment, which sets out for the first time the level of demand for a commissioned service, as well as recommendations for what such a service might look like and the potential implementation and staffing costs. We specifically included consideration of the prison population, recognising its significantly higher prevalence rates of ADHD compared with the rates in the general public. I have asked for an options paper, but I have to be clear to the Member: there is no ring-fenced money for the implementation of any such option.

Mr McGrath: Thousands of people in our communities are unable to access a diagnosis; they are unable to access treatment for ADHD; their education journey is being impacted on by the cuts that are being delivered; and we do not have a single penny ring-fenced to try to help them. What is your message to those families?

Mr Nesbitt: It is an apology, Mr McGrath. There are no commissioned services, as the Member knows, so any money that is spent by the trusts is discretionary spend by the trusts. The Department does not commission services. I am very pleased that we have commissioned the report, and that we have 19 clear recommendations for future commissioning, the workforce that we would need to deliver it and the development of an integrated ADHD pathway. The Member will know that I like to see consistent regional, standardised services, but the fact that we have done that, and that we cannot deliver it as appropriate because we do not have the funds to do so, leads me to apologise for the situation in which I have put those individuals, their families and their friends.

Mr Nesbitt: The number of people who are unable to access dental services is rising. The Member will be aware that dental practitioners are not under any contractual obligation to do National Health Service work; they are free to charge privately. The Member is probably aware that, when the health service was instituted in 1948, it almost collapsed from the get-go because of the idea of free-to-access dental services. I accept that we are not in a good place. I am putting a lot of faith in the cost-of-service review that is under way because, until we get agreement with the dental representative body on the cost of delivering dental services, we will not be in a good place to redesign service delivery.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for his answer. I understand that additional funding of £1·6 million was announced in May 2025 for dentists. How will that be allocated? Will it be allocated before the end of this financial year?

Mr Nesbitt: A number of schemes come under that umbrella level of payment. If the Member is content, I will write to her with the exact detail, rather than guess. More generally, once we determine the cost of service and discuss it with the dental representatives, we will be looking at a significant redesign of NHS or HSC dental services.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have that timeline to hand. I can certainly write to the Member about that. However, I can tell him that, when it comes to the £50 million that we are spending in this financial year — the whole £50 million will be spent by the end of this month — orthopaedics is by far the number-one area for additional work. A lot of hips and knees have been added to the schedule during this financial year because of the Programme for Government commitment and the £50 million that was ring-fenced through the Department of Finance.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate that it is difficult to have the data for everything, and I appreciate that the Minister does not have all those figures to hand today. However, Minister, what would you say to a constituent of mine who is 82 years of age and has been told that he will wait a minimum of 104 weeks for his first appointment before he goes onto a list for surgery? He is 82 years of age. He said to us last week, "They want me to die before I get this". What would you say to him?

Mr Nesbitt: I would say that nobody wants him to die, but 104 weeks is shocking at any age, but particularly at that age. It reminds me that, if you are 80 years old and are told that you will have to wait five years, that could, as a percentage of your remaining life, be pretty close to 100%. If you are 10 years old and are told that you have to wait five years, that will hopefully be a comparatively minor percentage of your life. As a strategic decision, we have gone for the long waits, and I am pleased to report that most of the people who have been waiting four years for procedures have been seen or are being seen in the remaining weeks of the financial year. We will then turn our focus to those who are waiting three years. However, there will, I guess, always be horrible examples like the one that the Member has come up with: 82 years of age and being told to wait two years for something that impacts really heavily on your quality of life. It is awful.

Mr Nesbitt: I have asked Professor Sir Frank Atherton, who was a former Chief Medical Officer in Wales. I was originally going to ask him to review those reports, but I then met Ladies with Letters and a couple of others, and they made the case that, in their view, there was information that is germane to the scandal that was not included in any of those three reports. On that basis, I did two things. I instructed officials to liaise with the Southern Trust to see whether there was any information not in the reports that Sir Frank would find useful to his determination, and I also asked Sir Frank whether he would be willing to have a direct meeting with Ladies with Letters. Both those things have occurred. It is my understanding that the Southern Trust has not uncovered any information that it thinks is particularly germane, but that is neither here nor there. I expect Sir Frank to make his own judgement. This has delayed the process, but it was a worthwhile delay because assurance and trust are very important, particularly for Ladies with Letters. As part of the terms of reference, Sir Frank will advise me as to whether he believes that a statutory public inquiry is appropriate.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, when is Sir Frank Atherton likely to report his findings to you, and when will you make your decision on whether any public inquiry will proceed?

Mr Nesbitt: The second part is easier to answer than the first. I expect the report from Sir Frank, once I get it, to be pretty clear, and therefore it should not take me a particularly long time to make a decision. As I said, as part of the terms of reference, Sir Frank will advise me on whether he believes that a statutory public inquiry would be appropriate. We thought that the work would take a ballpark of two to three months, but, when the Ladies with Letters came up with the idea that more information needed to be looked at than was contained in the three reports, that, by definition, elongated the process. However, Sir Frank is now absolutely at work. I would not like to think that it will be the summer before I get the report. Once I get it, as long as it is as clear as I think that it will be, it will not take me very long at all to come to the final conclusion.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I think that it is critical. Lagan Valley is an elective day procedure centre. The Mater and the South West Acute Hospital are overnight centres, and fantastic work is being done at Daisy Hill Hospital. When I go to some of those subregional hospitals, such as Lagan Valley, I see huge enthusiasm. I should probably declare that I have been a recent service user in the respiratory hub at Lagan Valley Hospital, and the service is absolutely first class. That is not because I arrived as a patient with the title of Health Minister; I saw a lot of very satisfied customers.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I wish him well with any future visits. I declare an interest, as my daughter is a nurse in the elective care unit at Lagan Valley Hospital. I am glad that the Minister had good service there.

With regard to tackling waiting lists, how important is it that the investment of £165 million that is being touted in the draft Budget is delivered in full to ensure that places such as the elective care unit in Lagan Valley Hospital play their part in reducing those waiting lists?

Mr Nesbitt: Lagan Valley Hospital has a critical role to play. As a rule of thumb, when you separate out emergency surgery from elective or planned surgery, you become much more efficient. Lagan Valley Hospital is doing fantastic work in a number of elective procedures. It is doing particularly well in providing cataract procedures.

On the £165 million for next year, this year, we had £165 million plus £50 million from the Executive to tackle waiting lists. We do not get the £50 million for the financial year 2026-27. The £165 million breaks down into £85 million for red-flag and critical procedures, and that will be spent again next year, as it is being spent this year. On the £80 million in the middle, we spent less than £10 million on waiting lists this year because the financial pressures were so severe on the overall Health budget that we used most of that to try to ease some of that pressure. I am determined that, next year, we will not do that and that the entire £80 million, along with the £85 million, will go towards waiting lists.

Mr Nesbitt: It is a constant battle. We set a two-hour waiting time target, which we did not meet in full over the course of the extreme additional winter pressures. However, I am very proud of the Ambulance Service. It has great leadership, and it is trying very hard. I did a ride-on a few weeks ago, which was very informative, and I saw, in real time, the pressures of handover into emergency departments. I was at Craigavon Area Hospital, the Royal and the Ulster Hospital, and I felt not just for the patients but for the staff. Those guys and girls went back on the road. They wanted to deliver by getting on to the next client who needed them. As with a lot of things in Health and Social Care, the direction of travel is the right one, but the speed is not the speed that I want to see.

Mr McMurray: With that in mind, when can we expect to see the implementation of the protocol for trusts' emergency departments?

Mr Nesbitt: I hope that we are not confusing each other over what we understand by the protocol. We have asked for a two-hour handover to be the target, and that is what we are aiming for, with a view to moving to an even shorter time frame. If, however, the Member is talking about some other protocol, perhaps we can discuss that offline.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Health. I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change to the Chair and return to the vote from the earlier debate.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which 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. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Did you say that I have 10 minutes?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I know that that is a limit, rather than a target; I infer from your tone that I should it interpret it in that way.

I am very pleased to move the motion on behalf of the Opposition. It is further to many motions that the SDLP and other parties have sponsored on the subject of collaborating, cooperating and, ideally from our perspective, eventually rejoining with the European Union. You do not have to agree with every word of our motion to agree with its broad thrust, which is that it is clearly in the interests of this region to maximise the opportunities from engagement with the European Union and, specifically, seize upon the Irish presidency of the European Council to maximise that closeness for economic, cultural, social and, yes, diplomatic advantage.

For those who are not aware of what the presidency of the European Council is, it involves member states taking the opportunity to chair, coordinate and lead the agenda of the European Union at Council level. The Council is the forum by which the member states and their heads of Government engage, collaborate and set the strategic direction for Europe.

What a moment. As we have discussed today, we see that conflict is deepening in the world. Irresponsible actors use aggressive military action to solve disputes, rather than diplomatic means. The world is regressing from the principles of international law, multilateralism and respect for human rights and moving towards being a place where might means right and the attitude is, "We have more weapons than you, so we are going to bomb you, rather than sit down, engage and try to leverage a better outcome for all our people".

I make no apology whatsoever for saying that I and my party believe fundamentally in the European project as being the greatest peace process in the history of the world. We have repeated that and will do so for decades. Our former leader, John Hume, was extremely successfully repetitive in talking about the European context to the Irish question and the fact that, through common European Union membership and cooperation, the people of this island, with all their different diversities and traditions — and, indeed, the people of these islands: the UK and Ireland together — could move on from an extraordinarily difficult, tragic and often bitter and violent past towards something better and more productive. That can still be our future.

In a modest way, the presidency of the European Council this year is an opportunity for us to reclaim that agenda. It does not mean just highfalutin theoretical stuff like what I am talking about now: it means practical opportunities. It means the opportunity for our young people — whether they are British, Irish, both, neither, Northern Irish or a combination of those things — to be European and to travel, study and work across the continent. It means the opportunity for our academics and businesses to avail themselves of research opportunities, new markets and new customers; for our workers to avail themselves of the workers' rights agenda and the labour protections that have been delivered via the European Union; and for us to benefit, in environmental terms, from greater cooperation.

In the past, Irish presidencies —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way.

Mr Brooks: The Member is right to say that these things do not have to be theoretical and that they can be very practical. There is probably nothing more practical than that that is the focus in the European Union at the minute: the military defence of Europe. Will he speak about how he feels an Irish presidency will contribute to that military defence of Europe in these troubling times?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to talk about that, and I am glad that the Member asked the question. Ireland is a militarily neutral country, but it has never been, and would not claim to be, a politically neutral country. Obviously, it stands four-square behind Ukraine defending itself. However, that does not mean that it contributes to, or participates in, military activities. It is perfectly possible to be both of those things. It is possible to believe in the rule of law and in prioritising diplomacy and international law above military intervention and conflict. That is entirely consistent with being an active and leading member of the European Union. That is what I want the Irish presidency to do and, bluntly, what I want the whole island of Ireland to do, ideally when we rejoin the EU. However, I recognise that you and members of your political party and political tradition do not want that outcome. However, I still think that it is in your interests, and in those of the people whom you represent, to engage in Europe. Let me explain why, on a more practical level, to come back to the point about practicalities.

We hear — I am not going to labour the point in a hostile or negative way — Members opposite still talk — I am sure that the Member for North Antrim will talk about this — about the frustrations around the practicalities of the protocol.

I will not rehearse everything that happened with Brexit. I do that a lot in the Chamber. However, if we accept that there are consequences that are largely — from my perspective, almost entirely — negative from Brexit, which include disruptions to the movement of goods on an east-west basis and all the other disruptions on the provision of services, on human rights and on a whole range of other things, this is also, potentially, an opportunity for Northern Ireland representatives — unionists, nationalists, neither — trade bodies, trade unions and businesses to have their say with the European Union and to make arguments for how they would like to see those arrangements simplified or implemented in a different way.

In addition, included in our motion — sometimes, we are accused of simply looking at one agenda: the North/South, all-Ireland agenda, of which we are very proud, and, ultimately, the new Ireland agenda — is the UK's relationship with the EU. I am somebody who, in a previous professional life, actually attempted to do something that would have been in the interests of the UK and, indeed, unionism and keep the UK in the EU. I did not succeed, and it is to your cost, I am afraid. My constitutional argument has benefited from it: yours has not. I am sorry to be direct about that. It is hugely to the advantage of the UK to engage in the Irish presidency and, hopefully, build towards greater alignment between the UK and the EU. That is in everybody's interests.

European Union Council presidencies are often about the boring, grinding work of getting agendas agreed, agreeing communiqués and getting things moved on.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way, briefly, but I have progress to make.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. How does the Member react to unionists' opinion that the Republic of Ireland's conduct throughout the Brexit process would really bode well for them thinking and acting in the strategic interests of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?

Mr O'Toole: Obviously, I do not agree, but I say to the Member that, if he thinks that anybody in the South or in Europe is not engaging or is not listening, I am sure that they will take his call. His constituency colleague who is sitting behind him is a former MEP and is well connected in the European Union. I promise you that they will take meetings; you can engage; you can make that case; and it will be done on a respectful basis. I encourage you to do that, and it would be much better if we had an EU office in Belfast, so that they can hear all of us, notwithstanding the constitutional difference.

Let me come back to this point: the presidency is a significant opportunity for the people of the North: all of us. It is also an opportunity to restate the importance of the serious, grinding work of politics, diplomacy and improving people's lives through democratic politics rather than simply through conflict. That is a really important message for us to think about today. The presidency of the EU involves hammering out communiqués; it involves difficult compromises and slow progress. In the past, Irish presidencies have made progress on things such as the new membership in the EU expansion that happened just over 20 years ago and, back in 1990, around the criteria for the single European currency. Those things progressed for the people of this continent peacefully. That is how we moved on from the appalling tragedy of conflict in the 20th century. It is not always glamorous; sometimes, it is very dull. The media do not always report it, and it does not work well in clips on social media. However, for those of us who choose to do democratic politics, ultimately, that is what it should be about: using the boring, geeky stuff of politics and diplomacy to improve the lives of people and to prioritise that above bombing, conflict and confrontation, a path that will only ever lead to more conflict. I accept that there are questions about European security. Those debates are going on, and it is disappointing that some parties have not engaged in them.

I believe that Ireland should be a neutral country. That does not mean that you have to be politically neutral. I do not think that you can be neutral in relation to Ukraine, and it is disappointing that certain parties — Sinn Féin, obviously — voted against humanitarian support for Ukraine. However, I am clear that the best way to resolve those issues is to be at the table, to be negotiating and to be delivering the best for all the people of this continent.

Brexit was a disaster. The consequences have been bad for all of us. The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland back inside the European Union. Even if you do not agree with me on all those things, there are so many huge opportunities for our people, our young people, our workers, our businesses and our communities to engage with Europe and to start with delivering benefits from the Irish presidency. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr Aiken: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Steve, please open the debate on the amendment. Thank you.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I make a declaration of interest for Mr O'Toole: I call myself a "John Hewitt-ist". I am British, Northern Irish and Irish, and I am a European as well. I am also a member of the incurious Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, and that might account for some of the language as I go through.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the fact that Ireland will take the helm of the presidency of the Council of the European Union later this year. It comes at a time of great strategic opportunity, not just for Northern Ireland but for the rest of our nation, Ireland and the European Union. It also comes at a time when strategic leadership is needed in a complex and unstable Europe and in our near neighbourhood. Our amendment identifies with the key themes of the EU presidency, as articulated by the EU president, the Taoiseach and the Council of Ministers. Those key themes, as our fellow Europhiles in the Chamber will note — I am looking for our fellow Europhiles — are defence, security, infrastructure, research and innovation, energy and skills.

In the words of the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, maximising opportunities in those areas will significantly allow Europe under the Irish presidency's leadership — note the word "leadership" — to start delivering a much changed European Union. She recently stated:

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes an interesting point about the unstable environment in which we find ourselves, and it is particularly so. It is, however, hard to have common defence if the incoming leadership of the European Union remains neutral and is not prepared to have a defence force to defend itself and other European nations. Does the Member see some conflict in that position?

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for her intervention. She has obviously had previous sight of my speech, as I will raise such issues as we go along. Thank you very much, indeed. Great minds think alike.

She has also carefully noted that article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) calls for all member states to provide:

particularly by defence means:

The EU president was very cognisant of the drone attacks and cyber sabotage conducted in Poland, of the cyberattacks in Denmark, the Netherlands and France and of recent incursions into Ireland's air space. All are European countries and members of the EU. The attacks have all been attributed, in one way or another, to Russia. She has also stated that Europe's neglect of its own security is now an "uncomfortable truth" that now "has fundamentally changed". Indeed, the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, said that high on the agenda of the EU presidency's themes for 2026 is a focus on defence readiness, support for Ukraine and economic competitiveness in light of a rapidly changing transatlantic relationship. He also underlined the importance of the EU's role in addressing international issues, particularly the war in Ukraine. The points were reiterated last week at Queen's University by Thomas Byrne, the Minister of State for European Affairs and Defence, who stated:

He went on to say:

That is why we tabled an amendment to the motion. All MLAs who value our European relationships will welcome as much as we do the renewed emphasis on European security as the central theme of the Irish presidency. I also hope that Members who support the EU presidency’s clear support for Ukraine will recognise the importance to us all of Ukraine's successful prevention of continued aggression from Putin. Unlike when Sinn Féin did not support in the European Parliament the €90 billion loan to President Zelenskyy's Government, we hope that its Members will not identify with those anti-Ukraine parties: such paragons of democracy as Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) and the Rassemblement National (RN). I hope that they will support our amendment and join the rest of us right-minded thinkers in supporting the EU's aim of "Slava Ukraini".

The urgent matters of wider European rearmament and bringing the UK into the wider European defence landscape constitute another issue that the Irish EU presidency will address with urgency. Bringing the United Kingdom and the EU closer, using defence procurement, energy security and, through ERASMUS, higher education and research, will be of great benefit to us in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic's taking the lead on that will open up further avenues for North/South and east-west relationships. That is especially the case as new avenues of trust are being opened. As the Irish Government now officially ask the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale to patrol Irish waters and the RAF and the Armée de l'Air to patrol Irish skies, formal links are being built. This will also bring about closer cooperation on energy markets — electricity and gas — and cyber relationships, with the Irish EU presidency seeking to bring the UK and the EU into alignment. We can all call on the Taoiseach to accelerate the timeline for a trade and cooperation agreement so that we get it before 2027.

That brings us to our critical ask of the Irish EU presidency. Nobody, not even the most rigorous of rigorous implementers, can deny the extra costs, divergence and disruptions in our internal UK market: the Windsor framework is not working. The reality is that the inflexible and bureaucratic nature of EU laws, regulations and directives, coupled with the unyielding and overly legalistic interpretation by the Northern Ireland Office and the rest of Whitehall of every rule and regulation, has doomed us to the worst of both worlds in the past five years. It would be impudent of me to say, "Every jot and tittle", but you get the message.

Since the creeping extension of the Irish sea border, one thing has become obvious: there is absolutely no risk to the single European market from intra-UK trade. In fact, issues arising from the carbon border adjustment mechanism and the emissions trading scheme are as disruptive to the European market as they are to Northern Ireland. The forthcoming directives on digital markets and data adequacy, digital fairness, corporate sustainability, financial disclosure, green claims and more that are coming down the Brussels track will act as impediments to, rather than enhancements of, Northern Ireland's multi-market access. An agreement to protect trade has done the exact opposite. The much-trailed movements on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) scheme will not reduce the impact of those fundamentally divergent regulations. They will do nothing to protect the single market but will further undermine competitiveness here.

By agreeing our amendment, we can send to Ireland, as it takes on its presidency role, the message that we are enhancing closer EU-UK security and defence and helping Ukraine. As those relationships grow, we must also call on the Irish EU presidency to mitigate, as a measure of its good faith on improving UK-EU relations, the divergent and disruptive impact of the Windsor framework. As the United Kingdom increasingly writes the cheque for the defence of the Irish Republic, it will be important for the EU presidency to recognise that the Irish Republic's security during the period of its presidency of the Council of the European Union will be provided by the United Kingdom and France. To those who would argue about Irish neutrality and sovereignty, I say that they have, in effect, given those away by not defending their own territory.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the fact that, from July to December 2026, Ireland will, for the eighth time, hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union. During the six-month EU presidency, Ireland will have the opportunity to steer Council's agenda and its legislative and policymaking process. Irish Ministers and officials will chair meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, and Ireland will represent the Council in its interactions with other EU institutions. In June 2026, Ireland will have the opportunity to set out in the presidency policy document its priorities and objectives for the work of the Council during its term.

Ireland's presidency will begin from June 2026, exactly 10 years since Britain's reckless and failed Brexit agenda was forced on communities across the North of Ireland by a failing colonial state. If the past decade has evidenced anything, folks, it is that Brexit has been economically, socially and politically detrimental to Ireland and all its people. The presidency must, therefore, be treated as a moment of opportunity at which we assert our position of being visibly and unambiguously anti-partitionist in all content that is driven by the office. We constantly reiterate the European Council's 2017 statement in the context of Britain, and I will mention it again: in the event of a united Ireland, the state would automatically be in the EU.

We need to strengthen east-west and North/South cooperation and maximise opportunities for engagement on and investment in our public services. The reality of Britain's false promises is being felt acutely by our community and voluntary sector. In constituencies such as mine, in Derry, we know the impacts on our socio-economic fabric of the loss of PEACE funding and are feeling the decline in investment from the loss of the European social fund, unmatched when replaced by Britain's so-called Shared Prosperity Fund. We are all aware of NICVA being a clear example. It has indicated that funding cuts are so severe this year that they threaten the services that help and support those who are the furthest removed from our labour market. Where British policy undermines the proven success of community-led programmes and interventions that prioritise social inclusion, we must use all the tools that are at our disposal to represent Irish interests and the need for constitutional change to enable the growth of our economy, the betterment of our public services and the protection of youth engagement and empowerment.

I will reflect, briefly, on the UUP's amendment, which we will oppose. Let us be very clear that the independence of foreign policy and military neutrality are at the core of what it is to be Irish. As a nation of people who were victims of colonisation, occupation and partition, we reject all calls to participate in foreign wars and conflicts. We absolutely reject imperialism and any moves by Europe towards having a centralised military framework.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Sorry, I have only one minute left.

This generation is calling not to manage division but to end it. We remain a strong voice against the ongoing apartheid, occupation and annexation of Palestine and its people, we condemn the US and Israel's recent attacks on Iran, and we continue to strive for the delivery of a peace deal in Ukraine. That serves to highlight the fact that it has never been more important for the people of the island of Ireland to stand together as one, neutral nation in the face of foreign wars and conflicts.

We can move forward, not bound by history but guided by it, and leave behind the divisions of yesterday. Through unity, neutrality and self-determination, we can build our resilience and realise the vision for a better and fairer future for all our people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As the business is not expected to be finished by 6.00 pm, I will, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until business is completed, if that is earlier.

Mr Buckley: This is another motion that rehashes the Brexit debate. Whenever the issue comes to the House, we are often accused by nationalist parties in particular, and by Alliance, of being negative, backward and against growth. In the debate on this issue today, however, when the motion has been tabled by the SDLP, it is framed through the lens of the opportunity of constitutional change and therefore thought to be something that we should all automatically get behind. I will be very clear that the Democratic Unionist Party will oppose the motion and that it will do so for good reason. The motion is not one of strategic thought; it is about political point-scoring. It is clear that the motion, in any of its forms, is not only anti-constitutional but deliberately designed to be divisive. That is why it will be interesting to see whether the Alliance Party is prepared to support the motion, which makes it clear that Northern Ireland's future will be best served back in Europe as part of a new Ireland.

Those of us on these Benches know exactly what "a new Ireland" means. It has been quite adequately outlined by the Sinn Féin Member who spoke. It means constitutional change, and breaking up the United Kingdom. It disregards the principle of consent and constitutional norms by advocating for constitutional change, and it was directly reflected in the way in which the Irish Government behaved throughout the entire Brexit process.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Member says that the text of our motion disregards the principle of consent. The only way in which there can be a new Ireland is through a referendum in which the people of Northern Ireland give their consent. That is the principle of consent, unless there is one that I have missed. Genuinely, I am intrigued.

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

Mr Buckley: The Member could have left out that part of the motion, but such was his desire to use the means of the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union to advocate for Irish unity, he included it. It is clear to everybody what that is designed to do.

The DUP wishes the Republic of Ireland Government every success in holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union. However, as I have outlined, throughout the Brexit process, the Irish Government acted in a hugely hostile way towards Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. There can be no doubt about that. As was mentioned, when my colleague Mrs Dodds was in the European Parliament, she engaged continually throughout the process in order for the European Union and, indeed, the Irish Government to understand the constitutional norms and the principle of consent. That was disregarded at every opportunity.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: On that point, I will give way to the Member.

Mrs Dodds: It is really important to state — I know that the Member will agree with me — that, during the Brexit negotiations, when things were getting tough for the Irish Ministers involved, we had the spectacle of Leo Varadkar's talking about bombs at customs posts, should the EU acquiesce to anything other than what the Irish wanted. Was that not an absolute disgrace and an indicator that they were probably not acting in Northern Ireland's strategic interests?

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. That, again, goes to the very heart of why we must reiterate that having the presidency of the Council does not mean that the Irish Government have a remit to interfere in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and they should not be given cover by leave of a motion from the SDLP to do so. We assert that very clearly.

Northern Ireland has been treated appallingly throughout the process. I say very clearly that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, our primary engagement on international and EU matters is with our sovereign Government at Westminster — I admit that they have served those of us on these Benches very badly — not through Dublin, as the intermediary. That should be clear. As was outlined by Mrs Dodds in her contribution, we have seen that even in recent times. The UK Government introduced a review of the Windsor framework following a democratic vote in this place that stripped out the principle of cross-community voting. The review involved Lord Murphy's speaking with local representatives and the UK Government to see whether there was a way of issuing some form of recourse through the existing structures. What happened? The EU refused to engage. Is that the model by which a country that has the EU presidency will conduct itself in relation to Northern Ireland?

Can Mr O'Toole tell me whether the Irish Government, when they have the presidency, will attempt to remove the friction between and barriers to GB and NI trade, stop the EU laws that apply to Northern Ireland that have a huge impact on our businesses, and call for the removal of the Irish Sea border, which undermines UK integrity? Businesses face red tape.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Jonathan.

Mr Buckley: The inclusion of the Irish Government, and, indeed, the acceptance of that in this place, will not solve that.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the motion and the opportunity that it presents. I particularly welcome the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union. That is a genuinely significant moment, and it is one that has occurred in the past. The Alliance Party believes that Northern Ireland should be drawing on the benefits of that presidency.

There is much in the motion and, indeed, the amendment that we can get behind. The presidency has real potential to help resolve some of the lingering practical difficulties of Brexit; strengthen east-west and North/South cooperation; open doors; and strengthen the already excellent work in areas such as research, energy, skills and cross-border public services — issues that matter directly to my constituents in East Antrim and to people across Northern Ireland. Alliance has always held the belief that Northern Ireland thrives when relationships at every level function well: between Belfast and Dublin, Belfast and London, and the UK and the EU as a whole. We want to see this Irish presidency being used constructively to facilitate trade opportunities for business, strengthen links between our students and researchers and their European counterparts, and enable smarter cooperation on public services where it makes sense to do so.

We warmly welcome the motion's call on the Executive to engage proactively with the Irish Government and establish clear priorities. That is exactly the right instinct for cooperation. Those priorities should be agreed across Departments and shaped by genuine engagement with businesses and civic society. We also support the recognition that this presidency can contribute to improving UK-EU relations. Given that Northern Ireland has so often found itself at the centre of those tensions, it would be no small thing to play a part in the solution for once.

The motion and the UUP amendment are a perfect case study in post-Good Friday Agreement politics, as they both focus on the different constitutional avenues for Northern Ireland's relationship with the EU to be strengthened. As a cross-community party, my party — the Alliance Party — recognises the legitimacy of both of those positions and reaffirms today the principle at the heart of the 1998 agreement, which is that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland must be decided by the people of Northern Ireland through their consent. That is why we are abstaining on both the motion and the amendment. We are not doing so out of disengagement or as a rejection of the motion's purpose. Let me make it clear: the Alliance Party believes that the Irish presidency matters, Executive engagement matters, North/South engagement matters, east-west engagement matters and stronger EU relations matter.

Before I conclude, I will address the focus of the Windsor framework and the UUP amendment. We know that the Windsor framework has been imperfect, just as all the other attempts to mitigate the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland have been to varying degrees. Brexit amounts to a circle that cannot be squared. That is why the people from across our community voted to Remain in 2016 and have voted in increasing numbers in eight elections since for parties that recognise the need for those special arrangements. As a proud and unapologetic European, I believe that only a full reversal of Brexit can undo the damage, tensions, contradictions and limitations that are posed across these islands. That is the message that the Assembly should be sending out in a unified voice. It is time to return.

Mr Kearney: I agree with the proposer of the motion that Ireland's assuming the presidency of the Council of the European Union will present all sorts of political and diplomatic opportunities for the entire island. It can also provide a platform for continuing to navigate the post-Brexit challenges with which we have had to contend. In a previous Assembly motion, we agreed that a sensible approach to managing those post-Brexit challenges would be to establish a European Commission office in Belfast. In the Chamber, we have also agreed to the logic of our having observer status at the European Parliament. That would be another valuable opportunity and means by which to seek to positively influence European policy.

For instance, EU Peace funding has been vital to the development of the peace process in the North. It has been an essential resource for the community and voluntary groups that deliver essential services, especially in the most hard-to-reach and disadvantaged areas of our community, and that entire funding must be secured for the future. The Irish presidency of the Council should be used to advocate for keeping that funding included in the European Commission's final budget post 2028.

In 2017, as my colleague said, the European Commission stated that, in the event of Irish reunification, the entire territory of Ireland would be reintegrated within the European Union. The Irish presidency of the European Council will present an opportune moment to promote the discussion around Irish unity within the European Union. The reunification of our country is a reasonable, legitimate and achievable objective, so the Irish Government should proactively embrace their responsibility to advance that aspiration by commencing the process of planning and preparation, and the EU, as it did at the outset of our peace process, will have an important role to play in managing that transition.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: The right to self-determination is central to the UN charter, and it is integral to the Good Friday Agreement.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member very much indeed for giving way. Could he point out to me where, in the EU Irish presidency agenda, there is any mention of a united Ireland? I cannot see it.

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

Mr Kearney: Thank you.

Thanks for the intervention, but you have completely missed my point. The presidency presents an opportunity to advance, deepen and widen the discussion within the European Union and in the Parliament itself.

My point about self-determination is that its denial is at the crux of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the occupation of Palestine. The right to self-determination and sovereignty is the most defining struggle of our modern era, and Sinn Féin stands in full solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We remain unambiguously opposed to Russian imperialism, which continues to wage a brutal war and continues to occupy the Ukrainian people's country. The war in Ukraine must be ended through diplomacy, negotiation and political settlement, and that will not be achieved through further European militarisation and increased military spending.

Ireland's presidency of the European Council should be used to positively advance our tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, and it must be used to advance the position that diplomacy and multilateralism must always take precedence over the drive to war and militarisation. Global adherence to the UN charter is paramount. International law must have primacy, and failure to observe international norms and negotiate the terms of peaceful coexistence has led to the attacks against Iran and has precipitated the latest war in the Middle East. The United States, by its acts of aggression this weekend, has betrayed and undermined a live political negotiation in which it was directly involved, and that is the second time that it has done so in the space of nine months. There is now an urgent need for a reset in global relations, and multilateralism must underpin that process. The European Union has an essential role to play in restoring peace and security in Ukraine and the Middle East, but that must be done in the context of international law and not increased militarisation and militarism.

Ireland's presidency should advance the important agenda of promoting diplomacy, peaceful coexistence and political agreement for Ukraine and all other places where war and imperialism threaten security and stability. It should be a champion of the universal right to national self-determination for all peoples. It should be a voice for reason and progress against the threats and volatility of the dangerous world order that is being imposed on us.

Mr Brooks: In this fairly generic motion, we have an attempt to tick the box of noting the Irish presidency loaded with buzzwords and sectors, with the SDLP trademark of a new Ireland in the EU bolted on, because, sure, why not? Even Alliance has seen through that aspect of the motion.

In these troubled times, however, Europe is focused on ramping up its mutual defence. Nationalist parties have even less to say about that than the Irish state has had to contribute.

A generic motion requires a restating of our position, so I will say, as we have said in debates on previous motions, that Northern Ireland's priority should be decided not by the Irish Government but by locally accountable Ministers and representatives here in Northern Ireland. Relations between the UK and the EU are a matter for the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. They should not be outsourced to the Irish Government. Motion after motion comes before the Assembly that talks up constitutional change. Regardless of the efforts that the SDLP and Sinn Féin make in that regard, the reality remains the same: the appetite for constitutional change in this place has not risen since 1998.

I remind many across the Chamber that it was the will of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The future of Northern Ireland and its constitutional position will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to make the case for the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, including the removal of the application of EU law in our country and of the internal Irish Sea border that it has created.

Nevertheless, as my colleague said, we wish Ireland well for its presidency of the EU. We hope that it fosters only better relations. That presidency has no remit here, however. If Ireland wants to assist the people of Northern Ireland, it should start by removing EU interference in our jurisdiction and its imposition on our sovereignty. We know that, in practice —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. As someone who has had the burden of sitting on the Winter Framework Committee with him since its inception, will he agree with me that it is a case of our needing less EU interference rather than more?

Mr Brooks: I absolutely agree. The Member and I have shared that burden for some time.

We know that, in practice, Ireland rarely asks what it can do for its European allies. Instead, Ireland asks what its European allies can do for it. It is notable that, at a time when Europe's greatest concern is the growing threat from the east, the shadow fleets and the ghost ships that we have seen operating globally but certainly in the Atlantic, off our shores —.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. He will be interested to know that it has just been announced that the EU mutual defence clause is about to be enacted to support Cyprus. Ireland says that it is going to support that, so where is all this neutrality business?

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for the update. Ireland should look again at its policy of neutrality. Members on the nationalist Benches opposite have been less sure-footed in their enthusiastic pro-Europeanism than they have been for quite some time when such issues are discussed. It at least seems to be something that they do not want to talk about. Perhaps that is because, despite the musings of Messrs O'Toole and Kearney from the Benches opposite during Matters of the Day earlier, diplomacy does not deal with tyrants unless they rule with an iron fist clothed in a velvet glove.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, sorry. I need to make some progress.

Preaching about UN charters and international laws, as we have heard here today, has no bearing on those who have never sought to observe them. Parties and, indeed, a state that, during the Brexit process, expected the whole of the European Union to stand beside and behind them in solidarity, even to their disadvantage, are, as ever, found sadly wanting when Europe looks for friends within and without its political structures. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, demonised by many in the aftermath of Brexit, has proven to be a much firmer friend to its European allies, as it always has been. As ever, it has made a much more significant contribution to the defence of Europe at large, even from outside the club. Who knew that one could be pro-Europe without being pro-European Union membership?

If the Irish presidency is to gain respect, or relevance at all, it must engage meaningfully on the issue of defence and confront the cowardice of neutrality. The motion states:

It was a welcome step to hear last week that the Irish Government are to permit, as we have heard, His Majesty's Royal Navy to patrol Irish waters and ensure, as any sovereign nation should, that Ireland's waters and therefore those of Europe are safer from the Russian menace that has persisted. "Get your Brits in", as it were. That is the right decision in the current context. It will ensure that those with the capacity to defend infrastructure critical to Ireland, the UK and Europe at large are able to do so. I commend the Irish Government for taking that decision.

We, in this party, have no fear of positive cross-border cooperation where that is mutually advantageous and does not undermine current constitutional arrangements. For the Irish Republic, however, that should be only a first step. How can those whose raison d'être is the extension of Irish nationhood hide behind neutrality? How can they be comfortable knowing that Ireland, as a nation with an economy and wealth that those on the opposite Benches love to play up, does not have the ability to fulfil the first duty of any nation, which is the defence of its people and borders? Perhaps the Republic could use this presidential term to make a step change and address its legacy of pitiful defence spending rather continuing to rely on UK defence.

When Sinn Féin elements in the South argue for more neutrality —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, David.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I gave you an extra minute. You took two interventions.

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

As others from our party have outlined, we will support the motion and vote against the UUP amendment. For clarity for the previous contributor: Britain was demonised around the world long before it voted for Brexit; he should bear that in mind.

Looking at the motion, we are reminded again of the folly of Brexit and the impact that it has had on the communities that we all represent through the loss of funding in real terms. One of the things that has been highlighted as a potential positive outcome from our presidency of the Council of the European Union is that it provides an opportunity to regain some of the PEACE PLUS funding that a lot of community groups across our constituencies, as well as those in border regions of the Twenty-six Counties, benefited from in the past.

I note with interest that the UUP amendment —.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Sheerin: Yes. Aidhe, lean ar aghaidh.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Funding is very important. However, 75% of PEACE PLUS funding, amounting to more than £730 million, came from the UK Government, and only a very small amount came from either Europe or Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Emma.

Ms Sheerin: I doubt that I will need it.

I thank the Member for her intervention. As a representative of my constituency, I will accept funding for its community groups from wherever it comes. My point is that, in voting for Brexit, the UK Government cut us off from major funding opportunities, including, as my colleague highlighted, the Shared Prosperity Fund. The loss of that fund has had a disadvantageous impact on groups in our constituencies that work with the most vulnerable.

The motion prioritises opportunities for those whom we represent. It is regrettable that the UUP pivoted that objective towards a focus on defence and militarisation. I do not see the benefit of or rationale for that.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Go ahead.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. You will notice, of course, that that is what the EU presidency has asked for. That is what is on the agenda for the EU presidency, and that is what Ireland is going to do. We did not add anything; that is what the European Union wants from the Irish presidency.

Ms Sheerin: Your focus is on opportunities for defence and militarisation. As has been outlined, Ireland's position of neutrality has long been supported by the Irish people, and we support it. As you correctly outlined, it is important that we support the people of Ukraine against the aggression of Russian imperial power. I regret that you did not mention the Palestinian people, who have also been oppressed. It is a crying shame that the EU has decided to stand with Israel. I note that you did not have anything to say about that —

Dr Aiken: No, because I in a sedentary position, and the Principal Deputy Speaker would pick me up for speaking from a sedentary position.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You should not be talking, Steve.

Ms Sheerin: — in your contribution on your amendment. You have the opportunity now, if you want it, to condemn Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people.

You do not have anything to say: that is my point. In the past, our membership of the EU gave us opportunities to help the people whom we all represent. Instead, we are having a discussion about defence spending and militarisation. That is not what we should be focused on at this time.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: We should be focused on helping the people whom we all represent, not on dropping bombs on countries that we have never been in or have any reason to go to. We support self-determination, and we have been consistent in that. We support the right of any country to defend itself, but we do not support the killing of innocent children in foreign countries that we are never going to be in nor that we know anything about.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I have taken multiple interventions. Tá mé críochnaithe anois.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is Peter Martin. Maybe Peter's speech will be heard.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to pick up on some themes that have been talked about today, including defence, which the previous Member to speak and the Member for South Antrim mentioned, but I will start with the comments of the Member for Foyle. If she had taken an intervention from me, I would have asked her whether she believes that a country should have a defensive capability, and that applies throughout the whole of the UK and to all European countries. I think that that is very important and has been reflected in the debate.

A global study called 'The Military Balance 2025', conducted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), revealed that the Republic of Ireland is at the bottom of the European table of 38 countries for defence spending as a percentage of GDP. Today, Ireland is, unfortunately, widely recognised as "free-riding" on NATO for its aerial and maritime capabilities, as Dublin lacks the capacity to defend its own airspace as has been reflected, or the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Despite bearing responsibility for 16% of the EU's territorial waters and the fact that 75% of transatlantic undersea cables pass through or near Irish waters, Ireland is "totally defenceless".

The figures behind that assertion show that the UK spends £66 billion on defence each year, and that the Republic spends £1·18 billion on defence. When you do the calculation on that, you see that that figure represents 1·79% of UK defence spending. People have argued that Ireland is neutral and asked why it should spend any more money on defence if it is, in fact, neutral. The EU might conceivably take a different view. It has been argued and well quoted in the Chamber today that Ireland is freeloading on other EU states for its defence, as measured either in per capita or gross figures. However, my view is slightly different in that the EU is quite happy because the Republic of Ireland, as has been noted, relies wholly on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for its defence at all levels, land, sea and air. It gets all that for free. That is not a bad deal, but I suspect that it will not be one that we will hear referenced from the opposite Benches today.

Whilst we consider the motion and the amendment, given the world that we live in and as we talk about defence, it is worth bearing in mind, as has been referenced, that the key responsibility of a Government is to defend their own citizens.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard much from the Sinn Féin Benches about Members' disappointment that the debate is now focusing on defence. However, although they want us to believe that the focus of the motion is on mutual interest, funding and engagement, there is no similar disappointment about the clear call for constitutional change included in the motion, which, evidently, will be divisive in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member will have an extra minute.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not suspect that I will need it. I completely agree with my colleague that the way that the motion is framed will clearly be divisive in the Chamber because we all take recognisably different constitutional positions.

A country is completely within its rights to be neutral, but that is increasingly difficult to justify in the uncertain world in which we live.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed, sir.

Dr Aiken: The Member will be aware that other countries in the European Union have concerns about defence-related issues. President Macron has decided today to increase the number of nuclear weapons that France has. He said:

Is that a part of pan-Europeanism that we should all celebrate? I could tie into that. Those are President Macron's words.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for South Antrim. I do not want to see any more nuclear weapons than we already have, and I am sure that the Member does not either. The theme is correct, however: in this uncertain world, a country has to be able to defend itself. The Republic of Ireland is a neutral country, but it relies on this country for its defence. That will not be acceptable for much longer.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Martin: I will.

Ms Sheerin: Does the Member recognise that the UK still occupies Ireland?

Mr Martin: I will say this in my final 13 seconds: the Member opposite will not be surprised to hear that, clearly, I do not recognise that.

Mr Gaston: This afternoon, the SDLP has returned the focus of the House to one of its favourite subjects: bemoaning the result of the biggest exercise in democracy that the British Isles has ever seen. I begin by reminding the SDLP of some facts. Unionists, insofar as they were persuaded to sign up to the Belfast Agreement, did so on the basis that it accepted the principle of consent. For the benefit of nationalism in the House, let me quote from the sacred text of the Belfast Agreement:

Accepting that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK means that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to expect that, when they take part in a UK-wide referendum, the result is respected, honoured and implemented in Northern Ireland in the same way as anywhere else in the UK. Of course, that was not the case. In practice, Great Britain left the EU while Northern Ireland remained trapped. No one asked, "Do you want Great Britain to leave the EU while Northern Ireland remains trapped in its single market and its customs union?". The republican/nationalist alliance would not accept democracy — oh, no. How did Mr O'Toole's party leader put it? She said:

We had Irish Prime Ministers waving around newspapers —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, if you are going to quote anybody who has used that sort of language, just give us a wee warning. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I will give you that warning. Hopefully —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Just in case someone thought that you said that.

Mr Gaston: Oh, no.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perish the thought.

Mr Gaston: I want to ensure that that is attributed to Mr O'Toole's party leader. I will give you a heads-up in future, but I trust that I will not have to rehearse more of the SDLP leader's language.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the actions of the Irish Government, propped up by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and, indeed, the Alliance Party, should give no succour to anybody in Northern Ireland, including unionists in the House, that they would ever act in our strategic national interest?

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

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. The Irish Government have no interest in unionism. That is clear from how they got on during the Brexit negotiations.

We had Irish Prime Ministers waving around newspapers about IRA bombings and SDLP MPs threatening violence. Next up, we had Sinn Féin: it did not want to be outdone by all that. At the time, the First Minister of no alternative said that, if the British Government were to impose a hard border on the island, there would be serious consequences. Let us not forget that she spoke from a position of leadership in a movement that filled 1,700 graves in the Province.

What of the Alliance Party, the nice, middle-of-the-road people who just fell into line with barely a word of criticism of their fellow democracy deniers? Let us look at the motion: it talks about "strengthening east-west ... cooperation" as a result of the Irish presidency. The truth is that the protocol that the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance pushed for has trashed east-west relations.

I cannot let unionism off, because, shamefully, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists broke their pledge to the people by returning to this place as protocol implementers under the tainted Donaldson deal. Who among them today would like to defend Gavin Robinson in his claim that the Irish Sea border was removed? Who among them went around the doors of the Province promising that they would not return to the House unless the Irish Sea border was gone? Who would say that they kept their word? It is time that unionism found its backbone again.

The protocol works on the same principle as the EU itself: ever-closer union, breaking down the barriers between its member states. It does that largely through economics. That is the way: it is, by large measure, by way of economics. That is why there is a single market across the EU's 27 member states, and that is why there is a customs union across the EU's 27 member states: because the EU knows that, where economics goes, politics inevitably follows.

I will pick up on Ms Sheerin's remarks. I am sure that the families of 11-year-old Paul Maxwell, who was murdered by an IRA bomb in 1976, and 14-year-old Stephen Parker will take great comfort from them.

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

Mr Gaston: If they were Palestinians, I am sure that Ms Sheeran would have something to say about them —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — but, because they were Protestants, she has not a word to say about them.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am all for robust debate, so I am loath to draw attention to this, but the Member accused someone of threatening violence. Were those remarks to be made outside the Chamber, they would be actionable. I ask the Speaker or, indeed, the Member to reflect on that. The words were quite grave.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your point has been made. It is not a point of order, Matthew, but I will bring it back for Hansard. I am sure that the Member who made that remark will have time to reflect.

Mr Carroll: The proposer of the motion stated that there are irresponsible actors in the world today who launch wars and, to paraphrase him, wreak havoc on the world. He was obviously talking about Donald Trump and the actions of the US Government in recent days. I note that Pete Hegseth has not ruled out putting boots on the ground in Iran. We need to call out the brutality, gangsterism and thuggery of Donald Trump's regime and what it has committed in Iran in recent days. The Member failed to mention — it has not been mentioned at all in the debate — the role played by European states that are backing the US war on Iran. Britain, Germany and France have all issued statements jointly or separately to say that they support and will back the US attack on Iran or will do so collectively. There has been no mention of that. You cannot laud the EU as the best peace project over the past 50 years and, at the same time, have nothing to say when it is warmongering and banging the war drums.

That obviously points to gaps in the motion. It fails to deal with some of the biggest questions of our day. The Member for East Derry mentioned that in passing as well. We have seen a genocide being committed over the past three years against the Palestinian people. Everybody knows that Biden and Trump backed Netanyahu and financed him and supported that war at every step of the way.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: In a second.

Those actions would not be possible without the political cover given by the European Union and Ursula von der Leyen, in particular, not to mention the weapons sold by EU member states. Unfortunately, the motion makes absolutely no mention of that.

The motion also makes no mention of keeping Ireland neutral, which is more than disappointing. It is a missed opportunity. That is the biggest political debate in the South of Ireland. I suspect that the SDLP does not want to annoy its friends in Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael who are in overdrive mode in trying to undermine the triple lock and become a willing partner in European and American wars across the world.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the West and Europe being engaged in warmongering, particularly in recent days over Iran. However, does the Member consider the actions of the Iranian regime, which recently slaughtered 40,000 of its own people and has sponsored global terror proxies across the Middle East and indeed the world? Does he class that as warmongering?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, you have an extra minute. I encourage everybody to return to the motion.

Mr Carroll: Yes. Not to be taken off course, I carry no torch for the Iranian regime, but the Member and his party have nothing to say about a school —.

Mr Buckley: Is it?

Mr Carroll: Can I finish the point? Some 185 schoolkids were bombed by the US, and you say nothing about that.

I give way to the Member for South Belfast.

Mr O'Toole: The Member makes his points robustly. We support Irish neutrality, and we speak for ourselves. Those points are clear. In relation to parties' records, does he stand over his party's support for Brexit?

Mr Carroll: You tried that in the last debate. Again, the Member did not answer the question: why is neutrality not in the motion? [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: Yes: you did not answer the question. It was not in the motion, but that is up to you. Through the Principal Deputy Speaker, that is for the Member. If the Member is happy to erode Irish neutrality, that is on him. Fortunately, the public do not agree.

If history teaches us anything, it is that empire and war bring nothing but disaster, death, havoc and destruction. In a general sense, in the debate, from some Members today and just generally in this period, we need less beating of chests and beating of war drums and more recognition that an anti-war movement is needed across the island and across the world. Some politicians, North and South, want to pull the Southern state deeper into more, bigger and longer wars. The truth is that they want and are happy to send working-class kids to be killed and to kill across the world.

The Member for Foyle talked about Ireland setting the agenda with the presidency. In theory, that can potentially be a good thing, but I hope that the agenda is not set by the people in the South who are trying to undo neutrality and undermine the triple lock. I hope that it is set by the overwhelming majority of people on the island who are obviously for neutrality and for Palestinian rights.

The opinion of the people in the South is crystal clear on the question of neutrality and joining NATO. Again, it is unfortunate that it was not mentioned in the motion. That is despite a relentless campaign — often a hyperbolic propaganda campaign — by most of the Southern media and some, obviously, here as well, in an attempt to vilify and attack previous and current uachtaráin

. For that reason, I am against the UUP amendment.

Despite what the motion mentions and despite the vote on the European Union, the North is still in Europe, so there is an anomaly in that. I share the concerns of my TD colleagues in the South who say that the Government are using the presidency of the Council of the European Union as a fig leaf —

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

Mr Carroll: — to dismantle Irish neutrality.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Diana, you have five minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Our amendment rightly highlights the core priorities of the forthcoming Irish EU presidency, which are defence and security, infrastructure, research and innovation, energy and skills.

Those are the foundations of modern statecraft and economic resilience.

For Northern Ireland, each of those areas carries particular significance. Defence and security shape our wider stability. Infrastructure determines competitiveness. Research, innovation and skills define whether we lead or lag in emerging industries. Energy policy influences affordability and strategic autonomy, while cross-border services affect the daily lives of citizens across these islands. If Ireland's EU presidency is to be meaningful, it must translate those headings into tangible cooperation and practical delivery. In particular, the amendment recognises that Ireland's EU presidency can play an important role in strengthening relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. In the current geopolitical climate, that matters enormously.

The security landscape across Europe has fundamentally shifted. Russia's aggression in Ukraine has forced European nations to reassess their defence readiness. We also have the current situation in the Middle East. Resilience and collective responsibility are therefore paramount. Closer UK-EU cooperation on defence and security is not a theoretical aspiration but a strategic necessity. The United Kingdom remains one of Europe's leading military and intelligence powers. Ensuring structured cooperation, information sharing and industrial alignment between London and Brussels strengthens the Continent as a whole and reinforces unwavering support for Ukraine in resisting Putin's expansionism.

The amendment further recognises a long-term reality, which is that Northern Ireland's interests are best served when the United Kingdom and the European Union maintain a close and constructive relationship. That does not require constitutional upheaval. Rather, it requires practical partnership. A closer UK-EU relationship provides a framework within which Northern Ireland can thrive as a bridge between markets rather than as a point of friction between them.

Finally, the amendment calls for the Irish EU presidency to use its platform to encourage the EU and the UK to mitigate the divergent and disruptive impacts of the Windsor framework. That is framed not as confrontation but as a test of good faith. If the direction of travel is towards improved relations, reducing unnecessary divergence and easing administrative burdens should be part of that reset. Mitigating disruption to internal trade and maintaining the integrity of the single market are not mutually exclusive but a matter of political will and pragmatic adjustment. The presidency offers Ireland an opportunity to demonstrate that improving EU-UK relations is about practical outcomes as well as diplomatic rhetoric.

The amendment is therefore rooted in realism. It acknowledges geopolitical change, affirms solidarity with Ukraine, supports deeper EU-UK cooperation and seeks tangible economic improvements for Northern Ireland. That is a balanced, forward-looking approach to take, and one that is grounded in stability, security and prosperity. I hope that Members can support the amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have 10 minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on the motion. I thank Members for engaging robustly in the debate, albeit it veered in many different directions.

My colleague Matthew O'Toole clearly outlined the significance of Ireland's presidency of the Council of the European Union from July 2026. It is indeed a significant responsibility, which comes at a serious moment in global affairs. As many Members said, we are living through a period of deep instability. The escalation of violence in the Middle East following the bombing of Iran has heightened global tensions and created real fears about a wider conflict. Energy markets are volatile. Supply chains are fragile. Investor confidence across many regions is cautious. It is at times such as these that stability and cooperation matter more than ever.

For Northern Ireland, because it affects energy prices, international instability is not something that we watch on television and then forget about. Energy prices here shot up this morning by over 10%. In many ways, some of the energy companies are profiteering off the back of that instability. There was no need for those rises to happen at the minute, as they bought the oil at significantly lower prices than what they were selling it for to our communities this morning. International instability therefore affects trade routes, business confidence and the decisions of companies considering where to invest and where to grow. That is why Ireland's EU presidency matters. It comes at a time when global politics are uncertain. The European Union will focus on competitiveness, energy security, resilience and economic stability: those are not distant policy themes; they speak directly to the challenges that we face.

Northern Ireland's economy is still adjusting to the realities of Brexit. I agree with others, including Steve Aiken, about the difficulties of the Windsor framework. Businesses continue to navigate additional processes, and many seek greater clarity and smoother cooperation between the UK and the EU. Stability in that relationship is not an abstract diplomatic goal; it underpins jobs and investment in our communities. As Ciara Ferguson and Emma Sheerin both outlined, the loss of EU membership and EU funding has been a body blow for the community and voluntary sector in all our communities, particularly in west Belfast, Derry and other border areas, which have suffered greatly as a result of us leaving the European Union. I just cannot understand why Gerry Carroll cannot join up those dots.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank her for recognising some of the challenges and difficulties caused by the Windsor framework. Can the Member outline the changes that the Irish EU presidency and, indeed, the Irish Government could adopt to solve that problem?

Ms McLaughlin: I will move on and, hopefully, get to that.

Ireland’s holding the EU presidency creates the opportunity to strengthen constructive engagement between the EU and the UK. It creates the space where practical issues can be addressed in a measured and solution-focused way. We should all want that — even you, Jonathan, should agree that Northern Ireland benefits economically when relationships are steady and predictable. Our unique position means that we trade east-west and North/South. Our energy system operates on an all-Ireland basis. Our universities collaborate across Europe. Our firms rely on access to markets in both directions. It would simply not be credible to pretend that developments at a European level do not shape our economic environment. Ireland's holding the EU presidency should, therefore, be seen as a strategic opportunity. David Brooks, on behalf of the DUP: you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This is an opportunity to advance Northern Ireland's economic interests; strengthen cooperation on infrastructure and connectivity; support innovation and research collaboration; and ensure that energy transition policies enhance competitiveness rather than add cost. It is also regrettable —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. Just a moment, please.

It is also regrettable that the Alliance Party wishes to remain on the fence. Where is your ambition for all the people on this island?

The question is whether the Executive will approach the matter with ambition. Serious economic planning requires preparation, clarity on priorities and engagement. I want to see structured dialogue between the Executive and the Irish Government starting now, not in July when it will be too late. Northern Ireland's economic priorities must be clearly articulated; everybody across the House must want that. Our infrastructure needs to be understood, our energy challenges should be highlighted, and our research and skills ambitions should be part of the conversation. If we do not set out our interests very clearly, others will set the agenda without us. It is particularly important for regions outside Belfast. As a representative of the north-west, I am acutely aware of the need to ensure that international engagement translates into regional opportunities. Infrastructure investment, research partnerships, cross-border services and innovation funding must not cluster in one part of the region. Strategic moments like this must benefit all parts of Northern Ireland.

Can I give way to David, please?

Mr Brooks: I attempted to intervene some way back, when I was going to say that the Member may not realise that I am a unionist. She talks about opportunities: this is also an opportunity for us all to get behind defending Europe from its key threats. Will she join us in that?

Ms McLaughlin: Ireland's holding the EU presidency does not change Northern Ireland's defence arrangements. That is a distraction from the economic substance of the motion. The issues that we are raising are also about security. Economic security, energy security

and trade security are security issues as well.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Listen, everybody. The Member will be heard.

Ms McLaughlin: I will give way to Gerry.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Does she agree that Ireland should use its presidency of the Council of the European Union to defend the triple lock and to oppose an EU army and greater expansion of NATO? Should that be the stated position of the South?

Ms McLaughlin: I will give you my stated position: we believe in Irish neutrality.

We need to recognise that economic progress increasingly depends on cooperation rather than isolation. North/South collaboration is already embedded in everyday life, whether that is in energy markets, higher education, healthcare cooperation or supply chains. Strengthening cooperation is not ideological; it is practical. Improving UK-EU engagement is not a concession; it is the recognition of economic reality.

The SDLP has always been clear that it believes that Northern Ireland's long-term future is best served back in Europe, as part of a new Ireland. That is our settled position. However, tonight's motion is about something immediate and practical. It is about ensuring that Northern Ireland acts strategically in a period during which European priorities are being shaped.

Economic resilience does not happen by accident; it is built through planning, engagement and ambition. In a world in which geopolitical instability can quickly affect energy costs and trade flows, the regions that will succeed are those that are outward-looking and prepared.

Ireland's presidency offers Northern Ireland a moment to demonstrate that we are serious about economic growth, serious about stability and serious about cooperation. The Executive should not treat the presidency as peripheral; it should be a central element of forward planning. For the sake of our businesses, our workers and our young people, we should approach the presidency with confidence and clarity. For those reasons, I ask you to support the motion.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a moment.

Mr Delargy: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Pádraig, please open the debate on the motion.

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

Today, I raise a perennial problem, which is the lack of alignment between universities and colleges, North and South. That has an impact, particularly in my constituency, where we have a number of students from Donegal who study in Derry and a number of students from Derry who study in Donegal. Achieving regional balance has been a cornerstone of this Executive and has been raised as an issue by every Department. We therefore want to see that balance achieved, because it has an impact on every single one of our communities across the North.

If we are to look at the different systems, we have to start with the UCAS system, which has many benefits and offers a model of best practice, particularly on alignment. UCAS alignment with the CAO system is therefore particularly important, because it would allow students the opportunity to have one system to work towards, while also giving students in the North the opportunity to apply to and study in colleges in the South, and vice versa. It would allow students in the South the opportunity to have more time to plan where to go to university, to decide what course to do and to sort out their accommodation for when they get there. Alignment would therefore benefit everyone. Alignment would be mutually beneficial and create more opportunities for students, but it would also create opportunities for those right across our society and ensure that people can live, work and study at home. I am sure that all MLAs face the problem of cities and towns in their constituencies losing young people through the brain drain. We are losing young people who have huge skills and huge talents, and we want to have the opportunity to retain them in our communities in Ireland.

Having alignment is really important for students, because it would allow the Careers Service to be more focused on the issue. Unless you are a teacher with personal experience of the process, you will not be particularly familiar with CAO applications. We have seen an inconsistency in approach across schools and across different education sectors. We want a system that is less ad hoc and less inconsistent and that does not perpetuate barriers to education, particularly for young people whose families may not have had the opportunity to study in third-level institutions. It is about equalising that opportunity and creating the same opportunity for young people in all our schools and colleges.

There have been significant advancements in alignment made recently, particularly, first, on recognition of the issue itself and, secondly, on the removal of the necessity to do four A levels here. My colleagues Mairéad Farrell TD and Donna McGettigan TD have raised that issue in the Dáil, and our team in the Oireachtas has been raising it consistently. It is an issue that has been pushed by my Sinn Féin colleagues in the South, working with our team in the North.

An opportunity exists for the Minister of Education, and I am disappointed that he is not here today. He has proposed the removal of AS levels, but one of the benefits that we have seen recently is that four A levels are no longer required in order for students in the North to apply to CAO. Instead, they are now required to have three A levels and one AS level. Removing AS levels would negate that benefit and thus reduce opportunities for students from the North to study in the South, instead increasing barriers. I know that the Minister has had some engagement with his Southern counterparts, and it would have been useful to hear about that today, but, hopefully, other Members can raise points and update us on exactly what has been happening.

This is about creating fairer and better opportunities for our young people. Achieving alignment necessitates a joined-up, collegiate approach between Departments, North and South, universities, colleges and awarding bodies, as well as UCAS and CAO. In particular, I praise the National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) for its work on the issue, because that work has been student-led. It has been led by students who have been impacted on by the problem and want to drive progress. Even in my time at school, many of my friends who wished to study in the South decided not to do so. Although they applied to both UCAS and CAO, they decided, once they got their offer from Ulster University, Queen's or the Open University, that they would take up that offer and reject their offer from the South because of the uncertainty created by the delay. We are offering Ministers an opportunity to work collegiately on the issue to ensure that all students can have equality of access and equality of opportunity.

Mr Brett: I thank colleagues for tabling the motion for debate. It is not a particularly new issue: the challenges that the Member for Foyle articulated have been well known for some time. I will come to that later in remarks about my personal experience of the CAO process.

From my limited understanding of the issue, which I have been trying to engage in, the problems are twofold. One is the timing of results issued by examination boards, rather than a problem with UCAS. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and AQA, the two biggest examination providers in Northern Ireland, report their examination results far earlier than their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland do. That leads to, as Mr Delargy outlined, people accepting an offer from a university in Northern Ireland or in other parts of the United Kingdom. The second problem is the recognition of A levels and the points tariff system. When I was at school, many years ago, I applied to study at a university in the Republic of Ireland. I studied four A levels to A2 and achieved four As, but Trinity College still rejected me, because it did not recognise the fourth A level. That scenario continues to be an issue for students in Northern Ireland who wish to study in the Republic of Ireland.

I want every student in Northern Ireland to have access to the best possible course and best possible provider, be that in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland or in mainland GB. I am very happy to support the motion. I welcome the fact that the Economy Minister will respond to it. Only one Minister can respond, which is why the Education Minister is not here. It is not a slight on the Member who proposed the motion.

We talk about student mobility and university places in Northern Ireland. Mr Delargy rightly articulated the big issue of the so-called brain drain. No bigger issue precludes students from being able to study in Northern Ireland than the artificial maximum student number (MaSN) cap, which was introduced and presided over by consecutive Executives. It means that students in Northern Ireland have to compete with each other, with their counterparts in mainland GB and with their counterparts in the Irish Republic to get a place at university in Northern Ireland. We have a very strange situation where students from the Republic of Ireland who apply to study in Northern Ireland can take a MaSN cap place from a student who is from Northern Ireland. That does not translate into students coming from GB to study in Northern Ireland. Our Executive are using their money to give places to students from the Republic of Ireland at the expense of students from Northern Ireland. The Minister needs to look into that. The Minister rightly articulated that it is an operational matter for universities, but universities have been clear to our Committee and have put it on the record that they fear the Department's response if they were to remove Republic of Ireland students from the MaSN cap. I would welcome the Minister's commitment to the belief that students in Northern Ireland are the only people who should be able to benefit from the MaSN cap.

The DUP is happy to support the motion.

Mrs Guy: On this island, North and South, and, indeed, across these islands, there are outstanding educational opportunities available to our young people. Matching the interests and ambitions of our students with the full range of pathways open to them should be one of the simpler challenges for us to resolve in this place.

The last time that I spoke on an economy motion, I said that my first motivation for entering politics was to make home a place that my children do not have to leave to be successful. For me, the motion aligns directly with that objective. Coincidentally, this week, I will attend an A-levels option event with my daughter at her school. Foremost in the decision-making is the entry requirements for her preferred university course. Over the weekend, we were chatting about that, and I mentioned the Education Minister's recent consultation on qualification reforms, particularly the fact that 77% of respondents oppose the removal of AS levels.

Her immediate response was, "Well, of course you can't remove AS levels; sure that would impact on getting into a university in the South". She went on to explain the rationale for that in really impressive detail, so much so that I offered her the chance to write this speech for me. My initial encouragement that she had obtained that information as part of her careers guidance in school was short-lived, though: she obtained it through her own enquiries at an event that she attended recently.

That short exchange between a mum and a daughter highlights two key issues. The first is that if the Minister proceeds with removing AS levels, we unintentionally risk narrowing pathways for students who wish to apply to universities in the South. We know that positive work was done following the Universities Ireland report to improve equivalence between A levels and the Leaving Certificate, but removing AS levels would complicate that picture and potentially create new barriers. Secondly, it highlights an information gap. Our schools are familiar with the UCAS system, which is embedded and well understood and supported. The CAO system operates differently. When making decisions, students need to be clear that the CAO is a post-qualification admissions system that does not make conditional offers in the same way as UCAS.

Ensuring that schools and careers advisers have clear, accurate guidance is not an insurmountable challenge. Modest resource investment is required to deliver that, and the outcome would ensure that every student in Northern Ireland is fully aware of, and supported in accessing, opportunities across the island. A careers action plan is in place, and it seems entirely reasonable that structured CAO awareness and guidance would form part of that work.

The practical challenges — the differences between post-qualification and pre-qualification admission models; the risks that students feel in waiting for CAO offers; and the ongoing issue of language requirements on some courses — have already been referenced. Those are real barriers, which deserve continued engagement. However, while we often focus on how to retain students close to home, we should also recognise the value of outward mobility. Studying in Dublin, Cork, Galway, London or Edinburgh can help students to build networks that create opportunities for employment or broaden horizons and experience that can add value for local employers in Northern Ireland. Encouraging our young people to move away from home to study is positive, but we must create the conditions that attract them back and, equally, attract others here.

At its heart, the motion is simple. It is about ensuring that no young person's ambition is limited by administrative misalignment, a lack of awareness or unnecessary barriers. Our job is to expand opportunity, not to restrict it. I hope that that is something that we can all support today.

Ms D Armstrong: I open my contribution by making it clear that the Ulster Unionist Party believes that education is one of the most powerful tools that we have to transform lives and shape our society. We want to expand opportunities for our young people, and we recognise that cooperation between educational institutions across these islands can bring benefits. I want to make it equally clear, however, that our first responsibility is to the students of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, cross-border mobility must not come at the expense of available university places for young people here at home. That is something that I hear from parents and students alike.

What are the real barriers to opportunity for Northern Ireland's young people? The maximum student number (MaSN) cap creates artificial restrictions on the number of local students who can access higher education. We believe that reform of the MaSN cap is vital to improving opportunities for our young people. The MaSN cap places limits on local university places, which puts extra pressure on the availability of spaces for young people in Northern Ireland. That restriction forces thousands of talented young people to study in Great Britain, where they face fees of over £9,000 a year. Indeed, that barrier was pointed out recently by Queens University's vice chancellor, Professor Sir Ian Greer, who said that Queen's University is limited to offering approximately 3,500 places to students from here each year, despite an average of nearly 28,000 applications.

While students can and do submit multiple applications, it is clear that supply falls considerably short of demand. The brain drain from Northern Ireland to GB is well documented. For example, a report by Pivotal found that in a period when 17,425 people left Northern Ireland to study, only 3,470 came here. Clearly, the outflow of students from Northern Ireland is not matched by students coming from elsewhere. Whilst the MaSN cap is not the sole cause of that, it evidently does not help the situation when Northern Ireland students find it much easier to get places in GB.

If we are serious about opportunity, we must be serious about reform. The MaSN cap needs to be removed or fundamentally reworked so that our universities can expand to meet demand. However, that leads us to the uncomfortable truth that our universities are under severe financial strain.

Staffing and resource costs are skyrocketing, and additional funding for universities is urgently needed. We must have an honest conversation about the sustainability of our higher education model. That includes consideration of tuition fee reform. That will not be popular and is not easy to say, but leadership requires realism. If we want world-class universities, we cannot ignore the financial pressures facing the sector. The heads of each university here have already called for tuition fee rises to try to plug the gap, yet our Sinn Féin Economy Minister continues to engage in claims about abolishing tuition fees without a credible plan.

On the matter of qualification alignment, we want to ensure that Northern Ireland students are not disadvantaged when applying to institutions elsewhere on the island, such as Trinity College or Dublin City University (DCU). However, the motion places significant emphasis on aligning CAO results and timelines with UCAS without addressing the fundamental issues here. Quite simply, alignment does not create a single university place here, and nor does it resolve underfunding. Indeed, without increased capacity, increasing mobility could intensify the competition for already scarce places. Our young people deserve more than warm words about mobility; they deserve those places and the investment. For those reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party will not support the motion.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that is fundamentally about opportunity, access and the future potential of our young people across our regions. We rightly acknowledge the positive work that has been undertaken to improve understanding between A levels and Leaving Cert qualifications. That progress reflects the simple truth that talent and ambition are not constrained by borders. However, I endorse and echo the comments made by my colleagues on the Economy Committee about the complexity that still exists between the two grading bodies. That misalignment of results places unnecessary stress on our students, who are trying to navigate all-island educational opportunities. It is on the Executive and the Irish Government to work together to ensure that publication dates are better aligned so that students have more choice. The recent announcement of a cross-border collaboration between Queen's University and the Dundalk Institute of Technology is also genuinely welcome. It is a really positive example of institutions recognising shared interests and shared opportunities.

If we recognise the value of such partnerships, we must ensure that their benefits extend across all of our regions, and that, obviously, includes the north-west, because it is uniquely positioned to benefit from increased student mobility. It is a region defined by natural economic and social connections, and it operates on a cross-border basis on every strand. Strengthening cooperation between Ulster University and the Atlantic Technological University would represent a practical and strategic investment in shared regional potential. Such collaboration would expand education pathways, support research links and reinforce the north-west as a centre of skills, innovation and growth. It would also send an important signal that regional development and educational opportunity must go hand in hand.

Student mobility and cooperation cannot be separated from the lived realities that face learners, wherever they come from. For many young people, the high cost of living reshapes their decisions about higher education. Rising accommodation costs and financial pressures deter capable students. Access to university should not depend on the student's ability to absorb escalating costs. Those challenges can be even greater for those considering cross-border study, particularly those who are seeking to study in places such as Trinity in Dublin. The cost of student accommodation in Dublin, even in the outskirts, is very prohibitive. It is horrendous.

Students from the South who wish to study in Northern Ireland often face confusion around student finance and support arrangements. I agree totally with Michelle that there is not a lot of information out there. You have to search for it to overcome some of the barriers. Complexity and uncertainty risk becoming barriers that undermine the very mobility that we seek to encourage. Clarity, transparency and simplicity must, therefore, be the priorities.

At the same time, institutions must have the capacity to support growth. If Magee is to attract students from across the island, it must be funded properly. Expansion requires investment not only in teaching facilities but in student accommodation. Those who come to study in Derry must have access to affordable and appropriate housing. Without that foundation, growth becomes far more difficult to sustain. More broadly, our higher and further education sectors require that stability. Many institutions are operating under really sustained financial strain. Without timely intervention, the conversation shifts from growth and mobility to basic sustainability.

Responsibility for addressing the structural pressures rests with the Minister for the Economy. The higher education funding review must proceed with urgency and deliver a settlement capable of supporting long-term development, wider participation and regional balance. Is it essential that we listen directly to those most affected. Student voices must be central to the discussions. That is why I —.

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

Ms McLaughlin: OK. That is why I welcome the intention of the Economy Committee to engage with student unions. Policy decisions on mobility, funding and support must be informed by the lived experience of our young people.

Mr Sheehan: The motion is about opportunity. It is about ensuring that young people in the North are not constrained by administrative barriers or outdated systems when it comes to their future.

We welcome the positive work that has taken place between universities and Departments across the island to facilitate closer equivalence between A levels and the Leaving Cert. That progress matters, because it recognises the reality that young people increasingly see this island as a good place to study, work and live. However, let us be clear: barriers to student mobility remain. Misaligned admission dates between UCAS and the CAO create unnecessary stress. Different timelines force students to make decisions in the dark, sometimes accepting or declining offers without having the full picture, and that is not good enough. A streamlined, joined-up process would expand opportunity.

That brings me to an issue that was mentioned by a number of Members, namely the proposal by the Education Minister to scrap AS levels. At a time when we should be making progression to university clearer and more accessible, the Minister is pursuing a harmful reform agenda that risks doing the opposite. Almost two thirds of respondents to his departmental consultation expressed disagreement with his plans. There is no public appetite for scrapping AS levels. Parents, teachers and students understand the value of that qualification. It provides breadth in Year 13, contributes to the overall A-level outcome and gives universities a meaningful indication of performance when considering applicants.

There is a clear all-island dimension. Universities in the South recognise AS levels within the CAO framework. In many cases, an AS subject can be counted as an additional qualification for points purposes. That means that students here currently have the opportunity to present a broader academic profile when applying to institutions across the island. If AS levels are removed, students in the North will have fewer subjects to present through the CAO system. At a time when we are arguing for better alignment and increased mobility, that proposal risks weakening the competitiveness of our students for courses in Dublin, Cork, Galway and elsewhere in the South, which runs directly counter to the spirit of the motion. Scrapping AS levels would narrow subject choice earlier and increase pressure in a single set of high-stakes exams.

It would also create uncertainty for those seeking to study elsewhere on the island.

How can we speak about improving mobility and smoothing pathways to university while dismantling a qualification that currently strengthens those pathways? Rather than press ahead with the reform, the Minister should listen. He should focus on what students and families need. That means protecting qualifications that work, promoting the full range of university options across Ireland and ensuring that students are properly supported to navigate the UCAS and CAO routes.

Our young people deserve first-class opportunities to study and build their future on this island. Breaking down barriers to mobility is part of that; creating new ones is not. I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Honeyford: I, too, will talk about opportunity. In Northern Ireland, we have the habit of creating systems that are so narrow in choice that they exclude people and create barriers for them rather than delivering better for them. We have an education system with cliff edges built throughout it and self-inflicted barriers that prevent people from moving on to the next stage. We have to work to remove those barriers and create better and more opportunities for everyone who lives here. If we want a more confident shared future, we must make it easier for our young people to access opportunity, wherever that is. I think of my two kids: Tim went to Loughborough in England, and Emma is studying at Trinity in Dublin. We should look to deliver whatever is best for young people, wherever that is.

In a place that has known division, widening opportunity is one of the most powerful things that we can deliver so that young people have the choice to stay at home. That should be expanded and grown. They have the choice to go to England, Scotland and Wales, and Alliance wants to see those opportunities open up across this island as well, because that makes absolute sense. It is disappointing to hear some of the comments today urging Members to vote against those opportunities.

The collapse in mobility is stark. I have said this before in here: at Trinity, in 1998, 10% of the students were from Northern Ireland, but, today, fewer than 1% are from Northern Ireland. That is because of the barrier. It is not about a shift in what people want but about a structural barrier that exists. We should ask why so few of our young people have the opportunity to have Trinity, University College Dublin (UCD), Cork or Galway as an option. Just as England, Scotland and Wales are open to them, our young people should feel that the entire island is open to them, without barriers and without being complicated, and not closed.

Our experience was that Emma decided to go to Trinity a long time ago. That was where she wanted to go. As Members have said, however, you do not get a formal offer, as you do through UCAS. After Emma applied through UCAS and narrowed down her options, her choice was University College London (UCL). On the day that she got her A-level results, which are, in effect, your ticket to university — in her case, UCL — she had to make the decision to defer that place for a year, wait two weeks and hope that she would have a place at Trinity — and it is hope, because you do not know that you will get in, even though you are doing four A levels. That is complete and utter nonsense. It is unnecessary, creates uncertainty and diminishes our young people's ambition. Creating a barrier such as that and putting young people under pressure to take a year out to allow them to move forward is wrong. We should not build systems that make our young people have to hesitate. Rather, we should make it as easy and seamless as possible for them to fulfil their ambition. The simplest way to share this place, which has been shaped by division, and to build a shared future is to widen opportunity.

Alignment of timelines is only part of the issue.

The other real issue is that students with four A levels, even with an AS level, do not get an offer. Michelle and others referred to that as well. The CAO system, which requires 600 points to get into a course, should, without question, equate to three A levels at the highest grade. Our kids should not be asked to do anything more than a child or young person living in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Wexford or wherever. Requiring a fourth A level or an additional AS level is not right. I know that the Minister has raised that as an issue before, but work on removing that barrier needs to continue.

Michelle talked about schools' lack of understanding of the CAO system. That was another issue that we had. Emma went to one of the large schools in Belfast. It was a case of "You're on her own". I attended a parents' evening and was told, "It is there. Go and figure it out". That is not acceptable for young people. We need to give them better opportunities. We need to build a shared future and to increase their ambition, rather than limit it. We support the motion.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak to the motion. I am really glad that it was tabled and am pleased that there is a degree of consensus. I am, however, slightly confused by the Ulster Unionist position, to be honest. I hope that we can arrive at consensus and that we hear from the Minister about where she is with the policy and about the latest that she has heard from the Irish Government.

Third-level education is a huge privilege, a treasure and something that is economically critical, notwithstanding all the doom-laden warnings about automation; in fact, lots of the things that people study in third-level education, including the humanities and the arts, will be extraordinarily important. I hope that we can reassert the primacy of human knowledge and human ability over the idea that we will all be automated out of employment.

There are a few themes on which I want to pick up. As David Honeyford has just said, it is really sad and regrettable that, over the past decade or two, as we have moved through the post-Good Friday Agreement age, when we were supposed to be interacting and engaging much more on the island, the number of Northern students going South has fallen. Something really important that was preserved through the worst of the conflict was the fact that pupils from all traditions up here regularly went down South, especially to Trinity and UCD. Numbers have since fallen, but, in the past year or two, there has been a significant increase in the number of students from the South coming North, and that is welcome. I know that because Queen's University is in the heart of my constituency; indeed, it is next to my constituency office. There is, however, clearly a huge barrier in the way of Northern students applying to universities in the South. It is an artificial barrier that does not need to be in place. It is structurally harder to apply. As people have said, the UCAS process is timed differently, and how it is aligned means that people will often simply take, as it were, the bird in the hand rather than wait for confirmation of a place on a course that they might like to have done in Dublin, Cork or Galway or wherever. That is not right, because sometimes going to that city and doing that course would have been the best thing for them. That artificial barrier exists, but it really does not have to. I am someone who started to go through the CAO process but then took the bird in the hand. I went to university in Scotland, which I do not regret at all; I had a great time. Lots of people from Northern Ireland travel across the water, as they say, to university; in my case, it was 25 years ago. The sad thing is that the opportunity to move to a different part of this island to study has become harder, not easier.

I want to know from the Minister whether she can give us an update today. That involves asking her what the Irish Government are doing. A year or two ago, we had a big report from universities. It was funded through the Shared Island initiative by Universities Ireland. I am not clear what progress has been made since then. The report was publicised with bells and whistles, but I want to know what is happening in universities south of the border, not just Trinity and UCD. Other universities south of the border are available, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are well able to tell us. There is DCU, the University of Galway and the University of Limerick. Atlantic Technological University has been mentioned, and Dundalk Institute of Technology is now connected to Queen's, I am proud to say. There are terrific institutions across the island. I do not think that it is better that a student go to one university over another, be it one on this island or one on the island next door, but I want us to remove barriers to opportunities for young people.

I have talked a lot about my experience of leaving here and staying away for 20 years. I did that not because I made a big decision that I was leaving and did not want to come back but because, like a lot of people, I left when I was still young, after which my life then started in a different place. Those are the decisions that one makes.

We want to give people maximum opportunity and incentive to come back and make their life here. If that means studying on this island, that is great, but, ultimately, it is about giving young people maximum opportunity.

Since it has come up several times, I will talk about the MaSN cap. I agree that there is a challenge in student numbers in Northern Ireland. I do not disagree with that — it would be mad to disagree with it — but it is glib to simply say, "We'll increase fees". Look at the scandal that is unfolding in Britain around student fees: you have something that was supposed to be designed to look like a graduate tax, but the taxation structure is levied in such a way that it is an extraordinary debt burden that is unfairly placed on people who make that choice. That keeps people out of third-level education rather than incentivising them to go into it, so I am not sure that that is an answer either.

I strongly support the motion. I want to see people travel all over this island and, indeed, the island next door to go to university. I am keen to hear from the Minister on whether she has an update. I might not be able to hear it all, because I have to go to a different call, but I will check Hansard afterwards to see what she said. I am pleased to support the motion.

Mr Gaston: I start my remarks on the Sinn Féin motion on a point of agreement: no one in the House should oppose opportunity for our young people. If a student from Northern Ireland wishes to study in Dublin or Cork, it is their right to make that choice; indeed, the TUV has a very capable young man working in our Westminster office who was educated at Trinity College. I asked him for his thoughts on the motion. He highlighted the fact that, historically, the Irish Universities Association adopted a set of admissions criteria for applicants from Northern Ireland. They were aimed at increasing the number of students from this part of the UK attending third-level education in the Irish Republic. Applicants benefited from up to 30 additional points per grade band. Therefore, independently of motions such as this, institutions have been taking their own measures to help people from Northern Ireland who want to study in the South. I make it clear that, if they wish to study in Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester or London, that, too, should be open to them.

The motion is not simply about choice. It reflects a particular partisan framing, one that pushes Northern Ireland's educational system towards the Irish Republic while ignoring the east-west relationships that have long served our students well. That is where the problem lies. Thousands of students from Northern Ireland go to universities across the United Kingdom every year. They train as doctors, engineers, teachers and lawyers. They build careers across the UK labour network. Those links are not incidental; they reflect the historical, family and constitutional links that bind the United Kingdom together. In the motion, the emphasis is on creating smoother pathways into the Irish Republic. That suits a particular constitutional narrative, not the reality of where our students go. If the Assembly wishes to promote mobility, it must do so honestly and even-handedly. I have nothing against North/South opportunities, but they cannot come at the expense of east-west opportunities.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. There may be a bit of confusion in what he says. The motion is about equity; it is not about trying to promote one over the other. It is not about zero-sum; it is about increasing opportunities across the board. I reassure the Member and, indeed, other Members that there is no attempt to diminish anything. There is an opportunity here to increase opportunities for young people across the board. The motion does not take away from east-west opportunities; it increases North/South opportunities. It is about equity and increased opportunity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Member for his speech, but he might pass that on to Mr Baker so that he can add it to his winding-up speech.

Timothy, you have an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. I welcome the intervention, but, as I set out in the early part of my remarks, there have been long-standing initiatives. They have been in place historically, and, indeed, a lot of people from Northern Ireland who went to university there have benefited from them.

Getting back to the motion, I cannot support a quiet attempt to re-engineer Northern Ireland's education system around an all-island framework.

The motion speaks about aligning the CAO system with UCAS as though it is some simple administrative tweak that a Minister can instruct. That is simply not the case. Universities set their own admissions policies: application systems do not determine who gets in, universities do. We are being asked to pass a motion that promises a solution that the Assembly does not have the power to deliver. Even if such alignment were achieved, it would not address the real barriers that students face when they consider studying in the Irish Republic: housing shortages, rocketing rental costs, a higher cost of living and no access to the UK's NHS.

Northern Ireland already loses a significant proportion of its school-leavers every year because of the limited number of university places that are available here. The House could address that problem, but here we are, debating how best to streamline the process for sending even more students elsewhere. That said, students have a right to study where they please. It would be a mistake, however, to pass this narrow Sinn Féin motion, with its inoperable proposals and narrow-minded, Irish-nationalist scope.

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

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

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. It has been very interesting to listen to Members' contributions this evening. I believe passionately in the right of every student or young person, regardless of their background, to access high-quality education and unlock their full potential, be that on this island or elsewhere. To achieve that, we need to remove all barriers to student mobility, whether that involves travelling from the South to the North or vice versa.

In recent years, we have seen a steady increase in the number of students from the South enrolling in courses at universities in the North. Our higher education institutions in this region deliver high-quality teaching, research excellence and an exceptional experience for students. However, we are not seeing the same increase in students from the North enrolling in the South. In fact, as was pointed out, the reality is quite the opposite, indicating that further work is required to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in both jurisdictions.

The motion recognises the work undertaken to date to remove barriers to student mobility across the island, and one of the most significant steps taken was the review of A-level grade equivalency by Universities Ireland. Following the review, A-level students no longer need to present four top A-level grades to reach the maximum tariff: three A levels and one AS level are now sufficient. As others have mentioned, I have real concerns about the Department of Education's proposal to discontinue AS levels, which was in the recent consultation on the future of GCSEs, AS levels and A levels. If implemented, it could reverse some of the progress on reducing barriers to student mobility. However, I agree with Mr Honeyford that the value of A levels should be recognised: three A levels at the top grade should get you the top points.

Another exemplar of all-Ireland collaboration and student mobility is the expansion of the Magee campus of Ulster University. The campus location provides a natural cross-border catchment area, and its expansion further enhances Magee's role as a truly regional campus, creating meaningful opportunities for students from both the North and South, while promoting regional balance and sustainable growth in the north-west. The recently announced partnership between Queen's University and Dundalk Institute of Technology is another positive step in North/South collaboration. The partnership will strengthen academic links across the island, expand the opportunities for student and researcher mobility, foster innovation and further support the delivery of regional balance.

Of course, financial considerations continue to play a pivotal role in shaping students' decisions about where they study. Recognising that, my Department introduced a tuition-fee loan for postgraduate students from the North who choose to study in the South, effective from the 2024-25 academic year. The policy is specifically designed to alleviate the financial barriers that might otherwise deter students from pursuing educational opportunities across the island. I have also taken steps to augment eligibility for doctoral funding by amending the terms and conditions of my Department's postgraduate researcher scheme. As a result, PhD students from the South are now entitled to not only fee support but the full stipend across all funded PhD studentships.

More broadly, my Department has increased maintenance loans for full-time undergraduate students by 20% for the current academic year. A further 2·7% inflationary uplift to the maximum maintenance loans and grants is planned for 2026-27. Those uplifts are available to students from here, regardless of where on the island they choose to study.

It is important to recognise that all-island student mobility extends well beyond the sphere of higher education. Opportunities for cross-border movement and collaboration exist at multiple levels, including further education, apprenticeships, vocational training and school partnerships. By supporting mobility across those diverse educational pathways, we can ensure that learners of all backgrounds and aspirations can benefit from the rich resources, experiences and opportunities available throughout the island.

I am eager to further develop and promote apprenticeship opportunities that operate across the entire island. Cross-border apprenticeships are already in operation. A notable example is the two-year accounting technologist higher-level apprenticeship, which was designed by Accounting Technicians Ireland in partnership with further and higher education institutions and employers across the island. It has been delivered by Southern Regional College since 2024, and, last October, I was delighted to co-launch with Minister Lawless the delivery of the programme in the South.

Our further education colleges are active in building and maintaining collaborative all-Ireland relationships across a range of matters, creating opportunities for cross-border student mobility. The north-west tertiary education cluster partnership, involving North West Regional College, Ulster University, Atlantic Technological University and Donegal Education and Training Board, provides pathways and progression routes for students on a cross-border basis and works alongside industry to ensure high-value jobs for the region.

In the south-west, all-island relationships have led to programmes to reach rural communities and deliver key skills, such as the Smart Rural Innovation Driven Empowerment (STRIDE) initiative. STRIDE empowers local citizens by using digital technologies to tackle societal and economic challenges. It is delivered in partnership with South West College, Alacrity Foundation, Atlantic Technological University, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Leitrim County Enterprise Fund and Ulster University.

I recognise that effective support for cross-border student mobility hinges on ensuring that prospective students have access to clear, comprehensive information that empowers them to make well-informed choices about their preferred place of study. A number of Members mentioned that during the debate. To that end, my officials collaborated closely with student representatives to enhance the guidance available on nidirect, making it easier for individuals exploring higher education opportunities across these islands to find relevant and practical advice.

Concurrently, my Department's Careers Service has updated and improved its guide to career entry routes. That resource, now readily available online and distributed to all schools, offers up-to-date guidance on the various pathways into university, ensuring that students are well equipped to navigate their options in the North and the South. It is useful to have received Members' feedback on that; I will take it up with officials, because further work may be needed to ensure that schools are engaged with it. The Careers Service also provides impartial and personalised advice and guidance on an all-age basis. Provided by professionally qualified careers advisers, it includes guidance on higher education options, entry requirements, how to approach and improve an application and study options in all parts of the island. I note that the motion calls on the Minister of Education:

I agree that the Department of Education has a key role to play in ensuring that young people understand the full range of pathways available to them and that their needs are met when navigating their application to higher education institutions across the island.

In November, I met the Education Minister to discuss cross-cutting issues, including North/South student mobility. There was a shared recognition of the importance of supporting clear pathways for our young people and a collective commitment from us to work with counterparts in the South to identify and remove barriers. [Inaudible.]

Dr Archibald: Sure

Mr O'Toole: Sorry for fumbling there as I asked for an intervention.

Minister, given that the Irish Government helped to fund the Universities Ireland report, might they fund even something like a fact sheet or a training pack for careers advisers up here, simply to say, "This is how to make CAO approachable and straightforward"? Clearly, that is one of the issues. People think that it is handier to go down the UCAS route.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that intervention. I take all opportunities to raise these issues with my counterpart, Minister Lawless. We have a shared commitment to removing those barriers, particularly when it comes to people understanding the application process. The piece of work that I mentioned that was done with the student representatives was designed by students themselves to provide that type of information. That is available on nidirect. We may need to do a bit more work to ensure that people, particularly young people and their parents, know where to go to look for resources. I remain open to the further work that needs to be done and to raising that with my counterparts in the South.

As we look ahead, I remain firmly committed to working with all stakeholders to remove any obstacles that hinder student mobility across the island by ensuring that learners in each jurisdiction enjoy equal opportunities to access skills and education wherever they choose. We are not only promoting individual growth but fostering regional balance and strengthening all-island collaboration. Together, we can build a more inclusive and dynamic education landscape for future generations. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Danny, you have 10 minutes in which to make a winding up speech.

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

You will all be glad to hear that I will not take 10 minutes.

It has been a good debate. Most people agreed that we need to remove barriers and make opportunities seamless, but work is very much needed. I could talk all day and not convince the TUV of the benefits of removing barriers between North and South.

As someone who sits on the Education Committee and who talks regularly to young people through youth clubs, I can say that we are talking about the barriers that exist right now. We need to remove them. A real big one that is coming down the line could be the changes that the Minister of Education wants to bring in through TransformED. Proposals are being made at a fast pace, drowning school leaders with consultation after consultation; there is no question about that. It is very clear from one of those consultations that our young people, teachers and parents do not support the removal of AS levels. I would go as far as saying that we should not remove coursework either. It is not just about them getting the qualification; it is a barrier to young people getting on that pathway. They might be put off from doing A levels, because there is far more pressure when there are just one or two exams at the end of two years. Some of our young people do not test well and do not like that, so that is not fair.

I know that only one Minister can respond to the debate, but this was an opportunity to talk about the issue, and I wish that the Education Minister was here. We need to talk this through and work together on it, because it is going to create more barriers: that has been flagged by school leaders, parents and students.

Thank you all for participating in the debate. We probably have enough to get this over the line. We will get out of here a wee bit earlier.