Official Report: Monday 09 March 2026

Mr McGuigan: On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a hugely successful fundraiser in Dunloy in support of Noah's Story, a charity founded in memory of two-year-old Noah McAleese. Noah was a beautiful little boy whose life was tragically cut short in November 2022. Since then, Noah's family have shown extraordinary courage in transforming their grief into a mission that now supports other families across the North facing similar circumstances and heartbreak. Leaning on their own experience, Noah's parents, Corrina and Johnny, made a commitment that no family should face the worst moments of their lives without dignity, privacy and compassionate care and support. Out of that commitment came Noah's Story, a charity dedicated to improving how our health system here cares for families who experience sudden bereavement by creating and maintaining dedicated bereavement spaces in hospitals across the North. Those "Infinity Rooms" are named as such because of Noah's love of the 'Toy Story' movie. The first Infinity Room was opened just a few months ago in November 2025 in the Causeway Hospital. Speaking back in November, Noah's mother Corrina said:

When you see first-hand the thought, compassion and determination of Corrina and Johnny, their wider family and the local community that has gone into Noah's Story, you understand that it is more than just a charity. It is a legacy of love and of the determination that, despite their own tragic loss, something deeply meaningful can be built for others. Saturday's fundraiser at Dunloy GAA grounds, which I attended, was a testament to how the local and wider North Antrim community has been touched by Noah's Story and the work of Johnny and Corrina.

I conclude my remarks by paying tribute here in Stormont to Corrina and Johnny, to their wider family, to everyone who continues to support that remarkable charity and to their resilience and determination in ensuring that Noah's memory lives on in a way that helps countless others.

Mr Clarke: The weekend marked the 17th anniversary of the brutal murder of two soldiers at Massereene Barracks: Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar. As it did then, the community stood in solidarity at the weekend, both on Saturday at an event to mark the anniversary and again yesterday at the site of the brutal murders that took place 17 years ago. I was reminded yesterday, when the clergyman spoke at the rededication of the memorial, of how the community came together 17 years ago and has done since over the barbaric nature of the brutal murder of those two young men that night. It was a solemn occasion then, and it is a solemn occasion now. All of us in the area who drive past that site daily are reminded of it. Two young men at the prime of their lives were cut down and brutally murdered, claimed by the then Real IRA. I do not care whether it was the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA or just the IRA; they are all pigs of the one sow. I am sure that that term is familiar to some in the Chamber. It may be offensive to some, but suck it up. That is what they were, and it was brutal, barbaric, unnecessary and evil murder carried out in the name of Irish republicanism.

It is great that we were fit to stand in prayerful peace yesterday to mark that occasion, to remember those young men and to stand with former colleagues of theirs and former and serving soldiers from different regiments who had made their way across from England to mark the occasion. Bikers from the Legion were also there to mark the occasion. Whatever history has taught us, many of us will never forget what happened to the people in our Province.

Often forgotten are the first responders from the police, the fire service and the Ambulance Service and the hospital staff who witnessed some of those horrific scenes. I know one of the first responders who was there that night and of the effect that that has had on that individual ever since. There is stuff that those people can never unsee and can never recover from, and I hope that, some day, everyone can have peace without those constant reminders.

Ms Bradshaw: I congratulate both the women's and men's Irish hockey teams on their qualification for the World Cup, which will take place in the Low Countries in August. The men, including a considerable Ulster contingent, qualified a couple of days ago with a comfortable win over Wales and then won their qualifying tournament in Chile by beating France 2-1 yesterday. It is worth noting, on the day after International Women's Day, that hockey is the second most played sport in the world, largely because it is widely played by women; in fact, it is the largest majority-female participation sport in Northern Ireland. The women's team secured qualification in a shoot-out against Japan. That is the third consecutive qualification for the World Cup, and, of course, we still remember the 2018 tournament, in which the team reached the final.

Nevertheless, it brings up an issue of concern. An interesting aspect of the team that reached the final in 2018 was that there were members from each of the six counties in Northern Ireland. The concern is that we will not be able to repeat that because of a lack of facilities; in fact, one county — Fermanagh — does not have a functional hockey pitch now. Enniskillen Hockey Club has to play its home games in County Tyrone. The Derry and Strabane council area has just one pitch, and, due to floodlighting restrictions, the local club cannot run as many teams as it would wish to. Even in the greater Belfast area, we are basing facilities on demand, but there cannot be demand for pitches that do not exist.

This weekend has reinforced that hockey is an Irish success story with significant Ulster input. On that note, I congratulate Hockey Ireland and Ulster Hockey on their tremendous work and the successes that we see with both teams. We must ensure that we build on the success, not put it at risk. Let us commit to action to make sure that that success can continue.

Mr Beattie: Since this mandate resumed, the Minister of Justice has lectured many of the parties here about attempts to interfere in PSNI operational matters. I particularly remember one spicy and spiky moment between my friend opposite and the Minister on that issue. It is clear, however, that the Justice Minister, as leader of the Alliance Party, is using her position of privilege to interfere in PSNI decision-making. In early February, the Ulster Unionist Party press and policy team used the PSNI logo to accompany a press release about a data release from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) that contained police officers' names. Using the PSNI logo is something that many parties do, including, I have to say, the Alliance Party. The logo should not have been used, and it was taken down at the request of the police.

Although it was the PSNI that requested that the logo be taken down, that request came on the back of the Justice Minister interfering in police operational decision-making through a series of WhatsApp messages discovered via a freedom of information request. Those WhatsApp messages raise a number of points. First, the Minister had said that the Courts and Tribunals Service data release was not an issue, yet she described the data release as a problem to the police, clearly contradicting what she had told this Chamber. The Minister also tried to use the police to stifle scrutiny, as the press release had been critical of her and her Department. Secondly, she used the exchange as an attempt to undermine the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party's relationship with the police through derogatory comments. Lastly, the Minister tried to influence the police by implying that the police should ask us to take down the logo and suggesting that the PSNI should challenge the Ulster Unionist Party on social media. That is clear political interference in the operational activities of the PSNI, and it undermines the Justice Minister's credibility.

The word "hypocrisy" is used a lot: on this issue, it is apt. The issue is also raised of why the Justice Minister is using a non-secure phone app to discuss operational matters. If she is doing that for issues to do with a critical press release, for what else is she using WhatsApp? There now needs to be an audit of the Minister's messages to ensure that sensitive information is not being sent via insecure means.

It is a clear attempt to stifle scrutiny and critical analysis, and we should all be concerned that the Minister is doing that through WhatsApp messages sent directly to the police.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak about a subject that is of the utmost urgency for households, workers and families across the North, and that is the price of energy.

Donald Trump and the state of Israel decided to bomb Iran from the sky. I am not here to explain why that is a bad, illegal and idiotic thing to do; I am here to say, however, that members of the public, two thirds of whom in the region use home heating oil as their domestic fuel, already face severe pressure on their budgets. In the past week alone, the price of home heating oil has almost doubled, but, according to the aggregation done by the Consumer Council and the data available on websites such as BoilerJuice, the cost of filling an oil tank will probably more than double very soon. That is putting real pressure on households. The home heating oil market here is utterly unregulated. Households already face real squeezes after years of inflation and, in many cases, slower than necessary pay rises.

What to do about it? The Executive need to coordinate a response and stand up for hard-pressed households. I am not saying that the Executive can control what happens in the Middle East — clearly, they cannot — but there are short-term, medium-term and long-term actions that need to be taken.

First, we call on the Executive at least to explore a response that helps the hardest-pressed households with energy costs. Thankfully, we are out of the worst of winter, but people still need to heat their homes, and the most vulnerable will face a squeeze. We have therefore asked for some kind of discretionary support. It could be along the lines of previous discretionary support schemes. For example, eligibility could be along the same lines as for those who get rate relief or pension credit. The Executive need to respond, however, because we have the lowest household disposable income in the UK. We also have the biggest exposure to energy shocks, because of our reliance on unregulated home heating oil.

Secondly, we need to start thinking about how and when we regulate home heating oil. There are lots of great family-owned businesses across Northern Ireland that provide home heating oil, and I am not casting aspersions on them, but we know that the market is unregulated. Lots of people literally stick their garden broom into their oil tank to test how much oil they have. We need the market to be properly regulated.

Lastly, we need progress from the Economy Minister on an energy transition that means that we are less reliant on unstable parts of the world for fossil fuels. That is completely critical, but we have not had it yet from the Economy Minister or the Finance Minister. There have been warm words and statements about what should happen. but we need action. Not to put too fine a point on it, Sinn Féin TDs call for action from the Irish Government south of the border, where there is proportionately less reliance on home heating oil than in the North. Let us see the Executive act. They got additional money from London last week. They cannot fix all the problems, but they can take some action. At the minute, nothing is happening, and we need support.

Miss Dolan: The tragic loss of another woman's life in Enniskillen is another horrific reminder that we still have a long way to go in ending the scourge that is violence against women and girls in our society. Whether on our streets, in our communities or in our homes, women deserve to feel safe and be safe. I truly believe that the epidemic of misogyny that exists in our society can be stopped if all of us, across the Chamber, the Executive and society, work together. By working together and implementing the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, we can focus on prevention, continue to support women's organisations, empower our local communities and stop the violence before it starts.

My heart goes out to the family, friends and community of the young woman who lost her life at the weekend. The impact of such a loss is simply unimaginable and will, no doubt, have a lasting impact on the people of Fermanagh. Together, we must unite, say that enough is enough and end violence against women and girls in our society.

Mr Wilson: Last week, Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy claimed that there is not:

I ask the House just to let that sink in. Mr Carthy appears to have forgotten which party he represents. In making that statement, he inadvertently exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of Sinn Féin. Through his lapse of memory, Mr Carthy highlights the folly of the IRA's bombing campaign across Northern Ireland and mainland Great Britain.

There was certainly no betterment from the Narrow Water bombing, in which 18 British soldiers were so callously murdered by the IRA, nor from the Corry Square police station mortar attack in Newry, when nine RUC officers were murdered and many others injured. No better situation emerged from the rubble of the countless town-centre bombs planted and detonated by the IRA during the Troubles, including attacks in Markethill and on the Glenanne army base. There was certainly no betterment for the families who lost loved ones to under-car booby-trap bombs planted to murder people as they left their home for an honest day's work or returned to their vehicle at the end of it. I think especially of the late Charles Armstrong, who was murdered in such a fashion as he left a meeting of Armagh City and District Council at the Palace in Armagh city. When I served as lord mayor, I regularly told his story as I hosted guests in the room that is named in his memory. There was no betterment.

Mr Carthy is correct in one respect: far from bringing improvement, those acts were cruel and bloodthirsty atrocities. They tore holes in families and communities, and the pain and trauma remain decades later. The First Minister, in fact, would do well to endorse her colleague's words, instead of repeating the tired claim that there was "no alternative" to IRA violence. A far more honest assessment would simply be this: there was no justification for IRA bombing.

Mr Honeyford: Last week, I raised the issue of the real impact that the sharp rise in energy prices is having on households across Northern Ireland. I also raised the issue of the lack of regulation of heating oil. Over the past number of days, those concerns have only grown.

For many families here, energy prices affect practically every bill that lands on their kitchen table, from the cost of filling the oil tank so that they can heat their home and the cost of filling their car to get to work to the increased food prices for the weekly shop. We hear people's concerns: they are working hard, yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

I again call for the Department of the Economy and the Department for Communities to work together urgently to engage with the UK Government to examine what support can be provided for households if prices continue to rise. We have seen support schemes during periods of extreme energy volatility before, and, as energy prices continue to rise, we need to know what protections will be in place for the most vulnerable and for working families that are already under pressure.

We are particularly exposed on this island due to our continued reliance on oil and gas. We cannot control global conflicts or geopolitical shocks, but people here should not pay the price for wars elsewhere. We can control our exposure to those factors. Today, only 43% of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, and that must increase quickly. The cost of transition is now being felt directly in people's pockets. In Norway, 95% of the electricity is generated from renewable sources, and the people there pay significantly less for energy — about half the price that we pay.

We live on an island in the Atlantic Ocean with enormous natural energy resources, and we should use them to produce our own energy to lower the bills and protect households from global shocks. That means moving at pace. It means that all of us in the Chamber should unite behind the Executive and the Ministers to bring about change at pace and work with the Irish Government to deliver energy security for everybody here, North and South. It is about two things: protecting people and their energy bills right now and building an energy system that protects them in the long term. Families in Northern Ireland deserve to know that the Assembly has their backs and that we are focused on delivering for them.

Mr Delargy: I rise to welcome the announcement by Sinn Féin's Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, that postgraduate loans will increase by 54%, from £6,500 up to £10,000. It is one of the myriad of schemes and proposals that have been brought forward by the Minister, which include increased student provision, including articulation routes; increased access through our FE colleges to further and higher education; and increased student maintenance loans, which have already increased by 20%. In addition, our student fees remain at half the level of those in England.

The Minister is committed to enhancing further and higher education provision across the spectrum here in the North. The SKILL UP programme allows people to upskill, reskill and diversify their skills into particular areas. For example, when I stepped into my role as a member of the Economy Committee, I was not sure about productivity — it was something that I had less experience with. The courses allowed me to upskill in that specific area, and, as anyone who sits on the Economy Committee will know, I am now very passionate about productivity, I know a lot about it, and I can work with industry experts on it.

I experienced life as a postgraduate student when I trained as a primary-school teacher. I was very lucky to have that opportunity: I went straight from school into my undergraduate course, and from there I then went straight into a postgraduate course. I am conscious that many of the people who did the course with me did not have the same opportunity and, at huge financial risk, left full-time employment to be able to do so. When we talk about skills and opportunities, we look at the skills gaps and vacancies in teaching, social work, the healthcare professions and the legal profession. There are opportunities. The Minister's position will allow people to reskill and upskill, and it will take away a huge element of the financial burden that prevents people from going onto those courses and prevents highly skilled people from taking on those opportunities to address the skills gaps in our economy and improve their own circumstances.

I very much welcome the Minister's move. I am sure that it has been welcomed across the House. It has been most important to see the welcome it has received from students.
The NUS released a strong statement commending it, and I praise the Minister for her work in this area and across the board to enhance the experience of and opportunities for students in the North.

Mr Buckley: This week, we will mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Any Member who took the time to be in the Senate Chamber in the past two hours heard at first hand the carnage, hurt and destruction that terrorism has wreaked on so many lives in Northern Ireland and further afield. Regardless of paramilitary affiliation, terrorism has caused a stain on our society and broken the heart of many families. It is a day to remember those whose lives were cruelly taken by acts of terror and to reflect on the duty that we share to support innocent victims and stand firmly against those who seek to impose their will through violence.

Terrorism leaves a trail of destruction. For my constituency, today's date carries particular, solemn significance. Seventeen years ago, on 9 March 2009, Constable Stephen Carroll was murdered by republican terrorists whilst responding to an emergency call in Lurgan. Constable Carroll served in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, carrying on his proud legacy of service with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He was a dedicated officer and a husband and father. He put on the uniform to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. Instead of returning home to his family that evening, he was brutally taken by those who sought to drag Northern Ireland back to darker days.

I remember that killing, as do so many people of my age: a constable — a police officer — who had served so well, taken in the prime of his life. It shocked the community and was a stark reminder that those who are intent on carrying out political violence still exist in Northern Ireland.

Today, in my constituency, we remember another local man who lost his life while serving others. Lance Corporal Stephen McKee, from Banbridge, a soldier with the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, was killed in Afghanistan on 9 March 2011. Like Constable Carroll, he was serving with courage and dedication when his life was taken by cowardly terrorists.

Both men served others, both men represented the best of our community and both their families paid the highest price. As we mark the day of remembrance, we must honour the memory of all victims of terrorism.

Mr Carroll: Tá Seachtain na Gaeilge 2026 faoi lán seoil. Is féile iontach í seo atá ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá na mílte imeachtaí ag tarlú ar fud na hÉireann. Tá rudaí ar siúl do gach aon duine: foghlaimeoirí, daoine gan Ghaeilge agus daoine óga. Is léiriú í ar fhás agus ar fhorbairt na Gaeilge. Tá níos mó daoine á labhairt, tá níos mó daoine á foghlaim, agus tá níos mó daoine ag cur suim inti. Tá pobal na teanga lán brí agus beochta.

Guím gach rath ar na grúpaí ar fad atá ag eagrú imeachtaí idir anois agus Lá Fhéile Pádraig. Molaim do gach aon duine a bheith ag freastal ar imeachtaí le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge. Más rud é nach raibh tú ar imeacht Gaeilge, gabh sa tseans. Buailfidh tú le pobal fáilteach, fíorchairdiúil. Tá scoth na n-imeachtaí ar siúl i mo cheantar féin. Tá gach sórt imeachta ar siúl sna hionaid Ghaeilge, amhail Raidió Fáilte, an Chultúrlann, Ionad Uíbh Eachach, Glór na Móna, Cumann Chluain Árd, Spórtlann na hÉireann, agus neart áiteanna eile. Molaim fosta na grúpaí eile atá ag cur spás ar fáil d’imeachtaí teanga mar chuid den fhéile seo. Bhí lá mór teaghlaigh i lár na cathrach fosta ag an deireadh seachtaine. Bhí mé ann anuraidh le mo chlann agus bhain muid an-sult as.

Críochnóidh mé ar phointe polaitíochta: ceiliúradh atá i Seachtain na Gaeilge ach cur i gcuimhne atá ann chomh maith. Cuireann sí i gcuimhne dúinn go bhfuil freagracht ollmhór ar an stát freastal ceart a dhéanamh ar an teanga. Tá cearta, meas agus, thar aon rud eile, infheistíocht ag teastáil. Chan amháin go bhfuil na rudaí sin ag teastáil ach is fada thar am iad. Mar sin de, bainimis sult as Seachtain na Gaeilge. Cuirimis i gcuimhne dóibh siúd atá i gcumhacht go bhfuil ag teip orthu beart a dhéanamh de réir a mbriathair.

Mr McHugh: Chuaigh páistí ar fud an domhain ar scoil Déardaoin seo caite agus iad gléasta mar na carachtair ab fhearr leo agus iad ag ceiliúradh Lá Domhanda na Leabhar. Ba é téama Lá Domhanda na Leabhar i mbliana "ag Léamh ar mhaithe le Pléisiúr", téama a roghnaíodh le dul i ngleic leis an mheath atá ag teacht ar an taitneamh a bhaineann daoine as an léitheoireacht.

Tá an domhan ag éirí níos digití i rith an ama — mura bhfuil muid ag féachaint ar dhá scáileán ag an am chéanna táimid ag gruaimscrolláil — agus tá ár réise aire ag crapadh agus meirg ag teacht ar bhua na samhlaíochta againn dá réir. Níl rochtain ag gach páiste ar na seirbhísí sruthaithe ná ar ábhar ar líne, agus sin an fáth a bhfuil luach ar leith ag ár leabharlanna. Cuidíonn leabharlanna agus leabhair le cothrom na Féinne a chothú, trí rochtain saor in aisce ar scéalta, spásanna staidéir agus ábhair oideachais riachtanacha a thabhairt do pháistí atá faoi mhíbhuntáiste, rud a chinntíonn nach mbíonn deiseanna á gcúngú ag ioncam, gléasanna ná cúinsí baile. Is moil eolais iad leabharlanna. Is moil phobail iad agus is spásanna teo iad fosta i ngéarchéim costais maireachtála iad, agus spreagann siad an tsamhlaíocht.

Thug Éire cuid scríbhneoirí iontacha don domhan, ní hé amhain i nGailege ach i mBéarla fosta: CS Lewis, James Joyce agus Seamus Heaney agus go leor, leor eile nach iad. Léiríonn a saothar a chumhachtaí atá focail. Tugann an litearthacht uirlisí do dhaoine a nguth agus a samhlaíocht féin a mhúnlú. I ré seo na scáileán, tá cumhacht ar leith ag baint le bheith ag léamh ar mhaithe le pléisiúr. Cuireann sé suaimhneas ionainn. Leathnaíonn sé ár n-intinn.

Mr Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have three minutes.

Mr O'Toole: I am delighted to present this petition to the Assembly on behalf of the people of Rosetta, Wynchurch and that wider part of south-east Belfast. They have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress in installing a pedestrian crossing at the Knockbreda Road, which, as well as improving safety for the many families who live there, would allow the back gate into Cherryvale park to be opened. I am delighted that 642 people have signed our petition, which shows the strength of feeling locally.

Since I became an MLA, I have championed improved road safety, better connectivity and more access to green spaces. This crossing would achieve all three of those things, as well as the opening of the back gate into Cherryvale park. Despite those benefits, and despite support from Belfast City Council, including from local councillors from multiple parties, the Department for Infrastructure has been dragging its feet. It commissioned yet another consultation last year, the findings of which are yet to be published. DFI has spent £17,000 on the project thus far. I and my colleagues Claire Hanna MP and Councillor Séamas de Faoite have been working for years to ensure the delivery of the crossing as part of a wider package that also included the crossing that was successfully delivered on the Ravenhill Road.

Our petition reads as follows:

I hope that the Minister will listen to residents, publish the consultation results, outline a clear timeline for delivery and get on with finally delivering the Knockbreda Road crossing, which will unlock the opening of the back entrance into Cherryvale park, a treasured community asset, particularly for families. The people of Rosetta have waited long enough: let us get this done.

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

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Please open the debate, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I will pre-empt a comment that will probably be made by others in the course of the debate: the subject of the motion is not the most important thing that we will debate today; in fact, it is the least important thing that we will debate today. That is precisely the point. The question of who holds titles that have one word of difference but not one other substantive difference in role, responsibility or legal power should be the definition of a trivial matter. It is a distinction without a difference or, put another way, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Today in Opposition time, we will debate the challenges of SEN classroom assistant provision and the all-island economy. Separately, we have pressed for interventions from the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister on the huge pressures on family budgets created by the Trump-Israeli actions in Iran. It goes without saying that all those issues, along with the Rates Orders and the Budget Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, all ministerial Question Times and, indeed, the petition on the Knockbreda Road crossing that I have just submitted are infinitely more important than the presence of a single, non-capitalised word at the start of a title for a job that is otherwise entirely equal to the other job.

Before I get on to more of the argument for the motion, it is important to say that the motion is not about the performance of specific First and deputy First Ministers; it is about the structure and design of the office and the fact that the bizarre differential in titles in an otherwise entirely joint office reinforces the arbitrary divisions in our politics and distracts from the real and important issues, some of which I just described.

On the day after International Women's Day, I acknowledge the fact that, whatever my profound criticisms of the performance of the Executive may be, we have First Ministers who have both sought to use their office to provide positive leadership in different ways. I say that genuinely. That is a reminder of why it was designed to be a joint office in the first place. In March 1998, only weeks before the Good Friday Agreement was signed, two best friends from different traditions, Philip Allen and Damien Trainor, were shot dead in the Railway Bar in Poyntzpass by sectarian killers from the Loyalist Volunteer Force. As a statement of unity of purpose and of collective revulsion, David Trimble and Séamus Mallon went to the village together to express the outrage felt by our entire community. Before it had been formalised in an agreement, Trimble and Mallon visually embodied and performed the powerful, transformative idea of partnership: two people in a joint office embodying a shared purpose in a place that had been defined by division.

There was never any question that, when it came to formalising the agreement, the roles would not be equal, but the then leader of the Ulster Unionist Party stipulated — this is in all the written accounts of the negotiations — that there had to be a difference in the two titles. In recent evidence to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which, I should declare, I am a member, former deputy First Minister, agreement negotiator and, of course, former leader of my party Mark Durkan indicated that the stipulation to have different titles may have represented a desire by the main unionist party to retain some form of what was termed "residual primacy" as a means of better selling other difficult compromises to the unionist electorate, and that residual —.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC). I note that it is mentioned in the amendment, which we will not support. The purpose of that amendment is to have the issue considered by the AERC.

Does the Member agree that the Good Friday Agreement was an incredible step forward for cross-community voting in how First Ministers were elected and that it was the St Andrews Agreement that embedded sectarianism in how we elected the First Ministers.

Mr O'Toole: I will give a quick answer: yes. I dealt with that intervention fairly comprehensively. I will come on to some of the reforms that the SDLP proposes in addition to that measure, which is just one of a suite of reforms that we want to drive forward.

As a result of the effect of residual primacy, the difference of a single word has become, in many ways, an emblem of the strangeness and dysfunction that have plagued the institutions. On too many occasions, that strange, antiquated relic of supremacy — that shibboleth — has been magnified in our political debate, especially at election times. It must be said that that has been the preserve of unionist parties, in particular the DUP, which has returned to the well of tribalism with predictable regularity, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. In 2011, Peter Robinson explicitly and repeatedly warned of the risk of having a republican First Minister. After the Assembly election of that year, he gloried in the fact that Northern Ireland continued to have a unionist First Minister. Just a few years before that, his predecessor, Ian Paisley, even while enjoying a famously warm public relationship with Martin McGuinness, pointedly and quite patronisingly referred to his joint officeholder, whose agreement he required for even routine matters, as his "deputy". No wonder there emerged a belief, heard regularly in the media, on doorsteps and in conversations around kitchen tables and in pubs, that the DUP would refuse even to tolerate the idea of a nationalist or republican First Minister. Of course, that is why Michelle O'Neill's election as First Minister two years ago carried with it real symbolism that I have always acknowledged, even though she had substantively held the role before. The spell of "residual primacy" should now have been broken. That sacred cow of hard-line unionism should have been slaughtered. It is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards accountability.

I agree with the former deputy First Minister — the former joint First Minister — the late Martin McGuinness, who was correct when he said that the titles should be equalised to reflect the equality of the roles. As the person to occupy the First Ministers' office for the longest time, which he did for a decade, he knew what he was talking about. It was not just Martin McGuinness, the longest-serving joint First Minister, who held that view but the shortest-serving one. The current Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, was deputy First Minister for just over a month in 2011. Back in 2009, John O'Dowd said:

John O'Dowd also said — I think that I am right in quoting him on this — that the differential in titles was a "slip-up" in the negotiations by my party, the SDLP. Whether John is right about that, we are happy to work now to redress the situation, starting with today's motion. I hope that the Finance Minister's party still feels the same way, because it is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards substance.

In the time that we have often fixated on that title, our health service has stagnated; our crumbling water infrastructure has got worse; and our environmental crisis, including that at Lough Neagh, has become an emergency. All of those things have stagnated and got worse while the focus at election time, often with the willing complicity of the media, has been a single word in a job title. No wonder the public have lost trust in our politics; no wonder we have a crisis in accountability. Part of what we are trying to do as the official Opposition is to create a culture of accountability in our politics and a culture of partnership — something that, as Robbie Butler said, we endeavoured to create in 1998 — not to continue the stand-off politics that we have at the minute.

The North that I want to live in is one based on partnership and respect, not on a race to see who gets to be top dog; not on years of failing public services and trust and then a race for a title at the end; not on Old Firm politics. I want a culture of accountability, and I want politics based on partnership, not primacy. I genuinely do not know how, after all of this time, anybody could disagree with making the title "Joint". Let me be clear: this is just one small part of a programme of reform that needs to be driven through. We want to reverse the St Andrews veto referred to by Mr Butler; we want to make it easier to elect a Speaker when there is none — that is no comment on the current incumbent, Mr Speaker; and we want to look a range of other things. We think that lots of those issues can be dealt with quickly; in fact, some could be dealt with before the election. We will hear the detail of the amendment. The AERC inquiry should not stop us taking a clear view here and now on things that we can improve. I want an end to Old Firm politics, and I want us to be based on partnership, not primacy.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Sheehan: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

The offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility. That principle is clearly established in law and reflected in how the offices operate in practice. However, our amendment reflects a simple but important point: changing titles alone does not address the deeper structural issues in our institutions that require reform.

Through the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, we have been engaging with credible and authoritative academics and constitutional experts who study these institutions closely. The evidence presented to the Committee has been consistent: altering the titles of the offices would be a cosmetic exercise and would do little, if anything, to make the institutions more stable or effective. The leader of the Opposition said that the health service is stagnating, environmental controls are stagnating and other issues are creating problems. Changing the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would make absolutely no difference to that.

While some may wish to focus on symbolism, the work in which Sinn Féin is engaging at the AERC is focused on substance. Every one of the issues that the Committee is dealing with is much more important than the issue that the leader of the Opposition has brought forward.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for kindly giving way. Will he cast his memory back to the last Assembly election when his party was beating the drum of symbolism by saying, "Make history. Make Michelle First Minister" and did not mention any other issues? Surely that contradicts what he is saying now.

Mr Sheehan: It is not at all contradictory. In fact, it is informative that the SDLP has never previously tabled a motion to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. I said this to the leader of the Opposition on 'View from Stormont', last week: why is he so obsessed with it now?

Is it because Sinn Féin holds the First Minister post? That is how it appears to us. There was no focus whatsoever from the SDLP on the issue before a Sinn Féin MLA became First Minister.

Nearly 28 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, it is entirely legitimate to discuss how our institutions might evolve. Sinn Féin is open to that discussion. We are engaging constructively with the evidence, and we are prepared to explore reforms that strengthen accountability and improve how these institutions function. However, those conversations must take place in the proper forum. I cannot understand why the SDLP is pre-empting the work that is taking place in the AERC. Perhaps the SDLP should engage a bit more constructively with the work that is taking place in that Committee rather than coming in here and grandstanding with a motion that will produce no tangible change to the operation of these institutions.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: First of all, will he acknowledge that I actually proposed the AERC inquiry and that his party did not support it first time round? That is a point of fact. Secondly, just to clarify, does he agree with the former deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness that the titles should be equalised?

Mr Sheehan: First of all, when it comes to the AERC, I do not remember who proposed the —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will give way to the Chair of the Committee.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been a complete load of nonsense from "Media Matt" when it comes to his interpretation, because the AERC is formatted to produce a report. Going outside the Chamber to try to get his media lines does nothing for the conducive work that the Committee is meant to be doing.

Mr Sheehan: Absolutely. The role of the AERC is to produce reports; it does not actually make any decisions. One of the previous reports that I was involved in related to research that the AERC commissioned to consider the legislative output from the Assembly compared with that of other legislatures. When that research came back to the Committee, it was clear that the Assembly and Executive compared favourably with other legislatures on these islands.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is where the detailed work and evidence gathering is under way. I do not want to make this personal with the leader of the Opposition, but he is very rarely on time for the start of the Committee meetings. There may be good reasons for that. I was surprised when he arrived on time the other day. Maybe that was because his uncle was giving evidence.

There is a certain irony in the motion. It seems that the issue of titles has suddenly become a pressing concern for some only now that Sinn Féin holds the post of First Minister. There is another irony. The SDLP often lectures others in this Chamber about the use of so-called non-binding motions, yet this is now the third or fourth non-binding motion on institutional reform that the SDLP has brought to the House. If the aim is genuinely to advance reform, the most constructive approach is to engage fully with the work that is taking place at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and work collectively on serious proposals.

Our message is clear: Sinn Féin is up for the discussion on reform. We are engaging with the detail and will continue to do so through the proper forum: the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That is the focus that our amendment seeks to bring to this debate.

There is another issue that people tend not to mention.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Sheehan: Sure. Go ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: The Member did not answer the last question that was posed by my colleague. A good few years ago, prior to his death, the former deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said that the offices were equal and the titles should be "joint First Minister". One time, at a dinner, he explained to me at great length the duties and roles of that office. He said that, when his party got into power, it would ensure that there were joint titles. Why do you not agree with that?

Mr Sheehan: The discussion is about not only the single matter of the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister but a substantive programme of reform. Those matters have to be taken together. If you speak to your party leader in the Assembly, he will tell you that every witness who has come to the AERC has been asked whether changing the titles would make any substantive or tangible difference. On every occasion, the answer has been no. You are talking about reforming the institutions, but you will not do that by changing the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. If you are serious about reform, engage with the other substantive and important issues that will make a difference to the workings of the Assembly and the Executive.

I have one final point. One issue is completely forgotten when we discuss the poor delivery and stagnation of the institutions. We must always remember that one of the fundamental flaws in the institutions is that the DUP never bought into the Good Friday Agreement. It still does not. We have heard Ministers on the other side of the House say that they do not work in partnership with Sinn Féin. It is a badge of honour for them to get up and criticise the Good Friday Agreement. The issues to which they especially object are those of equality and parity of esteem. That is why, in 2026, we see DUP Ministers joining court cases against the erection of bilingual signage. Sin a bhfuil uaim.

Mr Buckley: Perhaps I should leave a bit of time for the leader of the Opposition to regain his normally pale complexion. It went the colour of his hair for a brief moment during the debate.

For many in the Chamber, "fundamental reform" has become a buzzword. It has become a buzzword for many within nationalism and, indeed, for the Alliance Party. However, it is often associated with a degree of chronological snobbery. The issue, for which many Members in the House will not account directly, is that there are fundamental differences in our society. There is a fundamental difference in constitutional outlooks and in how people in the House view social issues. I could go on. Therefore, there will always be the need for institutions that reflect and balance the composition of political thought in Northern Ireland. That is a fact. If that had not been the case, we would have had no need for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement or the previous agreements that failed. That is fundamentally factual. When we debate such issues, we should do so with that firmly in our minds.

The final six words of the Opposition motion are:

That gets to the heart of what the SDLP is trying to achieve with reform. It is not, as the SDLP proclaims, about better or more accountable government but about electoral advantage. I understand that the St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement — whatever you want to call it — have not served the SDLP well. That party has been reduced in every election to this place to such an extent that voters have now put it into opposition. I understand its desire to see changes to the institutions that have not suited its style of politics. However, time and time again, we see one-upmanship by the SDLP and Alliance when they jump ahead of the very Committee that was set up to look at where accommodation can be found and some of the outstanding issues can be progressed.

It has been mentioned before by Sinn Féin and others that the fact remains that fundamental reform requires buy-in from political parties that make up the Chamber. You cannot get away from that fact. To do so is delusional in the extreme. Whatever fundamental reform you go through, if a party in the Chamber decides that it no longer wants to partake in these institutions because it feels that continuing to do so is demonstrably against its interests and those of the electorate that it represents, it can walk away, no matter what the institutions are reformed to say. That is factual. Then we have a secondary question to that: if the largest party in unionism or nationalism chose to do so, would this place have democratic legitimacy? That is a fact that many Members cannot get their heads around. We need to see good government and a spirit that ensures that the institutions can work to their best for all our people, but there is a crusade by the SDLP leader — sorry, the leader of the Opposition; he may be leader some day — and the Alliance Party to try to drag the Assembly into positions on non-binding motions to influence the work of the Committee.

The Committee will produce a report. It may or may not contain recommendations that the entire Assembly can buy into, but that is where the work should be carried out. I say very clearly that it would be a grave mistake to believe that institutional change can be railroaded through at the expense of one side.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for giving away. He had started to go on to the point that I am going to make, which is that any agreement around reform needs to have the support of all parties, particularly the largest unionist party.

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

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a vital point. We saw the heartache and instability that was created when certain parties and other institutions, such as the Irish Government, the British Government and the European Union, attempted to remove cross-community consent from a vote in the Chamber to advance their own ends. You have to think about this. Have you ever given thought to the fact that fundamental reform that you may see as being in the best interests of this place for stability might actually cause long-term instability? That is a fundamental point that, time and time again, a lot of Members miss. The devolved institutions in this Province will only succeed if they command broad support from across the political spectrum. Unionism and nationalism are fundamental. They account for significant swathes — the vast majority — of the Chamber. Vital safeguards should remain.

Unionism will not be lectured on what should be removed to best advance nationalism. It was OK for provisions to be contained in agreements when it suited nationalism. On the Member's closing point about the Belfast Agreement, I did not support anything that released prisoners onto our streets or led to the disbandment of the RUC.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to support the motion. We see some merit in the amendment, but we will oppose it because we feel that, while the AERC is doing some good work and taking some great evidence, there is potential for incremental change, led by the UK Government, on institutional reform here. We recognise that, to use Mr Sheehan's phrase, there are "deeper structural issues" in the institutions that need urgent attention by the Government.

The Assembly knows, because it is written into law and demonstrated in practice, that the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility. One cannot act without the other. One cannot remain in post without the other. Their powers are exercised together, their decisions are taken together, and their mandates rest on the same statutory foundation. The distinction between "First" and "deputy First" suggests seniority and subordination. It suggests that one office leads and the other follows. That simply is not how our institutions are designed to operate, and it is not how the law defines them.

The titles were the product of political negotiation at a particular time, many years ago now.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. At one of the presentations to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, there was a suggestion — it was, I think, made seriously, but some thought it in jest — that there should be a third officeholder, namely for the Alliance Party. That received some support from that party's member on the Committee. Is it the Alliance Party's official position that there should be three in office rather than two? How would that lead to effective and efficient government?

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

Ms Bradshaw: I have not been following the Committee's work that closely, and nor have I heard that suggestion. It is certainly not party policy as such, but I can understand why some people would see merit in it.

The Alliance Party has consistently stated that our institutions must be reformed and allowed to evolve to reflect society as it changes around us. The fact that something was agreed in a fragile context nearly three decades ago does not mean that it must remain so for ever, particularly where it reflects neither political reality nor the community that we are all elected to serve. The spirit of the Good Friday Agreement was not to entrench hierarchy but to create a partnership in the leadership of government here. It was not to create a system of symbolic winners or losers but to ensure that government here would be exercised on the basis of mutual respect, parity of esteem and shared responsibility. Yet, the current titles continue, however unintended, to reinforce a narrative of hierarchy. We can all see that influencing the narrative at every Assembly election. As Mr McCrossan pointed out, as we come up to an election, it offers a chance to garner support within the respective electoral bases.

The titles feed the perception that one tradition holds the top job while the other merely occupies the second job. That perception may be politically convenient for some, but it does not serve an increasingly mixed and diverse society. As has been mentioned, several former holders of the post from different political backgrounds have recognised that anomaly and called for change; those who have occupied the posts have acknowledged that the titles misrepresent their joint nature.

Importantly, such a change would send a signal beyond the Chamber. Most of all, perhaps, it would make this place more relevant to a younger generation that does not see politics solely through the prism of orange and green; to those who identify as neither or indeed the significant minority who identify as having several national and cultural identities at once; to those who belong to a group that has emerged post agreement whose prime identity is Northern Irish; and to those who want to see our institutions reflect cooperation rather than competition. I emphasise again that the Alliance Party sees the move as part of much broader reform, including the removal of sectarian vetoes, that would have a much more direct and profound impact on the ability of this place to push for meaningful reform, to make meaningful decisions and to deliver meaningful legislation on behalf of the public.

Ahead of the next Assembly election, we have an opportunity to correct the situation and deliver an Executive Committee that is much more aligned to what the voters elected. That will ensure that, when voters go to the polls, they do so knowing that the leadership of the Executive Committee of government here is, at least in principle, based on equality and genuine power-sharing. This is a modest reform, but it is a meaningful one. For those reasons, we support the motion.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the motion but will not support the amendment. We need to look at the true intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I recently appeared in the media with the leader of the SDLP, when we talked about moving back to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement's factory settings. In particular, strand one of the agreement talks about:

It then clearly says:

this, by

That was a fundamental shift away from what had gone before. After decades of violence and terror, the Assembly was designed to work with a degree of consensus and with the support of all in it.

Unfortunately and regrettably, after almost every other discussion thereafter, particularly since the St Andrews Agreement, much of that consensus has been broken. Frankly, the aim of the likes of the St Andrews Agreement was to turn what had been the intent of consensus through the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement into two-party majoritarianism. Consensus is difficult enough to achieve with a mandatory coalition, but that consensus was broken at St Andrews.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him when I say that he talks about a return to the factory settings of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the consensus that it indicated. Will he agree that there was no consensus for the widespread release of terrorist prisoners back into the very communities of people whom they had terrorised? That is fundamental. The Belfast Agreement did not deliver the equilibrium for me or, indeed, my community that some in the House claim it did.

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

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for his remarks.

I remember attending an event at Yale University with various others, including the late, lamented ex-Principal Deputy Speaker Christopher Stalford. The event included a series of discussions about the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and there was a certain person there who, I must admit that I had not realised, had been so central to the discussions leading to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That was Peter Robinson. Peter Robinson, throughout the discussions at that event, talked clearly about the importance of what the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement did and, indeed, about the influence that he had had on it. He also talked on many occasions about the consensus that grew from it. I was then the leader of Ulster Unionist Party, and I was so surprised by what he said that I stood up and said, "I'm Steve Aiken, and I never realised that Peter Robinson was a supporter of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement". There were about 150 people in the audience at that event, including about 100 from Northern Ireland, and all that I heard were guffaws.

To claim that improvements were made to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement at St Andrews is false. I do not think that anybody considers the St Andrews Agreement to have made the circumstances better. The beauty of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was the consensus in it. How do you perform the difficult balancing act of having consensus and a mandatory coalition when, frankly, the parties that are in government are just as much in opposition to the other parties in government as they are with them? It does not seem to work, but, for the people of Northern Ireland, there has to be an idea that they can look to. Our party has thought about that, and Mike Nesbitt as leader talked about that quite a long time ago. All that we are saying is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister posts are coequal.

In 2016, as we all sat here and listened to a debate just as the Assembly was about to come down, it became clear not only that the positions were coequal but that, bearing in mind the confusion that most people had when talking about the two leaders at the time, it was probably more appropriate to call them co-leaders. We know that most elections in Northern Ireland tend to be a case of voters being told, "Vote for us-uns, or you will get them-uns" or "bitty fest" or whatever people do not want to see. To call them co-leaders would be a clear indication to the people of Northern Ireland that we are serious about getting the Northern Ireland Assembly to work. As I have said time and time again, let us return to the factory settings and the intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in order to get consensus. If we are to have the continuation of —.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He says that we should go back to the factory settings of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement was clear in providing for a First Minister and a deputy First Minister, so he is contradicting the very point that he is making.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Phillip. You have raised a point that I was about to come to in the last 30 seconds of my contribution. We need an indication that we are taking the situation seriously, and one of the ways in which we can do that is by making sure that we have an example. You, Phillip, are one of the people who has talked about having a First Minister for all. We do not have a First Minister for all; that is clear. What we should have are co-First Ministers, so equal weight should be given —

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

Dr Aiken: — to them.

Ms Ennis: Reform of the institutions and how we do government is absolutely required. Sinn Féin unequivocally supports the need for a real and meaningful package of reforms to be brought forward by the two Governments, in partnership, of course, with the parties in the Assembly. What the SDLP has proposed today, however, is not meaningful and not transformative. It is about the optics rather than the structural change that would bring increased stability and accountability to the Assembly. Essentially, it is style over substance. That is not just me saying that or just my opinion; it is what every academic, think tank and, indeed, former First Minister and deputy First Minister have told the Assembly and Executive Review Committee during its evidence-gathering sessions over past months. When asked, every one of them agreed that the titles are equal in law and that changing them would have no impact on the stability of the institutions.

Mr Brett: That is not true.

Ms Ennis: Yes, it is.

They have said that it would simply be a cosmetic change. In fact, the motion itself makes that very point:

It really begs the question of how serious the SDLP is about reform when that is the best that it can come up with — when that is all that it has to offer.

I am sure that we will hear from the SDLP about how changing the titles would be a gesture of goodwill. The DUP, of course, is famous for reciprocating goodwill and for its generosity of spirit. The DUP, let us remind ourselves, wears its opposition to power-sharing and parity of esteem like a badge of honour. As my colleague Pat Sheehan said, it was only a matter of weeks ago that the DUP Education Minister told the Assembly that Sinn Féin was not his partner in government. Sadly, today, we see the SDLP playing to some of the most regressive elements of unionism that just cannot deal with the reality of a nationalist First Minister. That was never supposed to happen. Instead of defending the right of a nationalist to become First Minister, the SDLP has fallen for unionism's regressive agenda, which is deeply disappointing.

The motion is clearly not an attempt at meaningful reform. It is an empty gesture. It is a sop to the DUP. I am sure that the DUP will be delighted that the SDLP is doing its work in undermining and undoing the election of a nationalist First Minister. Sinn Féin will not be deterred. We will remain focused on meaningful, effective and properly considered reforms of the institutions, because it is immaterial what the First Minister and deputy First Minister are called if we cannot get past the blockages to electing them in the first place. We need real structural reform, not a five-minute makeover, which is what the motion effectively is.

Ms McLaughlin: The motion asks this simple but important question: if the offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are equal in authority and responsibility, why do we continue to suggest otherwise through their titles? Under the legislation, the offices are appointed together, they exercise their powers jointly and one cannot exist without the other. The titles that we continue to use imply a hierarchy that simply does not exist in practice. It may seem like a small issue, but it has real consequences. It feeds a political culture in which, too often, debate is focused on symbolism rather than substance. Too often, this place becomes caught up in arguments about who sits in the high chair rather than focusing on the issues that matter most to the people whom we represent. We saw that dynamic only last week. At a time when the world is watching a deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East —.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat

Thanks for giving way. I know that the Member is not on the Committee, but is she aware that every expert witness who has appeared in front of the Committee has said that changing the titles would make no substantive difference to the operation of the institutions here?

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for your intervention. As my colleague set out at the beginning of the debate, this is not the most important thing, but it is important in this regard: given that the offices are equal, why under goodness would they not have the same name? It would stop the nonsense of this childish, "Who is going to sit in the high chair?" time and again. Just back —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: OK. Go ahead.

Dr Aiken: I note the Member's comment about the high chair, but it is more like a double buggy. If it is, does the Member agree that it makes no difference? If it made a difference, why not just call them the "co-First Ministers"? That sends a strong message to everybody that they are not, in some way, in constant opposition to each other.

Ms McLaughlin: I agree. I like the "double buggy" bit.

At a time when the world was watching the deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East, the conversation in this Building still drifted towards arguments about who was in charge. That really should give us pause. It reflects the deeper problem of how this place operates. Stormont was designed at a time when the priority was to secure peace and stability after decades of conflict. Those institutions succeeded in bringing together communities that had been divided for generations, and that achievement should always be recognised, but the structures that were created were designed primarily to manage division not to maximise delivery. We see the limits of that every day.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not hold authority over their ministerial colleagues. They cannot direct Departments or enforce collective responsibility in the way that most Governments can. Therefore, the titles carry more symbolic weight than practical power. When symbolism becomes the focus of politics, it detracts from the work that people expect us to do.

Recognising that something is not working does not mean rejecting the institutions that we have; it means that we are willing to improve them. For many years, the SDLP has argued that our institutions should evolve so that they function better for the people whom they serve. Equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is one small step — but a meaningful one — in that direction. There is much more to be done, and we recognise that. The change would simply reflect the legal reality that already exists. I do not understand the pushback. The change would remove an unnecessary source of division and allow the Assembly to focus less on status and more on delivery.

This is not a new idea —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Can I just progress with this?

Sinn Féin previously used the term "joint First Ministers" and, in 2015, proposed formal changes to the titles. More recently, the former First Minister, Baroness Foster, spoke in favour of equalising the titles. That is a constructive position, and it shows that there is recognition across the political spectrum that change is possible.

The equalisation of the titles is not something to fear. It does not change Northern Ireland's constitutional position. It simply aligns the language of our institutions with the reality of how we already operate.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. For fear of misrepresenting Baroness Foster, she did not offer an opinion on whether she was for or against; she reiterated that it was cosmetic. The focus of the motion has been about how this removes the ability for parties to say, "Vote for us or get them." Does the Member not accept that, in every Government and every political party around the world, that is exactly what is done? They want to replace the people who are in power. With that in mind, will the Member explain why the SDLP did not hold fire with a motion like this until we see the results of a current AERC investigation and Committee report that will, ultimately, talk about a lot of the issues?

Ms McLaughlin: We work within the context of the Committee as well, but we think that some very quick results can be found —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — by changing some of the small things quickly.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry.

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

Mr Brett: Most mornings, when I arrive up here, I think that I am in a parallel universe, but, when I hear lectures from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party about the institutions, I know I am in such a universe. Those two parties created the institutions that they have now come here to criticise and debate. They try to bring us back to the good old days of yore, when they were the two big players in the Assembly and tell us that, if only they were still the two largest parties, Northern Ireland would be a far better place. I need not remind the House that the institutions did not survive long under the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Those parties then come here and criticise the creation of the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. Which parties created those titles? The Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. However, when the facts do not speak to the reality, they come up with the nonsense line that keeps getting brought out: "Oh, it is the true meaning of the Belfast Agreement", or, "It is the spirit of the Belfast Agreement" — not what is written down in law, not what was voted on by the people of Northern Ireland, not the law that passed through Parliament but the "true meaning" and the "true spirit".

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: No. I will not give way, Mr Aiken.

Of course, the people of Northern Ireland cannot be smart enough to read the text of the Belfast Agreement, so those parties have to come up with the "spirit" or the "true meaning".

I also challenge the remarks made by the Chair of the Executive Office Committee about sectarian vetoes. The Democratic Unionist Party was elected by the unionist people of Northern Ireland to ensure that we stood up and protected them. The veto given to unionism and the protection of unionism are not sectarian. We take the discharge of our duties to the electorate very seriously.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the main beneficiaries of the current system is the Alliance Party? No Alliance Members are in the Chamber to discuss the issue. Under that very agreement, the Alliance Party has seen over-representation in the Executive, so to throw the toys out of the pram about the areas that do not suit it is ironic to say the least.

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

Mr Brett: It is, and I was just coming on to that point. The Chair of TEO Committee said that she wanted to see an Executive who are more reflective of the electorate. If that were the case, we would have only one Alliance Minister in the Executive. Perhaps, as with the work of the AERC, the Chair of TEO Committee has not been following the debate very closely.

The unionist electorate of Northern Ireland will somewhat object to Mr Aiken’s remark that the St Andrews Agreement was no improvement on the Belfast Agreement. Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, who wanted to ensure that all Ministers in the House supported the police. Tell that to the electorate of Northern Ireland, which wanted to ensure that every Minister and Member of the House had to reject violence and that every political party here had to decommission its weapons. I strongly challenge the remarks made by the Ulster Unionist Party that the St Andrews Agreement did not deliver much-needed change.

The member for South Down Ms Ennis reminded the House about the Democratic Unionist Party's generosity of spirit. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to remind her and her party about Sinn Féin's generosity of spirit when it comes to supporting the murder of people in Northern Ireland and its generosity of spirit when it comes to protecting British and Irish passport holders caught up in the Middle East. The First Minister of no alternative would rather be the First Minister of not turning up. Indeed, she would rather spend her weekend celebrating bloodthirsty murderers such as Brendan "Bik" McFarlane than doing her job as the First Minister of this country.

Ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity in 14 months' time to have their say on the reform or political party that they want to vote for. The Democratic Unionist Party will clearly set out its message to the people of Northern Ireland. It will be for them to decide the changes that will take place in this place, not a meaningless motion from the leader of the Opposition.

Mr Carroll: We live in a situation where people are being dragged into deeper, longer and more dangerous wars and there is global uncertainty of a kind we have not seen for 15, 20 or more years. In that context, it seems bizarre that we are having a debate about title changes on the doors of Ministers who have delivered nothing of substance for working-class communities. The SDLP may be running out of ideas for its motions, because it has considerable time every month or six weeks to propose them. If that is the case, I am happy to lend some ideas for motions for the Members opposite to propose to the House.

It is naive to think that, just by equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister — changing them to make them joint First Ministers or First Minister 1 and First Minister 2 or whatever — elections here would no longer be a battle about which was the biggest party or who has the biggest communal bloc. To say that that is naive is to put it mildly. I would hazard a guess that, if it were to happen, the debate would become about who the "first" or "real" First Minister was. We would not move away from that context, because communalism is hardwired in this place through its structures and the agreements that brought it into being.

I was not here at the start of the debate, but there is merit in querying the timing of the proposal from the SDLP when unionism is on the back foot and in a historic crisis. I do not know whether I have time to go into all that or whether the Deputy Speaker would let me expand on that

, but I could send the Members to my right a few articles. As I said, there is no problem with the proposal in principle; however, it is a bit absurd for us to have this debate, and I query why it has come to the House now.

In a general sense, my party and I — I have said this from day 1 —.

Mr Brett: There is only you.

Mr Carroll: I do not know what you shouted, but I am going to move on.

Mr Brett: It is only you; you do not have a party.

Mr Carroll: I do have a party — an all-island party, with TDs. I will teach you about that some day.

We have always called for maximum reform of these institutions, but it is clear that most of the bigger parties are opposed to real, deep, meaningful change. Sinn Féin fought the previous election on the mantra of "First Minister for all", and it was rewarded in part for that when it was returned as the biggest party. That slogan, and that reality, were symbolically important for many, but we need to move beyond symbols and see delivery for working-class people. The First Minister and the Executive as a whole have not delivered for working-class people across the board. Most people have checked out of Stormont and have completely lost faith in this institution.

It is ridiculous that, if the Alliance Party were to become the biggest or second-biggest party in this place, it would not be able to take up those positions. I have been more critical of the Alliance Party on many things than other parties have been, but that is absurd and shows how sectarianism and communalism are hardwired into this place.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He talks about sectarianism and communalism being hardwired. Given that the differential in titles was a communal demand of the largest unionist party 20-odd years ago, why, if he is opposed to those things, is he sceptical about our trying to change it?

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

Mr Carroll: My point was that it is naive to think that that change would bring about a new form of politics or type of election.

Before the Member intervened, I was making the point that it is absurd and ridiculous that parties here are "othered". I find that offensive. I am a socialist — Alliance Party members are liberals; they can define themselves — and the fact that we are put to the side, literally in my case, and othered, with my vote not counting and my being seen as a second-class MLA, is distasteful.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Carroll: Yes: go ahead.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member outline how many times in this mandate his vote has not counted?

Mr Carroll: I advise the Member to look at how many times cross-community votes were needed.

Mr Buckley: How many?

Mr Carroll: I do not have the number to hand.

Mr Buckley: You do not know. It is a myth.

Mr Carroll: It is not a memory test; it is a political debate.

It is important to emphasise that point, and the Alliance Party has done so and can do that for itself.

There are good points in the amendment about the need for reform of the whole structure of this place, not just to change the First Minister titles; however, I am sceptical of the idea that Sinn Féin and other parties would push ahead with it.

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

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

I will start where Pat started. I have listened to the whole debate, and it is definitely my opinion that the motion is just about tinkering. It is about denial. It is the first time that there has been a nationalist First Minister, and it is about making sure that that does not happen again, because of what they describe as an "election mantra". I am also a member of the AERC. To repeat the point that Pat, Sinead and others have made, we have received evidence from well-respected and renowned academics, who have all stated that changing the titles would not make a difference because, in law, the two positions have the same authority. The issue of reform should be debated here, but we still have loads of work to do in the AERC, so I was a bit surprised when I saw the motion's coming forward. However, when I then heard the debate, I realised what it was about: it is all bluff. Pat mentioned the fact that the massive amount of work that we have to do in the AERC requires not just focus but substance. The SDLP may have a suite of reforms, but that suite of reforms needs to be brought to and discussed in that Committee.

Parts of the SDLP's narrative during the debate have been quite contradictory. It recognises that the positions are equal in law and practice, but, yet and all, it feels that there needs to be a change. I was a bit disappointed to hear the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister being referred to as high chairs and double buggies. That was quite patronising, to be frank. If that is the level of contribution, maybe you would be better just sticking here.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will, as long as you are brief, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: I will be very brief. I know that you will keep me right in that regard. Do you agree with Martin McGuinness, who said that the titles should be equalised?

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Of course we do, but you are talking about positions that, as we all know, are equal in law. Michelle referred to herself as "joint First Minister". Matthew, when you get around to knocking doors and talking to people, this issue will come up. When a nationalist/republican held the position of First Minister for the first time ever, what did the SDLP do? It jumped to change that. That is what will stick in people's heads.

Jonathan, I have to laugh. What age were you when the Good Friday Agreement was signed? Seven? However, you said that, under your watch, the RUC would not have been changed and that something else would not have been changed. You sound ridiculous at times.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst that was a reflection on what I said, what I meant was my community. The Member cannot say with a straight face that the release of terrorists onto the streets did not retraumatise victims and that the disbandment of an organisation that lost hundreds of officers at the hands of paramilitaries was not a serious issue for my community.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. There were lots of issues in the Good Friday Agreement that impacted on people.

Mr Buckley: So do not patronise me.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not patronising you, but —

Mr Buckley: You did.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Let us return to the motion.

Ms Ní Chuilín: — you absolutely do not have dominance when it comes to impact. That needs to stop.

At the end of the day, I would have much preferred the motion to be about a bill of rights. Was it? Absolutely not. Mike Nesbitt was a representative on the Ad Hoc Committee. He told people as part of those presentations, "We're getting there" and, "We're nearly there" and then walked into the Chamber and vetoed it. It is not about sectarian vetoes; it is about ending vetoes that look, feel, walk and talk as though they are sectarian. You can jump up and down all you want, but, if that is what it looks like, that is what it is.

I also agree on the issue of the designation as "Other". I am glad that someone has come in to support you, Paula. You were left on your own for almost the whole debate, which does not really say a lot. I want to make sure — I guess that we all do — that, when you strip it all down, this place reflects the people who elect us. It is democratic that, when d'Hondt is used, it is a reflection of first preference votes. Name changes are not going to do that. It is about first preference votes, and about people getting positions based on what the electorate returns. However, if that is the case, we need to look at everything across the board.

Will doing that result in a better, more respectful Chamber? No, it will not, because people will have bad manners regardless of how many first preference votes they get. I want to see substance over style. I want to see reforms for which we can all have the same energy and determination. I would like to see such discussions be had at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee rather than in superficial debates that are really about creating clickbait. Sin é.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been spiky, as I thought it would be. Notable by its absence was a defence, from a single person, of the status quo. Not one person could offer a substantive defence of the status quo. Lots of people question my and the SDLP's motives, as the Opposition, for tabling the motion. Lots of people said that the change would not be substantive. Those are fair enough comments. People even made personal digs at me. That is grand: I am a big boy and can take it. Not one person, however, including anyone from the Sinn Féin and DUP Benches, could offer a substantive defence of the differential. The reason that they did not is because they cannot.

In opening the debate, the first thing that I said is that this is not the most important issue facing the Assembly but, rather, the least important. That is why we need to change the titles. They reinforce arbitrary division and an Old Firm style of politics from which we need to move away.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second. I want to make some progress first.

I thought that this would happen and was almost amused to see it happen, yet I deeply resent the nationalist green-Lundying of the SDLP: the suggestion that we are doing this now because there is a Sinn Féin First Minister. We have taken the same position for years. Here is the thing: Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd also took that position. If they took that position then, why is it wrong now? Let us grow up. Slurring us for tabling a motion on reform is not the way in which to defend your party's record in the Executive.

I will respond to a comment that was made repeatedly about the AERC. From the way in which people are talking about AERC, I did not realise that I had joined some form of papal conclave, or perhaps a fight club, that must not be talked about outside the room. AERC is a Committee like any other. We all sit on Statutory Committees on which we debate things and come to a collective view, or not. There is nothing illegitimate about Committee members taking a position and tabling a motion.

Pat Sheehan mentioned non-binding motions. We are the Opposition, and what we do is table Opposition business. You guys are the Executive parties. Introduce some legislation, and we will debate it. You have more power than we do to bring forward legislation.

Sinn Féin Members, starting with Pat, followed by Sinéad and Carál, stated that everyone who has given evidence to the Committee said that any change would be totally cosmetic and therefore should not happen. That is just not true. I will pick one example. At the beginning of her presentation, Professor Joanne McEvoy, an academic from the University of Aberdeen, said:

What Sinn Féin Members repeatedly said about no one having given evidence to that effect and any change being completely superficial is therefore completely untrue.

I will tackle some of the points that were made. There were reasonable points made that require a response, and I am happy to respond to them. Pat said that I am very rarely on time. I have, I think, attended the vast majority of AERC evidence sessions, and we have pushed the agenda. I look forward to working collectively with all Committee members and am happy to do so.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way briefly to the Chair of the AERC.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. In opening the debate, he said that this is the least important thing that we will discuss today. That is true. It is factual. I ask this of the Member sincerely, however: how would he be responding if it were the DUP that had tabled the motion? Would he have called it childish? Would he have called it tinkering? Would he have called it a distraction from the serious issues of today? I guarantee that the Member would not be taking the position that he is adopting now if the DUP had tabled the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Here is the thing: we would support the motion, because we are not a tribal party that is consumed by Old Firm-style politics and sectarian point-scoring, as both your parties are. OK? We are a party that believes in a new North and a new Ireland, based on partnership. That, not the green-Lundying that we have heard from Sinn Féin and the carping that we have heard from the DUP, is in our DNA. I say that just to be clear about who we are, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Buckley: Your reaction says it all. It was a sincere question.

Mr O'Toole: I will return to some of what we have heard today. Jonathan Buckley talked about one-upmanship. That is exactly what we want to move away from.

Mr Buckley: One-upmanship from you.

Mr O'Toole: We want to move away from one-upmanship and towards "jointery". Mr Buckley is entitled to have a dig at me. That is fine: I do not mind.

Others spoke about their party's position. Paula talked about Alliance, which has a long track record of talking about reform of the institutions. That is fair enough. She made those points very well. I am glad that Alliance will support our motion.

This is not the end of reform, and it is not, to be clear — let me repeat this — the most important reform. It is one of a suite of reforms that we need. I am glad that we now have progress on this.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: I will take an intervention in one second. Every party in the Chamber has, at one point or another, said that they agree substantively with reform, so let us make progress.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I take personal umbrage at being called sectarian. I have never said anything in the Chamber or outside the Chamber — in any setting — that was sectarian. I am not sectarian. I am not a member of a sectarian party. I will not be accused of being sectarian.

Mr O'Toole: I do not believe that I accused you of being sectarian, Linda. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: However, what I will say is that some of the debate has moved towards a situation where, when we challenge and call for genuine partnership in this place, we are accused of, as it were, letting the side down: "You are only doing it because you are whatever". The implication is clear. That is not what we are doing. We have been clear in relation to —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have much time, so I will not give way. I have given way multiple times to Members. If I have time later on, I will; I promise.

Members repeatedly said that it is a cosmetic change. If it is a cosmetic change, let us go ahead and do it. I have not heard anybody substantively disagree with it. I have simply heard Members cast aspersions on me, the Opposition and our motives. That is all fine. However, if you do not substantively disagree with it, let us get on and do it.

Gerry does not disagree with the merits of the reform but seems to think that it, in itself, is cosmetic. He also strongly disagrees with the communalism and tribalism that, he thinks, characterise these institutions. This is one area where an arbitrary difference reinforces something that is not healthy in our politics: a horse race towards a job title. It is important to say that that was created by the largest unionist party in 1998. I do not think that we — certainly, those in parties that believe in a new Ireland and in a republic where there is equality of citizenship — should endorse that type of arbitrary differential. I do not want to be top dog in the wee North; I want a new Ireland, based on equality of citizenship and mutual respect, including for unionists. I want to equalise the titles, because I want to move our politics away from the kind of point-scoring and tribalism that we have seen. Yes, unionism created that shibboleth in the first place, and, yes, that is why the First Minister's election in 2024 was genuinely historic. I said that then, and I will say it now. That having happened, I do not understand why equalising the titles, as was the position of Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd, and as is, I think, the position of Sinn Féin, based on what its Members have said today, would be such an unacceptable thing to do.

It is about having a broader culture of accountability in our politics, because the public out there are genuinely frustrated with the lack of delivery in our politics. They are frustrated with tribal point-scoring. If we fight another election on the basis of a race to a job title, they will become unbelievably frustrated with our politics. They will think that we do not care at all about their public services, which are crumbling; the environment, which is stagnating; and the economy, which is not creating enough opportunities for young people. They will think that all that matters is point-scoring and bickering, particularly between the two big parties, which they see repeatedly and have seen today in the Chamber.

I want to have a genuine spirit of partnership. That is what we as a political party genuinely believe in. That is why we think that this, yes, small, yes, cosmetic change is necessary. I genuinely, sincerely urge all parties in the Chamber to get behind and support it. I have not heard one Member explain to me why retaining the status quo is a good idea. Lots of Members are frustrated with me and angry with us for raising the issue, and they questioned our motives. That is fine. That is what political parities do.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: However, I have not heard one Member question the merits.

You have 10 seconds, Mr Buckley, and then I will give way briefly to Mr Sheehan, who also wants in.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member cannot accuse Members on this Bench of having a go at him and his party when he has had a go at everybody else the whole way through this contribution.

Mr O'Toole: I think you will find that I did not do that in my opening remarks, but then Members opened up on me during the debate. I am happy to take it and give it back.

Mr Sheehan: The Member made a pitch about the two big parties being the problem. That plays into the lazy narrative, instead of pointing out where the problem lies, which is with the DUP, which has never bought into the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr O'Toole: There, in the last 30 seconds of the debate, I will agree with Pat Sheehan. The DUP has never bought into the spirit of compromise. You and I want to live in a new Ireland — a republic that is based on equality of citizenship. Why are we playing the DUP's game? Let us equalise these titles and move towards a new Ireland that is based on equality and respect, not top-dog nonsense and Old Firm-style politics. I commend the motion to the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business is Question Time. Given the time left to us before it starts, we will return to this item of business after Question Time, when we will begin by clearing the Lobbies for the Division. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I remain committed to exploring whether the domestic homicide review model can be widened to include domestic abuse-related deaths by suicide. Our initial assessment, which has been informed by the experience in England and Wales, indicates that significant additional investment from the Executive and relevant agencies would be required before such an extension could be considered.

Before any formal scoping can commence, including an assessment of the operational readiness of all agencies and organisations that are involved in DHRs, it is essential that the current system is operating effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Expanding the model without assurance on the necessary additional resources that will be required to support it, including the availability of specialist expertise, would risk placing further pressure on already stretched organisations and, I believe, impact on the quality and timeliness of reviews and the work to implement the learning from them.

To date, my priorities have been to embed the existing DHR process, progress reviews, respond to the recommendations arising from those reviews, and ensure that learning is shared effectively across agencies and wider society. Further investment from the Executive and relevant agencies would be necessary before there was an extension to include domestic abuse-related deaths by suicide. That in no way diminishes the importance of domestic abuse-related suicides, and the families and communities who have been left devastated by those deaths remain firmly in my thoughts. Rather, it highlights the additional complexity of such cases and the need to ensure that any future expansion of the DHR model is robust, properly resourced and, crucially, capable of delivering meaningful learning.

My officials continue to maintain regular communication with colleagues from other UK jurisdictions, monitoring their procedures, practice and emerging learning. My Department remains committed to continually improving the current model and to strengthening the positive impact of DHRs across all agencies, including health and social care trusts, emergency services, the police and wider society.

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

As I think the Minister is saying, the links between domestic abuse and suicide are well established. I argue that there is still a case for expanding domestic homicide reviews to include deaths by suicide. The real argument that the Minister has given is about resource. However, she also mentioned expertise. Surely, expertise and experience have been gained over the past 10 years in England and Wales, where they have expanded the legislation. Therefore, if it is — I do not want to say "only" a matter of resource, because, of course, it affects the —.

Mr Speaker: Get to the point, Mr Kelly. It is Question Time.

Mr Kelly: The Minister knows how important this is, so will she move forward with the scoping exercise as quickly as possible?

Mrs Long: There are two separate issues. The first is whether there is the capacity in the Department to undertake the scoping exercise itself, because that would be an extensive piece of work. Obviously, the Member is aware of the constrained nature of the resources within which I have to operate. Furthermore, the domestic homicide regime itself is embedding now. We have commissioned 27 reviews, and seven have reported. It is important that we focus our resources on trying to ensure that any learning from those reviews is embedded before we take on new pieces of work.

It is about more than just resources, though. Determining a clear causative link between domestic abuse and suicide is often highly complex. Establishing a clear, demonstrable link between domestic abuse and suicide can be extremely difficult. Unlike with domestic homicide, where a cause of death is directly attributable to another individual, domestic abuse-related suicides will often, but not always, involve multiple intersecting factors, whether that be mental ill health, previous trauma, substance misuse or broader personal or social pressures. Determining whether domestic abuse was the primary contributing factor can therefore be very difficult. That has actually been the finding in cases that have gone through the process in England and Wales. We recognise that it is a challenge. We would still like to learn from the domestic homicide review process and look at including suicide in that. However, we have to do so in a very careful and measured way.

Ms Egan: What progress has been made since domestic homicide reviews were implemented? How does that impact on the potential to include suicides?

Mrs Long: Twenty-eight domestic homicide reviews have been commissioned, and seven have been completed and published on the DOJ website. Learning from those has driven significant improvements across agencies. The Department continues to embed that learning in its practice.

In response to identified learning, we have also delivered public awareness campaigns on things such as non-fatal strangulation, aligned with the commencement of the new offence. That included a three-week TV campaign, a new nidirect information page and engagement with victims' groups during its development. There has also been an increased emphasis on promoting the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme (DVADS). The PSNI and my Department now routinely include information about the scheme in domestic abuse-related media releases. As a key safeguarding mechanism, DVADS supports individuals to make informed decisions about relationships, and the Department takes every opportunity to make people aware of it.

Work is ongoing to replace the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) with a new perpetrator-focused arrangement, and there has been increased investment in behaviour change programmes. As part of the review process, we are looking very carefully at the right time to include within its remit suicide that has been driven by domestic homicide and at the resources that would be required.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 3 and 11 together as they speak to the same issue.

As I have said many times, the impact of the CBA service withdrawal is significant, and it will resonate for some time and cause further delays in the system. According to our most recent data, 965 cases have been impacted on since 5 January: 195 trials, 469 arraignments and 301 plea and sentencing hearings.

The number of victims, witnesses and defendants affected will obviously be higher, and the impact on some will be incalculable. I have had the opportunity to hear directly from many victims and their families, and, while I have been humbled by their resilience, I am deeply concerned about the added stress and uncertainty that the withdrawal is causing to those who are already suffering unimaginable trauma and loss. I continue to hope that the CBA will take cognisance of that impact and return to full service. Leveraging suffering serves no purpose.

I have already shown that I am open to action where evidence allows, and I have initiated a further independent accelerated review to allow remaining issues of concern to be addressed at pace. The review, which commenced on Friday, is expected to be completed no later than 27 April. It provides yet another opportunity for the CBA and its solicitor colleagues in the Solicitors’ Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) to make their case. That is the proper forum for evidencing the necessity of any action, and I trust that it will soon lead to a resolution and a return to normal operation. I will keep the Chamber updated in due course.

Mr McNulty: Given the length of time that the dispute has been going on without resolution, when can the public expect it to be resolved? When will the Minister agree to positive mediation with the Criminal Bar Association to resolve the dispute for the benefit of all concerned, not least those who have been directly impacted on, particularly victims of crime and their families?

Mrs Long: In my original answer, I set out exactly what we are doing to try to resolve the dispute, and we have invested heavily in that accelerated review. That is proceeding with the agreement of the CBA, the SCBA and others who are party to the issue. I am afraid that I cannot provide the Member with a timeline, because it is not me who is withholding service; it is the CBA. I encourage him to ask the CBA when its members intend to return to work. I am keen to see them returning now because, to be honest, their attendance or non-attendance at work will not influence the outcome of the accelerated review.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I do not know what happened with the Mitchell case in Ballymena, but I was glad to see that there was some movement from those involved. However, that leaves many others behind. Minister, I am not blaming you in any way for that. However, if the review fails to get the answers that they wish for, what other opportunities will be open to you as Minister to try to move things forward to restore the public's confidence in the justice system?

Mrs Long: The Member is right. There have been some fairly horrific cases that have been released only one at a time thus far. I do not think that any of us believes that that is fair on all the other cases that are in the queue or helpful for speeding up justice, which is something that we are all committed to seeing happen.

Neither we nor the CBA want to be in this position again. I hope that, in future, we will have better working relations, and I am, as always, optimistic about the potential outcome of the accelerated review. I am open to listening to the arguments if they are made with robust evidence in place. For my part, however, I have to consider what steps I can take to ensure that victims and witnesses cannot again be used as leverage in any circumstance in such cases. There is a range of actions that can be taken to that end, including the use of alternative delivery models, which I have mentioned previously in the Chamber. Consideration of those is at a very early stage, so I cannot really say any more on that at this point, but I will provide updates as work progresses. The important thing for me is that, from this point onwards, it will not be for the CBA to decide which cases get a derogation. Rather, where there is an urgency to a case, it will be a decision for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). That is the right place for that decision to reside.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, what contingency measures are you putting in place to ensure that any backlog of cases can be picked up at pace?

Mrs Long: Given the resources that are available to the Department, the truth is that there is very little by way of contingency measures that we can put in place to secure recovery of the backlog. When we met before, and I addressed the issues, I made the point that the money that is being spent on, for example, the accelerated review comes out of exactly the same pot that we use to deliver any catch-up to deal with the delays. The point that I have made all along is that the SCBA has continued to work throughout the process . It has continued to make progress on the issues that it has raised with the Department.

The CBA, however, has withdrawn its services. It has not made the same progress, because it has not provided the same level of information and evidence. Were it to provide me with the same level of information and evidence, its members could return to full work tomorrow. Doing that would not influence the outcome of the accelerated review. All that its withdrawal of services does is cause harm to the justice system and draw resources away from something that, I believe, would better suit the CBA, the SCBA and the members of the public who rely on the justice system progressing at speed.

Mr Burrows: Has the Minister ever informed the House that, on 13 January 2026, there was an opportunity to come to an arrangement with the Criminal Bar Association on the accelerated review? I welcome the fact that the CBA is now dealing with priority cases, but an offer was made to it on 13 January, and it was happy to take on priority cases at that point. The Minister insisted, however, that that could happen only if it fully resumed its work. We therefore had weeks of missed opportunities to deal with those priority cases.

Mrs Long: I have not informed the Chamber of that, because it is factually inaccurate. It is true to say that the offer of an accelerated review was contingent on a return to work, but that was rejected out of hand by the CBA. The only red line that I have had in this process is that the CBA would no longer decide which cases were a priority and which were not. When we got together in the wake of the meeting with Chloe Mitchell's family, which the Member attended, we were able to agree that that was and would be the case. That is why the taking on of priority cases has now been instituted.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, will you please provide some detail on the derogation process?

Mrs Long: The PPS has reviewed and will continue to review cases based on the needs of victims and witnesses. That will change over time, as new issues and new vulnerabilities emerge. What is critical, and what informed my decision to commence the accelerated review, is that the PPS will now have sole responsibility for determining the high-priority cases that will proceed. I said to Members before that I believed it to be a direct conflict of interest for anyone in the CBA to be making such decisions, given that its members will often be representing defendants in the same cases. Although I would of course expect them to recuse themselves from that immediate decision, I still believe that it is inappropriate for the CBA to play any role in the process. The situation will therefore remain fluid and responsive to the needs of those who are affected by service withdrawal.

My focus is not on the derogations and the interim measures that we can take, albeit they are important. Rather, it is on trying to get to a full restoration of services. Given that, for example, the CBA agreed to a process as recently as 8 December 2025 and said that it was happy to follow it through to a conclusion, I do not accept that it cannot return to full service now and continue with the negotiations. As I said, the negotiations will not be influenced by whether the CBA is or is not at work. The only impact of its members being at work or not being at work will be on the families who are waiting to have their cases heard.

Mrs Long: Numerical reporting on the number or percentage of completed Gillen recommendations does not convey the true scale of positive change in outcomes for victims. However, I am pleased to report that 181, which is 72%, of the 253 Gillen review recommendations are now assessed as complete, with a further 24 — that is 9% — partially complete, meaning that some provision is in place but that further work will be required to establish longer-term mainstream service provision.

I have prioritised the recommendations that deliver meaningful improvements for victims of sexual crime, including access to free legal advice for all victims of serious sexual offences through the sexual offences legal advisers (SOLA) and children’s SOLA schemes; and establishing new remote evidence centres, where victims can give their best evidence from a secure and comfortable facility away from the court building. I am encouraged that the conviction rate in remote evidence cases among domestic abuse contest cases stands at over 90%. I have also prioritised the recommendations on measures to reduce delay, including committal reform, which means that victims are no longer required to give oral evidence at the committal hearing. Supporting the ongoing delivery of the under-13 and under-16 protocol is also significantly reducing the time taken to deal with cases involving young victims. There has been significant improvement to disclosure and achieving best evidence (ABE) procedures; better training to enable front-line staff to adopt a trauma-informed approach with victims; and new legislation to exclude the public from court in serious sexual offence trials.

Today, in line with another Gillen recommendation, I have launched a social media campaign aimed at challenging rape myths and other damaging misconceptions about sexual crime. Rape myths create shame and self-blame and, in many cases, prevent people from reporting those horrific crimes, allowing perpetrators to escape justice. We all have a role to play in challenging those myths through education, accountability and cultural change, and I hope that the campaign will play an important part in changing the public narrative.

I remain fully committed to delivering the remaining accepted recommendations in the coming months. I plan to introduce new legislation to clarify the right of complainants in serious sexual offence cases to independent legal representation —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. Clearly, there is so much to talk about that you ran out of time. Can you give me a wee bit more detail on the rape myths campaign that you referenced?

Mrs Long: I can indeed, and I could talk about a number of the other issues, too. I plan to deliver independent legal representation for specific pre-trial applications; to publish media guidance to encourage a trauma-informed, victim-centric approach to reporting sexual crime; and to consider options for a Barnahus-informed facility.

Unfortunately, rape and sexual assault myths are still widespread, and they can be a deterrent to people coming forward and disclosing. In the report on how we handle sexual offences, Sir John Gillen highlighted the fact that rape myths represent some of the greatest impediments to justice for all victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse but especially women and girls. We have been working alongside partners such as the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), Victim Support, Nexus, Women's Aid and academics who have expertise in the field. We have developed a series of graphics to challenge those misconceptions. The graphics will be issued through my Department's social media channels and will then be shared by our partners through their social media channels. Importantly, CCEA and the Department of Education have also agreed to support the campaign and make those resources available to teachers through the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) hub. Challenging rape myths is essential if we want to build a society where survivors are heard and supported free from shame and stigma. The social media campaign will shine a light on the facts, counter long-standing misconceptions and help to change our public narrative.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, ending sexual offences forms a major part of the Executive's ending violence against women and girls strategy. Can you give me an update on your Department's work on the strategy?

Mrs Long: I have already outlined a considerable amount of the work that we have done around the Gillen review. In addition, we recognise that, whilst not all offences against women and girls are domestic offences and that not all domestic offence victims are women and girls, there is a reinforcing overlap. Therefore, we have done work in that space jointly with the Health Minister to produce the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. We are doing work around reinforcing protections for victims and witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable, and the victims and witnesses Bill will reflect that. We have also undertaken a lot of research into correlation between domestic abuse and other violence in society, which has been helpful in shining a light on some of the areas where improvement can be made. We have been able to deliver in a number of areas. Not everything that we will deliver, however, will have the kind of upstream impact that, for example, the busting of rape myths will have. On many occasions, we are dealing with people who have already been victimised. The purpose of the Executive Office strategy was to ensure that people would move upstream and to look at how we could prevent those things from happening. Many of those actions will not necessarily fall to the Department of Justice, but where we can feed in to those and provide background and evidence to move them forward, we will, of course, play our full part.

Mrs Long: The speeding up justice programme is a five-year programme of work driven by the Criminal Justice Board and aimed at reducing avoidable delay across the criminal justice system. The programme is part of the Executive's Programme for Government delivery, specifically with regard to the safer communities priority and underpinned by the reform and transformation of public services priority.

The programme comprises five projects: out-of-court disposals; early engagement; committal reform; remit of the Magistrates' Court; and digital. The early engagement and out-of-court disposals projects are supported by £20·5 million of transformation funding.

Work on out-of-court disposals is advancing at pace, and I hope to bring forward secondary legislation on that in the coming months that should see expanded powers for police officers to deal with lower-level offences by way of penalty notices. That will help to divert cases that involve lower-level offending away from prosecution through the courts, where they are currently attracting only monetary fines, and ensure that finite criminal justice resources are used effectively.

Building on the first phase of committal reform, work is progressing on the next phase — direct committal — which I plan to implement in November 2026. That will allow the most-serious cases to progress more quickly to Crown Court. That is supported by early engagement, which is exploring opportunities for early engagement between police, prosecution and defence so that cases move faster through the system.

Work is progressing on a number of initiatives, including measures to improve file quality and taking learning from the better case management processes used in England and Wales. I am progressing work on the remit of the Magistrates' Court project, which is exploring options to expand the jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts, enabling cases to be handled in a more proportionate manner and helping to reduce backlogs in the court system.

All the projects will be supported by digital initiatives, which can help to make the projects more sustainable in the long term. Taken collectively, the programme should rebalance resources, where lower-level offending will be dealt with outside formal court processes, releasing much-needed resources to deal with the most serious offending.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Since coming to the Assembly, I have taken a great deal of interest in the speeding up justice programme. Will you provide more detail on the out-of-court disposal work that you and your Department are doing?

Mrs Long: Out-of-court disposals are part of the Programme for Government commitment and are central to tackling delay in the criminal justice system, which is under significant pressure due to years of underfunding. Out-of-court disposals have been recognised by Lord Leveson as a central measure to reduce demand on the criminal courts, and stabilise the system, which is at risk of collapse, offering a far faster and more proportionate and cost-effective response to lower-level offending whilst improving victim satisfaction and creating opportunities for early rehabilitation. Out-of-court disposals are long-standing and essential tools to help to divert appropriate cases that involve low-level offending away from prosecution through the courts and ensure that resources are used well.

To deal most swiftly with serious cases that are heard in the Crown Court, including murders, serious sexual offence cases and others, we need to create capacity across the system and free up police, prosecutors and courts. It will be vital, therefore, that cases are dealt with proportionately, prosecuted at the right court tier or, if appropriate, dealt with through out-of-court disposal. The measures are not about leniency. They are about delivering the same outcomes but through a shorter measure. Most of the cases that we are talking about for out-of-court disposal will be those that would receive similar outcomes — that is, a monetary penalty — when they go through the courts. In order to get to that point, however, much more resource will have been used by police, prosecutors and the courts.

It is important that we are able to get out-of-court disposals progressed because that will, ultimately, underpin much of the rest of the work that we do, and it is our justification for the application and bid to the transformation fund.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the five strands of speeding up justice. Will the Minister throw some light on the £20·5 million transformation money received and what impact that is having to date?

Mrs Long: Significant progress has already been made, but we are in a difficult position because the withdrawal of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) from cases has been, if you like, acting contrary to our intentions. However, we have been looking carefully and, of course, there is much more to be done. We made a 7·8% reduction in case-processing times across 2023-24 and another 0·5% across 2024-25. That is something positive that we have been able to deliver.

The Criminal Justice Board is also giving careful consideration to the development of formal targets for reducing delay so that we can provide those measurables. A range of options has been explored to determine how system-wide targets can be approached and derived. Defining what measures we should monitor is straightforward, but agreeing what meaningful targets look like is less straightforward, so we are still working on that.

In line with the public transformation board funding, a range of action-based targets has been set. At present, as I said, we are focusing on the development of out-of-court disposals. After that, we will look at the Magistrates' Court and then at some of the other measures that I mentioned earlier.

Mr McGlone: Minister, the speeding up justice programme will increase the number of cases being dealt with, but can you give an assurance that it will not diminish the quality of justice that people receive?

Mrs Long: I give that assurance. We are looking at particular cohorts of cases for which, at the moment, the normal, most likely penalty would be monetary. Allowing the PSNI to deliver that as a penalty notice rather than have to go through the courts and prosecutors in order to get, in essence, the same outcome will free up significant resources. Lord Leveson's study demonstrated that the public were happier because they saw justice being delivered more swiftly. That also allows for additional rehabilitation opportunities for the individual and ensures that, if somebody already has a penalty notice, they cannot benefit from a second one. If somebody reoffends in short measure, they will end up going through the courts. Crucially, if they do not reoffend, we can keep them out of the justice system and, hopefully, avoid problems that we might otherwise have with desistance.

The key for me is the outcomes and the satisfaction of victims. In many cases where it takes a long time for the courts to get to the point of giving out a monetary penalty, that seems to be unsatisfactory.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 13 together.

Freedom of the press is fundamental to a democratic society, allowing independent scrutiny of those in power and giving the public reliable, fact-based information. I therefore share the concerns raised around the surveillance of journalists. However, the UK security services and the oversight of such surveillance are excepted matters and fall outside the purview of my role as Minister of Justice.

I recognise the importance of the issues raised in the McCullough review, particularly those relating to the protection of press freedom and the oversight of covert surveillance authorisations involving journalists. The operational responsibility for covert surveillance lies with the Chief Constable. I note that the Chief Constable acknowledged that the McCullough review identified concerns about specific authorisations and has committed to improving processes and addressing inconsistencies.

The PSNI has provided assurances that comprehensive and robust measures have now been implemented in the system to prevent a recurrence of similar failures. The revised system is scheduled to undergo review as part of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office inspection in 2026. I also note that the PSNI has enhanced the central record of surveillance authorisations to provide greater transparency to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and its inspections.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you Minister. You will have seen the outworkings of the Investigatory Powers tribunal in London and the revelation that thousands of messages from the journalist Vincent Kearney were intercepted by the PSNI.

I know that the Minister believes strongly in the freedom of the press. Acknowledging the operational independence of the PSNI, does she agree that the repeated revelations about the PSNI's encroaching on the freedom of the press by monitoring journalists, including Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey, have contributed to a lack of confidence in the PSNI; that addressing that will be part of rebuilding confidence in the PSNI among certain communities; and therefore that —.

Mr Speaker: OK, Mr O'Toole. You are getting into a speech. I remind Members that the Kearney case is still live. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.

Mrs Long: Yes.

Mr Carroll: I express my solidarity with Vincent Kearney and the other journalists who were spied on. Much is always made about the PSNI being the most accountable police force around. Therefore, it is astounding to hear that the Minister of Justice is effectively powerless to do anything about the PSNI spying on journalists. Minister, have you contacted the Chief Constable to raise your concerns about the issue?

Mrs Long: I set out in my original answer that I had discussed with the Chief Constable the McCullough review and the importance of the work that was done. The Member has to understand that some matters are reserved, and national security issues are reserved matters and do not fall within my remit. It does not mean that I do not care about those matters, because, as Mr O'Toole indicated, they have an impact on community confidence. I take interest in what the PSNI does and in its being respected across the community; that is an important part of my role. However, it is not for me to sanction or oversee the use of investigatory powers, particularly in Vincent Kearney's case, which actually involved MI5 and the security services, as was found by the inquiry. It is important for me to respect the work that the Policing Board is doing on its oversight of the PSNI, which is done on a cross-community and fully inclusive basis.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: The Bill was introduced last week. With the Speaker’s agreement, the Bill will come before the House for Second Reading around the start of the week after next. Obviously, you will be briefed about the Bill's content as a member of the Committee in the interim. As the Member has rightly pointed out, the Bill will cover issues in so-called no-body murder cases, such as Charlotte Murray's case, which is better known as "Charlotte's law". It will also include extensions of the penalties for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury under the influence of substances. It is important that those matters are taken forward, but there are other key pieces of legislation that fall within the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Member and the Committee to take the Bill forward.

Mr McGlone: Given the expectations raised with victims' families, what steps are being taken to ensure that the preparations are made and the resources are in place so that the reforms deliver a real impact from day one?

Mrs Long: There are a number of those. For example, sentencing for dangerous driving will be on day two, which is the day after the day after Royal Assent, when a law becomes effective, so it will become effective on day two. Some of the other measures included in the Bill, as the Member will be briefed, will have commencement clauses attached, but the vast majority will be commenced at the point when the legislation receives Royal Assent. I cannot give any assurances to the families at this stage. I have done my job in bringing the Bill to the House, and I know that the Member and the Committee will do their job and ensure that the timetable meets the expectations of the public going forward.

Mrs Long: Terrorism offences are entirely a reserved matter. I cannot change them with legislation here, but I am sure the Member will be happy to raise it with her colleagues in Westminster. There are sentencing and policing Bills going forward there, and I am sure they will be able to introduce amendments to make any changes she wishes to see being made.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, are there any guidelines you can set in your Department to emphasise the importance of such offences and how seriously they are taken in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Long: Certainly, by talking about the issue in the House and communicating our concerns, we can convey a public sentiment about the importance of dealing with such offences appropriately and ensuring that the sentencing is at an appropriate level. However, ultimately, the judiciary is independent of the Department, and sentencing guidelines will be set by the Lady Chief Justice. Even if we had a Northern Ireland sentencing council, it would not be an area where such a devolved sentencing council or I could enter, because it is not a devolved matter. It would be for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Westminster to bring forward any changes that they wish to make to the overarching guidance on terrorism offences.

Mrs Long: My understanding is that the PSNI portal has been in operation for some time and is a cost- and resource-saving measure. I also understand that it is possible to get assistance with access to the portal if required. Ultimately, however, how the PSNI receives applications and dispenses licences is an operational matter, so it would be for the Member, if he wishes, to approach the Chief Constable on behalf of his constituents. Other Members have raised the matter with me, but my understanding is that the majority of applications go through smoothly and that the issue is, perhaps, more about the volume of applications and the length of time that it takes to process them.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. The matter appears to affect our rural areas and our farmers most, so will the Minister have a conversation about it with the AERA Minister?

Mrs Long: I know that Andrew is aware of the matter, and I have raised other firearms licensing issues with him. However, as I said, when it comes to how the PSNI operates the system, such issues ultimately fall to the Chief Constable. The portal is in place to ease the way for people to put in applications, but I know that not everybody is as digitally enhanced, perhaps, as they would need to be to manage that. However, the portal is meant to be simplified so that people can easily access it. If anybody has difficulties with their application, I am sure that a kindly MLA would be more than happy to help them.

Mrs Long: We cannot do everything in one piece of legislation. That legislation has its roots in 2019, when the original consultation was conducted. At that time, we looked carefully at what would be required to update our legislation. Sadly, it has taken us until now to have stability in the Assembly at the same time as the legislation has been produced.

Other issues will arise. For example, in recent months, Members have brought to me other changes to sentencing that they would like to see, which has confirmed my view that we need a new sentencing review. There will be an opportunity for the Member to feed his proposal into that review. However, I am conscious of the need to keep the sentencing review narrow. I do not want it to become a review of sentencing, bail and other court processes, because that would widen its scope, and it would lose focus. I have been criticised for introducing miscellaneous provisions Bills, because they are so wide in scope. One such Bill is in train; we are trying to keep the other two as laser-focused as we can.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I asked the question because the man accused of causing the death of my constituent Jaidyn Rice was granted bail despite being subject to an interim driving ban. Given that the amendments that you have referenced are wide-ranging, would you accept an amendment to the Justice Bill that would provide courts with much clearer guidance on the setting of bail conditions?

Mrs Long: It would be important for any Member who decided to legislate in that space to undertake a full consultation, particularly with the judiciary, because none of us would want to impinge on judicial independence or encroach on a judge's discretion. To be clear, the granting of bail is not a measure of whether a crime is serious; it is simply a measure of the other issues, such as whether the judge believes that the person is likely to interfere with witnesses, to abscond or to commit further offences while on bail. Those are the issues that will influence the outcome of bail applications. A person is innocent until proven guilty — when proven guilty, they will be sentenced — so it will vary greatly.

We have a problem in Northern Ireland that I would caution the Member about before he goes down the route of tabling an amendment; however, if he does so, I would be happy to consider that and to give him a straight answer on it when I have it in front of me.

The problem is that we have significantly higher levels of remand in this part of the UK than is the case anywhere else in these islands. The pressure that that places on the justice system is not insignificant. It also challenges us, in that we cannot rehabilitate people while they are on remand, because here is no compulsion for them to engage with the regime. The result of that can be that people are released on time served after they go through the court system, which feels like a slap in the face for victims but also means that we have done none of the rehabilitation work that we would have liked to do. I therefore caution against thinking that remand is a silver bullet for the wider discontent over individual decisions that may be made around bail.

Mrs Long: I say first that I recognise that there are many people who have been subjected to sexual abuse, whether as children or as adults, in settings that are not institutional. Their pain, horror and trauma is no different from that of those who were abused in institutional settings. The Executive took the lead on inquiries into institutional settings because, as the state, we had responsibility for the children in those settings. Something along the lines of a prevalence survey would be very useful, but I am not sure that it would necessarily fall to the Department of Justice to take one forward. The Department of Health or the Executive Office, given their wider responsibilities in the space, may be better placed to undertake such a survey.

I agree with the Member that the prevalence of domestic and sexual abuse in our society is not just a historical issue but one that is prevalent today. The number of people affected is more significant than the number of people who have come forward. I always encourage people to make a disclosure about their abuse, be it historical or otherwise, to the PSNI, because people who may not feel that their abuse was part of a wider pattern may learn through disclosure that it was.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she commit to meeting me and the commissioner to decide how best to take forward the idea of a prevalence survey?

Mrs Long: I would be very pleased to do so.

Mrs Long: The use of facial recognition technology is an operational matter for the PSNI. It is something that the Policing Board has looked at. It does not fall within the work that I have been doing on holding biometrics. It falls into a different space. I agree, however, that the use of any form of technology that involves holding our personal information, be that our faces or otherwise, is something that needs to be considered very carefully on each occasion on which it is used. It also needs to be properly regulated. I do not believe that having an overly intrusive state is necessarily the best way in which to keep people safe. Indeed, given that the state may often make mistakes in using that information, it can cause more harm than good, so a balanced approach has to be taken. I am sure that that is something that the Policing Board will take forward as it engages on the issue.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Minister. My understanding is that the PSNI holds images of people who have never been charged with or convicted of anything, which is terrifying. You will know that the PSNI is considering introducing live facial recognition. I am concerned, as are many human rights organisations, about the chilling effect that that will have on people who are organising and campaigning in a peaceful way. Do you share those concerns?

Mrs Long: A number of steps would have to be taken before the PSNI could use live facial recognition technology. Procedures would have to be put in place, and they would have to be tested by the Policing Board, with input from its human rights adviser. As I have said, however, I do not believe that overly intrusive surveillance of the public is the way in which to build confidence in either the PSNI or the justice system, nor is it the way in which to build confidence in wider society. People have a right to privacy. Provided that that privacy is not a cloak for offending behaviour, it should not be interfered with by the state or anyone else.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Since the regulations for the carrier bag levy came into operation, in 2013, proceeds have totalled just over £79 million. The carrier bag levy has changed customer behaviour and led to a significant decrease in carrier bag use. It is estimated that the levy has resulted in approximately 2·6 billion fewer bags being in circulation. We have all seen significant environmental benefits since the introduction of the levy, including a reduction in litter and waste.

We still need to do more to protect our environment from plastic pollution, reduce unnecessary waste and promote sustainability. My Department has taken action with the introduction of legislation to ban single-use vapes and wet wipes that contain plastic. Overarching targets and further actions on that are detailed in the draft 'Plastic Pollution Plan for Northern Ireland'. Work is continuing on the introduction of a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers, which will launch in Northern Ireland in October 2027.

The revenue raised from the carrier bag levy has been used to fund additional environmental programmes and projects across Northern Ireland. DAERA officials are working to bring forward regulations to transpose the EU single-use plastics directive to Northern Ireland domestic law, which will remove the more commonly littered and unnecessary single-use plastic items from circulation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister think that the revenue raised has been spent appropriately? Has he reviewed how the money is spent and whether we could spend it on something better?

Mr Muir: I am confident that the revenue has been spent appropriately. If there are any particular concerns, I would be grateful if you would raise them with me, and we can investigate them. I know of many initiatives that have been funded by that revenue and that it has had a benefit across Northern Ireland.

Mr McAleer: Will the Minister elaborate how environmental and community groups can access the funding generated through the carrier bag levy?

Mr Muir: There are many ways to access it. That funding is distributed whenever it comes through every year. If people are interested in particular projects and they engage with the Department, we can see how relevant those projects are to the carrier bag levy. There are different streams of funding, and we are happy to see what we can do to assist.

Mr Blair: What consideration has the Minister given to reviewing the exemption for takeaways from the carrier bag levy?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. The carrier bag levy in Northern Ireland is the most extensive in the UK. In April 2022, my predecessor simplified the exemptions and increased the levy to 25p per bag. As part of the forthcoming waste prevention programme, we will consider options to continue to reduce consumption, including reviewing current carrier bag levy exemptions. I will explore all options in order to find the most suitable way to help to reduce the impact of the use of single-use plastic items on our environment, including introducing levies for other problematic items.

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware that negotiations on a UK-EU agri-food sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement are being led by the UK Government. My engagement with UK Government Ministers on that agreement has been positive, and I have been assured that the interests of Northern Ireland are being taken into account in the negotiations. I will continue to engage in that dialogue with the UK Government. While we hope that there will be an outcome soon, the negotiations are ongoing. I am conscious that there is a target for this to go live by mid-2027, which would be positive for Northern Ireland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

I have made clear my view that any new SPS agreement should ensure that agri-food goods can move between GB and Northern Ireland with minimal friction and that we maintain unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the GB market. In order to make that possible, I have been pressing for the maximum possible dynamic alignment with EU regulations.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response. What are the benefits of dual market access for the agri-food sector?

Mr Muir: As Minister, I take the view that dual market access for Northern Ireland goods to GB and the EU is a great benefit and is something that we should be very keen to explore and exploit. Many companies and sectors across Northern Ireland benefit from dual market access, such as the dairy sector and Coca-Cola, Deli Lites and Leprino, which I visited recently. We have dual market access. I will be in Brussels on St Patrick's Day, and I will make it very clear that Northern Ireland is a place in which to invest and from which you can export to GB and the EU without any regulatory checks.

As Minister, my aim, through the SPS agreement, is to remove or reduce as much as possible the regulatory checks for goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland. I have been consistent in my call for the UK Government to consider widening the scope of their negotiations and joining an EU customs union, because that would deliver economic growth across the United Kingdom.

Mr Martin: Aligned with the SPS agreement, when did the Minister last meet the Health Minister about the fact that, since January, retailers based in Great Britain cannot directly supply vet meds to consumers in Northern Ireland and that that has caused prices to rise for pet owners who wish to purchase those medicines? Is he concerned about that?

Mr Muir: As the Member is aware, the issue of veterinary medicines does not sit under my direction and control. It is something on which I engage with the UK Government, through their veterinary medicines working group. I am aware of the actions that they have taken to address some of the concerns. We will continue to monitor progress on that. The issue does not sit under my direction and control; it sits under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Muir: The work being undertaken to prepare for future wildfire seasons includes a range of actions. A wildfire action plan is being developed to accompany the 'Wildfires in Northern Ireland: Strategic Framework 2025-2030'. The action plan is being developed through the strategic wildfire group and the Northern Ireland wildfire stakeholders forum. It will contain time-bound actions for each of the 35 key areas of development identified in the strategic framework. The actions will be delivered collectively across a range of wildfire stakeholders. The action plan should be finalised in the next period of weeks, with some of its actions already being progressed. For example, my Department has awarded a multi-year contract to develop wildfire management plans and response plans for designated sites in the Mournes, Antrim hills and Carn/Glenshane. Through funding streams such as PEACE PLUS, several other wildfire management plans are also in development, including one at Slieve Beagh.

Northern Ireland Water is reviewing mitigations and restoration measures for the Silent Valley catchment. In preparation for the current wildfire season, the following works have been undertaken: Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) held a stakeholder familiarisation event during November 2025; the Fire and Rescue Service and Forest Service had a pre-wildfire season meeting on Friday 6 March 2026; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) all-terrain vehicles have been repaired or scheduled for service in the period ahead to ensure that they are available for wildfire incidents in 2026; pre-fire season communications are in development; and restoration works such as those in the Mournes continue to be supported.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will you provide more detail on the wildfire management plan for the Mournes?

Mr Muir: My Department has appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts, led by the Pau Costa Foundation, to deliver a suite of wildfire mitigation work across Northern Ireland. The multi-year project primarily seeks to identify the wildfire risk and develop wildfire management recommendations and response plans for three designated landscapes: the eastern Mourne area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and special area of conservation (SAC); the Antrim Hills special protection area (SPA); and the Carn/Glenshane SAC. The project will engage local landowners and wildfire stakeholders to help gather evidence on the mitigation measures that need to be developed. I encourage all those who are approached by the project team to participate.

In addition to that, it is important that I emphasise the messages that my Department has previously communicated about what is and is not appropriate in the countryside. I continue to urge those who have been maliciously and deliberately lighting wildfires to stop. No one should start a fire in the countryside unless it is part of a specific, planned and properly managed land management practice.

Ms Finnegan: Does the Minister agree that sheep and cattle can play a key role in helping manage vegetation, particularly in upland areas, to prevent the outbreak of wildfires?

Mr Muir: Yes, I do. Our farming community can play a fantastic role in that through better upland management. That is why we continue to roll out Farming with Nature. This year, we will expand the current transition scheme and provide additional measures that will be based on priority habitats and species. We will also issue a call for projects to deliver improved environmental outcomes through landscape-scale collaboration. Farming with Nature is a key component of our wildfire management, and it is important that, as a Department, we work with stakeholders to see that rolled out.

Ms Forsythe: Having grown up in the Mournes, I have seen such fires a lot more often than I would like. In response to last year's fires, the deputy First Minister was down with me, and we had a lot of engagement with those on the ground who were responding to the fires. One of the key respondents was Sky Watch Northern Ireland, which has fantastic off-road equipment and drones that it can use to view thermal imaging from the skies to assist the response. Minister, have you had engagement with Sky Watch NI or been able to support it in the work that it does as it plays a valuable role in responding to the wildfires?

Mr Muir: Thank you. The issue that the Member has outlined properly sits with the Department of Health, because the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service sits in that Department. However, I say, "Thank you" to the range of stakeholders that work with us on the issue. Their contributions are invaluable. Stakeholder engagement is the basis of our wildfire interventions.

The weather has improved in recent days. That is good to see, particularly after the wet weather that our farmers have had to endure. My concerns now turn to wildfires. It is important that I reiterate the messages on appropriate behaviour in the countryside so that we do not see the scenes occurring this year that we saw last year.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mulholland is not in her place, and Miss McAllister is not in her place.

Mr Muir: As Minister, I am delighted to have recently published the consultation responses on and way forward for the sale and supply of puppies and kittens. That marks a significant milestone in my ongoing efforts to strengthen animal welfare protections in Northern Ireland. Working in partnership with councils, officials are progressing next steps to finalise and enact robust new legislation at the earliest opportunity.

One of my other priorities is dog breeding. I keenly await the expert advisory group's final report, which is due next month. The group was tasked with undertaking a comprehensive review of current dog-breeding regulations, and I am eager to examine its recommendations. I am fully committed to taking meaningful action, where possible, in the remainder of the mandate.

Beyond that, I am actively considering further reforms contained in the pathway, including on dog licence fees, the banning of certain aversive training devices and the regulation of rescue and rehoming organisations. Those important measures will be brought together in an upcoming combined consultation that will also include a call for evidence on mandatory cat microchipping and proposals to improve current microchipping requirements for dogs. Progress is also being made on legislation to require CCTV in all slaughterhouses. That legislation is advancing through the necessary approval stages and will be introduced as soon as possible.

I am pleased that tangible progress is being made. I am determined to deliver lasting improvements to animal welfare across Northern Ireland in the time remaining in the mandate.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. That sounds positive. Will the Minister outline the timelines for the introduction of Lucy's law?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Paula. The legislation has been drafted and is being reviewed in conjunction with the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO). It is a complex policy that is specifically designed for Northern Ireland, and it is crucial that councils with responsibility for enforcement are given the chance to provide further feedback on the implementation of the proposals. Therefore, the focus is now on engaging with councils to discuss implementation. I recognise that councils require time to prepare and, in particular, set up the necessary IT systems to deliver the public register. My officials meet regularly with councils. However, a dedicated implementation group is being established to determine appropriate timelines for introducing the legislation to ensure that the councils are ready. In tandem with that, my officials are preparing to secure necessary approvals for the legislation as soon as reasonably practical.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I am glad to see that you have taken the mantle on from me and, previously, my colleague Robin Newton. I commend Robin for getting this work to where it is now. His vision has now left you, so the mantle is on you, and there are lots of eyes on you: big eyes, small eyes, doggy/puppy eyes etc.

Minister, with respect to the regulation of rescue homes etc, can you put a little more meat on the bones of that? Where do you see that going more broadly? What do you think needs to happen in that sector?

Mr Muir: Thank you. Robin did good work on this, and it is important that we are able to take this forward.

When it comes to the regulation of the rescue and rehoming sector, officials are undertaking further policy development, looking at impact assessments and doing policy analysis. I am due to receive a submission on the final policy position for consideration and clearance very soon, and, subject to ministerial agreement, there will be engagement with the rescue and rehoming sector and with councils on content and direction. Thereafter, there will be a consultation. It is a complex area, and I thank officials for the work that they are doing. Hopefully, we will be able to consult on this in the time ahead.

Mr Muir: Recycling offers many benefits to our local economy. It supports our circular economy, keeps materials in use, reduces reliance on raw virgin materials and provides opportunities for companies to handle, process and reuse materials. However, those recycling benefits can only be realised if we accept that the quality of the recyclate is as important as the quantity, and quality relies on reducing contamination through the separate collection of some core materials. Good-quality recyclate can be reprocessed locally, keeping economic value in Northern Ireland. The high level of waste exports makes our waste someone else's problem and goes against the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency, whilst also undermining our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. It also represents lost economic opportunities for Northern Ireland.

My Department's previous consultation on recycling and waste collection reforms included proposals on driving down the volume of residual waste and improving both the quality and quantity of material being collected for recycling. As Minister, I continue to seek support from my Executive colleagues for the publication of the departmental response, which would provide the clarity that councils and businesses are asking for as they proceed to make investment decisions and align with our ambitions to boost the local reprocessing industry, create new local job opportunities and enhance our local circular economy.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You are right: the quality of recycling material is important, and it is important that we boost that across all our local authorities. Can the Minister tell the House when we will receive guidance for our local authorities?

Mr Muir: I sent an Executive paper to my colleagues last summer, and I continue to engage with them so that I can publish that. There is a real need for us to build on our success in recycling. That has plateaued in recent years, but we are sitting at around 50% in terms of households. That is a real achievement, but there is more that we can do. I seek to issue guidance to councils on recycling. For example, in Ards and North Down, paper, card and plastic are collected in one bin and there is a separate kerbside glass collection. That delivers good-quality recycling and a good quantity. That is the kind of thing that I am looking at when it comes to giving guidance to councils. It is guidance, so they can decide what they want to do, but it is important that the Department issues guidance on this. We need to take cognisance of the fact that commingling glass, paper and card can reduce the quality of recycling.

In addition, councils in Northern Ireland are receiving approximately £50 million in additional funding through the extended producer responsibility scheme and are supported through the DAERA household waste recycling collaborative change programme. It is important that they are able to use that funding to increase the quality and quantity of recycling. It is also important that we are conscious that the average residual waste collected by councils contains approximately 28% food waste, 10% garden waste and 18% dry recycling. There is more that we can do so that people are aware of what should and should not go into residual waste. Alongside that, businesses should be doing the same as households, and I am seeking to give guidance on that.

Mr Buckley: Minister, if there is one thing that our constituents and, indeed, local ratepayers do not want, it is further interference from central government in their bin collections, which are already suboptimal in many locations. Do you accept that many councils are doing a fine job in setting recycling targets for waste that commingles? I name Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council as an example.

Mr Muir: When it comes to the performance and delivery of any council, it is for councillors to hold their officials to account. In Northern Ireland, we have legal targets for recycling. It is important that we meet those targets. We are also conscious of the issues. The issues of residual waste and shipping that away and the problems that that has been causing for residents in areas such as Warrenpoint are raised with me in the Chamber regularly. It is important that we address that. In addition, we have the £50 million of additional money that is coming through councils to help them to improve their recycling infrastructure. As I have set out, it is not just about quantity but about quality. If waste is commingling, there is an issue there with the quality of the recyclate. I speak with businesses in Northern Ireland, such as Enva and Encirc, that would like to be able to use the glass that is being recycled by our households and to have that in the circular economy. However, with that commingling, the quality of the recovery is reduced.

Mr Muir: In April 2025, I published Northern Ireland's first blue carbon action plan. The plan outlines the actions required for the next five years to protect and restore our blue-carbon habitats and for their promotion as nature-based solutions for climate action and wider biodiversity. Through the environment fund, my Department has supported pilot projects on native oyster restoration led by Ulster Wildlife in collaboration with Belfast Harbour. What started as oyster nursery cages in Bangor, Belfast harbour, Carrickfergus and Glenarm has now expanded to the first seabed deployment of adult oysters and juveniles in Belfast lough. The oysters will not only improve water quality through filtration but, as adults, will form reefs, helping to provide both coastal defences and vital habitats for juvenile fish and other marine species.

My Department has also established the marine nature recovery oversight group, comprising industry, environmental NGOs, academia and council representatives. The group will oversee the implementation of actions to protect and restore Northern Ireland's inshore marine environment.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you mentioned the innovative work by Ulster Wildlife and the NI Marine Task Force to restore the native oyster population in Belfast lough, which I have witnessed. I am sure that you have as well, Minister. How can that be expanded and built on? Can you set out any further support that your Department can provide, given the wide range of benefits that that can have in so many ways?

Mr Muir: It is a positive initiative. Ulster Wildlife is doing good work, and we are reliant on it to do that work. Alongside those nature-based solutions for water quality in Belfast lough, we need stronger regulation and enforcement on sewage pollution. I set that out in my oral statement last week. We need to address that. It affects the people around Belfast lough and beyond at Lough Neagh and other waterbodies. We need stronger regulation and enforcement on that. Later today, I will meet the Infrastructure Minister on the wider issue of sewage pollution.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I have seen evidence of slurry and Bovaer milk being blown into Hillsborough Forest by the government-funded Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) farm. Spreading by a sludgegator was made illegal at least seven years ago. Farmers rightly ask me why AFBI is above the law on your watch. Last week, you dodged the question. Can we get an answer today without you slandering Dougie Beattie in the process of giving your response?

Mr Muir: As far as I am concerned, nobody is above the law in regard to that. If you have footage of that, I ask you to share it with the Department so that it can be fully investigated.

Mr Muir: Safeguarding public health, ensuring safe drinking water and reducing the environmental impact of the Mobuoy site are of paramount importance to my Department and me. To that end, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency continues to implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme at the site and plan for remediation. The draft remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site has been developed to mitigate the long-term risk that the contaminated site poses to water quality in the River Faughan and to address the contamination of the Faughan groundwater body.

Consultation on the draft strategy was undertaken to ensure that stakeholders, technical specialists, community groups and members of the public had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed technical approach for addressing the environmental challenges presented at the Mobuoy site.

The two consultation events were attended by 110 people, and 26 written responses were received in total. All responses are now being carefully considered, and the integrated consultancy team appointed by the Department has completed a comprehensive technical evaluation of them.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency plans to publish the summary report on responses to the consultation on the draft remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site later this week, and I am keen to meet Foyle MLAs, local MPs and the mayor and chief executive of Derry City and Strabane District Council soon to follow up on our meeting from September.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister. It is welcome news that the summary report will be published this week. I do not want to pre-empt its publication, but is the environmental monitoring programme guaranteed in your planned budget for the next three years? Is there a funding allocation for the remediation strategy?

Mr Muir: We will publish the responses to the consultation. I have been engaging with officials, including today, on the revised strategy, taking into account the feedback that has been received. The revised strategy should be with me next month. I will then consider it, and that will determine any Budget bids. Once we have a revised strategy in place, that will determine the financial requirements for remediation of the site.

I make it clear that engagement through the consultation and with elected representatives for the area is key. I enjoyed the engagement that we had when we met last year. I thought that it was constructive and robust, and I want to be able to sit down with them again to chart a course. Funding for the monitoring is in place, and it is important that I reassure Members that that is ongoing.

Mr Durkan: I look forward to welcoming the Minister back to the city to hear his planned way forward for closing the running sore that is Mobuoy. While I welcome the fact that he is going to meet us, as elected representatives, it is important that the information gets out to as wide a range of stakeholders as possible. What are the Minister's plans for the publication of the consultation responses and, more important, for an action plan and a way forward?

Mr Muir: The consultation responses will be published on the DAERA website. I am happy to engage with local elected representatives on further steps. Our engagement on the previous consultation was useful. It was constructive and allowed all voices to be heard. The public were able to engage on a complex and concerning situation that has developed at the site over a number of years. I am happy to consider what more we can do, and my officials are keen to engage with local representatives as well.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his update on the remediation strategy. He has rightly used the phrase "making the polluter pay" many times. Can he give us an update on how those responsible for the Mobuoy site will be held accountable for its remediation, where that is possible?

Mr Muir: My Department will continue to pursue confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against the defendants, with the intention of depriving them of the benefit generated from criminal conduct and asserting the "polluter pays principle". The legal process is under consideration, so I do not want to say anything more, but I am conscious of the question that the Member asked.

Mr Muir: A ministerial direction is issued only in a circumstance in which a Minister instructs officials to take a course of action that would bring the principal accounting officer into conflict with the personal responsibilities that they carry, responsibilities that, I know, the Assembly expects them to uphold. As the Member will be aware, any ministerial direction also requires the approval of the Finance Minister or the Executive before it can be implemented. I have not asked my principal accounting officer to breach those responsibilities, so the issue of a ministerial direction does not arise. Executive agreement is required in order to proceed. Executive agreement is also required to commission the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draft legislation. That is the mechanism that we will use for drafting legislation, rather than a ministerial direction, which is used largely for financial issues.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, time is of the essence, because the environment is slowly being killed. In theory, any legislation or ministerial decision could be challenged in court, so I do not think that, in a general sense, that should be used as an excuse for inaction. To clarify your earlier answer, will you move at speed to establish an environmental protection agency (EPA)?

Mr Muir: I have been very clear that I support the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. I want to make sure that that is done. I commissioned an independent expert panel to look at the matter, and it came back with clear recommendations. I brought a paper to the Executive to seek agreement on the issue, but it is clear from my engagement with the DUP that it does not wish to proceed on that, as the paper has been blocked. That is wrong.

The institutions to be reformed. The will of the vast majority in the Assembly was indicated in November 2025: that should be respected, and we should be allowed to proceed. There was a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach', and all parties should respect that. The UK Government have a specific role in relation to the reform of the institutions.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, you and your Department are demanding that farmers deliver an environmental transition through tighter nutrient management and water quality standards, while farmers across rural communities are being delayed or blocked from obtaining planning permission for the very infrastructure required to comply with those conditions, including slurry tanks, silage clamps, lagoons and storage facilities.

Mr Muir: That issue was discussed most recently at the AERA Committee last week, and that was constructive. As I have previously set out and will repeat today, there are two issues at hand. First, we have an environmental crisis in Northern Ireland. Our land is saturated by ammonia, and we have a water quality issue. We must separate that as one issue that needs to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency receives planning applications as a statutory consultee, and, yes, it returns some of those in the negative because of wider environmental issues that we need to address. I have always been open and honest about that.

The second issue is the resourcing and response times of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency as a statutory consultee. As I have set out previously, there is a planning improvement plan in place. A number of actions have already been completed, including putting a new governance structure in place. There is an action plan in place for each work strand associated with that. There is a prioritisation pilot in place for councils to take forward five cases at a time as a priority. There is a review of data and reporting around that, and there is engagement with DFI and the planning authorities.

Further short-term deliverables are planned between now and June 2027, including the implementation of a risk-based approach to the provision of advice; implementation of a caseload prioritisation model based on evidence; review of the environmental advice for planning from councils so that it is more easily accessible; use of digital tools to improve customer service; stronger stakeholder engagement; new, streamlined reports and planning performance statistics; implementation of new streamlined processes; and review of the website. There is lots to do. I do not underestimate the environmental challenges. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has a statutory role to provide planning consultation advice that is in line with the law.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, whilst I appreciate your laying out the consultations and other plans that are in motion, farmers have waited long enough. The farmers whom I speak with daily want to comply and protect our waterways, but they cannot do so without proper storage infrastructure. Pardon the pun, Minister, but what concrete steps are you taking with the Infrastructure Minister and your other colleagues to ensure that the planning system supports environmental compliance rather than being a barrier to it?

Mr Muir: I outlined actions around the planning improvement plan. I did not reference any consultations; I spoke about concrete actions that we are taking through the planning improvement plan. I am happy to meet the Opposition to discuss the wider environmental issues and take you through the environmental situation that we face. I have to meet legal obligations with regard to that. I am happy to schedule any such engagement for this week if you so wish. I hope that, as a result of that engagement, you will have a greater understanding of the environmental challenges that we face in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stewart. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) is one of the most effective emissions reduction policies in that it encourages decarbonisation whilst most cost-effective to do so. Operators can choose to decarbonise or to pay for carbon emissions. Since 2005, the ETS has seen a 55% reduction in trader-sector emissions in Northern Ireland.

Following extensive consultation since 2022, domestic maritime emissions will be included in the scope of the UK emissions trading scheme from 1 July of this year. I will be leading a debate tomorrow on legislation that will provide for that. A full impact assessment was undertaken on the policy detail associated with that development, which included consideration of the potential impacts on Northern Ireland. That concluded that the expansion of the scheme to the sector should have only negligible cost impacts. On the expansion to the maritime sector, my officials have listened carefully to stakeholders. My Department has secured an interim 50% exemption for voyages between GB and Northern Ireland to ensure parity of carbon pricing with voyages between Ireland and GB, which are subject to the EU ETS. That measure will also limit cost exposure to Northern Ireland consumers.

In response to previous contributions that were incorrect, I want to clarify that the ferry that operates between Ballycastle and Rathlin will be exempt from the UK ETS. In response to claims that the industry was not ready, I say that consultation has been ongoing since 2022. The facility for maritime operators to register their details with the UK ETS authority has been available since 2 December of last year. Detailed guidance is available for those who wish to do that. Over 200 operators have already registered.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for that very detailed answer. As you said, secondary legislation is due in the House tomorrow. What will be the consequences if we do not support that legislation on the extension of the emissions trading scheme to the maritime sector?

Mr Muir: The Assembly will be aware that negotiations have commenced between the UK Government and the EU with a view to establishing a link between the respective emissions trading schemes as soon as is feasible. That should provide the conditions for mutual exemptions from the EU and proposed UK carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), which we know local businesses support and want. The common understanding, published following the UK-EU summit on 19 May of last year, stated that the sectors that fall within the scope of an ETS link should include, amongst others, the domestic and international maritime sector.

It is important that we understand the consequences of not agreeing the legislation tomorrow. There is strong demand from businesses for me to link the EU and UK ETS systems and address the issue of the CBAM. Failure to support the legislation tomorrow will make it difficult to proceed with that work and will have a wider impact across the UK.

Mr Muir: My Department takes those types of allegations extremely seriously, and it promptly initiated inspections of the site when they were raised with us by an MLA and a GB News journalist in October. An animal-welfare inspection by my veterinary service and animal health group identified no major concerns. An inspection by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency found a low-severity pollution incident regarding sewage fungus in a waterway below the farm, which AFBI has taken action to address. Ongoing monitoring of that continues. I was reassured by the findings of the inspections that were undertaken by my officials.

When photos and footage were received, they were reviewed by my officials and sent to AFBI. AFBI subsequently provided detailed explanations of what the footage showed. My officials have also considered those. AFBI has also confirmed that it requested an independent inspection of the site by Red Tractor, which provides accreditation for farm standards. That was carried out and the accreditation status was maintained. The AFBI board chair has also assured me that the board and the executive management team have taken the issues that have been raised very seriously and fully looked into them and that they will continue to keep the matter under review.

The issue was considered in detail at the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee last week and previously, and it is important and right that responses were given to the Committee.

Mr Gaston: I recognise that it was discussed at the Committee last week, but what we are seeing today is an 11-month gap in your timeline, which means that there are further questions to answer.

Minister, I wrote to you last week requesting a visit to the AFBI farm, accompanied by Dougie Beattie, at a time convenient to you. I hope that you will take us up on that. Will you apologise to Dougie Beattie and GB News in the Chamber today, or will you wait until you meet us in person to do so?

Mr Muir: The request to visit the AFBI farm at Hillsborough has been received and is for AFBI to consider. I do not need to go with you, because I do not need to hold your hand.

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, that matter is subject to litigation. There is also an ongoing environmental crime investigation, so I am limited in what I can say. I reiterate that I am deeply concerned that, despite warning signage having been erected and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency urging people to stay away from the Meridi Street site, it appears that people have entered the site and that pallets have been deposited there. Unauthorised access to the site could amount to a criminal offence. Given the ongoing risk to the safety of people accessing the site, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency again urges members of the public not to access the site under any circumstances. As Minister, I urge local elected representatives to provide the leadership that is needed to ensure that everyone obeys the law and heeds the warnings that have been issued to keep people off the site.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency previously confirmed that a consultant assessing the Meridi Street site had detected the presence of asbestos, despite efforts by the landowner to remediate the site. Full remediation of places such as the site at Meridi Street, where the Sloan Molyneaux factory once existed, could take two years. Whilst the risk is low if the remaining asbestos is undisturbed, ongoing trespassing there will make any further remediation work extremely difficult. As the site is privately owned, it remains the landowner's responsibility to remove all asbestos material.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for that update. Do you share my concerns for public health and safety should a bonfire again occur on that site?

Mr Muir: I share those concerns. I have been clear about the issue. I was also clear on 11 July last year. As Minister, I pleaded with people to not light the bonfire, stating that there were many ways to celebrate but not at that site. Dr Alan Stout said that people should not attend the bonfire and should not be near the site. I was astounded when the Grand Secretary of the Orange Order then said that people should go and enjoy themselves at the bonfire. As we enter spring, when some look to start preparing for the Eleventh night, I urge representatives to give the leadership that is needed to chart a different and better course and make sure that illegal and unsafe bonfires are consigned to the past.

Mr Muir: Thank you. My first go-to is our statutory obligations on the environment. My Department has a statutory responsibility under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007, which set out measures to reduce the pollution of freshwater and coastal waters by domestic sewage and industrial waste water. Identification of the Belfast lough shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the 2007 regulations is vital because of the need to reverse the downward trend in water quality in Belfast lough. Once the Executive support me in making the identification, which they hopefully will, waste water treatment works that are discharging into the sensitive area and its catchment will be required to provide enhanced treatment of waste water. Over time, that should help to achieve the environmental objectives for the shellfish water protected area.

When I spoke on this in the Assembly last Tuesday, I outlined the eight key actions that we need to take to address waste water pollution, not just in Belfast lough but elsewhere. Those actions are to legislate for stronger fines and penalties; review the sentences handed down for environmental crimes; end the bye ball that was wrongly given to Northern Ireland Water; step in to make that special identification in Belfast lough; review and put in place new standards for discharge consents; improve the monitoring and recording of Northern Ireland Water's activities; clarify the impact of price control 21 (PC21) being underfunded; and set up an independent environmental protection agency. The situation with waste water pollution in our waterways is of grave concern to me, and it is important that we take action in response to it.

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

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the previous debate, Jonathan Buckley intervened during Phillip Brett's speech to say that the Alliance Party is over-represented on the Executive. Mr Brett agreed and said that the Alliance Party is entitled to only one Minister. That is not true, and I hope that the record will be corrected. We are entitled to two Ministers under d'Hondt. Obviously, the Justice Minister's portfolio is allocated in a different format, but, given our number, we are entitled to two ministries.

Mr Speaker: OK. That is not a point of order, but the Member has provided clarification on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the motion on equalising the First Minister and deputy First Minister titles.

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

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

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

Mark, please open the debate on the motion.

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

As a parent, I see every day the transformative impact that a classroom assistant can have. My son benefits from that support. I know first-hand the difference that it makes not only to his engagement with education but emotionally and socially. For pupils, parents and the wider school community, classroom assistants are not simply support staff; they are a lifeline. That is why the emerging proposals to move away from the current model of one-to-one classroom support have caused such deep anxiety. That support is not a luxury or an add-on; it makes school possible. Families fight for years to secure that provision. It is an exhausting, lengthy process, and those same families now hear language that suggests that the support that they fought tooth and nail to secure is suddenly being portrayed as excessive or ineffective. Really?

The Department claims that there is a growing body of research that suggests that one-to-one classroom assistance does not produce the best outcomes for most children. However, when asked to provide that evidence, the Department has not yet produced a clear and transparent evidence base to justify such sweeping claims, and the experiences of families, teachers and classroom assistants across our communities tell an extremely different story. Karen McAvoy, a special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) at Lisneal College, in my constituency, said that, if the proposals are forced upon us:

Teachers cannot do their jobs without classroom assistants being in the room. Those to whom I have spoken reject the suggestion that one-to-one support is not working. In fact, they say quite the opposite. I recently met trade unions and spoke with parents and assistants directly. Those conversations were deeply emotional and revealed the reality of a dedicated, caring and immensely valuable workforce who build extraordinary bonds with the pupils whom they support. While proposals for specialised therapeutic input are important, that input is no replacement for the consistent, day-to-day relationships that SEN children have with their classroom assistants. Specialists, including occupational therapists (OTs) come into schools and set programmes for each child, but it is the classroom assistants who work with the children every day, see them through their ups and downs and carry out the therapy programme between visits.

Do not take it just from me. There are countless testimonials from diligent, dedicated classroom assistants that demonstrate the effort and the hours that they put in, and the love and compassion that they pour into the children whom they are there to help. I do not have the time to get into them today, but some of the stories that I have heard from classroom assistants would bring a tear to your eye.

We have had similar testimony from parents such as Juliana Harkin, in my constituency, who spoke movingly about how her son took his first steps with his classroom assistant. That kind of relationship cannot be replicated by any system of group provision. That is why so many families are so concerned about the direction of reform. When we talk about reducing one-to-one support, we are not just dealing with numbers on a spreadsheet but talking about changing the daily reality of some of our most vulnerable children.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way and commend him on outlining the impact that the provision has on his own son. Does he agree that the Minister's decision to push ahead with this disastrous strategy is more to do with finances than with education?

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

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

I thank the Member for that intervention. I can understand how someone might conclude that, particularly, as I have said, in the absence of the evidence on which the Department is relying and which any of us is yet to see.

We have to talk honestly about the workforce. Many classroom assistants feel undervalued and underpaid, despite being central to the delivery of SEN provision. While recent movement on the pay and grading review is welcome, it does not go far enough towards addressing the systemic issues facing the workforce. We see a growing retention crisis because staff cannot afford to stay on in the roles. If we continue to undervalue the workers, we are effectively undervaluing our children's potential.

I will move on, briefly, to the amendment, which reframes the proposals as "difficult and evidence-led decisions". There appears to be a deliberate attempt, in the messaging, to stress the positive aspects of the new model, but to do so risks insulting a workforce that we should listen to and engage with. There is also a clear, underlying aim to cut the costs of delivering SEN support. Parents are worried that their children's years of progress and development could unravel overnight. Teachers are concerned. They know and feel the value of the support in their classrooms. Classroom assistants feel insulted and undermined. That is not what confidence in reform looks like.

The reason why recruitment and retention are difficult is not that classroom assistants are unnecessary but that the employment model is broken. The SDLP fully supports UNISON's Good Work campaign, better pay and an end to the term-time-only model for classroom assistants. If the Department genuinely wants to address recruitment issues, the solution is simple: invest in fixing the employment model instead of slashing support for [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin to move the amendment.

Mr Martin: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. I start by acknowledging the absolutely vital role that classroom assistants in Northern Ireland play, which is exactly the contention of the motion:

However, at the heart of the motion is how we utilise classroom assistants in Northern Ireland. We have a system that increasingly relies on classroom assistants who, sometimes, are present in classrooms in sizeable numbers. I have been in classrooms where there have been seven or eight classroom assistants, plus a teacher. It goes back to making sure that we have the children's best interests at heart, especially those of children with special educational needs, and deploy the resources that we have in the best way possible.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Baker: Does the Member agree that one reason for that is that some children are not placed in the right setting to begin with?

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

Mr Martin: I thank Danny for his intervention. The Education Authority clearly has to place children somewhere, and it does that to the best of its ability, given the resource challenges that, we both know, are present in Northern Ireland. That is why the Education Minister has set out the SEN reform agenda, with half a billion pounds to be spent over 10 years to ensure that children are placed in the right setting.

The Sinn Féin Member for West Belfast who is sitting to the left of Danny has asked the Education Minister a couple of times in the Chamber for evidence on educational policies, and the Member for Foyle just referenced that in his speech, so I took some time to look at the evidence base. University College London carried out extensive research on classroom assistants and their deployment. The research showed:

This was especially true for those with special educational needs. It was not the pupil characteristics or what the classroom assistants were actually doing that were the determining factors but, rather, how schools prepared and deployed them. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), which is a well-known and respected educational charity in England, said something similar, but I do not have time to read that out.

None of what I have just said demeans the role of classroom assistants in Northern Ireland. They make a significant impact on our children when deployed correctly. They are absolutely invaluable to the education that we provide, but a question remains over how they are used. The Education Minister has recognised that. In fact, he wants classroom assistants to have greater responsibility and a more clearly defined career path. The early years SEN assistant training project commenced two months ago, with 114 classroom assistants completing accredited special educational needs-specific training across our five FE colleges. A further 240 assistants will be offered training over the next couple of years. The Education Minister has been crystal clear in the House that any child who requires one-to-one support will be guaranteed that without question.

My understanding is that a SEN budget will be introduced and will provide funding directly to schools. In fact, such funding is in place in a number of schools in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Belfast Boys' Model School, which I know well, trialled that in the first place.

I also did some research on the effectiveness of how we support our special educational needs children by looking at the Finnish system, which, I know, is a favourite of some folk in the SDLP and is well quoted by the Sinn Féin Member for West Belfast. When I looked at the Finnish system, which is heralded as the pinnacle of how to do education in Europe, what I found was really interesting, because it is not a one-to-one system. Finland has an integrated system that is similar to our specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPIMs), and special educational needs children are very much in mainstream schools there.

In fact, they have found that the deployment of one-to-one support is not the most effective way of supporting children. I thought that that was interesting, because, sometimes, when we look at these things and look at changes — the Member for Foyle has referenced this — people are worried about what the research says and what other countries have done. I know that the Education Committee is looking at a SEN inquiry. As I prepared for the debate, I found that the evidence base is clear. When we approach something like this, we have to make sure that we have the best interests of the child at heart at all times, especially for our most vulnerable children.

We often hear criticism in the House, and journalists point to a lack of legislative ambition. They point to the fact that there are not policies flowing out of the Departments. However, here we have a Minister who is delivering change, enabling positive reform and delivering a pathway to better support children at the heart of our education system. That is exactly what the Chamber should be doing. It is frustrating to hear those criticisms when we have a Minister who is making a change that, I believe, is positive. I encourage Members to support our amendment.

Mrs Mason: The Education Minister's SEN reform agenda has been heavily criticised by parents, school leaders, teachers and experts who are concerned that the plans do not sufficiently address the lack of or inappropriate placements for children with SEN. On top of that, the Education Authority's proposed enhanced model of support, which was basically dropped on a Thursday evening via social media, has created real and growing anxiety and, frankly, a level of distrust. After weeks of raising concerns in the Assembly, questioning senior officials and pressing the DUP Minister directly, we still do not have a clear answer on what this will mean for our classroom assistants and the children they support. Having listened to the DUP contribution so far today, I do not believe that they will feel any comfort.

For many families across the North, one-to-one support is not an added extra or a luxury; it is what allows their child to feel safe, to regulate, to learn and to go to school and enjoy their school life. Often, parents have to fight tooth and nail to secure that support. It can take months or even years of assessments and appeals. To leave those families in limbo is simply not fair and not acceptable. Classroom assistants from across the North, including nursery assistants; general assistant 1s; general assistant 2s; SEN assistants; additional support for educational needs (ASEN) assistants; and behavioural support assistants in education other than at school (EOTAS), are watching this unfold with deep concern. They are skilled, compassionate professionals who work every day with some of the most vulnerable children in our education system.

Classroom assistants are the first point of contact for many children with special educational needs. They offer key support to the educational and emotional development of our children and young people. They are the person who knows how to spot the first signs of distress and how to help them to regulate. As Mr Durkan mentioned, just last week, at a UNISON event, we heard directly from some parents what their child's classroom assistant has meant to their child's school life. We heard from Sophie and Juliana about their sons' really touching stories. This is their precious child whom they leave to school every day, safe in the knowledge that they have the care to help them stay there and help them thrive.

Another thing that was raised at the event was the fact that classroom assistants do not feel undervalued. They know that they are valued: they know that they are valued by their principals, their teachers and the parents. However, they are asking whether they are valued by the Minister. Their patience —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry, Cathy.

I remind everybody that it is three minutes.

Mr Mathison: It is welcome to see the issue being debated on the Floor today. We might not agree on all the detail, but we all agree that classroom assistants play a vital role in our school communities. Alliance is clear that we recognise their hard work and the importance of their role in the education of our children and young people.

The value that classroom assistants bring, while acknowledged by all, is still, regrettably, not reflected in their pay or their terms and conditions. The use of temporary contracts provides no job security, and classroom assistants are often excluded from discussions on future policy in the very area that they are working in, which is often special educational needs. That needs to change to ensure that classroom assistants receive the right terms and conditions, the appropriate pay for the work that they do and, really important — there is some welcome development in this space — the appropriate training to best meet the needs of the children and young people whom they care for every day. The Minister's launch last week of the training programme designed for classroom assistants who support children with SEN is undoubtedly a welcome step in the right direction. I acknowledge that, but we need to see more change in that space. We rely on classroom assistants to support the increasing complexity of need in our schools, so contract reforms, professionalisation of the workforce and improved pay are all part of the picture; it cannot just be training.

I want to put this on record: it is important that we recognise that classroom assistants are not employed just to support learners with SEN. There is a cohort of classroom assistants who do really vital work at Foundation Stage in our schools every day. We should consider the approach of having classroom assistants in all classes in primary school as standard. Many principals highlight the fact that they feel that that would be an appropriate area in which to get early intervention right. If that support were built into the classroom as the default, it might reduce the number of children who end up needing statements.

I will not refer to the UNISON event — other Members have mentioned it — because time will beat me, but I pay tribute to UNISON's Good Work campaign. I am happy to support that.

I will finish by saying that, for me, the major disappointment about all of our discussion on the need to reform how we support classroom assistants and their work is that it is framed in the context of a budget plan. Regrettably, that starting point is what has lost the argument for the Minister in this case. When we are spending huge sums of public money, we, of course, need to be clear that it is being invested in ways that are effective, but, if the starting point is not what is right for the needs of children and their education, it is a losing battle to win that argument with parents and teachers. The EA and the Minister have a serious job to do to reset that balance and restore that confidence. Alliance is up for the conversation on reform and how we can do that well, but we have to build confidence among the people who matter: the parents, the teachers and those in the system.

Mr Burrows: A good classroom assistant is worth their weight in gold, but their pay and conditions are very much not golden. It is vital that we support them, recognise them and ensure that their vital contribution is acknowledged in our education system. With the significant rise in special educational needs in our schools, we need more classroom assistants, not fewer.

I want to make a couple of key points. First, although our institution is often glacial in its pace when producing legislation and outcomes, I recognise that Minister Givan has the bit between his teeth and is pushing things forward. I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts, and I call it as it is. I pick up consistently from teachers, principals and others that they feel that the pace of change is overwhelming and they need more time to adjust to that change. I hear that in every school that I go to.

The second thing is that we can, I think, afford to pay our classroom assistants more, and we need to do that. There is a big issue with the retention of classroom assistants, and that is because they do not get the pay that they deserve. They reach the end of their pay point abruptly. In England and Wales, they do things such as giving classroom assistants extra money for taking on extra responsibilities. It is sometimes not a huge amount of money, but it acknowledges their continuing professional development. It is vital that that then leads to more retention, which saves money and prevents disruption. We need to ensure that they are given support and are not being injured in schools. I know of many classroom assistants who are being injured, particularly by young children in P1 and P2 who have become dysregulated. We need to ensure that our classroom assistants have the right equipment and training, such as Team Teach, to enable them to deal with those difficult situations well. If we are going to have children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, which many schools and classroom assistants support, we need those schools to have facilities such as sensory rooms and the right number of staff.

I will return to the issue of cost. We have enough money if it is used wisely. Unfortunately, procurement in schools is an absolute rip-off. Head teachers tell me that painting a room costs four times as much through procurement than it does through getting in a local trusted trader to do it. I know of a case in which it cost hundreds of pounds to change a light bulb, because it was over a certain height and could not be done by the caretaker. If we were to have more common sense, we could find more money to support our classroom assistants.

Mr Baker: I will start by addressing the Member facing me, who said that children need just to be placed: that is the problem. The EA is playing with numbers. That is what it does. Children with additional needs are last in line and are placed in the wrong setting. Those who are there to support them and get them on the pathways that they, like other children, deserve to be on are coming under attack in a cost-cutting exercise.

There should be no doubt about the important role that classroom assistants play on the front line in ensuring that our children receive the support that they need to learn, grow and thrive. Our classroom assistants are the cornerstone of the education system in the North. They are often the people who notice long before anyone else that a child is struggling. They work with pupils who are struggling and encourage them to build confidence and independence. For children with additional needs, classroom assistants can make a huge difference in helping them feel safe, valued and supported. For those reasons, it is vital that we recognise, respect and continue to support classroom assistants in the valuable work that they do every day.

Mrs Mason: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Mrs Mason: Does the Member agree that any SEN reform must enhance provision and not weaken it? Does he also agree that there is a strong fear out there that classroom assistants are the latest victims of a cost-saving exercise?

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

Mr Baker: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Absolutely. Given that it was announced in a social media post, we know how little the Department cares about classroom assistants and our children with additional needs.

We see it when we go into schools. Last week, I was lucky enough to visit Coláiste Feirste, in which I could see the progression being made and the pathways that the teachers, school leaders and classroom assistants provide for our young people. They are creative in doing that, but it is being done without the support of the Minister, his officials or the Education Authority. It is down to the dedication of the classroom assistants. Many of them work well beyond their job description, but they do so for the love of the child and the job. They have second and third jobs just to stay in the profession. Too often, they do their work without recognition or respect from, in particular, the Department and the EA, which then take the credit when a school does a great job. Members will see that on school visits. It is not hard to work out.

In the past number of weeks, I have placed on record in the Education Committee my concerns about the loss of one-to-one support. Anybody who wants to watch back those meetings or read Hansard will see that senior officials are reluctant — in fact, they will point-blank refuse — to answer simple questions about the removal of that support. They dance on the head of a pin. That is lost on nobody.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Mr Martin: Will the Member confirm whether, if evidence is provided to him that deploying classroom assistants in a different way from one-to-one support improves outcomes for children with special educational needs, he will support that?

Mr Baker: Our classroom assistants are already doing that. You are missing the point about the misplacement of children and there being no data on children who are on reduced timetables. So many children with additional needs are sitting at home right now because they were placed in the wrong setting. They should be in either a special school or one of the specialised units. So many children have been misplaced because of the failure to plan year-on-year, and that goes back decades.

It did not happen overnight. We could plaster the Chamber with SEN strategies. The SEN reform agenda is nothing new; it is just being dressed up again. The problem is that we are not facing up to that. We are not directing priorities to where they should be directed. Going after the low-hanging fruit, which are transport and classroom assistants, looks to me like a cost-cutting exercise.

We have a Minister who cherry-picks his evidence to suit his reform agenda.

Mrs Guy: I am happy to support the motion. I appreciate having the time to openly discuss the reforms proposed by the Department and the EA. It is time that has been severely lacking, given that the Minister did not bring the proposals to the Chamber.

The children and young people who are impacted on need to be at the centre of any of these decisions. The central goal needs to be ensuring that those with additional needs have access to their education and are empowered to thrive and develop. Too many young people do not have full access to their education, and that should shame us all.

We do not have a lot of detail around the proposed new model of classroom support, and I think that that is because the Department does not actually know how it will work. I find that lack of detail disappointing. It is also one of the key reasons why families are deeply worried. The other reason why they worry is that the first time that many of them heard about the proposed changes was in the Minister's five-year budget strategy document, which focused on budget savings. I am glad that, at Committee, departmental officials, at least, recognised that that approach was not helpful. I have full sympathy with the families who have no trust in the Minister or the system. They have fought and fought to get any kind of support for their children. Those with one-to-one support were told that that was the route to go down, and, now, that could be taken off them, so, yes, they are scared.

Equally, the classroom assistants who took on the support roles have changed the lives of many young people. They do a complex, challenging and crucial job for little money and with little job security. If you want to change that model of support, asking people just to trust us is not enough. Instead, show us the detailed plans of what the changes will mean. Give us the timelines and the budget attached. Treat the families and professionals impacted on with the respect that they deserve.

I am absolutely willing to accept that reforms are required. I do not have any issue with accepting that, because school leaders, SENCOs and other experts have made it clear to me. The SENCOs who I have spoken to tell me that the change could work if implemented well. That is the crux of the issue: it is a big "if" right now.

Many schools want to have flexible budgets in order to be able to bring in speech and language therapists or counsellors; train up a small number of classroom assistants; or even deploy an additional specialist teacher. However, the proposed reforms give no clarity on whether that workforce is available, or whether schools will hire specialist people from the EA or be responsible for that themselves. Until there is complete clarity and openness on the plans, families have every right to worry.

I could have accepted the DUP amendment, as I agree with much of it, but to state:

really grates and makes a mockery of the absolute crisis in our education system.

I will close as I opened: this must only be about ensuring that our children get the support that they deserve.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the recognition in the motion of:

children in our schools. Even the DUP Members must recognise that there are serious questions, which the Minister must address, about the practical implications of the proposed changes to SEN provision. First, there is the issue of jobs. Many classroom assistants are deeply worried about what moving away from one-to-one support will mean for them in practice. What estimate has been made of the number of classroom assistant posts that may be at risk as a direct result of the proposals? Have any impact assessments been carried out of the potential for redundancies, reductions in hours or redeployment of staff? Those are the real fears being expressed by the people who I meet every morning at the school gate — people who have devoted years to supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our education system.

Secondly, there is the issue of workload and safeguarding. If the model of support is to change, what assessment has been made of the implications for workload, responsibility and safeguarding in the classroom? Classroom assistants already carry significant responsibilities in supporting pupils with varying needs. If those responsibilities are to be expanded or altered under a new model, the Minister must answer on whether their terms, conditions and pay scales will properly reflect that reality. It cannot be right that expectations grow while recognition does not. If reform is the command, it has to command the confidence of the workforce and all families. Questions must be answered clearly and transparently. The success of any reform will ultimately depend on neither documents nor strategies but on the people who are working day-to-day in our classrooms. Classroom assistants deserve clarity about their future and fairness in how their work is valued.

Mr Carroll: I share the concerns that were raised by the proposer of the motion and others, and which are felt by parents and educationalists, about the Minister's disastrous plans to remove classroom assistants who are clearly needed, as everybody has stated. Already, parents and carers have to fight tooth and nail to get classroom assistants and the full hours that their child needs.

I am concerned that the Minister's proposals, as others have said, are an attempt to reduce the number of classroom assistants by the back door. The Minister is not here to answer me, but I suspect that the Department made a calculation that because so many classroom assistants are on temporary contracts, the Minister could quickly change the criteria for those contracts, and that would release the funding to pay for enough classroom assistants and keep pace with the change and support that is needed, while not having to pay redundancy payments to those staff. That is a win-win for the Department, but a lose-lose for education workers, young people and the wider community.

It is also worth mentioning that Unite the Union, of which I am a member, has begun to ballot its members in the Education Authority on the Minister's plans to cut terms and conditions for education support workers. To add insult to injury, the additional £300 million in Barnett consequentials resulting from additional investment in special educational needs and disabilities in England will go back to paying the Treasury, which is offensive and quite ridiculous, not to mention the 24% pay increase for MLAs while there is no 24% pay increase for classroom assistants.

The work of classroom assistants is transformative for thousands of children with special educational needs. I do not think that the Minister gets that. I also want to mention the difficulties that are faced by young people who are in Irish-medium education. Some parents and carers have been forced to move their child from mainstream Irish-medium education to English language schools because funding has not been made available by the Minister. The sector and its workforce are under huge pressure. It is not supported adequately by the Minister and the Department. A small number of the Minister's staff are working on Irish-medium education.

I also want to pay tribute to all the classroom assistants, teachers and principals in my constituency. In particular, I want to mention St Teresa's Primary School in my constituency and pay tribute to the staff and the principal, who are fighting to extend the school's speech and language unit beyond primary 4. That is not a radical demand. They are not asking for the earth but for something that other schools have. I believe that the school needs that extension, and the community and the parents demand it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I ask the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister of Education. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Thank you, Minister.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As you said, I am responding today on behalf of the Minister of Education, who has repeatedly emphasised to the Executive that transforming our education system to meet the needs of our children and young people with special educational needs is, and will continue to be, one of his highest strategic priorities.

Transformation, in its very essence, requires us to be courageous. It requires us to question long-established practices, and it requires our unwavering commitment to building a system that is centred on what works best for our children and young people. For too long, our SEN system has struggled to deliver the outcomes that our children and young people deserve. The evidence is consistent and clear. The current model is not working as well as it should, nor is it delivering outcomes that are comparable with those in other jurisdictions. We cannot and must not accept that.

In February 2025, the Minister published his SEN reform agenda and delivery plan, which was the most ambitious programme of SEN reform in a generation, setting a clear and determined vision for ensuring that children and young people with special educational needs can truly thrive in their education. Since then, he has continued to seek the commitment of ministerial colleagues to deliver the level of transformation that is required.

Following publication of the SEN reform agenda, work has focused on two key priorities: implementing the enabling actions that underpin system-wide reform; and progressing the delivery of the year 1 commitments. I am pleased to report that, in the first year, significant progress has been made. The statutory assessment process has been streamlined and digitised, providing a more timely and efficient service for families. The EA has also published its graduated response framework, established local impact teams and released operational plan 2, which prioritises area planning for special education provision. In addition, individual special schools' plans of action have been co-designed and published. Taken together, those actions represent substantial steps forward in improving the system's responsiveness, effectiveness and coherence in meeting each child's needs.

The Minister recently wrote to all mainstream schools, urging them to engage constructively with the EA where they have been identified as suitable to facilitate a specialist provision. The letter emphasised that the EA had developed an enhanced package of support to ensure that schools were fully equipped and adequately supported throughout the process. That further emphasises the commitment to ensuring that all children with a statement of SEN have a school placement that is appropriate to meet their needs and in a school in their locality. In 2025, a total of 1,374 additional special education places were created across the education system. That included 29 new classes and special schools and 128 specialist provision classes in mainstream schools. I take the opportunity to express the Education Minister's appreciation to the schools that have worked so diligently to make that happen. They have demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring that every child in their community receives a school place that meets their needs, and we are grateful for that.

I turn to the focus of today and the cornerstone of SEN reform, which is the transformation of support for children with a statement of SEN. At present, our approach relies heavily on an almost universal model of one-to-one classroom assistant support for a child who has a statement, yet we now have a growing body of research and evidence showing that that approach, while well intentioned, does not consistently deliver the best outcomes. In some cases, it can even be counterproductive. It can unintentionally create dependency, it can reduce the amount of time that children spend learning with a qualified teacher and it often places classroom assistants in situations that go far beyond their training or remit. Crucially, that approach does not consistently deliver improved outcomes for children and young people with SEN. The evidence tells us that support in the classroom is most effective when classroom assistants are part of an integrated, whole-class approach that strengthens teacher leadership, encourages peer interaction and ensures that support is flexible, targeted and genuinely needs-led.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I will give way at that point.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister accept that the holistic approach that he is talking about does not exist and that, with some of the specialist provision that we have, there could be children from P1 in a classroom with children from P6 and P7? Surely that is not fair and is not the right place for all those children.

Mr Lyons: We are saying that the system does not work. That is why change is required and why we need to have additional provision. In a second, I will come on to some of the comments that the Member and others made. International best practice reaffirms and reinforces that message. The strongest systems for learners with SEN all share key characteristics: early identification, multidisciplinary support, school-led decision-making and tailored interventions designed around the needs of each child. We need to move in that direction and shift away from what we have to a model that builds independence, empowers school leaders, utilises classroom assistants more effectively and delivers high-quality, consistent training and professional standards.

Let me be clear, because this has been raised during the debate. It is not about reducing support; it is about improving it.

It is about ensuring that the support that we provide genuinely helps children to thrive. Our aim must always be to deliver the best possible outcomes for children and young people. Schools have told the Minister and the Department that they want a more flexible, child-centred model that respects their professional judgement and allows them to make the decisions that they know are right for their learners. They also want freedom within their schools budgets to allocate resources where they can have the greatest impact for our children and young people with SEN. That is why the enhanced support model is so important.

For some children and young people with a statement of SEN, a one-to-one classroom assistant will continue to be the most appropriate approach to meeting their needs. Importantly, that will continue. It is important that we do not send out the wrong message, namely that that provision will be taken away. If it is right for the child, it will remain in place.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyons: I am tight for time, but I will if he is very brief.

Mr Mathison: I completely agree with everything that you are saying about child-centred approaches. Why, then, did the Minister focus on this as a budget-saving exercise when he announced the plans?

Mr Lyons: The Minister is not focusing on this as a budget-saving exercise. Of course, it will be important to make sure that the system that is in place is sustainable. Most importantly, we need to make sure that this is right for children. That is what this is all about. Evidence has demonstrated that other models of support can be more effective in supporting children, so let us go for what actually works. From what I have heard in the Chamber today, some people believe that a one-size-fits-all model is the right thing. From what they have said in the Chamber today, some believe that the status quo is working. I do not believe that that is right, nor does the Education Minister, which is why he is moving to this enhanced support model. Where one-to-one support is appropriate, that will continue; where something better can be put in place, it will be. That is why we need to be brave on this. We need to collaborate with schools that are already implementing innovative approaches to providing support, but effective communication is key, and the EA will, along with the Department, engage extensively with parents and carers and classroom assistants as well as other major stakeholders.

We need to support classroom assistants better. They play an integral role. That needs to continue, but we need to invest in them. We need to make sure that we have clearer roles and responsibilities, structured professional development, high-quality specialised training and, importantly, appropriate pay and progression pathways that recognise the skill and importance of their work. That is what this Minister is committed to because that is what a modern, effective, child-centred SEN system looks like, and it is what our children, parents and schools deserve.

I emphasise that collaboration is important. A full public consultation will issue very soon to all stakeholders to ensure that parents, carers, children and young people, school leaders, teachers and classroom assistants will be able to have their say. All that feedback will be reviewed to ensure that the final model is able to provide an evidence-based, whole-school and child-centred model of delivery. This is the moment to take difficult decisions, be bold and transform. Above all, this is the moment to do what is right for our children and young people with special educational needs.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Cheryl Brownlee to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have three minutes.

Ms Brownlee: I welcome the conversations on SEN and classroom assistants, but it is really disappointing that I have three minutes to discuss such an important topic when we will spend the rest of Opposition day discussing titles.

I have supported, and absolutely will continue to support, classroom assistants. They play a vital role in supporting children's learning, their inclusion and, of course, their well-being. They are truly unbelievable in what they do. We can agree across all political parties that classroom assistants work long, demanding hours and are dedicated to every single one of their pupils. Time and again, however, we continue to refer in the Chamber to data, outcomes and baseline figures. The data continues to show that children with SEN experience poor outcomes. That reality does not take away from the incredible work that is carried out by classroom assistants, but it does highlight the need for a system that is better for children, better for families and better for the workforce. With more than 12,500 classroom assistants already employed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain and recruit qualified staff. School principals have repeatedly told us that they are unable to recruit one-to-ones, leaving them no option but to rely on alternative models.

The EA and the Department have outlined, as part of wider SEN reform, a move away from models based predominantly on one-to-one provision towards a smaller group setting, specialist therapeutic input and a more flexible SEN budget. In special schools, many children already learn in small group settings, often on a 2:1 ratio. That model works and gives children an incredible learning experience, so why should more children not benefit from that kind of tailored support? For some children, one-to-one assistance remains the right intervention, and that is absolutely key. This is the whole point: any child who needs one-to-one assistance will continue to have it. That is critical. It is also right to acknowledge, however, the large body of evidence that indicates that one-to-one provision is not always beneficial and, in some cases, can hinder. It can hinder independence, reduce interaction, and lead to issues with social skills.

It is important that any reform improves outcomes for children and young people, strengthens terms and conditions, properly values classroom assistants and the workforce and, of course, ensures that they are fully resourced and that changes are communicated. Of course, the consultation is key. I call on everybody and anybody to get involved in that and put across their views.

A number of schools have already trialled more flexible, team-based support models, and those are showing very positive results. A proposed SEN budget for schools will give them the autonomy to develop the approaches that meet the needs of their pupils, and it replaces that really rigid one-to-one structure with a coordinated support system that can adapt as children's needs develop. That is crucial because, of course, they will develop.

I must close, because I do not have enough time, which is very disappointing. If we continue to do —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Brownlee: — what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always got, and, sadly, that is not good enough. I want what every Member here wants: the best possible outcomes for SEN.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Daniel, you have five minutes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members who contributed to today's important debate.

It is important to be clear from the outset that the debate is really about our children who have special educational needs in schools right across Northern Ireland, the support that they rely on, and the classroom assistants who make that support possible. Across Northern Ireland, thousands of classroom assistants go into our schools every morning knowing that their work can change a child's life for the better. They help children to communicate, to manage anxiety and overwhelming emotions, to participate in lessons that might otherwise feel impossible and to feel that they belong in the classroom. For many children with special educational needs, a classroom assistant is not simply an extra pair of hands but the difference between the child thriving in school or falling behind. They are often the trusted adult who gives parents reassurance that their child will be supported throughout the school day.

The scale of need in our schools is significant. According to the Department of Education, across our schools, more than 70,000 children are now identified as having special educational needs. Some 27,000 children require a formal SEN statement, and that number has increased by over 50% in the past six years. Supporting those pupils are more than 12,000 classroom assistants, working in schools across our communities. Those figures tell us something very clearly. The SEN system is under enormous pressure. Families, teachers and classroom assistants know it. Parents wait far too long for assessments and children far too long for statements. We know that many children now wait years for a statement, despite the legal target of 26 weeks. Some families wait for two years or more for support that their child is entitled to. It is not acceptable.

Reform may well be necessary, but reform in education must be built on trust, partnership and engagement, and that is what the Minister continues to get wrong. The problem here is that the Minister appears to be determined to push through sweeping changes without securing the necessary trust. Parents are rightly worried, as are classroom assistants, trade unions and teachers. Instead of pausing to listen to those vital voices, the Minister appears to be determined to press ahead regardless. That is not how meaningful reform is delivered.

The proposals that we are discussing involve moving away from existing models of one-to-one pupil support. We are told that the reform agenda is about flexibility and delivering new ways of delivering support, but parents are asking a very simple question: if the support that their child currently relies on disappears, what will replace it? Where is the reassurance that the new system will work any better? Given the history, it is difficult to see how we can have trust in such a system. Where is the evidence that the reforms will improve outcomes for the children who need support the most? When parents hear about changes that appear to remove direct support, the fear is very real, and it is that their child will be the one who falls through the cracks. That fear cannot simply be dismissed. It must be taken seriously.

The SDLP will not support the DUP amendment, because it attempts to present the reforms as straightforward, evidence-led decisions that should simply be accepted, but if that were truly the case, we would not be hearing such alarm from parents, classroom assistants, teachers and education professionals across Northern Ireland. If the people who are expected to deliver the reforms do not have confidence in them, it is not just a simple issue. Rather, it is a flashing warning light that the Minister must heed. Leadership sometimes requires taking difficult decisions, but it also requires leaders to bring people with them, to listen to parents, to listen to the workforce and to engage meaningfully with those who deliver support in our schools every single day. Classroom assistants are the backbone of support for many children with special educational needs. They provide learning and emotional support, help children manage their behavioural and communication challenges and help teachers deliver lessons in classrooms where every single child deserves attention. Too often, they feel that their voices are ignored when major decisions about the future of the system are being made. Reform cannot succeed if the workforce that is responsible for delivering it feels sidelined.

Across the House today, there has been broad consensus on the important work that classroom assistants carry out, but there is also consensus that the Minister is pressing on with reform and not listening to those at the coalface. For that reason, many Members will not support the amendment. I hope, however, that they will support the motion.

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

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

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

Please open the debate.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the motion on strengthening North/South economic cooperation because the reality is that the economic future of this island will not be determined by slogans or constitutional arguments alone. It will be determined by the decisions that we make about investment, infrastructure, skills and how prepared we are to work together where doing so delivers real benefits for the people whom we represent. Too often, discussions about North/South cooperation become stuck in arguments about the constitution or identity before we even reach the practical questions. However, the reality is that the challenges that people face in their daily life do not divide themselves along the border. Economic opportunity does not recognise it. Health outcomes do not recognise it. Poverty does not recognise it. Therefore, it makes little sense for government to act as though the border should define the limits of our ambition.

The motion starts from a practical, simple position: stronger economic cooperation across the island makes sense if our focus is on better jobs, stronger infrastructure and higher living standards. It is not about ideology; it is about delivery. The SDLP has long argued that the potential of the all-island economy has never been fully realised, not because the opportunity is not there but because the political will to follow through has been inconsistent. Last week, we launched our paper, 'Success by Design: Preparing for a New Ireland', which sets out clearly that economic outcomes are shaped by choices made over time. Over the last 30 years, the North and the South have taken different economic paths, and the results have reflected those decisions. As a recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report found, the Republic of Ireland has higher wages, stronger economic growth and better living standards than Northern Ireland. All those measures make a meaningful impact on the lives of our people. That is why we believe that a different approach is needed. For the SDLP, that means being prepared to make different choices now.

Building a better future also means taking cooperation seriously, not just in speeches but in the work of Departments and the priorities set by Ministers. Progress on infrastructure requires leadership from the Department for Infrastructure; progress on skills and investment in energy require leadership from the Department for the Economy; and long-term planning and funding require leadership from the Department of Finance. Without that engagement, the ambition that we talk about will not translate into results. We can see the consequences of that inconsistency in projects that should have moved much further by now. When cooperation is treated as optional rather than essential, progress slows, opportunities are missed and people are left wondering why the potential of the island is still not being realised. That is why the motion calls for a more structured, deliberate approach. Working together on strategic infrastructure, energy networks, digital connectivity and skills planning should not depend on short-term political priorities. Those are long-term issues that require long-term cooperation. Part of that more serious approach is the proposal for an all-island economic task force. That should be seen not as another layer of bureaucracy but as a practical way to ensure that agreed priorities are driven forward. Too often, cooperation begins with enthusiasm and then loses momentum when attention moves elsewhere. A formal mechanism to keep that work focused would help ensure that projects do not stall and opportunities are not lost.

I will address the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin, because it attempts to move the focus away from where responsibility lies. At present, Sinn Féin holds the Finance, Economy and Infrastructure portfolios. Those are the very Departments that the motion refers to, and they have the greatest ability to drive meaningful North/South economic cooperation. Holding those positions is an opportunity that the party has never had before, yet, when we look at what has been delivered, it is difficult to point to the progress that people were entitled to expect. Too many projects have stalled; cooperation has been uneven; and the ambition of what was promised has not always been matched by action. That is not a failure of circumstances; that is a failure of delivery and, ultimately, a failure of leadership. Trying to suggest otherwise or shift responsibility through an amendment is disingenuous to the House and the people who sent us here expecting results.

The SDLP believes that the future of this island should be built on partnership, cooperation and careful planning. Any new constitutional settlement, if it comes, will succeed only if it is designed to succeed economically as well as politically. That means doing the work now — strengthening cooperation is not cooperation now — and putting in place the structures that allow progress to continue, regardless of who holds office. Better infrastructure, stronger energy cooperation, closer alignment of skills and more coordinated investment policy all make sense today, regardless of anyone's constitutional view. They improve people's lives now and help to build stronger foundations for the future.

The motion simply asks the Executive to approach that work with greater seriousness, greater consistency and greater ambition than we have seen in the past. That is not an unreasonable request. It is what people expect from a Government who are focused on delivery. For those reasons, I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Delargy: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

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

I am glad to be talking about the issue, because all-Ireland cooperation and the all-Ireland economy are growing. We all know the figures and statistics and the results of dual market access in particular. If we look at statistics from 2001, we see that all-Ireland trade was valued at £1·9 billion. It was at a similar level in 2015. However, that has grown dramatically since the introduction of dual market access, with the figure in 2022 sitting at around £7 billion a year. The all-Ireland economy is a reality in constituencies such as mine and in border constituencies across the North. The key reason for deciding to ensure that regional balance is a key pillar for the Department for the Economy is to ensure that border communities, which have been left behind by partition and failed by this state, have equal opportunity and increased opportunity going forward. That is something that we will continue to see.

Last week, I attended the relaunch of the north-west learning city region in Magee. At that event, we had the mayor of the Derry City and Strabane District Council and the cathaoirleach

of Donegal County Council. We have seen the first of the projects that are both North and South. That is a great indication of how we work collaboratively as a region. At the event, we had the Atlantic Technological University (ATU); Ulster University (UU); the North West Regional College; and the Donegal Education and Training Board (ETB). That is an example of how the positive transformation that is happening in Stormont is reflected in communities and in our colleges and universities across the North. We have much to learn from them.

I am glad to see the motion, but there are a few key reasons for our amendment. The amendment focuses on positive politics. It is about what we can do together and having a collaborative approach. It is about highlighting what we can do when we work together. The SDLP motion is about politicking and electioneering. It is not about genuine cooperation. Sinn Féin is the key delivery agent in the Assembly and across Ireland of that all-Ireland cooperation. We champion it in everything that we do. The motion is an attack on Departments that have Sinn Féin Ministers.

What is proposed in the motion and in what the Member said in moving it relates to poverty and educational underachievement. Those are genuine concerns, and I share them. However, I ask that the key things that we see as barriers to economic growth be included. One is housing, but I see no mention of housing in the motion. I see no call on the Department for Communities. I see no mention of education in the motion and no call for the Department of Education to do anything. I agree with the comments on poverty, but why is there no call on the Department for Communities? The motion lacks a lot. The premise of working together and the call for cooperation and collaboration is positive, but the motion could be strengthened. That is why we have tabled our amendment.

I have a number of points. I will run through them quickly, because I am conscious of time.

Let us look at delivery in those three Departments. Take the Department for the Economy. We have seen a 60% growth in enrolments at Magee university in Derry since 2021, which is incredibly positive: that is delivery. Regional balance is a core pillar of the ministerial vision: that is delivery. The clustering of key areas and sectors is delivery. A new Invest NI office in Dublin is delivery. There is £3·5 million to support City of Derry Airport to take the burden off ratepayers in the council area. For me, that is a key example of delivery, particularly when over half the airport's passengers come from the South. This is about all-Ireland cooperation. InterTradeIreland's funding is up. Hidden Heartlands has been delivered. There has been huge progress on extending the Wild Atlantic Way. The postgraduate loan for Northern students studying in the South has been introduced. That was not there before. We see increased cooperation on alignment between UCAS and CAO, as well as research and development partnerships. The new Queen's campus in Dundalk is fantastic and shows confidence and growth across our island.

Take the Department for Infrastructure. There has been delivery of the all-island rail review and the ring-fencing of £1 million in this year's Budget for the AI research resource (AIRR). That keeps the momentum going. We have cross-border greenways. Progress has been made on the Enterprise fleet. There has been cross-border work by the A5/N2 group. That is all delivery.

Take the Department of Finance. It is on the Executive to prioritise the fiscal framework. It is a key issue that John has championed in the Department, as did Caoimhe before him. It is about making decisions locally, getting greater autonomy and increasing our ability to make such decisions here in order to generate increased income for public services. The best way in which to do that financial remodelling is, of course, through Irish unity. It is about making decisions for Ireland in Ireland, and those are important steps to take while we are progressing towards that.

I have tried to highlight some of the key elements of delivery. I am baffled by the fact that the motion's ask focuses on three Departments. I absolutely accept and agree that all Departments need to be progressing on an all-Ireland basis and that all need to be working towards an all-Ireland economy. As I mentioned, the key barriers to that are housing and skills. The Departments that are doing something are the ones that are being criticised in the motion, and that is why we needed to table an amendment.

The other thing to say is that, when all those points of delivery that I noted were made, the SDLP welcomed every one of them. It has not, however, done anything to help deliver them. Today, the SDLP's focus is on saying that there is no delivery from those Departments. I am really confused by that. The SDLP put forward a proposal in its paper, but it is not costed, and there is no practical reality to it. It is all aspirational.

We need to work collaboratively and cooperatively. The key is to work together to work out what is best for the economy across our country. We do that best when we work together. Focusing, for electioneering purposes, on three Departments that just happen to be led by Sinn Féin Ministers necessitated the tabling of an amendment, because those are the three Departments that are delivering and trying to change things. They are trying to undo 100 years of partition in our country and to better the economy.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Brett: I welcome the junior Minister to her place. I wish the Minister for the Economy well in her endeavours in the United States as she continues to sell the importance of Northern Ireland's position within the internal market of the United Kingdom and the strengths of our services sector, which is, of course, not covered by the Windsor framework.

As a party, we happily support cooperation with our international partners in the Republic of Ireland and 100% recognise the close economic and political ties between our two jurisdictions. I do not believe, however, that the motion is intended to command the support of unionism, because there is no mention in it of trying to deliver the best possible economy here in Northern Ireland; instead, it is about an all-island economy, which does not and will not exist.

I will come on to that point later. The motion does not talk about the impact of the Irish Sea border on companies in all parts of Northern Ireland.

The motion is more about attacking Sinn Féin. It is designed to attack Sinn Féin on the fact that it told us, when it took up the positions of First Minister, Economy Minister, Infrastructure Minister and Finance Minister, that it would deliver the mythical all-island economy. Clearly, that has not been the case, and will not be the case. That is not the fault of, or due to the ineptitude of, Sinn Féin Ministers: the fact is that we will never have an all-island economy because we have two distinct and very different jurisdictions on the island. We operate under different regulations, tax regimes and employment law, and with different currencies. Some Members of the House have a real inability to distinguish between an all-island economy and all-island trade. I support the growth in all-island trade. I support the fact that our businesses in Northern Ireland are able to export to their neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. However, a lot of that is down to the fact that there has been a displacement of trade between Northern Ireland and GB, which has become all-island trade. That does not mean that there is an all-island economy.

I am not particularly interested in getting involved in an intra-nationalist spat between Sinn Féin and the SDLP about who has, or has not, delivered what. The fact remains that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the internal market of the United Kingdom: the sixth largest economy in the world; and an economy that is protected by a military that is now, thankfully, helping our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland by guarding their shores.

There is no all-island economy. There will be no all-island economy. The creation of a task force in the Executive that dictates trade policy in the United Kingdom is not going to happen. Sinn Féin and the SDLP can have that battle all they like. However, the fact remains that Northern Ireland benefits massively from being part of the sixth largest economy in the world. The focus should be on growing our economy in Northern Ireland. That means, yes, having important trade links with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, but our focus should be on restoring fully Northern Ireland's place within the internal market of the United Kingdom, because that is our largest market.

Mr Honeyford: Alliance is interested in growing our economy, full stop. The potential for North/South economic collaboration is absolutely huge. Right now, we hear far more talk about that than we see delivery. Alliance absolutely supports the principles behind the motion and the amendment, but we are really disappointed that the debate has become party political and about point-scoring. Honestly, we need everybody across the House — all parties — to support our economy to move forward. We need less party politics and more delivery.

We need stronger North/South collaboration on a wide range of issues: the economy; infrastructure; health, which has been left out of the motion and the amendment; skills; education; sport; the arts; and energy, which is also massive. That should not be controversial at all. It is about making life better for ordinary people, businesses and our communities. That is exactly what common-sense Alliance politics is all about: focusing on what works and actually improves people's lives. Sharing the island is absolutely not about constitutional politics; it is economic common sense that makes people's lives better.

In his new book, Sam McBride wrote:

I absolutely agree with that. That should be the spirit of the debate. Alliance comes to it from there. I have talked so many times about our position on a shared island. I have consistently made the case for sharing the island. If you look at Hansard, it will be hard to find anybody who has spoken more about the issue in here than I have. I have written opinion pieces about it. I have spoken about it. I have pushed for practical change, because it is about economic opportunity and making people's lives better. It is simply common sense.

Progress is far too slow. The truth is that our economy is growing but that that is not due to anything that is happening in Departments or anything that has changed; it is because our businesses have got on with it themselves and taken advantage of structural change and dual market access. Businesses already operate North/South; they always have. Workers already move across this island; they always have. Some 70% of our tourists come through the South, and 80% come through Dublin Airport. Investment already flows across this island, but we must make all those things easier and much more accessible and create new opportunities for people.

A quick example is energy. It underpins our whole economy. Our energy shows the problem, which is that we operate one all-island electricity market, but we still maintain two electricity systems. We cannot build the North/South interconnector. It remains delayed. That is costing every house in Northern Ireland about £100 a year. If a small island cannot even connect two electricity systems with copper wires, we need to ask serious questions about whether we are really that keen on economic collaboration.

A party that is in government in Northern Ireland, yet is in opposition in the South, should not hold back change here for our constituents. At the same time, we are seeing the spikes in fossil fuel costs now and proposals for renewable schemes need to come forward, we need to create systems here to allow investment in renewables, not with an investment border in Ireland but attracting investment to the North. Those are practical suggestions that we need to move forward at pace.

Skills is another issue on which I have led. We have asked for a talent development agency like Skillnet Ireland, and there was support for that across the Assembly. We need to see that pushed forward and delivered.

The all-island rail review was mentioned. The reality is that we are not anywhere close to even moving to a business case to drive forward the reopening of the Knockmore line. Despite the frustrations, the opportunities are absolutely massive. Sam McBride said:

I absolutely agree.

The Alliance Party will always focus on improving people's lives, creating opportunities and not filtering that through constitutional aspirations; it is simply about making life better. The truth is that our future depends on east-west and North/South collaboration. If we want higher wages, better infrastructure and stronger public services, we have to be confident enough to share the island, to work together and to unlock that opportunity.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party opposes the motion and the amendment. Members will be aware that trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of our nation equates to about £33·3 billion a year. That £33·3 billion compares with trade between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which comes in at about £55·4 billion, with about £32 billion of imports coming back the other way. We do not have good trade statistics on North/South. We hear about it a lot, and we even have an organisation that is supposed to promote it — InterTradeIreland — but we do not have any reliable figures on it.

HMRC was recently asked to look in detail at the figures because there is a definite case of divergence happening in trade across the Irish Sea, North/South and east-west. That is a significant problem for Northern Ireland businesses because we are not in the best of both worlds — in fact, we are in the worst of both worlds — with extra levels of bureaucracy added because of the Windsor framework.

There is one issue, on which I agree with Mr Honeyford, which is the need to move towards an all-island energy market. Members will probably know that, under the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM), we do not have a physically connected market. We have two virtual markets, and artificial price controls are utilised to adjust two systems that do not work in the same way and are not connected in the same way whatsoever.

I will make a declaration of interest as a former chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. Today, I met Helen McEntee, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and we talked about the very anomalous situation that we are in, where Sinn Féin keeps talking about North/South cooperation and having a closer all-island system, but it is holding up the North/South interconnector. I will declare another interest, as I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA). I attended a meeting in the Oireachtas not two weeks ago at which Cathy Bennett, a Sinn Féin TD, stated that renewable energy should be kept in the Republic of Ireland. She saw no reason for a North/South interconnector or for an I-SEM. I am confused by Sinn Féin's amendment, because it just does not compute. It is not even connected. That was a bit of a pun. It is not connected at all. That is one of the more significant problems that we have when we talk about North/South issues.

We want North/South trade to develop, and we want to see opportunities to do that, but, if we cannot even get the electricity market correct, what is going on? Many of us would welcome improvements to the rail system across Ireland. We would love to see a much-improved service between Belfast and Dublin. I would love to see a much-improved service from Londonderry all the way to Cork. The one thing that is holding up the speedy improvement of the line is not necessarily sorting out the Knockmore line but the fact that the DART, on the outskirts of Dublin, takes priority over the North/South rail connection. That is extraordinary. No one can disagree with improving the North/South connection or with the idea that things would be better with all-island infrastructure. However, there are TDs from a certain party, particularly in north Dublin, who would rather improve the DART than improve North/South rail links. Some Members would join me in saying that there is a large degree of hypocrisy there.

Much of the SDLP motion is well intentioned. I know Sinéad well, and we have talked on many occasions about improving North/South trade. She will know that I am not a begrudger on North/South trade; I want it to work, and I want to see it improve. However, let us not have another quango. Can anyone tell me what InterTradeIreland actually does apart from suck up public funds and act as a job creation scheme for superannuated politicians who sit on its board? What does it do to promote North/South trade? We should not build another quango. We should build physical things, such as the North/South interconnector, and improve rail links to Dublin as well as many other things. We should get those done. Let us not have another quango, please.

Mr Kearney: The emergence of the all-Ireland economy is probably one of the most significant and positive results of our peace process. All-island integration benefits everyone. It drives economic prosperity, creates business and investment opportunities and improves the lives of families and people in every part of the island. Every Department in the power-sharing Executive should prioritise the potential to deepen political, economic and social integration. While important progress has been secured across health, infrastructure and economic development, significant barriers remain.

Of course, the key structural barrier to further progress is the existence of partition. Nonetheless, the Department for the Economy has advanced innovation and collaboration across the island, and there are many notable examples. The successful expansion of Ulster University's Magee campus has provided additional academic opportunities for students, North and South. It is now helping to drive the achievement of regional balance for the north-west. So, too, as my colleague has already mentioned, is the north-west learning city region project, which has implemented a major cross-border collaboration in lifelong learning. The recently announced partnership between Queen's University and Dundalk Institute of Technology is another good example of increased integration between educational institutions. I welcome last Friday's announcement by the Minister for the Economy to increase postgraduate loan support by 54% for the 2026-27 academic year.

In the North, one of the biggest impediments to economic growth is our skills shortage. Minister Archibald's apprenticeship action plan will enable workers, particularly our young people, to access the best possible training in their chosen field in any setting across Ireland.

Cross-border apprenticeship opportunities have now become a reality.

All-Ireland tourism has also been prioritised by the Department for the Economy. Collaboration between Tourism Ireland, Tourism NI and other industry leaders is now focused on growing visitor spending in the North to £1·3 billion over the next 10 years. That is an exciting target. Crucially, the Department for Infrastructure's all-island strategic rail review sets out a long-term vision for a modern, high-quality, low-carbon rail network with several important proposals, not least the reinstatement of the Knockmore line, with potential airport access in my South Antrim constituency. The work of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) has successfully deepened integration in areas such as agriculture, food safety, tourism, transport, infrastructure, culture and trade. Through the NSMC and the Shared Island Fund, the Irish Government are committed to significant major investment in cross-border infrastructure, healthcare integration, environmental initiatives and educational measures. InterTradeIreland has played an instrumental role in expanding all-island economic coordination, particularly in the post-Brexit era. Cross-border trade is now at record levels, reaching over €15 billion in 2025. InterTradeIreland has supported more than 60,000 businesses, including thousands of SMEs.

Those are concrete and positive indicators. Planned all-island integration and cooperation is bringing opportunities to businesses, workers and families across our country. There are reasons for us all to be optimistic about the future. Of course, resolution of the constitutional issue and Irish unity are central to making even greater progress. In the Good Friday Agreement, a democratic mechanism exists to open a pathway to maximised economic growth, better public services, shared prosperity and a better quality of life for workers and families in all of Ireland. That is another strategic reason for the Irish and British Governments and all political parties North and South to start planning and preparing for Irish unity. The overall process of that transition will be optimised by setting a date for a unity referendum by 2030.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, Members, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, if earlier.

I now call on junior Minister Reilly to respond on behalf of the Minister for the Economy. Junior Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún seo inniu.

I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on behalf of the Minister for the Economy.

Cross-border trade alone is now worth over €10 billion, and key to that success is the rise in all-Ireland trade. According to the Central Statistics Office, from 2020 to 2024, sales from North to South increased by 128·5% to £5·5 billion. That evidence clearly demonstrates that SMEs engaging in cross-border trade consistently outperform others across key metrics such as sales, employment and profitability. Innovation and collaboration across the island also strengthen industry clusters, create higher-quality jobs and enhance sector competitiveness.

The Executive and the Irish Government are cooperating well to realise the opportunities. The Department for the Economy in the North and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment in the South have formalised their cooperation in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that reinforces the commitment from both Departments to work closely together. The economic development agencies are working well together, and Invest NI has opened a new office in Dublin. Recent initiatives include closer collaboration with the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor, a joint international trade mission with Enterprise Ireland and the IDA and the success of the Shared Island sustainability capital grant in supporting innovative low-carbon technologies across Ireland. InterTradeIreland, Enterprise Ireland and Invest NI are delivering a €30 million all-Ireland enterprise scheme, and that investment is building cross-border networks and clusters, accelerating green enterprise and supporting women's entrepreneurship. Funding has been increased for InterTradeIreland, which, since its establishment, has supported over 60,000 businesses across the island. As well as assisting individual companies, InterTradeIreland's synergy programme has supported cross-border clusters in fintech, cybersecurity and advanced manufacturing.

Both Governments have also boosted funding for Tourism Ireland, which markets the island internationally as a single unit, yielding a 25:1 return on investment. Tourism is a long-standing all-Ireland industry, and that was recently strengthened by the inclusion of County Fermanagh in the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand. The Shared Island Fund has supported a range of tourism projects, most recently with funding for projects including the Giant's Causeway, the Derry Girls experience, the Museum of Free Derry and the Courthouse in Bushmills.

Business activity is underpinned by skills, and it is important that people can study and work as seamlessly as possible across the country. Complexities arising from two tax and social security systems mean that many people still have difficulties working in one jurisdiction and living in another. However, a positive step has been taken by Universities Ireland. Previously, A-level students needed four top A-level grades to reach the maximum tariff. Now, three A levels and one AS level are sufficient. The Department for the Economy has introduced a tuition fee loan for postgraduate students from the North who choose to study in the South. The Magee expansion is a cross-border collaboration, and Queen's University Belfast is signing a memorandum of understanding with Dundalk Institute of Technology.

Research and innovative continue to be powerful engines of shared and collaborative all-island growth. Our universities have built strong cross-border partnerships through Horizon Europe, the US-Ireland R&D Partnership Programme and the North South Research Programme. Under the PEACE PLUS programme, €46 million has been invested in cross-border skills development.

On connectivity, €165 million from PEACE PLUS will help to deliver an hourly train service between Belfast and Dublin, further contributing to a more integrated labour market. The Department for Infrastructure's all-island strategic rail review sets out a long-term vision for a modern, high-quality, low-carbon rail network. The proposals, as was mentioned, include reinstating the Lisburn-Antrim line, including potential airport access; a new Portadown-Derry-Letterkenny rail corridor; electrification of the Belfast-border route; and longer-term extensions into the north-west, including Limavady. Those investments have the potential to transform connectivity, create jobs and unlock economic opportunities for generations to come. The Irish Government have committed funding for a Dublin-Derry air service, enhancing connectivity and improving economic opportunity for the north-west.

The all-island economy is growing strongly. However, it still has significant further potential. By continuing to pool our resources, our expertise and our infrastructure, we can build stronger and more competitive regions and deliver long-term prosperity for citizens North and South.

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

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

The artificial barriers created by partition more than a century ago continue to have a detrimental impact on many aspects of life across our island, including many of the areas referenced in our amendment. Time and again, we see how those divisions make little sense when it comes to the delivery of public services, the development of infrastructure and the growth of our economy. In my Adjournment debate last month, I spoke about the need for the South West Acute Hospital to be utilised by citizens living beyond the Fermanagh and Omagh area. If that hospital is to reach its full potential, it absolutely makes sense that people from neighbouring counties should be able to access the services and benefit from them. That is just one example of why we must think beyond the artificial barriers that partition has imposed on this island.

Rightly, the amendment:

Removing those barriers and enhancing cooperation between Ministers and Departments North and South can deliver real benefits for communities and businesses. We have already seen positive examples of what that cooperation can achieve. The extension of the Hidden Heartlands tourism brand into Fermanagh links the county with its natural hinterland and strengthens its place within a wider all-island tourism offering. I welcome the work undertaken by the Economy Minister in securing that agreement with Fáilte Ireland and in supporting the marketing of the region. Initiatives such as that build on the strong cooperation that already exists across the all-island tourism sector and provide a welcome boost for local economies, particularly the hospitality sector.

Another important example of cooperation is the water enhancements through sustainable treatment (WEST) project, which is tackling water pollution across Lough Erne, Lough Melvin and Donegal Bay through cooperation between NI Water and Uisce Éireann. Such projects demonstrate clearly that, when Governments work together on an all-island basis, communities benefit.

The amendment highlights other key areas in which enhanced cooperation is needed, including rail, energy networks, digital connectivity, skills development and labour market alignment. Those are strategic issues that require joined-up planning if we are to unlock the full economic potential of this island. The establishment of an all-island economic task force, as called for in the amendment, would provide an important mechanism to drive that cooperation and ensure that agreed priorities are delivered.

Greater North/South cooperation can and will benefit citizens across the island. The reality, however, is that partition continues to act as a barrier to that potential being fully realised. Enhanced cooperation is welcome and necessary, but, as long as the island remains divided, it will go only so far. The real opportunity lies in building an all-island economy and planning our infrastructure, services and economic development on that basis, ensuring that decisions about our future are made by the people who live and work here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Colin, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. There should be nothing controversial about the principle behind the motion. Stronger North/South economic cooperation delivers practical benefits for workers, businesses and communities across the island. It makes economic sense, regardless of anyone's constitutional preference. Supply chains cross the border every day. Workers commute across it. Tourism depends on it. Businesses already operate on an all-island basis.

Recognising the value of cooperation is one thing, however, while delivering it in practice is another. That is where the Executive's record must be questioned. If we look honestly at the evidence, we see that effective cross-border economic cooperation has simply not been consistently prioritised. The Departments that have the greatest capacity to drive it — Economy, Finance and Infrastructure — all sit under the same party's control. Sinn Féin holds the post of First Minister, and its Ministers are in the three Departments that I mentioned. If building the all-island economy is central to Sinn Féin's narrative, this fair question must follow: what measurable difference has been delivered? Where is the progress on infrastructure? Where is the urgency on cross-border investment? Where are the projects that people can see and feel in their daily lives? Strategies, reports and speeches are not economic policy: delivery is.

The SDLP recently published its paper 'Success by Design: Preparing for a New Ireland'. It makes this important point:

Economic outcomes are shaped by choices about skills, infrastructure, innovation and governance. The truth is that the North and the South started the 1990s in broadly similar economic positions but that, over the past three decades, their trajectories have diverged sharply. The South has experienced sustained growth, higher wages and stronger productivity. Meanwhile, the North has struggled with weak productivity, weak growth, lower wages and a continued reliance on public expenditure to sustain economic activity. That divergence was not inevitable; it was the result of decisions and often the absence of decisions about investment in the foundations of growth. There has been underinvestment in infrastructure, skills and innovation, and there has been political instability that made long-term planning difficult. That is exactly why the motion matters. If we want a stronger economy on the island, cooperation must move from occasional collaboration to systemic integration.

We already know that it works. The single electricity market has demonstrated how treating the island as one energy system improves efficiency and security of supply. Cross-border healthcare cooperation —.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with most of what he says, but the I-SEM does not work. It has real difficulties, and that is because there are two virtual markets. The main issue with the I-SEM is that the two system are not connected.

You cannot run two electricity systems side by side and expect them to work effectively.

Mr McGrath: I will always agree with bringing things on this island together to make it work better. Thank you for making that point for me.

Cross-border healthcare cooperation, such as on the North West Cancer Centre, shows how shared services can improve outcomes for patients. Improved Belfast-Dublin rail connectivity has strengthened labour mobility, tourism and business links. Those examples are proof that cooperation works.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Sorry, I meant to give way to you earlier.

Mr Delargy: That is OK. I do not disagree with any of the commitments that the Member has asked all Departments to make. However, you have talked about healthcare, housing and poverty: why are the relevant Departments not called on in the motion?

Mr McGrath: Thank you. As I said at the start, the Departments that are listed in the motion can make the greatest contributions. When it comes to all-island economic connectivity, those are the Departments that can deliver the greatest amount of leverage and deliverable actions.

The examples that I listed are proof that cooperation works, but, too often, progress has been piecemeal and dependent on political will, rather than embedded as standard practice. Our paper sets out a series of no-regret actions that could strengthen the all-Ireland economy right now. They are practical steps such as establishing a joint all-Ireland infrastructure fund to invest in strategic cross-border projects; delivering the all-island strategic rail review; aligning skills systems to open up the all-island labour market; creating an all-island economic task force to drive delivery; and targeting investment at growth corridors such as the Dublin-Belfast corridor and the north-west region. Those are not theoretical ideas; they are practical steps that would improve productivity, strengthen regional development and raise living standards. They would deliver benefits now, regardless of constitutional outcomes.

We need to recognise the strategic economic role that Northern Ireland can play in a stronger island economy. Too often, Northern Ireland is framed as a fiscal problem or burden, but that narrative misses the point entirely. The North has assets that can strengthen the all-island economy: a young population; world-class universities; growing, high-value sectors; strategic infrastructure such as Belfast port; and a strong base of SMEs that could scale more effectively in a larger, more integrated market. Better integration would expand supply chains, support regional growth and strengthen economic resilience across the island. For the SDLP, the goal of a new and united Ireland is clear, but we recognise something very important: that we also have a responsibility, today, to ensure that Northern Ireland works economically, socially and politically, because, if the North becomes an economic burden that is defined by stagnation, underinvestment and dysfunction, people in the South will be concerned.

I will quickly look at some of the Member inputs. It was said that one of our papers lacked costings. I wonder why. We cannot access any of the information that most other Oppositions across these islands have and that would help us make those costings. If we are in the dark, it is because we are being left in the dark when it comes to the facts and figures. We will come up with ideas and champion those ideas as best we can.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Very quickly, because I am short of time.

Dr Aiken: The Member has hit on a very clear point. There is no sufficient data, full stop, on trade issues North/South or east-west. HMRC should get off its backside and provide some.

Mr McGrath: HMRC takes my tax, so I will be nicer about HMRC in case it targets me. Yes. I agree that data is important. We should always have access to as much data as possible.

There was reference to the fact that we did not speak about the UK economy. That should be no shock, given that the motion is about an all-island economy here in Ireland. The Alliance Party, again, took the approach of saying that this is politicking. We are in a political arena — we are politicians — guess what we are going to do. There will be an element of politics in the work that we do, because that is who we are and what we do.

There was reference to the all-island energy market. That is another example of how cooperation and working together delivers benefits and good outcomes for people. We want to champion such cooperation and see more of it. That is what the motion is about: greater economic cooperation to deliver benefits for the people who live North and South.

Our task today is twofold: to deepen cooperation across this island and to build an economy here that is productive, competitive and capable of contributing to shared prosperity. That means investing in skills and therefore the economy; investing in infrastructure; strengthening cross-border enterprise; and delivering the projects that will connect this island economically. The all-island economy cannot be simply an aspiration; it must become a programme of delivery. If we get that right, we will not only strengthen the economy of today but lay the foundations for the prosperous and sustainable future that this island deserves. That is why we present the motion to the House.

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

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a point of clarification as well as of order, earlier, in our debate about the equalisation of titles, I mentioned the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and a proposal that I had made for the inquiry. While that is true, I want to put on the record that I collaborated with and had the full support of my Committee colleague Michelle Guy, who did a lot of work on it. There was joint cross-party working with the Alliance Party and, indeed, now with Sinn Féin and other parties on that Committee. I look forward to more progress. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr O'Toole. That is not a point of order but your point is on the record, which was clearly the intention.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to introduce the Hospital Parking Charges Bill [NIA 29/22-27], which is a Bill to further postpone the ban under the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 on charging money for parking vehicles in hospital car parks.