Official Report: Monday 18 May 2026

Mr McGuigan: May is Stroke Awareness Month. It is an important reminder of the need to recognise the signs of stroke and act FAST. The FAST test helps people recognise the most common symptoms of a stroke: face — has one side dropped; arms — can both be lifted; speech — is it slurred or confused; time — is it time to seek urgent medical help? That urgency is exactly why a life-saving procedure such as a thrombectomy is so vital, yet, in the North, it is available only between 8.00 am and 5.00 pm.

Last Friday was World Thrombectomy Day, and it was also 500 days since the stroke action plan committed to delivering a 24-hour service by the end of 2024. In that time, hundreds of patients may have missed treatment that could have helped them walk, speak, swallow or live independently. One of my constituents suffered a stroke at just 39 years of age. Thankfully, she received a thrombectomy in time. Her family arrived at the hospital expecting the worst, only to find her sitting up and speaking. Hours earlier, she had been unable to communicate. That is the difference that a thrombectomy can make.

Every eligible patient deserves access to that treatment, regardless of when their stroke occurs. Tomorrow at 10.00 am, I will join stroke survivors, clinicians, campaigners and the Stroke Association outside to mark 500 days since the service should have been delivered. I encourage all Members to join us to send a clear message that we can no longer wait for a fully operational, 24/7 thrombectomy service.

Today also marks the beginning of Dementia Action Week, which is an important opportunity to recognise the growing impact that dementia has on thousands of families in the North. Nearly 25,000 people here are living with dementia, and that number is expected to rise by more than 50% by 2040. Behind those figures are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, carers and loved ones, many of whom face daily emotional, physical and financial challenges.

New findings from the Alzheimer's Society show that many dementia patients here continue to face long delays to diagnosis, alongside major gaps in treatment and support. Dementia is the leading cause of death across these islands, but one in three people with dementia still do not have a diagnosis. That means missed opportunities for early intervention, treatment and support for patients and their families. Without decisive action, the human and financial cost of dementia will continue to rise. We urgently need a bold, new dementia strategy, one that is focused on early diagnosis, better support for carers, a properly trained workforce and long-term investment in services. This Dementia Action Week, the message must be clear: we cannot afford to wait any longer for action.

Mr Robinson: Gregory Campbell and I met representatives from Ulster University on Friday past regarding the proposed redundancies at the university. Following the meeting, we remain concerned, particularly for the Coleraine campus and the wider north coast economy. Coleraine uni is a vital economic, social and cultural anchor for the region. The uncertainty surrounding up to 450 potential job losses has understandably created anxiety among staff, students, local businesses and the wider region along the north coast. Many people fear that Coleraine could be overly impacted at a time when significant investment is being seen elsewhere in the university estate, especially at Magee.

Any reduction in staffing or courses would have consequences far beyond the campus. Local hospitality, retail, transport providers, landlords and tourism businesses benefit from the presence of students and university staff throughout the year, especially outside the peak tourist season. The university also plays a role in attracting young people to the north coast and retaining them in the area. Students whom I have spoken to want clarity and reassurance about the future of courses at Coleraine, and staff who have given years of service want transparency and full engagement throughout the process.

Ulster University has stated its promise to Coleraine in its multi-campus university, and it is essential that that is reflected in future planning and investment decisions. The long-term sustainability and success of the Coleraine campus must remain a priority not only for the university but for the wider regional economy.

I want to be clear that Coleraine must not be an afterthought. That is the message that the MP and I made clear during our meeting with the leaders of the university last week. Too often, there is a feeling that everything gravitates towards Belfast, while other areas are expected to do less and make do with less. The Department and university leadership must work together to ensure that there is a long-term future for Coleraine and to ensure that that campus is not weakened. The message from the north coast is simple: we value our university, the jobs that it supports and the opportunity that it creates, so we want and expect a strong and ambitious future for the university in Coleraine. Such regional assets must be protected for the generations to come.

Mr Donnelly: I rise to highlight Arthritis UK's first Arthritis Awareness Month. An arthritis diagnosis can open the door to life-changing support: that is the message from the health charity Arthritis UK during its first Arthritis Awareness Month, which is shining a light on the diagnosis of arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions, which affect over half a million people in Northern Ireland. Those conditions are a leading cause of persistent pain, disability and lost working days, yet they are often dismissed as just a bit of pain or a natural part of the ageing process rather than as life-limiting and life-changing. A diagnosis can open the door to treatment, community and better symptom management, yet people with arthritis often struggle to get a timely diagnosis. The awareness month will lead up to the launch of an Arthritis UK report, 'The Silent Treatment: Why an Arthritis Diagnosis Matters'. That report will highlight the barriers faced in achieving a timely and personalised arthritis diagnosis and why a diagnosis matters.

As well as facing diagnostic challenges, people with arthritis in Northern Ireland experience some of the longest healthcare waits, with years spent in severe pain, waiting for such vital care as orthopaedic surgery. We must treat that as an urgent healthcare priority and take a relentless approach to driving down orthopaedic and rheumatology waiting times. People with arthritis deserve timely access to surgery and treatment, with support before and after treatment to secure the best possible outcomes.

Without that, we will see increasing disease progression and comorbidities, such as poor mental health, so please join me in supporting Arthritis Awareness Month by following the campaign on social media and highlighting the information and support from Arthritis UK, which can help our constituents open the door to a better way forward.

Mr Butler: I want to pay tribute, as I am sure many Members will want to, to the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS), which is based in Lagan Valley, on a very successful Balmoral show. I was delighted that the show moved from the King's Hall at Balmoral to Lagan Valley. That has worked out to be one of the greatest successes in platforming our farming and food industries and allowing people who live more in urban areas to mix freely with those who are the mainstays of what I consider to be the most important indigenous industry here, namely farming and food production.

As many of you will know, having been there — I saw many of you at the show — the weather was slightly inclement, so I want to put on record my thanks, not only to the RUAS staff but to all who contributed to making the show such a successful event, whether that was Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, the PSNI or the many volunteers, particularly those who stood outside in that inclement weather to direct pedestrians or direct traffic to parking spots.

Over the four days, there were many opportunities for many of us to engage not only with the public and our constituents but, very importantly, with the farmers and food producers who underpin what has been quantified as a £7·3 billion a year industry that provides over 109,000 full-time equivalent jobs in Northern Ireland. I am not sure that there is another industry in Northern Ireland that provides such a wide variety of skilled and valued jobs.

Last year's Balmoral show happened against the backdrop of the introduction of the dreaded inheritance tax, which, even after the changes, still looms over our family farmers in Northern Ireland. This year, the backdrop to the show was further pressures for our family farmers, namely the geopolitical instability that has led to the rise in fuel prices. Why should that matter to us? It matters because, if it is not resolved and if the Treasury in London does not take action on fuel duty in particular, we will see rampant "foodflation". People have become used to working out whether to heat or eat in winter but that option may not even be there, because "foodflation" could run ahead of itself. We really need to, collegiately, work together to lobby Treasury and the UK Government to take some meaningful action in that regard.

I urge anyone who did not make it to this year's show to get it into your diary for next year, because it is the premier event in the agri-food and farming sector across these islands.

Mr McNulty: In 2008, walking out of St Tiernach's Park in Clones after Paul McGrane had raised the Anglo-Celt Cup as Armagh captain, with Armagh having won six Ulster Senior Football Championship titles in the previous nine years, no one would have thought that it would be another 18 years before Armagh got their hands on the cup again. The Ulster Championship is by far the most competitive provincial championship, with six different counties claiming glory since 2005. The Armagh senior footballers famously won the Sam Maguire in 2024, but there was always a feeling that something was missing. Yesterday, the players and management completed the set. I want to say a huge comhghairdeas

to the players, management team and county board. You have come agonisingly close in recent years, visiting the locker of hurt so many times in the Ulster Championship, but have kept going despite setback after setback.

Monaghan deserve an honourable mention. Despite the odds, they were valiant in defeat. I know that that is of little consolation.

On the final whistle yesterday, despite the torrential rain, there was an amazing outpouring of joy, celebration and pride among Armagh fans, who streamed on to the pitch in their thousands to see Aidan Forker and Aaron McKay lift the Anglo-Celt Cup. Aidan Forker, in his acceptance speech, thanked the management, coaching and backroom team; the county board; and the team's sponsors — Simplyfruit and Patrick McCann; Mullaghbawn's Aidan Strain Electrical Engineering; and Padraic McKeever of McKeever Sports — who have stuck with Armagh through thick and thin.

Most expressively, Aidan thanked the families of the players, who understand and support the commitment necessary to succeed as an inter-county footballer.

While Aidan spoke, some of the families were revelling on the pitch and in the enclosure below, at home and abroad. It was their day as much as it was the players' day. Everyone will have loved the pictures on TV of Kieran McGeeney embracing his children after the final whistle. Incredibly, Geezer first stripped out for his county in 1988 and has been actively involved in playing, coaching and management at inter-county level every year since. All that I can say to that is this: wow. One of Geezer's strongest values is loyalty. There are people who have stood with him in the dark days and the bright days, some since the '90s. I will not mention names; they know who they are.

Yesterday was a wonderful day for Armagh Gaels, made more special by the fact that the Anglo-Celt Cup was presented by an Armagh man, Michael Geoghegan, Ulster president, with another Armagh man, uachtarán Chumann Lúthchleas Gael

, Jarlath Burns, beside him, to a team wearing jerseys made by an Armagh man, Padraic McKeever of McKeever Sports. The credit lies mostly with the players — the men in the arena.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: The celebrations will be short-lived. As we know, every team that is still in the competition will feel that it has got a shot at "Sam".

Ms Murphy: The hospitality sector is vital to our economy, with tourism being particularly important across our rural areas. Great progress has been made in my constituency with the extension of the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand into Fermanagh, which was announced by my Sinn Féin colleague Minister Caoimhe Archibald, but we need to see the British Government step up and reduce the VAT rate for hospitality across the North. We want to see VAT rates harmonised across our island. The gap is set to widen on 1 July, when the VAT rate in the South will be reduced to 9%. It currently sits at 13·5%, which is significantly lower than that of the North, which sits at 20%. My Sinn Féin colleague Minister John O'Dowd has been pressing the British Government consistently on the issue. They need to start listening and understand the all-island nature of our hospitality and tourism sectors. The current VAT rate here means that hospitality businesses in the North face higher taxes and are therefore at an unfair disadvantage compared with neighbouring businesses in the Twenty-six, where the lower VAT rate will increase footfall across restaurants, pubs and cafes.

I call on the British Government to reduce the VAT rate for hospitality businesses here. That would be a vital help to the hotels, restaurants, cafes and, of course, pubs that have struggled in recent years with rising bills, supporting them to thrive and attract more customers through their doors. A harmonised VAT rate would represent a positive step forward and ensure a level playing field for all hospitality businesses across Ireland.

Mrs Cameron: Last Friday, Sinn Féin's official youth wing posted a video clip online that, it insinuated, was a statement made by me attacking the Communities Minister during a Committee session. The post described the statement as "not AI", implying that it was therefore factual. The post has received many comments and views. Its intention was clearly to bring negative, unwanted personal attention towards me and to intimidate, humiliate and gag me. It will do nothing of the sort. It was a complete misrepresentation of the facts. I quoted word for word the inaccurate and fabricated statement of the Committee Chair, Colm Gildernew, from the Sinn Féin website.

I ask that the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, ensures that the post is removed and that she distances herself from that potentially defamatory content. While I understand and accept that the use of social media clips to highlight a disagreement or offer a differing view is part and parcel of political discourse in the House, I am disgusted by the post and ask why it was deemed necessary. Perhaps it was inspired by the behaviour of the Chair and Deputy Chair, who seem content to heap abuse on members of my party simply for doing their job with honesty and openness. Perhaps they were buoyed by the Chair's comment that members would decide what facts they believed, while disregarding the actual evidence and deciding to post a fabricated video to support the Sinn Féin narrative.

Thursday's Committee session was a complete farce because of the TikTok-making theme of pelting words at the Minister and then continually interrupting and speaking over him and, laughably, trying to pretend that it was a form of scrutiny. I must put it on record, however, that no Committee member was involved in that other than the Sinn Féin members.

In an era when it is difficult to put anything on social media without facing a barrage of abuse, especially as a woman, I ask the First Minister to call out that dishonest, childish and malicious behaviour that was, without doubt, inspired by Sinn Féin's coordinated, personal attack on the Communities Minister, who is being demonised for delivering for more than one side of the community.

Having served on many Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly over many years, I have never experienced anything like the debacle that was dressed up as a scrutiny Committee last week. It saddens me, because we are all responsible for what the public witness in this place. Robust challenging is expected to be a fair and necessary part of those proceedings, but that cannot be replaced by personal attacks that are peddled as legitimate political activity or some variation of truth.

Let me state, for the avoidance of doubt and to help those behind that pathetic activity, that I am in full support of the Communities Minister and believe that, like me, he is more than willing to demonstrate tolerance, accountability and cooperation at Committee and in the Chamber, providing, of course, that our voices are allowed to be heard in the first place.

Dr Aiken: On Thursday evening, Kyiv was struck by a mass missile strike from Putin's forces that killed at least 24 innocent people. The attack destroyed an apartment block in a residential part of the city: a city and people targeted just because they were Ukrainians; Ukrainians who do not want to succumb to the nationalist fascism being orchestrated by the Russian leadership, who were firing missiles, such as the Kh-101 cruise missile. The horror and violence of Thursday's attack was commented on and condemned by the Irish ambassador to the Ukraine, Jonathan Conlon. The irony of his remarks should not be lost on any of us, nor by President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, because one of the main materials that goes into the Kh-101 cruise missile and many other Russian weapons is aluminium. Members may or may not be surprised to learn that one of the largest sources of that aluminium comes from that centre of international neutrality — that paragon of global, triple-locking virtue — the Republic of Ireland.

Aughinish, in the Shannon estuary, is owned by RUSAL, a Russian smelting company with deep connections to the Russian arms industry. The examination of shipping tracking shows a near weekly sailing of vessels from Shannon to Russia. Bizarrely, the Irish Government have lobbied extensively in the EU to keep RUSAL free of sanctions, despite the key role of alumina in the Russian arms industry. It has even lobbied the EU extensively to make sure that alumina is not proscribed as a commodity to Russia because, apparently, it is vital for countless civilian industries. Really? Could a lack of soft-drinks cans create a humanitarian crisis in Moscow, St Petersburg or elsewhere? The same aluminium is purchased by dozens of arms companies that make weapons for Russia's war in Ukraine.

On this side of the Chamber, we are well-used to the Irish Government's hypocrisy. Our leader, Jon Burrows, recently pointed out how a blind eye was turned by Irish authorities to the theft of gelignite from the Republic of Ireland that made its way to the IRA, killing and maiming, before the IRA's main supplier became that other paragon of virtue, Gaddafi, and the suppliers from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Yet again, the Irish Government hypocritically support terror; just ask why Aughinish has not been shut down for Russian exports. The family and friends of 24 innocent Ukrainians deserve answers. Slava Ukraini.

Miss McIlveen: Last week, tens of thousands of people from right across Northern Ireland gathered at the Balmoral show to celebrate the very best of our agri-food sector, our family farms and our rural way of life. Like many Members, I spent time speaking to farmers, producers, manufacturers and local businesses. The message that I heard, repeatedly, was straightforward: people want this place to help rural Northern Ireland, not burden it with costs, more regulation and more bureaucracy.

Every political party turns up to the Balmoral show. There is no shortage of smiles, handshakes and warm words for the cameras during those four days in May, but warm words at a show mean little if they are not backed up by votes and policies for the other 51 weeks of the year. That is where the difference lies. The DUP has consistently stood with the agri-food sector when it matters. We oppose unrealistic climate targets that would pile additional pressures on to farmers and rural communities. We opposed the creation of a climate commissioner, which would have meant more bureaucracy and more cost. We have challenged policies that restrict infrastructure development and hold back the much-needed road projects that rural communities rely on.

When concerns were raised about the flawed nutrients action programme, it was the DUP that campaigned, alongside farmers and rural organisations, to force a rethink. As a result, the Agriculture Minister was compelled to revisit those proposals and engage more meaningfully with primary producers, rather than simply placing blame on the farming community. Unfortunately, other parties in the House chose a different path. Too often, Sinn Féin, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have voted for policies that make life harder for Northern Ireland, while attempting to present a very different message when they arrive at Balmoral for a photo opportunity.

Farmers do not need lectures from politicians who speak warmly at agricultural events while supporting measures that increase costs, weaken competitiveness and make it harder to produce food. Agriculture is not a problem to be managed; it is one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths. It sustains tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds to our economy and plays a central role in maintaining the social fabric of rural communities.

Those who work in the industry deserve more than token gestures once a year. They deserve representatives who will stand up for them consistently not only at the Balmoral show but in the Chamber when votes are cast and decisions are made.

Mr Gaston: I raise the lack of respect for fundamental freedom shown by the Irish Language Commissioner, Pól Deeds. For weeks, he defied the powers of a Committee of the House to which he is accountable. He sought to hide correspondence that he had had with the 'Belfast Telegraph' about an interview in which he not only suggested that people were using the law unlawfully but attacked a private citizen. After the interview, he appeared before the Executive Office Committee and claimed that many of the issues arose because of "a bad translation". Last week, his letter to the 'Belfast Telegraph' was finally released. Tellingly, Mr Deeds did not dispute the translation of his interview when it was quoted back to him, but, alarmingly, the commissioner's letter states:

That should concern all Members of the House. Freedom of speech and the right to speak out against any law are fundamental. This letter raises questions about what other dealings Mr Deeds has had with the press and what other voices and views he has sought to suppress.

The fact that a publicly funded commissioner should seek to abuse his office to suppress that freedom cuts to the heart of the liberty secured on the battlefield. No jumped-up little Hitler in the Irish Language Commissioner's office should be permitted to undermine it. It is time that Pól Deeds stopped acting as the activist that he is and started acting as a commissioner.

Mr Kingston: Yesterday, I attended a memorial service in proud memory of three Scottish soldiers — Fusiliers John McCaig, Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey — to recognise that this year is the 55th anniversary of their murders in 1971.

We are grateful to the Oldpark/Cavehill branch of the Royal British Legion, which organised yesterday's anniversary service and parade, held at Ballysillan Presbyterian Church. We were honoured to have members of the McCaig family in attendance, along with the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Mayor, the High Sheriff of Belfast, representatives of the Royal British Legion, elected representatives and members of the public.

The brutality of the killings of those Royal Highland Fusiliers remains deeply shocking to this day.

They were not on active service but off duty and unarmed. They were taken from a city centre pub and most likely told that they were going to a party. They were, however, ultimately shot at close range by the cowardly Provisional IRA on a small country road at White Brae in Ligoniel in north Belfast.

According to the Ministry of Defence, over 1,400 serving members of the British armed forces died during Operation Banner, either from paramilitary attacks or from other causes. We remember them all, yet the murder of those three Scottish soldiers, who were aged just 17, 18 and 23, continues to stand out for the deceit and savagery involved. If the IRA considered itself to be at war, by that standard it murdered prisoners of war, which is an act of total depravity.

No one has ever been convicted of the soldiers' murder. It is appalling that, within the ranks of Sinn Féin in north Belfast, there are people who know which IRA terrorists were involved in those murders, yet, because of a Mafia-like code of omertà, that information is withheld by people who demand that every action and record relating to the state be examined in order to find some fault or omission. That hypocrisy is a further insult to the victims of the IRA, and the contradiction relating to truth and justice is stark.

We hope, however, that it is of some comfort to the families of Fusiliers John McCaig, Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey to know that their memory is cherished and held dear and that two memorials in their honour have been funded by public subscription. We will remember them.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at Mr Gaston's remarks during his Member's statement and reflect on whether they violate the Standing Order on unparliamentary language, specifically the comparison that he made when speaking about the Irish Language Commissioner, which, I think, far exceeds legitimate free comment in the House.

Mr Speaker: I am happy to look at that.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole: It is important that, as the official Opposition, we acknowledge that the motion does not completely relate to the business of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others will probably say that it does not relate to the day-to-day business of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will throw that back across the Chamber, however, because I am tempted to say that, were the Northern Ireland Executive more functional and bringing more business before the Assembly, we might be debating different things.

As a constructive Opposition, our job has consistently been to confront the Assembly and, in a sense, air issues concerning the consequences of decisions that are made and of those that are not made. The local government elections in Britain that took place 10 days ago were significant, if not historic. I wish that the results, in England at least, had been different, because they demonstrated the rise of a dark and destructive force: Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

We already knew that Farage and his movement were a coming force in British politics, particularly English politics, but not exclusively so. We are increasingly learning that his form of authoritarian populism is funded by offshore billionaires with shady connections, to put it mildly. We already knew that the politics of Farage, who, in many ways, was the intellectual force behind the Brexit movement, were a growing force in Britain. That was illustrated starkly on Thursday a week ago. That has consequences, including for all of us.

We hear constantly in the Chamber from Ministers and MLAs from all parties that decisions that are made in Britain, specifically in Whitehall and Westminster, have an impact here. We are consistently told that in relation to, of course, the Budget, and the limitations of the financial settlement. We are told the same about the most routine business, whether that is getting agreement to introduce legislation, or getting clarity on whether a certain piece of law applies to the North. Decisions that are made on the other island have huge consequences here. In 2016, English voters voted to leave the European Union. If there were a general election tomorrow, the most likely next British Prime Minister, if current polls are correct, would be Nigel Farage. That decision by English voters would have a seismic consequence for the public in Northern Ireland. I think that it is fair to say that, if Nigel Farage were standing for election here, it is unlikely that he would be elected. I would be interested to hear from some of the unionist politicians opposite about whether they would like Mr Farage to stand here. Perhaps they would like his endorsement. I know that there is a little bit of a difference of opinion in that regard. Perhaps that will be flushed out during the course of today's debate. Mr Buckley is smirking pleasantly; perhaps he has something to say about that. I know that he was very pleased about some of the election results on Thursday a week ago.

Those election results are a stark illustration of something that has been clear since time immemorial: we have little to no control over decisions that are made in Britain, whether you are a nationalist in favour of a united Ireland, a unionist who favours the continued Union with Britain, or somebody who does not take a position, whether agnostic or just completely disinterested, which is entirely legitimate. It is clear that, in 2016, we voted to remain in the European Union. We were dragged out against our will by votes on the other island. I am glad that we have a set of protections that exist specifically for this island, but that is far short of what I want and my party wants, which is full EU membership — back in Europe — for the people of this region, with all the opportunities and benefits of that vision. Our party is shamelessly and proudly the most pro-European in the Chamber.

We cannot kid ourselves that we have the ability to control who the next British Prime Minister is, whether that is the leader of the Labour Party — we are observers of the fascinating if chaotic process that is unfolding at the minute in that respect — or someone else after a general election. As I said, the current most likely next Prime Minister is Nigel Farage. I will be clear on behalf of myself and my party, but also on behalf of my kids and everybody who belongs to me: I do not want to live in a country that is run by Nigel Farage. That is not really to do with the colour of my passport, whether I identify as Irish — obviously, I do — or British, or whatever I think about a whole range of other issues; I simply do not want to live in a country that is governed by that charlatan. I really do not.

People here of all backgrounds, including many in my constituency of South Belfast who are certainly not convinced, dyed-in-the-wool nationalists — although many of them have been coming to my office in increasing numbers to have their Irish passport form signed — do not want to live in a country run by Nigel Farage, either; they want, in many cases, the possibility, hope and opportunity of rejoining the European Union.

We have put our motion down today to, as we have done in the past, confront the Assembly respectfully with a simple but ultimately unavoidable choice. If you live in this region — in Northern Ireland — and want not a future governed by Nigel Farage, the dark authoritarian forces that he represents or the shady people who fund him but a new future back inside the European Union, the only way in which to decisively make that choice is to opt for a new Ireland, back inside Europe. Let me be clear: that process is going to take years. It is not going to happen today or tomorrow. I and my party are sceptical about the worth of simply naming dates for a border poll, rather than practically preparing, persuading and campaigning for change. However, that question and that choice is one that more and more people are engaging with. If we do not want to live in a country either governed by Farage or dictated to by the forces that surround Farage, we will have to make that choice at some point.

It is not simply a choice between two options to get back inside the European Union. It might come up in today's debate that there has been some chatter about the UK potentially rejoining the European Union. As people will know because I have talked about it many times in this Chamber, I was previously a UK civil servant, and I tried to keep the UK in the European Union. I was not successful in that effort, as others were not. I think that it remains vanishingly unlikely that, in any meaningful horizon, the UK will rejoin the European Union, although I would like it to. If there were a referendum, I would campaign for the UK and Northern Ireland to rejoin. However, here is the thing: even if there were a referendum on the UK rejoining the European Union, Northern Ireland could vote remain by 99% to 1% and our votes would be wiped out by English voters, if they decided to vote to remain outside the EU. We in this place do not have equal opportunity options on our future. We only have one decisive way of taking our future into our hands and choosing a European future, and that is via a new Ireland.

There are, of course, other practical challenges. Even were the UK to have a successful rejoin referendum — as I said, I would like that to happen, but I think that it is unlikely — there would have to be a formal accession process. There would have to be a negotiation, which would take years — perhaps more than a decade. Many countries have been formal accession countries and, after a very long time, still have not joined the European Union. I do not want that; I want a new Ireland back inside the European Union. It would be much quicker and more straightforward, and I think that many more people are engaging with that possibility. Of course, to be clear, as was established through the Brexit negotiation process, should a majority of people in this region — Northern Ireland — vote for a new Ireland, we would automatically rejoin the European Union. We would accede to being an existing EU member state. We would have automatic right of re-entry, with all the possibilities that that entails.

I respect and acknowledge the fact that many Members in the Chamber, particularly those from unionist parties, do not want that future and that it is not one that they seek. However, I will say this: many people in Northern Ireland, from a whole range of backgrounds, do want that future. They do not necessarily want it today, tomorrow or next week, but they want to talk about it for the future of their kids and grandkids. They see dark, authoritarian forces on the rise in the world, and they want a future based on interdependence, cooperation, human rights, decent environmental standards and decent labour standards. They see that future in Europe through working together. They see, through the European context, the potential for respect of our multiple identities on this island, and they want to build that future.

I sincerely hope that the rise of Nigel Farage is held off in Britain. My party and I will do anything that we can to stop that, but let us be clear: we in Northern Ireland have only one way of genuinely and decisively choosing a new future, not today and not tomorrow but by planning for a new Ireland inside the European Union. It is a hopeful vision, and I hope —.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I have literally about 20 seconds left, but yes.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr O'Toole. You have mentioned "a new Ireland" a number of times. I am curious to know what that means. Is it a new flag, is it a new constitution, is it new —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, time is up. You do not get an extra minute when you are given more than five minutes initially.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Eóin. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Eóin, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of the Alliance Party. At the outset, I reaffirm that Alliance is proudly a cross-community party that does not define itself around the constitutional question. We are proud to represent people from a broad range of backgrounds and who have a broad range of perspectives and aspirations on the constitutional question, including those who are unionist, those who are nationalist, those who are open-minded about the future and those who simply do not prioritise the question. What unites our members and supporters is support for the principle of consent in the Good Friday Agreement: it is for the people of Northern Ireland and not parties in the Chamber to decide the constitutional future; and that there must be a shared desire to make our society work, building a shared future regardless of either constitutional status quo or change, and to build a united community, whether that be within the United Kingdom or within a united Ireland.

That said, we recognise that fluid, live and open debates are happening across these islands about the future of the UK and Ireland, and factors such as Brexit, the rise of Farage, right-wing populism and English nationalism have given increased energy to them. We have always been clear that we are happy to take part in constructive, evidence-based debates on the constitutional question without prejudice to the outcome of that debate. There are many push-and-pull factors at play and many detailed points that need to be worked through regarding the political structures and institutions, our public finances and the impact on the economy, trade and public services, alongside key questions of identity and how minority identities would be protected in any different arrangement. We want to see that debate move into the space of discussion and challenge on those key points of detail rather than perennial abstract arguments that appear to go round in circles. Are we talking about a unitary or federal state? Who would pay the pension liabilities? Would our constituents have to pay to see a GP? What would be the impact be on those disproportionately employed in the public sector in this part of the island? Those are questions that we are happy to discuss but that the motion fails fundamentally to address.

The motion references a single poll by the European Movement Ireland, the participants in which voted 66% Remain. That is not representative and is far higher than the actual result in 2016. Rather than respond to one poll with a motion in the House, we should look at the polling trends over time, and those have consistently indicated a plurality, albeit not a majority, in favour of maintaining the Union, with a significant portion of voters undecided on the issue. There is also clear evidence that that polling has moved significantly as a result of Brexit. The polling shows that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that Brexit was a bad idea. That has been backed up by recent polls by Queen's University and LucidTalk showing that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to rejoin the European Union if a referendum were held today, and our amendment acknowledges that.

While Brexit has, undoubtedly, been a disaster for Northern Ireland, we can draw salutary lessons for this debate about the constitutional question. First, nothing is inevitable. For years, people said that Brexit would never happen — that people would never vote against their own economic interests — and yet it did. Therefore, no one in the Chamber should assume that constitutional change or the constitutional status quo are certainties or guarantees. Secondly, it exposed the folly of running headlong into a referendum without a plan. While that might be a fine strategy to win a referendum, as for every Leave vote there was a different version of Brexit, it was no way to create cohesion around the future that we had post referendum. Again, there are important lessons in that debate, which is why moving to a debate on the actual points of detail rather than an abstract debate is important. Thirdly, it underlined that Nigel Farage is a charlatan who has no solutions, no answers and no interest in the consequences for the people of Northern Ireland.

The motion rightly acknowledges the concerns about the rise of right-wing populism, and those are concerns that I share. Nigel Farage and Reform UK trade in a brand of politics that exploits grievance and pits the weak against the vulnerable, the vulnerable against the marginalised and the marginalised against the more marginalised. He told us that Brexit would make people richer, and it did. It made the DUP £435,000 richer and Nigel Farage himself £5 million richer, whilst our constituents suffer. He cares not a bit about working people anywhere in the UK and certainly not about Northern Ireland, given that he has threatened to rip up key cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. It beggars belief that unionist politicians in the Chamber continue to fanboy over a man who sold them a pup once before and is trying to flog them another. However, we should not overstate the rise of Farage, because the vast majority of people in Great Britain earlier this month rejected Nigel Farage. They voted against him. The problem is that the first-past-the-post system does not reflect that reality, turning a minority of votes into a disproportionate level of political noise.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, briefly.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member clarify whether he is more aligned with the policies of the leader of the Green Party, who believes that, if he hypnotises women, their breasts enlarge?

Mr Tennyson: No, I am not, and I actively campaign against the Green Party in Northern Ireland. On a serious point, we have seen worrying lurches both to the left and right with a number of candidates being subsequently suspended from their party for either racist or antisemitic remarks, which are absolutely appalling and should be condemned by us all. We should all be concerned by the rise of populism, be it of the left wing or the right. I am absolutely, categorically clear about that.

More fundamentally, the constitutional future of this place is not for the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party to decide. The Good Friday Agreement is clear that it is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The agreement sets out the process for managing the debate, recognising the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the people whom we represent, whether it be to maintain the Union or join a sovereign united Ireland. That principle has been the bedrock of peace and stability on this island over the course of my lifetime, and our amendment reaffirms that principle in full, recognising that both aspirations are credible and legitimate and that it is for the people to decide. That is the position that Members of the Assembly should adopt, rather than trying to manufacture a border poll in the Chamber in a bid to win back some relevance and political support.

The constitutional debate will always be part of our discourse. My party is always happy to engage in that discourse when it is debating points of detail and, sometimes, challenging those points of detail too. The beauty of the agreement is that that conversation can happen in parallel whilst, in the meantime, we in the Chamber get on with the issues plaguing our constituents' lives: record waiting lists, lack of an agreed Budget, a cost-of-living squeeze and the need for public service reform and investment. We have more in common than what divides us, and, while the constitutional debate will continue, it is in all our interests to focus on making politics work here at the Assembly: to ensure that the institutions represent the society that we are, rather than the divisions that we inherited; that they can deliver good government for everyone and represent everyone equally, regardless of background and constitutional aspiration; and that, together, we continue to strive to build a more reconciled, integrated and shared society.

That is my vision for this place. I want to build a united community, regardless of whether the people whom I represent choose to have it in the United Kingdom or a united Ireland. That is what our amendment offers, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Kearney: The recent election results in England, Scotland and Wales represent really significant political change in the landscape of those countries. The surge in electoral support for progressive politics and self-determination, as well as support for extreme right-wing populism, should be a wake-up call for the British Government. The fallout from Brexit continues to cast a long shadow, but politics is realigning. That is reflected in the unprecedented political support for Plaid Cymru, the remarkable return for a fifth successive Administration of the Scottish National Party and the levels of popular support that Sinn Féin continues to hold in Ireland.

Increasing numbers of citizens in Wales and Scotland and in the North of Ireland recognise that Westminster will never serve our interests. English politicians, whether Labour, Tory or Reform, simply do not care about the citizens who live here. That realisation is increasingly shared in Wales and Scotland. The choice is clear: more Westminster political chaos, austerity, ongoing isolation from the European Union and the rise of far-right Reform politics or the alternative that lies in self-determination and new constitutional arrangements. Irish unity is not inevitable, but it is more possible now than at any stage before. The British Government should take their heads out of the sand and accept that the status quo has failed. It is time for British policy towards this place to change. A similar challenge now arises for the British Government with regard to Scotland and Wales.

Political unionism also needs to recognise that change is indeed fixed on the political horizon and no amount of denial will change that reality. Partition has not worked, and it never will. We need a serious discussion about how future change should be managed. Successive polls demonstrate growing desire across the island for constitutional change, reunification and rejoining the EU. The right to a unity referendum is set out under our Good Friday Agreement, and, 28 years from that agreement's having been signed, there is no longer any justification for refusing to set a date. The need to plan and prepare for Irish unity is a matter of established political consensus among the majority of parties across the island. In 2024, an all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee called on the Irish Government to begin that process immediately, and the Irish Government should do so. They should demonstrate the leadership that is now required and formally engage the British Government on developing a process of structured constitutional transition, and they should establish a citizens' assembly on constitutional change and begin work on drafting a Green Paper.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Irish unity should not be feared. It is an opportunity to shape a new constitutional settlement that guarantees the identities, traditions, religious and civil and democratic rights of all citizens.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way; he is always very kind. Is the Member aware of the poll published by the 'Sunday Independent' recently that asked Southern voters to rank their political priorities? Would he care to reflect on the place of Irish unity in the minds of the Southern people, given the fact that it did not get even 1% in the poll in terms of its importance to voters in the South?

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

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat.

In reality, there is a momentum in the discussion around constitutional change that is organic and spontaneous. It is happening everywhere. On every street corner, on the side of every football pitch and in the shops and bars, people are talking about change. The fact is that we are living through a historic period of momentous change, so let us positively engage with the challenges that that presents. The opportunities are huge. Self-determination gives us all a way forward to national reunification and national reconciliation and to securing a new constitutional settlement in all our interests that is built on equality, inclusion, cultural diversity, pluralism and anti-sectarianism.

Mr Buckley: The motion tells us a lot about the SDLP, a party that loves to lecture us on how out of touch we all are and how it alone is the party with its finger on the pulse of Northern Ireland opinion. Yet, at a time when families struggle with the cost of living, waiting lists are dire, businesses face enormous pressure and people want government that is focused on delivery, what does the SDLP do? It chooses to propose a motion that laments the democratic election results in Scotland, England and Wales, rather than one on bread-and-butter issues. Is that the best that we can expect from the SDLP? Have a so-called lacklustre official Opposition run out of steam so early?

The motion warns about so-called right-wing populism, but people in Northern Ireland are already experiencing and living with the consequences of left-wing populism. The SDLP's policy positions and, indeed, the orchestra of incompetence in Alliance, Sinn Féin and the Green Party have led to laws under which tadpoles and bats have more rights than the unborn child. We have net zero policies that let everybody else drill in the North Sea while we import our energy from those countries at a higher price, giving us the highest energy prices in Europe, never mind stopping roads being built. We have a benefits system that undermines the incentive to work and in which those who do the right thing — they get up early and go to work — are taxed to the hilt, and they are simply asking, "What is the point?".

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Our families and farmers are working hard to feed the nation, yet the left-wing ideologues in this place want to tax the industry to death through incompetent, crippling inheritance tax and unrealistic environmental policies. Those parties are more concerned with cows burping than with farmers breaking even.

I will give way to the SDLP to see whether it has a solution to the matter.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. For someone who talks up the importance of remaining in the United Kingdom, he does a great job of pointing out the reasons that we should leave it, particularly when he mentions the state of our health service, our schools and our roads and the cost of living. Does the Member not realise that his party has been in government for 20 years, presiding over this disastrous nightmare of a place?

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

Mr Buckley: I say this to the SDLP: talk is cheap. It takes money to buy bread. The policies in which the Member's party have engaged — [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: — have resulted in low growth and in the building of roads being halted. [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: The Member talks often about the A5 in this place, yet he and Members from his party —

Mr McCrossan: Deflection.

Mr Buckley: — are clearly the ones who object to it with their net zero madness, so —

Mr McCrossan: Deflection.

Mr Buckley: — spare us the left-wing claptrap in the Chamber.

Mr McCrossan: The UK is a disaster.

Mr Buckley: The allegations from the Member are clear, but what is the answer from the SDLP? [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: It is not to fix any of this —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Daniel, the Member is talking.

Mr McCrossan: I know, but —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have had your fun.

Mr McCrossan: — he is talking through his hat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, but the Member needs to be heard.

Mr Buckley: So —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, but I have not finished. Sorry, Jonathan. Like any other Member, Mr Buckley enjoys the cut and thrust of debate, but he has come here to be heard.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

What therefore is the answer from the SDLP, apart from shouting from the sidelines? It is not to fix any of the problems but to call for a divisive border poll. Let me be clear: a single road or a single home will not be built and a single opportunity will not be given to a family here by getting rid of Northern Ireland. Rather, Northern Ireland will be fixed through fixing the policies that are holding it back. Before lecturing about populism, the House should start delivering for the people whom it serves. Less ideology and more delivery: that is what Northern Ireland needs. The SDLP appears to be fixated on causing chaos and distraction today. It is the party that left its seats in the House of Commons to go and sit on the knee of Keir Starmer. What did it promise us? Growth and a new era. What did it get? Higher taxation, low growth, open borders and Ministers who think that men can be women, as though those are things to be celebrated.

The motion fundamentally misses the point. Voters are not to be lectured about their concerns. They have not been hoodwinked. They are not too stupid to know what they are voting for or, in the SDLP's case, what they are not voting for. They know very well. They are expressing their frustration at successive Governments who have failed to secure our borders, failed to tackle illegal immigration, failed to support working families from being taxed to death and failed to stand up for farmers. Those are not extreme positions — far from it — but common-sense positions that are a direct reflection of the lived experience of many millions across Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and, indeed, England, so I ask the SDLP to spare us the melodrama. It is a tale as old as time: when mainstream parties ignore legitimate concerns, voters will naturally look elsewhere. Rather than engage in distraction politics and in condemning the electorate, Members should perhaps reflect on why so many people are fleeing from their left-wing lunacy towards policies of common sense. We can then perhaps get on with the job of government.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Dr Aiken: Today is Opposition day, when, yet again, we have an ill-disguised motion from the SDLP that is attempting to make the case for a united Ireland. This time, the proposition is made on the basis of the local government election results in Great Britain. No matter how much the SDLP may dislike the results of the democratic elections in England, Scotland and Wales, democracy often produces results that may be unpalatable to others. That is the price of a free vote in our United Kingdom. Just look at what has happened here: people support a party that believes that there was no alternative to murder, butchery, torture and terrorism, yet it is now the largest party in government here. Democracy has a heavy price, which we sometimes have to pay.

The elections in the rest of our nation saw a significant protest vote that saw the rise of a nationalist party in Wales — Plaid Cymru — not as a call for independence, which even it admits is unlikely, but as a protest against decades of incompetence by the Welsh Labour Party and antipathy for the previous mainstream parties. Those who found Plaid Cymru uncomfortable and unpalatable sought change by supporting Reform.

The Opposition's motion talks about "right-wing populism", but ignores the rise of left-wing populism in the form of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. The latter is a party that has shifted so far away from its eco-credentials that its far-left stance uses pro-Palestine identification to tap into discontent among other communities. It is curiously anti-EU, as are its green compatriots in the left groupings in Europe, such as the Pirate Party.

The motion implies but ignores the results of the elections in Scotland, where the vote for the nationalist SNP went down, causing it to lose six seats with a 10% reduction in turnout, with the results for Reform being matched again by those of the Scottish Labour Party. The SNP’s leader shows a scant understanding of the history of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and has forgotten the horrors of the IRA's campaign.

The Opposition are right to say that Reform did well in the English local council elections, but the failure of the Labour and Conservative parties to deliver anywhere has more to do with the rise of Reform than any clear indication that it will form the next British Government.

It goes without saying that the Opposition's motion stretches credulity by basing an entire motion on a poll funded by the European movement from Ireland, whose singular findings are the reverse of all the peer-reviewed and verified polling data, which has clearly shown, over many years, that the support for remaining in the UK has not shifted from 58%, and that is not due to conversations in pubs, as Declan Kearney would say. Basing a motion on such a poll pushes credulity beyond the breaking point. It seems to me that republicanism and nationalism, which both seek reunification and both realise that no authoritative polling comes even close, are seeking to rewrite the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Picking random dates in the future and demanding that a poll happens by then and screeching from the sidelines does not lead to a carefully managed transition to a new Ireland. Instead, it leads to instability and fear, or much worse.

The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was carefully made, precisely to avoid any precipitous action that would fundamentally destabilise the peace process. Sinn Féin would be happy to take that advantage; it is just sad that our fellow partners for peace — the SDLP — seem determined to follow that path. Mind you, it is election season.

Finally, the motion's proposition that the only way to exercise democratic control is to ignore the result of democracy elsewhere is not democracy. It is so far from being a credible path to building and improving relationships across these islands for the benefit of all that it reinforces how unbelievable the Opposition's whole motion and the amendment are.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind Members that the motions that are selected are down to each party. It is the prerogative of each party on the Business Committee. I remind all parties of that fact.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome today's debate. Unlike some others, I think that it is appropriate that we, as political activists in the North of Ireland, have conversations about elections that will ultimately affect us, and that is a sensible and rational thing for us to do. Whilst the debate thus far has been interesting and, perhaps, entertaining at times, it has probably missed the point. It is very clear that political unionism is rattled in the wake of the election results just over a week ago, and that is understandable, given that the so-called Union is shaking at the seams, and we can see that reflected in the voting patterns across England, Scotland and Wales.

The big story in the headlines after the local elections was the success of pro-independence parties in Scotland and Wales, and the significance of that cannot be overstated. We should engage in a conversation about the fact that the SNP has won its fifth election in a row and Plaid Cymru has become the biggest party in Wales. That is people voting for change. It is people exhibiting bravery; it is people voting for a different way of life; and it is people rejecting the chaos of Westminster. How much more explicit could that be than it has been in the past week? The current Labour Government cannot even deliver for themselves. They are so distracted that the thought of delivering for the English people, let alone for people in towns and cities across this place that they could not point to on a map, is ridiculous. There has been a lot of sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to engage. That is not helpful for any of the people whom we represent.

We have had references to the fact that Sinn Féin is the biggest party in Ireland and, obviously, the Six Counties. We are so because people want to reject the status quo. The motion alludes to the fact that we have to plot our way to a new Ireland. We have to bear in mind that that debate, without the calling of a referendum, has not yet started in earnest. The people are ahead of us. We are here as representatives of the people, and people are already talking about Irish unity and what it will look like. We all have to be engaged in that conversation. It is for us to have that debate and to see that change formulate. For us to say, "Oh no, we just have to remain tethered to Britain" does a great disservice to all those whom we represent. Week after week, politicians come to the Chamber and bemoan the lack of delivery from this place and the problems that we face across our health service, education sector, road network and infrastructure, all of which, we know, are a result of a lack of funding over decades, and a system in which we cannot succeed long term. This island is too small to support two of everything. There is duplication of service everywhere. It does not make sense. From a basic economic perspective, there is no rationale to support it. It is the status quo for us to say, "People have the right to want a united Ireland, and they have the right to remain within the United Kingdom, but, for now, let's just stop talking about it" and then continue within our current arrangement. People are voting against the status quo. It is our responsibility to have that conversation and to stand up for those people and show them what a new Ireland could look like. That is what the motion should be about, and it is the focus that we should have. Rather than allowing ourselves to be swept away by the hatred of Nigel Farage and his cohort, we should be talking about hope — hope for the future and hope for a better way.

This state has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. We know that it is not going to work long term; there is no length in it. It is —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She stated that "this state", as she calls it, has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. Does she include her party's Ministers in that? Have they not delivered for the people whom they represent?

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

Ms Sheerin: The Member knows rightly what I meant. Your party has Ministers in Government, and you know how difficult it is to deliver in this place. I say that as somebody whose party's Ministers are trying to deliver but cannot because your party's Ministers are blocking them. The nationalist people come to us, continuously, with complaints about a lack of delivery here, because we see the worst impact of a right-wing regressive DUP policy that is anti-Irish, anti-rights, anti-bill of rights and anti-delivery of anything progressive. "No, no, no. Never, never, never": that is all we ever hear. That is the tip of the iceberg with regard to the British establishment with which we are trying to work.

We know that this constitutional arrangement cannot go on forever, and we know that it does not work for the people whom we represent. We are trying our best to work within that prism. That is the challenge that we have. This place allows us to make incremental gains, but that is all that they are. You know that as well as I do. You referred to the farming families that you want to support. You only want to support some of them. You do not care about hill farmers. You voted against Declan McAleer's areas with natural constraints Bill, which would deliver support to real people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brett: The debate started off badly, because the leader of the Opposition had to justify or attempt to justify why he brought the motion today, and it only got worse from there. He did not table a motion on delivering the A5, which, I am sure, his colleague Mr McCrossan would support. He did not table a motion on job cuts at Magee university caused by Sinn Féin, which, I am sure, Ms McLaughlin would support, or, indeed, a motion on issues that Mr McGlone would support. No, no: the SDLP dedicates its vital Opposition time to wallowing in the defeat of its sister party, the Labour Party, across the United Kingdom. Rather than dealing with the issues as to why the Labour Party was wholly rejected by the people of the mainland United Kingdom, the Opposition blame the people for the decisions that they take. They are not looking at the issues in relation to the failure by Matthew O'Toole's sister party to deal with illegal immigration. The leader of the Opposition did not raise issues in relation to taxing businesses and workers to death or in relation to picking the pocket of pensioners, which perhaps the SDLP supported at Westminster. No, no: instead, let us blame the people.

There is an obsession in the party opposite when it comes to Reform and Nigel Farage. I took a short look at Hansard yesterday: which politician in the Chamber, do you think, has used the words "Nigel Farage" more than any other person? The leader of the Opposition has mentioned Nigel Farage in the Chamber more than every other MLA combined, because he is utterly obsessed with him. I understand the obsession. It is because the SDLP has been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland and so, instead, tries to find a bogeyman who will increase support for its party.

Mr McCrossan: You lost half your MPs.

Mr Brett: Instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, Mr McCrossan, perhaps you would be better listening to this.

Members talk about the great victory of the SNP, and they talk about the SNP being a model that we need to follow. So interested is that party that they completely rewrote him out of history, but Ian Paisley achieved a lot. My recollection about whether Ian Paisley signed the Belfast Agreement is very different from what the leader of the SNP outlined and very different from the childhood that I grew up in. There was no mention or criticism, of course, of the SNP by the leader of the Opposition.

We are used to Mystic Mary Lou McDonald predicting border polls in Northern Ireland, but now we have Mystic Matthew O'Toole. Mary Lou McDonald promised the people who voted for her party in 2022 that, within five years, we would have a border poll. Mystic Mary Lou then looked at her crystal ball again later that year and changed it to 2030.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. He is using the term "mystic": perhaps they will make good bedfellows for the hypnotist-in-chief, Mr Zack Polanski.

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

Mr Brett: What we have now is Mr O'Toole trying to predict the outcome of the next UK general election, and that is because the SDLP has been unable and unwilling to articulate a case for itself.

We often have the rewriting of history in the Chamber, but let us look at the outcome of the so-called historic elections. Let us first deal with Scotland. The SNP lost six seats and over half a million votes. The leader of the Opposition may say that losing seats and votes is a victory — indeed, that is a pattern that his party continues to go down — but I do not think that any other political party would state that that was a great election victory. In Scotland, before the last election, in terms of the popular vote, unionism and those who want to break up the United Kingdom were neck and neck. Now, those parties who advocate Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom have a 17% lead over the SNP and the Green Party. Those are the facts that the parties opposite do not wish to engage with. Instead of trying to outsource their failed break-up of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government, who are refusing to in any way advance constitutional change on the island, they try to cling to the coat-tails of election results in other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is interesting, though, that the party opposite has dropped its new line of a historic three so-called nationalist First Ministers across the United Kingdom.

I wonder whether that is because the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales refused to meet Sinn Féin last week when it ran over to Westminster to try to meet them on bended knee. They see the truth, which is that the people of Northern Ireland want all of us here to use our time in the House to focus on the issues that matter to them.

Mr Kearney, I encourage you to go to some street corners and pubs, because the issues that people are raising there are not about constitutional change but about the fact that Sinn Féin Ministers continue to fail the people of Northern Ireland. You are exposing the fact that you are unable to deliver for the people whom you claim to represent.

Mr Gaston: The SDLP motion is fundamentally dishonest. However, we cannot let that get in the way as the SDLP attempts to hold on to Sinn Féin's coat-tails. The motion pretends concern about the results of the elections in Great Britain and claims that they are grounds for a united Ireland. Really? In reality, it would not have mattered what those results were because, as we saw last week in the Chamber and we see again today, nationalist politicians peddle their own narrative, as they struggle to keep their party faithful on board the united Ireland fantasy bus, regardless of what those election results tell us. Reform could have been wiped out, yet the SDLP would still say the same thing as John Hume said in the 1970s:

Everything, ultimately, is a means to that end for nationalism and its helpers in the Alliance Party.

Let us look at what the election results actually tell us. Apart from the SNP losses, which nationalism chooses to ignore, they show us that, when the political class loses the faith of the grassroots, it can and will be replaced. Members on the Benches to my left are keen to downplay the rise of Reform. Why did Reform perform so well? It is because grassroots people are rejecting the old parties of broken promises. People want strong borders to stop illegal immigration and an end to the rampant woke ideology that is controlling government and setting the narrative.

The DUP would also do well to reflect on why Reform made the breakthrough that it did. It was because of the arrogance of people who thought that they had a divine right to rule in many parts of England and Wales; the lack of delivery by a political party that had been entrusted time and time again with the votes of people whom it took for granted; and, most of all, those people's belief that they had been lied to. Labour came to power promising change and failed to deliver anything other than U-turn after U-turn. There are Members of the House who are here only because they told the unionist people that they opposed the Northern Ireland protocol in all its forms; yet, as soon as they got the dud Donaldson deal over the line and after the first sail in the ministerial limo, all the promises were forgotten. It is worse than that. We had Gavin Robinson write an article with the headline:

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: That was a lie, Mr Robinson. The DUP presence in the Executive is built on that lie. For me, the lesson of the GB elections is that you can get away with doing that only for so long before the public hold you to account.

I am happy to give way.

Mr Buckley: The Member and I agree on many issues. He knows full well my position on the Windsor framework and other accords. Does he also acknowledge that he needs to be careful what he wishes for? Some of the candidates whom his party endorsed and supported signed and voted for the Windsor framework and its predecessor, the Northern Ireland protocol, whilst they were Members of the European Parliament.

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

Mr Gaston: I thank Mr Buckley for his intervention, but he completely gets away from the issue and, indeed, the warning that I was trying to set out before the House: turn your back on the electorate, and it will turn its back on you. Each and every party in the House would do well to remember that.

I will finish off my remarks on the motion by picking up on Mr O'Toole's points about "dark" forces. He was obsessed about dark forces and Nigel Farage. Mr O'Toole is selective when it comes to dark forces. Imagine that you had people in the Government who had a private terrorist group overseeing them — imagine. Would you class that as a dark force, Mr O'Toole? Mr O'Toole, you are happy to have Sinn Féin in the Government —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — here in Northern Ireland, so spare us all your bluster and concerns about Reform UK and Nigel Farage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy —.

Mr Gaston: You practise what you preach.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Timothy, your time is up. I apologise: one clock was working; the other one was not, so I am keeping an eye on this one. In case I am accused of bias, I will point out that I gave you more than six minutes. [Interruption.]

Perish the thought. [Interruption.]

Yes. Yes, absolutely. Perish the thought that that would ever happen in this place. Anyway, I call Gerry Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that I get six minutes as well. [Laughter.]

Dr Aiken: Will the Member take an intervention? [Laughter.]

Mr Carroll: With the recent election results in England, Scotland and Wales, it is clear that the Labour Party is presiding over a disastrous time in office. The Labour Party was elected in 2024 — the turnout, it must be said, was historically low — in the hope that it would be different from the corruption-riddled, rich-backing, austerity-addicted Tory party. However, in some ways, the Labour Party has been worse. It promised change and that things could be different, but it has done sod all. In many cases, it has made situations, such as the fuel payment scandal, to name but one, worse.

Obviously, part of the story of the council elections — I emphasise that it is just part of the story — is the increase in votes and seats for the Reform party. The motion rightly expresses concern at the rise of right-wing views as expressed by Reform UK. It is extremely concerning, and it should be a wake-up call for anybody who was not paying attention. Whilst it is not inevitable, it is certainly likely that Reform will be the next Government in Westminster.

Farage's politics are toxic, racist and divisive, and people should see through them. It has to be said that the reason why he is in the position that he is in is that he and his arguments have been bolstered over the years by most mainstream coverage of many issues, such as migration or asylum seekers. I want to state quite clearly that migrants are not a problem and should not be seen as a problem. They should be neither seen nor presented in this House or anywhere else as a drain on society or resources. They are net contributors to our society, financially, socially and culturally.

In my view and that of many people, Keir Starmer should shoulder a lot of the blame for Farage and the rise of Reform. He has tried to cloak himself in the Union Jack, quite literally, and has repeated some of the talking points of Nigel Farage. He also had the shameful audacity to quote and echo Enoch Powell in speeches. He knew what he was doing. He got called out and tried to backtrack. I suspect that Nigel Farage was rubbing his hands when he heard that speech.

The Labour movement in Britain was built by all sorts of nationalities, as was Britain itself: obviously, by people who are British; by the countless generations of Irish people who built homes, railways and buildings across Britain; and by people from the Caribbean, Pakistan, Africa and many more places. Shame on Keir Starmer for many things, and he should be ashamed of that dog-whistle politics as well.

The motion references growing support for a united Ireland. That is an important and welcome phenomenon. Despite what Members to my right have said, people are breaking from old traditions, and more are now open to, or are certainly considering, the possibility of a united Ireland. That is positive and welcome, but I have some concerns about the motion. I ask the SDLP to elaborate on what it means by constitutional change needing to be "carefully managed". I do not know what that means, and I would be wary of taking such an approach, which sounds like quite a timid form of politics. This is a time when we need bold politics. We need a vision for a workers' republic in the 21st century.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Buckley: The Member will know that I am certainly no advocate of a united Ireland, but will he himself elaborate on what issue he has with the words "carefully managed"?

Mr Carroll: I asked that question of the proposer of the motion. It risks adopting a political approach in which we just merge the Northern and Southern states, with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-type politics dominating, which would be very detrimental to people on the island.

We need to have a positive vision. All the i's cannot be dotted and all the t's crossed beforehand, but we could have some general principles about what a united Ireland could look like, which might include having an all-Ireland, publicly funded NHS; not supporting the US military going through Belfast International Airport, Shannon Airport or anywhere else; ending the empty homes scourge that sees hundreds of thousands of homes across the island, North and South, not being used while there is a homelessness crisis; and not being the bedfellow of US and other corporations.

The SDLP's obsession with Reform was mentioned, but I will leave it up to its Members to respond to that. I will say, however, that Jonny Farage has a bit of an obsession with the Green Party. He mentioned it an awful lot. I remind the Member that such an obsession is not really good for his health. [Laughter.]

Ms Sugden: People today are worried about getting a GP appointment, paying their mortgage or their rent, accessing childcare, finding housing and whether public services will still be functioning in five or 10 years' time, because, let us face it, they are barely functioning now. Those issues are not mutually exclusive to the context in which we provide them, but we should be focusing on them.

I appreciate that there are Members whose genuine constitutional aspiration is for there to be a united Ireland. They are entitled to hold that aspiration. They are entitled to advocate for it peacefully and democratically, and I have absolutely no issue with their doing that. I do, however, take issue with the constant attempt to frame constitutional change as somehow being inevitable, urgent or the singular answer to the challenges facing people in Northern Ireland today. That is gaslighting. It disregards my aspiration, and I can assure Members that it is not endearing me to the vision of a new Ireland.

If that is our answer, what are we really saying to people? Are we saying that the Northern Ireland Executive are not working? Are we saying that every Minister in the current Government is failing? Are we saying that, because we cannot fix our health service, improve our economy or reform public services, let us instead hand over Northern Ireland to another jurisdiction and hope for the best. Let us be honest as well that the Republic of Ireland has significant pressures of its own, including housing pressures, healthcare pressures, cost-of-living pressures, political frustration and rising polarisation. The South may not have a Nigel Farage, but it does have left-wing and right-wing politics.

The idea that south of the border is somehow immune to instability and division is often conveniently overlooked. If we are genuine about improving people's lives, surely it is the House's responsibility to focus on making this place work, rather than on constantly talking it down. We have already heard Northern Ireland be described as a failed state by Members who have been responsible for governing it for the past 10 years.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. What she said at the beginning of her contribution goes to the heart of one of the frustrations that I, as somebody who believes in a united Ireland and wants to see it delivered, have. We do not want just to rub away the border and stick the two states together. As a Sinn Féin representative, I know how hard our Ministers in particular work. They are, however, working within an arrangement that stymies growth and delivery. We have to rely on a Westminster Government to provide us with the funds to deliver for people here, and we see how chaotic an arrangement that is.

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

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate your contribution, Emma, but I struggle to accept the points that you made, because, after 10 years, the first Minister is a Sinn Féin Member, but we are not seeing any progress. Are you saying that you are failing in that respect? If you are —

Ms Sheerin: Did you listen to what I said?

Ms Sugden: I did listen to what you said. I have been listening to what Sinn Féin has been saying for the past 10 years. If we are going to describe Northern Ireland as a failed state, parties across the Chamber that have been involved in the Northern Ireland Executive need to take responsibility for that failure.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Sugden: The purpose of a jurisdiction is not simply to satisfy identity but to organise society in a way that allows people to live well. It is about public services, opportunities, security, rights, responsibilities and helping people to build a decent life. I do not accept that the answer to every difficulty in Northern Ireland is to move that responsibility elsewhere. We are essentially advocating for our responsibility to be taken away.

Under devolution, many of the powers that people are concerned about — powers over housing, education, justice and economic development — already exist. Therefore, when people point to failure in those areas, we should be honest enough to acknowledge that many of those failures are not failures of the United Kingdom but failures of devolved government, failures in decision-making and failure to reform, which, at times, have been caused by the absence of government, for which both of the big parties in the House have been responsible in the past 10 years. Changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will not automatically fix that.

The motion makes a fundamental mistake by trying to link frustration with British politics to support for constitutional change. Yes, I have concerns about the rise of Reform UK and the type of politics that it represents. Populist politics, if anything, thrives by exploiting that frustration rather than solving problems. It offers simplistic but usually wrong answers to deeply complex issues and tells people that all their problems are somehow someone else's fault. People feel abandoned. They have watched successive Governments promise change while public services deteriorate and living standards decline. That frustration is real, even if I profoundly disagree with some of the political conclusions that people are reaching because of it. It is also important to note that it is not just a rise in right-wing politics; it is a rise in the middle and the left.

Political frustration does not automatically translate into a united Ireland. Elections are not border polls or opinion polls. The Assembly is an example of that. I do not believe that its make-up would ever represent how people outside it might vote. They vote for all sorts of reasons. Some are against parties rather than for them. Sometimes, people feel that they are politically homeless. Sometimes, they are angry, and, sometimes, they simply feel that no one represents them. That does not amount to evidence that constitutional change is inevitable or even close. In fact, I do not even think that we are anywhere near it.

There is a danger in constantly pushing the idea that major constitutional upheaval is around the corner. People often say that Brexit brought us closer to that, but, if anything, it took us further away. We cannot have another constitutional upheaval on these islands —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Sugden: — and that includes the island of Ireland.

Mr McCrossan: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but some of what has been said in the House deserves to be challenged. Members are giving the leader of the Opposition a fantastic birthday treat today, as he celebrates another year: happy birthday to Matthew.

It is important to point out that, whilst DUP Members are very quick to get to their feet to challenge the SDLP's vision for the island and the future of all our people, they do a poor job in laying out their stall as to why we should remain a part of the United Kingdom. In fact, unionism is united in that course, because I am yet to hear any positive contribution from unionist Members as to what is delivered by the UK or the British Government. What we hear daily —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not right now. [Interruption.]

You had your opportunity, Steve, and it was the same rumpled, old unionist line: "We must remain in the United Kingdom, but we cannot tell you why".

However, they can tell you what is wrong with the UK. They tell us every single day that the health service is a disaster, that our schools and roads are crumbling and that we are underfunded. In fact, they have just said that all we get from the British Government are crumbs from the table. The DUP has never really been happy with many British Governments, particularly the most recent Tory Government, when it was tricked into Brexit and accepted a huge cheque for nearly a billion pounds, yet it still cannot tell us what the benefits of Brexit have been.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not, Jonny, although, to be honest, you are more than entertaining.

It is high time that, if we are really going to have a meaningful discussion about the future of this place, unionism is honest with itself.

The UK is a disastrous mess. If you look at waiting lists, the state of our schools, the state of our roads or the state of Northern Ireland, you see that there is no delivery for people on the ground. If that is not the fault of the British Government, maybe the DUP needs to look closer to home: at how it has presided over this place for almost 20 years in government with Sinn Féin and delivered little. In fact, things have got much worse.

Mr Buckley said that people are not talking about the constitutional question. He might be right in that they are not talking about it daily, but they are certainly challenging where we are today, because this place is not working. I will tell you what they are talking about, Mr Buckley: they are talking about how useless the DUP and Sinn Féin are in government, about how useless their Ministers are when it comes to delivering on anything and about how they cram in legislation at the end of a mandate so that they look as though they are doing something meaningful, only to reverse after an election, should it be on car parking charges or anything else. The truth is that you two in government are the greatest advert for why we need change, why we need to move to a new Ireland and why we need to get away from the orange-and-green chaos of distraction. You can deliver absolutely nothing.

The Alliance amendment is not surprising but very disappointing. Trying to drive up the middle of the road without hitting something is a big risk. You need to choose which direction you are going in. The truth is that the Alliance Party is irrelevant in the debate; it is not engaging in one of the most important conversations of our time. My firm opinion is that our people across the island, whether Catholic, Protestant, unionist, nationalist or whatever, would be much better off in a new Ireland. There are clear ways —.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not. You are not taking a position on anything right now, so I will not let you in either.

Mini Nigel in the corner has the DUP shaken, but God help the TUV if Reform were to start to run in Northern Ireland; it would be wiped out.

I remind the DUP — it will not like to be reminded of this — that, in 2017, it had 10 MPs. It is down to five; it is losing seats. People are turning away from the DUP's continually regurgitated nonsense about how this place is working and delivering; it is not. People are worse off today than they have ever been. That is down to you guys and your bedfellows in government, Sinn Féin.

It is an important debate. We are on the same page as Sinn Féin about the direction of travel for this place, but the SDLP's way is different, as we will persuade people and bring them along. We are not sticking up billboards saying, "Let's have a border poll tomorrow. We want a united Ireland". It is about sitting down, having a meaningful conversation and creating a pathway and a clear policy direction on the key issues that Mr Tennyson raised, such as the health service, pensions or schools.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Daniel. [Interruption.]

Mr McCrossan: It is important, folks.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McCrossan: You do not like the truth. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. OK. You all need to chill your jets.

Paula Bradshaw will now make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Paula, you have five minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. What an entirely predictable debate it has been so far. I was not going to get dragged into it, but Daniel's contribution was enlightening. He said that we are an irrelevant party in the debate, but we have 17 MLAs. Before the most recent election, we said to the voters, "Our focus is on education, health, fixing our economy and having better government here". We were rewarded in the polls. Maybe the SDLP should reflect on that as we approach the election in 12 months' time.

I spoke in the Chamber last week about the predictable rush to the microphones following the election results in Great Britain earlier this month. Once again, every result was immediately interpreted through the narrow lens of constitutional division, identity politics or the culture war. I acknowledge the historic nature of the three First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, as Emma Sheerin outlined, but, in my opinion, the clearest message from those elections was something entirely different: for far too many people, politics simply is not working. Perhaps we should all reflect on what happens when large numbers of people lose their faith in politics and seek a political home elsewhere. Timothy Gaston raised that. We should reflect on what fills that vacuum when trust in institutions collapses, when public services deteriorate and when communities feel ignored, because into that vacuum step those who offer easy answers, simplistic slogans and someone else to blame. I totally agree with Gerry Carroll that people start trying to blame the most vulnerable and marginalised people, including migrants, who have something positive to contribute to society.

The context that we are moving into now is one where populism grows. My party colleague Eóin Tennyson highlighted that, as did Declan Kearney. While there were particular circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales, one statistic that should be of concern to all of us is that turnout in the Scottish Parliament election collapsed to barely half of those eligible to vote. The biggest winner was not one political party but disengagement, frustration and antipathy towards politics itself. There is a risk of something similar happening here. Indeed, one of the greatest dangers facing our politics is that people increasingly conclude that the Chamber is incapable of focusing consistently on the issues that matter in and impact on their daily lives. We should be honest enough to acknowledge that our institutions sometimes encourage precisely that failure. For so long as our political system remains built around communal designation and sectarian veto, we should not be surprised when, as we see in the Chamber today, too much political energy is consumed in constitutional positioning instead of practical delivery.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: This is a really important point for me personally and for our party. Do you accept that issues around communal designation and identity are not exactly the same as constitutional positions? That conflation is really pernicious. Do you understand that it is possible to take a position on the constitution without that automatically being deemed tribal, communal or cultural?

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not sure that I was getting one.

We have said many times, Matthew, that there are people in the Alliance Party who take a number of constitutional positions. Some people are for a united Ireland; some people want to remain in the United Kingdom; and some people just feel natural and comfortable being Irish, British or both. I recognise that there is a distinction, but we focus our energy as a party on making this place work for people.

As I said, meanwhile, the public rightly want us to focus on improving healthcare, reforming education, growing our economy, delivering housing, strengthening infrastructure and creating opportunity. This is a rare occurrence where I will agree with Jonathan Buckley and Phillip Brett, who both pointed to that in their contributions. Those are the issues that are being discussed around kitchen tables, and they are what we are being told about on the doorsteps. Those issues will also determine whether young people choose to build their future here, and I think that that is something that Daniel McCrossan did —.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. We were cast as irrelevant in the debate: will the Member agree that many of the people who vote Alliance will be decisive in the outcome of any future referendum and that maybe Mr McCrossan should not be so complacent and should show our voters some respect?

Ms Bradshaw: I totally agree with that.

As we head towards another Assembly election in less than a year's time, we see today attempts to drag politics back into an endless constitutional headcount. Steve Aiken pointed to that as well. In some ways, this is about people gearing up for the election. Frankly, it is astonishing that, almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, our political structures still directly incentivise that dynamic. As my party colleague Eóin Tennyson clearly stated, the agreement absolutely and rightly provides the mechanism through which constitutional questions are resolved peacefully and democratically, and it recognises the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the majority of people here.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who participated in the debate. Perhaps predictably, when we debate issues in the Chamber, even if they are framed in way that is hopeful and positive and does not fall down along what might be called traditional, tribal framing lines, that framing is placed on it by others. I would have expected that from some across the Chamber; I was disappointed to hear it from colleagues in the Alliance Party, because, on multiple occasions, Members from the Alliance Party have sought to frame the question of people in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist, nationalist or do not designate — by the way, lots of people who vote for my party are somewhat bored by traditional labels —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in a second.

— having a view or seeking to have a debate, seeking to use the Assembly to debate the future after what was, clearly, an historic council election with regard to the results in Great Britain, reflecting on that and talking about it and us, as elected officials, saying that the public in Northern Ireland, whether they have no designation preference or have minimal preconceived identity issues, seeking to reflect on it and offer our views on the future is inherently and categorically divisive and tribal —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in a second.

— is deeply problematic.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the leader of the Opposition for giving way. Just to clarify, nowhere in my or Paula Bradshaw's remarks did we say that this was divisive or tribal. We said that the motion comes with a predetermined outcome, and the conversation that we want to be part of is putting some meat on the bones and testing what the proposition would be before coming to a position.

Mr O'Toole: Multiple statements were made, some of which I have. I am sure that Hansard can be consulted afterwards. There was this phrase that was used, I think, by Paula, whom I have a huge amount of respect for by the way as a constituency colleague, where she talked about constituency colleagues and identity politics. She talked about a constitutional headcount: that is not particularly constructive when it comes to anyone having a debate. The point was made that others were focused on making this place work and that us having a debate about the future was not about making this place work. It is a constant pernicious framing. I am afraid that Claire Sugden, whom I also have a lot of respect for, did that, too.

Our party makes absolutely no apology for believing that bringing the people of Northern Ireland together and bringing the people of these islands together in a new Ireland is —

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a moment. Your ill-timed intervention cost me the conclusion of my speech last time, Andrew. I will give way, I promise, but I will be slightly more judicious about when I offer to. I just want to go through some of my points.

Our motion was not intended to thrash out a kind of tribal green-orange debate, as Daniel McCrossan said. Those who frame it as such will have a problem. We have a problem talking about the status quo, because, if anyone talking about change is accused of engaging in some kind of green-orange slanging match, that is a problem, and it says a lot about the status quo.

I will just go through some of the remarks that were made and reflect on them, because it is important to respond to them. It is important to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we talk constantly in the Chamber about decisions made in Britain and frustrations with the British Government. I heard Timothy Gaston talk about the awfulness of the Labour Government. Clearly, they have not been anywhere near the expectations of even their most supportive followers. Clearly, the Tories were 15 years of austerity, chaos and Brexit. I would like to hear from a unionist politician about the kind of British Government that they would like to see, because I hear them talk in the Chamber time after time about the limitations and frustrations of different British Governments. Then, whenever we say, "Could we think about planning carefully" — yes, Gerry Carroll, it is important that we plan carefully — "over the years and decades ahead a new future for ourselves on this island that would, by the way, involve a new and close relationship with jurisdictions on the island of Britain?" — we hear, "No, no, that's divisive. That's backward", and I find that deeply frustrating.

The elections in Britain were a legitimate reason for us to debate our response to it in Northern Ireland. That is what we are using Opposition time to do. Yes, we use Opposition time, and we will use it today to talk about a 111 service and Caleb's Cause. The idea that the official Opposition do not come here and constantly hold the Executive to account for their delivery — mostly lack of delivery — is obviously absurd. The idea that we are not constantly putting issues forward to hold the Executive to account on health, education, transport and everything else is not just offensive; it is daft and self-evidently ridiculous. Executive parties would do better to agree their own Budget rather than smearing the official Opposition for using Opposition time to debate motions.

The energetic Jonny Buckley was up and down. I am not sure whether he is a supporter of Reform UK. The DUP is not normally shy about making its views known, but there appears to be a wee bit of a tentative —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will give way if he is going to tell me if he supports Nigel Farage being Prime Minister.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly would support Nigel Farage over a Zack Polanski who believes that women can be hypnotised into growing their breasts. I would like to see a UK Government who reward hard work, secure their borders and are bedded in common sense. The SDLP falls far short —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. When one Member gives way — in this case, it was Matthew — and then rises, you have to sit down. That is what happens.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, it is not a point of order.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew —. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew —. Matthew, he has asked to make a point of order.

Mr Buckley: My reading and understanding of Standing Orders is that — I actually fell foul of this rule — when one Member allows an intervention, the Member making that intervention can talk for whatever his permitted time is. It is not for the other Member to dictate how long that is.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not my understanding, but I will take that back to the Speaker and get you a ruling on that. You may continue, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat amused to hear Mr Buckley accusing the SDLP of being obsessed by ideology. It takes one to know one. There are lots of mirrors in the Building, Jonny: feel free to consult one when it is next convenient.

Phillip Brett talked about mysticism and predicting dates. This debate is not about saying when a border poll should happen. It is not even about forcing that question. It is about how we need to reflect on decisions made in Britain that we cannot control and choosing a new future. We make no apology for putting that proposition to the Assembly. It is not responsible to constantly name arbitrary dates for border polls. What matters is building a case, persuading people and then making the argument for a hopeful new future on this island.

The idea that politicians should not talk about this, as Mr Tennyson seemed to suggest, is, by definition —. By the way, I have no issue with the Alliance Party not taking a position on this, but elected representatives should be able —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Will you let me speak, please? Elected representatives are, by definition, here to advocate for their political positions, including constitutional arguments. It is absurd to argue that we should not do that. Mr Tennyson said that his amendment indicates that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision. That, of course, is the case. No one disputes that that is the mechanism by which constitutional change will ultimately happen, but the idea that, in advance of that, politicians should not make arguments is absurd. The argument is, of course, that there should be more detail and more meat put on the bone. Who is going to do that? By definition, it has to be elected politicians. That is our job.

A Member: We will engage on that.

Mr O'Toole: By all means, engage on it. Some of us will lead that debate. We will not just engage or be passengers in that debate. We will lead it, we will persuade people, and we will make no apologies for that. That has always been the job of our party. We are proud of it, and we believe in it, and the constant implication that we are engaging in divisive and distracting politics is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to make Northern Ireland work. In the here and now, we will champion accountability. We will constantly hold the Executive's feet to the fire for failure to deliver. However, we will also make a hopeful new argument for Northern Ireland being back in the EU, and the only way that we can decisively shape that future, genuinely, is via a new Ireland. Despite all the heat in the Chamber today, I did not hear anybody else make that argument. I will give way very briefly.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. You mentioned "a new Ireland" numerous times. I wonder what new bits the Member will endorse: a new flag, a new constitution, a new legislature, new citizenship or admission to the Commonwealth? I wonder which of those will be endorsed by the Member.

Mr O'Toole: There is a whole range of things that we can discuss that would be different in a new Ireland.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I have just over a minute left in the debate.

I would not be doing justice to it if I were to list of those things now. However, I am glad that you agree that it is a legitimate subject for debate.

We did not table the motion simply to have a green versus orange shouting match. We did so because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a serious proposition put in front of them and to have a serious debate on the topic that Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to live in a country that is not run by Nigel Farage. More broadly, they should have the opportunity to choose a new Ireland that is back in the European Union. Whether you take no constitutional position or have a strong constitutional perspective — whatever your identity — you have a right to make that choice. At some point, we will make it. We make no apology for seeking to persuade and inspire people of that vision, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question Time begins in a matter of seconds. This business will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when I will put the Question on the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Question 10 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): In the past five years, the shortest and longest response times for planning applications were on the same day as received and 515 days respectively. The varying time frame for application responses can be due to the complexity of the case and the capacity of consultee teams. Response times can also be affected by poor-quality applications and insufficient provision of information from the outset, leading to requests for further information and a reconsultation. The median response time of 11 days for all planning applications in the past five years therefore provides a better overall performance indicator.

The statutory performance of DAERA and other statutory consultees is monitored and published quarterly and yearly by the Department for Infrastructure. The performance rate of all statutory consultees over the five years from 2020 to 2025 ranged from 69% to 77%, with my Department’s performance rate ranging from 59% to 72%.

My officials are committed to doing better. There is an early indication of improvements in performance from the outworkings of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency planning improvement plan.

Since 1 April 2026, my Department has received 510 planning applications, of which it has responded to 364. It responded to 99% of those within the statutory target. In the outstanding cases, the Department is on track to meet a similar performance rate. Tackling planning applications that are outstanding from 2025-26 remains a priority, and my officials are taking forward targeted actions to secure steady and measurable reductions. To date, 90% of applications received during the 2025-26 financial year have been responded to. My officials aim to clear all remaining outstanding consultations by the end of September of this year.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. One of the things that frustrates us greatly — you will understand what I am talking about, because we have spoken about it — is the length of time that it takes significant planning applications that have an economic impact to get through the system. What are you doing to measure the length of time taken versus the economic impact, or does the NIEA simply exist in a vacuum? It never responds to MLAs, including me, about planning applications. It is an appalling service.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diane. I recognise your frustration about the matter. We have put in place the planning improvement plan to turn things around so that we provide speedier responses. Councils have a role to play in making sure that, before applications go to the NIEA for a response, they are of high quality so that we do not get into a situation in which the NIEA reconsults on an application on perhaps six occasions, which is in no one's interest. A prioritisation process is available to councils. I know that they have used it in cases associated with economic development.

I understand that the previous process for providing updates, including to elected representatives, came into effect in 2021. I sought to fix the process to ensure that people get a much more detailed response, and a new process has been put in place in recent weeks. We are really keen to ensure that there is better customer service. We need speedier responses but also better communication. Officials are focused on that, and I met them recently to emphasise the case for improvement.

Ms Finnegan: In February, the AERA Committee received an update on the NIEA planning review. In that briefing, the NIEA acknowledged that simple residential applications had been delayed for two years because they had been shelved. That was not the responsibility of the council involved. One example was an application that the NIEA could not sign off on because of a bat review that had been shelved simply as a result of there not being enough staff. The office that MLAs hold is not being respected, given that there are no responses whatsoever —.

Mr Speaker: Question, Ms Finnegan.

Ms Finnegan: Given that we are now in late May, will the Minister give an update on the progress of that review and outline what tangible actions have been taken to address the ongoing backlog in planning consultations?

Mr Muir: I respect the office that MLAs hold. As I outlined, we have provided for more detailed updates to be put in place. Those are taking place now. I have inherited an arrangement that existed previously. I understand the importance of making sure that you get timely, detailed updates, and that is what we are seeking to achieve. We are trying to strike a balance. When we ask for updates, we take officials away from dealing with the consultation to give us those updates. There is now a process in place to provide more updates. The sheet of paper that I am holding outlines significant pieces of work that have been done and that are ongoing, and I will write to the Member to set those out.

It is important that we give responses in a timely manner, but it is also important that we respect environmental law, because NIEA has an obligation under that law. District councils have a role to play to make sure that, when applications come in, queries are dealt with, primarily through the agent, before going through the engagement process with NIEA. Some go through that process six times. That is in no one's interest.

Mr Dickson: Minister, will you give the House an update on Northern Ireland Water's waste water policy, known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) and its ability to permit pollution? The House needs an update on that.

Mr Muir: I am conscious of that, and it will be covered later in Question Time. It is not right or fair that a separate regulatory regime is in place for Northern Ireland Water, and I am seeking the support of my Executive colleagues to bring that to an end.

Mr McCrossan: I share the frustrations of Mrs Dodds and others in the House. In fact, this area unites the House in frustration. In response to questions for written answer from me in February, your Department stated that 364 consultations had exceeded the statutory consultation deadline. This May, that figure stands at 459. Things seem to be getting worse. When will you get a grip on the issue, show some leadership and get it sorted? It is creating huge frustration for my constituents.

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, I have outlined the actions that have been taken on that and how we are focused on turning that around as part of the planning improvement plan. One of the key issues is resourcing. The Member will be aware, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that a recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report stated that it takes approximately seven months to get someone into post in the NI Civil Service (NICS). The process of recruiting and putting people into post is far too slow and is holding back delivery on this issue and many others. That needs to be addressed. It is of great concern to me. There are posts that we want to fill but cannot because NICS HR is far too slow and ineffective.

Mr Muir: In 2018, Colin Glen Forest Park and Colin Park were transferred to Colin Glen Trust via a community asset transfer under a 999-year lease. That innovative arrangement was designed to ensure that public assets are used to maximum benefit for communities and the wider public good. That aligns with my objective of promoting the accessibility of natural spaces, parks and recreational routes. The transfer included a three-year programme of funding to support Colin Glen Trust as it worked towards long-term financial sustainability. That is an ongoing process, and my officials continue to work closely with the trust to support its efforts to achieve that goal.

In addition, my Department has supported Colin Glen Trust in delivering significant capital investment and initiatives aimed at increasing visitor numbers. A range of projects have been supported through the rural business investment scheme, the rural tourism scheme, and the forest park enhancement and community trails development scheme.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. I declare an interest, as I worked there, 10 or so years ago. Minister, do you agree that Colin Glen is a green haven in west Belfast and that there is a lack of green space in the area, generally speaking? Will you detail any work that your Department is doing, alongside the trust, to increase access, repair footpaths and make sure that people who wheel and who have mobility issues can get proper access around the park?

Mr Muir: I agree that it is a really valuable green space in an urban area. I have been there on a number of occasions as Minister and when taking part in the parkrun. I am grateful for the work that the trust does to maintain it. There are opportunities for the trust to make applications to the Department through the environment fund. We will be happy to consider those. We are keen to see the ongoing sustainability of the organisation and will continue to engage with it. Such spaces are really valuable, and I appreciate the work that they do. My Department will continue to engage with the trust to ensure that it has a strong and successful future.

Mr Muir: The Lough Neagh catchment comprises the upper Bann, Moyola, Ballinderry, Sixmilewater, Braid and Maine, Blackwater and Lough Neagh local management areas. Northern Ireland Water has commissioned integrated environmental modelling to assess the impacts of its assets on river bodies and to support future investigations of pressures on Lough Neagh. The modelling will evaluate the relative contributions of nutrients from waste water, agriculture and other sources. Baseline results are now available for Maine, Ballinderry, Moyola and Blackwater. Those are being considered by my Department, and I have asked for a copy. In addition, a material-flow analysis for the Neagh-Bann catchment, completed under the EU-funded NEW Harmonica project, applied source-load apportionment modelling to estimate nitrogen and phosphorus flows for the 2021 reference year, and a copy of that is in the Assembly Library.

As set out in the Lough Neagh action plan, work is under way to develop an integrated data platform with enhanced modelling capability. That will strengthen the evidence base; improve understanding across spatial and temporal scales; and provide more detailed insights into nutrient inputs to inform policy and decision-making. My Department regulates sewage discharges through discharge consents, under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, requiring treatment levels that protect receiving waters. My Department will continue targeted investigations to identify sources at failing sites and work with stakeholders to implement measures to improve water quality.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer, but there is a fundamental problem with overflows along the Lough Neagh site. Farmers are being continually singled out and blamed for the pollution of Lough Neagh, yet the evidence that I got recently following an FOI request on the performance of NI Water tells a very different story. There are 106 storm overflows in the vicinity of Lough Neagh. Of those, only 11 have been assessed, of which just 2·8% were deemed to be satisfactory. By my calculation — I am not good at maths — that means that less than one storm overflow has been assessed as satisfactory.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question, Mrs Erskine?

Mrs Erskine: Yes. I am coming to that.

Even more concerning is the fact that around 50% of those storm overflows are expected to remain unclassified. Minister, that is just not acceptable. It is a scandal that is happening under our noses. When will you and your Department stop disproportionately placing blame on farmers and skewing blame towards that one sector, and put your efforts into challenging the Infrastructure Minister to take responsibility and get proper data?

Mr Muir: I will respond to a number of the points that you raised. On 3 March, I set out in the Chamber the work that we are doing to tighten waste water regulation and enforcement. For those who are not aware of that, they can look back at Hansard and see what I said in that regard.

There is no skewing of data. It is important that we respect the science and the evidence. I am very clear that waste water has an impact through pollution of our waterways and Lough Neagh, in particular, which is what the question is concerned with. I am very clear that there are a number of actions that we must take. One of those is to review the consenting methodologies and the standards in discharge consents. When I made that oral ministerial statement, I indicated the potential outcome.

There is a serious issue with sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. There is a need to tackle that and invest in the infrastructure that goes alongside it. We have to do that. I am on the record as consistently saying that. I am looking for support from my Executive colleagues to end the special dispensation that has wrongly been given to Northern Ireland Water through SORPI. I have also been clear that we need to give special designation to Belfast lough. A review of discharge consents must occur. We need to have stronger regulation and enforcement around waste water pollution in Northern Ireland. I am seeking to have that, and, in order to implement it, I am looking for the support of others.

Mr Blair: The Minister will be aware that, through the special circumstances, known as SORPI, for Northern Ireland Water, the public purse pays a public body to pollute, it pays a government agency to investigate the pollution and then it pays the penalty, if one is issued. Will the Minister provide an update on his efforts to remove those exceptional circumstances for Northern Ireland Water?

Mr Muir: In my oral statement on waste water regulation and enforcement that I delivered on 3 March this year, I set out my key interventions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of waste water activities and to reduce pollution across our water environment.

Among those interventions is my proposal for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to withdraw from the 2007 statement of regulatory principles and intent — otherwise known as "SORPI" — arrangement with Northern Ireland Water, and I am seeking support for that from my Executive colleagues. I seek agreement for that proposal with the aim of ensuring a consistent and level regulatory playing field for all organisations and individuals whose activities may impact on the water environment.

It is important that my Department delivers its respective statutory duties under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007. I am seeking to bring in stronger regulations and enforcement for sewage pollution. It is important that we do that, because it has an impact not only on Lough Neagh but also on other waterbodies, such as Belfast lough. That is what I seek to do. Everything I do in life is about being fair, and that is why it is important that we have equity in the regulation and enforcement in relation to pollution. We all know there is a water pollution problem; it is set out in the NEW Harmonica report, which is in the Assembly Library. It is important that we take action on it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, hundreds of people protested at the lough shore yesterday, including our party leader and my colleague Patsy McGlone. There is a real sense that, despite all the talk about Lough Neagh and whether the source of the pollution is water or agriculture — clearly, both have contributed to the decay of the island's biggest body of water and the source of 40% of our drinking water — we are not meaningfully forward in restoring the lough to health. You have talked about your intentions on SORPI and nutrients: can you give us any clarity about what meaningful progress will have been made towards restoring Lough Neagh by the end of the mandate?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Matthew. I understand people's concern about the situation, because the communities that live around the lough are the most affected and we get 40% of our drinking water from Lough Neagh. Therefore, it is imperative that we address the issue. It means making difficult decisions. There are issues with regard to pollution, and I have set out what we seek to do about waste water pollution. We also need to have mature conversations about investment in Northern Ireland Water, and it is important that we do that. Alongside that, we consulted on the nutrients action programme (NAP) last year, and a stakeholder task and finish group has been set up to consider the outcomes of the consultation and any other proposals that people may have. I hope that that group will finish its work shortly, and we will do a further consultation on that. I hope that people will support that just transition for our farming community.

It is not just about agriculture. It is important that we respect the science but also take a holistic approach. There is also a climate change issue. You know that the issues associated with Lough Neagh are not unconnected with the rise in temperatures, and that is why I seek the Chamber's support for the climate action plan for Northern Ireland. I will also seek the Executive's support for a fisheries and water environment Bill, and, alongside that, there is a long-standing commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' for an independent environmental protection agency, but one of my partners in government has decided to block it. That makes the case yet again for why the institutions need to be reformed, and it is something that, I know, we are on the same page on.

Mr Gaston: Northern Ireland Water is responsible for the discharge of 200,000 tons of sewage and 70 tons of phosphorus into Lough Neagh's catchment each year. It is time to stop using farmers as the scapegoats for Lough Neagh turning green.

Minister, what timeline have you set with your colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure, to see a real-time reduction in the pollution of Lough Neagh by Northern Ireland Water?

Mr Muir: My concerns about that have been consistent. Northern Ireland Water has reported that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into waterways every year, with storm overflows discharging over 24,500 times annually. I will seek support at the Executive meeting next Thursday to end the arrangement known as "SORPI" and for a special designation to be made for Belfast lough. We also need to have a mature conversation about investment in waste water infrastructure, because that must occur not only to stop the damage to our environment but to address the constraints on housebuilding and economic development.

Mr Muir: Earlier this year, my Department made regulations to introduce a closed season for periwinkle harvesting between January and April each year in the Northern Ireland intertidal area. There was significant support for that in a public consultation in 2022. It was disappointing that the regulations had to be subsequently revoked after the AERA Committee voted in opposition to them a few weeks before they would have come into operation.

Strangford lough holds designations as a special area of conservation and a marine conservation zone. An Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) report on periwinkles in Strangford lough was published in 2022. It recommended a closed season from January to April to protect spawning stocks of periwinkles in Strangford lough. I have asked my officials to bring forward a statutory rule (SR) for a closed season for the gathering of periwinkles in Strangford lough based on the recommendations in that report.

My Department remains committed to meeting its environmental obligations and promoting the long-term sustainability of our fisheries and will take timely and proportionate action, where that is necessary, to protect marine resources.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that update. Will the Minister provide further detail on whether he expects to see a closed season for periwinkle harvesting in place in Strangford lough before the end of the mandate?

Mr Muir: It is my intention to introduce a closed season for periwinkle harvesting for Strangford lough by the end of the mandate. I will seek the support of the Committee and, if necessary, the Chamber for that. It is important that we respect the designations that are placed on Strangford lough and that we protect important habitats, features and species. The AFBI report sets out clearly the recommendations in that regard, and it is important that we regulate the issue and introduce the closed season. I look forward to the support of my colleagues in that regard.

Miss McIlveen: The Northern Ireland fishing industry is in crisis and, in its own words, facing a "perfect storm", with rising fuel costs, reduced fishing opportunities, restrictions that have been enforced by the Isle of Man Government and issues with foreign workers' visas. Sadly, many rely on gathering periwinkles, especially during bad weather, to supplement their income. Will the Minister stand up for the fishing industry and take account of the impact that such policies will have on the sector?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the pressures that our fishing industry faces. That is why I travelled to the Isle of Man to make representations on the specific issue that the Member outlined. The Secretary of State and I engaged on the pressures, particularly those regarding fuel and the migration policy that the UK Government are implementing. I will continue to explore what is possible within Northern Ireland's limited budget, but I recognise those issues, and there will be significant engagement.

On the issue at hand — the closed season for periwinkle harvesting — it is important that we respect the science and protect our environment. That is what I seek to do in a proportionate manner.

Mr Butler: In his answer to the tabled question, it seemed that the Minister was apportioning blame to the Committee for not passing the SR in the limited time that we had.

Minister, do you accept that, in reality, the AFBI report and science relate to Strangford lough? That is what the evidence relates to. You wanted to put a ban on periwinkle gathering across the shores, up the eastern seaboard of Northern Ireland, when, in fact, the science tells us that, due to global warming, the water is getting warmer and the periwinkles are moving north.

Mr Muir: A few weeks before it was due to come into place, the Committee expressed a position that it wanted to annul the regulations. I was conscious of the decision that the Committee took. I was also conscious of the fact that, in seeking to introduce it more widely than Strangford lough, we were seeking to address the concerns regarding displacement. I am trying to find a way forward that protects Strangford lough, respects the science and protects our environment. That is why I will seek your support on that. I am happy to meet the Committee in due course, as are officials, to discuss the matter further.

Mr Muir: It was absolutely devastating to witness the recent spate of wildfires across our landscapes, including the Mournes. Using satellite imagery, we can estimate the extent of the area in the Mournes that was impacted on by the wildfires. Initial estimates are that the fire to the north of Bloody Bridge extended to approximately 93 hectares; the fire to the south of Bloody Bridge extended to approximately 726 hectares; and the fire in the western Mournes extended to approximately 1,339 hectares.

We will have to wait for a period to see how badly the habitat itself has been impacted on. There is likely to be a regrowth of vegetation in most places over the next year or two, but we will have to see whether species composition is adversely affected in relation to the expected condition of the site and whether intervention measures will be needed. Over that period, we will also be able to get an indication of whether any areas have been severely damaged and seed bank lost. In such areas, additional measures may be needed to ensure that the vegetation recovers.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What work is ongoing to prevent future fires in our natural environment? What actions is the Minister taking to promote the recovery of nature and the environment? Will the Minister meet stakeholders in the Mournes in order to see at first hand some of the effects of the fires?

Mr Muir: I have been really clear that the work to prevent wildfires in the Mournes and elsewhere has to be a collective endeavour. That is why I recently launched the wildfire action plan, which will run to 2030, as part of the strategic framework that we launched last year to tackle the increasing threat of wildfires. The action plan focuses on five main objectives: prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. Those strategic objectives are supported by 35 areas of development as part of the action plan, which should ensure regional capability to better address wildfires in Northern Ireland.

As part of the implementation, DAERA recently appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts to deliver a range of wildfire mitigation and management work across Northern Ireland, including wildfire management and response plans in the Mournes. It is important that I thank the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service for its work in extremely challenging circumstances alongside many other agencies, including my officials, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and relevant organisations in the Mournes, particularly the Mourne Heritage Trust and the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team.

The most important action that we can all take is that, if we know anyone who is deliberately lighting malicious fires, to report that information to the police or Crimestoppers.

I would be delighted to accept the Member's invitation to come down to the area.

Mr McAleer: Given that the areas in question are areas of natural constraint (ANCs), has the Minister given any further consideration to the implementation of an ANC scheme to support grazing livestock as a land management tool in those areas to prevent the risk of wildfires in the future?

Mr Muir: In the action plan, we set out a number of actions related to how we can better support our farming community. Farming with Nature is our key intervention in that regard. I note that the Bill that the Member proposed does not have any conditionality associated with the issues that he seeks to address, and the Committee will want to explore that to ensure that the Bill also drives forward those public goods.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, discussion of the issues often leads to discussions about wildfires, but it is important to make the point that cases such as the recent fires in the Mournes are rural arson and are a crime. We need to continue to use that language. We are also keen to hear what steps have been taken by you and the Justice Minister to tackle that issue, make an example of people and get justice, because, until we see some repercussions, the fires will continue and areas will be devastated. This is only May; it is only the start of the summer season in the Mournes.

Mr Muir: The Member is right: we should not normalise that behaviour. It is rural arson, and that is why I have been consistent in encouraging people who are aware of anyone who is deliberately lighting malicious fires to report that to the police or Crimestoppers. They are not only damaging our environment but putting lives and livelihoods at risk, and it is important that we bring people to justice for that. In the action plan, there is a review of enforcement. We already have legislation in place, and we need to look at sentencing. That is one of the measures that will be considered, but, most fundamentally, here and now, people need to come forward with information. It is really concerning to me, particularly the risk to life.

Mr McGrath: I concur with the previous remarks about them not being wildfires and how we really should stop calling them that. Every time they occur — they have been occurring for many years — Minister after Minister trots down to Newcastle, points up at the fires, promises everything and stands alongside the firefighters, but, obviously, nothing is helping: year after year, the fires keep happening. Minister, what material decisions have been taken that will make a difference next year?

Mr Muir: I mentioned in my answers the strategic framework and the action plan, but we have to do this together, Colin. It has to be a collective effort. As the Member rightly says, it is rural arson, but, that being the case, why are people not coming forward with information so that we can get people into court? We need to change attitudes to the acceptability of such behaviour, because it is not acceptable. People could lose their lives, homes are at risk and people are living in fear. I have had significant engagement with people and have put a lot of effort into that. Earlier today, I had questions about planning performance. We have limited resources and are trying to balance those. We have put resources into tackling the fires, but it has to be a collective effort: the Fire and Rescue Service, the police and other bodies have a role to play.

We will therefore continue to implement the action plan. If we get additional resources, we will look at what more we can do to move at a faster pace. As I said, we have also appointed international wildfire experts to deliver wildfire management plans. I am trying my best. It could be argued that a lot of the stuff that I am getting involved in is often the responsibility of another Department, but that is not what I am seeking to say. Instead, I am fronting up and trying to show leadership on what is a real issue. I know the concerns of local residents, particularly in the Mournes. Wildfires should not be occurring. People have been on the phone to me in tears, worried about their home, and that is not right. When good weather comes along, I say to anyone who intends going down there to light a fire to wise up. Do not do it. I also ask people, when there are fires, not to engage in wildfire tourism, because we then have a situation in which many people come to the area. It is very difficult for the agencies that are trying to fight wildfires to do so when people are on the mountains.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Mr Muir: There was an awful lot of rhetoric but not one specific question in there. Give me an example of what the issue is, and I will tell you what we are doing about it.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, that shows that you do not have a grasp of the issue that I raised. There are farmers who cannot get storage sheds built, lagoons going or anaerobic digestion (AD) plant issues sorted. People experience huge setbacks from your Department when they even try to get a site approved in order to build a house. The truth is that you do not seem to have a handle on your Department. Everything seems to move at a snail's pace. Do you accept that that is unacceptable and that you really need to get on the ball and sort out the situation?

Mr Muir: What I will do is answer your actual question, rather than your TikTok question. I will set out what we are trying to do with planning. There are significant resource challenges. I have told you, on numerous occasions, the issues that there are with ammonia. In 2023, legal action was taken against my Department because it was acting unlawfully in that regard. In the absence of a Minister in post, the permanent secretary brought us to a lawful position. I am seeking to find a way forward on ammonia that not only meets the legal requirements but allows us to deal with practical issues that the farming community has. It is difficult, but I respect environmental law. Clearly, you do not.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Robbie. The issue is of concern to me, because we do not have a settled Budget. Without a Budget being agreed in the next couple of weeks, a crisis will develop rapidly in Northern Ireland politics. It is important that the UK Government step up and fund Northern Ireland in line with its need but also that we work together to agree a Budget. The UK Government have a significant role to play in enabling us to put that Budget in place. It is important that they take their role seriously.

Departments having to operate without a budget is a real concern. My Department will struggle to be able to deliver on its statutory responsibilities. I am very conscious of the consequences of there being no agreed draft Budget, particularly when it comes to TB compensation. On the capital side, there is real concern at the likelihood that we will be unable to deliver the building of the two new College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) campuses, at Loughry and Greenmount, at the pace that I would wish to see them built. That is why I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister to ensure that we have a Budget that delivers for all communities in Northern Ireland, particularly the agriculture and rural communities.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is right and proper that I raise the issue in this place at this time. At the weekend, the Minister was at the Balmoral show. As we did, he will have talked to farmers and people in the agribusiness sector about the pressures that are on them. The Minister mentioned TB compensation.

How important is it that we have a multi-year Budget? What doors would that open and what security would it give to the farming community, who are facing untold pressures at this time?

Mr Muir: A multi-year Budget is absolutely critical for the farming community. When we had the Brexit referendum, an awful lot of promises were made. Guess what? They did not come true. Previously, we had seven-year budget settlements through the common agricultural policy. The Tory Government at the time said that it would all be fine, but what happened? In October 2024, the earmarking and ring-fencing of that money ended. I got the Executive's agreement for money to be earmarked and set aside for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development in the previous financial year and was told that it would be agreed in future years.

Until that is in writing, until it is part of that Budget — a multi-year settlement, so that we can give that certainty and allow the farming community to have that support — it is a real concern to me. We need to have that in place, and we also need capital funding so that we can support the farming community, particularly with the sustainable farming investment scheme. There have been lots of missed opportunities here as a result of not having an agreed multi-year Budget. The UK Government need to step up, but we also need to understand that the longer this goes on, the more of an impact it will have due to the uncertainty that it creates.

Mr Muir: I am conscious that the Bill's Second Stage has been tabled for next Tuesday. I will meet officials to discuss the Bill on Thursday, and I will outline my position in response to that as part of the Second Stage debate.

Mr Frew: Does the Minister have any concerns over the damage that the Bill could do to countryside management, countryside practices and the right to hunt game? Will he stand up for the rural dwellers, who have been the custodians of rural life in Northern Ireland for millennia?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of our rural community and proud to be the Minister who is responsible for rural affairs. However, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland do not consider the hunting of wild animals to be part of the rural way of life. It is cruelty to animals, and it is wrong.

Mr Muir: The issue of TB remains a top priority not only for my Department but for me. I understand the real impact that it has on farmers and their mental health when there is a herd breakdown. That is why we have the blueprint and why we are implementing the actions arising from that.

It was clear, in setting that out last week at the Balmoral Show, that there is increased use of blood testing, and it is important that we continue to fund that. We will also have a procurement process for vet-led, on-farm biosecurity advice. We are also looking at and agreeing new criteria for alternative control herds. We are also considering introducing pre- and post-movement testing. We are also giving farmers more information on their herds and TB history. We are implementing an important, shared-island, regionalised research pilot that is based on three platforms: people, cattle and wildlife. In addition to that, we will go out shortly to consult on wildlife intervention options in Northern Ireland.

A lot of actions have been taken. Had eradication been easy, the problem would have been resolved decades ago, but we are seeking to take action on the matter, and we will be guided by science and evidence.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I previously raised with you the need to bring forward legislation to enact a badger cull. You responded with bluster. More biosecurity assessments and advice will not put bread on the table for farmers whose herds are the only things being eradicated. When can farmers expect progress on the eradication of TB, or will you continue to stall until the next Minister comes in?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of what I inherited. An announcement on a wildlife intervention was made on the last day of the previous Assembly mandate. The matter proceeded to court, and the Department lost. It is important that we learn lessons from that for the way forward. That is why we undertook the consultation. I could have progressed an awful lot, but we lost two years of this mandate because one party decided that it did not want to go to work, so the legislation will fall to the next mandate. However, I am clear that wildlife intervention is an essential part of our approach to TB.

Mr Muir: That matter is being considered as part of the review of environmental offences that is being taken forward by the Department of Justice. I will say two things: first, the councils also have a responsibility for illegal dumping and fly-tipping, not just me; and, secondly, there is a need for people to come forward and give evidence on those crimes, because, often, they occur in rural areas, and we need to get information so that we can bring cases to court. I encourage everyone to heed that message and to come forward to give evidence.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. What additional powers, if any, does the Minister intend to provide to local councils and enforcement agencies to help tackle illegal dumping?

Mr Muir: In recent years, the Department has introduced a number of powers around that. I will write to you to set them out, because the detail is in my papers amongst a number of pages. There are powers for councils to use. I am disappointed that two district councils have decided not to sign the cooperation agreement between the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and district councils. I urge Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council to sign it. I have not named them before, but I do so now because it is absolutely ridiculous that they have not signed an agreement to cooperate on tackling the issue.

Mr Muir: First, I welcome the Member to the Chamber. The community infrastructure fund is a good initiative and supports urban and rural communities. My Department supported the initial phase, and we are considering the work thereafter. Many organisations have benefited from the fund, and we have to recognise that those facilities are key in rural areas.

Mrs Middleton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the level of interest that the scheme has generated, does the Minister accept that, in many rural and working-class communities, there remains significant unmet need for investment and local facilities? Will he ensure that DAERA continues to play a full role, alongside the Communities Minister, in helping those communities to access support?

Mr Muir: The Communities Minister and I supported the scheme for the initial year. The Communities Minister has approached me again to see if I will support it in future years. You are making a very good case for that, and I will come back to Gordon very soon.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Nuala. First, I commend you for your leadership on the issue, which has been of real concern for many people in Northern Ireland. The review report made for very hard reading. We all have a role to play in relation to safeguarding in the equestrian industry, and it is important that we take that seriously.

A number of issues raised in the report relate to DAERA. One of the recommendations is that DAERA should consider safeguarding information in licensing and renewal forms. I have asked officials to consider the report's recommendations and what role we can play, working with others. It is important that we all take the recommendations seriously and step up to ensure that lessons are learned and that those recommendations are implemented.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You will be aware that the equestrian industry runs across the North and South of Ireland. Indeed, Katie's killer absconded to the Republic of Ireland and was still able to carry out his work there. Can you speak a bit more about North/South cooperation regarding the review and its recommendations?

Mr Muir: The matter was discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council plenary about a fortnight ago. My counterpart, Martin Heydon, was present and keen to engage on the issue. I also met him as part of a North/South Ministerial Council agriculture sectoral meeting on Friday, when we discussed it further. We will consider how we can engage more on a North/South basis, reflecting the all-Ireland nature of the equestrian industry; the history of the case; and the need to learn lessons and ensure that we take a joined-up approach. I am happy to write to you to give you an update on where we are on the issue. It is of real concern for many people, and you have shown immense leadership on it.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Brian. There was a pilot scheme, and it is very important that we learn lessons from it. The plan is to launch the main scheme at the end of the year. It is important that we take learnings not just from the pilot but from the young farmers' payment to ensure that any intervention that we make moves the dial. The issue of succession does not affect just Northern Ireland; it is a wider issue. It is important that we support young people to get into farming. I met representatives from the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster last week, and they are a key part of our engagement on that.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I have been proactive in taking decisions to improve support for victims of domestic abuse. I removed intimidation points from the housing selection scheme, which has ended the overriding priority that intimidation had over other forms of violence or abuse. That has ensured that all victims of violence, or those at risk of violence or abuse for any reason, including domestic abuse, can access the same categories of points in the scheme. This has levelled the playing field for all those seeking housing as a result of abuse, trauma or violence.

I also tasked the Housing Executive with reviewing the primary social needs criteria and points, including those awarded to victims of violence, abuse and trauma. It has now submitted proposals as part of the fundamental review of allocations, which I will consider in due course. I assure the House that I will work to ensure that the scheme fairly reflects the housing needs of the most vulnerable applicants, including victims of domestic abuse. This work will be concluded and the proposals implemented within the Housing Executive’s timescale for the review, which is due to be implemented in spring 2027.

The Housing Executive works closely with the PSNI, health partners and voluntary sector partners to provide holistic support alongside housing assistance. Those measures are in place to ensure that victims are supported to access social housing safely and without disadvantage. The Housing Executive’s domestic abuse action plan operates a trauma-informed, victim-centred approach to all applications involving domestic abuse, and its staff are trained to identify and respond appropriately by actively signposting victims to specialist domestic abuse support services.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. In the same multi-agency approach, I have met the police, social workers and all the rest to try to support women in particular at this stage. I welcome the review, but, at the moment, a woman who flees her home with her babies in her arms gets the same 20 points as someone who has listened to a row in the next-door flat. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is not fair and needs to be looked at with urgency.

Mr Lyons: I understand the concern that the Member has expressed. However, under the current housing selection scheme, victims of domestic abuse are assessed on the basis of housing need and may receive 70 points for homelessness and up to 40 primary social needs points for violence or the threat of violence, giving a total of up to 110 points. The experience of violence or trauma can also be recognised through other social needs factors or complex needs points, depending on that person's individual circumstances. The applicant will also be entitled to any other selection scheme points that they qualify for through their housing circumstances, such as sharing and overcrowding and/or relevant health and social well-being issues, which are assessed based on their housing need.

I recognise the importance of this issue. I have set out the steps that we will take. It is not the case that support is not in place right now. The categories that have been identified for priority need in article 5 are sufficiently broad to ensure that those who are at risk of domestic abuse qualify for homelessness assistance as well. It is a very important issue. I am committed to doing everything that I can. The Housing Executive is working with others to make sure that we have the best possible supports in place, because it is a horrendous situation for any individual to find themselves in, never mind the children and other people who may be affected as well. The Member has my commitment that I will do everything that I can on this issue.

Mrs Middleton: I thank the Minister for the work that he has done in this area. I acknowledge all the work that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive does to help those who are most at risk. What specific supports are available to help victims or those who are at risk of domestic abuse to remain in their homes?

Mr Lyons: There will be different circumstances for different individuals, but, oftentimes, they want to remain in their own home. We have floating support services available through the Supporting People programme to provide practical housing-related support to victims. That helps them to sustain their own tenancies and live safely and independently in their own home.

We also have the Sanctuary scheme, which is a multi-agency initiative that enables victims or those at risk of domestic abuse to remain in their home by installing additional security measures. The aim is to ensure that victims do not need to leave their home or become homeless. In addition, my officials are engaging with the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations to determine what assistance may be available to support the introduction of the scheme across housing associations.

We are funding the Supporting People budget for services that are aimed at helping women who are at risk of domestic violence. In 2025-26, that totalled £5·21 million. That included £3 million for short-term accommodation-based refuge provision, funding 14 refuges, with 138 units of support, and £2 million for floating support provision across nine services. Where that refuge is needed, it is provided, and, where we can help those who are affected by domestic abuse to stay in their home, we provide that support.

Ms Egan: Minister, have any of the community and voluntary sector organisations that provide support for victims and survivors of domestic violence been given confirmation of their funding for the rest of the financial year, which would ensure that they can continue to provide the invaluable support that people need?

Mr Lyons: I place on record my appreciation of all those in society who help us to tackle the issue. There are many people in the community and voluntary sector who, in many different ways, help those affected, and they are to be commended. I want that to continue; I have seen first-hand the impact on those affected.

The Member will be aware of the budget situation that we currently find ourselves in. The fact that a Budget has not been agreed has implications not just on the longer-term certainty that is required in that area but throughout the public sector and the organisations funded by it. We will endeavour to provide as much support and help as we can. We will give early indications, if and when we can, of that funding. I recognise and understand the importance of the work that those organisations do. If any of them have any particular concerns, I would be happy to hear from them directly or through the Member.

Mr McGrath: Minister, you referred to primary social needs points. I know that you received a review of those back in March. Could consideration be given to removing the cap of 40 points on those impacted on by domestic violence, so that the points reflect more accurately the scenario that those in such cases face?

Mr Lyons: The Member will have heard my earlier answer and the indication that it is not just the 40 points that will be available through primary social needs; there will be additional points for homelessness and any of the other circumstances and categories that people find themselves in. Of course, we are reviewing that overall. I hope that we will be in a position to bring forward something that works and is fit for purpose. As I outlined earlier, the review will be concluded as soon as possible, and we hope that the changes will be implemented by spring 2027.

Mr Lyons: At the beginning of 2025-26, the outlook for the social housing development programme was poor, with a budget that would have achieved only 1,100 new social homes. The leader of the Opposition said during a debate at that time that, if we were lucky, barely 1,000 new homes would be started. Since then, however, I have secured a further £42 million, which has resulted in the largest investment ever in the social housing development programme and achieved 1,765 new social home starts, representing a 17% increase in delivery, year on year.

As a result, over 6,000 new social homes are under construction across Northern Ireland.

Looking forward, we need to do more. We need to secure more budget much earlier. In December, £29 million in extra funding was available, which was more than the programme could absorb once in-year funding became available. I have, therefore, repeatedly pressed the Executive to earmark more funding for the social housing development programme, and, while there is some impact from this in the current Budget proposals, that is still not enough. That is why I have prepared a proposal so that we can secure public-sector land instead of grant. I have also brought forward the reviews of the grant and the design guide, and a range of other things is being explored or introduced that will complement the social housing development programme's moving towards the housing supply targets. Those include the New Foundations programme, Housing Executive acquisitions and the housing supply action plan that will shortly come to the Executive.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he find it ironic that Sinn Féin continually talks about social housing as a top priority, yet, when it came to the draft Budget, the proposed allocation from the Sinn Féin Finance Minister did not come even remotely close to delivering what it had agreed in the housing supply strategy and, indeed, in the Programme for Government?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. We see that time and time again from Sinn Féin. It is not able to put its money where its mouth is. I hope that people in the Republic of Ireland are listening to what is happening here. Sinn Féin is in charge of the Department of Finance and has the ability to bring forward proposals on where money goes into each Department. It has not been funding the social housing development programme adequately. To achieve 5,850 starts by May 2027 will be extremely challenging, and it will require sufficient budget being provided to my Department and for that to be provided early in the financial year. I am also pressing the Executive to agree that they include the full requirements of the social housing development programme in a category of capital allocations to Departments that is protected for that specific purpose by being earmarked at the point of allocation. That category is for priorities that the Executive agree the relevant Minister must fund before they turn to the matter of how much general capital to allocate to each Minister for them, in turn, to allocate at their discretion in the Department. If you care about housing, you have to allocate the funding to it and not just expect a Minister to take it out of their overall budget.

It is also worth noting that confirmation of a significant portion of the final Budget allocation was received only following the December monitoring round, and that meant that we were able to profile only 1,250 potential starts until the end of December. The additional funding enabled the starts target to be increased to 1,750, but that relied heavily on housing associations being prepared to work at risk on many scheme proposals. If you want more social homes, you have to fund them, and, right now, I have not been given that funding.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, of the 6,000 homes that you have talked about, how many are specifically for young people with special educational needs who will want to live independently post the age of 19? Do you have figures for that? I think that you have a neck on you to talk about not being funded. You are funded. It is about how you choose to prioritise your funding. Absolutely, you are not funded to the extent to which we would all like to see you funded, but it is about how you prioritise. I think that you want to have a wee think about that.

Mr Lyons: I have to say that Sinn Féin has some neck to complain about my not being able to build as many social homes as I want when it is in charge of the Department of Finance and could have made an allocation. If you do not like what it is that I am spending money on, ring-fence the targets that are in the Programme for Government to allow us to build those homes. There is a refusal to do that.

The vast majority of my capital budget goes on social homes. This year, we spent £210·7 million; the year before, it was £176 million; and the year before that, it was £161 million. I need more finance, and I will do everything that I can to get that. However, it is not just about getting more money but using that money better.

We are therefore looking at how we award the housing association grant, and we are looking at the design guide. We are doing so in order to make it as simple and straightforward as possible for more homes to be built. That is work that others in the House have opposed, but it is work that I am doing, because it will make a difference.

I do not have the specific information that the Member requested at the start of her question, but I am happy to provide her with it.

Mr Dickson: Minister, how realistic is it that you will be able to deliver your social housing targets and programme, given the failure of Northern Ireland Water to tackle waste water issues and the implications that that has for all new housing?

Mr Lyons: It is a significant issue. It is not the biggest issue, but it is still a challenge in certain areas, and we need to find a resolution if we want to build more homes across all tenures, be it social housing or homes in the private sector. We need to remove all the drags on doing that so that the targets can be reached. The waste water issue is important, but we need funding to address it.

There is also a responsibility on councils to make sure that their local development plans are fit for purpose, that they are zoning land for development in the right places and that their planning systems are as efficient as possible. All those actions contribute to the number of homes that can be built. That is why we produced the housing supply strategy, and we will have the first action plan with the Executive very soon. It is important that that happen so that we can tackle all the issues. Waste water absolutely remains an important consideration, and I hope that the Minister for Infrastructure will produce plans that take a realistic approach to solving the issue.

Mr Allen: The Minister has referred repeatedly to funding challenges. Will he accept that the Executive's housing supply strategy risks losing credibility if the funding to match its ambition is not provided?

Mr Lyons: I agree with the Member, and that is why the Executive put targets in not only the housing supply strategy but in the Programme for Government. If one puts in place targets and credibly wants to meet them, funding is needed. That has not happened, however, and it is a problem that limits people's confidence in our ability to get things done. As I said, I am doing what I can to make best use of the housing association grant, but we also need to make the process as simple and straightforward as we can in order for homes to be built. The design guide will play a huge role in that. I faithfully brought forward the strategy, and there is a commitment in the Programme for Government, but we need to make sure that others properly fund it.

Mr Durkan: Minister, we welcome the delivery of any social housing, and we certainly support bids for more funding to provide more much-needed social housing. The Minister waxed lyrical about his achievements on housing starts. The reality on the ground, and certainly in Foyle, is something different, however. Last year, only 18 social housing units were completed in an area where there are almost 9,000 people on the waiting list. Surely the Minister will agree that that cannot really be heralded as being any sort of success. Will he update me on his actions to achieve more social and affordable housing through the intermediate rent scheme and on his attempts to identify and acquire public land for social housing?

Mr Lyons: It is worth acknowledging that there was a significant increase in the number of housing starts this year. That number has gone up in the past couple of years now, but we absolutely need to do more. It is positive that we have got this far, but I would have been able to meet the overall target for this year had I been given earlier in the year the money that I was eventually given. If I had received that money then, the outcome would have been different. The outcome is still a positive one, but that is why we have to do everything that we can. Yes, we have to get more money, make sure that grants are used in the right way and make it as straightforward as possible for homes to be built.

The Member is right to mention the intermediate rent scheme. It will be delivered, and we will start to see the first houses completed this year. I want to see the scheme expanded, however. It is a good use of financial transactions capital (FTC), and I want to see the scheme continue and for it to be expanded.

I am working with Executive colleagues on a plan for which I can get support from other Ministers on how to best use public-sector land.

It is a big factor in the overall cost of a home, and I am determined that we can make use of land that lies vacant and does not have a use elsewhere in the public sector, because there is a huge demand for housing. I will push that as much as I can.

Mr Gaston: Minister, how many approved social housing new builds are currently on hold due to lack of sewerage connection? Additionally, when did you last meet the Minister for Infrastructure to address that problem, which is crippling the economy and preventing houses from being built right across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to raise that issue. I do not have the specific figures in front of me or the date of the last meeting, although I met the Infrastructure Minister and her predecessor. However, I will provide that information, as well as the other dates on which officials met on this subject because, obviously, they will be working through the housing supply strategy.

Ms Sugden: Minister, have you any plans to update work on understanding the need for social housing and then building housing accordingly, so that, for example, women and children, especially those who are victims of domestic abuse, older people and people with special educational needs are prioritised?

Mr Lyons: That work is continually done by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. If the Member has any particular issues, I am happy to hear them and pass them on to the Housing Executive as it plans the way forward for the coming years.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, question 4.

Mr Speaker: My apologies. It is Deborah Erskine, instead of Mr O'Toole.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You cannot forget about me.

Mr Lyons: In the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency there are currently 109 social housing units under construction. A further 109 social housing units are programmed to start as part of the social housing development programme from 2026-27 to 2028-29. These will be subject to sufficient budget being available for the social housing development programme.

Programme schemes can be lost or slip to future years for a variety of reasons, for example, delays in acquiring sites or failure to secure planning approval. Additional schemes can be added to the social housing development programme in-year through the competitive land, design and build procurement route or the purchase of existing satisfactory or off-the-shelf properties.

In relation to Department-owned sites, Grosvenor Barracks, on the edge of Enniskillen, has outline planning permission for around 200 homes, including at least 30% social provision, offering a key opportunity to increase housing supply. Pre-market engagement to inform the procurement strategy will commence in the coming weeks, with a developer expected to be appointed in the 2026-27 financial year.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer and his proactive work on housing, which stands in stark contrast to the bluster of others in the Chamber. The Minister talked about a review of both the grant for and the design of social housing. Will he outline what stage that is at and, most importantly, what it will deliver?

Mr Lyons: The review of the grant support for new-build social housing will explore optimum approaches to the use of the grant to ensure a more sustainable funding environment for housing associations. This will aim to support their ability to plan across market cycles, attract private finance, drive output in starts and completions and ensure continued efficiency, effectiveness and innovation in delivering high-quality social homes within a constrained budget environment.

The quality standards review will look at the design guide and the standards to which social housing is built. Housing associations have advised that the design guide requires elements that are not really necessary or value for money, so the review will look at the requirement to build all new social housing to lifetime-homes and secure-by-design standards. If homes are not required to be built to the same specification, that could enable housing associations to be more flexible in their design and, importantly, reduce costs.

Mr McNulty: Minister, in the South last year there were 36,000 house completions. In the North, there were 6,000. That means that, in the South, pro rata, they are building at twice the rate that we are. A major barrier to the development of housing and economic development is our water and waste water infrastructure capacity. What discussions have you had with the Minister for Infrastructure to try to get to grips with that reality, which is stymieing housebuilding and economic development?

Mr Lyons: I refer the Member to my response to the TUV Member for North Antrim, in which I answered the same question. I am happy to provide that information to him as well. It is completely accurate to say that waste water infrastructure is a constraining factor in the building of homes across Northern Ireland. That needs to be dealt with. We have the housing supply strategy and will soon have the action plan within the strategy to ensure that the money that goes to DFI can be spent to help us to build more social homes and more homes overall.

Mr Lyons: My Department remains firmly committed to providing practical assistance to those who are most at risk of fuel poverty. On 16 April, I brought to the Executive proposals for a support package aimed at helping those most impacted on by home heating oil costs. The proposals were agreed, securing £36·4 million to deliver an application-based scheme.

Assistance of £100 for home heating oil will be offered to over 340,000 households across Northern Ireland. That covers a range of vulnerable groups, including those with disabilities, older people and people on a low income. For clarity, a low-income household is defined as one with an annual income of below £30,000 after deductions such as National Insurance, income tax and pension contributions.

My officials continue to work at pace to deliver the necessary IT system development and to put in place the legislative, contractual and administrative arrangements that are required for the scheme. It is expected to launch in early August, with the aim that it will provide support ahead of winter. My officials will shortly brief the Communities Committee on the scheme policy.

Other measures are in place. The oil savings network, which is part of NI Energy Advice and is funded by the Department, offers support and advice on purchasing oil. We also have the NI Energy Advice line. The warm healthy homes strategy that I brought forward will provide us with options to support vulnerable oil users and to improve that support.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the additional detail that you have given us. We have never been churlish about the home heating oil support package — it was a welcome, if belated, step from the Executive — so I welcome the fact that it exists. However, Brent crude still costs more than $100 a barrel — the price for 900 litres is way above the historical average, as you know — and it appears that the instability in the Middle East will continue, given who is in the White House, so I ask you to work constructively with your Executive colleagues to prepare the additional support that might need to be provided to households later in the year. Notwithstanding the fact that support eventually arrived and was welcome, the spectacle earlier in the year —

Mr Speaker: Right, Mr O'Toole. Let us get to the question.

Mr O'Toole: — of the squabbling between your party and Sinn Féin, was utterly unedifying. Will you work constructively to plan for all contingencies later this year?

Mr Lyons: I have worked on this. When others failed to step up, I stepped forward, as I did last year and when I was in the Department for the Economy, to make sure that there was support and assistance for the people who need it most. Yes, I will continue to help in whatever way I can. However, this is not without complexity; there is difficulty here. It has taken a lot of time to put the scheme together. I would rather have something far simpler, such as the UK Government quickly putting in place the cuts to fuel duty that would make a difference not just for oil customers but for everybody in Northern Ireland who needs to move around. At the last general election, the SDLP boasted about the influence that it would have with the Labour Party. I hope that it will start to use its great influence so that we see a reduction in duty and tax, which, rather than something that, limited as it is, we will, unfortunately, have to wait for, would make a real difference immediately.

Mr Brett: Whilst we have no control here over the impact of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East that is driving up costs, we have control over our net zero policies, which also increase energy insecurity in Northern Ireland and drive up people's bills. Will the Minister join me in calling on the leader of the Opposition to support our proposal to remove unreachable and unneeded targets?

Mr Lyons: I absolutely will. We often hear in the House about the importance of following the science and evidence. In the previous mandate, we were presented with evidence and advice that increasing our targets from those that were originally proposed to net zero by 2050 would cost us more. It was very clear how much that would cost, because that figure, £900 million per year by the end of the period leading up to 2050, was provided to the House and was publicly available. Mr O'Toole is looking around the House. I do not know whether he is shocked by that figure or is trying to ignore it, but that is the truth. Regardless of what we do about the climate change targets, it will increase the cost. The targets that were put in and voted for by Members on the other side of the Chamber will have an impact. We need to face up to that reality. When somebody gets something wrong, I do not think that there is anything wrong with them admitting that they got it wrong. I encourage everybody in the House to move to a more sensible position and to back our plan so that we can get something that is realistic that does not end up costing the people of Northern Ireland dearly. That is the trajectory that we are on now with the targets that they voted for.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to acknowledge the fact that it is an Executive strategy. That is why a cross-departmental working group was set up to examine the work of the Ulster-Scots and Irish language strategies. I am happy to inform the Member that Ministers were invited to respond to the draft action plans for their Departments by 11 March 2026. Not all Ministers responded within the specified time frame, and those who did have been unable to provide full approval for their action plans. Some Ministers expressed reservations about the budgetary implications in particular. In fact, a final response from the Department for the Economy is still outstanding.

By way of evidence, and because I know that Sinn Féin is very interested in the issue, I am holding a letter that I received on 14 May 2026 from the Minister for the Economy in which she says:

She responded to me 13 months after I wrote to her asking about her plans and the work that she would engage in on the Irish language and Ulster-Scots strategies — 13 months later. The Finance Minister would only note the strategy rather than give it his approval, and do not even get me started on the Department for Infrastructure. There has been continual delay and dragging of feet from Sinn Féin Ministers. I remind everybody in the House that the Irish language and Ulster-Scots strategies are cross-departmental. If other Ministers are not prepared to respond in a timely manner or at all, it will be very difficult for the Executive to make progress.

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat. Tá sé náireach go bhfuil muid anseo arís.

While parties and the Minister enjoy pointing the figure of blame, and some people will want to see the papers to which the Minister referred, most people just want to see progress. We have now had two High Court judgements ruling that delaying the strategy is a breach of legal duty. How can the public have any faith in an Executive who treat their statutory obligations, never mind the people who live here, with such blatant disregard?

Mr Lyons: The Member would need to address those questions to Sinn Féin Ministers in the first instance. My job was to facilitate the work that came back from Departments, but Sinn Féin Ministers were dragging their feet. That is a question that they need to be asked. Why were they not prepared to engage or sign off on those things?

I note a press statement that Mr Gildernew issued last week on the issue. I also note that he is not in his place today. I will read from it, but, for the benefit of the youth wing of Sinn Féin, I say that this is not my quote; it is a quote from somebody else. We know how it deliberately misrepresented my colleague Pam Cameron last week. I wonder where it gets it from. We have seen plenty how those on the Sinn Féin Benches have told mistruths and deliberately misled the public on the issue. Mr Gildernew stated:

Let us be very clear today: exactly the same words can justifiably be used about Sinn Féin, because its Ministers are the ones dragging their feet. I therefore look forward to the statement from Mr Gildernew accusing his Executive colleagues in Sinn Féin of a:

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his question. I speak directly to his constituents when I say that I understand the frustration that they feel and that I am on their side. The figures are stark. Northern Ireland has an economic inactivity rate of 26·5%, which is 5·5 percentage points higher than the UK average. Too many people are stuck outside the workforce. Too many people are on benefits who do not need to be on benefits. From speaking to people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, I know that they go to work, pay their taxes and do the right thing and that, when they look at the welfare system that is funded by their taxes, they feel, with justification, that something has gone structurally wrong. They are not heartless; they believe in helping people who genuinely need help. However, they also believe that a system that traps people in dependency, which has grown year after year without producing better outcomes and which nobody in power seems to be willing to scrutinise honestly, is letting everyone down.

The taxpayer funds the system, and it is meant to serve the people. We have put in place our jobs programme so that we can tackle the real barriers to employment and get people off benefits and into work. Work is not just an economic transaction; it is about dignity, purpose and independence. That is what I want for the people of Northern Ireland. That has not been funded by the Department of Finance in its draft Budget this year, but I hope that it will see the problem with that and make sure that it invests in it.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he provide an update on what he and his Department are doing to tackle benefit fraud? I do not want to be labelled as "far right", but there are people out there who are doing benefit fraud. There is no grey area with respect to that.

Mr Lyons: Yes, the Member is absolutely right. Too much money — hundreds of millions of pounds — is being lost through benefit fraud every year. That money should be going to schools, hospitals and waste water infrastructure, which we have talked about today. My Executive paper on welfare fraud, which is about properly resourcing that work and ensuring that we claw back some of the fraudulently stolen money, is with ministerial colleagues, but I cannot even get it on the Executive's agenda. I do not know why Sinn Féin is so opposed to tackling the issue, but I will continue to push it, because that is the right thing to do. Fraud takes money away from those who genuinely need it and is paid for by every hard-working taxpayer in this country. It needs to end, because the people who get up every morning and go to work deserve a Government who are straight and honest with them on the issue.

Mr Lyons: We have not had those conversations directly with the Health Minister, but I know that Sport NI is doing substantial work on the issue of safeguarding. I am happy to come back to the Member if other engagements have taken place between the Department for Communities and the Department of Health on the issue.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister. Will the Minister acknowledge that there may be legislative gaps in safeguarding? Will he commit to working with the Minister of Health to strengthen protections for children who engage in sport?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. If there are gaps in the legislation on that most important of issues, I am more than happy to work with colleagues — I will work with anybody, quite frankly — to make sure that the legislation, guidance or provision is right, to fix it where necessary and to put in place any that is not there.

Mr Speaker: Sian Mulholland. Apologies. It is Deborah Armstrong. No, it is Diana Armstrong.

Ms D Armstrong: It seems that there is a pattern here.

Mr Lyons: We always keep our structures, parts of the Department and the arm's-length bodies under review. However, the Housing Executive is a substantial social landlord, and there is still a significant and leading role for it to play in that. Of course, if that can be improved, we will look at it.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your response. How do you see the balance between the Housing Executive and housing associations evolving to deliver social housing over the next decade?

Mr Lyons: First, I would like to think that we will get clarity on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive and its ability to borrow. Of course, if that is the case, there may well need to be some examination of all those issues to make sure that the relationship is right. Overall, my vision for the next decade is to make sure that we use the money that we have to best effect, that we build more homes and that we cut the waiting lists so that we can make a real difference in the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, which is what we are here to do.

Mr Lyons: We had a very effective public consultation. We heard that lots of things are good and right in the strategy, and there was overwhelming support from the public. Some of the interest and lobby groups had concerns. We take all that on board, and it was a genuine consultation process. As a result, I have tasked the permanent secretary to work with other officials in my Department to make sure that we bring forward everything that needs to be in the strategy, including all the things that we currently do. There is a little bit of a mismatch, in that much more is being done by all Departments to tackle poverty. We will bring that back, and, as I said at the Committee, I hope to have the next version by early September.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. The Minister will know that I have a personal interest and passion in breaking the cycle of child poverty. What targeted interventions will you and your Department put into the next version of the strategy to address the rising rate of child poverty?

Mr Lyons: Child poverty is one of the areas that we will look at. It is an area that can be impacted on by so many of the issues that we are already dealing with and progressing in the strategy. However, I recognise the need for a particular focus on child poverty, and that is implicit throughout the document. We may need to do something more explicit, and I am happy to look at that. I have tasked my team to look at measures that we can introduce that are costed, deliverable and, in particular, targeted. We often talk about measures that can be put in place, but they are not really targeted, and there can be a scattergun approach. We want something that will help those who are most in need.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his question. I agree with him. The figures are troubling, but they are not surprising. That is not a welfare safety net but a system that has lost its way entirely. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that we have a welfare system that is broken. It is not working for the people whom it is supposed to serve, and it is certainly not working for the hard-working families across Northern Ireland who do the right thing and pay their taxes but are left wondering why it does not pay for them to work.

Our party will always be on the side of working families. We believe that working must pay, and we will not apologise for saying so. If the reason that our welfare bill is the highest in the UK is that our population has the greatest need, why, after decades of that level of spending, are the results as they are? Where is the evidence that high spending is translating into better outcomes? Where is the improvement in mental health, in employment and in economic participation? I do not believe that there has been an improvement. The system is fundamentally broken, and we need to change it.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Communities.

Mr Speaker: Nuala McAllister has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise in their place.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that our thoughts should be with the women and families involved. All had a reasonable expectation of better. To me, a public inquiry is a means to an end to discover what happened, why it happened, who was engaged in what happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. I thank Professor Sir Frank Atherton for his summary and analysis of the six reports that went before him. As part of his terms of reference, I asked Sir Frank to consider whether a statutory public inquiry might provide additional significant information. Sir Frank stated that it is:

His report explains that the inconsistencies in programme delivery and data management act against:

I have considered fully the calls made for a statutory inquiry, particularly from the women affected and their families, whom I have met on a number of occasions. On balance, the findings and the advice from Sir Frank are convincing. I therefore decided not to commission a statutory inquiry, but it has been the hardest of all the decisions that I have taken in my two years in this role. I recognise that the decision is disappointing for the women and families who have campaigned for a statutory public inquiry. I pay tribute to their determination and acknowledge the profound effect that the events have had on their lives.

Moving forward, it is essential that we take the learning from what happened in the organisations that were charged with delivery and oversight of that important screening programme. We must ensure that all the necessary improvements to the current cervical screening programme are fully implemented and robustly and transparently assured.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. Minister, 17,000 women had their tests rechecked. Eight developed cancer, and two women — Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson — died. Given that, in his report, Frank Atherton said:

does the Minister accept that the issue is essentially being "swept under the mat", to quote one woman from Ladies with Letters, which has campaigned for accountability? Given that Frank Atherton also said that he did not engage with anyone involved at the time on the ground, how does the report stand up to scrutiny?

Mr Nesbitt: Sir Frank was very balanced in his assessment on holding a public inquiry. He gave the positive assessment to which the Member refers, but, on balance, he also said that it was highly unlikely that an inquiry would unravel any further information that would add to the body of knowledge. As the Member said, 17,425 women were involved in the recall. Sir Frank came to the conclusion that there was no absolute evidence that harm was caused. He also said that, equally, there was no evidence that harm was not caused. However, he did conclude — there were 17,425 involved — that there was evidence that there was no widespread harm involved.

The Member seemed to imply that Sir Frank did not engage with anybody. For the record, he did. To begin with, I asked him to do a desktop review of the six reports that had gone before him. The Ladies with Letters then, in a meeting with me, suggested that there was information that was pertinent to this cause that was not included in any of the six reports. Therefore, I then asked Sir Frank whether he was willing to meet the Ladies with Letters, which he did. He met other people involved with the screening programme as well because it —

Miss McAllister: He did not meet Lynsey's mum, Sandra.

Mr Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: Mrs Courtney raised a question about not meeting her. I understand that, after the Ladies with Letters had met Sir Frank, information relating to Sandra Courtney and her daughter Lynsey was then submitted by the Ladies with Letters group. While that information was passed to Sir Frank, unfortunately — this is very, very unfortunate — it appears that the request for a meeting was missed.

Mrs Dodds: I will continue, Minister, from where you left off. I spoke directly to Sandra Courtney over the weekend. She wants me to ask the question that, she said, was not answered on Thursday when you met the Ladies with Letters. In fact, she went further and said that she was not individually invited to the event on Thursday but was told about it by the Ladies with Letters group. In her question, which she says you did not properly answer, she says that Lynsey died after a smear test was misread. She said that that is not an abstract systems failure; it is a life lost and a family devastated, and serious questions are still left unanswered. She wants to know how any desktop review of other reviews can give a voice to those directly affected and how it can ensure accountability in a health service that now seems to have lost that very central tenet.

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, I am extremely sorry for the loss of Lynsey Courtney. Secondly, I had no oversight of who came to the meeting. That was largely, I believe, driven by the Ladies with Letters. It was brought to my attention before the meeting that the group was bringing a legal representative, and I was asked by officials whether I was content for that to go ahead or whether I objected to it. I said, "I am happy for that to go ahead". For anybody who thinks that I am trying to be involved in a cover-up, why would I allow the Ladies with Letters and the families involved in the serious adverse incidents who attended the meeting to bring a legal representative with them? The legal representative made clear that some of the individuals or families are already seeking redress, and, when I asked whether redress meant legal redress, he confirmed that that was the case. In some public commentary since then, it has been very clear that some of those involved are exercising their absolute right to consider legal redress down the line. I accept that.

I return to the fact that Sir Frank has looked at all the evidence, and, because of inconsistencies in data management, not least with the very first report from the Royal College of Pathologists, he sees very little chance of unravelling the issue any further. That is a tragedy in its own right, added to the tragedy of the loss of a daughter.

Mr Speaker: There has been a little latitude with the first two questions, but 10 more Members want to ask a question, so I ask Members to get to the point.

Mr Gaston: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Southern Health and Social Care Trust deviated from guidance from the NHS cervical screening programme? If the Southern Trust had stayed within those guidelines, Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson would be alive today, yet there is still no public inquiry.

Mr Nesbitt: The Southern Trust deviated from the norm, which is that there is a full review by one screener and then a rapid review by a second. The Southern Trust believed, in good faith, that it would be better to have two full screenings, which is what it did. However, that meant that sensitivity tests were not possible because you could not compare like with like; you were comparing apples with pears. The question of whether those two women would still be alive is, I think, an open one, actually.

Mrs Dillon: It is widely accepted across the Chamber that women have been, and continue to be, failed in our healthcare system. Minister, you have an opportunity to show clearly not only that you understand that but that you genuinely want to tackle it. Your opportunity is to have the independent inquiry into the cervical smear scandal and get answers to the fundamental questions that the ladies and the families who have been impacted on have. In the absence of that inquiry at this point in time, can you detail what exactly has changed in the accountability, governance and oversight of the screening programme to give us, and every woman out there, confidence in it? I still urge women to attend their screening appointments, because, while mistakes were definitely made, screening does save lives.

Mr Nesbitt: I certainly encourage every woman to go and have their screening when appropriate. However, let us remember that it was screening and not diagnosis. We have now switched cervical cancer screening to human papillomavirus (HPV) screening. That has a success rate of around 90%, as opposed to around 70% to 80% for cytology. Cytology is now the second line for women who test positive in HPV screening.

Ms McLaughlin: My constituent Julie Logan wrote to me to say:

Was the purpose of looking just at the Southern Trust to cap the numbers that would be looked at? Why not widen it out to all trusts? Many ladies in the Western Trust area have had their cervical smears misread. The numbers that we are dealing with are really quite significant.

Mr Nesbitt: The Ladies with Letters primarily led the charge to have a public inquiry into the results and operation of that screening in the Southern Trust. If there are issues in the Western Trust, I am more than happy to engage on them with the Member or the people with whom the Member wants me to engage.

Ms Sugden: Following on from Sinéad McLaughlin's comments, we should all be concerned that the issue is prevalent not just in the Southern Trust but across every trust in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, warrants the issue's being given more attention and, potentially, a public inquiry. Will the Minister reconsider on that basis?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member used the present tense. As I have said in previous answers, we have now moved away from cytology, as the front line of testing, to HPV screening. I simply encourage women to go and get that screening when appropriate.

Mr Chambers: Minister, this cannot have been an easy decision for you to make. I welcome the fact that it was one that you took after a period of extensive independent fact-finding. My thoughts remain with all the women and families who are involved. Can you assure the House of what can be done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again?

Mr Nesbitt: A lot has happened in the past three years. For example, all eight recommendations from the Royal College of Pathologists report have been implemented. As I said, we have made HPV screening the primary test. We now have a single regional laboratory, provided by the Belfast Trust. All recommendations from NHS England's peer review visit, and those arising from the Southern Trust's serious adverse incident review, either have been fully implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Therefore, we have done a lot. Once again, I encourage women to have confidence in the new regime.

Mr McGuigan: Thousands of women have had misread smear tests, including eight who developed cancer and two who, unfortunately, passed away.

Minister, your decision has denied those families the transparency and accountability that a statutory public inquiry would bring. Given your decision to withhold a public inquiry and given the details that you know, who has been held accountable in this public scandal?

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member will know, because he will have studied the report, Sir Frank has deemed it inappropriate to hold individuals accountable, but the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency (PHA) have been held accountable. We have now moved to a new regime that is being run by the Belfast Trust, and it will be held accountable both for its quality control, which is an internal matter, and quality assurance, which is an external matter. The PHA is in negotiations and talks with colleagues in Scotland to provide that external quality assurance.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, it was wholly regrettable that, in your statement to the House on Thursday, you did not speak about the women who died. Two lives were lost, and they deserve to be remembered. Their lives should not have been lost as a result of the scandal. Minister, obviously you have ruled out a public inquiry. An awful lot of the questions today relate to accountability, but there is also trust. Trust in the system has been lost.

Mr Speaker: Question.

Mrs Erskine: The scandal developed from 2008. We are nearly 20 years down the line. Who should be held accountable? There must be accountability in the system.

Mr Nesbitt: As previously stated, Sir Frank Atherton has said that it would not be appropriate to hold individuals responsible. We hold the Southern Trust responsible. We hold the PHA responsible. We will, going forward, bring controls and quality assurance to the HPV service being offered by the Belfast Trust.

Mr Donnelly: Members of the Ladies with Letters group who have been impacted by the scandal described it as:

At a time when your Department is supposed to be championing openness, transparency and accountability through the Hillsborough law and the Being Open framework, can you see how your response to the report could damage public trust in the process and, indeed, in the health service?

Mr Nesbitt: As I said, when I saw the list of attendees at Oxford Island on Thursday, it was pointed out to me that they were bringing a lawyer. I was asked whether I would like to effectively block that and refuse access to that lawyer. I said no, because I want to be open and transparent. I was presented with six reports that pulled in different directions. To use the word that Sir Frank used on Thursday, those six reports were "dissident". They clash with each other. I do not have the clinical expertise to knit those reports together into a coherent whole: that is why I asked Sir Frank to do it. When the Ladies with Letters said that those six reports did not necessarily include all the information that is pertinent to the case, I asked Sir Frank whether he would meet them. He met them, and he met others who were involved.

I have been open and transparent. However, the bottom line from Sir Frank is that a statutory public inquiry is highly unlikely to advance matters.

Ms Forsythe: It was devastating last week. Many constituents reached out to me. I felt like a gut blow to women across Northern Ireland that no inquiry would progress, with over 17,000 women affected, two women dying and women across the Chamber and across Northern Ireland really losing confidence in the system.

We heard last week of a review declaring institutional misogyny in the PSNI. Minister, we see that time and time again with women's health issues and the lack of a women's health strategy. Are you concerned about the confidence that women in Northern Ireland have over the prioritisation of their health issues?

Mr Nesbitt: I share that concern and have said many times that I will bring forward a women's health action plan, but I would like to see a strategy come forward in the next session. When I bring forward the action plan, I hope to be in a position to mention something else that is a significant first for any Department in terms of gender.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for coming today to answer important questions on the cervical screening programme report. Our thoughts are, first and foremost, with the women and families who have been impacted, and I thank the Ladies with Letters for their determined and persistent campaign for truth.

If the Minister is not going to establish a statutory public inquiry, what will he, his Department and the Southern Trust do to re-establish trust with women to ensure that they are encouraged to continue attending screening in a timely manner?

Mr Nesbitt: When I met the Ladies with Letters and the other families at Oxford Island, I said that I think that the most appropriate and best legacy, not least for the two women who so sadly lost their lives, would be to ensure that the HPV screening currently being undertaken by the Belfast Trust is world class.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, just a matter of months ago, your party colleague stood alongside me and campaigners from Ladies with Letters on the steps of Stormont calling for a full statutory public inquiry. Your party also voted in November in favour of a statutory public inquiry. Do you accept that it was wrong to raise hopes and expectations, and will you apologise to the women for that?

Mr Nesbitt: That is clearly a party political point. Some time ago, the Ulster Unionist Party made a determination to take politics out of the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland. One of the outworkings of that is that Members are more than clear to go and do their constituency work, and, if that involves representing the wishes of their constituents, that is perfectly fine by me. That leaves me clear to pursue the evidence and take evidence-based decisions. In this case, the evidence was so complex clinically that I decided that I needed an expert to advise me; hence I brought in Sir Frank Atherton to do that for me. I did not have to put into the terms of reference advice on whether we should call a public inquiry, but I did.

Mr Robinson: Can the Minister detail to the House the targets and timelines that the Department has set for restoring public trust and increasing cervical screening uptake across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: We made it clear to the Belfast Trust that the PHA will make extremely clear what it expects in respect of quality control in the system. We will monitor that closely. I assure the public that we will move as quickly as possible to secure that external quality assurance.

Mrs Guy: In the report, Sir Frank Atherton explicitly states:

Thousands of women were put through a traumatic review process: that is the least of the harm. Two young women died: that is the worst of the harm.

Minister, you have endorsed the report; in fact, you have used it as the basis of your decision to deny the families a public inquiry. Will you apologise for the cold and insensitive nature of that comment?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure what the Member is referring to as "cold and insensitive". I absolutely regret what happened, particularly the two losses of life. They should not have happened. Anybody accessing healthcare has a reasonable expectation that they will be seen professionally and compassionately, that their screening or diagnosis will be accurate and that their outcomes will be positive, wherever possible. That clearly was not the case. I regret that very much. I have tried to engage with the Ladies with Letters and some of the other families who were included in serious adverse incident reports, and some of those meetings were shockingly insensitive.

I turn to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which has a policy of being human. I expect everyone delivering health and social care to be human and to look at their patients and service users and say, "What if it were my relative? If that were me, what sort of treatment would I expect?".

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be helpful if you could give some guidance on the matter of when we will be able to debate further the Budget, the absence of which is becoming a slow-running crisis in this place.

During Question Time today, the Minister for Communities confirmed, I believe, that funding for domestic violence services was being held up as a result of the absence of a Budget. This is a crisis for the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive cannot or will not agree a Budget, so it would be helpful if the Speaker could offer some guidance on when we might be able to debate that.

Mr Speaker: I can give you clear guidance right now, Mr O'Toole. I would have hoped that you would know what that guidance would be: debates are brought to the Assembly either by a Department, through its Minister, or by private Members' motions, which you are well capable of tabling.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by Party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27A, brackets blah, blah, blah, there is agreement that we can dispense —

— sorry, (1)(A)(b), there is agreement that we dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease until we move on to the next item of business. Thank you.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move

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

Mr McGrath, please open the debate.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our health service is under immense pressure. Patients know it, staff know it, the ambulance crews parked outside hospitals know it, and every family sitting in an overcrowded emergency department knows it. The statistics are stark: over 764,000 people attended emergency departments in Northern Ireland last year; more than 132,000 people waited for over 12 hours to be treated or admitted; and performance against the four-hour target has collapsed to 45%. That is not a system under strain; that is a system in crisis. When the system goes into crisis, it is our doctors and nurses, our healthcare assistants and allied health professionals (AHPs), our porters and admin staff — the people who keep our health service afloat — who feel the pressure. It is not we MLAs who are crying out for help but the staff and patients in our health service.

The question that the Opposition pose is simple: what practical action are we prepared to take to provide help and ease the pressure? That is a question for all Ministers, not just the Minister of Health. While wider transformation is needed and we all understand the scale of reform that is required, interventions are available right now that could relieve pressure, improve patient experience and help people to access care more quickly. That is why the SDLP is calling for the reintroduction of a Northern Ireland-wide 111 service.

Last year, we published our 'Help Can't Wait' proposals to deal with ambulance handover delays. We argued that ambulances should not be waiting outside hospitals for more than 45 minutes, because every minute that an ambulance is parked outside an emergency department is a minute when it is not available for somebody who is suffering a stroke, a heart attack or the results of a serious accident. We presented the case that, with modest investment in emergency department staffing, ambulances could be released from waiting at EDs and quickly get back on the road. That has been tried in London, and it works. At the time, some dismissed those proposals, but the Department has now introduced its two-hour target, which is a step in the right direction. The question now is whether the Minister is prepared to take the next necessary step of introducing a fully integrated 111 service.

Earlier this year, I undertook a fact-finding visit to greater Manchester to see the National Health Service's 111 service operating on the ground. What I saw was not a theory, a pilot or a glossy presentation but a functioning, integrated urgent care system that helps millions of people every year. The North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) handles approximately two million calls for the 111 service, and 90% to 95% of those calls are answered within 60 seconds. Importantly, the service is not a call centre but a front door into healthcare, as patients are triaged and then directed to the right care at the right time in the right place. Around 25% of callers are safely advised to self-care, perhaps via their local community pharmacy. Around 50% are directed to various primary care services. Only a minority require emergency department attendance or an ambulance dispatch. That means fewer unnecessary ambulance call-outs, fewer unnecessary attendances at emergency departments and better use of already stretched resources.

Perhaps the most important thing that I saw was the level of integration. When somebody calls 111, staff can immediately see pathways to GP appointments, urgent care centres, minor injury units, pharmacies, community nursing and mental health support. I watched a live example of what happens when a patient phones seeking help. No GP appointment was immediately available, but, because the system is integrated, the handler arranged an appointment at an urgent care centre the following morning instead. That patient did not end up sitting for hours in an emergency department, did not call an ambulance unnecessarily and did not have to navigate the system alone. That is what good urgent care looks like. In fact, it is what an effective shift left looks like: not asking patients in a waiting room to shift left to make room for others to sit down but instead directing patients to the care that they need closest to home.

One of the arguments that is sometimes made against 111 is that it will overwhelm GPs. Interestingly, that concern was raised in greater Manchester as well. We heard directly from Kristy Barlow, the chief operating officer at the Bolton GP Federation, that the opposite has happened, however. GP practices now reserve a limited number of appointment slots specifically for 111 onward referrals. It is around one slot per day per 3,000 patients. Over time, GPs became more comfortable with the system, because it was structured, predictable and clinically led. In Kristy's words:

The reality here is that people in the North are already struggling to navigate a fragmented, unscheduled care system. Phone First does not work. Many do not know whether they should ring a GP, contact the out-of-hours service, attend a minor injuries unit, go to an urgent care centre or call 999. What therefore happens? People default to the emergency department, because it feels as though it is the safest option, and who can blame them? Having a 111 service would change that. It provides one simple number, one trusted point of contact and one clinically led system. It therefore guides people to the care that they need. For people living in rural communities, access to unscheduled care can feel uncertain and inconsistent. A properly integrated 111 service would give the reassurance that advice and support are available, no matter where somebody lives.

No one in the Chamber is pretending that a 111 service is a silver bullet. It will not solve every structural challenge in our health service, eliminate waiting lists overnight or remove the need for long-term reform. It is, however, a proven intervention, and it is already working elsewhere. The evidence is clear that it reduces pressure on front-line services while improving patient access and experience.

Is there a financial cost? Of course there is. However, like the costs for the proposals contained in our ‘Help Can't Wait’ document, they are modest. If greater Manchester can operate the service at a cost of £23 million per year, we estimate that pro rata it will cost around £6 million per year in the North.

Why is the SDLP suggesting that we should have a fully integrated 111 service? Some 760,000 people per year attend an ED here, and over 1,200 people wait for more than two days to be seen. The SDLP says that that is not good enough. Imagine if those people had been able to dial 111 and had not needed to go to an emergency department in the first place. Some 12,000 patients per month wait for more than 12 hours to be seen. The SDLP says that there is a better way. Imagine if those people had been able to dial 111 and had received the right care, in the right place at the right time. Last year, over 1,000 excess deaths were attributed to the long waits for admission. The SDLP says that it does not have to be like that. Imagine if those lives could have been saved. Can we put a financial cost on saving somebody's life? Absolutely not.

We cannot go on as we are. Our Health Department spends hundreds of millions of pounds more every year and demands that health trusts cut hundreds of millions of pounds in response. Therefore, while Health's budget goes up, our health outcomes are going down. Our staff are crying out for help, patients are not getting care in a timely fashion and something needs to change. A 111 service will not be a panacea, but it could drastically ease the pressure on our system and help to save lives.

I urge Members to support the motion and say this to the Minister: introduce 111 and leave a powerful legacy for future generations.

Mr McGuigan: There will be little disagreement that our urgent and emergency care system is under sustained and growing pressure. The long waiting times in EDs, ambulance delays, overcrowded hospitals and the increasing difficulty in accessing a GP appointment have, unfortunately and regrettably, become almost normalised in our health service. Despite those pressures, healthcare workers across our system continue to provide extraordinary care with professionalism, compassion and commitment, and they deserve recognition and thanks for their dedication.

However, it is also important that we recognise that the pressures facing emergency care do not exist in isolation; they are connected to the wider pressures right across the health and social care system. Last week, the Committee discussed the home care sector and the challenges facing home care providers, such as the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff and the impact that it has on patients who are willing to leave the hospital. The delayed discharges have direct consequences right across the entire system. When patients cannot be discharged safely because care packages are unavailable, hospital beds remain unnecessarily occupied, which reduces hospital flow and increases the pressure on EDs, delays ambulance handovers, contributes to cancelled procedures and places even greater strain on staff. The crisis in home care is directly contributing to the crisis in our hospitals and emergency departments. If we are serious about reforming urgent and emergency care, we must think about the entire patient pathway and how services connect.

A 111 service would not solve all the pressures facing health and social care: no single reform can. It is important that we approach the proposal realistically. The experience elsewhere has shown that 111 systems are not without challenges. In England, concerns have been raised about overly risk-averse triage systems, which can lead to unnecessary referrals to emergency departments or ambulance dispatches. Questions have also been raised about staffing pressures, public confidence and whether sufficient community services are available to provide meaningful alternatives to hospital attendance.

It is equally important to acknowledge that elements of the approach are already being delivered here by the Ambulance Service’s Hear and Treat service and integrated clinical hub services. A number of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Ambulance Service and hear directly about their increased use of clinician-led telephone assessments in how they triage patients' needs for ambulance dispatch or hospital attendance.

I am always cautious about proposals that simply seek to replicate systems that have been developed elsewhere. Whilst we remain partitioned, we are a small health system. We also have different service structures and significant workforce challenges in many areas, as we have discussed in the Chamber on numerous occasions. Rural communities have more difficulty than urban communities in accessing community provision and urgent care alternatives. If those services are not strengthened first, there is real risk that a 111 system could create additional demand without delivering meaningful improvements for patients or front-line staff.

Ultimately, though, the principle underpinning the motion is about ensuring that patients receive the right care in the right place at the right time. There is undoubtable merit in examining coordinated, clinically supported urgent care access. That could complement the shift-left agenda — the neighbourhood model — which is focused on prevention, early intervention and strengthening care within the community. The motion calls for proposals to be brought forward by 2026. That timeline appears to be somewhat ambitious, given the scale of workforce planning considerations, digital integration and service coordination that would be required, but I will leave the Minister or the motion's sponsors to comment on how realistic that time frame is. What matters most is that any future model is properly designed, properly resourced and genuinely capable of improving patient care and system flow — we all agree on that. It is about creating a more joined-up health system that helps patients access appropriate care more quickly, reduces avoidable pressures in hospitals and supports the wider transformation of our health service. That is required urgently.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you to the Opposition for the motion. It is always encouraging when parties in the House are willing to think about ways in which we can do things better. I welcome that, although there are issues that we would need to iron out before such a process or provision would be necessary. That is important.

It is also important that we recognise that we have increasing problems in emergency care, be that in access to GPs or access to appropriate care in our emergency departments. There are far too many long waits. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine's report a few weeks ago painted a catastrophic picture for patients and the health service, stating that many of our patients wait for 12 hours, and more, for appropriate care in our EDs.

We had a version of a 111 system during the pandemic, if I can raise that again: the Phone First service. That aimed to answer 95% of calls within the first minute. Therefore, if we are to introduce such a measure, it should build on some of our existing knowledge and expertise in the area. As others have suggested, the 111 approach is not without its problems. When looking at information ahead of the debate, I discovered that, last year, around 3·7 million calls to the NHS in England were dropped because it took too long to get through. Almost one in five callers — 18% — gave up before they got to speak to anyone. The average time it took to get through was around 25 minutes, according to information in December. There are also queries about the robustness of the data and how the service's effectiveness is measured. While it is important to try to think outside the box, and try to do things that are new and innovative and will help people reach appropriate care much quicker, it is also important to build on and develop best practice from those who are already there.

What is the Scottish experience of the 111 service? They say that, for the majority of respondents who ended their call to the National Health Service, it was again because of long waiting times. If we are to have a 111 service — there is a really good argument for it — it will have to be more efficient, properly staffed, properly resourced and able to meet the expectations of the people who need it. That is the key thing in delivering health services, because, too often, things are set up and people experience failure — failure to deliver appropriately is maybe a better way to say it. That is hugely important.

We will also need much better communication across the systems. You gave the example of someone calling in and being able to identify free GP appointments that that person could be slotted into. That assumes that, in Northern Ireland, we have free GP appointments. One of the greatest complaints that I hear during my constituency work is that we need more appointments. The 8.30 am call to GPs is loathed across my constituency. That is also important.

While we are doing that, we should not forget that there are issues that we really need to address in the here and now that will improve the experience for patients who are trying to access immediate support or advice. I refer to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine survey and those long waits in EDs. This morning, I also took the opportunity to talk to the Southern Trust —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Can the Member bring her remarks to an end?

Mrs Dodds: — about the need for care packages. That must be addressed as well.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the intention behind today's motion to explore a more integrated approach to urgent care in Northern Ireland and help patients access the right care. An integrated 111 service could effectively represent a tidying-up of the existing Phone First and out-of-hours systems. However, without clear evidence of significant unmet need, specifically around system navigation as opposed to the need for wider structural transformation, there is a risk that we are putting the horse before the cart in meaningfully addressing the pressures in our emergency departments.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine report published earlier this year makes for deeply concerning reading. It clearly outlines the fact that overcrowding and long waits in emergency departments are not primarily the result of increased demand. The number of people attending emergency departments has changed relatively little, while the number of long waits and the mortality associated with them has risen dramatically. The number of 12-hour waits has increased by more than 14% from March last year to March this year — 14%. The winter preparedness plan has clearly failed. Almost a quarter of emergency department attendees waited for more than 12 hours before being discharged, admitted or transferred. A decade ago, only 1% of patients waited that long. The report also estimated that 1,032 excess deaths last year could be attributed to long waits for admission, and there have been over 1,000 excess deaths a year for the last three years. Importantly, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine vice chair in Northern Ireland stated:

That is exactly the issue with confusing better navigation of the system with actual transformation of the system itself.

The pressures facing our health service, particularly emergency departments, stem mainly from the lack of capacity in the community and the inability of patients to flow through hospitals to access care in the community. As a nurse and an MLA, I have seen that at first hand. When I visited Antrim A&E in December, there were over 100 medically fit patients who could not be discharged into the community, in comparison with around 50 decisions to admit (DTAs) who were stuck in A&E without being able to get to a ward. It is fundamentally about delayed discharge. It is about social care, investment in community services, nursing home capacity, workforce pressures and whether community care services exist in sufficient capacity to allow patients to leave hospital safely and in a timely manner. Therefore, while anything that can help reduce unnecessary demand on emergency care and help patients access the right care should absolutely be considered, it would be disingenuous and inaccurate to overstate the role that an integrated 111 service could play right now in increasing community capacity or early intervention and prevention and, therefore, the pressures facing emergency departments.

If you want to acknowledge the shift-left agenda and focus on prevention, early intervention and strengthening community provision and the role that that plays in decreasing pressure on EDs, you should look at increasing capacity in the community and ensuring that crisis points are avoided. That means looking at a renegotiated, fairer contract for community pharmacy, fair pay and conditions for care workers and ensuring that there is proper funding for GP surgeries and a fully funded mental health strategy, because prevention, early intervention and strengthening community provision needs to come at a much earlier stage in order to meaningfully tackle the sustained and growing pressures that face our emergency care settings. Yes, let us improve navigation into the system, but, more important, let us fix the reasons why the system is gridlocked in the first place.

Mr Chambers: Few issues better reflect the pressures facing our health service across these islands than the pressures on urgent and emergency care. Every MLA in the Chamber will know of constituents and families who have contacted our offices to highlight their experiences. As the Minister has said regularly in the Chamber, those pressures are no longer associated just with winter but are persistent and all year round. Demand continues to rise. Patients present with increasingly complex needs and challenges, with delayed discharges continuing to place enormous strain on hospitals and ambulance services alike.

Against that backdrop, the principle behind an integrated regional 111 service is sound. While I support the ambition behind the motion, we must be realistic about timelines. Establishing a fully integrated regional 111 service by September 2026 would require significant workforce planning, digital infrastructure and financial investment. It simply cannot be delivered overnight, nor, I suspect, by September, especially given the fact that we still await a Budget. Mr McGrath mentioned the current pressure on our workforce: he is absolutely spot on. However, the timeline in the motion would undoubtedly add to that pressure between now and September.

In principle, a properly designed 111 system could absolutely provide patients with a simpler and more accessible route into urgent care. It could help to ensure that people receive advice earlier, are directed towards the most appropriate setting and avoid unnecessary attendance at already overcrowded emergency departments. Therefore, I am keen to see it delivered. Importantly, the debate also goes directly to the heart of the wider shift-left agenda. For too long, Northern Ireland — a bit like the NHS across the UK — has operated a hospital-centric model that is no longer sustainable. However, we should not pretend that a 111 service on its own is a silver bullet. That is why I very much welcome some of the practical measures that are already under way. Phone First services help to direct patients towards more appropriate pathways, while same-day emergency care services and Hospital at Home models are beginning to demonstrate how care can be delivered differently and more effectively. Likewise, the recent introduction of the Ambulance Service's release-to-rescue protocol has the potential to be a real game changer. For too long, ambulance crews have effectively been trapped outside hospitals instead of responding to emergencies in the community. As an MLA, I have worked with families in North Down over the years who have had to watch a family loved one lie on the ground in pain for appalling lengths of time because there was not sufficient crew available to attend to them with the urgency required.

I commend the Minister for taking steps to rectify that even if they are not always entirely easy or universally popular. The problems that we see in our hospitals today started many years ago. One of the greatest dangers for any health system that is under sustained pressure is that abnormal conditions gradually become normalised. Corridor care, excessive ambulance handover delays and patients waiting unacceptable lengths of time for treatment should never become accepted as simply part of modern healthcare. That is why the responsibility is on us all to ensure that emergency care in Northern Ireland does not just exist but is capable of delivering the safe and timely care that patients deserve. Introducing a 111 service is part of a much broader programme of reform, one based on long-term planning, workforce investment and the political will to confront the deep structural problems across our health system.

Mr Robinson: We are content to support the motion on the basis that we wish to see the Minister consider how a 111 service has functioned on mainland GB and how effective it has been, particularly how it has impacted on EDs, GPs and the Ambulance Service. I say that respectfully to Colin, who has some personal experience of how it has worked in GB. We regularly hear and experience, even as patients ourselves, how urgent and emergency care is under huge strain. We see it in our emergency departments every day. We see and experience patients waiting far too long; ambulance crews stuck outside our hospitals; staff burnt out by doing everything that they can in really challenging circumstances; and people being frustrated because they simply cannot access the right care at the right time.

Too many people end up in emergency departments not because they need emergency care but because they do not know where else to turn. When someone is worried about a sick child, an elderly parent or symptoms that may or may not be serious, they want clear guidance. At present, the experience can be a little confusing, with people trying to decide between contacting a GP, calling an out-of-hours service, attending a pharmacy, going directly to an A&E or dialling 999. For those who are vulnerable or elderly, it is not totally clear where the correct entry point is.

We all know that an integrated 111 service would certainly not be a silver bullet for every challenge facing the health service. There needs to be some honesty about that, but, in saying that, it could become an important part of building a more joined-up model of care. That is why the Minister should explore its benefits in GB. However, there is an elephant in the room: unless social care is addressed, I am pretty confident that any new, integrated telephone service may only direct the public back into a service that is already bursting at the seams, particularly the EDs and ambulance services. Done properly and only under the right conditions, it could mean that a patient is assessed quickly and directed, first time, to the most appropriate service, which would ultimately ensure that people received the right care in the right place. That aligns directly with the Department's ambition to shift care closer to home. We often speak in the Chamber about the shift left and reducing unnecessary hospital demand. Done properly and, again, only under the right conditions, an integrated 111 service could become the front door to that wider transformation piece.

A copy-and-paste model from GB may not suit our needs. The Province has its own geography, health structures and challenges, particularly in the countryside, where access can already be difficult. That means that any future proposals brought forward by the Minister must be designed around the specific needs of our population. Again, I caveat my comments by saying that there may be no point establishing a stand-alone phone line if the services behind it remain as they are. As we all know, they are completely overwhelmed.

The motion asks for proposals to be brought forward by September 2026: I hope that that is doable. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I look forward to whatever the Minister brings back to the House if the motion is agreed.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion — at least, the principle of exploring what is being suggested. I suspect that many people across Northern Ireland are surprised that we do not already have a fully integrated 111 service, given that it has become such a recognised and understood part of healthcare elsewhere in the UK. It is simple; it is memorable; and it gives people clear access to the health service at a time when many people genuinely do not know where to turn.

Despite the wait times and numbers that we see, most people do not want to go to A&E. Nobody wants to sit for six, eight, 12 hours or longer in an overcrowded emergency department with other sick people unless they absolutely have no option. Like many across Northern Ireland, I have, unfortunately, spent long hours in the A&E over the past year, whether on my own behalf or that of family members. I remember waiting for over 17 hours on one visit. As a relatively young and robust person, I could manage that. It was unpleasant, exhausting and frustrating, but I could cope.

What stayed with me far longer, however, was what I saw when I looked around the waiting room. I heard distressed children screaming into the night. I saw older people visibly weeping in pain. I watched vulnerable people become increasingly uncomfortable sitting in chairs for hour after hour because there were no beds and because the staff did not have the space available to deal with the sheer volume of people coming through the doors.

The truth is that many of those people did not want to be there either. They were there because there was nowhere else for them to go. They had been directed there by their GP, an out-of-hours service, a pharmacist or another healthcare professional because the support that they needed was not available in a community setting. More often than not, people attend emergency departments not because they want to but because every other part of the system has effectively funnelled them there.

Increasingly, we are seeing older people present at A&E: people who have fallen; people whose conditions have worsened because their issues were not tackled upstream; and people who could perhaps have been supported at home, in the community, through social care, through early intervention or through better local access to diagnostics and treatment before things reached a crisis point. That is why I support the principle behind having an integrated 111 service.

At present, we have Phone First. That service has its value, and figures show that almost half those who used Phone First and urgent care services in 2024-25 avoided a referral to the emergency department. That tells us something important, which is that when they are given an accessible route into the system, many people safely avoid an unnecessary trip to A&E. Phone First is, however, fragmented and inconsistent. Hours vary across trusts, access varies across trusts and public awareness varies across trusts. It has a really long phone number. I could not even begin to imagine how to start dialling it without googling it, whereas everybody knows 999. Everybody can remember 111, and that is the number that would be used.

Northern Ireland does not need to be the outlier here. If it comes down to simpler and better communication, I definitely think that it is something that the Minister and the Department need to explore. It is one of the more inclusive tools that we could introduce into healthcare. We often talk about digital exclusion, particularly among older people, but we would not be asking someone to navigate a complicated website or app. Rather, it is a straightforward telephone service, with a number that is easy to remember. If anything, we should really be thinking about how older people — the people who will access the service most — will be able to use it.

It will not represent a transformation, however, if the services behind it do not have the capacity to respond. As I said, many of us have had experiences of ending up in A&E simply because there was nowhere else for a relatively straightforward test or assessment to be carried out. I do not mind sharing with Members that I had to attend A&E to get an ECG done. It took minutes to perform, but I waited for hours for those few minutes. The diagnostic process was not readily available elsewhere — in my GP surgery, for example — so the emergency department became the default destination for me. Often, people who attend A&E do not believe that something catastrophic is happening. Rather, they are attending because they need reassurance, monitoring or basic diagnostics to rule out something serious.

If we genuinely want to reduce pressure on our emergency departments, that has to be part of the wider conversation as well. It cannot be enough just to put those diagnostic tools in our GP surgeries. We also have to fund our GPs. We have to give them the confidence to know that it is not just another add-on, separate from their GP contract.

I support the motion. I support a clearer, more coherent front door into our healthcare, and I support helping people access the right care at the right time in the right place. Alongside that, however, we need the courage to deal with the wider failures in the system that continue to push people towards A&E departments, because, too often, that is the only door that is open to them.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr McGrath for proposing the motion and all who have contributed to the debate. We all agree that the situation in our emergency departments is symptomatic of wider pressures, rising demand, more complex patient needs and constrained social care or community capacity. If I had a magic wand, that is where I would be waving it, because —.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: It is very early, but I will give way.

Mr Donnelly: You mentioned rising demand again. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine report states that demand has remained relatively static. To what rising demand are you referring?

Mr Nesbitt: I am referring to the rising demand for healthcare generally. Claire Sugden just made the point that other sections of Health and Social Care (HSC) tend to push people towards emergency departments, but I do not contest what the Royal College of Emergency Medicine is saying.

That constrained community capacity is where I would wave my magic wand, if I had one, because until we deal with the fact that the DTAs — decisions to admit — are heavily outnumbered by the number of patients who are in hospital beds despite being deemed medically fit for discharge, we are not addressing the fundamental problem. Everything else is just around the edges. It is important that we deal with those things as well, but that is fundamental.

I agree with Mr McGrath that a 111 service has the potential to play a significant and enabling role in transforming how people access their urgent care. That is why I included it in my three-year plan in 2024. A 111 service would provide a single, simple point of access — a front door, if you like — through which patients could receive consistent advice and be directed quickly to the right care in the right place. It is not a replacement for existing services; it is a coordinating layer, supporting better navigation by triaging patients and, crucially, directing them, where possible, away from EDs to where their needs can be met more appropriately, be it through primary care, community care or urgent care services. In doing so, a 111 service aligns directly with the shift-left agenda, as many Members pointed out. It would help us move away from a system that is overly reliant on hospital-based care and towards one that prioritises prevention, early intervention and the provision of care closer to home.

To be clear, however, establishing a fully operational regional 111 service is a major system change. It would require not just a telephone platform but workforce, clinical governance, pathway development and supporting digital infrastructure. That requires detailed planning and sustained investment. In my three-year plan, I made clear that the delivery of a 111 service was not possible without resources and a plan. Without that plan, a programme of work and investment, there is a real risk that we could create a substandard service that generates additional demand without the proper tools to meet it. Members have already made that point. It could ultimately increase, rather than relieve, pressure on front-line services.

I do not need to repeat the funding pressures that face my Department. They are well known and well documented, but, put simply, the development of a 111 service requires resources that I do not currently have. However, in the absence of a confirmed Budget, we are not standing still. As a system, we are continually focused on strengthening, better integrating and enhancing existing services and pathways, and on improving patient flow within the existing resources.

I must emphasise that people who need access to advice or urgent care can continue to contact their local Phone First services, which are already in place in all geographic trusts. While I recognise that Phone First is not the same as a regional HSC 111 service, statistics indicate that it plays an important part in diverting people from ED services towards services that are more appropriate for their needs. I encourage everyone who needs it to make use of the current Phone First service. In addition, our GPs and the services that they provide for their communities, in and out of hours, are critical in supporting patients. Community pharmacies also play a key role in supporting patients with minor illnesses and reducing unnecessary demand on GP and emergency services.

No single lever will fix ED waits, and no individual reform, service or policy can, on its own, eliminate overcrowding, delays and corridor care. Progress will depend on taking a whole-hospital, whole-system approach that provides appropriate alternatives to emergency departments, addresses capacity and demand issues in them and supports patient flow through timely, appropriate discharge of patients to free up beds for those who need them. My Department continues to act to improve hospital flow, reduce ED congestion and ensure that patients receive timely, safe and effective care. Urgent care centres, minor injury units, Phone First and GP out-of-hours services are fully operational across the region, helping to divert appropriate demand away from EDs.

In relation to the Ambulance Service, we are strengthening Hear and Treat and See and Treat pathways. Members will also be aware that the Ambulance Service implemented its Release to Rescue protocol on 27 April. The protocol is designed to ensure that ambulance crews are able to hand over patients into the clinical care of ED staff within two hours of arrival at hospital so that those crews are available to respond to further calls.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I acknowledge what you said about the Release to Rescue protocol. Do you acknowledge that Release to Rescue adds extra pressure on wards? I know of a ward that went from five corridor beds up to six when Release to Rescue started. How many times has Release to Rescue been activated since its commencement?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. Release to Rescue is going into its fourth week. I believe that it has been, by and large, successful. It has by-products and consequences, such as the one that the Member mentioned. I intend to make a statement much more specifically about Release to Rescue in the coming days, so, if the Member will forgive me, I will stand by for that. I think that I have already told the House that, in the first four days of operation, the number of ambulances that had to wait for over two hours and breach Release to Rescue was eight. That is a phenomenally good number, but I think that everybody in HSC is a bit nervous about going too fast too soon and saying, "This is a success story". The early indications are pretty good, with the proviso of the additional pressures within the confines of hospital settings.

The motion rightly highlights the shift-left agenda. It is about prevention, early intervention and strengthening care as close to home as possible. As my permanent secretary said to the Health Committee on 7 May, although work is in its early stages, Northern Ireland can be a "trailblazer" when it comes to implementing the neighbourhood model. I fully endorse that view. We are a small country with a strong ethos of collaboration across professions, organisations and sectors. We can support patients in accessing the care that they need in the most appropriate setting.

I have already said that the solution to reducing ED pressures requires a whole-hospital, whole-system approach. It is not just about the front door but about the back door, including, as I have said, timely discharge. Early review teams continue to demonstrate tangible benefits, such as releasing home care capacity, with a significant proportion of individuals requiring reduced or no ongoing packages of care following review. The introduction of regional protection for home care packages on hospital admission further supports timely discharge once patients are medically fit. Digital enablers have been progressed to improve transparency and efficiency across social care pathways. CareLineLive has been implemented across all the trusts, delivering measurable efficiencies in home care hours, although I accept that some Members have concerns about the squeezing of the time that is devoted to service users at home. I recognise the core importance of community capacity, which requires a long-term solution.

I absolutely agree that social care workers must be appropriately paid, in recognition of the work that they do to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I wanted to do that last September. I remain committed to doing so. Given current financial pressures, it will be a priority in planning for the 2026-27 Budget, which, as we know, the Executive have yet to agree.

I reiterate the fact that there is no quick or easy fix to the challenges that are faced in our emergency departments. Achieving the improvements required will involve a complex interplay of services in and across the wider HSC system. I recognise and support the ambition regarding a regional 111 service, as set out in the motion. I am committed to bringing forward system and service reforms that are practical, deliverable and aligned with our wider reset agenda, subject, of course, to the necessary funding's being made available.

Mr McGrath raised a couple of points. The Department is a bit nervous about your cost estimate. It has looked at the systems in Scotland and Wales and wants to look a bit more deeply, but it fears that it may be a bit more expensive than £6 million. Having said that, with a shortfall estimated at £760 million, it will be challenging, to say the least, to get the permanent secretary to agree that any new service is affordable. However, it is well worth continuing to look at that. I read the SDLP's news release about the proposals. It included a promise to ask to meet me. I did not hear Mr McGrath mention that in his speech, but I emphasise that my door is open.

Finally, Mr McGrath said, "Let's get it going by September 2026", and a couple of Members said that that was, to paraphrase, ambitious. I think it is, but there are only 311 days left before purdah. You are looking at a man and a Minister in a rush to get things done, so let us be ambitious.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Sinéad, you have 10 minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. It has come through clearly that there is a recognition across the Chamber that our urgent and emergency care system is under serious and sustained pressure and that people are increasingly frustrated by how difficult it can be to access the right care at the right time. As an MLA for Foyle, I see the reality of that pressure every week through conversations with constituents, with patients and with staff in Altnagelvin Hospital, and I know the dedication and professionalism of the staff working there. They have continued to provide outstanding care in incredibly difficult working conditions, often dealing with overcrowding, workforce pressures and growing demand. The staff at Altnagelvin are doing everything that they can do to keep the system moving, as staff are doing throughout the rest of Northern Ireland, but they are carrying the weight of pressures that have been building for years.
I think that everyone in the House recognises that front-line healthcare workers cannot continue being asked to absorb rising demand without meaningful reform and proper support around them. The reality is that too many people currently find themselves trying to navigate a healthcare system that feels fragmented and difficult to access — many Members referred to that today — particularly when they are worried, vulnerable and in urgent need of care. People are often unsure exactly whether they should contact their GP, attend the out-of-hours service, seek advice from a pharmacist or go directly to an emergency department. In many cases, they end up attending emergency departments because they simply do not know where else to turn to or because they are unable to access the timely support elsewhere in the system. That too has been referred to throughout the debate. That has contributed to the growing pressures across urgent and emergency care, longer waiting times and increasing frustration for patients and staff alike. That is why the SDLP brought the motion to the Floor today. It is not because we are pretending that a 111 service will solve every challenge facing our healthcare system but because we believe that it can form an important part of a wider transformation agenda. Philip McGuigan made that clear.

We need to focus on prevention, on early intervention and on helping people to access care more carefully. A Northern Ireland-wide 111 service would provide people with a single accessible point of contact when they need urgent healthcare, and I agree with Diane Dodds that it would need to be efficient and properly staffed from its conception. It would offer clinically led triage and help to direct people towards the most appropriate service, whether that is a GP, a pharmacy, urgent care, mental health support or, where necessary, an emergency department.

At its core, the proposal is about making the system easier for people to navigate and helping to ensure that they get the right care at the right time. It is also important to stress that this is not about replacing services or downgrading emergency departments; it is about improving how people move through the system and reducing unnecessary pressure where possible. Danny Donnelly, I think, spoke about the inability of patients to move in and out of the system and about allowing patients to leave hospital safely: we agree with that.

We can also look at how we support patients in how they enter the system, and that is really what we are discussing today. If somebody can receive appropriate advice and support without having to spend hours waiting in an emergency department, that is better for the patient and better for the wider health service. As we know from other regions, the integrated 111 service can play an important role in supporting community care and reducing pressure on front-line services when they are properly connected into wider healthcare pathways. Of course, Members have rightly made the point throughout the debate that the 111 service cannot operate in isolation, and I agree with that entirely. Its effectiveness depends on wider integration with primary care, community services, mental health support and social care provision. If those parts of the system are under and remain under pressure, any urgent care reform will struggle to deliver to its full potential. That is why the motion is linked firmly to the Executive's wider shift-left agenda.

As Alan Chambers indicated, the problems in our health system did not happen overnight. For years, we have heard commitments about prevention, early intervention and strengthening care in communities. If we are serious about delivering that transformation, we need practical reforms that help to connect people with services earlier and more effectively. Alan Robinson spoke about patients having to manoeuvre sometimes complex and confusing pathways. A 111 service has the potential to become an important part of the approach to creating a simpler and more joined-up front door to healthcare. There is an important wider point here about accessibility and public confidence.

Healthcare should not be or feel confusing. People should not feel that they need to understand the internal workings of a system before they can even get help. For many people, especially old or vulnerable people or those already dealing with stress and anxiety, trying to figure out something or where they can turn to becomes another barrier to accessing care and the system. The proposal is about removing some of those barriers and creating a system that feels more responsive, more connective and easier to navigate.

The debate has shown that there is support across the Chamber for moving that conversation forward. Members understand that people want to see practical improvements that make a difference to their everyday experiences. The motion calls on the Minister to bring forward proposals for a wider 111 service by September 2026. Time is running out — the clock is ticking — and that is a reasonable ask. Following the debate, I hope that the Minister recognises that support.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: OK.

Mr McGrath: It is about bringing proposals by September 2026. A few Members said that it is almost about the introduction of the service. We appreciate that the introduction would be complex and take time, but the idea of the motion is that the proposals would be there by September.

Ms McLaughlin: Absolutely.

Claire Sugden articulated clearly the human reality of our emergency departments. She said that, when people were worried about their health or the health of someone whom they love, they should not be left trying to navigate a fragmented system on their own.

I am disappointed by the Minister's remarks about establishing a 111 service. Minister, I know that it is a major transformation project and that it is not possible without funding, workforce plans and resources, which, you say, you do not have. However, referring people to the Phone First service will not address the issues that we are raising today. We need another front door that helps people into the system. I welcome your offer that your door is open, but the door being open and doing things are two different things.

People deserve a healthcare system that works for them. The motion is ambitious. We cannot trundle along the way we are. It causes real harm and, sometimes, premature deaths. While a 111 service is not the full solution, it is certainly a contributor to a long-term solution. I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Members. I ask you to take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, 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.

Ms Hunter: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five 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 eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Cara, please open the debate.

Ms Hunter: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the motion on behalf of families across the North who are watching the clock tick down to their child's nineteenth birthday with a profound fear that no parent should ever have to carry. Right now, too many families In Northern Ireland are enduring that. For their children, turning 19 means falling off a cliff edge: no groups, no games, no fun, no help getting into employment and no socialising. The school gates close; the therapists stop calling; and, often, transport stops arriving. Routines change for ever as the structure that has held their child together since the age of three simply disappears. After years of children with special educational needs having structure and specialist support in education, when those young people turn 19, they and their families are suddenly left to navigate a fragmented and inadequate system all on their own. Families call it a "cliff edge", and the truth is that they are absolutely spot on.

Before going any further, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the people who have made the motion possible: not us, the politicians, but the parents, carers and campaigners who have refused to let the issue be ignored. They have refused to be silent. I pay particular tribute to Alma and the extraordinary work of Caleb's cause, a campaign born out of love, frustration and a fierce, unbreakable belief that every young person with special educational needs deserves dignity, a future and, of course, to be seen. Alma, what you have done in Caleb's name has changed hearts and minds in the Chamber and far beyond it. Caleb's cause highlights the point that every family who has a child with special educational needs endures this when their child reaches the age of 19. The motion is yours: you are the reason that it is before the House today.

There is a truly human cost to delay. I have sat in many rooms across my constituency with mothers in their 40s, 50s and 60s who are exhausted, frightened and grieving the loss of the system that has always been there to support their child. One mother said to me, "I am not afraid of dying, but I am afraid of dying first". That speaks to the experience of many mothers and fathers of children with special educational needs. They are terrified because they know that, when their child grows up, an adequate support system will not be there. That is really concerning, given that there are now over 70,000 children in the North with special educational needs, which is almost one in four pupils. Year-on-year, we have seen a profound increase in the numbers, yet we still do not have the system organised to support them once they hit the age of 19. That is not just a policy gap. I feel strongly that it is a failure of dignity, care and long-term planning. It is a failure that the Assembly and Executive must put right.

We are falling behind. Let us compare ourselves with England, where an education, health and care (EHC) plan provides legal entitlement to support for children and young people up to the age of 25; Scotland, where the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 guarantees coordinated provision into young adulthood; or even with the South, which is legislating to put adult disability services on a statutory footing.

If we do not act, this falls on families' shoulders. Families face uncertainty; fragmented services; wildly inconsistent provision, depending on the trust area that they live in; and the enormous emotional and practical pressure of becoming, all at once and, often, well into one's seventies and eighties, a case manager, an advocate, a transport provider, a therapist and a carer. Families should not have to fight endlessly for the rightful support that their children need to live meaningful lives, yet, sadly, in the current system, that is exactly what we ask them to do.

The cost of inaction is evident. The human cost of the cliff edge is staggering. Young people often regress, with skills that took years to build being lost in a matter of months. Mental health deteriorates, parents leave the workforce, siblings become carers before they have finished their own education and, too often, the only respite that a family gets is from a crisis admission.

Today, the SDLP asks for, first, a clear statutory entitlement to support that follows the young person, not the postcode; secondly, consistent, high-quality provision across trust areas so that, whether a child is in Coleraine or Bangor, they have exactly the same support, adequate to meet their need; and, lastly, a duty on the Ministers of Health, Education and the Economy to work together so that we provide for every child as an equal.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Philip. 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 McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will speak in favour of the motion and, in particular, to our amendment. As Cara did, I acknowledge at the outset the work of Alma White and the other Caleb's cause campaigners in raising the issue and setting the political agenda. I welcome all who are in the Public Gallery. Alma's determination, courage and persistence have, along with the rest of the campaign group, ensured that the voices of families caring for young people with special educational needs, additional needs and complex needs can no longer be ignored.

For too many families across the North, the transition out of school and children's services at the age of 19 is not a transition but, as Cara said, a cliff edge. One day, there is structure, therapy, transport, educational provision, respite and coordinated support; the next day, families are left to navigate fragmented adult services, between Departments and on inconsistent pathways, often without guidance or protection. I have listened to parents tell me about the years that they spent preparing their child for adulthood only to watch statutory support disappear overnight when school ended. That, surely, is not fair; it is certainly not what families deserve.

Young people with special educational needs have the same aspirations as everyone else. They want opportunities to learn, to contribute, to build relationships, to participate in their communities and to live with dignity and purpose. In reality, the options available to many young people post 19 are non-existent or far too limited. Many young people move into university, further education and employment, while those with profound or complex needs often face a future in which little meaningful provision is available to them. Families are left to battle for support services and appropriate placements, often reaching crisis point before help arrives.

Unlike in England, where, as we have heard, education, health and care plans will continue until the age of 25, there is no equivalent statutory protection in the North once a young person turns 19. Whilst other parts of these islands have developed varying levels of post-19 support, families here continue to face uncertainty and inconsistency. That is why our amendment is important and adds to the motion. It recognises that the issue cannot sit in one Department. It is not solely an education issue; it is not solely a health issue. It is about health, education, skills, employment, independent living, social care, transport and family support. That requires a genuinely joined-up cross-departmental response.

Our amendment therefore calls on the Minister of Health who, I am disappointed to say, will not be responding to the motion, to lead on the issue and to begin the necessary preparatory work, ahead of the next mandate, to develop legislation that supports post-19 adults with special educational needs or additional and complex needs in all aspects of their lives. It also calls on the Minister of Health to work proactively with the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Education to develop legislative proposals that facilitate proper transition planning for young people, post 19, and address the issue of the loss of statutory support once a young person leaves children's services. Families should not be left abandoned and frustrated between Departments, and young people should not lose support simply because they reach an arbitrary age threshold.

I acknowledge the important work that has been undertaken by my party colleague Caoimhe Archibald, the Minister for the Economy, who is here to respond to the motion. Under her leadership, the Department for the Economy undertook a review of post-school provision for SEN learners, engaging with parents, schools, colleges, advocacy organisations and community groups that had been calling for change for years. That work has already helped to bring forward proposals that are aimed at improving access to further and higher education; strengthening support in colleges and training programmes; improving careers advice and transition planning; and exploring how apprenticeships can be made more accessible for young people with additional needs.

Importantly, there has been a commitment to developing a dedicated transition support service so that families are not left to navigate the challenges alone. Those are positive changes, but families also need leadership from the Department of Health. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Health Minister has stated that there is insufficient time in the mandate to bring forward the necessary legislation. Families have waited long enough. At the very least, preparatory work should begin on meaningful legislative change that can be progressed in the next mandate.

Parents should not have to lie awake at night wondering what will happen to their son or daughter when they are no longer there to provide care. Families deserve accessible, reliable, specialist support services —

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

Mr McGuigan: — that respond consistently to their needs.

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

Ms Brownlee: I wholeheartedly support the motion and amendment. First, however, I thank Alma, Caleb's cause and all the parents and carers who have worked so hard to get the debate to the House. It has been impossible to ignore this issue, because they have made sure that it could not be ignored. Their determination, persistence and refusal to give up have forced us all to acknowledge the reality that so many families across Northern Ireland face, every single day, which is that our most vulnerable young people are being failed. Every year, young people leave the safety and structure of a special school and fall off a cliff edge to uncertainty, isolation and fear. Every year, families who have fought for years to secure support find that that support suddenly disappears the moment their child turns 19. There is no plan, no pathway and no certainty about what comes next.

Last year, I met a young lad who was preparing to leave school. He was sad about leaving his friends, teachers and the school environment because that is where he felt safe. What stayed with me the most, however, was not his sadness about leaving school but his fear of having nowhere to go. He felt totally worthless. Last week, I met another young man. He is aged 17, and his parents are exhausted from managing serious physical and behavioural challenges every day. Hanging over that family is their one terrified question: how will they cope when school ends?

That is the reality of post-19 SEN. It means parents leaving work because there is nowhere suitable for their child to go; families being pushed to breaking point, emotionally, physically and financially; and young people sitting at home, isolated and losing confidence, routine and opportunities. Worst of all, it means potential being wasted. Those young people have value. They have abilities, talent and personalities. They have a future, and they matter just as much as anybody here. All that families ask for is the reassurance that their child will not simply be abandoned once they have left school. It is not about dependency but dignity: giving young people the opportunity to live meaningful lives in environments that allow them to flourish, not systems that place barriers in their way.

The frightening truth is that the crisis is only growing. The Public Accounts Committee warned about the increasing number of young people with special educational needs who are leaving education every year. Departments are failing to properly work together or even to share the very basic data needed to plan for those children's future. Families do not care which Department is responsible, and they do not care about silos or bureaucracy; they just want to know that their child has a future. Right now, for far too many families, the future feels uncertain and frightening. I welcome the application to the transformation fund. However, families need a lot more than warm words or short-term projects; they want action, long-term planning and —

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

Ms Brownlee: — they need the guarantee of consistent support. Members on these Benches completely, wholeheartedly support the motion, and we will do everything that we can to protect our young people.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Regretfully, since this is the last motion of the day, we have a strict time limit of one hour and eight minutes, so, when I ask Members to keep to the time, please do so.

Ms Nicholl: My office is just round the corner from Mencap, so I have the privilege of working with so many of the families. Since becoming an MLA, I have been horrified to learn how much those parents have to fight every day to, for example, get their child into a nursery school or a primary school; make sure that their child is in the right primary school; get a statement for their child; make sure that the secondary school is the right fit for their child; or make sure that their child has the right wrap-around care or the right access to services. It is not just about education; if the child has complex needs, it is about the right health support. They fight the whole time while the clock ticks down to when their child turns 19, and then they do not know what will happen next. I pay tribute to Alma White. I see her, in a blue T-shirt, sitting in the Great Hall more than I see some Members of the Assembly. She is always here. She is always fighting for her son. Just like every other parent of a child with special educational needs, she is always fighting.

It is not enough to say that we are running out of time. I welcome the fact that the Economy Minister is here. She has done her work. It should be the Health Minister who is here. I welcome the motion. It is important that we have this discussion, but we need to listen. We need to hear what those parents are telling us. They do not want their cause promoted; they want action. They want to know that their children will have a future when they are gone. At the moment, they do not have that from us. We are failing them. We can have more rallies and more debates on the issue, but what they need is concrete action. It is terrifying for them. They fight so hard. "Nothing about us without us": we need to listen to what they are telling us. What they are saying is that the Economy Minister has started the policy work, but it is the Health Minister who needs to complete that part.

It is a pity that we have only an hour for the motion; it would have been preferable to have longer. This is such an important issue, and there is so much in it. There is not much more that I can say other than that a great deal of hurt has been passed on to those families through some of the things that have been said in the Chamber and the way in which they have been treated. They are just doing what every other parent is doing: fighting for their children. We know that we have less than a year left, but policy work can be done to make sure that they get answers. It is great that we are having this discussion, but what happens next? Those parents have to fight every single day, and it is not good enough. They should be top of the list and our priority. There are plenty of other things that I was going to say, but my main message is that those parents and children deserve so much more. Please, can we get on with it, rather than just having more conversations and more selfies?

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

Ms Nicholl: They want action.

Mr Burrows: Addressing the issue of special educational needs end to end is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It is the responsibility of every Member in the Chamber, just about every member of the Executive and the Economy, Health, Education and Communities Ministers in particular. It is not right that there is a cliff edge at 19. I pay tribute to Alma White and Caleb's cause and to all the other carers, families, young people and siblings who support people with special educational needs.

In the Great Hall last month, I was really moved when a young man — I am sorry that I forget his name — said, "I am my brother's future carer". He is probably only eight or nine, but he said that he will take on the responsibility of looking after his brother when his parents pass.

My cousin had Down's syndrome, and his mum and dad lived with the constant worry about who would look after Ivan when they died. It is something that the rest of us do not think about, unless we are in that position. It is right that there is support.

We also need to look at it holistically. There is also a need for more support in the early years, because we do not give enough support to children aged from zero to five years. We do not give enough support once you are at school. We do not give the schools the resources they need to support the children when they are at school. We have SENCOs who are trying to do two jobs — to be a special educational needs coordinator and a teacher. We have young people in taxis that drive past two or three schools to go to a school at the other end of the Province. The answer from the Education Authority when they spend three hours on the road is to reduce their timetable to make sure they do not spend an inordinate amount of time away from home, which further disadvantages the young people.

I fully accept and make no apologies or try to take us away from our responsibility. The Health Department needs to grapple with and develop solutions to support people after the age of 19. Some things are being done at the moment, and I will address them in a second. I speak to a number of parents, and I hear that not only do they want support for the young people, because it is right, but many of those parents want to work and are being held back. Therefore, it will be good for our economy; it is good for the young people; and I say this —.

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

Mr Burrows: I fully accept that we hold the Ministry. We have a key responsibility, but so do we all . I commend those who care for our young people.

Mr Baker: The families in the Gallery heard the Health Minister say that he would not be found wanting in the 311 days left to him, but then he scurried out the door. As the leader of the party that holds the Department, you have a responsibility, because that is where it is failing right now. Imagine the opportunities that we all had when we were 19 and the opportunities that are now being offered to those children. They are being given one option, with no guidance, no support and no real choice. That their voice does not matter and their future does not matter is the clear message that they got from the Health Minister today when he walked out that door.

Children are simply being placed into a box that does not fit them, and that is the reality of post-19 SEN provision for too many children and young people with complex needs. Choice is not an option; equity does not exist; and the pathway ahead is not clear. Imagine navigating a system that was not built for you; a system that says, "Wait longer and fight harder"; a system that needs to be reformed. However, we have already seen proposals for reform that will make the system worse. The Children's Law Centre has sounded the alarm bells about the reforms being proposed by the Education Minister. Across the water, there are proposals that will take away the rights and legal protections of children and their families. The Minister who is responding in the Chamber today has done solid work to progress the opportunities for children with additional needs. However, in all honesty, we needed the Health Minister and the Education Minister to be here to play their role in the next piece of the puzzle.

Young people who attend special schools live with a wide range of complex needs and challenges. Behind every one of those people is a family that fights every day, year-on-year, to access support that should already exist. There is no clear guidance, joined-up planning or straightforward pathway, and we saw that recently when two Ministers could not even pick up the phone to each other. Families are left to rely on one another to navigate an exhausting system.

The hard truth that we cannot ignore is that children do not stay children for ever. They grow up, but their disabilities do not disappear. Their needs do not suddenly end when they leave school or turn 25. Children with additional and complex needs need the Health Minister and the Education Minister to get real. They need to re-engage with parents and human rights advocates and to prioritise the resources in their budgets to support children with additional and complex needs, because right now they are slipping through the cracks of a system that barely exists. That is why Caleb's cause exists, and it is fighting for what young people deserve: a lifelong care plan, equality and pathways. The Assembly still has time to work together around the clock to build a legacy of hope, dignity and future possibilities. Is it not time for the Education and Health Ministers to show up —

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

Mr Baker: — step up and do the right thing?

Mrs Dodds: Before I make my remarks, I, like other Members, acknowledge the work of Alma White — I could not quite see her in the Public Gallery — and Caleb's cause. We would not be debating this today were it not for the people in the Public Gallery. We owe them a debt of gratitude for highlighting the issue.

Such is the support for the issue across the Chamber that the people in the Public Gallery would be right to wonder, "Why on earth has nothing happened?". I was astounded at the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. The debate is about post-19 provision. Post-19 provision falls mainly in two Departments: the Department for the Economy, which has done a revision of post-19 provision; and the Department of Health, which has said in a way that was difficult for the people in the Public Gallery and particularly Alma to hear, "You know what? There just isn't enough time to be bothered to do this". I do not think that that is the mood of Members generally. It is something that we should revisit time and time again until we get to a situation where Health accepts that responsibility and does something about it.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will, if I get an extra minute.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will get an extra minute.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you.

Mr Burrows: The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that it is a collective responsibility and included Health. Two parties collapsed the Executive, and that reduced the time that we had. We should take collective ownership of an issue that affects everybody.

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that you are better than that, Mr Burrows. I will proceed.

It is an issue that will not go away. It is not going to go away, because we have an increasing number of children with special educational needs in our schools, so we will have an increasing number of children and young people post 19. We need to provide for those young people, and we need to provide a pathway. One of the greatest health issues that I come across all the time is the fear of the transition from children's services to adult services. What we have and what we are talking about today is the same fear.

I will tell the story of a friend whose young son went to Fleming Fulton School. He led a very full life. He went to school from 8.15 am; was home at 4.30 pm; and went to a youth club two nights a week. When he finished at 19, his provision was two half days in an adult day centre. That is an indictment on all of us and something on which we need to work to rectify. We have an education system that puts its arms around our young people and provides so much for them, but then they transition from that and have little or nothing.

I will say one thing in closing. Minister, you have come to respond to the debate — that is good — but, in many ways, your work is about the young people who can go on into further education. There is a large and growing cohort of young people with complex needs who will not be able to access that. That is where we need Health to step in and do the work.

Mrs Guy: It is an extraordinary achievement that, when anyone hears the words "post 19", they think of Caleb's cause. As we have acknowledged, credit for that goes to Alma White, who is a force of nature, and the community of families who stand with her and Caleb. It is a community that forces us to see it and the crisis that it is in, because we have an incoherent, disparate system that, it feels, is set up to frustrate and defeat families into giving up rather than guide them towards support.

The motion is welcome, but it is a source of frustration that, at this stage of the campaign, neither the motion nor the amendment includes the words "complex needs". There is also a sense that the Health Minister is best placed to make progress on the key asks of Caleb's cause and should be here responding. However, at the end of the day, whom we are fighting with for support is less important than those whom we are fighting for. We are, of course, advocating for the full range of special-school-leavers who are being failed post 19, but, given the limited time for the debate, I will focus on the young people such as Caleb who have complex needs and are especially susceptible to the cliff edge.

Whilst the Caleb's cause campaign is around only two years old, Alma recognises that the cause is over a decade old. In 2016, the Post 19 Lobby Group secured a Committee report and a debate on the issue. Ten years on, with two Assembly collapses consuming half of that time, little progress has been made, and, today, we find ourselves in a full-blown crisis. The number of special-school-leavers annually is in the hundreds, not thousands, with 300 estimated to leave this year. That number will grow in the coming years, so we must start planning now to deliver on current and future demand. The key call is for person-centred, legally enforceable care plans that consider lifelong support needs for every young person with complex needs at the point of transition. That is where the conversation is now.

Too many families live with unimaginable fear and anxiety. I had a mother tell me, "My career has an expiration date. I have nine years left". She has nine years left before her child leaves school, and, after that, she sees nothing. I have sat with parents who say, "We simply cannot die because, when we are gone, who will step in and care for our child?". I have spoken to siblings, who are young people themselves, who are limiting their careers and ambitions because they know that they may one day become the full-time carer for the brother or sister whom they love. Other parents are utterly broken, isolated and exhausted and are contemplating something much darker for themselves and their child. We cannot let it come to that. At the end of the day, empathy is not getting it done. Action is needed, and it is shamefully overdue.

Ms Sugden: The situation has often been described as a "cliff edge". It has been described as that for as long as I have been an MLA, which is just over 12 years, and, I imagine, for much longer than that. I remember a meeting that I had with a departmental official at which we talked about the issue. That person said, "Claire, that is a great idea, but it is not in our remit" — not our remit, not our problem. To be honest, that is what characterises this Northern Ireland Executive. This is one Government, and Ministers should all be working together around the Executive table.

I appreciate that the Minister for the Economy is here, but the Minister of Health should be here, as should the Minister of Education, because it stops at his Department — that is where the cliff edge is. The Minister of Education could continue SEN provision until age 25 if he had the support of Executive colleagues and had the funding to put it in place. Therefore, it is not fair to say that it should be one Minister over another: if anything, we are repeating the mistakes of the past. When will this Government start focusing on outcomes-based accountability? That means Ministers working together and recognising that it is not about you, your party politics or the election next year but about young people and families who struggle day-to-day to get basic care needs in place.

When will the action come? As I said, we have been talking about the issue for 12 years or longer. Right now, we need action. I think that the Minister of Education is changing legislation in relation to exams up to the age of 19: let us amend that legislation so that we can get take responsibility for kids with special educational needs until they are 25. Rossmar School in my constituency is offering to provide that support because it knows that it has the expertise and that simply putting those children and young people into a day centre is irresponsible and shameful. The Executive should be embarrassed by that, because turning 19 does not remove autism, profound learning disabilities or vulnerability. However, for some reason, in Northern Ireland, it removes support.

We need to challenge how narrowly society defines success for those young people. Not every pathway has to lead to university or traditional employment and skills. That is why it is disappointing that the only Minister in the Chamber today is the Minister for the Economy. We need to look at the pathways and see that this is a Health and Education problem and a Northern Ireland Executive problem. When everybody stood in the Chamber, took their oath and agreed to work together, that is what we expected and what we were elected to do, but that is not happening. We can talk here and be supportive of the motion. I agree with Diane Dodds that, generally, there is support around the Chamber from individual MLAs for the situation to move forward, so where is the problem? Most parties have Ministers on the Northern Ireland Executive, and they can move the situation forward.

We appreciate that it is a big piece of work, but we need to start to put it in place. We need action now. The debate —

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

Ms Sugden: — is ultimately about dignity. We need to give that dignity back to the people who live this every day.

Mr Donnelly: The issue sits across multiple Departments, weaved inextricably into the fabric of our society. The impacts are monumental and far-reaching for those who rely on SEN support. We have heard again and again about the cliff edge of support post 19, but it is imperative that we grasp what it means for the young people in our society and their families who are left trying to navigate fragmented systems across health, education and everyday life for lifelong conditions. That cannot be acceptable in modern society. We cannot simply abandon people. I share the disappointment that has been expressed here that the Health Minister is not here to hear the debate. We need to do more than just acknowledge their struggle: there has to be a solution. When I think about Alma and her tireless work for Caleb's cause or those who have campaigned endlessly to have their voices heard, I see how their advocacy has ensured that those experiences cannot be ignored, yet they are still being left behind by a system that is not working for them.

That is representative of a far wider problem in our society and how it supports those in the deaf and disabled community. I have heard that directly from the people who are most impacted. It is an endless fight just to have access to the most basic rights. That should never be accepted. It should not be the norm. No one should have to campaign relentlessly simply to secure the support and stability that they need to live a full life.

In other jurisdictions, it has been recognised that transition planning must include education, health, social care, employment and independent living and that that support should continue where it remains necessary for a young person to achieve their outcomes. We cannot continue to accept a situation where Northern Ireland lags behind other jurisdictions on something that is so fundamental. People here should not have to settle for less support or fewer opportunities simply because our system is so fragmented. I support the calls for Ministers to work together to develop proposals that facilitate effective transition planning for young people post 19 and address the loss of statutory support when young people move from children's services into adult provision. If we already know where the gaps are, we have a responsibility to close them. There must be clear pathways, coordinated planning and consistent provision so that young people with SEN can continue to access the support, opportunities and stability that they need to participate fully in society.

Mr Gaston: I support the motion but regret the fact that it contains nothing that will bring the laudable aspiration that it articulates to fruition. The motion does not address a fundamental question: why does Northern Ireland lag significantly behind other parts of the UK on the issue? The answer lies in the choices made around the Executive table.

Northern Ireland receives Barnett consequentials arising from spending decisions made in England on education, disability support and SEN provision, yet families here still face a far weaker statutory framework and a far sharper cliff edge after 19. Why? It is because in Northern Ireland that funding is diverted to other matters that the Executive deem to be more of a priority. Let us recall that, for every £1 spent on SEN provision in England, the Executive receive £1·24. Parents rightly ask where that money goes. When I ask the Finance Minister about such issues, all that I get back is the bland response that, "Barnett consequentials are unhypothecated"; in other words, the Executive get the money but spend it in other areas.

What do England and Wales have that we do not? They have statutory protections through to 25 where appropriate: a legally enforceable integrated plan across education, health and social care and formal accountability mechanisms, including tribunal rights and legal challenge mechanisms. That is not to say that everything is rosy in England, but they have made progress on the issue. What we need to do in Northern Ireland is legislate for statements of educational need to be honoured until the age of 25 as they are, to an extent, in GB and, more fully, in Scandinavia. Those measures include individualised support in education, vocational training, personal assistance and daily living support services.

We need a transition from a statutory educational right to an adult disability and social care framework. That will take investment, not only in our special schools, but in our adult centres that are, in some cases, sadly, no longer fit for purpose or suitable to send a 19-year-old to in 2026.

Politics is about priorities. It is time that the Executive prioritised the money that they already get from Westminster —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Could the Minister —. Could the Member —. Sorry, I nearly promoted Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — and extend SEN provision until the age of 25.

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

Mr Carroll: I declare an interest as I have a family member who works with schoolchildren with SEN.

I also pay tribute, as others have, to Alma and Caleb's cause. It is good to see the Gallery full of the campaigners and activists who have led the fight for young people in our communities, even though responsibility for doing so should not have fallen on their shoulders. They have to fight because, when people with disabilities reach the age of 19, they see SEN services being withdrawn and services completely ending. That is completely unfair, to put it mildly.

As I said, for young people who turn 19, those services completely disappear. Imagine if we said to people with a physical disability or someone on personal independence payment (PIP) or disability living allowance (DLA) that, when they reach an arbitrary age, their services, support and financial payment would stop. We would say that that is completely unacceptable and should not be the case, but somehow it is deemed to be the acceptable state of play for children and young people with SEN when they reach the age of 19.

I pay tribute to all the parents and carers, especially the ones in my own constituency. Just today, I was speaking to Katrina, who lives and works in my constituency. She told me that, when young people turn 19, those services just completely disappear. There is no respite provided, and she says that nobody wants to know. That is the case for parents and carers right across the board. Parents and carers pick up the slack and look after their children or family members because the state and the Executive have failed, not just this year but, as people have said, for decades and refuse to step in to provide those services. Most of that work usually falls on the shoulders of women. It is usually women who provide the labour — unpaid labour — because they love their sons, their daughters, their family members, but it should not be like that. We do not talk about the hundreds of millions of pounds that they are saving the state because the state refuses to step in, in this case and in many other areas.

It is always people outside this Building who make politicians move, often dragging them kicking and screaming. My understanding is that the demands of Caleb's cause can be rectified and met, as can the wider issue, with the passing of a simple amendment, so the obvious question to the Ulster Unionist Party is this: why have you not dragged your Minister here and tabled that amendment? If you are the tough, new leader who is getting the party into shape, you should be saying to the Health Minister, "Table that amendment". It is completely unacceptable that that has not been put in place.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that parents spend so much time fighting the system and that that energy would be much better put into their children and their families?

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you. I totally agree. I am sure that most people in the Gallery also agree.

In the last mandate, I sat here until 2.00 am and 3.00 am, passing legislation on bars and licensing. I was happy to do that: it was part of my job. I would have been content — and I am sure that others would have been — to sit in here until 1.00 am or 2.00 am to pass an amendment on this matter. However, on some days, we finish here at 4.00 pm or 5.00 pm, and there is a lack of legislation coming through. That issue needs to be raised as well.

We had a protest earlier today, lamenting the inaction on the 'good jobs' trade union legislation. If the people in this Building cannot pass legislation on trade unions and workers' rights or on supporting people with additional needs when they reach the age of 19, many people will ask what the point of this Building is. What is the point of having a Stormont Administration if they can get nothing through except higher rates for individuals?

I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Gerry. I call on the Minister to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

Like others, I welcome the campaigners to the Gallery. I commend Alma and all the other parents who fight every day for their children and young people and who have forced the issue up the agenda.

I am happy to be here today to respond to the motion.

My party and I are committed to working to ensure that young people with special educational needs can access the pathway and support that they need. It is clear that the lead responsibility for supporting our young people with complex needs sits with the Department of Health, but I am happy to update Members on the work that I have undertaken in my Department since we published the findings of the review last June. We set out then proposals to enhance provision and support for our young people leaving school.

As Diane Dodds said, most school-leavers with special educational needs move successfully from school into further education colleges and our skills for life and work training provision. A wide range of opportunity and support is already in place, with tailored courses, enhanced learning support, additional technology and other adjustments that can help young people to continue their learning and development. Sometimes, there is a misconception that young people leaving school need qualifications to join further education, but that is not the case. Pre-entry qualifications do not apply to those who are accessing discrete provision at colleges. However, as I indicated last June, there is not sufficient capacity to meet the growing demand and not all the pathways and choices are available across the entire region.

Since September, my officials have been working with the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) on a whole-sector evaluation of the SEN-related arrangements across the further education colleges. It has been a major piece of work but a valuable one. Phase 1 focused on the arrangements, provision and support known as "discrete provision", which is primarily accessed by young people from special schools and specialist provision in mainstream schools. Phase 2 examined the arrangements for students with learning difficulties and disabilities throughout the mainstream college provision. The ETI work has finished. The report is being finalised, and a further education sector workshop is planned before the summer. That work will identify the good practice that we want to build on and the areas that we need to reform. It will be underpinned by the statutory assessment and support arrangements that I committed to bringing forward.

A key part of ensuring that the further education experience meets the needs of our students is ensuring that our staff have the skills and confidence to support the young people studying with them. My skills fund has been used to support Ulster University to develop and commence the delivery of new training for our FE staff. There have been physical enhancements on some college sites too, including the installation of sensory pods on two sites, the replacement of a disabled access lift on one site and the development of two specialised learning support hubs.

Of course, further education is just one of the key pathways; there are others. My officials have led the development of a cross-departmental bid for funding from the Executive's public-sector transformation fund. That collaborative bid is specifically focused on improving pathways and transitions for young people as they move on from school and into adulthood. It will enhance transition support across my Department and the Department of Health. It will allow us to develop and test post-school pathways, such as SEN and supported apprenticeships. That will build on the learning from excellent pilots that are already being supported through my Department's apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund and projects such as An Droichead, which is led by St Paul's High School in Bessbrook along with Bolster Community.

The issue of better data sharing is raised frequently in the context of transitions between school and post-school destinations. A huge amount of information on a young person's support needs is gathered and retained at earlier stages of their life. We need to create smoother and more consistent ways to enable that to be shared in order to maximise the effectiveness of support for our learners. My Department has established a cross-departmental group to scope the information, expectations and requirements in relation to data sharing between key stakeholders.

Other areas for progress include having better information on the educational pathways and destinations of our learners with special educational needs. We have a researcher from Loughborough University working with us on SEN-focused research using the longitudinal education outcomes (LEO) database. We also have an important scoping study under way to examine the economic and labour market implications of the rising number of young people with SEN. The gaps in the system not only impact on a young person in a vacuum but have a ripple effect on families, the wider economy and the health and justice systems.

As part of the careers action plan, we are taking forward two significant enhancements to careers provision for young people with special educational needs. We have launched an innovative new software tool to better support autistic learners in exploring pathways, planning transitions and accessing careers guidance. It is being tested in 10 post-primary schools and will later be rolled out across all post-primary schools and wider learning and skills settings. Ultimately, it will support around 17,000 learners each year.

Another aspect of improving available and accessible information is the recent research by Professor Noel Purdy of Stranmillis University College. That research, which was supported by Epic Futures, included an interactive mapping tool detailing existing post-school opportunities for special-school-leavers across training, further education and day care or day opportunity provision. It is the first time that such a mapping exercise has been undertaken, and my officials are working with Stranmillis and Epic Futures to identify ways to further develop and sustain that tool as a valuable information resource for policymakers, families and providers.

However, as I indicated in my June statement, my Department's actions alone will not meet the needs and aspirations of all school-leavers with SEN. While many young people with SEN aim to progress to skills- and training-based pathways after school, a very substantial number of school-leavers will never access provision funded by my Department. That is why the amendment to the motion is so important. Many young people with disabilities want and need to progress to Health-funded pathways, which are often day opportunities or day care. They feel that those options are the most suitable destinations to support them and meet their needs.

Meeting the support needs and expectations of those young people and their families requires progress to be made by many Departments, but it is fair to say that those young people with complex needs, many of whom have been supported throughout their childhood by children's disability teams in health and social care settings, are looking to the Department of Health for support. They do not understand why the transition into adulthood changes their support and care when the nature of their disability has not changed. The families involved want a plan for their young people.

Last September, at the Executive, all Ministers committed to providing regular updates to the Executive on progress being made to support school-leavers with SEN. I want to see the Executive work together to give school-leavers with special educational needs a legal right to an appropriate pathway, whether in an education-based or health-based setting. I remain willing to be part of Executive discussions on legislation in that area, but legislation must be matched by funded implementation plans, delivery capacity and clear accountability. Greater coordination is necessary across all services and settings that are involved in a young person's journey into adulthood. That is essential to delivering the service that our young people and their families deserve. It is not about a single programme or Department. It requires a genuinely coordinated, cross-government response that puts the needs of our young people and their families at its centre.

In closing, I share some words that Alma asked me to read on her behalf. She has reflected that my Department's work:

While those are challenging and difficult words for us to hear, they should inspire us to work together to ensure that no young person is left behind.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I call Linda Dillon to wind on the amendment. Linda, you have three minutes.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I need to go over what everyone has said. We all agree and know what the problems are. Some people say that, as legislators and as MLAs, we should know the answers to everything. No, we should not, but we should listen to the people who do, and we have listened to them. We have all repeated in the debate what we have heard them say. A number of Members have said that we need action. We do. We know what that action is. Those people have told us exactly what they want. The Minister has just outlined it. Alma said it, as did all the other parents and carers who are here. They have said, "We want a healthcare plan that starts on the day our child is born and finishes on the day they die, which, hopefully, is after us. We are like every other parent, wishing not to outlive our child". None of us wants to outlive our children. You should not have to want not to outlive yours. That is the saddest thing that I have heard today, but it is not the first time that we have heard it.

We know that we need action: the health and care plan, and the legislation. That is it. That is all that needs to be said. I do not need to say anything else in my winding-up speech. Let us deliver those two things for those families and their children. The Minister outlined the words that Alma said about those children with no voice. They have a voice. Their parents are their voice, and they made us listen. Well done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mark, you have up to five minutes.

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

As parents, we all want the same things for our children. We want them to be happy and safe and to have every opportunity in life. We want to equip them with the tools that they need to thrive, grow in confidence, socialise with their peers and find independence. That is not an unreasonable ambition; it is the hope of any parent. However, for far too many families of children with special educational needs, particularly once those young people reach the age of 19, that hope is replaced by the fear of what comes next, the fear of support structures collapsing overnight, and the fear that their child will be left behind by a system that no longer caters for them. This Opposition motion is really for those parents who are fighting to give their children the life that they deserve.

For too many families, the transition at 19 feels like falling off a cliff edge, with no one held accountable and no guarantee of support. Instead, families are left trying to navigate the Health, Education, Communities and Economy Departments separately, repeating themselves over and over again, filling in forms, chasing assessments and battling for basic answers. While Ministers argue over responsibility, parents and families are left carrying the burden. The report from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People's 'Too Little, Too Late' report could not have put it more plainly: our system has failed to plan ahead, failed to listen and failed to act. As one parent said, every delay is another piece of their child's future slipping away.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a staggering 134% increase in pupils with a statement of special educational needs. However, there is no overall statutory lead or contact after a young person finishes school; they are left in a void. That is totally unacceptable. What strikes me most from speaking to parents is the uncertainty. Inclusion has to be more than just a slogan. As Mr Gaston said, we continue to lag behind other jurisdictions when it comes to protections for young people with SEN after school. While other places are at least attempting to extend statutory protections to 25 and beyond, support here remains fragmented at best.

I also recognise the determination of Alma, her fellow campaigners and the thousands of parents like them out there who fight tooth and nail every day for their children. Diane Dodds is right: we might not be — we probably would not be — having this debate today if it were not for those campaigners, but nor would we be debating this issue today had it not been for the Opposition's tabling the motion. Although every Executive party up here has talked about what is wrong, we have seen very little in the way of action. You have had ample opportunity to bring forward similar motions. Campaigners have been marched up to the top of this hill and let down again and again by the Executive. Promises have been made, but, in February, after years of campaigning, campaigners were told by the Health Minister that dedicated legislation to protect young people with SEN beyond the age of 19 could not be progressed as the Department had run out of time. Children with special educational needs do not run out of need when they turn 19, and parents worry even more when Departments say that they do not have the resource, time or will to deliver the change that is needed. If anything, that response shows why families feel so frustrated, so exhausted and so unheard.

We will support the amendment. We certainly do not want to divide on the motion. Obviously, we recognise the important responsibility that lies with Health, but there is a danger of passing the buck again, as Claire Sugden identified, and diluting the collective responsibility of the Executive. Fundamentally, this is a cross-departmental issue involving several, if not all, Departments. There must be collective ownership and a commitment to joined-up provision, not piecemeal interventions that leave parents fighting the same and new battles year after year.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Mark. Before I put the Question on the amendment to the vote, I thank the people in the Public Gallery, including those from Caleb's cause, for coming this evening. [Interruption.]

You have to wait until I do this bit before you clap. Thanks very much indeed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You may clap now.