Official Report: Tuesday 08 September 2026

Mr Speaker: Before we commence today's business, I inform Members that I will not be in the House next Monday and Tuesday, as I will be representing the Assembly at the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in South Africa. The Principal Deputy Speaker will consider requests for Matters of the Day and questions for urgent oral answer.

Mr Sheehan: Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis na daltaí go léir a fuair a gcuid torthaí TGMO agus Ardleibhéil tá cúpla seachtain ó shin. Tá siad beagnach réidh le blianta an dianstaidéir agus na dúthrachta agus iad anois ag dul i gceann aistear nua sa tsaol, bíodh sin trí oiliúint ghairmiúil, oideachas breise nó tabhairt faoi shaol na hoibre.

Ba mhaith liom aird ar leith a tharraingt ar an mhéadú atá tagtha ar líon na ndaltaí atá ag roghnú na Gaeilge mar ábhar. Bhí méadú 35% ar líon na ndaltaí a rinne Ardleibhéal sa Ghaeilge i mbliana, sin 375 iontráil Ardleibhéil i gcomparáid le 287 n-iontráil anuraidh. Fuair níos mó ná leath na scoláirí a rinne Ardleibhéal sa Ghaeilge, fuair sin grád A nó grád A-réalta. Chomh maith leis sin, rinne breis agus 1,700 dálta TGMO sa Ghaeilge. Is sa Ghaeilge is mó a bhaintear amach an pasráta i measc daltaí nuatheangacha. Molaim na múinteoirí agus na daltaí as an tiomantas agus as an staidéar is siocair le torthaí comh maith sin a bhaint amach. Is léir ó na figiúirí sin go bhfuil daoine óga spreagtha, go bhfuil suim sa Ghaeilge acu agus go bhfuil fonn orthu a ndúthracht a chaitheamh lenár dteanga dhuchais.

Tá freagracht agus dualgas orainn, mar reachtóirí, tacú leis an fhás sin agus a chinntiú go bhfuil an córas oideachais ábalta freastal ar an éileamh seo atá ag dul i méad. Sin an fáth ar thug mé isteach an Bille um Oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge (Plean don Lucht Oibre). Má achtaítear an Bille, cuirfear dualgas de réir dlí ar an Roinn Oideachais Plean don Lucht Oibre a chur i bhfeidhm don Ghaeloideachas. Theip ar Airí Oideachais ón DUP duine i ndiaidh an duine eile acu, earcaíocht foirne a phleanáil mar fhreagairt ar an fhás san earnáil. Má achtaítear an Bille um Oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge (Plean don Lucht Oibre) cuirfear de dhualgas ar an Roinn plean lucht oibre a chur i bhfeidhm taobh istigh de bhliain amháin ó theacht i bhfeidhm don reachtaíocht. Cuideoidh sin le dul i ngleic leis an earcaíocht, le coinneáil foirne agus le riar ar riachtanais an lucht oibre amach anseo. Ní mór dúinn cos a choinneáil le huaillmhian an aosa óig leis an infheistíocht cheart, le pleanáil cheart lucht oibre agus le tacaíocht leanúnach polaitíochta. Tá an earnáil ag fás agus is iad na daoine óga atá ag stiúradh an fháis sin.

Mr Brooks: Today, I welcome the reassuring presence of Royal Navy vessels at the heart of Belfast, as I did with the Royal Air Force when it was in our skies last week. Sometimes, reality makes a rather more powerful argument than rhetoric ever could. There is something wonderfully ironic about that because, while some Irish republicans would have us believe that the mere sight of a Royal Navy ship is somehow an affront to Irish nationalism, the reality outside the Chamber is rather different.

Only days ago, a Royal Navy frigate was deployed to help to protect the Republic of Ireland during its presidency of the Council of the European Union. Let us pause to consider the sheer absurdity of that, particularly the Irish nationalists and those among us who berate "Brexit Britain". The Irish Government are hosting Europe. Ireland wants to project itself as a sovereign, independent, militarily neutral state, yet, when it needs sophisticated air defence capability to protect European leaders and officials, to whom does it turn? It turns to the Royal Navy — the very Royal Navy that, apparently, some republicans still regard as an instrument of British oppression. The irony could hardly be greater.

It is no surprise, then, that, rather than celebrate positive practical cooperation between neighbours, some republicans have been outraged by the presence of British military vessels. Apparently, the Union Jack on a warship is objectionable right up until the point at which Ireland needs the warship. There is an important lesson here: the modern world does not care very much about the old ideological obsessions of Irish republicanism. Russian activity around undersea infrastructure, drones, threats to shipping, hostile states and the vulnerability of our waters do not respect the border. Ireland is not reassured by her neutrality. That is precisely why the Royal Navy and the Irish Naval Service have been working together on maritime security. Indeed, earlier this year, I attended the UK and Ireland Maritime Security Conference, which was co-hosted by the Royal Navy, in Belfast. It addressed threats to critical undersea infrastructure in Irish waters. When Royal Navy vessels are sitting here, on the Lagan, it is no threat to neighbouring Ireland; the Royal Navy is a welcome and requested ally. It is a highly capable naval force whose personnel are prepared to protect these islands.

Perhaps, republicans should reflect on the rather uncomfortable contradictions that they have created for themselves. They have spent decades telling people that the United Kingdom is the great imperialist enemy. That looks rather foolish when Ireland then asks for British military assets to help keep European leaders safe in Dublin. You cannot complain about British ships helping to protect Ireland's EU presidency while expecting everyone else to pretend that Britain and Ireland do not share the same waters, the same security challenges and, increasingly, the same strategic interests. We can remain trapped in the politics and prejudices of the past, or we can recognise the realities of the present. While some republicans may still regard that as an embarrassment, the people who actually have responsibility for Ireland's security —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Brooks: — seem perfectly happy to have the Royal Navy standing watch.

Ms Bradshaw: Last week, Queen's University Belfast and the Institute for Economics and Peace launched the positive peace report, and I thank them for their work on that. The report provides an important understanding of where we have made progress, where we have stalled and what we need to do next in Northern Ireland.

Two of its findings are particularly important. The first is that paramilitary activity has fallen by 44·7% since 2019. The second is that homicide is down by 47·9%. That is significant progress, and we should recognise and acknowledge the effectiveness of the Executive's programme on tackling paramilitarism and organised crime in bringing about that progress. The positive peace report makes an important distinction between positive peace and negative peace: negative peace being the reduction of violence; and positive peace being that the institutions, relationships and social conditions are improving how we make peace sustainable here.

It is clear overall that communities and partners across government are working and that, if the engagement is sustained, it will be able to eradicate paramilitarism once and for all. As I say, it is important that the report highlights the distinction in that work.

We in the Chamber know that paramilitarism is more than paramilitary shootings and attacks. It is about intimidation, sexual exploitation, coercive control, organised crime and the undermining of the rule of law. That is why the response of the Executive and their statutory partners must be about more than reducing incidents. It must be about removing the conditions in which paramilitary organisations can retain their negative and toxic influence. That means strong policing and law enforcement, but it is also about giving young people genuine alternatives through education opportunities and investment in the areas that will help them flourish. That is why we in the Alliance Party have been sceptical about the potential for an independent interlocutor to persuade paramilitary leaders to voluntarily pack up and disband once and for all. We do not believe that those groups need to be made an offer to do that. Their activities are criminal, and we need to dismantle the structures that allow them to exert control over the communities in which they operate. We should not confer legitimacy on criminal organisations by treating them as political actors. The rule of law must be the only legitimate authority. That does not mean that we should be passive; we should be ambitious.

The current Executive programme is due to conclude in March 2027, and we need to use the progress made to develop the next phase of our approach. That is why the report is such a valuable benchmark in supporting that work. The people whom we represent deserve a society in which democratic institutions, not criminal organisations, have authority, and that is why —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: — we should all strive for positive peace.

Mr Buckley: This summer, the farming community completely lost confidence in the Alliance Agriculture Minister, Andrew Muir. His catalogue of failures has annoyed so many, but that frustration tipped into anger and disgust following his Department's open-field shooting of 51 healthy cattle in Fivemiletown, leaving many healthy calves walking wounded. That was such irresponsibility, yet, yesterday, in typical Alliance fashion, the Minister again proved why he has plummeted to being the lowest-rated Minister of Agriculture in the history of the state. His condescending, sneering, blame-game attitude to everybody was hysterical and reflective of a man completely out of control. He blamed the farmers for being right-wing, misogynistic and homophobic and for being farmers. He blamed the DUP for climate change, inaction on tuberculosis and for championing the needs of the farmers. He blamed other unionists for the same, yet there was not one moment of self-reflection on his miserable record as Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland.

On a platform at the front of this Building, I committed to tabling a motion of no confidence in the Minister on behalf of the DUP. Promises made, promises kept. Yesterday, I lodged that motion with the Business Office, and I am pleased to say that there have already been signatures from my party and, indeed, others. The motion is open for all Members to sign, so the question is this: where does Sinn Féin stand on the issue? Gemma Brolly, the deputy leader of Aontú, said outside this very Building that, as a proud republican, she believes that Muir must go. I would wager that, if she were in the Chamber today, she would sign the motion, so where are the brave republicans and proud nationalists on the Benches opposite? Will they join in signing the motion and standing up for the farmers? What about the bold Daniel McCrossan? Will his angry words turn into action, or will it be further hot air?

Time will tell which republicans and nationalists in the Chamber are prepared to stand up for the interests of the farming community, which is the backbone of Northern Ireland. Time will tell. There will be nowhere to hide, and, if you fail to sign, I wager that there will be many Gemma Brollys sitting on the Benches opposite come next May.

Mr McMurray: I rise to acknowledge that Thursday 10 September marks World Suicide Prevention Day. As a member of the all-party group (APG) on suicide prevention, I highlight the significance of the day and the importance of continuing conversations around mental health and suicide prevention. I thank Ellen Finlay from the Samaritans, who coordinates and oversees the APG. I also pay tribute to some of the local charities, including MYMY, Life Change Changes Lives, Suicide Down to Zero, MindWise, MACS, ALPS and many other suicide prevention charities in the South Down constituency that I have not mentioned; I do not mean to do a disservice to them.

Northern Ireland has the highest rate of mental illness in the UK, with one in five adults suffering from a mood or anxiety disorder. Suicide Down to Zero, which is a local County Down charity that is working to eliminate suicide, has reported that, every week in Northern Ireland, four people die by suicide. Those statistics represent a profound tragedy for the loved ones who are left behind. Despite the scale of the issue, mental health funding and spend per person in Northern Ireland is below the average of other UK nations. Early intervention is crucial in preventing suicide, because it helps people to address issues before they escalate to a point where suicide feels like the only option. The statistics show that, of those who die by suicide, 50% had recorded either prior suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts. That shows the importance of recognising warning signs and ensuring that support is available when needed most.

The global theme of the awareness-raising day is "Changing the narrative on suicide". I spoke to representatives of the local charity MindWise, and they said that it is vital that we challenge the stigma around suicide and continue to have open conversations. That means asking direct but sensitive questions of those who, we think, could be struggling with suicidal thoughts or plans. Having those difficult but necessary conversations will help to reduce the stigma and change the narrative on suicide.

Mental health must remain a priority for all parties at Stormont. Given the impact that suicide has on individuals, families and communities across Northern Ireland, the issue cannot be ignored or pushed down the agenda. Today, I remember all those who have died by suicide in the South Down constituency and across Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with their families, friends and all those whose lives have been affected by loss. Together, we must continue working towards a society where everyone who needs support can access it and where no one feels that they have to face their struggles alone.

Ms Forsythe: I rise today as a proud Orangewoman to push back and address the deeply offensive and baseless comments made by the Member for West Belfast Gerry Carroll in the House yesterday. Gerry Carroll stood in the Chamber and claimed that the Orange Order, as an organisation, despises women. He is fundamentally wrong, and his comments were an absolute insult to over 1,500 hard-working Orangewomen like me across Northern Ireland and a slight on the entire Orange family and community, in which women play a vital role, and on me personally. From the junior Orange, which I joined as a young girl under the strong leadership of women such as Nan Cassidy and Sally Newell, to the band that I joined, Ballymartin Pipe Band — I was there for some 30 years, joining in cultural celebrations — and now as a proud Orangewoman leading the junior Orange today, my experience is echoed thousands of times over by women who join the Orange family and share in the values of faith, hope and charity.

Gerry's attack on the Orange Order was, frankly, disgraceful. He is not in his place today, but I will say all of this to him again: it is disgraceful from a man who celebrates and promotes values and cultures across the world where women are suppressed and forced to cover themselves and where they are beheaded. He should be ashamed of his position on the treatment of women. Let us be honest: he cannot even define what a woman is. I can: I am a woman and a proud Orangewoman at that.

Following Gerry Carroll's disgraceful comments, the BBC ran his comments and lies on its highlight reel yesterday evening, spreading an anti-Orange agenda once again. Having scrapped its live broadcast coverage of the Twelfth celebrations, what does the BBC do instead for the Protestant, unionist and loyalist communities? It continuously amplifies divisive, anti-Orange sound bites, deliberately painting our culture in the worst possible light. It does not showcase our high-profile, excellent events, but it pushes out any slightly hostile story into people's feeds.

Gerry Carroll does not speak for the women of Northern Ireland. He does not understand the Orange Order. He does not understand the Orange family, our culture or our people, but we will not be silenced. I look forward to next year when the Orange Order and the people of unionism in West Belfast will speak back. Gerry Carroll will hear that loud and clear when Frank McCoubrey returns, makes history and takes a seat for West Belfast here in the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: On Sunday week ago, Michelle O'Neill, the First Minister of "no alternative", spoke at the terror fest that is the national hunger strike commemoration, which glorifies the 10 terrorists who chose to kill themselves by starvation. In choosing death, those terrorists made a choice that they denied to innocent people.

Let us first consider Thomas McElwee. That IRA terrorist was convicted and sentenced to years in prison for possession of explosives and the manslaughter of Yvonne Dunlop, a mum who died in a firebomb attack in my home town of Ballymena 50 years ago. Also included in the commemoration is Francis Hughes, another terrorist, convicted of the murder of Lance Corporal David Jones, a British army soldier, and the wounding and attempted murder of another soldier.

O'Neill preaches about being First Minister for all and, indeed, champions the ending violence against women and girls strategy, yet she maintains that there was no alternative to the murder of Yvonne Dunlop or Jean McConville, a 37-year-old widowed mother of 10, who was abducted from her home in the Divis Flats in December 1972. Every time that O'Neill pontificates about ending violence against women and girls, the words of Geoffrey, Yvonne's son, should ring out around the Chamber, "What about our mummy's life?"

There was always an alternative to murder. In Sinn Féin's attending that glorification, we once again see why it is not fit for government, never mind to hold the position of First Minister of a country that it wants to destroy. No one should be fooled by Michelle O'Neill or, for that matter, Sinn Féin. We learned from Question Time yesterday that the inability to secure a date to attend the Executive Office Committee is down to the First Minister, who has not been at that Committee since February. Ms O'Neill does not like scrutiny and is on the run from facing questions from a lowly Back-Bencher such as me. That shows the contempt that the First Minister has for the Committee and the lengths to which she will go to avoid being questioned on her continued glorification of victim-makers.

While other unionists are prepared to swallow their principles and share power with the IRA's proxy, Sinn Féin, I will continue to call out the First Minister and ensure that there is one voice in the Chamber that unashamedly says that Sinn Féin is not fit to hold office.

Ms Brownlee: Today, I want to talk about something that should concern every single Member in the Chamber: the growing failure to provide very basic NHS dental care.

I will start with what is happening in my constituency of East Antrim. This summer, BUPA, an NHS dental provider in Carrickfergus, had to write to more than 2,000 patients to tell them that, because of staffing challenges, it could no longer provide them with NHS dental care. Those 2,000 people did not suddenly stop needing treatment. They are working families, students, older people and people with additional needs who relied on that NHS care to provide them with access to a dentist. The practice has advertised repeatedly for staff but struggled to attract applicants. Now, for many people in Carrickfergus, there is simply no NHS care available.

What are those families expected to do? Pay privately? For many, that is not an option. This is where we need to be really honest: access to NHS dentistry is becoming an income issue. If you cannot work, you may be entitled to assistance and NHS access, but, if you are a working family trying to pay your mortgage or your rent, childcare and bills and trying to put food on the table, you can find yourself excluded from NHS dental care. That cannot be right. We cannot tell working families that they are expected to contribute to the system but to pay privately when they need basic services. That is not fair.

The consequences of that failure go far beyond a toothache.

Good dental hygiene is a fundamental part of good health, and preventative dental care helps with problems before they become serious infections. It allows people to eat and sleep properly and to live without unnecessary pain. When we cannot access a dentist, problems that could have been dealt with become much more serious.

We do not even have the data to properly understand the scale of the problem. We in the Assembly should be able to tell how many people have been admitted to hospital because of serious dental infections, but, in response to a question for written answer that was tabled by my colleague Diane Forsythe, the Department could not answer that. If we cannot properly measure the consequences of poor dentistry, how can we plan appropriate services? We need to recognise the impact on our workforce. We have so many skilled dental nurses and other professionals who are not able to do the job that they want to do.

We need to be very serious about it. The system is failing working people. It is failing my constituents of East Antrim. No one should live in pain because they cannot access those basic services. We need long-term reform, but we need action now. We believe in a very simple principle: your ability to see an NHS dentist should not depend on your postcode or on whether you are in work. The people of East Antrim work hard, pay their taxes and do everything that is expected of them. They deserve an NHS dental service that works for them too.

Mr McCrossan: I highlight the continual failure of the Executive to deal with the scourge of drugs on our streets. Drugs are destroying lives, families and our communities daily. That fact is often unspoken in the House, but it needs to be called out because of the huge damage that it causes to people throughout our communities. In 2024 alone, the number of drug-related deaths recorded in Northern Ireland was 251. Of those, 219 were drug misuse deaths. Another 397 deaths were recorded as having alcohol-specific causes. Those numbers are very serious, because they are only what has been recorded. I argue strongly that they may not reflect the real picture. The reality is that, behind all those numbers, there are human lives, with people trapped in addictions that they cannot get out of. We see parents burying children, children losing parents and families watching loved ones crumble and fall apart, consumed by addiction.

There is a deeply sinister side to the issue that we must all call out in the House. Vulnerable people, particularly young people, in our society are being entrapped, threatened and used as drug mules by faceless gangsters who bring that poison into our communities. Young people are being exploited because they are vulnerable. They are drawn in, pulled into debt and intimidated or frightened into carrying or selling drugs by criminals who stay safely and cowardly in the shadows of our society. We need to go after those at the top. We need to see the Justice Minister wage a war on drug dealers in our communities and the Health Minister launch greater support for those who are entrapped by addiction and ensure that people get that support when and if they need it.

We also, however, need to recognise the fundamental difference between the criminal who exploits addiction and the person who is trapped in addiction. One needs to face the full rigours of the justice system, and the other needs help. Every day in my constituency, I see families at breaking point, not knowing what to do or who to turn to. They depend on a system that is simply running like a conveyor belt and not supporting those who need it most. The justice system needs to pursue those who sell that poison and exploit the vulnerable in our communities. The health system needs to catch a grip and support people who struggle with addiction every day. We need to call out the scourge on our streets and deal with those gangsters once and for all.

Mr Gildernew: I raise the ongoing failure to produce an anti-poverty strategy. The issue has been going on for a long time. At the first meeting of the Committee for Communities after the Assembly's restoration following the DUP's collapse of the institutions, I asked the Department about a timeline for bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy.

In February 2024, I was told that it would take a matter of weeks, given that Deirdre Hargey and the sector had completed a huge amount of work to pull together a range of proposals.

We did not, however, see a draft strategy produced or a consultation launched until mid-2025. At that time, the draft strategy was widely criticised by the sector for not having in it enough governance, timelines and targets and for many other reasons. The consultation closed almost a year ago, on 19 September 2025. There followed a period during which the Department wrote up its findings. The report was published in April 2026, and the Department acknowledged that it captured many of the responses that had fed into the original draft of the strategy and that the sector had identified as being crucial in order to have an effective strategy.

The Department then told us that it was working on having another draft ready for us immediately following the summer recess. At that stage, we told the Department, "We won't wait for summer recess. We will meet again, if doing so facilitates earlier action on the issue". That meeting, however, did not take place over the summer, and we are still not aware of when the strategy will come forward.

I have just attended an event that Trussell is hosting today in Parliament Buildings, which I am proud to have sponsored, asking MLAs to pledge to eradicate the need for food banks. I urge all MLAs to visit the event, which is taking place in room 115. At it, the Minister for Communities stated that he is now looking to have the strategy ready within the term. I have to say that that will be met with great disappointment by those who experience poverty and those who work in the field of alleviating poverty. Without an effective strategy, we cannot start the work of reversing the trajectory, which continues to rise in the North. I therefore urge the Department to act with all haste to finalise the work and bring forward an effective, robust strategy for dealing with poverty.

Miss Brogan: I send my good wishes and congratulations, those of Sinn Féin and, hopefully, those of the whole Assembly to Katie Taylor, not only on her incredible win in Croke Park on Saturday night but, more importantly, on her entire professional career as a female boxer. It is hard to measure the impact that she has had not only on boxing in Ireland and globally but more so on women's sport here. She is an inspiration to athletes right across Ireland and to all young girls and women.

Katie's retirement match at the weekend in Croke Park drew 80,000 people to Dublin. Anyone who was there will know that it lit up Dublin. It was an amazing experience and was very emotional for many people there.

I thank Katie for all that she has done for boxing, for sport in Ireland and, more importantly, for positively raising the profile of women's participation in sport. I wish her all the best in her retirement from professional boxing.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

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

Mr Dickson: First, I apologise to the House that I do not have a physical petition to present this morning, owing to the petitioners' flight logistics. The petition is on behalf of Pancreatic Cancer UK and its members in Northern Ireland.

Each year in Northern Ireland, some 300 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Sadly, 200 of them will not survive the remainder of the year. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, when I receive the petition, I will present it to your office.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Dickson. It is a very important issue.

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

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

Dr Archibald: Members will be acutely aware of the impact that volatile fossil fuel prices are having on households and businesses.

Events that are taking place far beyond our shores have had direct consequences for energy bills at home. We cannot control global fossil fuel markets, but we can reduce our dependence on them. That is why continuing to increase the amount of renewable electricity generated locally is so important.

We are making significant progress. Official statistics show that, in the 12 months to the end of June this year, 53% of electricity generated here was from renewable sources. That is an important achievement, but there is clearly more still to do. The challenge now is to create the conditions for ongoing renewable electricity investment. The Bill is designed to help us to do exactly that. It provides the legal framework for the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme, which will provide greater price certainty for renewable electricity generators, helping to encourage investment in new renewable electricity projects. Just as importantly, the scheme is intended to help to protect consumers from the volatility associated with fossil fuel prices. The two-way contracts for difference (CFD) approach to incentivising new renewable electricity generation has been used successfully in many countries. The approach is not novel. Through our own primary legislation and associated regulations, the House will have the power to implement a scheme that builds on that successful model here while ensuring that it works for people locally. The Bill will give my Department powers to run competitive allocation rounds; designate a counter party to enter into contracts with generators; establish a supplier obligation to fund the scheme; and, crucially, require generators to make community benefit payments to those living in the vicinity of REPG-supported projects.

The benefits of energy infrastructure have not always been felt by those living closest to it, but they should be. We need to bring people with us on the journey to net zero. We need a just transition. The REPG scheme will ensure that communities that host renewable electricity infrastructure share directly in the benefits that it delivers. It is not a short-term intervention; it is a long-term framework that can support the development of renewable electricity generation for decades to come. It will allow future auctions to bring forward the right technologies at the right time at a fair price for consumers. The House will be able to scrutinise the key financial elements of the scheme in detail through the subsequent subordinate regulations, ensuring that any auctions deliver value for consumers.

The legislation is consistent with the need to decarbonise power, as set out in the Executive's energy strategy and enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. It will support investment in renewable electricity generation, strengthen our energy security, ensure that communities share in the benefits of the energy transition, and help to deliver decarbonisation objectives with consumers at its heart. The Bill represents an important step towards a cleaner, more secure and more affordable energy future. Therefore, I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks. Following a Committee evidence session last week, I will make some comments on behalf of the Committee. This is the fifth Executive economy Bill that has come as far as Second Stage. The Committee has taken a lot of evidence, and members have shown considerable interest in the development of renewables; the tackling of grid challenges; the questions about interconnection and storage; the need for investment; and, crucially, the impact on communities and consumers. As part of the pre-Second Stage development of our discussions, the Committee learned of a revised and much-delayed programme for the development of a renewed electricity support scheme and auction and the legislation for the development of offshore renewables. Despite the welcome news that local renewables generation has increased to 53%, it is nonetheless unlikely, given the above, that the 80% target will be met by 2030.

The delays that the Department has had in bringing forward the legislation are regrettable. However, the Committee warmly welcomes the Bill's being introduced and reaching this stage. The Bill is understood to empower the Department to make regulations for the purposes of providing financial assistance and encouraging electricity generation through contracts for difference. The Bill also empowers the Department to make regulations on the financial framework, the imposition of community benefit requirements and certain other matters, such as reviewing the allocation process and the resolution of disputes. The provisions of the Bill relate almost entirely to the making of regulations, although it is difficult to determine what the contracts for difference regime will look like and what the community benefits will be, because pretty much all of that will be determined in delegated legislation and is not included in the Bill.

Why is the Committee so keen to see the Bill progress? The answer is that Committee members believe that renewable electricity will likely provide consumer benefits and security of supply for Northern Ireland in the longer term. The Committee believes that renewables represent important investment vehicles for Northern Ireland and opportunities to keep the considerable sums that we spend on electricity within Northern Ireland as well as allowing for possible future electricity exports to our friends and neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. The Committee hopes that communities that host renewables will also see some of those benefits, whether that is through community ownership or local allowances.

The absence of the scheme in Northern Ireland, to date, coupled with the closure of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) means that new, large-scale renewable technology has not been incentivised in Northern Ireland. The Committee hopes that the Bill will address that and protect consumers from excessive costs while generating local community benefits. As such, following its evidence session, the Committee recommended that the House support the Bill at Second Stage.

I wish to make some comments as a DUP MLA. It is important to point out that the previous Minister informed the House that the legislation was not required. When Minister Murphy took office, he said that the scheme would be introduced within months of his taking office and that primary legislation was not required. It is now two years later, and the delay is not with the Committee for the Economy but the Department for the Economy, which stated that the legislation was not required. I warmly welcome the fact that we are at this stage, but, in my view, the fact that we are so delayed is disappointing and is the result of incorrect information given to the Committee for the Economy.

It is important to outline, as I did in my remarks as Chair of the Committee, that this is enabling legislation. There is no detail on how the scheme will operate. Private investors will warmly welcome the fact that we have got to this stage — I also warmly welcome that — but the terms and conditions of the auctions process and how the scheme will operate are vital. That means that we need detail on eligible technologies, the price rate that they will strike, the market price rate that will be struck and the levy arrangements, but also details on the community benefit. We are still waiting for legal clarity on who will benefit from the community payment.

Last week at the Committee, I raised concerns about state aid rules. I have concerns that some of the process will be delayed as a result of the Windsor framework. I believe that permission will be required from the European Union for the scheme. I welcome the fact that officials have given an undertaking that they will engage with the European Union at this stage. The European Union is known for many things, but when it comes to being able to move at speed, it makes this House look like a rapid-delivery agency.

Whilst we can warmly welcome the fact that we have got to this stage, wider delivery of the energy master plan is needed — a fact that my colleague Mr Honeyford will, no doubt, articulate. The production of renewable electricity alone cannot be the end of the process. Ultimately, we need to see that consumers and businesses get the benefit of the scheme. That means that we need grid development and long-duration storage, and all those things need to be delivered once and for all.

Clauses 17 to 19 of the Bill cause me some concern. They give huge regulation-making power to the Department. However, the Committee will, no doubt, take its time to look at that and see what reporting processes might be possible.

The Bill is an important step forward in our journey towards legal targets that have been set, but it is by no means the end of the process. As a party, we will support the legislation at Second Stage and encourage the Department to get on, finally, with delivering the terms and conditions and the auction as soon as possible.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill and confirm that the SDLP will support the Bill at Second Stage. The legislation is important. It provides the basis for the renewable electricity price guarantee and, through contracts for difference, should provide greater certainty for investment in renewable generation. The SDLP has been calling for that, and I have raised it repeatedly with the Minister. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we finally have the Bill before the Assembly, but I have to emphasise the word "finally" because it has taken far too long.

For several years, the renewable energy sector has been telling us that it needs certainty. Investors have been waiting, and projects have been waiting. I cannot say strongly enough how concerned the investors have been at the lack of pace with the legislation, and, all the while, the clock has continued to tick towards our legally binding target of at least 80% renewable electricity consumption by 2030. We are now less than four years away from that deadline, and the latest figures show that renewable generation is equivalent to around 50% of our gross final electricity consumption. That is, I suppose, significant progress, because it took us a long time to get from 40% to 50%. We are there, but we still have a considerable distance to travel in a short time.

We know that businesses do not make major investment decisions on the basis of good intentions. They need to know what the support mechanisms will look like, when auctions will take place and whether the infrastructure will indeed exist to connect the electricity that they generate. The renewable electricity price guarantee can provide an important part of that certainty, and a well-designed contracts for difference scheme can give generators confidence over future revenues while protecting consumers from the volatility that we have seen in international energy markets. We can see that clearly; there has been another spike in recent days. That consumer benefit has to remain at the heart of the legislation. The transition to renewable energy cannot simply be an environmental project, although that in itself is full of merit; it must be also an economic and social project. People who are struggling with their electricity bills will, understandably, ask a simple question: what difference will this make to me? Our ambition must be that locally generated renewable electricity makes our energy systems more secure and less exposed to international fossil fuel prices, but, ultimately, it must make it more affordable for people's pockets.

This Bill cannot deliver that on its own. We can create the best possible support scheme, but it w ill remain very little if renewable projects cannot connect to the grid. I have raised that directly with the Minister many times. We need confidence that SONI and NIE Networks have the resources and the investment required to develop the electricity network at the pace necessary. We also need a planning system capable of dealing with the scale of development required. There is little point in encouraging investment only for projects to spend years waiting for planning approval or a viable grid connection. Generation, grid infrastructure, planning, storage and interconnection are all part of the same energy system, and government needs to treat them the same way.

There is also a significant economic opportunity here. We have an abundance of renewable energy potential. If we get this right, it should mean more than simply producing cleaner electricity; it should mean investment, good jobs and new economic opportunities in communities across the North. Dare I say that that includes the north-west? I therefore welcome the ability in the Bill to include community benefit requirements. If communities are hosting the infrastructure required for our energy transition, they should see the tangible benefits from it.

I support the principle behind the Bill, and I want the renewable electricity price guarantee to succeed, but, after the delays that we have experienced, the Minister and her Department must now inject real pace and a sense of urgency into its implementation. Passing the Bill is not the end of the process. There will be further regulations, detailed scheme arrangements and, ultimately, the first auction to deliver. We cannot allow each of those stages to become another source of delay. We have statutory 2030 targets to meet; we have households and businesses that need greater stability for their energy costs; and we have investors who need certainty that this is genuinely a place where they can build and invest.

The SDLP is supporting the Bill today, but the real measure of its success will not be whether we pass the legislation but whether we get renewable projects built, connected to the grid and generating affordable electricity for people across the North.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the Bill and the progress that it represents. Often, when we talk in the House about energy production, generation and storage, the conversation becomes technical, but at the heart of the Bill is ensuring that ordinary people can feel the benefits of it and see that money in their pockets. Particularly this winter, as we face into yet another winter of uncertainty and energy volatility dictated by international events, people can take some comfort in the fact that the Minister has yet again produced a project and a Bill that will put money back into their pockets.

Members are aware that developing renewable energy is one of the Minister's four key priorities and for good reason. We know the significance of renewable resources. We have a skilled workforce — one in which the Minister has again invested — and we know that communities want to see the benefit of that investment in their areas. However, what has often been missing in that picture is the legislation needed to move that forward. The Bill is part of addressing that gap.

Other regions have not stood still in recent years; in fact, they have updated their legislation, supported investment and created the conditions to grow renewable energy sectors. We need to ensure that the North keeps pace with that and is not left behind, because there is potential to work across the North, as has been mentioned by other Members, to address regional imbalance and to work on an all-Ireland basis. There is the potential for that, but that is different from the isolationist position that the DUP and previous DUP Ministers have often espoused. We have the opportunity to work on an all-Ireland basis and be a net generator of electricity and energy.

The latest figures produced by the Department for the Economy show the important contribution that renewable electricity is making already. In June 2026, renewable energy accounted for 53% of the energy used in the North — an increase from 47% just last year. That progress should be welcomed, but it is clear that there is scope to do more when we have the right framework in place.

The Minister's focus has always been on delivery. People expect us to get on with the job, create the conditions for investment, strengthen energy security and support local economic growth. That is why it is so important that the development of energy does not simply benefit companies or large investors. Communities that host the infrastructure should see real and tangible benefits. Whether that is through community funds, local opportunities or wider economic activity, people should be able to see the value of the projects in the places in which they live and work.

I will touch on the comments that Sinéad made. This is a great opportunity for regional balance, because the communities that host much of the infrastructure are often the communities that are most economically isolated. This is an opportunity to enhance their economic offering. We also have to recognise the reality of the time frame, because two years of the mandate have already been lost. That is time that cannot be recovered, despite the work that has continued to bring forward legislation and progress key priorities. Contrast the eight pieces of legislation brought forward by Sinn Féin Ministers in the past two years with the one piece of legislation brought forward by the Department for the Economy in the past 10 years. That is stark. The Bill is another example of that work. It is practical legislation that will put in place the conditions needed to further renewable energy development, and it will help to ensure that the North is not playing catch-up and can, in fact, be a leader in this field. I am pleased to support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have for communities, homes and businesses across the North.

Mr Honeyford: I make it clear from the outset that I support the Bill and that Alliance will support it today. I will take my time, though, and walk my way through this, because we have been calling for this for some time, and I just wish that we had been here about two years ago rather than standing here today.

Ultimately, the Bill is about something really simple: energy security. It is about taking control of energy by producing our own and the price that we pay for it so that families across Northern Ireland are protected from the massive spikes in energy costs that we have seen due to events thousands of miles away. We already had the warning on that when Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices went through the roof. Electricity prices followed, and businesses were hammered with energy costs. Families saw that on their home heating bills. The UK Government, in one year, spent £44 billion capping the price that we paid for energy, which was welcome and needed at the time. The taxpayer continues to pay back that debt, however, and the total spend over that time could have completely transformed the entire energy system. That was the warning and the point when we should have said that we should not leave ourselves exposed to international oil markets. At that point, the Department for the Economy should have acted with urgency. It simply did not, and we are here today with another crisis, with more uncertainty surrounding oil and gas and more volatility. How many warnings do we need before we take control and remove the exposure from our consumers?

Ultimately, the Bill is about taking control for ourselves. I know that some in the House think that the answer is to drill for more oil and gas in the North Sea, but oil and gas are not ring-fenced for the family that lives in my Lagan Valley constituency regardless of whether it comes from the North Sea. They are sold by a private company on international markets at the international price, and there is limited or no benefit for consumers. An Oxford University report stated that the benefit of that at the bottom end is about 1% of the cost or £16 a year, so there is no real benefit for consumers here. We have to realistic, therefore, about what gives us genuine energy security, and that is to produce and be in control of our energy. That is our best hope: energy produced here that is not affected by the next crisis; energy that gives us control over long-term costs. I am really pleased that the Bill is with us because it is the start of delivering that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I am fascinated by his intellect regarding the subject. He has a passion for energy policy, as I do, and Steve Aiken also does, if he was in the Chamber. The Member talks about a benefit for local people. He will know that through the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) a lot of that went to overseas companies, the Middle East and everything else. People here did not really benefit from ROC. How can the Member and the Minister assure us that the contracts for difference will get deep down into the pockets of our people and not end up on a pay cheque for an international company in the Middle East?

Mr Honeyford: I appreciate the intervention. I am not sure that Mike will appreciate being called "Steve", but that is for another day.

International companies run our gas power stations. Companies come here for profit. I have no problem with anybody making a profit. What I have an issue with is when consumers have to pay the consequences of the price around the costs. I am not suggesting for one second that a company should not make a profit, I am not suggesting that. A ROC payment was a fixed payment as well. We are now talking about a cap and floor system here, which provides a lot more protection for consumers. I will get on to community benefit in a minute, but I am absolutely not saying that companies should not or cannot make a profit. That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that the focus has to be on our people in Ballymena, Ballymoney, Lisburn or Moira.

We have a massive economic opportunity here, and the Bill opens up that opportunity. We should be a leader, because we have wind resource, solar generation and storage solutions. We have emerging research and development on tidal energy, hydrogen and biomethane. That is all coming through. We also have the all-island electricity market. We therefore have access to two markets, and we have two world-class universities and incredible colleges. We have an entrepreneurial spirit here that is evident in our engineering expertise, which we see especially in the west. We have businesses ready to invest. The legislation should mean new jobs, new research and new technology. It should mean investment in storage, in the grid and in generation.

Energy is our economy. The Bill represents not just an energy policy but everything that drives us forward, brings opportunity and shows that the Executive can deliver for people. That is where my confidence wanes slightly, however. We are debating the Bill's Second Stage today because the scheme has been coming for years. In June 2024 — over two years ago — at the Economy Committee, when I asked the permanent secretary whether the renewable electricity support scheme would happen, his answer was clear. He said that all the legislation would be completed, and we would be in an auction for contracts for difference in January 2026. It was not a case of "maybe" or "hopefully". He said:

January 2026 came and went, and we had no legislation and no contracts.

In June 2025, the Minister told us that the auction would happen in the third quarter of 2026. This is the third quarter of 2026, yet we are not holding an auction but instead debating the Second Stage of primary legislation to allow it to happen. The Department made that its number-one action in its 2025 energy strategy action plan. By the Department's subsequent assessment, it "partially achieved" that. The achievement was carrying it into 2026, where the number-one action is, again, introducing this legislation. How are investors, businesses and the public meant to have confidence when there has been no plan and little action?

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Bill has come before us at last, but, as Sinéad said, passing the Bill is not delivery. Publishing another action plan without actions tied to a time frame is not delivery. Holding another meeting is not delivery. The test of this will be in the renewable energy generation capacity that is built and connected and that produces cheaper, more secure electricity for our householders. As we move forward with the legislation, we need an answer to the question of when the auction will happen. When will we get that? More importantly, when will we first see energy that is created and supported by the scheme connected to our grid and generating electricity? Those are the dates that matter.

I will look at the all-island issue. I talk a lot in here about sharing this island. I will move on to the terms of the scheme. As Phillip mentioned, we have not seen a lot on them, but we do have some of the detail. I am worried that we are creating an investment border on this island. There is a 5 MW threshold in the terms that we have talked through at the Committee. Back in 2024, I specifically raised with the Minister why, when the threshold in the South is 0·5 MW, we are looking at 5 MW. I still do not understand why we are shutting down smaller projects before they have the opportunity to compete. For a farmer who is looking to diversify and wanting to add a wind farm to provide another income, for a local developer who has a range of turbines that might be on farms or other land in different locations or for the single-turbine 3 MW project, it is not that they will lose an auction under the scheme as designed but that they will not even get into the auction.

A few miles down the road, the South has a renewable electricity support scheme that is available to projects below 5 MW. What are we doing? We have spent years developing an all-island electricity market: a single electricity market (SEM) on one island. I absolutely believe in sharing this island. I think that I talk more than any other MLA about working together in partnership to deliver better for people, but what we are doing is creating a border: a renewable investment border. Think of the absurdity of that. If an investor who looks at a 2 MW or 3 MW project in Northern Ireland cannot access the scheme, he will move his investment to the South, just a few miles away, or to Scotland. In fact, I have spoken to various local businesses in my constituency that have done just that. Why would we deliberately create disadvantage for ourselves? The Department has already acknowledged the absence of the support mechanism that has resulted in potential renewables going to GB, including Scotland, the South and elsewhere. We are finally creating the mechanism, yet we are going to design another reason for smaller investment to go south. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I get the Department's argument that it is about administration: a lower threshold means more applications and, potentially, more work for the Department. However, that is not a reason not to create the conditions for such investment.

I get that there are genuine technical issues around controllability and visibility for SONI — I have spoken to it at length about this — and the single electricity market. That is fine — let us address it — but why should we design the policy around the administration? The policy should not be designed based on what is easier to administer. The Department's consultation material recognises that projects below 5 MW account for a meaningful part of renewable capacity currently. Off the top of my head, it is over 20%. We already have 20%, and we are creating disadvantage. My simple question is this: why not let that compete? Why should we decide before an auction even starts that we do not want that investment in Northern Ireland? This is about not only renewable scale but farm diversification, rural incomes and local developers and smaller businesses here. Paul mentioned —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Frew: That is exactly my fear: that the contracts for difference and the auction will be open only to multinational companies with the big bucks and the scale, and that that will disadvantage our farmers and our people who want to diversify to get lower bills. Ultimately, it will cost them. The contracts for difference will cost them in the way that renewable energy has cost our people throughout the past 20 years. Not only will our people not be able to avail themselves of this, but it will cost them, and there will be no advantage whatsoever for the little man, the little business or the little farmer down the lane.

Mr Honeyford: I am struggling to say these words and I cannot believe that I am going to say them: I agree with Paul Frew. He makes the point that I am making, and I appreciate that. It worries me that we will exclude local companies, local investors such as farmers and those in rural communities and local developers in favour of large conglomerates. We need both. I am not saying that we do not need larger companies, but we should not be creating disadvantage for ourselves. We need to make this place as investment friendly as possible. We should not be building an investment border on this island through the design of our own scheme.

The issue of the grid and planning barriers brings me to a wider problem. The support scheme on its own will not build wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage or whatever. You get renewable generation when you have three basic things: planning permission, a route to market and a grid connection. The Bill helps with one of those — the route to market — through the ability of a company to finance a project. That is good, and I welcome it. However, the other two are essential. I recently met ABO Energy, which is a large German company whose offices are based in Lisburn. It told me that it has £1·1 billion of investment that is sitting waiting to go into Northern Ireland. Some £600 million of the £1·1 billion is being held up by planning delays, and the remainder is being held up by constraints in the grid and delays in upgrading our grid. If you think about that —.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a very interesting point. Does he agree with me that, in local council authorities and the Department, there seems to be a very clear lack of understanding of planning and of the complexities of some of those applications and that that is leading to some of the delays? There needs to be a more streamlined system for planning for such projects.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Member. I agree, and I will touch on that issue now. I will answer him in what I say.

If we want money to come here, we need to have a system in place that delivers on all of that. I have said many times — Phillip mentioned it earlier, and I want to hear it from the Minister — that we need the Department to finally bring forward the master plan. We cannot let it become a developer-led project; it needs to be controlled, and the Department needs to lay out a pathway that shows the areas, partly for the planning system. The areas that are absolutely acceptable can be shown, and the areas that are environmental protection zones or areas of natural beauty can also be highlighted, which will bring the benefit of giving the community confidence, and it will also give the planners confidence to pass the permissions more quickly. The DFE master plan is essential for the Utility Regulator, SONI and NIE Networks to ensure that we are building a grid ahead of schedule to a plan that allows us to realise the benefits of the legislation, delivers for people and is Department-led, not developer-led.

We know where a lot of the energy infrastructure should and could be, and it could be mapped out. The councils could, in the same way that they do their local development plans, show the areas where development will be positive, what it looks like and where it is not feasible, and that will give the community confidence.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes. Go for it.

Mr McCrossan: I appreciate the Member's point about the project being Department-led. Unfortunately, the lessons of the past show that the private sector has been 10 miles ahead of the Department on every move. It is worrying, on a competence issue, that the public's perception is that the Department for the Economy does not have its house in order when it comes to those projects, and RHI is a classic example of a mess.

Mr Honeyford: Yes. RHI closed yesterday, which is positive. We will take the win because the Department has done a good job of closing the scheme. I am absolutely not here to bash the Department for the sake of bashing the Department; I am here to make sure that we deliver for people.

Mr McCrossan: You are too nice.

Mr Honeyford: Too nice? I am always nice.

We are constantly waiting for investment to arrive before we start thinking about the infrastructure that is needed to connect it, and that is my point. We do not need discussions about planning; we need reform to reduce the time taken to process applications. Maybe the Minister can bring forward any work that is happening with her colleague in DFI to enable the change. The legislation and the auctions are good, but the wider point will be how we connect to the grid.

RHI has been mentioned, and there is a ghost that we need to address. We need to think about the learning from RHI because we have dispatch down rates of about 20% for energy that is created but not used. Without connecting it all together and having a plan, we will be, effectively, creating more energy without the infrastructure to use it, and the North/South interconnector is a prime example of that. We talk about the all-Ireland energy market, which is one single energy market, North and South, and we are connected through that every day, yet we spent around two decades trying to connect one part of an island to another with a copper wire, and two decades is two decades too long. If we are to become a renewable energy leader and develop more significant amounts of renewable electricity, we have to reduce the amount of dispatch down energy that is created and wasted. If we want to attract billions of pounds of investment, we have to put the basic infrastructure in place to allow the energy to be used, and the North/South interconnector is absolutely critical to that. There has been political opposition to the North/South interconnector over the years, including from the Minister's party in the South, but it was not alone. In this case, the South is the blockage to its being built. We cannot hold back on it. It has to be delivered on this island to allow the scale of renewables generation that we are asking to be built here.

We also talk about the Scottish connection. All that interconnection is absolutely vital to strengthen our security of supply and the ability to import when we need to. If we do not get it right, we are incentivising local renewable generation. If it does not hit that grid and is not used, there is potential to incentivise energy that is not used for the public good. That is a concern if the interconnector is not brought about. It brings me back to my point that we need a plan-led approach from the Department that allows the scheme to come forward, allows the planning system to be reformed to enable it, allows the grid to be built ahead of time and allows storage to be installed. We need the North/South interconnector. We need the connector to Scotland. We need one system, one strategy and one direction of travel; otherwise, we risk spending consumers' money on incentivising new generation or different generation that is not or cannot be connected. If RHI has taught us anything, it is that we have to properly think through the incentive. The incentive should not come before the consequences. They need to be thought through now. The system needs to be developed, and the whole system needs to be delivered at the same time.

I want to pick up on who benefits, because the whole system has to start and finish with the consumer. The environmental benefits are essential. I do not disagree with that. The legal targets, as Phillip Brett mentioned, are there to be met, and we absolutely need to meet those. However, it all comes down to creating better for people and people paying less for their energy and the small businesses having certainty over energy costs moving forward and manufacturers looking at this region as an affordable place to invest because they have security of energy supply moving forward, be that in the west of the Province, which was talked about. That is what success looks like. Cap and floor is the mechanism to enable that. That is great, and I support that.

The thing that I am concerned about and will flag now is clause 12(3). This is around where the money goes. The Bill says that the Department may make regulations requiring a benefit to be secured for customers. My question is around the word "may". If consumers underwrite the downside, they must also get the upside. That should not be an option. I want the Minister to explain the thinking around that, because I want to make sure that the benefit finds its way back to people in the communities. If we are asking communities to host turbines, solar farms, substation pylons, or whatever that infrastructure looks like, those communities should benefit. I welcome the provisions around community benefit, but we will tease out the detail of what that means, who gets it, how much they will get, how much it will reduce bills for local people in the community and how that will happen. Community benefit cannot be another promise that then gets defined down the road. It needs to be built in to bring confidence into this now.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way on that point that he has just raised?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Frew: The Bill does not talk about the community or neighbours; it talks about "customers", and those customers could be anywhere in Northern Ireland. You could get a contract for difference, a payment and a benefit for having a plant, a wind farm or some other renewable energy base in a mountain range or valley in an area of natural beauty, but the neighbours and the people who live in that valley or mountain range will be impacted on and will not get the benefit; the customers of the agency will benefit from it.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Member for that. That is the point that I am making. That is that the bit that we need to tease out. The Minister can address that. If we are asking a community to host it, the local community should feel the benefit of it. That is the point that I am making.

I want to finish on a positive. This is about opportunity. I genuinely believe that it can become one of the biggest economic opportunities that we have here. For too long, we have imported energy and accepted whatever price the market told us. This allows us to control the cost and generate our own energy. For that, I welcome the Bill, Minister, and thank you for introducing it. We need, however, to look at the grid, the planning system and the delivery of the North/South interconnector, We need to secure that investment in jobs and build the skills around that so that colleges and the whole skills piece are linked within it as we see growth. We need to bring in that investment and, as I said in reply to Paul, bring the benefit back to the local community and consumers here. We have the wind, the technology and the opportunity. Let us now action the ambition to see that delivered. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I thank the Minister. If she could address those points, I would really appreciate it.

Ms D Armstrong: As a former member of the Economy Committee, I want to make an address before my colleague Mike Nesbitt joins the Committee for his inaugural meeting tomorrow.

I welcome the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill as an important step towards placing Northern Ireland in a stronger position to generate renewable electricity sustainably. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the direction of travel despite its having taken such a long time to design a new renewable electricity scheme. However, that support cannot mean that there is a blank cheque. Any new scheme must not become the next RHI.

At a recent Economy Committee meeting, the Department could not give proper assurance that the 80% renewable electricity target would be met by 2030. While that should focus minds, it should not lead us to rush legislation or hand over broad powers without proper scrutiny. The Bill gives the Department significant powers over contracts for difference, including eligibility, allocation, pricing and the supplier levy. Where such powers are being granted, transparency and Assembly oversight must remain central. There must be no confusion about how the strike prices are set, how contracts are awarded or what the scheme will ultimately cost consumers. While the levy sits on electricity suppliers, we must be alive to the risk of those costs being passed on to households and businesses. Renewable electricity should deliver greater affordability and security, not simply another cost within the energy system.

Equally, where market prices rise above the strike price and the money flows back through the scheme, consumers should see a clear and tangible benefit. I also welcome the provisions for community benefit. However, the detail on eligibility and payments must be clear and fair. I hope that the Minister can expand on that in her summing up.

None of that is to understate the opportunity. Investors have waited long enough. If we do not get the scheme moving, their money will go elsewhere. If we hit the 80% target by 2030, we are talking about £479 million in GVA a year, £118 million in labour income and over 3,000 jobs, as predicted. That prize is real, and the Ulster Unionist Party wants to see it delivered.

We must also ensure that our grid can support the generation that the Bill seeks to encourage. There is little value in incentivising new projects if they cannot secure timely grid connections. Grid investment and connection reform must progress alongside the legislation. The Department must demonstrate value for money, protect consumers and provide transparency at every stage. Get that balance right and the Bill can deliver the investment that we need while protecting the people who ultimately pay for our electricity system. The Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill's progressing to Committee Stage.

Ms Nicholl: We are very lucky to have an energy nerd in the Alliance Party. I benefit greatly from my colleague David Honeyford's expertise in this, and it is good to know that he has company in other parties. Over the summer, I spent quite a bit of time trying to get up to the same stage as him. I met a number of renewable energy companies in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. The need for the Bill came up time and time again. Its purpose is relatively straightforward, but it is absolutely vital for our long-term energy security, giving us the ability to protect consumers from price volatility and laying the foundations of a more sustainable energy supply. It is about cleaner energy but also driving bills down.

The Bill enables the Department to establish the much-needed and long-awaited renewable energy support scheme. There has not been one meeting at which that issue has not been raised, and having the support scheme in place is fundamental for our energy sector, because it will provide security for future investment and lead to the transformation of our energy mix. A number of Members have already spoken about investor confidence and how they have been waiting for the scheme and also about how the delay has had an impact when they go back to the investors. Therefore, it is really welcome that we are now on it.

The contracts for difference model — the auction process proposed in the Bill — already works well in Great Britain and other parts of Europe. I know that we will get into the specific details of the clauses as Bill progresses, but the community benefit aspect laid out in clause 13 is a really important aspect of the Bill, and I am sure that it will command widespread support and discussion across the House. It has already been mentioned that it is really important that we get the Bill passed in this mandate. There really cannot be any more delays. I have noticed that, when we talk about energy, there is a lot of conversation about whether we will meet our 80% target by 2030, and I very much hope that we will. As Alliance MLAs, we will do everything that we can to move in that direction, including by supporting the Bill.

Connected to the Bill and the schemes that will emerge from it, we need to make sure that we have the correct skills mix. My colleague touched on that. I am particularly interested in that area of the portfolio in order that we deliver the targets that we have set. Without the right people and the right skills, we will not be able to make the progress that we need to make. I will focus on that a lot. I just want to get that on the record at this stage. Investors and major players in the energy sector have a range of options for where they will invest, and we need to make sure that our policy and legislative framework provide confidence and certainty to make sure that we are winning investment for Northern Ireland, creating jobs, delivering cleaner energy and bringing down bills. Some really compelling stories are being told across Northern Ireland, and really exciting businesses have been set up. There is that innovation and ambition, but, so often, the piece that is missing is the ambition and delivery from our side.

The Bill alone will not achieve all those things, but it will provide groundwork for the regulations and the future scheme that will help us to move in the right direction. It is technical, but it will have a real impact on people's lives. Energy is not always the most exciting topic, and it does not always get media attention, but it should, because it is one of the most important things. As my colleague said, it affects the economy, and the Bill is a positive development. I look forward to continuing the work on the Bill and scrutinising it in the coming stages, including when it comes to Committee.

Mr McCrossan: On behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Bill and support its progression to this stage in the House. Northern Ireland has an enormous economic opportunity before us. Renewable energy, as Members have said, should not simply be viewed in isolation through a prism of climate targets. It is also a huge and significant economic opportunity — an opportunity to create considerable jobs, attract investment, support businesses, strengthen our rural economy and give households and employers greater protection from volatile global energy prices.

Recent years have demonstrated just how exposed we are to that. War, international instability and disruption to global energy markets can very quickly translate into higher electricity bills for a family in Strabane or a business in Omagh. We cannot control international energy shocks, but we can control how exposed our people and society are to them. The more energy we generate here from our own renewable resources and at predictable long-term prices, the more resilient our economy can become. That matters enormously to businesses, because margins matter. For manufacturers, hospitality, retail, farming and, particularly, our agri-food sector, energy can be a significant operating cost and, indeed, has proven so over recent times. A sudden spike in prices can wipe out margins almost overnight, so energy policy is also economic policy and business policy. If Northern Ireland can offer businesses greater certainty and competitive energy costs, that can become part of our economic proposition. It can protect jobs, help existing businesses to expand and make Northern Ireland a more attractive place to invest in. That is why the SDLP supports the principle behind this important legislation.

Ambition, however, must be matched by delivery.

I declare an interest as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The report from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) on the energy strategy should serve as a wake-up call to the Department for the Economy. It found that around £107 million had been spent since 2020, yet progress against key targets was lagging behind considerably. By March 2025, just 90 GWh of energy savings had been delivered against an 8,000 GWh target. At that point, renewable electricity generation stood at 45% against the statutory target of at least 80% by 2030.

It is important to point out that progress has been made, and progress should always be welcomed, but we could be much further ahead. The Audit Office's central criticism remains, however, that the pace of delivery from the Department for the Economy's energy division has been too slow. We have spent years talking about Northern Ireland's renewable energy potential, but we now need to realise that potential, and that means removing the barriers that prevent businesses from investing. As Members have highlighted, one of the biggest barriers is the planning system. I am not in any way advocating for a weakening of environmental protections or proper community consultation, but rigorous planning does not have to mean slow planning. Slow planning costs us all. Businesses that are prepared to invest millions of pounds, create employment and generate energy and opportunities here cannot be expected to wait years, trapped between planning authorities, statutory consultees and Departments, with one contradicting the other while MLAs in this House chase Departments to get responses. That is entirely unacceptable. On countless occasions, investors in the North have said that they cannot get over how difficult it is to get through the processes here.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will indeed.

Mr Martin: The Member is always very kind with his time. He is right in what he says. Does he agree that the propensity for judicial reviews here and, as he said, the fact that some planning decisions can take between five and nine years disincentivises businesses from outside the UK from investing in Northern Ireland, which would create jobs? That is something that the Department for Infrastructure in particular needs to get right.

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely. That continues to be the case, and that is an important point. Everyone has a right to object to anything about which they may have concerns by way of a judicial review. To digress slightly, the situation with the A5, for instance, causes me a huge amount of frustration, in that a small number of people can block an infrastructure project that will benefit the majority of people. The measure and the balance is not right, and the same potentially applies to projects such as this.

As I said, we need to remove the barriers that prevent businesses from investing, and the planning system is key to doing that. Businesses that are prepared to invest all that money continue to criticise the system here for being too slow. The Minister for the Economy is here and is listening, as are departmental officials. We need clear timelines, faster statutory consultation, properly resourced planning services and much better coordination across government. The matter is not something that sits solely with the Department for the Economy. Rather, it is an Executive-wide priority, and it should be treated as such. The same applies to the electricity grid. There is little point in encouraging investment in renewable generation in this place if, at the very end of the process, a project cannot secure a viable connection. My friend Diana Armstrong made that point very well. Planning, grid infrastructure and energy policy must move together in order to achieve the goal.

I also want to see ambition around the types of renewable energy that we support. We have a great opportunity — I would argue a unique one — in that way. Wind and solar energy will undoubtedly play a major role, and they do, but they cannot be the entire story. We need to be more ambitious. Northern Ireland has a huge agriculture and agri-food sector, which provides significant, increased opportunities around anaerobic digestion, biogas and biomethane. Agricultural food and other appropriate organic waste can be converted through anaerobic digestion into biogas, which can generate electricity and heat, or be upgraded to biomethane for injection into our gas network. That is not the technology of the distant future. Rather, it is already happening in our communities. It is happening in my constituency of West Tyrone, where biomethane is already being injected into the Northern Ireland gas network.

We should be asking ourselves how we can turn that potential into an industry and a future for this place. Can we turn waste into energy? Look at how our councils have been managing waste. Where is the opportunity there? Where is the community benefit for our people? Exploiting that very important opportunity and turning waste into energy would feed into a community benefit on the ground and save local authorities and, indeed, ratepayers a huge amount of money. Can we create additional income streams for farmers? Can we create new rural businesses and new opportunities for places in west Tyrone, Fermanagh and elsewhere? Can we support our agri-food sector while addressing some of the environmental challenges facing agriculture with measures that are not so convoluted and full of hurdles? Can we keep in the Northern Ireland economy more of the money that we currently spend on importing energy? I believe that the answer to those questions can and must be yes.

We should continue exploring the role of sustainable biofuels, particularly for businesses and sectors that are difficult or prohibitively expensive to electrify. We should recognise the contribution of small-scale hydro and remain open to emerging technologies in that regard. That is particularly important, because this legislation will not be stuck in time; it has to emerge and be forward-looking. We should not design today's legislation around today's technology. The framework must be flexible enough to accommodate the innovation of tomorrow. We are in a fast-changing system.

Another important issue needs clarification, and I would welcome that from the Minister in her remarks. What will happen to Northern Ireland's existing renewable generators? The Northern Ireland renewables obligation has supported renewable generation for many years. While the scheme has been closed to new generating capacity for some years, existing accredited generators have continued to receive their renewable obligations certificates during their applicable support periods. Northern Ireland has a particularly significant number of small renewable generators who remain in a place of uncertainty. They are not all multinational energy companies, as Mr Frew pointed out. They include our farmers, small businesses, landowners and rural entrepreneurs, who invested their own money in renewable generation and were miles ahead of Departments here.

As individual ROC entitlements eventually expire, we need to know what happens next. That is a critical question that the Department needs to address. The turbine does not suddenly stop because the ROC support ends. A hydro scheme does not suddenly stop producing electricity. Energy-producing plants do not suddenly come to a halt. What is the pathway for those generators? Can they access the new arrangements? Can they repower existing installations? Will the new contracts for difference model be genuinely accessible to smaller generators, or are we in danger of designing a scheme that works extremely well for a major developer proposing hundreds of megawatts of generation but that is particularly inaccessible to the ordinary farmer, SME, entrepreneur, community project or small hydro operator?

We cannot leave our existing renewable generators stranded or without certainty for the future. They were among the people who invested in Northern Ireland's renewable energy transition long before it became the priority that it is today. Where those installations remain viable, we should consider how we retain that productive capacity and encourage sensible repowering and reinvestment. I therefore ask the Minister to provide clarity on the transition from ROCs and what assessment her Department has made of the impact on small and locally owned renewable generators.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will indeed.

Mr Frew: The Member raises a critical point. Look at it the other way: some of those generators may gain an advantage in a contract-for-difference auction because of the very fact that they get a ROC. We will have to be mindful of that. Of course, the bigger the scale, the more the ROC and the more advantage they may then obtain. However, the Member raises a valid point. ROC was a payment that you got basically to foot the bill of the building. You got a return on the investment that you had to put in within a relatively short number of years and, then, you enjoyed the ROC for the remaining 15 years or whatever. That is the basis of ROC, but this is a critical juncture as to what we do going forward. Let us say that a farmer wants to upgrade a turbine to a bigger one. Will that allow him to fall into a contract for difference? That may well have been an issue for that farmer continuing to enjoy a ROC payment. I am not sure that he would have been able to upgrade and retain the ROC. Those are all questions that need to be delved into, but, unfortunately, they are not answered in the Bill.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for the intervention. That uncertainty needs to be addressed and, hopefully, the Minister can bring some insight and clarification. I see the opportunity around ROCs in the future as an opportunity for growth. There are people with expertise and knowledge about what they are doing who are already in the system. They are ready to move forward, but they need that help and push to grow the sector further.

Of course, we cannot talk about energy without addressing the huge elephant in the Building, which is the RHI. We cannot debate another Government-backed renewable support mechanism without acknowledging what happened during the renewable heat incentive scheme. It was badly mishandled, and it created a very difficult and awkward situation for this place. There were serious failures in the scheme's design, financial controls, governance and oversight, which have been well rehearsed and acknowledged. Those failures cost the public purse, but, more importantly, they damaged public confidence in government in relation to those matters. We must all learn from that, but the lesson from the RHI cannot be that Northern Ireland should be frightened to support the renewable energy sector. We would do ourselves a huge disservice and fail future generations if we were to allow the ghost of the RHI to haunt our future. We must move forward.

The lesson from the RHI is that we have to do it properly. In any future system, we need robust financial controls, transparency, independent scrutiny, regular review, value for money and very clear accountability from those who manage the scheme. We need to encourage private investment without creating unacceptable risks for taxpayers and consumers. Communities, as has been well rehearsed, must benefit. If a community hosts significant renewable infrastructure, the people who live there should see a meaningful return in that area. Therefore, community benefit should be real and tangible, not simply tokenistic or a box-ticking exercise.

Ultimately, the success of the legislation cannot simply be measured by megawatts of renewable generation. We need to ask what it can deliver. Does it give households greater protection from global energy shocks? Does it lower and stabilise costs for our businesses? Does it improve our energy sector? Does it attract investment and create jobs here? Does it support our farmers and rural communities? Does it allow local businesses and smaller generators to participate? Does it allow Northern Ireland to retain more of the money that we currently send elsewhere to purchase our energy? Northern Ireland has the resources. We have the agricultural base, businesses, expertise, including engineering expertise, and people who are prepared to invest, but we have lacked pace, joined-up government and leadership on those issues. The Audit Office made that point abundantly clear.

I support the Bill, and the SDLP supports it at Second Stage, but, as we have learned, passing the legislation is the easy part. Delivery is what matters now. We need to streamline planning, strengthen our grid and support businesses that are prepared to invest. We need a fair transition that allows existing ROC-supported generators to grow. We need to unlock the potential of wind, solar, hydro, anaerobic digestion, biogas, biomethane, sustainable biofuels and any emerging future technologies. We must all learn every lesson from the RHI. If we get the Bill right, renewable energy will not be viewed as a burden or simply another target that this place must meet but as one of the greatest economic opportunities for our people and our society. It is an opportunity to create jobs, support our businesses and farmers and create more opportunities for people in rural communities, which have lacked access to new businesses and opportunities. It is an opportunity to improve our energy security and protect our families and businesses from the next global energy shock. It is important that we get it right. We must seize the opportunity, move quickly and deliver it for everyone this time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to wind up the debate on the motion.

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

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I have found them very helpful. I enjoyed hearing Members' reflections on the Bill and welcome the broad support for it. I thank Diana for her work on the Economy Committee and wish her well in her new role. I welcome Mike back to the Economy Committee and look forward to working with him.

The Bill is about providing the necessary legislative foundation to enable us to attract the investment that will be required to meet our renewable electricity ambitions while ensuring that we have the appropriate protections and safeguards in place for consumers as we create the sustainable, secure and affordable energy future to which we all aspire. I will address a number of points that were raised in the debate, and I am happy to take interventions from Members if I miss anything, because I have a lot of notes written down that I will try to get through.

First, on the timing of the Bill's introduction, let me say that nobody is more disappointed than I am that it took as look as it did to get us to this point. There was certainly no intention to mislead Members in any way. We believed that we would be able to use other primary legislation as the basis of this, but, on further legal advice, we realised that that was not the case. By the way, I actually think that having our own primary legislation is a good thing, because it enables us to design it to meet our needs.

Some Members, including the Chair of the Economy Committee, mentioned the number of delegated powers in the Bill. I affirm again that it is our intention, particularly for the elements of the Bill on terms and conditions, financial matters etc that will be introduced by regulations, to do that by the draft affirmative procedure so that the Committee will be able to fully scrutinise the regulations and the Assembly will have to approve them. I refer to the recent experience that we had with the RHI closure regulations, where we really listened to the Committee and took on board its views. That is my intention going forward, and I give that commitment to the Economy Committee as we move through this.

I will pick up on a couple of points that were made about different elements of the legislation, whether it is the technologies or the lower threshold. David, I know that you are particularly exercised about that, and, by they way, so was I. It is my intention that we talk about that as the first option, and, beyond that, we will look at it again. Like you, I believe that we should look at where small-scale generation has a real role to play. That links very much to some of the other issues that were raised in today's debate about the necessary investment in our grid infrastructure to enable the connections that will need to be made to facilitate the different renewable technologies being onboarded. We want to get as much of that online as quickly as possible, which is the intent behind the threshold.

I have a real commitment to community energy. One thing that is in the energy strategy action plan for this year is a community energy framework. We are working on that as well. We need to make sure that we tie those things together, because, to meet the 80% by 2030 target, a lot of things still need to come together. That includes our storage policy. We intend to publish our policy statement on storage this year. We have also just published the east-west interconnection policy. Certainly, that is my intention. Mr Honeyford has made the point on many occasions, and the Chair has made the point, about the overarching framework that we are working within. We are working on an energy policy position statement, which we intend to publish before the end of the year. That will set the direction of travel to 2030, and we are working beyond 2030 as well. We are making sure that we have a framework and a direction of travel that is clearly communicated to everyone.

Several Members mentioned the economic opportunity, which I very much agree with. We now have a green economy that is worth £1·5 billion. That represents 60% growth in less than a decade. We have huge opportunities to build on that as we invest further in renewables and tie that with our broader economic vision. Planning issues will be key in ensuring that we can deliver the infrastructure investment that we need to see. I am engaged with my ministerial counterpart on that. The policy on low carbon and renewables was published last year. Obviously, that is new and is being worked through. We also have the planning improvement plan and are beginning to see a positive impact from that. We need to see a continued emphasis on ensuring that our planning system supports the ambitions that we all have. We are all very conscious of the need to bring communities along with us. I share Mr McCrossan's view that we cannot in any way diminish environmental protection or the right of communities to have their say, but we have to make sure that we take on board concerns and address them as speedily as possible in order to ensure that we move forward at the necessary pace.

That brings me on to the community benefit element. I do not know whether it was Mr McCrossan who raised the point last week at the Committee about the legislation's use of the phrase, "The Department may make regulations". An explanation for that was given at Committee last year: it is about the specifics of the community benefit from the particular auction and technologies at a point in time. If it is offshore, for example, there will not be houses around the facility that you will make payments to, but, if you have onshore wind or solar technologies, the intention is that the households in those communities will receive that benefit. That is, I believe, spelt out in the legislation.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate her giving her time. I understand that this is a priority for her.

This is an important point, given that the Agriculture Minister is also present. You said that we need to make sure that things move more swiftly. I think that everybody agrees. One of the biggest hurdles that the planning system faces is responses from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Do you agree that there needs to be Executive consensus on how we fix that problem in order to streamline the system?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his point. Obviously, the Agriculture Minister is sitting here. I have no difficulty in saying that there is Executive agreement on the need for us to deal with planning on a more consistent and speedy basis. That is why the Infrastructure Minister has put in place the planning improvement plan. As I said, we are beginning to see improvements in the time that applications are taking. I think that we are all very conscious that resources need to be behind that, particularly in the different agencies that have those responsibilities. That is work in progress; there is no point in dressing it up as anything else. We need to keep a continued emphasis on that.

I am looking through my notes to see whether I have missed anything important. Kate has left the Chamber, but we have the green skills action plan, which was developed along with industry. The emphasis is very much on ensuring that we have a pipeline of people coming through to support the different elements of decarbonisation and the energy economy. From a departmental perspective, having energy sitting alongside skills is particularly useful.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. She mentioned clause 13, which is about community benefit. Clause 12 is about payments to electricity suppliers. Clause 12(3) states:

Does the Minister have in mind a specific time for which customers should get a discount?

Clause 13 is about community benefit. You now find that a lot of the generators will give a grant, for which you have to compete and apply. It is usually schools and community groups that avail themselves of that, but clause 13 refers to "specified persons". Is the Minister saying, therefore, that, if someone lives within a certain metreage of a generation plant, they may also get a financial benefit — that it would be not just the school down the road or the community group in a certain village but actual households that benefit from clause 13?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. In relation to clause 12, no, I do not have a specified time, but I am happy for the Committee to go into that in more detail.

In relation to community benefit at clause 13, it is my intention that households will receive the financial benefit of hosting the infrastructure. It is important that our communities feel direct benefit. The Member is right that, as it stands, it is a voluntary arrangement, but I want it to be a mandatory arrangement, with a requirement on those companies, so that communities in the areas where they put in the infrastructure feel the benefit of hosting that infrastructure.

Mr Frew: May I make another intervention?

Dr Archibald: Yes, go for it.

Mr Frew: That begs the question, Minister, of what metreage or mileage you would use. People may be miles away from the plants but have them on their skyline. Has the Minister given any thought to that?

Dr Archibald: The short answer is yes. We have not yet determined what that should be, however. That is one of the elements of the Bill on which we intend to make further regulations, so there will be a further opportunity for consultation and to take on board the views of the public more widely on that. It is an important issue.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way and thank Mr Frew for taking my job. [Laughter.]

I jest.

I want to check two things, Minister. Last week, at Committee, I raised my concern about any possible delays to the creation and implementation of the terms and conditions. That was in relation to state aid rules and approval by the European Union. Officials said that they would engage with the European Union, but will you give a commitment to the House that you will encourage officials to do so without delay, so that there is no further delay to the process? Secondly, I have a question that I asked at Committee to which I did not really get an answer from officials. Are you certain, Minister, that you have the legal vires to implement legislation that means that community benefit would be through direct payments to householders? I raised that question with officials and was not confident in the answer that they gave, so I would welcome your view on it.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. I can certainly give him that commitment on the point about state aid. It is important. Other EU states have similar schemes in place. I take on board the point that he made about the timescales for some of the decisions to be made. We do not want any unnecessary delays at a future date, so we will ensure that that engagement happens.

On the point about the ability to require payments to be made, we are putting in place the legislation, and that will be the legislative basis. I probably cannot share legal advice, but I am happy that we will share any further legal opinion on the matter with the Committee in order to give some reassurance on the issue. There are certainly already situations where that is happening on a voluntary basis, but we want to make it mandatory.

I think that I have covered all the points, unless anybody else wants to put their hand up. If not, I will come to a conclusion. When we consider that oil was $97 a barrel this morning, I think that we all understand why we need to have greater self-sufficiency through generating our own energy to ensure affordability for consumers and businesses. I reassure the Committee of my willingness to take on board its views as the legislation progresses. As I think that I have shown with previous pieces of legislation, I value the role that the Committee plays, its input and its ability to add to the legislative progress, so I look forward to continuing that engagement as the Bill continues its progress through the Assembly. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Members, please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

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

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

Mr Muir: I welcome the opportunity to bring the Dilapidation Bill to its Final Stage. People in Northern Ireland deserve to have pride in their area and to see their high streets thriving, with shops, restaurants and a variety of businesses, instead of being blighted by run-down buildings and dilapidation. The Bill is a worthwhile and positive development, and I am extremely proud of it. I look forward to its playing a role in supporting our local economy and delivering more vibrant neighbourhoods. It will help restore not only the look but the safety of our cities, town squares and villages so that people can once again live and work in attractive and colourful neighbourhoods.

At Second Stage, I outlined why the Bill is to be welcomed by all Members, and I am pleased that it has received broad support across the Assembly, reflecting the shared recognition that the current legislative framework is no longer adequate. I am confident that Members will pass the Bill today. It will be a potentially transformative moment for our neighbourhoods as we enhance councils' ability to tackle dilapidation wherever it occurs. It will now be up to councils to drive change in their communities and utilise the new powers on the ground.

I thank the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill and for its constructive engagement with stakeholders. The Committee's constructive and helpful recommendations led to amendments at Consideration Stage that have strengthened what was already a solid Bill. I thank my Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly for their ongoing support throughout the passage of the legislation.

Aristotle is credited with saying:

That is no more apt than in the case of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill will modernise a fragmented and outdated body of law, some of which is more than 150 years old. Existing powers are inconsistent, limited in scope and less effective than those available elsewhere in the UK. That has constrained councils' ability to address dilapidation and has, in some cases, hindered the regeneration of our villages, towns and cities.

Members will already be familiar with the detail of the Bill, so I will refer only briefly to its key provisions. The Dilapidation Bill will give district councils a clearer and more robust suite of enforcement powers, enabling them to issue notices that are proportionate to the severity of the dilapidation identified. Those notices will require owners, occupiers or other interested parties to take remedial action to deal with the dilapidation and neglect within a specified period. Where ownership is unclear, councils will be able to serve notice on the land. If action is not taken, councils may undertake the necessary works themselves and recover costs through the courts if necessary. Unrecovered costs may be registered as a charge on the land, with the power of sale also available to councils. Those provisions are important. They protect the public purse, support effective enforcement and ensure that those responsible for properties do not benefit from allowing the buildings or land to fall into disrepair. The Bill also provides for proportionate penalties ranging from a £2,500 fine on summary conviction in the Magistrates' Court to more significant sanctions upon conviction on indictment, including an unlimited fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

The current lack of guidance is one of the reasons why some councils are reluctant to use the existing powers at their disposal. Therefore, the Bill will be accompanied by detailed statutory guidance to which councils must have regard when exercising functions under the legislation and which will enable councils to operate the new legislation effectively. It is envisaged that that approach will give much greater clarity to district councils, property owners, financial institutions and other government agencies regarding the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities of various parties. My officials continue to engage with council officers on the development of the guidance, which will be laid in draft before the Assembly in due course.

In summary, the Bill provides councils with modern, practical and enforceable powers to tackle dilapidation earlier and more effectively. It will help support regeneration, improve local environments and ensure a fairer approach to responsibility and cost recovery. I commend the Dilapidation Bill to the House and look forward to hearing Members' comments. I thank the officials who have worked on the Bill over the past number of years.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I call Diana Armstrong, Chair of the AERA Committee.

Ms D Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his address. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. I was not Chair of the Committee during the Bill's Committee Stage, but I have followed the Bill with keen interest, having seen the negative impact of dilapidated buildings on our towns and villages.

As we know, the primary aim of the Bill is to equip all district councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose, Northern Ireland-wide enforcement regime to address the negative impact of dilapidated or dangerous buildings and neglected sites. At present, councils have limited powers in that area. The Bill seeks to modernise and strengthen those powers and enable earlier intervention through a hierarchy of notices addressing distinct levels of dilapidation. Clauses 1 to 10 provide for that graduated approach, which ranges from maintenance notices and dilapidation notices to dangerous structure notices and, ultimately, immediate action where a building poses a serious risk to public safety. The Committee welcomed the provisions in the Bill allowing councils to recover costs where they have undertaken remedial action and the ability to register dilapidation notices in the Statutory Charges Register to ensure that relevant information is available where properties are sold. The remaining clauses cover a range of practical matters, including the power to require ownership information, measures to address obstruction, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites and rights of appeal against notices.

Throughout its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee sought clarification on the intent, application and proportionality of the proposed powers. Members carefully considered how issues raised during the call for views could be addressed and whether that could be through amendments or the supporting statutory guidance. That work was extensive and encompassed 14 oral evidence sessions and 10 meetings for deliberations. In addition to formal evidence sessions, the Committee facilitated direct engagement between Assembly officials and Belfast City Council building control representatives to better understand operational implications. The Committee also invited amendment proposals from local government and raised those with the Department. As a result of that work, the Committee was satisfied that a number of substantive issues were addressed, including the Minister's agreement to key amendments and the introduction of a new review clause, all of which were subsequently passed at Consideration Stage. That demonstrates the value of the extended Committee Stage and the effectiveness of the Committee's scrutiny.

At Consideration Stage, it was evident that there was broad support across the House for the overall objectives of the Bill, particularly in equipping councils with clearer and more robust powers to address dilapidated, dangerous and neglected buildings in the interest of public safety, amenity and community well-being. However, Members continued to raise further issues, in particular concerns regarding the financial risks for councils and, ultimately, taxpayers. Questions were also raised at Committee regarding whether councils had sufficient resources, capacity and expertise to implement the new powers effectively. The importance of consistency and application across all council areas was highlighted as well as the operation of the enforcement regime. Proposals to enhance transparency and accountability, such as the introduction of a review mechanism and provision for a public register, were broadly welcomed by members. They are seen as important for assessing the delivery of tangible improvements. Taken together, those issues reflect a shared view that, while the Bill represents a positive step forward, its ultimate success will depend on effective implementation, adequate support for councils and continued engagement with councils.

The Committee welcomes the Final Stage of the Bill. I take the opportunity to thank Assembly officials, departmental officials and all stakeholders for their valuable contributions throughout the Committee Stage as well as to acknowledge the constructive working relationships that were established during the scrutiny process.

I will finish there on behalf of the Committee and make some comments on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Dilapidation Bill at Final Stage. It represents an important step towards improving our streetscapes, enhancing the environment and tackling the long-standing problem of neglect that holds communities back. It needs to be stated, however, that the Bill has somewhat overpromised in its ambition and is under-delivering, and there are lessons that need to be learned.

Across Northern Ireland, many towns and villages are blighted by derelict buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate for years. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I regularly deal with concerns from residents about abandoned premises that have deteriorated and become a detriment to the local community landscape. Every Member will be familiar with buildings that once played an important role in local life but now stand vacant and deteriorating. Those sites undermine confidence, discourage investment, attract antisocial behaviour and, in some cases, present genuine safety concerns.

Recent Department for Communities research highlights the scale of the challenge. It found increasing levels of vacancy, a rise in the number of buildings in poor condition and a growing number of properties considered to be at risk. The problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where many communities feel powerless as buildings decline year after year. Through my time on the Economy Committee, I saw at first hand how dilapidation can deter businesses from investing in town centres and communities. If we want thriving high streets and vibrant communities, we cannot accept dereliction as the norm.

Legislation alone will not deliver the change that we all want to see. Councils must be given the resources and support necessary to use the powers effectively. I hope that the Bill will cover those areas. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward a funding programme that would help local authorities and property owners to restore neglected buildings and bring them back into productive use.

The Bill provides an important tool to tackle blight and restore confidence in our communities. For that reason, the Ulster Unionist Party believes that the Bill deserves the support of the Chamber.

Ms Finnegan: I start by thanking Janice and Glenda and the whole Committee team for everything that they have done on the legislation.

Sinn Féin previously raised concerns about the Bill that arose from engagement with the local government sector. Concerns remain that councils may not be adequately equipped with the tools and resources to implement the Bill sufficiently, and, without proper implementation, what would be the point?

At Committee Stage, Sinn Féin supported the progression of the Bill because we recognised that the current legislative framework was outdated and that councils needed stronger powers to address dangerous, neglected and dilapidated properties. Our support at that stage, however, was not the end of the conversation. Sinn Féin supported a number of the amendments that resulted from the Committee's scrutiny and sought to improve the workable provisions in the Bill.

The local government sector raised many concerns about councils not having the legal certainty, protection and operational support required to exercise the powers with confidence. Sinn Féin is aware that the Minister has met the sector to discuss those concerns and that it is still not satisfied that the Bill will be workable.

However, we are heartened to hear that conversations happened over the summer and that training on the new powers has taken place. We hope that the review process that is now embedded in the Bill will provide further support to councils if and when that is needed.

In considering the Bill in its entirety, Sinn Féin has sought to take a balanced and evidence-based approach, and it has endorsed the provisions that would give councils stronger, workable powers to tackle dangerous and neglected properties. Sinn Féin will support the Bill, because we need to tackle the impact of dangerous, neglected and dilapidated buildings on our communities, which have waited far too long for meaningful actions in that area. We have seen great examples recently with the Belfast fleadh, when a number of dilapidated buildings and sites were used as pop-up entertainment venues. It transformed the city centre. If it can be implemented correctly, the Bill has the potential to improve our streets, not only in appearance but by making them safer, constructively and socially eliminating the antisocial behaviour that vacant and run-down buildings are known to attract. Regenerated sites may instead attract business, visitors and investments and help property values in the surrounding area. For that reason, we support the Bill.

Miss McIlveen: I am pleased to speak at the Bill's Final Stage, given that it has been a long journey to get here. I remember raising the issue with the then Environment Minister Alex Attwood way back in February 2012. One thing that we learn in politics in Northern Ireland is that patience is not only a virtue but an absolute necessity. I express my gratitude to Alex Attwood for taking the matter seriously and starting the Bill rolling. They say that success has many fathers, but, in these times of people posting videos to claim credit for other people's work, it is important to highlight where the origins of the Bill lie.

At its heart, this is a fairly straightforward proposition. We all know what impact a neglected or dilapidated building can have on a community. As we have heard today, it can blight a town centre or village street and discourage investment, undermine neighbouring properties and businesses, and reduce the attractiveness of an area to residents, visitors and businesses. I know that at first-hand: next door to my office in Comber lie the ruins of a building that was hastily knocked down to avoid its being listed and was then left to rot. The council has tried its best to cover it with hoardings but is powerless to act without the landlord's permission. In all our constituencies, there are crumbling walls or neglected buildings that our constituents want or need someone to step in to address, but, at present, that is just not happening. For too long, councils have had to work with a collection of powers that are in many cases rooted in Victorian legislation and fragmented and difficult to use. The Bill will consolidate and modernise those powers and give councils a clearer, Northern Ireland-wide framework.

The Bill will allow councils to intervene at a much earlier stage where a building or land is in a condition that is "detrimental to the amenity" of an area. We should not have to wait until a building has become dangerous or a site has deteriorated to the point at which it becomes a major problem for the community. The maintenance notice provisions will give councils the ability to require appropriate remedial action in cases of much lower-level dilapidation and neglect. That could mean dealing with a property in a poor condition that is having an obvious negative impact on the surrounding area before the problem becomes substantially worse. That must be welcomed. Where the problem is more serious, councils will have the power to issue a dilapidation notice. As we know, that will include a mechanism that allows much more substantial remediation action including, where appropriate, demolition.

The Bill also provides councils with powers to act where an owner or other person with an interest in the land does not comply with a notice. A council will be able to undertake the necessary remedial work and recover the costs. Therein, perhaps, lies a problem and a challenge for the council. A council and the wider community should not be left powerless simply because an owner refuses to address a problem that is impacting on people around a property.

Given the concerns raised by councils about the potential cost implications, it is important that the legislation contains appropriate mechanisms for cost recovery. Costs can, subject to the provisions of the legislation, of course, become a charge on the land, and the Bill provides further mechanisms to enable councils to recover that expenditure. At the same time, it is important to recognise that those are discretionary powers. There is no obligation on councils to pursue every case. The legislation will provide important weapons in a council's armoury, should it wish to use them, as it seeks to tackle the blight of dilapidation. I want to see those powers being used, and I do not want to see discretion being used as an excuse for inaction. The Committee recognised that councils need clarity on the operation of the powers, including the terminology, the thresholds and how the various provisions should be applied. It is important that the guidance is developed in meaningful consultation with local government. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, given the impact on private property rights, there are safeguards in the Bill, including rights of appeal and a framework for enforcement.

We should recognise the wider economic and community benefits that can flow from the legislation. Derelict buildings can become barriers to regeneration, affecting neighbouring businesses, discouraging investment and creating a sense of decline in an area. Legislation such as this is not, of course, a silver bullet, but it can be an important tool in making a difference to an area. That is why I welcome the Bill's emphasis on giving councils the ability to intervene much earlier.

There are still practical issues to be addressed. The Committee raised concerns about the resources available to councils and the potential financial exposure associated with enforcement. The Department and councils will need to work much more closely together to ensure that the powers are genuinely deliverable in practice and that the Bill does what it says on the tin. It is about giving local government the practical tools to protect the amenity of our communities and to protect and support regeneration. Neglected buildings and land should not simply deteriorate whilst everyone else waits for someone else to act. That is the principle behind the Bill. The legislation is about empowering councils with the discretion to act where action is needed and where it can make a meaningful difference. That was the simple ask back in 2012.

I put on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Bill Office and, very importantly, the AERA Committee staff for their work on the legislation. We support the Final Stage of the Dilapidation Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Michelle. John, you are down to speak next, and you know —.

Mr Blair: Will I have time?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Are you happy to wait until after —?

Mr Blair: Will I have time? It will take two or three minutes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is grand. That is all that I am asking. I will hold you to that. You are the next Member to speak.

Mr Blair: Now, yes?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for any confusion.

I will speak as the Alliance Party spokesperson for agriculture, environment and rural affairs and as a member of the AERA Committee. I intend to speak briefly so as to avoid repetition of previous points. At the outset, I, once again, express the Alliance Party's support for the Dilapidation Bill. It is long-awaited and important legislation that will provide our local councils with more effective tools to address the serious issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings across our town centres and wider communities. It is important to point out that the Bill is wider than just the appearance of town centres: it addresses safety as well as aesthetics. The properties at stake are not only eyesores but reduce confidence in local areas, decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a damaging impact on the wider environment. In many places, they also undermine efforts to regenerate our high streets and create safer, more attractive spaces for residents, businesses and visitors.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister and departmental officials in bringing the Bill to this point. Officials briefed the Committee regularly and in a detailed way. That gratitude extends to Committee officials and the Bill Office. The legislation has benefited from Committee scrutiny, including engagement with a number of key stakeholders, and I hope that those stakeholders feel that their views have been heard and, where possible, reflected in the Bill as it has progressed through the Assembly.

This is constructive and sensible legislation. It will not solve every issue connected to dereliction or town centre regeneration, but it is an important step forward. It gives councils a clearer, more practical framework in which to act, and it responds to a problem that many communities across Northern Ireland know only too well. For those reasons, the Alliance Party is pleased to support the Dilapidation Bill at its Final Stage. I look forward to seeing it implemented in a way that supports safer, cleaner and more vibrant communities across Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. You will appreciate that it is not good when in this position to have to cut Members off when they are on their feet. I appreciate that.

Without further ado, I say that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Daniel McCrossan.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Up to 31 August 2026, 3,441 of the 5,850 social home starts committed to in the Programme for Government (PFG) have been delivered through the social housing development programme (SHDP). I am focused on delivering the remaining 2,409 homes in this mandate, which will depend on a budget for them being made available.

The biggest risk to meeting the Programme for Government target has been confirmation of a budget at the start of each financial year. Shortly after I came into office, it was estimated that we would start construction on only 400 new social homes in 2024-25, but, because I successfully secured additional funding, we started 1,504 and completed 1,410. Again, in 2025-26, my initial budget would have secured only around 1,000 social home starts, but by securing additional budget, we were able to start 1,765 and complete 1,538. That is no way in which to plan and deliver the construction of a large and complex programme to build thousands of homes on hundreds of sites. The budget for the SHDP needs to be confirmed much earlier, and I will continue to make the case for that at the Executive.

Mrs Mason: Minister, the latest figures show that there are almost 4,000 people on the housing waiting list in South Down. Frankly, your record of delivering social housing is deeply concerning. Do you agree that delivering just 28 social homes in South Down since taking office is not good enough and represents a failure? How can you justify such a number, which does not meet the need and nowhere near adds up to what is required?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right: it does not meet the need that is there. We have 5,000 social homes under construction right now. South Down is very similar to East Antrim in that regard. I would like to see far more social homes being built in my constituency as well, but we are building what we can with what we have. We saw a 17% increase last year in the number of homes built compared with the number built the year before. I want to have more money. I want to make sure that we can build more social homes. I have requested that money from the Executive, but Executive colleagues have not given me the budget cover to build those homes. She shakes her head, but that is the truth. Homes are built with money. I need to get money from the Minister of Finance and the First Minister.

I put a paper to the Executive, and it stated, "We have a commitment in the Programme for Government. This is how many homes we need to build. Are you prepared to fund them?", but it has not even got on to the Executive agenda. I am committed to doing my part in the absence of proper funding from the Executive, and I have taken other steps. I have made it cheaper to build social homes and made sure that we review the design guide. I am looking at how we can use public-sector land as well, and I will continue to do that, but it comes down to money. I am spending the money that we have better, but we need to do more.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for what he is doing. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, applications opened for the first affordable rent homes last month. It is typical of Sinn Féin. Mrs Mason has come to the Chamber today with total hypocrisy, given Sinn Féin's non-delivery. Sinn Féin forgets —

Mr Speaker: May we have a question, please?

Mrs Erskine: — that it signed up to the targets at the Executive, yet it has failed to back that up with funding. Minister, are you, like me, disappointed that Sinn Féin cannot back up its actions when it comes to taking such decisions at the Executive?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Not only does Sinn Féin have a brass neck but it has no credibility at all when it comes to housing. We have challenges in Northern Ireland. We have priorities, and social housing has been a priority for me. That is why I put the paper to Executive colleagues and said to them, "We have made a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland in the Programme for Government. This is what I need to make sure that we can build social homes. Finance Minister and First Minister, are you prepared to ensure that it gets on to the Executive agenda and gets agreed so that we can put funding not to something new that I am asking for and not to some new programme on which we have not all agreed but to something on which we have had collective Executive agreement to meet a target in the Programme for Government?".

That is what I have asked for, and it has been refused.

I understand that things are difficult and budgets are tight, but do not come complaining to me when it is your party's Ministers who have not acted in the way in which they should have done. Everybody knows where the blame lies for that. Everybody knows that Sinn Féin is the party that is blocking this. It has an appalling record when it comes to housing. More will come out on the issue shortly.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I am sure that, like me, you are disappointed that the target of 5,850 social homes has not been met. Has there been a review of your decision to cut the housing association grant that contributes to building those homes? How has that impacted on the ability to provide those homes?

Mr Lyons: I do not want the Member to misunderstand me. I have given you the position as of August 2026. The mandate does not end until next May. That is the period for which we will calculate the final number of starts. I am not saying that the target is out of reach: I still believe that we can reach that target and ensure that we have started new social homes. I have not given up on that. I will continue to press Executive colleagues to give me the funding. It will be tricky, but it is doable. I will do everything that I can to ensure that it happens.

The initial reaction and advice from my officials is that the change in the grant rate has not led to what some people had predicted. I still believe that, when the final analysis is done, we will see that we have been able to build more social homes with the available money. I thank the housing associations for stretching themselves and doing that work, because it means that we can stretch the money that we have further, which will contribute to more social homes being built under my leadership.

Mr Durkan: In my council area of Derry City and Strabane, there are over 11,400 people on the waiting list for social housing. That number will continue to grow as the lack of available housing pushes up rents in the private sector, putting them beyond affordability for people and increasing homelessness and hardship. Minister, what progress has been made in unlocking housing supply? What engagement have you had with the Infrastructure Minister on the well-publicised waste water infrastructure issues that are hampering housing supply?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue, because I want the focus to be kept on housing and what we need to do. We have taken steps. That is one of the reasons why we had a 17% increase year-on-year in the number of social homes that are being built. It is not enough — there is still more to do — but we are in a better position than we were in when I came into office. We are also making other changes, as I have set out.

When it comes to social housing, waste water infrastructure is still a concern. Perhaps, it is not as much of a concern as it is right now in the private sector, but it is still a significant issue. That is why we have a housing supply strategy in place. I brought that forward to ensure that we take a coordinated and joined-up approach to tackling the issues. There has been good cooperation, which has unlocked a number of sites over the past few years with the significant investment that has been made available to the Infrastructure Minister. I will continue to meet her. We will continue to meet officials to ensure that we put that money where it needs to go so that we can build more homes. That is what this is all about: increasing supply. That is what I am committed to doing.

Mr Speaker: Mr McGlone is not in his place.

Mr Lyons: I thank my colleague Phillip Brett for all the work that he has done to put the issue on the public agenda. He has played a significant role in ensuring that the issue was not hidden in the shadows and that anti-Protestantism in boxing will not be allowed to continue. As a result, I announced the panel. Sport NI has been progressing work on the oversight panel, and I expect it to meet for the first time later this month.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Minister, for that answer and for your commitment on the subject. Let us not forget that the reason that it came to light was that a boxer was denied a place in the Commonwealth Games because of his religion.

Minister, can you confirm that the report will not be shy in shining a light into corners of boxing across Northern Ireland, which has, for too long, had an anti-Protestant bias? When will the report be published? Will you ensure that those who have broken the law and abused Protestants in boxing are finally exposed?

Mr Lyons: I can provide that assurance to the Member. I have no interest in putting together a panel and ensuring that its report is published only for it to sit there and not do what needs to be done, such as highlighting some of the difficult and challenging issues for other people. I give the Member my commitment that the report will be thorough and done within the timescales that I set out after the Equality Commission's review. We will see progress on and delivery of that report by the end of March 2027.

Mr Gaston: As far back as 2013, an independent report into boxing highlighted the inability of people from Northern Ireland to box for the United Kingdom in the Olympics. Will the Minister give the House an assurance and commitment today that he will address that issue before his time in office comes to an end?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I have been working on that and most recently raised it with the other UK sports Ministers when we met in Glasgow in July. It is absolutely right that those pathways are there and that people are aware of them. I give my commitment that I will continue to raise the issue and push for the change that is necessary so that that can be fulfilled.

Mr Lyons: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 4 and 15 together.

My Department did not provide any direct funding to the fleadh. However, my officials and several arm's-length bodies (ALBs) of my Department engaged with partners to support and promote the fleadh, and my Department provided important support in terms of event space, with a number of DFC-owned public spaces used by businesses during the fleadh. Those included Writer's Square, Donegall Quay, Queen's Quay, Bank Square and Cotton Court, and my Department was responsible for ensuring that all areas under its ownership were cleaned and maintained before, during and after the event.

Looking forward to 2027, while I am not currently in a position to advise on any projected investment for next year, I will ensure that my Department and its ALBs continue to engage with the organisers of the 2027 fleadh on ways to further enhance the festival for Belfast and Northern Ireland, as well as ensuring the longevity of its cultural legacy.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is disappointing that he did not put any direct funding into the Fleadh Cheoil. I welcome the fact that spaces belonging to the Department were made available. However, the business case for next year is being made now and will continue into early 2027. Will the Minister commit to putting funding into the Fleadh Cheoil? Belfast City Council did so with much less resource, so I would welcome the Minister having another look at it. I am sure that he will agree that the fleadh was a very successful event.

Mr Lyons: Yes, it was a successful event, and I was happy to attend a number of the events in August. It brought people together and was good for the city and beyond.

I was not asked to provide any funding for the fleadh. I met the organisers over a year before the event. There are lots of other people who ask me for money and I am not able to help them, but no request was made in this case. It was right and proper that the funding from the Executive came from the Department for the Economy. It is the Department that is responsible for large events, and that is why it happened in that way. Of course, I will always consider how we can help and how we can bring benefit to people across Northern Ireland.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, the fleadh was a fantastic success, with our thriving arts community bringing Belfast to life in a way that I certainly have never seen before in my lifetime. Minister, you have an opportunity to decide what legacy you want to leave for that sector. I know that you met the arts group Equity earlier today, and I can see that its representatives are watching from the Public Gallery. What practical steps are you taking now to ensure that the artists whom we will depend on for the 2027 fleadh will be able to remain in that sector, build sustainable careers and be supported for the contribution that they will make in 2027?

Mr Lyons: Yes, of course, the fleadh would not have been what it was had it not been for the many people who contributed, took part and displayed their talents, all of which were enjoyed by everybody.

The Member asked specifically about legacy and what I am doing to ensure that we have a legacy for the arts in Northern Ireland, and that is exactly why I have brought forward the heritage, culture and creativity framework, underneath which will be, for the first time ever in Northern Ireland, an arts policy. We spent a considerable amount of time developing that. We engaged with other Departments and arm's-length bodies.

We have ensured that there has been input from councils, and we are doing a considerable amount of work in that space in order to make sure that it is fit for purpose. I am pleased to announce that that will be going out for consultation soon and, subject to the feedback from that consultation, I look forward to sharing that policy with Executive colleagues, with the aim of ensuring that I publish that as early as I can in 2027.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that the fleadh was a good example of how our shared cultures can be celebrated together, which is in stark contrast with the despicable scenes and glorification of terrorism that we see annually at the west Belfast festival?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I congratulate the organisers of the fleadh for the way in which they went about their work and how they tried to make it inclusive and representative not just of Belfast but of Northern Ireland as a whole. There were great opportunities for people to feel welcome and involved. The Member is absolutely right: that does stand in stark contrast to what we saw at the west Belfast festival. Unfortunately, it is becoming commonplace that it is an event that glorifies terrorism. Even this year, we had the promotion and platforming of the evil ideology of Martina Anderson and everything that she had been involved in, and disgracefully so. It would be better for everybody in Northern Ireland if we had a little bit more fleadh and a lot less féile next year.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann was an extraordinary and unprecedented event in this city and in this region. It genuinely brought joy in a way that people in this city had not experienced before. The people who delivered that, however, and were the backbone of that, were the artists — dozens of whom are watching in the Chamber today — who have been failed by you and by your predecessors as Ministers with responsibility for arts, culture and communities. They want to know when the arts will be sustainably funded here. In Dublin, one theatre — the Abbey Theatre — gets the equivalent of nearly the entire arts budget in Northern Ireland. Budget talks are going on at the moment. Will you finally put an end to the scandal of the underfunded arts sector here and press for a specific and meaningful increase in the arts budget in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: First, I recognise the fact that the arts are not funded to the level that we want to see them funded to. That stands out when you look at where the budget was 15 years ago compared with where it is today. I understand and fully appreciate people's concerns in relation to that. However, I have made it a priority. For as long as I have been in office, I have had some very difficult decisions to make. There are lots of things that I have not been able to fund as I would have liked to or as we did in the past. Despite that, however, I have increased the arts budget above inflation since I came into office in February 2024. Is that enough? No. Does it take us back to where we were in the previous decade? No, it does not. Nonetheless, I hope that it shows the commitment that I have made to make sure that the budget has been protected during that time.

There has also been a considerable increase in the capital funds that have been made available to the Arts Council, from £1·3 million to £1·9 million, over the past couple of years. I understand the importance of community infrastructure and of people having musical instruments for bands, schools, other groups and individuals, and that is why that has been increased. We are in a really constrained budgetary environment, and I will do what I can with what I have. That is why I will also make sure that we deliver on the arts budget.

Mr Lyons: If the Member is referring to the judicial review of Irish language signage at Grand Central station, that remains ongoing, and therefore I am unable to confirm costs at this stage.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra fhíorghairid sin.

Minister, you will be aware that there is considerable anger over the legal action that you have been taking against that signage. Earlier today, I noted that a loss of confidence has been submitted by the arts sector in relation to a lack of investment in that work. Regardless of whether you are able to specify a quantum of expenditure, does your Department hold a dedicated financial reserve in order to pursue such legal actions?

If not, are you funding those costs at the expense of the delivery of other services under the auspices of your Department, including investment in the arts sector?

Mr Lyons: It is the same old Sinn Féin: it thinks that the law does not apply to it.

I want to be clear: I will use the law, and I will use the courts to make sure that the law is upheld. The Minister for Infrastructure has the same responsibilities as every other Minister who operates in the Executive. We are all equally subject to section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which means that significant, controversial and cross-cutting decisions need to come to the Executive. The Infrastructure Minister failed in her duty on that one. She abdicated responsibility on that one. That is why legal action is being taken. It has to be taken because of her actions. Had she done the right thing and followed the law, we would not be in this position right now. I know that Sinn Féin feels that it can break the law. I know that it feels that, in the past, the law has not applied to it. However, the law is there for a reason and must be adhered to. I do not want to spend departmental resources fighting legal actions. There are plenty coming my way. Yes, whenever money is used on legal action, that is money that could have been spent elsewhere. To ensure, however, that we are upholding the law in Northern Ireland, that is money that will be well spent.

Ms Bradshaw: The Minister will be aware that the Irish Language Commissioner has been in post since November 2025. What steps are he and his departmental officials taking to engage with the commissioner to ensure that the new standards that will be rolled out for the Department and its arm's-length bodies will be consistent so that any future legal action in that regard can be avoided?

Mr Lyons: First, I have met the new commissioner on a number of occasions. We have had at least one formal meeting, and I have no doubt that we will continue to meet on those issues. It is important and right that those standards, which will have to be approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, are applied in such a way that their application does not cause the frictions that we are talking about or lead to additional costs.

Mr Brooks: I commend the Minister on the stance that he has taken. Just because Sinn Féin Ministers cannot deliver within the rules does not mean that they can flout them. Sinn Féin Members love to pontificate on the Irish language, but does the Minister agree that the zeal of their words is often not matched by their actions?

Mr Lyons: Yes, that is absolutely the case. This is a good opportunity to raise the issue of the recent court judgement on the Irish language strategy. Sinn Féin Members have been blaming me for a long, long time for holding up the strategy, but the judge was clear: DFC has been progressing the language strategies. So where did the hold-up come from? Where does the blockage come from? Here is what the judge had to say: he said that one Sinn Féin Minister did not even respond to his requests for information". I quote from the judgement:

Three Sinn Féin Ministers and three different approaches to the Irish language, yet what do they do all the time? They stand up and blame other people, because that, apparently, seems to be the Sinn Féin way. It is always somebody else's fault: blame the DUP, blame the Brits, blame austerity. Blame Sinn Féin Ministers, because they have been completely incompetent when it comes to this issue. They have mucked up, yet they continue to blame other people.

Mr Gildernew: Rubbish.

Mr Lyons: Oh, rubbish? "Rubbish", says Mr Gildernew.

Mr Gildernew: You are the Minister for Communities. Take responsibility.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I am Minister for Communities, and you should read what the judge actually said. I know that it is a meaty judgement and will take a bit of time, but I encourage him to read it, because, in there, he will find the truth. It will not be nice reading for him, but I encourage him to actually read it: it is there in black and white.

Mr Lyons: While responsibility for the regulation of gas tariffs rests with the independent Utility Regulator and energy policy is the responsibility of the Department for the Economy, I remain committed to supporting households experiencing fuel poverty and wider financial hardship. Through the warm healthy homes strategy, I have established a long-term, cross-government framework to help to reduce costs, improve energy efficiency, strengthen advice services and enhance consumer protection. A key commitment in the strategy is the establishment of the warm healthy homes fund, which is due to launch in spring 2027. To support its delivery, I am seeking Executive backing for £150 million over five years to improve the energy efficiency of homes and provide lasting support for households that are most at risk of fuel poverty. My Department continues to support households that face rising energy costs through initiatives, including the Make the Call service, the discretionary support scheme and the Housing Executive's Northern Ireland Energy Advice service. To strengthen that support, I intend to introduce changes to the discretionary support scheme later this year to ensure that fuel grant assistance is available to eligible households, regardless of their home heating source, which will help to provide a fairer and more consistent approach for households facing fuel poverty.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that we have a rather bizarre situation in Northern Ireland, where large amounts of surplus renewable energy get completely wasted. Has the Minister had any opportunity to talk to representatives from business or industry about what we can do about that wasted energy opportunity, which could go a long way towards sorting out fuel poverty in particular?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for that question. I encourage everybody to look into that issue. I met representatives of a particular group that is involved in fantastic work to take renewable energy at a time when it cannot otherwise be used. As a result, a trial is ongoing, and that has been of great benefit to households that need it most. It means that surplus energy is not wasted or lost. I want to see that work being rolled out further in Northern Ireland. It is one of many things that we can do to help people and that should be done.

Mr Bradley: We have heard from Sinn Féin Members in the House about the need to tackle poverty in all its forms. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is completely hypocritical for the Sinn Féin Minister not even to mention the warm healthy homes fund in his draft Budget?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is something that we need to tackle and work together on. I am looking for support from Executive colleagues to make sure that we can put the fund in place and start spending the money and making a difference. The £100 home heating oil scheme will open tomorrow, but I want more strategic interventions and to make sure that we put money into projects that give benefits not just for this year but the next and the next. That is what the warm healthy homes fund can do.

I am disappointed that the Finance Minister has not seen the benefit of that, as he did not even mention it in the draft Budget. I hope, however, that he will change his mind. I know that the Chair of the Communities Committee will assist me in that, because he recently said that:

I encourage the Finance Minister to listen to his colleague Mr Gildernew and ensure that I get the support and money that I need to make a long-term difference in people's lives.

Mr McMurray: Minister, I will touch on two parts of your previous answers. You referenced helping with heating bills and the cost of living through energy efficiency measures. If you could elaborate on that, that would be very good. You also mentioned a surplus of renewable energy. A lot of grassroots community organisations in my constituency struggle and would like to have community-based renewable energy sources. Will you commit to talking to the Minister for the Economy about how the Department for Communities can help those communities and the economy by providing that infrastructure?

Mr Lyons: Most broadly, the answer to the Member's questions is that I will not rule anything out in considering what we can do to make sure that we provide the help that is necessary. The different forms of support will include help to make homes more resilient and better insulated and, where we can, to ensure that people can generate their own electricity through, for example, solar panels.

Depending on the area in which people find themselves living, many different remedies are available. The Member will be aware that rural areas will have particular issues.

We are therefore committed to working on providing help. I will do my best, and I hope that other parties will join me.

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: First, that was a slightly better quip than normal. [Laughter.]

The Member is improving. I said "slightly". Well done to him. I wonder how long it took him to think that up.

I say this very clearly: the arts policy is following the timelines and timescales that were originally set out. We have completed the framework. The first policies are out for consultation, and some of those consultations have closed. The arts policy is coming soon. I have committed to doing that. I will do everything that I can to make sure that it is in place as soon as possible. I always say that I do what I can when I can with what I have. I want to see the policy finalised as soon as possible. I want to make sure that we have the funding in place and that it goes to the right areas: those that will make the most difference and have maximum impact.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister. Does he recognise that a failure to fund the arts adequately threatens not just tens of thousands of livelihoods and the massive socio-economic benefits that the arts create but the very infrastructure that made the fleadh such a success and has made this small place such a big player on the world stage? People are fed up with the political theatre between the DUP and Sinn Féin, which we have seen again today. Will the Minister outline specifically how he has pressed for funding for the arts in the ongoing Budget talks?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for highlighting the issue again. I will say what I said before, which is that we find ourselves in a constrained environment. I am looking for the best budget settlement for my Department so that I can fund all the areas that are so critical, including the arts.

Again, I put it on record that, during my time in office, we have seen an increase in arts funding to the Arts Council alone, and, of course, I have funded the arts in other ways outside the Arts Council. There has been an increase from £11·8 million in the year in which I took office to £12·71 million in the past year. Capital funding has gone up from £1·32 million to £1·96 million. I know that that is not enough. I know that it does not help us to do all the things that we want to do, but it says something that, when we are in the midst of such intense budgetary pressures, with cuts having to be made in other areas, we have had an above-inflation — yes, ever so slightly — increase. I will try very hard to make sure that we get the funding to where it needs to go, but that will depend on funding becoming available more widely.

Mr Lyons: As the Member will be aware, money is unfortunately not ring-fenced when it comes to us as a Barnett consequential. I would love it if it were, because, in so many areas of my Department, we are one of the biggest losers when it comes to Barnett consequentials, be that in employability programmes, work to tackle fraud and error in the welfare system, the arts or elsewhere. The money goes into the pot as a whole.

I frequently make the case about Barnett consequentials to the Finance Minister around the Executive table. I will continue to do that, and I would certainly appreciate the Member's support in that endeavour.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. I suppose that, off the back of the fleadh, you are in a good position to make that call, but I will move on.

We have had a shortened mandate. We have had only three years for the Programme for Government. In the conversation with the arts sector representatives earlier there was disappointment that the arts sector, given everything that it delivers for Northern Ireland, does not feature strongly enough in the Programme for Government. What legacy will you leave to ensure that, in the next mandate, there will be more support and recognition for the arts?

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, I hope that that will be done through the delivery of an arts policy that ticks all of the boxes that need to be ticked, so that we have continued sustainability, innovation and collaboration. I hope that that will be a significant legacy for the arts.

A focus of mine during my time in office has been on ensuring that the arts do not become the preserve of one group of people or are maintained as such. I genuinely believe that the arts are for everyone in all communities from all backgrounds. That is important to me, because the arts do not sit on their own; they are integral to the other things that we are trying to achieve in society. I have seen first-hand how the arts are hugely beneficial when it comes to helping people with their healthcare and education in particular. The arts also have impacts elsewhere. For example, I have seen how they help to keep people out of the justice system and how they contribute to the social fabric of our lives.

I say all of that while being deeply frustrated that we are in the financial position that we are in. I understand why those people are here and why they are annoyed and angry, but I will do what I can to make sure that it is on the agenda and that we have an arts policy that delivers what people want to see.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I do. It is wrong for others to trivialise or belittle people's views on that when they are based on the very text of a Bill that is before us. I see that Kellie Armstrong is shaking her head. Kellie, I remind you that you said in Committee that you were a bit of a nerd and an expert on some things and then had to completely retreat and do a U-turn.

Ms K Armstrong: This is an attack on me.

Mr Lyons: It is not an attack, Kellie. Here we go again: people take language to mean what it does not mean. I am simply highlighting the fallacy of your argument.

Let us base this not on emotion but on the text that is in front of us. I do not know whether this is Mr Tennyson's intention, but nowhere in the Bill does it exclude a conversation that could happen between a parent and a child. It does not exclude that at all. That will be within the scope of the Bill. I encourage Members to read it. There is no exemption or get-out clause. If the legislation were put in place, there would be no defence in those circumstances. I hope that Mr Tennyson will work with others in the Chamber so that we can find something that deals with quack therapies or pseudoscience that cause harm to people. However, as the Member well knows, much of that is covered in law already. Coercive behaviour is covered already. Let us not rush into doing something that would significantly damage ordinary conversations in the home.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his comments thus far on the debate, including everything that he has said in interviews on radio and television. I agree with everything that you have said. Will you go further and agree with me that this is an attack on religious freedoms?

Mr Lyons: Yes, it is. If people read the Bill, they will see that it states:

When I go along to church, coaching and instruction is part of the religious activity.

I think that Mr Tennyson would say that there is a get-out clause for that in clause 7, which states that no conversion practice is taking place if:

but religious behaviour, belief and practice can go beyond a person simply stating what they believe; it can go into an area that may be described as "instruction", which is such a broad term.

I know that people want to see a Bill such as this go through, because they want to take a stand against some of the abhorrent practices that have taken place in the past. I believe that we need to draw a line between those harmful practices and what can be considered to be sincere and genuine counselling, pastoral support, preaching or prayer. I do not believe that that line is drawn in the right place in the Bill.

There is a lot of tutting from the side from Alliance Members on the Committee. I am more than happy to have the discussions and the debates, and I will do so in a measured and mature way, because I believe that the issue is far too serious for us to be mistaken about what is actually in the Bill. I have no time whatsoever for the quack therapies, and they have been rightly discredited for years. When you tell a parent what they can say to a child, however, that is wrong. I encourage everybody, therefore, to wake up to what is actually in the Bill.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I accept the concerns. The outcome of the meeting was that we had a good conversation, and I outlined what I have already said in the House on the increase in funding, the fact that more needs to be done and the fact that an arts policy will be delivered.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat,

Minister, for that answer. Given that the Minister has failed to deliver on an arts policy, temporary accommodation, a proper Irish language strategy or a meaningful anti-poverty strategy, what will he deliver for those areas by the end of the mandate?

Mr Lyons: Clearly, the Member did not listen to what I said about the work that has been done on an arts policy that, subject to Executive agreement, will be delivered. He should sit out the question on the Irish language strategy, because, according to the court judgement, his party has been the biggest blocker of that strategy by not providing the information to me or giving assent to it. The duties on temporary accommodation have been fulfilled. That is why we have seen an increase in costs to over £42 million this year. We are providing that accommodation. I want to see those costs go down, but the Member's party has not allowed a paper to go on to the agenda so that we can provide the proper funding that we need for social housing to be developed. On temporary accommodation, he is wrong. On the arts policy, he is wrong. On the Irish language strategy, it is his fault.

Mr Lyons: The anti-poverty strategy has not been published because further work is being done on it to ensure that there is support around the Chamber and that it has the confidence of those who have been lobbying on the issue. That work has progressed, and I look forward to its being completed so that we can get the strategy agreed by the Executive by end of the mandate.

Miss Hargey: On the back of that response, will the Minister give a firm date for when the strategy will be published along with the other social strategies that were committed to in the previous mandate?

Mr Lyons: I cannot give a date because it is outside my control. On the Irish language strategy, as I just said, Sinn Féin has been responsible for holding that up, and I cannot commit —

Miss Hargey: Absolutely not.

Mr Lyons: "Absolutely not", she says. I encourage her to read the judgement to see who has not responded. The Minister for the Economy did not respond to me. Were the Member to read the judgement, she would understand that there is not a duty on me to — [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order. A question has been asked. The Minister will be heard.

Mr Lyons: See, this is the problem with Sinn Féin: when Sinn Féin Members get an answer that they do not like, they seek to blame other people. [Interruption.]

It is in black and white. The judge said that there is not a duty on me to bring it forward; there is a duty on the —

Miss Hargey: You are the Minister responsible.

Mr Lyons: If you would listen, you would understand. There is a duty on the Executive to bring it forward. Executive colleagues have not come back to me. The Economy Minister has not come back to me. The Finance Minister refused to do anything other than to note it. The Infrastructure Minister was not happy. She said that she is concerned about the costings, and you have the cheek and the brass neck —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: You have the brass neck to blame me. She says, "You are the Minister responsible". It just shows that she — [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: It just shows — [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss Hargey: None. You have not brought one strand —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard.

Mr Lyons: It just shows that Deirdre Hargey cannot read what it is front of her. It very clearly says that this is —. [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: She keeps talking. If you do not listen, you will not learn. If you were to read the judgement, you would see exactly what the hold-up is and that it is an Executive strategy. All that she has done is continually interrupt me, because she has no defence. Her party has been found out. It cannot deliver, and not only can it not deliver but it is incompetence from the Ministers opposite.

Mr McCrossan: I welcome the Bill, and the SDLP will support it at Final Stage today. There is no doubt that councils need stronger powers to deal with dilapidated buildings and neglected sites. We all know the buildings that I am talking about; they are very prominent in all our constituencies. They have sat empty for years, with windows broken or boarded up, roofs falling in, drainpipes hanging off and weeds growing around them. People walk past them every day and wonder why nothing is being done to tackle that scourge. We see it in Strabane, we see it Omagh and we see it in towns and villages right across our society, so giving councils better powers to act is much welcomed.

It is also worth remembering that the issue did not start with the Bill. It stretches back many years and has been through a very long process. Indeed, when the issue was raised in the Assembly in 2012, it was the SDLP Environment Minister Alex Attwood who recognised that the existing arrangements were not good enough and took action to support the councils in tackling dereliction. Michelle McIlveen acknowledged that during her contribution and gave credit to Alex Attwood for being willing to take the issue forward. However, we are 14 years down the line. It is welcome that we are finally getting the legislation across the line, and a considerable amount of work has gone into the Bill to get it to this point. As a member of the AERA Committee, I have been involved in the detailed scrutiny of it. The Committee considered the Bill at 22 meetings and took evidence from councils, Building Control, heritage organisations, architects, landlords, retailers and regeneration organisations. We heard different views, and, at times, serious concerns were expressed. We spent a considerable amount of time going through the detail and testing how these powers would work in practice.

At this point, I acknowledge the departmental officials who repeatedly came before the Committee, answered the concerns of members, took our questions and engaged with the issues that we raised. That engagement helped to improve the Bill from what it originally was, but, after all that scrutiny, I still believe that we need to be realistic about what the Bill can actually achieve. It is only part of the answer; it is not the whole answer. Giving a council the power to serve notice does not give that council the money to restore a building; it does not make an expensive restoration project suddenly commercially viable; and it does not bring investment back into a struggling town centre. Our town centres are struggling. It needs much more. We need proper investment in regeneration, and we need support for restoration. We need to look at the fiscal levers available to government, and we need to look at rates and at what more can be done to encourage empty properties back into productive, sustainable use.

We also need to tackle those who deliberately sit on properties and allow them to deteriorate, and all of us could state examples of where that is happening in our constituencies. There are owners who have the resources to maintain their properties but simply refuse to do so, maybe in the hope of a grant coming down the tracks. That is not acceptable. Councils should be able to take firm action in those cases. There are other buildings, particularly older and historic buildings, where the economics of restoration do not add up. That presents a very different problem. We need to be very careful in case an unintended consequence of the legislation is that demolition becomes the cheapest and easiest option. Once those buildings are gone, we will not get them back.

There is also the question of resources for our councils. That came through strongly during our Committee scrutiny. If we give councils these powers but do not give them the capacity to use them, we will not achieve what the Bill intends to do. Potentially significant costs are involved.

Ownership can be complicated; legal action may be required; councils may have to spend money carrying out works before attempting to recover such costs; and, inevitably, there will be cases where recovery of that money will be difficult. We cannot simply pass the Bill, raise expectations among the public and then leave councils saying, "Yes, we have the power to do something, but we do not have the necessary resources".

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr McCrossan: I will take an intervention from the Minister.

Mr Muir: Does the Member understand and appreciate that, if the owner of a property restores that building and brings it back into use, the Bill will have a potential long-term benefit for that individual? It is about taking the long-term view for property owners.

Mr McCrossan: I appreciate the Minister's intervention and clarification. It is an important point. As an MLA, I have worked with multiple organisations, large business owners and small business owners to see some restoration of their properties. One of the most recent examples was the old post office in Strabane. Thankfully, after considerable pressure, Royal Mail finally restored that historic structure, which it occupies to this day. There are premises that should be brought back into use and repurposed. They should be cosmetically pleasing and have a sustainable use for the local community.

The big fear is that, where costs are difficult to recover and where councils face obstacles in recovering such costs, they could fall back on the ratepayer. The Committee was told that on many occasions throughout the scrutiny process. I also do not want to see a situation where the response depends on which council area you happen to live in. If one council has the resources to pursue such cases and another has not, we could see different levels of action. I appreciate the Minister's intervention, but that applies only in certain circumstances. The issues are wider. We need to watch this closely.

The SDLP has worked constructively to improve the Bill. We appreciate the importance of it. If it does what it intends to do, it can only be a good thing, but there is a concern about the resources to back that up and some of the potential unintended consequences. My SDLP colleague Colin McGrath and I tabled a number of amendments, and I am pleased that we successfully secured some important changes. In particular, councils will now be required to maintain and publish an accessible register of action that they take under the new powers. That will only improve the transparency of the process and ensure that we can keep a close eye on what is happening. We also secured the provision that makes it necessary to record that information by district electoral area. That is important. It means that communities will be able to see where action is being taken. We will be able to see whether the powers are being used as they are prescribed and whether there are significant differences between areas.

Unfortunately, the Assembly did not support another amendment that we tabled. We wanted a proper assessment of the prevalence of dilapidated buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites across every council area. I remain disappointed that that was rejected, because we still have a basic problem: we do not have a proper baseline as to the scale of the problem. We know it in our individual constituencies, but we do not have a proper baseline for comparison across areas. We do not have a complete picture of the scale of dilapidation across Northern Ireland before the powers come into operation. Some councils have such a list. I am fortunate that Derry City and Strabane District Council has provided a local analysis of the Strabane town centre, particularly alongside the regeneration of the town centre, which is to be welcomed. When we come back to review the legislation across Northern Ireland generally, how will we properly measure its impact if we have not known the scale of the problem from the beginning? The register that we secured will tell us what councils have acted on, but it will not tell us how many dilapidated buildings remain untouched. That is an important distinction. The baseline assessment would have strengthened the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider revisiting that going forward.

There is also an opportunity here. When we look at empty buildings in town centres, we should not just see an eyesore but ask what we can do with it. Could it become housing, for instance? Could the upper floors of shops become accommodation? Could it become a new business or some form of community benefit or tourism asset? Could we bring people and life back into our town centres? That is where the wider Executive need to step up. That is why I understand that this is not something that lies solely at the foot of the Minister.

This cannot simply become a problem that is handed to councils, but it also cannot be a problem for just the AERA Minister.

Communities also have a responsibility for regeneration, and finance controls are important fiscal levers. DAERA introduced the legislation, but councils have a central role, and all of them need to work together constructively to improve the situation. I think of Strabane, where people have been promised regeneration for years. It took 10 years to get a regeneration scheme into the streets. The streets will now look great, but the buildings are in a terrible state of disrepair. Businesses are struggling because of various increased overheads and the difficulties that businesses are facing here and now. People want to see buildings occupied and businesses opening, but people need to support local businesses to ensure that they are sustainable. People want investment and to see their own town, in a parochial way, moving forward. We all have that close sense of heart to our own community and the town that we are from. The same applies in the Omagh area and in communities across Northern Ireland.

I often think of Herdman's Mill, one of the most historic buildings in this place. It is a huge part of our industrial heritage, which you see when you look at the story behind it. Such buildings show exactly why early intervention matters. If we wait until a building has deteriorated to the point when restoration becomes impossible, we have waited too long and left it too late.

I support giving councils the additional powers, but the real test comes after the Bill is passed. We need investment alongside those powers. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Communities, the Economy Minister and, indeed, the AERA Minister to work together to see something meaningful done that will see a serious approach taken by the Executive to see the regeneration of town centres across communities. We need the Government to use every available lever to bring empty and derelict buildings back into use, because people will judge the Bill not by the notices that councils serve but by whether the derelict buildings that they walk past every day or are looking at from their windows are still sitting derelict in five years' time. That is the test of the Bill, that is the test of the House, and that is the test of the Executive.

The SDLP supports the Bill today, but we will continue to press the Minister, and the wider Executive to support the Minister, to ensure that these powers are backed by the investment and action needed to make a real difference for all of our community.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. As many Members have said in the debate, we face an unprecedented high street crisis across Northern Ireland with a quarter of non-domestic units lying vacant, leading to what some have termed "industrial levels" of dereliction, so I particularly welcome the Minister's Bill now that it has reached its Final Stage.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in the Chamber that we have the highest levels of dereliction in the United Kingdom; therefore, it is very welcome that the Minister is taking meaningful action in that area. If we are to tackle the problem fully, however, other Departments need to play their part in creating a multi-year and multi-departmental reconstruction plan. What has happened to the Executive Office's high street task force? I recently asked a question about that in the House and got a very poor answer, if not indeed a blank answer, about that work — work that was lauded by that Department but seems to have dropped into a large black hole.

I am really pleased to see my Alliance colleague Minister Andrew Muir leading on these important issues for towns and their high streets and for rural communities. Sadly, my constituency office is located in a part of Carrickfergus where there is a great deal of dilapidation in many buildings, so it is a story that I see and live with every day. I want to place on record my thanks to you, Minister, for coming to Carrickfergus and seeing the dilapidation with buildings that have really fallen to the ground and buildings that landlords and the local authority have to spend money to prop up rather than taking action to deal with them.

The town of Carrickfergus has an 800-year-old Norman castle, which is steeped in history and is one of east Antrim's most famous attractions, drawing visitors from around the world every week. I park where the tour buses arrive. When visitors leave the castle and the harbour area, they are, sadly, met with empty shops, deteriorating buildings and struggling businesses. Not all our businesses are struggling, and it is for those that are trying to be vibrant and to hold our high streets together that I make my plea that we take action to deal with the dilapidated buildings around them.

The former Bell's Corner building in Carrickfergus is one of the most recent examples. The tenant of that building had to leave the century-old historic location for newer premises in order to keep their business alive after the older structure in which they were located required significant restoration but no action was taken. The recent news of the closure of Dobbins Inn, a hotel and bar dating back to the 1500s, after it was unable to find a new owner has sent shock waves through the town. That will become another building at risk if no action is taken.

No one wants to see important buildings in the heart of a town left vacant, fall into disrepair or become part of a blighted town centre. As the Minister has outlined in his Bill, there is an important role for landlords and tenants and for local authorities and those who want to redevelop such buildings to play. There are plenty of people with excellent ideas, but, unfortunately, many of their plans are frustrated because they cannot get access to the buildings or sites.

There are reasons to be positive. Recently, a planning application was submitted for a £42·2 million regeneration project in Carrickfergus, to be funded in part by the Belfast region city deal. It will have an impact on businesses, but, sadly, even that project will be insufficient to deal with areas of dereliction outside the core town-centre area. The Bill has the potential to give councils a clearer and more effective tool to use to step in where property owners have neglected their responsibilities, where a building becomes dangerous or where a prominent vacant property is holding back the wider regeneration of an area.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to say that there cannot be one rule for the Government and another for private property owners. The Member will, I hope, agree with me that a significant number of public buildings in the estates of Health, Education and other Departments are lying empty and in a difficult state of disrepair. The Executive need to lead from the front by showing that they are dealing with dereliction as well.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be an urgent review of the estates of all Departments in Northern Ireland, not least Health. I drive past the Whiteabbey Hospital site, for example. A large wall surrounds a vast site. Yes, the buildings, with modern facilities, are being used, but acres of land simply lie empty. None of that is acceptable.

I particularly welcome the Minister's comments about how the legislation will support councils to act more quickly and effectively in cases in which they have to take action. It will help protect the historic character of town centres and encourage the restoration and return to use of significant buildings. People across Northern Ireland want to see their town centres thrive, with vacant high streets brought back to life, investment translated into visible change and communities able to take pride in the spaces in which they live, work and socialise.

I welcome the Bill and, particularly given that it is at its Final Stage, commend the Minister for bringing it forward. Finally, I congratulate the Minister for taking action on behalf of all of us who have great concern about our high streets and communities.

Miss McAllister: I welcome the Bill's Final Stage. I do not sit on the Committee, so I have not had as much opportunity as some other Members to listen to stakeholders, but, from the outside, I have engaged on the Bill with stakeholders in my constituency. It is very much welcomed by people in our local communities. I am glad that what seems to be a consensus in the House has been reached today. It is important to recognise that, and, of course, that another Alliance Minister is delivering legislation that will make a difference to our communities.

How many people are fed up with seeing derelict and abandoned buildings, be they private houses, shops or any other commercial businesses?

We see too many derelict buildings in my North Belfast constituency, despite the efforts of local people and organisations to tackle them. When the Minister was in North Belfast, I had the opportunity to show him some of the sites across the city. If you take the Antrim Road from Glengormley into the city centre, or if you go down the Crumlin Road or the Shore Road, you will see that spots all over the place are blighted by derelict buildings. Some of the structures are very unsafe, and it has not been possible to ascertain who owns many of them. I therefore welcome the provisions that will fix that problem. We know that the Bill will not fix every problem when it comes to derelict buildings, but it is a start, and it is one that I am grateful for.

In my previous role at Belfast City Council, I and other councillors sought to use the powers there to take enforcement action where there were issues, but it was too little and did not go far enough. How many of us in our constituency offices have tried to get the cleansing department and environmental health to come out? They serve what notice they can, and they clean up where they can, but it simply does not go far enough. That frustrates our constituents, and it frustrates us, too. I believe that the Bill will make a difference to a process that has already been exhausted. Hopefully, we will see a difference.

We must highlight the fact that, when a building has fallen into disrepair or has been damaged and is unsafe, or where a commercial business has pulled out of a building and left it to ruin — when it is in such a sorry state — it has already gone too far. My hope is that the Bill — I know that this is the Minister's aim — will be not only a reactive tool to place notices, take remedial action and give councils greater powers but a preventative tool that can transform areas.

I want to touch on a comment made by Daniel McCrossan. He highlighted that the Bill will not transform our high streets in their entirety. We agree that it will not, but it is one step towards doing just that. I know that the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is committed to doing what he can through his brief. We are in a collective Executive, and we must work together. It is therefore important that, working alongside the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure, we build on these positive steps from the Minister's Department.

As I did in my speech at Second Stage, I will mention the housing need in North Belfast. North Belfast has one of the highest levels of housing need across Northern Ireland. People call our constituency office about so many sites and say, "Well, what about that house? That house is empty" or, "What about that building?". There have been some positive changes in North Belfast: for example, on the Shore Road, where the land that was derelict for years has been transformed by social and private housing. We hope that the legislation can provide something similar. In some areas, it is not that there is a stretch of streets with derelict houses but pockets with one or two derelict houses. People might think, "What kind of difference will one or two houses make?", but, when housing need is so stressed, every single home is needed in our constituencies. Dilapidation makes areas look run down, and it takes away people in such areas. People deserve to live in areas that they are proud of. I welcome the fact that we can work with building owners and occupiers.

There was mention of area mapping and of not knowing the scale of the problem. It was mentioned that Derry City and Strabane District Council was one of the council areas that carried out area mapping. Belfast City Council undertook the same measure. I urge all councils to do that, because, in the local area plans, we all — the Executive, the Assembly and local councils — must work together to build on the work of our local communities. I hope that councils can get on board with doing that. While it is not contained in the Bill, there are the powers there to do just that.

This is positive legislation. Whilst the Bill has some punitive measures, its aim is to ensure that we do not need to get that far, because councils will have the tools and mechanisms to serve notice and to get people to take action before it is too late. Ultimately, I hope that this is one step in the right direction in transforming our local communities and empowering people to contact councils and their local reps, because there are greater powers to deal with derelict sites. I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward.

Mr McGrath: I, too, welcome the fact that this legislation has made its way to Final Stage.

For too long, people have watched buildings deteriorate, sites become neglected and once proud parts of our towns slowly go into decline. People then reasonably ask why nothing can be done about it. The sense of frustration in our community is real. People do not care whether a Department, the council or an official is responsible; they just want to see the work done and their areas looking the best that they possibly can. We will set that principle and concept against our high streets, and it has been referenced on a number of occasions that our high streets are changing.

The town centre of 20 or 30 years ago is not the town centre of today. Shopping habits have changed, many banks have closed, public services have moved away from high-street buildings and businesses have come and gone. The challenge facing us is not simply about preserving the high street of the past; it is about preparing for the high street of the future. It is about giving some of our very neglected town centres an opportunity to prepare for that future.

I see that very clearly in my home town of Downpatrick. I am immensely proud of the county town of Down, but I am also frustrated by what people see when they walk through parts of it: empty buildings, neglected properties, shutters that are down and buildings that are deteriorating. Those things can be seen in gateways to the town. I referenced that the banks have closed. Four banks are lying empty on our very short main street — Market Street — which sends a message to potential investors and those travelling through the town about whether to stop. They just see a series of empty buildings, some of which have been derelict for a decade or more. One of the key corners in our town has a building that I last went into when I was a teenager, and it closed soon after that. I am sure that people will be kind to me about how long ago that was, but it was a very long time ago. That building is lying empty in the heart of the town.

The danger comes when we start to normalise that. We normalise walking up and down a town that has a broken window here and a closed building or a dropped shutter there. You just look past all of that because it becomes normal. When we start to normalise that, we stop noticing it. Slowly, the message takes hold that nobody is responsible for those buildings. They start off with their shutters down before lying vacant for a while. They then start to deteriorate, and, after a decade or so, become an eyesore. I do not want to accept that message as the future for Downpatrick and places like it. I want us to do something about those high streets now. It is the same in many other towns across the North. I want to see an opportunity for somebody to say, "We will take responsibility for turning some of this around". If one building is turned around, then there is an impetus to turn around the building beside it or the one across the way. The Bill might give to the people who care about their town and get sad about its deterioration a glimmer of hope that there might be an opportunity to start turning some of it around.

The legislation will be judged not by the powers in it but by how they are used, and I made that point at the Consideration Stage. I said that giving the councils powers is important, but ensuring that they use them is crucial. I was pleased that the amendments tabled by the SDLP were accepted and became part the legislation. They will improve our understanding of the scale of dilapidation and provide greater transparency about the action that is being taken. I hope that we can chalk that one up as the Opposition being constructive and helpful. When we all work together on Bills like this, we all get to improve them. That makes the legislation all the better.

The challenge now moves beyond the Chamber, because the powers are there and the legislation is here, but a tiny bit is still missing, and that is the fact that the Bill will require money for it to be implemented on the ground. We know that, when it is needed, the financial package will be there. I hope that the Executive will not get people's hopes up with the Bill but that the finance will be there to match it.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes, of course.

Mr Muir: Will the Member accept that the key function of the Bill is to give discretionary powers to councils to intervene? By councils intervening, there will be an opportunity for them to get money on to their rates base, so we need to take a long-term approach.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. I talked about not getting people's hopes up. The legislation is not going to change things overnight. We accept that it will take time. There may be a wee bit of money that needs to come from the centre, a bit will need to be recovered on the ground from those who own buildings that have been left, and a bit might need to be invested by councils. Of course, we can take the strategic and longer-term view: empty buildings are probably not delivering a great deal of rates, but if you can get them up to being functioning buildings, they will generate an income for councils. There are opportunities there. With a bit of momentum and effort, it can be a win-win-win situation for everybody. If we can get that win-win-win lined up, it will help places such as Downpatrick to win and change for the future. We cannot wait much longer for that, and I hope that we see it soon.

Mr Muir: I thank all Members for their contributions to this constructive debate, particularly the Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I am very grateful to the Committee for its constructive scrutiny of the legislation. It has been supported ably by Janice and the rest of the team on the Committee. It has been a team exercise, and I appreciate everything that people have brought to it.

A number of points were raised during the consideration of the Final Stage. I assure Members that I will not speak for as long as Alex Attwood used to speak on issues such as this. In relation to some of the key points about funding, I have done what I can. There is a role for the wider Executive, particularly the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy, in the revitalisation of our villages, towns and city centres. As we have just discussed, we need to take a long-term approach to the benefits associated with bringing buildings back into use and how that can help not only the neighbourhoods that have been affected by dilapidation but the rates base as well. There is a role for the Department of Finance in rating policy, and there was a recent consultation on that. We need to find a way of not incentivising owners of buildings to leave them empty, and we need to find a way to ensure that people bring them back into use.

The Bill has discretionary powers for councils, and I assure Members that we will continue to engage with councils on the guidance that we will publish in due course. Ultimately, the legislation has the power to do good for our villages, towns and city centres. Legislation is the bread and butter of this place, and I am very proud to bring the Bill to Final Stage. I hope that Members will endorse it and that we can move forward and deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Congratulations, Minister.

Ms D Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I wish to request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill to 5 February 2027, as agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 2 July 2026.

The Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from DAERA officials on 18 June and heard that the Bill is intended to modernise and consolidate the legislative framework governing fisheries, aquaculture and the water environment by replacing and updating provisions in the outdated and fragmented Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Members heard that the Bill aims to support sustainable and profitable fisheries. It will establish statutory duties for the Department, strengthen regulatory and enforcement powers, update licensing systems and ensure alignment with current environmental standards and wider UK fisheries policy.

The Committee noted that the aim is to place conservation, protection and enhancement of fish stocks at its core, informed by environmental, economic and social considerations and scientific evidence. The Bill also proposes an enforcement framework supported by a graduated system of penalties intended to deter non-compliance. The Committee heard that the Bill represents significant modernisation of the aquaculture sector, replacing a largely licence-based model with a more integrated ecosystem-based approach. The Committee recognises that much of the existing legislation is outdated. It noted that the Department's consultations demonstrated broad support for the modernisation of fisheries and water environment legislation. The responses also reflected support for DAERA's regulatory role and the importance of transparent and inclusive governance and cross-departmental collaboration.

The Committee supported the principles of the Bill at the Second Stage debate. The Committee's call for views will close on 11 September, with limited responses so far. The onus is now firmly on the Committee's oral evidence sessions to delve into a significant number of important issues, including those that were raised at Second Stage, that it is keen to consider in more detail. They include water quality and ecosystem recovery, the scientific evidence base, proportionality of enforcement powers and potential impacts on fisheries and aquaculture businesses. The Committee will also want to explore funding measures and departmental capacity to ensure that the Bill is workable in practice. Other areas for our consideration include cross-border arrangements, interdepartmental working, delegated powers and the development of a modern aquaculture framework. The Committee also expects to receive a RaISe Bill research paper in the coming weeks, which, going by past experience, is likely to identify further issues for our consideration.

The Committee has discussed the time needed for comprehensive scrutiny of the issues that I have just highlighted and additional matters that will likely become apparent in the near future as we delve more deeply into the evidence. We wish to complete — we will endeavour to do so — our scrutiny in advance of the date that we have requested to allow for the remaining Bill stages to be completed before the end of the mandate. To that end, the Committee has agreed to hold an extra meeting every week to focus on this important Executive Bill. The Committee is also dealing with two Members' Bills that are at Committee Stage in parallel with the Executive Bill, alongside its consideration of many statutory rules and the ongoing scrutiny of DAERA policies.

Having consulted the Bill Office and considered the evidence that we wish to gather, together with our other ongoing work, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend Committee Stage to 5 February 2027. The Committee will, of course, work at pace in its extra meeting each week to report in advance of that date if at all possible.

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

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Sinéad McLaughlin to open the debate on the Bill. Sinéad, over to you.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to move the Second Stage of my Regional Balance Bill.

I will begin by thanking some of the people who have helped to get me to this point. Introducing a Member's Bill is not something that any Member does alone, and I have been incredibly fortunate to have had so much support along the way. I particularly thank Barbara Love in the Assembly's Bill Office for all her help, patience and guidance throughout the process. I also thank her colleagues Frank, Trevor and James, as well as the whole Research and Information Service (RaISe) team. They have each played a really important part in helping me to develop the thinking behind the Bill and in turning that thinking into the legislation that we are debating today. I am also blessed with my own team. Jason and Elias have walked with me every step of the way and have worked tirelessly to support the Bill. I am also delighted with and grateful to everyone who responded to my consultation, as well as the researchers, economists, academics, businesses and organisations who gave of their time, shared their expertise and, at times, challenged my thinking. The Bill is stronger because of that engagement.

The starting point, however, for the legislation goes back a very long way for me. Before entering politics, I spent much of my career working in economic and business development, including as chief executive of the Chamber of Commerce in Derry. I worked with businesses that wanted to grow and with people who were trying to attract investment into the north-west. Over those years, there was never a shortage of ambition in our city region for our future, but there were barriers standing in the way of that ambition: poor connectivity and gaps in skills and infrastructure, with those areas having not kept pace with what our economy needed. That all contributed to a persistent sense that the north-west was having to work harder simply to get itself into the same starting position, and I heard plenty of promises from government too. If I had a pound for every time somebody in government told me that Derry was on the cusp, I would be very wealthy today. We were always told that things were about to change, but, too often, that transformation never quite seemed to come.

Therefore, I came into politics, and, during my first term in the Assembly, much of what I had seen on the ground was reinforced by what I saw inside this place. Too often, policy could be place-blind, and even when regional inequality was recognised, the responses were weak and often inconsistent and certainly not durable. Too often, regional balance was seen as just the purview of the Department for the Economy. However, we in Derry know that decisions to shape all regional economies are being made right across government. Transport and infrastructure clearly matter, but so do decisions on education, particularly higher education, skills, housing, planning and public investment. Therefore, for me, regional balance needed to be put on a more permanent footing and embedded across government, creating a golden thread throughout government. There has never been a permanent framework running across government that connects all the parts of government to a shared responsibility to reduce regional disparity and that survives changes in political leadership and allows the Assembly to properly ask whether the gaps are actually narrowing. Ultimately, that meant introducing legislation, and that has brought us here today.

At the heart of the Bill is a very simple principle: where you live should not determine the opportunities available to you. It should not determine whether you can access a good job, whether your community has the infrastructure that it needs to grow or whether the Government see your area as a place worth investing in. We know that significant disparities remain. There is a 16% employment gap between the best-performing and worst-performing local government districts.

In Belfast, GDP per head stands at £56,000, compared with £28,000 in Derry and just £19,000 in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area. The poverty rate in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area stands at 24%, which is almost double the rate in other parts of Northern Ireland.

Let us look at where economic opportunities are being created. According to this year's Invest NI figures, 57% of jobs created in Northern Ireland were based in the Belfast City Council area. Only 270 jobs were created in Derry, which represents just 6% of all the jobs created in Northern Ireland last year. In the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, the figure is just 2%. Northern Ireland's second city receives only a fraction of the jobs being created by our economic development agency.

Those economic differences matter, but regional imbalance is not something that we see only in economic statistics. The 'Health Inequalities' annual report for 2026 paints an even starker picture for people living in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area. Of the 34 health outcome indicators that were analysed, not one was better than the Northern Ireland average. The standardised death rate for suicide was 45% worse. When people in some parts of the North earn less, have fewer opportunities, experience poorer health outcomes and can expect to live shorter lives, we cannot seriously call those places "thriving". We simply cannot do it.

Northern Ireland is not alone in confronting the problem. Governments everywhere have grappled with the same challenge. The OECD has warned that persistent regional inequalities can weaken the economic, social and political fabric and create what it has described as a "geography of discontent". When people look around their community and see opportunities concentrated elsewhere, particularly after hearing promises of change, they lose faith and trust in government, and we hear that on the doorsteps. That feeling is particularly strong in Derry, and I make no apology for championing the city and the wider north-west. There is a strong economic case for developing Derry as a city region and a driver of growth across the north-west. The evidence is clear that cities should be supported as centres of economic activity, creating growth that reaches well beyond the city itself. That makes economic sense.

The Regional Balance Bill, however, is not a Bill for just one place. Regional imbalance takes different forms across the North. Communities in Fermanagh, Armagh and south Down face their own challenges around connectivity, skills and access to employment. There are communities in Belfast itself that are experiencing severe deprivation, only a few miles from significant economic opportunity. This is certainly not a zero-sum game. A stronger Derry does not make Belfast poorer, and greater economic activity in Tyrone does not diminish growth elsewhere. The Bill is also for our rural areas, where communities face challenges with infrastructure, connectivity and peripherality, as well as often higher rates of poverty. Too often, they have been left out of the economic story. When any places are left behind, that represents economic potential that we are failing to use. Regional balance is not simply about sharing the proceeds of growth more fairly but about creating more growth overall by enabling more places to contribute.

I recognise that progress has been made in this mandate. The Executive have recognised regional inequalities, while the Minister for the Economy has placed greater emphasis on regional balance through the economic vision and the subregional economic plan, and I really welcome that. It demonstrates an increasing recognition in government that regional imbalance needs to be addressed. My argument is that we should build on that work and give it greater permanence and continuity. That is what the Bill seeks to do.

Let me tell Members what the Bill would change. The Bill comprises three Parts and eight clauses. Under Part 1, the Executive would have to agree a regional balance strategic framework that sets out the outcomes that they want to achieve in reducing regional disparity and sets measurable targets within timelines.

When I talk about "outcomes", I mean changes that people can recognise in their everyday lives. We should be able to look at employment and wages and see whether places that have consistently fallen behind are beginning to catch up. Those are the kinds of changes that should tell us whether regional balance is being delivered. To know that, we need to measure it properly. The framework would establish accountability using evidence to identify where disparities exist and allowing us to track whether those gaps narrow over time. Evidence would include cross-border data reflecting the realities of our economy, in which many people cross the border on their work commute every day.

Each Department has a role in the framework, so that regional disparity has to be meaningfully considered when they develop and implement their policies, strategies and plans. Regional imbalance is not created by one Department and therefore cannot be solved by one Department. The Economy Minister alone cannot deliver regional balance. If regional imbalance is a cross-government challenge, addressing it has to be a cross-government responsibility, and the Bill recognises that.

Under Part 2 of the Bill, government would have to come back to the Assembly and tell us what it has done and, crucially, what difference it is making. That takes regional balance beyond a statement of intent and puts structure around how government delivers it. In the Bill, we have included provisions not just to report for reporting's sake but to evaluate progress, so that we can change an approach if it is not working.

Those are the fundamental principles that I ask Members to support at Second Stage. I want Members to support transparency, accountability and the need for every Department to contribute to our shared mission to build a fairer economy. That is how the golden thread that I spoke about and the policy architecture and infrastructure that are needed to deliver it will be created in practice.

Members will have questions about the Bill: I expect and welcome that. I also expect the Department to have comments on the Bill. The Minister knows that I am keen to work with her. I tabled the Bill because I am really keen to have this on a statutory footing, as I believe that it is the missing link in the government's approach. I look forward to the Department bringing its economic expertise to bear on the Bill and its provisions. However, at Second Stage, the fundamental principle before us is relatively simple: should reducing regional disparity be a lasting responsibility of government, shared across the Executive, with clear outcomes and accountability for whether progress is being made? I strongly believe that it should.

If Members agree on that principle today, the Economy Committee will have an enormously important role in what comes next. It will hear evidence from Departments, councils, businesses, trade unions, academics, community organisations and people across the North. Members will bring experiences from their constituencies to that scrutiny. That will help shape how the legislation works in practice, which I welcome. I want Members from different constituencies and political traditions to see something of their communities in the legislation. Today, I ask Members to support those principles and allow the Bill to move forward. Then, bring your experience and ideas and the needs of the communities that you represent to the scrutiny that follows. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and to working with them as the Bill progresses.

Ultimately, this is about unlocking the potential of all the places that we represent. We have talked about regional balance for a very long time. We all agree that nobody should be written off because of their postcode or that leaving home is simply the price that some people have to pay for opportunity. The Bill gives us the opportunity to move regional balance from being an aspiration of government to being a responsibility of government that is measured in law and for which it is held accountable. For communities that have spent decades waiting for prosperity to reach them, the Bill will mean finally having a fair chance to contribute to our shared economic success. For the whole of Northern Ireland, the Bill will mean a fairer and more successful economy. I ask the House to support the Regional Balance Bill at Second Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Sinéad, and, thank you, Members for that accompaniment.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for bringing the Bill to the House, because it targets a lot of the regional balance commitments on which my party and her party agree and that other parties in the House have brought forward as well. I agree with the overarching argument that regional balance needs to be central, not an afterthought.

We have talked about many of the drivers of the economy today, and I totally agree with the Member that the Department for the Economy, as she was keen to point out — [Interruption.]

I cannot hear myself speak, Mr McNulty, if you keep speaking over me. I will continue.

Mr McNulty: Go ahead.

Mr Delargy: Thank you.

It is not just the Department for the Economy but all Departments — AERA, Infrastructure, Communities and all the others — that should be involved in it.

Sinn Féin specifically took on the Department for the Economy to bring tangible and real change to people's lives and undo the economic legacy of 100 years of partition. Regional balance has been an intent, not an accident, in our economic policy. It was followed up by the subregional economic plan, local economic partnerships and the regional balance fund. Those in such areas know best where the change can happen, how it can be driven and how critical it can be. Since Sinn Féin took over the Department for the Economy, at the heart of economic policy has been giving each area a voice and ensuring that local communities are heard and that they are not only a part of policy but are informing and creating it.

Growing up in Derry, we were always told that we were moaning, but we were demanding better. I am proud to stand in the House and demand better, because the people of my city deserve better than what they got from 100 years of partition in this country and under successive unionist Economy Ministers. That tide has started to change. Of course, it was never going to change overnight, but we have seen real and tangible change. We now see people who are proud to invest in our city. We saw new jobs at Seagate and Kainos and the largest R&D investment this year in Derry. People have always been proud to be from Derry, but their potential and that of our city are now being recognised nationally and internationally.

Look at the Department for the Economy's delivery under Minister Archibald over the past number of years. All of us who sit on the Committee for the Economy know the figures. In Invest's most recent figures, investment outside Belfast was at 59%. Three million pounds a year went to the City of Derry Airport, and there was an increase in student places at Magee of more than 22%. Such policies are not just talking about regional balance but delivering it.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I appreciate that we are on the same page when we talk about regional balance and our city and region. We have a long way to go in relation to Invest NI. I contest that figure of 59% concerning regional balance outside the city. Invest NI counted the number of investments, but the value of those investments is only 35%. We have not done well. We had a nil return for FDI in 2025-26 and the same in the previous year. We are not doing well with our FDI. There is a long way to go. Invest NI needs to start measuring against meaningful targets. We got a fraction of the jobs that were created: only 6% last year. We are on a trajectory, but we have not really got off the ground yet.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for her intervention. As she said, we are on a trajectory and moving in the right direction. There is more change to come, but, as we have all agreed, huge change in Invest was needed. That change has started to happen. I recently met the new regional manager of Invest in Derry, whose vision I am absolutely committed to. I can see such clear potential and a clear pathway for us, and I know that other parties have done the same thing. I am really pleased to see that. It puts us on a positive trajectory. We need that commitment from Invest, and we have seen it from the top of Invest, but our regional office needs more power, including the enabling powers so that it can make decisions to bring investment, not just rubber-stamp what happens at Bedford Street.

We need to see that power in Derry and in all the other Invest offices.

I have two concerns about the Bill. It has two limitations that I hope that we can work at Committee Stage to enhance. The first is about the Executive's commitment and sign-off. Of course, cross-party agreement is pivotal to the issue, as has been said. We want to see regional balance as a key tenet of policy in every element of every Department, but the reality is that, although a lot of parties in here want that, other parties in here do not. My fear is that certain parties that do not support regional balance will not sign up to it, and we will be left in a position where the progress that we have made with Sinn Féin Ministers in the Economy, Finance and Infrastructure Departments could be undermined by other parties.

I see that Mr Brett wants to get to his feet. I am talking about your party, so go ahead.

Mr Brett: I invite the Member, rather than speaking in semantics, to put on record and evidence the claims that he is going to make. The Bill sponsor did a good job of articulating how it is about the entire region, but the Member seems to have spent his entire contribution trying to make a Sinn Féin party political broadcast, which he is entitled to do. Will he at some stage speak to the Bill that is before the House?

Mr Delargy: Thanks for the DUP party political broadcast. It was a bit worse than the Sinn Féin one.

In essence, what we are looking at is 100 years of partition in our country that has been overseen by unionist Governments and unionist Economy Ministers. No one can deny that. No one can deny the fact that Derry and other regions in the North have been chronically and critically underfunded by successive unionist Governments and successive unionist Economy Ministers. That record speaks for itself, and the evidence base is the fact that Derry and other regions in the North have lower-performing economies than Belfast and other regions. That is not accidental; it is the result of deliberate policy that has been created under unionist Ministers. That tide has begun to turn.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I very much identify with much of what he has said. I recall saying to the former Economy Minister Diane Dodds that it felt like Groundhog Day because every time that I spoke about Mid Ulster, I talked about its having the highest number of VAT-rated businesses outside Belfast, yet it had no investment, no focus and no lands owned by Invest NI. It was the only part of the North that had no lands owned by Invest NI. All of that has begun to change, even in the focus on the engineering industry in Mid Ulster. It took a Sinn Féin Minister and a change in that Department to focus on that regional imbalance.

Mr Delargy: Totally. I thank the Member for the intervention. The biggest evidence base for that is the fact that people in Derry and other regions across the North are seeing the change, talking about it and feeling it. The fact that the biggest R&D development last year was in Derry, at Seagate, shows that change. The change is tangible and real for people who live across the North, and we are starting to see it come into those communities. My worry is that, if we wait on an all-Executive commitment, we could inadvertently — it is absolutely not the Bill's intention — undermine some of the progress that has been made in individual Departments. We could end up slowing progress that Ministers have made and intend to make. I absolutely support the Bill's Second Stage. I want the Bill to be developed, and I want us as a Committee to work out how that works, but it is something that I am concerned about and want to bring up at this stage.

As I have mentioned a few times, the second limitation is the fact that the key reason why the economy of Derry and other border regions has not progressed as much as they should have has been partition. My worry is the implication of leaving out Donegal — the Bill's omission of the South.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way, please?

Mr Delargy: Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: The cross-border point is in the Bill in two places. It is about the collection of data. Clause 1(3)(e) refers to:

I have also referred to it in clause 7, which states:

I recognise that, although there may be two jurisdictions, there is one responsibility when it comes to driving the economy. We do not operate across administrative boundaries, whether it be Armagh and Newry or Derry — it is Derry and Donegal — we operate according to the labour market and the economic activity that is happening, so it was fundamental to me that I included that provision in the Bill.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member, and I welcome that. I have noted both of those points. It is about how we strengthen that to ensure that there is an impetus on the South to do that as well. I agree with what is there, but we can enhance that and create a stronger framework. My worry is that border communities such as ours may not feel the intended impact of the Bill as much until we have those in the Bill and have more of those conversations. I absolutely take what is there, but it is about strengthening and augmenting that.

As I mentioned, there are two limitations. I am particularly concerned about the Executive one. I think that we can strengthen the one about the South. I hope that we can work at Committee to do that. I very much support the overall intent of the Bill, which is something that my party has been doing. I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing it forward, and I am happy to support it at Second Stage.

Mr Brett: As a proud Belfast man, I am going to use a Belfast phrase when speaking to a proud Derry woman: fair play to you, Sinéad, for introducing this Bill. There is no doubt that a huge amount of work and time has gone into it. Many people may criticise you, but one thing that cannot be criticised is your determination when it comes to the city that you represent, which you articulated in your speech. Well done on getting the Bill this far.

After being appointed DUP spokesperson on the economy, my first two visits were to the city of Londonderry and —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Phillip, will you do us a favour? Will you turn the microphone a bit towards you?

Mr Brett: Apologies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We want to record your dulcet tones.

Mr Brett: Indeed. Hopefully, your dulcet tones will be picked up as well, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The point that I was making was that my first visits were to Foyle and Coleraine. As a proud unionist, I want all parts of Northern Ireland to benefit from our membership of the United Kingdom. I then visited Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which is the most westerly constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom, because I want all parts of Northern Ireland to benefit from being part of the sixth-largest economy in the world. The Bill recognises that fundamental principle: we want all parts of Northern Ireland to grow, and we want the best possible services to be delivered in all parts of Northern Ireland.

Frameworks and delivery are two separate things. We have rural needs assessments that take place with all government policy and legislation. Despite that, some of my friends and colleagues who represent rural constituencies take a lot of time when speaking in the House to tell us how legislation, strategies and documents are not delivering for rural communities. I am concerned: at some stage, the delivery of frameworks needs to become delivery on the ground. I also have had concern about the regional balance approach that has been taken by the Department for the Economy. It has not been about delivering regional balance; it is about manufacturing false borders.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will in a second.

The Member who spoke previously talked about investments in Belfast, but that is not the terminology used by the Department; nor is it the area by which the Department for the Economy measures those investments. It uses the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) , which is a false and artificial map created by the former Minister, who is sitting across from me, Mr Durkan. The BMAP has no legal effect because it was struck down in the courts. I am not sure that those who represent Strangford would say that Portavogie is in Belfast, which, according to the Department for the Economy, it is. I can tell those who represent South Antrim that Toomebridge is, according to the Department for the Economy, in the Belfast area. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether those whom you represent in Toomebridge would classify themselves as living in Belfast.

I will give way to Mr Delargy.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I have two points to make. First, we are talking about Belfast in a very generic sense. I very much recognise that there are areas in Belfast that do not get the investment that they need and that have historically not got the investment that they need, particularly North Belfast, which is the Member's constituency, and West Belfast. There has been clear and demonstrable evidence in the Department for the Economy, particularly over the past three years, that there is increasing investment into and prioritisation of those areas.

My other point is on the position of the DUP's Department for Communities. One of the critical ways in which we were able to support councils and areas across the North was by supporting councils that had a lower rates base by ensuring that those councils and the communities and ratepayers within them were supported. The grant that did that was taken away by the DUP and has not been properly restored. As we are talking about how communities will benefit properly from this legislation and about creating economic parity, do you have a position on whether the DUP will actually support councils?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we progress, ladies and gentlemen, I will say that I would prefer to give a degree of latitude, because this is an important debate and it is important that we cover all the areas, but, if Members stray continuously into areas relating to the Department of Finance and the Department for Communities, I might haul them back to talking about the principles of the Bill.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fairness to Mr Delargy, it would place a duty on all Departments, including the Department for Communities. I would support a proposal, however. Perhaps, Mr Delargy, you and I could go jointly to your colleague the Finance Minister following the debate and say that the derating grant should be earmarked in the Executive Budget. I will support you in that, if you want —

Mr Delargy: It is your [Inaudible.]

Mr Brett: — but you clearly do not want to do that, because, once again, you are trying to do a party political broadcast — [Inaudible.]

Mr Brett: — rather than deliver for the people whom you claim to —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Brett, excuse me. Through the Chair, please. After you. Back to you, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: I do not think that he is going to take me up on my offer.

On the second point, the point that I was making was that, actually, the communities that the Department for the Economy is trying to claim are in Belfast are not in Belfast. Toomebridge and Portavogie — areas that are defined in the subregional economic plans — are defined as being within Belfast, but no rational or reasonable person would agree that that is the case.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will give way.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much, and thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your address.

I know that we are drifting into other areas, but I looked at the definition of "regions" in clause 7 of my Bill and clearly indicated that we are looking at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and at indices around the local government districts. Those are the districts that we are looking at currently. Invest NI reports on those local government districts and has another measurement, the Belfast metropolitan area. I think that that is what the Member is referring to. Getting back to the Bill, however, that is not the interpretation that I am putting on that in terms of the statistics; I am looking at the local government districts.

Mr Brett: I welcome that. As the Member rightly says, she has looked at local government districts in clause 7, but she also has "relevant data catchments", which is important. I was, however, simply responding to the Member who spoke previously.

It is important to recognise, while not taking away from the merits of the Bill, that every country and region has an economic powerhouse that is based somewhere. In the Republic of Ireland, Dublin is the economic powerhouse, and we could make comparisons between Dublin and more rural parts of the Republic of Ireland. We could do the same with England. London is the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom, and there are other parts that are not. We will never get to the stage where economies are equal across a country; that simply does not happen, and I think that the Member recognises that. I am happy to give way.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I will be very clear on this: we are not talking about taking investment away from Belfast. I do not accept that. We are not talking about taking investment away from anywhere. I want Belfast to continue to succeed, but Belfast doing well should not require any other places to underperform. As I said in my opening remarks, a stronger Derry does not mean a poorer Belfast.

The other thing that I will say is that, based on a range of economic indicators, Northern Ireland as a whole is not performing particularly well. Belfast cannot be the driver for the Northern Ireland economy, as it is not that strong that it can hold and pull up the rest. It is therefore important that we look outside the Belfast area if we want to grow the economy. The Bill is about creating more growth and more potential and about allowing the North to succeed economically. That does not mean taking anything away from Belfast. Rather, it means adding to other places in order to create more growth.

Mr Brett: Thank you for that intervention, but I revert to my point that we are not going to get to a situation in which there is equilibrium in performance data across Northern Ireland. That does not happen in any other democratic country in the world, and it is not going to happen here in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, growth is not brought about by legislation. Economic growth is brought about by government creating the conditions for it. It is achieved by businesses and community leaders taking risks and investing in our country. It is about ensuring that we have the right atmosphere, the right planning regulations and the skills so that people are willing to invest. We can create the conditions, but we cannot legislate for growth. It will be business that creates growth.

I do have to respond to some of the comments made by the previous Member who spoke. I remind Mr Delargy that his party has been joint head of government for the past 23 years. He can talk about history from before he or I was born, but every Programme for Government (PFG) since 2003 that has delivered the failures that he claims it has was signed off by his party. Every investment strategy that he says has neglected the people whom he claims to represent was signed off by his party. I remind Mrs Dillon that the First Minister has represented Mid Ulster since 2007 and has been around the Executive table for much longer than I have been in the House. Derry City and Strabane District Council has been and is controlled by Sinn Féin and the SDLP. Perhaps if they did not chase away people who dare to serve in the armed forces or the Police Service of Northern Ireland from a jobs fair or tell people that they cannot take part in athletic competitions because they are from Israel, people might be more willing to invest in that city. The Member of Parliament for Foyle has been an Irish nationalist for many, many years. If those Members are going to criticise other elected representatives, they therefore must look closer at their own backyard.

I will now return to the Bill. As Chair of the Economy Committee, I am very pleased to support its passage at this stage. I think that, in Committee, we will engage constructively, as we always have done, to make sure that the Bill delivers for communities right across Northern Ireland, including those in Foyle, those in East Londonderry, those in South Down, those in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and perhaps even those in North Belfast.

Mr Honeyford: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome the Bill and thank Sinéad for bringing it to the House. Phillip mentioned that the Committee went to Derry on one of our first trips, and, every time that I have been up there, it has been brilliant. Sinéad, I was reminded of you, Pádraig and Gary, before Julie's time here. Every time that somebody at the Committee said the word "Derry", two of the three were really collegiate. Julie is here, but Gary is not. I listened to his interview, and his voice for Derry, alongside that of the two of you, is missed. We also have Diana giving us the Fermanagh perspective and Diane the south Down perspective, so we do have the regions covered. It is important that we focus on the wider piece. I absolutely support the principles of the Bill, and we need to take a collegiate approach to move it forward rather than be pitted in a battle with one another across the Chamber. Sinéad, thank you for introducing the Bill. Well done. You are an absolute champion for your constituency, and we can all learn from you.

Where there are significant differences in economic performance, opportunities and living standards across Northern Ireland, we simply cannot accept them. Where somebody lives should not determine the opportunities that are available to them. As a legislative Assembly, we should be doing something to sort that out. Sinéad has introduced this Bill, so fair play to her. As Pádraig said earlier, achieving regional balance cannot simply be the responsibility of the Department for the Economy. Fundamentally, it relates to infrastructure, skills, education, housing, health, public transport, planning and our energy network. Therefore, I support the principle of the Executive-wide responsibility that Sinéad has brought forward.

However, there are areas of the Bill that could be strengthened. I say that to be constructive — I am not in any way criticising the work that you have done. As the Bill progresses through Committee Stage, there is stuff that we can add to it to help. Fundamentally, it comes back to why the disparities exist. That is where we need to start. We need to look at the "why" and work from there, because you cannot decide how to fix regional imbalance if you do not understand the cause of it.

Clause 1(3) states that the framework must set out outcomes; identify departmental roles; identify mechanisms; set out criteria and methodology; and set out measurable targets and milestones. All of those are good and reasonable things to do — I agree with all of them — but I would like the framework to be required to identify the principal cause of the regional imbalance, because it is not the same in every region or subregion of Northern Ireland. There is no one regional balance problem. If you look at south Down or Newry, for example, you see that they have major infrastructure, with the A1, M1 and Dublin-Belfast corridor, but Derry, Omagh, Strabane and Fermanagh do not have that. There are differences. We need to diagnose the problem before we get the prescription, and that needs to happen at a local level.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I agree with what you are saying about diagnosing the issue and why it is happening. That is why I have listed a series of indices at clause 7. There is no one statistic that can tell you how you will achieve regional balance. There is a plethora of economic statistics and indices, but there are also deprivation indices relating to poverty and child poverty. I speak to people in my constituency, and they ask me —. We often use jargon in this place: we understand what "regional balance" means, and we assume that others understand it as well. The Bill is part of an anti-poverty strategy. It is about building a fairer society. It is about your child not having to emigrate. There is a contraction of population in my constituency. In my city, people are leaving because of a lack of opportunity. There is a contraction of growth in Cara's constituency, but it is for a different reason: it is because of the older population there. When you collect data from a wide range of sources and places, and have a broad range of statistics on living standards and poverty levels and economic statistics, you can drill deep down into the issue. I use "average" in the Bill for some of the measurements and "median" for others, because you do not want an outlier to drive something in a different direction. One business that pays very, very high wages in a city or town will distort the figures. When the Department and Executive develop that strategic framework, we want them to dig deep and bring that data together. Your colleague Kate is always talking about data, because the data tells the story. We need the wider framework in order to get that story.

Mr Honeyford: I agree with everything that you are saying. Ultimately, the "why" is the social justice issue here: we have people not getting opportunities because of where they are from. That is the fundamental difficulty. On the other side of it, there are things that are working in areas. It is not as if it is uniform and everything is negative. We have seen that when we have been in Derry. Regional economic policy cannot just be about identifying what is not working; we need to look at the positives in an area.

We should also identify what is working and build on that and help companies. Linda mentioned the west and the County Tyrone area. There is a fabulous wealth of industry there that has developed over the years, with engineering companies competing successfully on the world stage in exports and creating brilliant jobs in the area. You have the regional college and that network that has been developed, so some really good stuff is happening.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Success in mid-Ulster has been in spite of central government, not because its assistance. That is why I had to say repeatedly to Diane Dodds, when she was Minister, that it felt like Groundhog Day because I was repeatedly asking for support for those engineering businesses and apprenticeships and that work. Thankfully, the current Minister worked with the groups that did all that work, brought them together, used that as an example of best practice and rolled it out to other areas. That is a positive, and we need to see more of that. Industry and the colleges need to be very much part of it, but the Minister does need to take the lead, and, thankfully, she has done so.

Mr Honeyford: I would argue that the whole economy is growing despite the Government. I agree with the Member. I am happy to give way to Phillip Brett.

Mr Brett: Thank you for giving way, and I agree with you regarding the amazing work being done in the industrial manufacturing sector in mid-Ulster. Does the Member agree that one great thing that it has benefited from is the manufacturing derating grant, which has ensured that mid-Ulster businesses have grown and continue to grow? The grant was introduced by a DUP Minister in spite of the claim by the Member opposite that the DUP has done nothing for the manufacturing sector in mid-Ulster.

Mr Honeyford: I am not here to make DUP or Sinn Féin speeches. I am here to try to get better for ordinary people, and that is at the heart of what Sinéad is trying to do. You introduced a thought into my head about manufacturing. Central government in the South implemented a strategy to grow manufacturing. The outworking of that has been that 85% of those jobs are not in Dublin, so it created regional balance by introducing a strategy that delivered outcomes, albeit the infrastructure and skills have to be in those areas.

We have a Bill for sustainable regional economies, which brings me to what is probably the most important issue, namely infrastructure. We cannot talk seriously about regional economic balance without talking about infrastructure and the lack of it. We can identify an area and produce strategies and job targets, and we can give Invest NI targets and tell it what we want it to achieve and promote all day long. However, if a business cannot get people there, if there is no road or rail link to transport its goods away, if it cannot get a waste water connection or connected to the grid, if it faces years in planning, cannot recruit people from the area with the right skills or does not have connectivity, the investment is simply going to go elsewhere. It has nothing to do with whether we give Invest NI a target. Rather, it is the fact that we have not delivered the infrastructure to enable investment to happen.

The Government's job should not be to force businesses to invest where we want them to invest when it is not commercially viable for them. Our job is to make more places work commercially. Our role is to create the platform for businesses to be able to come in and operate and grow. That is a really important distinction: we are not creating bureaucracy for the sake of it but creating the platform on which people can prosper and growth can happen. That needs to be central to the operation of the Bill.

The definition of "regional disparity" in clause 7 includes:

That is welcome, but it needs to go further as the Bill progresses, because the framework should identify the specific infrastructure constraints that are preventing economic and social development in each region, and there then needs to be an action plan to remove those constraints. We do not need more reports or strategies, we need delivery plans to push out that infrastructure so that people can see the benefit.

I have a slight concern that we are creating reporting architecture. For example, clause 3 requires the Department to compile —

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, I am happy to.

Ms McLaughlin: We were conscious, first, that there not should not be a strategy for strategy's sake and that there should not be reporting for reporting's sake. We built accountability into the Bill. Part 2 is about accountability and transparency. There is a level of reporting in it, but also a level of evaluation. Evaluating what is going wrong if it is not working is as important as evaluating something that is working. The fundamental part of the Bill is about creating a baseline. The Department will select a baseline year, with all the indices and measurements, and, from then on, it will have an annual reporting system and a five-year review. We wanted to build in a certain amount of flexibility, because the world is changing very fast, so the measurement that we use today could be absolutely useless tomorrow. AI is hot on our heels in all of this — no, it is way before us — and we do not know how our economy is going to evolve, so a certain degree of flexibility and review is built into the matter to make sure that we are not doing something just for the sake of doing it or because we said so. It is flexible.

Mr Honeyford: I am agreeing. I understand why the accountability mechanisms are there; I totally get that. We absolutely should measure where government is delivering, but the difficulty is that we do not have a shortage of strategies and reports. What we do have is a shortage of delivery at the other end. My concern is that, five years from now, our principal achievement will be legislation that has produced excellent reports that explain the imbalance, but we will not have the actual outworking of it on the ground. We in Alliance simply want better. We want the imbalance to be removed. Fundamentally, that is where I am coming from.

There is another aspect of the Bill that I strongly welcome but that needs to be taken further. Pádraig mentioned it. Clause 1(3)(e) specifically requires Departments:

Sinéad, you have talked about this a little, but I will go in a slightly different direction. Clause 7 defines that data as:

Importantly, clause 7 recognises:

That is absolutely right and has to be done. Economic activity does not suddenly stop at the border. If we look at south Down, Newry and Dundalk, at the north-west and Donegal, and at the economic relationships from Fermanagh to one side of Donegal and Cavan and Monaghan, we see that people cross the border for work. In my constituency of Lagan Valley last year, I dealt with three different families who work in the South, in Dublin, but moved to Lagan Valley because it was less than an hour and a half from their work. It had taken them longer to get across Dublin to their work, so they had a better standard of living, housing and everything else in my area.

Mr McCrossan: You have three Ministers.

Mr Honeyford: Three Ministers is all the reason; sure.

Businesses and supply chains trade across the border. As I have said so many times at Committee, Magee needs to be the economic driver of the north-west region, not the north-west of Northern Ireland: it needs to be at the centre of the wider region to bring economic growth. If we are serious about understanding how regional economies function, we need to look at those relationships.

That brings me to clause 1(4), which requires the Executive to consult Departments, councils, business representatives, workers and the community and voluntary sectors, along with such other people as the Executive considers appropriate. We need to strengthen that provision. If clause 1 requires us to consider cross-border economic data, surely it should require us to engage with the people who are responsible for investment policy on the other side of the border.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: I totally agree with you. In the development of the Bill, I consulted widely, including with economists across the border. I brought one of them to the Committee to give evidence — John Daly, from the Northern and Western Regional Assembly.

We worked with the Nevin Economic Research Institute, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and multiple agencies and think tanks across the border, because Northern Ireland is very small but so is Ireland. We operate in an all-island economy. That is not a political statement; it is just an economic reality. We have to sweat the assets that we have in this space and that we have jurisdiction over. I have made provisions that I would like to see developed. I mention "functional" economic areas and "agglomeration economies" in the explanatory notes.

We have a framework that already operates effectively. Having spoken to Diana, I know that the north-west strategic growth partnership has memoranda of understanding between chambers of commerce in the city and in Letterkenny, and that can be replicated in Enniskillen and across the border. Those are the kinds of relationships that we need to build, because this is about growing wealth in our regions and providing better-paid jobs and opportunities for everyone. That is explicit in the Bill and can be developed further.

I am under no illusions: what we see before us today is not what we will see at Final Stage. I hope that everybody has the intention to fight to make it better and improve it. That would make me extremely happy.

Mr Honeyford: I am not trying in any way to criticise what is here; I am trying to say that these are the things that can explicitly make the Bill better. This is nothing to do with constitutional politics — I live to make the place better; that is my entire focus — but there is an explicit case for collaboration with the Irish Government and appropriate North/South cross-border bodies to develop the framework. There is a practical reason for that, which is that the Irish Government are already investing, through the Shared Island initiative, in projects intended to improve connectivity and economic opportunity across the island. If the Irish Government are already doing that, there has to be a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the two align so that we are not doing one thing while the Irish Government are doing another. There needs to be alignment.

Separately from significant investment, the regional economic plans across the border need to be brought together with ours. It is not about constitutional politics; you have raised that. I am not interested in that; I am interested in practical outworkings that can make life better for ordinary people who live on either side of the border. I am concerned about people who live in Northern Ireland and the ability to share data. We should all be sharing and collaborating on planning as well. That would give us a much more ambitious outlook when looking at what regional balance can mean.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. This is a brilliant Bill. It is about enhancement; I share in your comments on that. One of the things that can be enhanced — hopefully, we can do this at Committee Stage — is data sharing to ensure that we do not do something independently that has a potentially negative impact on economic plans in the South. I totally agree with the Member: it is about trying to get that collaborative piece across the board. It is about getting a data-sharing agreement to emerge from the Bill and consulting the Irish Government prior to that happening rather than after it. It is about having that ingrained in the Bill.

Mr Honeyford: That is what I am saying, Pádraig: it needs to be part of the Bill so that, when money is being spent to build the A5, for example, it is all connected. The Executive here and the Irish Government should have the same understanding of that and be able to look at the regional balance piece as one. Effectively, rather than looking at an infrastructure piece in the North half of the island and doing less with less, we would be maximising the investment that we can deliver for people here. It should not just be about where a business is physically located; we should ask how somebody could get to a job there. How can people get to the public services, such as a health appointment, or whatever it might look like? We are focusing on an economic perspective, but it is much wider than that, and it applies to education and right across.

We are a small region on a small island, and we must improve our road and rail connections, especially in the west, where that is missing. The business case from the all-island rail review that stacks up is the Portadown to Derry line through Omagh and Strabane. We need to look at that as part of the wider piece. Newry and Dundalk are not peripheral places for Northern Ireland; they are in an economic corridor to Belfast that is essential. The north-west route to Donegal is the same, through Cavan, Monaghan and Fermanagh, as I have said.

We also need to make sure that we are not forcing investment away from Belfast and the greater Belfast area. I thank the Member for not using the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) in the Bill. She has done it using regions, and that is important. My constituency of Lagan Valley has no land for Invest to use for inward investment and to bring jobs to my area, and, because it sits in the greater Belfast area, there is no likelihood of that happening because the concentration is on giving numbers to somewhere else. Is someone who lives in Aghalee or Ballinderry really in Belfast? I appreciate that the Member has broken that down in the Bill.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: This is a conversation. Go for it.

Mr McGrath: Be careful what you wish for with Invest NI land. In parts of Downpatrick, we have the land, but we cannot get Invest NI to bring anyone in to put something there. The problem is that there is almost a subregional imbalance that goes down to the new council areas. Often, people see that a lot of the investment is on one side of what was a new council area, rather than across the whole ambit of a new council. We need to look outside of the Belfast area but also make sure that the investment is smoothed out and that there is equal access for people across the region.

Mr Honeyford: Colin —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, I have given a lot of latitude, but I want Members to concentrate on the Bill and its principles. Much as we all like talking about Invest NI and what it does or does not do — I am not making a statement from the Chair —.

A Member: What about —?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): There we go. Can we focus on the Bill? Thank you.

Mr Honeyford: Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, I was speaking to clause 7 of the Bill, which is about how the regions are broken down. I was not really talking about Invest NI; I was talking about how investment works out if you do not look at the regions.

I support the Bill's proceeding. Alliance wants the Bill to come through and deliver. We will do whatever we can to enhance and help with the Bill, because, ultimately, regional balance should not be about government deciding where businesses ought to locate; it should be about creating the conditions for businesses to locate and invest wherever they want to go. Every young person should have the opportunity to live in their own community, to grow up and work in that community and to thrive and prosper there.

I thank Sinéad for bringing the Bill forward. We fully support the Bill, and, if we can be of any help, we are here to do that. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to support the Regional Balance Bill progressing to Committee Stage. I begin by acknowledging the work of the Bill sponsor, Sinéad McLaughlin MLA, in presenting the Bill today. Sinéad has been a consistent and persistent voice in pursuit of greater regional balance across Northern Ireland, and it is great to see her fearlessness here today. Regardless of where Members may ultimately stand on the detail of the Bill, Sinéad deserves credit for ensuring that this important issue remains firmly on the political agenda, particularly for those of us from peripheral rural communities. For too long, many rural and regional communities have felt that opportunities, investment and economic growth are overly concentrated in a small number of locations. While investment in the larger conurbations is purely related to scale and the availability of skills, every region should celebrate success where that can happen.

We must also recognise that sustainable prosperity requires a better balance in the distribution of jobs, infrastructure, public services and economic opportunity. That is particularly important for constituencies such as mine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone. We are fortunate to have outstanding schools, further education colleges and training providers that equip our young people with the skills, qualifications and ambition to succeed, yet, too often, those same young people feel compelled to leave their local area because suitable employment opportunities are simply not available to them close to home. I have heard other Members raise that particular issue.

We should aspire to create a Northern Ireland in which young people have a genuine choice. Sinéad talked about unlocking potential. Young people should be free to pursue careers in Belfast, Derry, Dublin, London or wherever their ambitions take them. Equally, they should be able to return home to their communities if they wish, confident that high-quality jobs and career opportunities also exist there.

Achieving better regional balance is not solely an economic objective but about protecting the long-term viability of rural communities. When employment opportunities are concentrated elsewhere, communities can experience population decline, pressures on local services, difficulties with sustaining businesses and challenges with retaining the next generation of families and workers.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Certainly.

Ms McLaughlin: I will add that, at the moment, rural communities face higher fuel costs, higher transport costs and challenges with accessing services. Those are added expenses when one lives in rural communities, and those drive up poverty. There are lots of stats on rural poverty, and it increases the further one gets from the urban centre of Belfast. An hour away from Belfast, rural poverty can kick in quite significantly. That is why we need to tie into the Regional Balance Bill the importance of access, connectivity and roads for our rural communities. Enniskillen has waited far too long for its new road infrastructure, as has Derry. We are still waiting on the completion of the A6, and God knows when the A5 will ever come to pass. There are significant deficits west of the Bann, and they need to be addressed.

Ms D Armstrong: I agree with the points raised there. It would be a useful exercise to compare the cost of doing business in rural peripheral areas with that in more highly populated areas.

I will address the Mr Honeyford's point about cross-border cooperation. Businesses, health and education currently have cooperative engagements across the border. Cooperation already exists in border regions, where many cross-border chambers and bodies are already working cooperatively. Yes, more could be done, but there is a very healthy supply chain, particularly in Fermanagh and the border areas, through the Border Region Manufacturing Cluster (BORMAC), which promotes and coordinates such work.

A more balanced approach to investment can help support thriving town centres, as the Member said, strengthen local economies —.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: I am not saying that what is there is not good. Rather, what I am saying is that we need to look strategically at major infrastructure. When the Irish Government spend money through the Shared Island Fund, that should enforce direct communication in order to make sure that we get the best from the investment. It is a two-way thing. I am not saying that there are not already good things in place, but barriers need to be taken away to enable there to be more good things.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for that, but we are making progress with what is already in place through the collaborative working arrangements.

Supporting the Bill's progression to Committee does not mean that every Member agrees with every proposal that is contained within it; rather, it recognises that the principle of regional balance is worthy of detailed scrutiny and that the Assembly should take the opportunity to consider the evidence, hear from stakeholders and examine how best to address regional inequalities.

Committee Stage will provide the appropriate forum to test the Bill's provisions, assess any potential financial implications and consider how its objectives might be implemented in practice. Given the importance of the issues at stake, I believe that that level of scrutiny is both appropriate and necessary. I therefore support the Bill's proceeding to Committee Stage and look forward to the recommendations that will emerge during that process. Above all, I hope that the debate contributes to creating a Northern Ireland where opportunity is not determined by a postcode and where every region can realise its full economic and social potential.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the chance to speak on the Regional Balance Bill. Sinn Féin has a long-standing record of acknowledging and tackling the North's regional imbalance. It has always been one of our top priorities. Our Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, has already begun to tackle regional imbalance through economic partnerships within all local council areas; focused investment from Invest NI pushing tourism into Fermanagh; and uplifting student numbers at Magee by 22%. Equally, Liz Kimmins, as Infrastructure Minister, has sought to tackle regional disparities through delivering road maintenance and major capital projects across the North. John O'Dowd continues to tackle regional imbalance through initiatives like the rural ATM rate relief scheme, which provides access to cash in rural areas.

The work that has started needs to be continued, and more work needs to be progressed. Sinn Féin strongly supports the Bill's intention. We believe that it will need a lot of work to make it functional, however. Practical problems could ensue from the Bill as it is currently drafted, such as unnecessary duplication of work, which, in turn, would waste money that is already extremely tight under our financial constraints as the most underfunded devolved region.

In some respects, the Bill sponsor misunderstands what regional imbalance actually is, particularly in rural areas. Not all areas need, or even want, the same things. There should be provision of more balanced access to jobs and investment across all constituencies, without the suggestion that every constituency needs an airport, for instance. It also remains unclear —.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: Yes, go for it.

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry: I do not know where you read that in the Bill. I have not said that at all. The Bill is not about duplicating Belfast and creating multiple Belfasts: we know that different regions have different barriers and require different interventions. It is not about creating a mirror copy of anything. Fivemiletown will probably not attract the same level of FDI as a city in an urban region, such as one in the north-west city region. That is not what is needed. What Fivemiletown, for example, does need is good roads and access to good jobs. There are different barriers and different interventions. I absolutely understand what regional imbalance is: I have lived it and experienced it my entire life. I know regional imbalance very well. Thank you.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for that.

It also remains unclear how the Bill and its obligations sit alongside things such as the Rural Needs Act 2016. There is currently a legal duty to pay due regard to rural needs in respect of policy. Will the Bill just duplicate, or even contradict, that legislation by putting a duty on Departments to also pay due regard to regional imbalance? Those are issues that the Bill sponsor could seek clarity on and that Sinn Féin will look to iron out as the Bill progresses.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Finnegan: Do you know what? Not at the minute.

I do not know whether the SDLP is aware of this, but the Bill, as drafted, could give the DUP access to veto and allow it to hold back yet another area of progressive policymaking. When Minister Archibald set out to promote regional balance through tourism expansion and cross-border cooperation with Ireland's Hidden Heartlands, she met political resistance through amendments tabled by the DUP. The DUP has made a job out of stopping progressive legislation and is currently blocking furthering the rights of workers by preventing the 'good jobs' Bill moving from the Executive to the Assembly.

For too long, communities like mine, such as —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Finnegan, we are talking about the Regional Balance Bill. We should keep to the principles of that Bill. There will be ample opportunity to discuss other political aspects with other political parties about other political Bills, but we need to keep to the principles of the Bill, please. Thank you.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you.

For far too long, communities like mine — Crossmaglen, Bessbrook, Newtownhamilton and many more — have lived with the consequences of poor investment, limited infrastructure and fewer well-paid employment opportunities, yet south Armagh has enormous untapped potential. Its landscape and connection with the border counties give it ample potential to benefit from all-island tourism through its practical connections. South Armagh has the people, the landscape, the heritage and the strategic cross-border location to support significant economic growth.

Mrs Middleton: As a Member for Foyle, regional balance is of the utmost importance to me, my constituents and the businesses and entities in the area that I represent. I thank and congratulate you, Sinéad, for the genuine effort and really hard work that you have put into the Bill thus far, and I will be clear at the outset that I support the principles at the heart of this Second Stage.

Every part of Northern Ireland should have access to opportunity, not least our lovely north-west, which is the area that I am so proud to live in, to bring up my young children in and to represent. It goes without saying that every community should have access to good jobs, proper infrastructure, skills and training, quality public services, housing and investment. As someone who represents Foyle and, of course, the wider north-west, I know only too well that regional balance matters very much. I am not naive to the fact that many people in the north-west will say that they have heard promises about unlocking the potential of the region before. They have heard about strategies, plans and investment programmes. They have heard about the importance of the north-west to our overall economy, and we know that to be true. The people of the north-west want to see those promises come to fruition.

Through departmental development, we have, of late, seen not only the potential but the tangible results that can be unlocked when the north-west is given fair opportunities and the investment that it deserves. Whilst it is not unreasonable at all for people to ask when they will see the results on the ground, I say this today: we are already starting to see fantastic development. The investment from the Executive Office at Ebrington Square has allowed for restaurants, a hotel, technological businesses, a hairdresser, a bakery, many office spaces and space for enterprises. Our Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons MLA, has ensured regeneration of the Austins building and the old Danske Bank building, and housing has been prioritised alongside important heritage sites. The groundwork is there. The test of when we will see results on the ground is the very thing that I and, I am sure, all of us want to see the Bill meet. The question before us today should not simply be whether we can produce another strategy. We know that Northern Ireland and the north-west have strategies. The question is whether the proposed legislation will actually change our decisions, direct investment where we need it, improve outcomes and give our community confidence that the Government understand the particular challenges that we are facing. I therefore welcome the Bill's intent to put regional balance more firmly into the Executive's decision-making process.

Clause 1 proposes a strategic framework that will set out outcomes, departmental responsibilities, targets and mechanisms for delivery. That could be useful but only if it is connected directly to the things that actually determine whether a region succeeds. We need to see that connect with the Executive Budget, the investment strategy, the Programme for Government and departmental delivery plans. Otherwise, there may be a danger that we will just create another document, another reporting process or another review mechanism.

I do not want to be looking round, five years from now, at people conversing about how very little has changed. We do not have a shortage of strategies in Northern Ireland, but we do have a shortage of delivery. We all have our part to play in addressing regional inequality. I welcome today's open conversation at Second Stage, which must be the starting point for our scrutiny of the Bill.

I turn specifically to Foyle and the north-west. There is enormous economic potential in our region. We have businesses, entrepreneurs, universities, colleges, a highly skilled workforce, a major port, an airport, a strategic border location and communities with a strong tradition of working hard, of enterprise and of innovation, Potential is not enough, however. Potential has to be connected to infrastructure, transport, skills, investment and the ability of people to access employment without feeling that they are being forced to leave their community or their region to do so. That means that our Executive must look seriously at the infrastructure deficit in the north-west. It also means recognising the importance of strategic transport connections and of our port and our airport; ensuring that our universities, our further education sector, our skills system and all other systems are properly aligned with the needs of our regional economy; and ensuring that public investment does not simply follow existing concentrations of economic activity. There is a legitimate argument that investment should help create growth in places where growth has, historically, been weaker.

I want to make an important point today. Regional balance should not become an east versus west argument. That would be a mistake. There is deprivation in rural communities, but there is also deprivation in our cities. We should not have a competition between communities over who is most deprived; we should strive to make life better for all. The purpose of regional balance should be to identify need and respond to it, wherever that need exists. It does exist in Foyle and the north-west, and the statistics demonstrate why that matters. Let us remember that these are not simply economic statistics. Behind every figure is a person, a family and a community. When we talk about regional balance, we should be talking about improving people's lives. There is therefore a legitimate place for comparative economic information.

I have questions about where responsibility should ultimately sit. The Department for the Economy has an obvious role, but regional balance is not solely an economic issue. It is about roads and transport, housing, health, education, planning, skills, public services and investment. That means that this cannot simply be a Department for the Economy initiative. There must be genuine, collective ownership across the Executive. If every Department is required under clause 2 of the Bill to have due regard to the framework, there must also be meaningful accountability when Departments fail to deliver against it. A duty without consequence can become little more than an aspiration.

The Bill needs to give us confidence that departmental —.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for giving way, Julie, and for your support for the Bill. I reaffirm that the Bill is structured in such a way that every Department has a duty and a responsibility to feed information in. From the outset, the framework will have objectives, and the Executive must say what they want to achieve. There have to be targets, timelines and funding opportunities. It is not a tick-box exercise by any standard. The Bill complements the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.

In fact, it probably goes a lot further in many ways, in that it includes a commitment to a baseline, targets and review mechanisms. Not including those in the Rural Needs Act was, to be honest, a failure, as the review that took place recently found. This Bill goes much further.

Mrs Middleton: I thank the Member for her intervention. I share her passion. I am impressed by what I have read so far, and I really want to get the point across that I feel strongly about this. We all need to be on the same page. Often, we can fall into playing politics when, in fact, we need to make people's lives better. I want to see all of our commitments translated into actual decisions. We must make sure that the statistics illuminate the reality.

Returning to the Bill's fundamental principle, I support balanced growth. I support greater opportunity for the north-west. I support investment in Foyle. I support policies that tackle deprivation wherever it occurs. However, I also believe that we should be ambitious about what regional balance means. It should not mean taking an investment away from one part of Northern Ireland simply to give it to another, and it should not be a problem to focus on an area where there is need. We should be able to enable every region to fulfil its potential.

I will approach the Bill constructively, and I support its moving forward for scrutiny at Committee Stage. I want to see it strengthened; I want to see it working; and I want to see clear links to Executive spending and investment decisions. I want the framework to recognise deprivation in urban and rural communities, as was discussed. Most important, I want the Bill to be judged not by the quality of the framework that it produces but by the tangible difference that it can make. The people of Foyle do not need a promise about our region and its potential. As I said, we know that it has potential, but they need us to unlock that potential and make things happen. They need investment that reaches the ground.

Having made those points, I look forward to the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and working constructively to ensure that, if it reaches the statute book, it becomes a mechanism for delivery. I absolutely support the principle of regional balance. Let me be so clear: I love Foyle; I love the people who live there; and I want nothing more than tangible delivery that allows Foyle to truly thrive.

Ms Nicholl: Like others, I thank Sinéad for introducing the Bill. She is such a wonderful champion of regional balance. Any time the term is mentioned at the Economy Committee, everyone instantly looks at her. I am delighted that the Bill has got to this stage. You deserve it. You are a wonderful champion of your constituency on the issue, and I really look forward to it coming to Committee so that we can work on it further together.

I look forward to getting into the detail, and a lot has already been discussed that we will be able to discuss more. Let no one from outside Belfast jump to their feet until I have finished what I am saying, but, as a champion of Belfast, I will always stress that Belfast is a regional driver for Northern Ireland. It competes with cities on the rest of the island and with big cities in the UK and Europe for investment and opportunities, but it should not be the only economic driver in the region.

I am married to a Fermanagh man, and I am painfully aware that regional balance is about people. It is about not having to move away from your home area to get a good education, a good job and meaningful opportunities to build a good life. It is about fairness, investment and support for all people across Northern Ireland. I always joke that I am in politics because I do not want my kids to move to Australia, but there is something so meaningful in that. So many families are torn apart and live long distances apart, often not through choice but out of necessity. Regional balance comes back to that. It comes back to who we are as people. It is about social justice, as my colleague said, and it is right that we start with the why.

I am chair of the all-party group on policy and public data, which is, I know, the most boring-sounding all-party group in the Assembly, but it is the most interesting. As Sinéad said, "the data tells the story". It is so crucial to everything. It is not just about getting a better understanding of where we are now; it is about what it will look like in the future, so I am delighted that that is at the core of this. The all-party group talks a lot about data linkage. It comes up in every policy discussion. Each Department is a separate legal entity, and that can be difficult when you are trying to get information sets shared across Departments.

We need to pay more attention to that. My colleague Ciara Ferguson is in the Chamber, and we both talk a lot about it. We are so data-rich in Northern Ireland. Information is captured from the minute we are born until the minute we die. There are huge datasets, and, if we were able to link up and use full population datasets, we would be able to solve so many of the biggest issues that we face as a society. That is one thing that we need to look at, because the idea of regional balance in the Bill is no different. Data illustrates the current problems and will be used to assess the effectiveness of the Bill, if it passes, as, I hope, it will.

We do not need to get into this now, but I will give Members some insight into what I will look at in Committee. What datasets do we really need, and which will be most important to assess the outworkings and implementation of the Bill? There are some key points in clause 7, but are there any other datasets that would be useful? Can we bring together population-level datasets to fully understand the issues, and is there anything else that we could look at?

The Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ADRC NI) team, which is based at Queen's University Belfast, provides secretariat support to the all-party group. It is a team of responsible data scientists. It has done really important work to link datasets. It would be interesting to speak to those people about what will make it richer. The data linkage point is fundamental to how we can understand reality in a vibrant manner and have fuller links between Departments. In particular, health data and other datasets held by Departments and public bodies would give us a much better sense of the regional imbalance and provide a stronger assessment of outcomes.

I will stay with data but shift my emphasis a bit.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Yes, absolutely.

Ms McLaughlin: I really like what you are saying about the data. In such tight financial times, how we spend our money is really important, because we need to know what the impact of the spending will be and how it will improve people's lives. At this point, I am not entirely convinced that we spend money to get the best outcomes for people and their communities. It is quite telling: every party in the Chamber agrees, I think, that Northern Ireland should be funded to its objective need, but, when we get the money here, we do not spend it on the basis of objective need. We want it to be given to us in one way, and we then spend it in whatever way, and the people whom we are failing are still failed. That is the outcome. Sometimes, I think that, if we spent the money on the basis of the data, we would have much better outcomes. That is why the framework is robust in its methodology, metrics and the data that is required. It is so that we can make the right interventions at the right time to improve people's lives.

Ms Nicholl: A Bill's Second Stage is about its principles, and I could not agree more with that principle, not just on regional balance but on any issue.

I go back to the point about separate legal entities. We know that we operate in silos and that there are issues. The issues to which we are trying to find policy solutions require cross-departmental working, but, when you have budget constraints and operate as separate entities, that affects the ability to work together and jointly come up with solutions. It is not even about working together but about understanding what the policy solution is. So often we look at what is happening in a different area or are inspired by different legislation, but, if we had full datasets and were able to see the pattern of what is happening now and what will happen, we could solve all the biggest things that we are trying to grapple with. We could certainly solve the issues with public services, though maybe not the wider identity ones and things like that. When it comes to what we fund, data is so important.

The other point is linked to how to measure regional balance. Clause 7 mentions "regions" and "sub-regions". The Bill sponsor talked a little bit about this, but are "sub-regions" at the level of cities, towns, constituencies, district electoral areas (DEAs) or individual wards? It will be interesting to get into the detail of the definition.

There is another point that I will make, although I have not made any notes on it. My colleague talked about the North/South element of regional balance. Everyone in Alliance is sick of hearing me say this, but, when I was Mayor of Belfast, one of the things that I was most proud of was that, when my good friend Andy Burnham, who is now the Prime Minister — he is a big fan of your Bill, Sinéad — was Mayor of Greater Manchester, he, Steve Rotheram, the Lord Mayor of Dublin and I came together to look at how we could collaborate on green technology. Unfortunately, that happened during purdah, so it did not get the coverage that it should have done, but it will be in Hansard, so people will know about it. There was something really inspiring, post Brexit, about four regions of these islands coming together to work on an issue that mattered. We went to see Catagen, and we were really impressed with what was happening with Translink and its hydrogen buses. I wonder whether we could look at having something in the Bill that is not just about regional balance but about regional cooperation. When it comes to flexibility, working together and working with councils, which are listed in the Bill as playing their part, there could be something really powerful included about how we cooperate as regions. There will perhaps be things that Dublin and Liverpool have more in common, for example. It is about how we can work together, because achieving regional balance across the islands will be important.

The Bill is really exciting. It is what we should be talking about, and I am looking forward to getting into the details of it, so I am happy to support it at Second Stage.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Bill sponsor, Sinéad, for all the hard work that she has put into bringing the Bill this far. I give it tacit support at this stage and wish her well for its passage to Committee Stage.

Regional balance must be more than a phrase in a departmental strategy. It must mean that where someone lives does not determine the quality of employment, education, healthcare or public services available to them. When we talk about the north-west in the Chamber, we invariably talk about the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. I will talk about the other north-west, the north and the north-east, which encompass East Londonderry and the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, because they seem to be left out of an awful lot of discussion in this place.

For too long, investment and decision-making have been concentrated in and around Belfast. Belfast is important to our economy, but Northern Ireland cannot prosper if areas such as East Londonderry and Causeway Coast and Glens are continually expected to accept second place. One size does not fit all. The evidence is stark. In 2025, Causeway Coast and Glens had the lowest workplace earnings of any council area in Northern Ireland, at over £150 a week less than the average wage in Belfast. Only 58·6% of local employment met the Department's definition of a "good job". Again, that was the lowest proportion of any council area in Northern Ireland. That is not regional balance, which is why I look forward to Sinéad's Bill progressing.

Our area has enormous potential. We have a skilled workforce, successful businesses, a strong manufacturing and agriculture base, a world-renowned tourism industry and an Ulster University campus at Coleraine. Tourism alone cannot provide the balanced economy that we need, however. We must attract permanent, well-paid employment in manufacturing, digital technology, agri-food, life sciences and professional services. I also inform the House that we have the quickest and most secure internet link between Europe and America, which is anchored in Coleraine but is vastly underutilised.

Invest NI reported £40 million in supported business investment in Causeway Coast and Glens during 2025-26. While that is welcome, the comparable figure for Belfast was £325 million. How do we spread regional balance without harming investment in Belfast? We cannot take it from Belfast and put it anywhere else. We have to be careful in how we manage it. Regional balance will not happen by accident. It requires deliberate action, measurable targets and Ministers being prepared to challenge the established pattern of investment. The Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal provides an important opportunity, but we must ensure that its projects are delivered promptly and produce meaningful employment throughout the borough.

The Coleraine campus of Ulster University must also be central to our plans. We need investment in courses, research and student accommodation in partnership with local employers. Young people should not have to leave East Londonderry simply to obtain an education or a well-paid career. However, the award of £7 million to Ulster University, with the caveat that it be spent at Magee campus; the award of a further £1·5 million; and the recent announcement of another £800,000 for Magee lead me to ask where the regional balance is for East Londonderry and the north and north-east.

Regional balance must extend beyond economic policy. It means proper investment in the A26, the A29, the A37, reliable public transport, improved digital connectivity and stronger town centres. It also means protecting essential public services. The future of Causeway Hospital is a regional balance issue. We cannot encourage families and businesses to locate on the north coast while centralising or removing the hospital services on which they depend. Causeway Hospital serves a large rural and coastal population. Decisions must properly consider distance, journey times and the pressures already facing other hospitals.

Causeway Hospital and Ulster University are the two largest employers in the Coleraine and East Londonderry area. I call on the Executive to introduce clear regional targets covering jobs, investment, infrastructure, skills and public services. Every major spending decision should include a regional impact assessment. The people of East Londonderry are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fair treatment and the same opportunities as are available elsewhere.

Regional balance must become a test that is applied to every budget, every strategy and every major Executive decision. That is how we will unlock the potential of regions such as Foyle and East Londonderry, strengthen the Causeway Coast and Glens area and ensure that prosperity is genuinely shared across Northern Ireland. I wish the Bill sponsor success with her desired goals — and not just for Foyle; I hope that the Bill will be a catalyst for more sustainable regional balance for all regions of Northern Ireland, including East Londonderry and the Causeway Coast and Glens area.

Mr Durkan: I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin for the enormous amount of work that she has put into bringing the Bill before the Assembly. As a member of the north-west SDLP team and the north-west MLA team — we work pretty well with our neighbouring constituencies — I know exactly where her determination on the issue comes from.

I represent the people of Derry. That is where my main focus will be today, as it always is. The people of Derry and Strabane live every day with the impact of regional imbalance. We have lived with its consequences for generations. We see it in employment or, rather, unemployment, wages, infrastructure and the struggle to expand Magee. Like the Bill sponsor, I acknowledge the commitment and efforts of the Economy Minister and the previous one in that regard. I am sure that the Minister and her colleagues are as frustrated as we are, if not even more so, that progress on Magee has not been quite as quick as was planned or promised, but that is what happens and what always seems to happen when it comes to Derry.

We see the consequence of regional imbalance in other ways, including every time that another skilled young person has to up and leave because the opportunities that they want to avail themselves of simply are not available at home and because adequate transport links and other infrastructure do not exist to get them to where those opportunities are. Derry is not lacking in ambition; that is for sure. It is also not lacking in talent, and it is certainly not lacking in people who are willing, ready and able to fight for the city and district. What has been lacking too often is government focus on addressing the structural disadvantages facing the north-west, and I appreciate that those issues are not exclusive to the north-west. The Bill matters because it would put responsibility on the Executive and create duties that would endure beyond individual Ministers and mandates. That continuity is extremely important, because Derry cannot afford to start the conversation —.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said. On your point about the Executive, I will raise a constructive concern.

I have a worry, which I hope that others across the Chamber, including yourself, will have picked up on, about the fact that this potentially gives the DUP a break and gives parties an opt-out clause to say that they do not agree to regional balance and that they want to opt out and not deliver on it. Over the past number of years, under Sinn Féin Ministers, we have been able to achieve so much progress on regional balance, and other Ministers are doing that to a certain extent. Do you not agree that there is a limitation in the Bill — hopefully one that we can work through at Committee and in the House — in that putting that responsibility on the Executive rather than on Ministers gives parties the opportunity to just opt out and for there to be regressive action rather than progressive action?

Mr Durkan: It is and will remain a cross-cutting issue. It applies to every Department, so, by extension of your logic, whichever Minister, from whatever party, who takes up whichever office, they, rather than the Executive, could put a stop to it. It would then be called in to the Executive anyway because it was cross-cutting, and, if someone had not adhered to it, it would ultimately be controversial, because —

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Durkan: I will in a wee minute, Mrs Dillon.

We cannot afford to start that conversation from scratch every five years depending on who the Minister is and what party they are from. We cannot keep waiting for the political stars to align. I hear Sinn Féin's concerns that progress could meet with resistance in the Executive. We have seen that before to Derry's detriment. I think of city deals. Attempts have been made to address regional balance. City deals were originally designed to do that. The SDLP was the first out of the blocks to demand a deal for Derry. Westminster needed that request to come from the Executive. The Executive dithered and delayed on the issue — deliberately, in my view — and then supported the bid from Belfast before the bid from Derry.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: We are still waiting to see the fruits of that, and people would be forgiven for wondering whether we ever will. I will come to you both in a wee minute.

I think also of enterprise zones, another UK Government initiative. I remember the announcement, in 2013 or 2014, that Coleraine had been selected as an enterprise zone. I remember asking the deputy First Minister at the time — the late Martin McGuinness — how that had happened. He looked me in the eye, shrugged and said, "I don't know anything about it". Within an hour, I had been furnished with a letter to Whitehall — I was furnished with it by a DUP spad, actually — requesting enterprise zone status for Coleraine. That letter was signed by the late Martin McGuinness. I am not trying to do Coleraine down or to say that it did not need that leg-up; I am just saying that there is a risk regardless of whether it is down to individual Members or is left to the Executive.

Sorry, I will give way to Mrs Dillon. Ladies first.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you. You have just made the argument for exactly what my colleague said, which is that there is a risk if we give that responsibility and potential veto to the Executive. When it is with an individual Minister, at least that Minister can be held accountable. You know, however — you will have seen it many times in the Chamber — that, if an individual Minister cannot be held accountable for what they do in their Department and can use the Executive as cover, they will absolutely do that: I saw the Health Minister do it yesterday. That is a real risk. I am not saying that we should not go forward with the Bill; I am just saying that we need to understand how to ensure that that is not a blockage. I come from an area of regional imbalance as well, and I understand all your concerns. Your focus is Derry, and mine is mid-Ulster, but we have the same issues, and we both want to see our areas get all the support that they need. They are currently getting that focus, and I would hate to see that be removed because we give a veto to people who do not care about our areas.

Mr Durkan: Regional balance has to become embedded in how government operates, but I appreciate the concerns that you raise. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will be happy to discuss those matters and for us to flesh out the least-risk approach.

I will give way to Mr Delargy.

Mr Delargy: Thank you. I suppose that I am talking about the wholescale blockage of any progress. I understand that what you suggest and what is in the Bill is about trying to advance across all Departments, and I am absolutely supportive of that. However, I am realistic as well, and the reality is that that might not be the case, because it can be blocked by certain parties. The difficulty here is that we have Ministers in certain Departments — not just Sinn Féin Departments but particularly in Sinn Féin Departments — who are delivering regional balance.

What I am worried about is wholescale blockage if the Executive have to sign off on the regional commitments.

I only caught the end of your point about Martin McGuinness, so I am not sure about it. I do not know of a bigger champion for regional balance than Martin McGuinness or of anybody who has delivered as much in Derry as Martin McGuinness did. I look right across our city at Na Piarsaigh's pitch, at the Peace Bridge and at Ebrington — Martin's legacy is right there as the champion of all of that.

I do not want to get into a back and forth about the Executive, but I think that the narrative about the Executive is a bit lazy. It is a "Plague on all your houses" narrative, when it is the DUP that you should be calling out. If you are going to call out the fact that regional balance has been blocked, let us call out who has been blocking it. Let us not take an approach of, "Plague on all your houses". The other parties have come in here with a genuine commitment to regional balance to try to ensure that every area has equality. That has not happened because of one party, so it is a lazy narrative.

Mr Durkan: Let us —.

Mr Bradley: Can I make an intervention? I will be brief.

Mr Durkan: Go ahead, Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Durkan. I would like to point out one thing. Every DUP Member who has spoken in the debate has done so in support of the Bill. I do not know why Mr Delargy is getting on his political high horse. It is bash-the-DUP day. Fortunately, I do not get into, "He said, she said" nonsense, but I can assure you that your Bill will receive my support and the DUP's support as you take it through the House.

As for the enterprise zone at Coleraine, it never had a sod turned, so that is a red herring.

Mr Durkan: Yes, we have seen a few of those too. I think of Shackleton Barracks, which was fast-tracked through the Executive. It was not given the hurdles to jump over and the hoops to jump through that Fort George and Ebrington faced in Derry in order to get approval through the Executive. I think of the Peace Bridge and the money that came from Europe for that. I also think of Seagate, which Mr Delargy mentioned a few times in his contribution as being demonstrative of Sinn Féin's commitment to tackling regional imbalance. I think of how Seagate came to Derry in the first place, which was despite the efforts of Sinn Féin and the IRA — sorry for sounding like someone else in here — and was down solely to the efforts of the SDLP and John Hume.

Sinéad said that regional balance can create a golden that will run through the Executive, which captures the purpose of the Bill very well. When Departments here make major decisions on investment and development, regional balance should matter. As long as it does not, we will have plenty to whinge about. I remember the then DUP Enterprise, Trade and Investment (ETI) Minister, Arlene Foster, accusing us of being whingers for pointing out all the disadvantage that Derry had faced due to discrimination. We still have plenty to whinge about.

Looking at the experience in the north-west, I think of two years ago, when BT jobs disappeared in Derry. Workers were told — by BT, not by a Department — that they could move to Belfast. Since then, thousands more jobs have been announced in Belfast — Belfast itself, not the Belfast metropolitan area. I am sorry that Mr Brett is not here, because I would not have minded giving him a wee lesson in history as well as geography. I will spare the rest of you, as I have given you a couple already.

Key infrastructure to support our economic future remains in limbo, with the Infrastructure Minister basically using the north-west transport plan 2035 as a get-out-of-jail-free card for not delivering in many respects, from the finishing of the A6 to expanding rail services and the Buncrana Road scheme, which has now taken on almost mythical proportions. Today, we heard from and about the arts sector. We have seen major flagship arts organisations in Derry and elsewhere in the north-west close. Coleraine also lost a theatre.

One in five children across the North lives in poverty. That is a damning and shameful statistic, but, in the north-west, it is even worse. It rises to one in four children living in poverty. Our crisis intervention service was left to collapse despite a suicide rate that is three times higher than it is in more affluent areas. The west is also the worst for health outcomes. That impact on health outcomes is the result of all of that inequality. We also have the lowest psychiatrist numbers and the longest waits for surgery, autism assessments and mental health support. The Department of Health continues to allocate funding to trusts on the basis of a capitation formula that is weighted towards areas with higher life expectancy, thus enshrining and exacerbating the inequalities. The detox centre, which was promised under 'New Decade, New Approach', seems to have evaporated; we have seen funding stripped from the Northlands centre; Derry has the highest unemployment rate, highest claimant count and highest rate of household overcrowding; and, as I said to the Communities Minister earlier, the Derry City and Strabane Council area has over 11,400 people on the housing waiting list. Even with all of the challenges that I have outlined about the north-west, a report published last week or the week before using data from Land and Property Services (LPS) and HMRC shows that houses are now, on average, more expensive in Derry than they are in Belfast, despite wages being lower. We do not want special treatment for Derry and Strabane; we want equal treatment, as we want equal treatment for everywhere. The Bill is bigger than Derry. However, the experience of Foyle is one of the clearest examples of why change is needed.

Communities across the North experience regional disparity in different ways. We have heard that from Members from various constituencies. That is why the Bill establishes a framework rather than attempting to prescribe identical solutions for everywhere. There will be and have been legitimate questions about the detail of that framework and how the duties in the Bill will operate or be discharged. Those questions should be asked — Sinéad will be happy to answer them — but I ask Members who have concerns about the detail not to lose sight of the principle. After decades of recognising regional imbalance and its impact, are we content to continue relying on strategies and good intentions alone, or are we prepared to say that tackling regional disparity should be a lasting responsibility of government? We believe that it should be.

People in Derry have waited long enough for regional balance. It is time to move from a promise to something that they can see and feel. Supporting the Bill at this stage will not solve the problem overnight, but it will allow us to take an important step towards creating the continuity, accountability and cross-government responsibility that have been missing for too long. I am proud to support my colleague, and I am proud to support the Bill. Our message is simple: we are not looking for pity; we are demanding parity.

Mr O'Toole: I am proud to speak in support of my brilliant colleague Sinéad McLaughlin's Bill. To say that it is a labour of love would be understating it. It has been a huge labour — a social democratic labour — of love, but it is also based on a deep love for the maiden city — the city of Derry — which Sinéad represents passionately. She was a champion of the city in a previous life as a councillor and, as she said, as a representative of the business community when she tried to create the best possible conditions for jobs and growth there. She also is, as we are as a party, a champion of sustainable growth and economic opportunity across the region, connected to our major economic hubs, the largest of which is Belfast, the city that I am proud to represent, and the next most important one — one that needs rebalancing and has had generations of underinvestment — is Derry.

I speak from a unique position in the sense that I represent a Belfast constituency but come from a rural market town that has experienced its own form of peripherality and lack of investment. I also have Derry lineage: my mum is from Derry. Indeed, a close member of my family has just moved back to Derry from London. I know the city well and am passionate about it, too, as is our party, as everyone knows.

The structures and obligations created in the Bill are not designed to provide perfect and comprehensive policy solutions. They do not dictate what investment should happen in which place. They do not oblige Departments to spend a certain amount in every place or government to direct investment to a certain place. It is a much more subtle, flexible and innovative Bill than that. It is a short Bill, too, which is admirable. That is what Members' Bills are supposed to be designed to do because they can create real and meaningful impact and also allow an individual Member to navigate them through and Committees to interrogate them. That is what is happening today and what will happen at the Economy Committee.

The Bill creates a number of obligations: a regional balance strategic framework; a statutory obligation that the Executive must provide one and consult with specific entities in so doing. There is a duty for Northern Ireland Departments to have due regard to said framework when producing policy. Each Department must provide an annual report on its adherence to the framework and review performance in relation to the framework.

Sometimes, in this place, we talk about endless reviews and consultations, and that is a legitimate criticism of our policy-making process. It can feel like nothing ever really happens here, things are just consulted on, and, sometimes, guidance is not even issued. Statutory consultees are got in the room or via a Zoom call, they talk about things and then maybe a paper is produced at some point. That is not what the Bill is. It is a clear and focused set of requirements for the Department, and they are statutory requirements. I will come on to some of the questions raised about whether the statutory requirements should be placed on the whole Executive, as the Bill does, or on one Department. By the way, the Bill creates obligations for pretty much every Department. That is a reasonable critique for people to make, and it is important that those issues are fleshed out. There is nothing wrong in raising that point, and I am sure that it will be fleshed out further in discussion.

The Bill is about creating legal obligations for the Department, not simply asking a Minister via correspondence or an Assembly question whether they will look at something but creating a binding obligation for Ministers to have due regard to regional balance when making policy. That statutory framework is something that we as elected representatives, the public out there when they come to vote, lobbying organisations, trade unions, charities, campaign groups and local chambers of commerce will be able to use to test the Executive against their delivery on regional balance.

There are real structural problems with regional balance. I will not rehash them. They have been talked about by Members across the Chamber regarding relative levels of performance not just in economic terms but in a whole range of health outcomes, economic inactivity and educational outcomes across the region.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in one second.

That persistent imbalance is among the major drivers of democratic frustration and disenfranchisement in the democratic world at the minute. It is clear that it is one of the drivers of populism and disenfranchisement, and it is something that all of us who have the privilege of being elected should be trying to tackle.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to come back to the Executive point, because it is the one that I am really concerned about. When you say that you are going to check how the Executive are performing against one standard, you are setting yourself up for failure, because you are holding the fact that there is a multi-party Executive who have varying degrees — I would say very little degree — of belief and desire to achieve regional balance. You are holding the Executive to one standard when you have Sinn Féin Ministers driving forward and trying to achieve regional balance and other Ministers who are intent on not doing that.

Mr O'Toole: You have made your point. I will come to it, because is clear that Sinn Féin has come here today in an attempt to deflect from its responsibility for government over not just the past three years but the past 20 years. [Interruption.]

To be clear, the DUP is in crisis. It is blocking lots of things. I make no bones about that.

Mr Delargy: Call it out.

Mr O'Toole: I call it out all the time, Mr Delargy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole, please resume your seat.

Mr Delargy, so far, the debate has been reasonable across the House. We are not to chunter from a sedentary position. It is not what we do here, not when the debate has been like this and everybody has been given a lot of latitude. You have been given a lot of latitude. No chuntering. Over to you, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important to respond to some of the points, because they form part of a line on the Bill that has been repeatedly taken by Sinn Féin Members. It is therefore important to address it. Sinéad and Mark have already addressed the point, but a couple of specific challenges need to be raised. The argument is that it would be wrong to create a legal obligation on the Executive, and I suppose that the suggestion is that the obligation should be on the Economy Minister specifically. I do not know whether that is what Sinn Féin is suggesting. You are shaking your head. In that case, it is impossible —.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way. I will speak for a little longer.

Mr Delargy: You do not want me to give you the answer.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak for a little longer, Mr Delargy. If you believe in a regional balance Bill, on whom should the legal obligation be? If it is not on an individual Minister or on the Executive, on whom should it be? How can we draft a Bill if we are not able to hold the Executive liable for anything?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Through the Chair, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way to Mr Delargy if he can explain his alternative.

Mr Delargy: Are you happy to give way or not? I am unclear.

Mr O'Toole: Go.

Mr Delargy: Am I all right to go now?

Mr O'Toole: I have given way.

Mr Delargy: OK. Thank you very much. Thanks for that.

We have made it clear from the start that holding the entire Executive to one standard will fail. You will curtail individual Ministers who are delivering real change. Look at what has been achieved in the past three years. Through this Bill, you will potentially curtail opportunities for Ministers to move ahead and try to drive change. You are looking to set a standard across the Executive. You are setting yourself up for failure.

Mr O'Toole: I am afraid that that is one of the most bizarre arguments that I have ever heard any MLA make. You have just told me that the Executive cannot — should not — be held legally liable for anything —.

Mr Delargy: I am not saying that.

Mr O'Toole: When I asked what the alternative was to holding the Executive to account for delivering on the regional balance strategic framework and the other obligations in the Bill, you did not tell me. The argument is that, because Sinn Féin is underperforming in the Executive and is attempting to deflect that underperformance purely

on to the DUP. Do not get me wrong: that is part of the story. The DUP is a blocker. I know that the DUP has blocked things, such as the 'good jobs' Bill — I do not dispute that — but we, as the official Opposition, will not give every other party on the Executive a free pass. When the First Minister stood for election, she said that Casement Park would be built. She said that the A5 would be constructed. She said that there would be 10,000 students at Magee. She did not say, "If the DUP lets me". We will therefore hold the entire, collective Executive to account for those promises, and we make no apology for doing so.

I will hold Gordon Lyons to account for his failure in the arts sector, as I did earlier. I will hold Emma Little-Pengelly to account, as I did yesterday, for the DUP's antics: its blocking of reform and, yes, its blocking of the legislation on good jobs, which we support, that the Minister for the Economy is trying to get through. We make no bones about calling out the DUP. I do so every time that I am in the Chamber, as do my colleagues. The idea, however, that Sinn Féin can simply deflect, as it is trying to do now, from the performance of the Executive that it was elected to lead —.

Mr Delargy: Executive, Executive, Executive.

Mr O'Toole: Sorry, but I am on my feet. I have given way a couple of times. I may do so later in my remarks.

The idea that Sinn Féin will simply be allowed to deflect from its performance is, I am afraid, fanciful. We will hold the DUP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists to account collectively and individually as Ministers, because that is the job of an Opposition.

Now that I have made that clear, I will move on to what is in the Bill, which I had thought that all parties in the Chamber supported, because it is ambitious and innovative but also flexible. As I said, it does not set a cash or percentage amount for investment in individual regions. It does not even specify precisely the types of regional imbalance to be looked at, in part because it calls for a degree of flexibility. It is not straightforwardly about job creation and the activities of Invest NI, although that is clearly a major part of the Bill. It could also be about, for example — this is something that I want to unpack — the extent to which other regions are connected to Belfast and Derry and about other subregional drivers. For example, how well are people in rural Fermanagh — the Fermanagh representative who was here has gone — connected to Enniskillen? That is a regional balance question. It is about the extent to which people in rural Fermanagh are able to commute to Enniskillen and, indeed, further on, whether that is to Derry or Belfast.

Not all areas are created the same. Belfast and Derry have distinctive economic advantages that relate to their being cities. We want to grow the economic advantages that Derry in particular has. It is a wonderful city. We want to increase the size of Magee and all the amazing things that go on there. I also want to understand what the Executive are doing to ensure that people in Downpatrick, which is my home town, Ballymena and Ballycastle are able to enjoy the proceeds of growth and investment that happen in Belfast. There may be a new investment in Belfast, which is a brilliant city that, like my colleague Kate Nicholl, I am really proud to represent. However, the regional balance story for Ballycastle, Downpatrick and Kilkeel — Diane Forsythe is not here any more — may be contingent on how well connected those places are via public transport to Belfast or, indeed, Derry or Dublin. There will be different issues along the A1/M1 Dublin-Belfast corridor. There are specific advantages. We know about the amazing advantages that Newry has, but we need to make sure that those opportunities are taken advantage of.

This is an innovative, flexible Bill that is there to be scrutinised. There will be questions. I had a nice, testy little back-and-forth with Pádraig Delargy, but he raised a question about how those obligations will be understood. By all means, that is a question to be asked at Committee. The idea of simply not putting any obligations on any Minister ever — for what reason, I do not know — is surreal. By all means, let us ask some of those questions at Committee so that we can work out how the issues might be dealt with.

I am really excited about the Bill. I am excited about the obligations that it will create. It is a long-term challenge to create more balance in the economy. I will say, in all sincerity, that the Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, is across this brief, which she is committed to and cares about. I do not dispute that at all. There have been really significant improvements. The original framework that was brought out by her predecessor, Conor Murphy, was clear in that regard. We as an Opposition have been clear in commending that. It is our job to hold this Minister and all Ministers to account for delivering it, both in robust terms in the Chamber and through the provisions of this excellent Bill when it becomes law. As a Belfast representative who grew up in rural County Down and whose ma is from Derry, I promise you that the Bill is a huge opportunity for our whole region, and I am really proud that our colleague has introduced it.

Ms Hunter: I start by paying tribute to my incredible and inspiring colleague Sinéad McLaughlin. Sinéad has put her heart and soul into the Bill. She is a true Derry girl. As someone who married a Derry boy and whose father is from Strabane and previously served as a councillor in the Derg district electoral area, I have a profound understanding of the impact of regional imbalance and the need for things to be rectified. I personally thank Sinéad. It has taken a number of years to put the Bill together. Given the extensive research that she has done and the meetings that she has held, including with people on the ground, I have to put on record my admiration for her. She cares deeply about her city, her people and her community.

Representing East Derry, I see very clearly why the principles behind the Bill matter. There is sometimes a tendency to say that the North is too small for regional imbalance to really exist. The experience of people in constituencies such as mine tells us otherwise. I really appreciate Maurice Bradley's comments today about the impact that changes at the Causeway Hospital would have on our people. We may be geographically close on a map, but that does not mean that everybody has equal access to opportunity. Whether you have reliable public transport matters; whether you can access further and higher education matters; whether good jobs exist within a realistic travelling distance matters; and whether businesses have the infrastructure and connectivity that they need to grow matters. Those things can look very different depending on which part of the North you live in. My constituency demonstrates that complexity.

East Derry includes towns and villages — it is a rural community with very different economic needs. A policy designed around the experiences of our largest urban centres will not necessarily work in the same way for those in my communities. Of course, we should not expect Coleraine, Limavady or our smaller rural communities to become Belfast, and I do not think that that is the expectation here. That is not what regional balance should mean. It should mean understanding the strengths and challenges in different places, and it should give communities the tools that they need to succeed. A good example is Coleraine town centre, which has gone downhill over the years. It used to be booming, and it had its own air of prosperity. We need to recapture that magic and invest in our local towns.

Transport is an obvious example in my constituency. For the people who rely on public transport, the frequency and reliability of a service can determine whether a job is realistically accessible and open to them. The fact that somewhere is theoretically commutable does not mean that somebody can get there for the beginning of a shift or get home afterwards. I was contacted by a number of teenagers from the Limavady area who worked in the amusements in Portrush over the summer. They pointed out that it was ridiculous that they could not get to their shift on time unless they left home at 6.00 am. Their experience speaks to the challenges faced by those in our rural communities when they want to get to work and the importance of access to public transport.

Those practical realities matter to our workers, students, families and, of course, our businesses. That is why it is welcome that the Bill takes a cross-departmental approach. Regional imbalance cannot be solved by the Economy Department alone. Decisions on transport, infrastructure, education and skills all influence the economic opportunities available in any given community. The Bill will require those decisions to be considered through the lens of regional disparity. It does not tell Ministers what decisions they must ultimately make, but it does require government to think about the regional consequences of those decisions. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Communities outside Belfast have heard commitments being made about regional balance for many years — decades, in fact. In my seven years as an MLA, it would not be a stretch to say that I seen that our communities and constituents feel overlooked, unheard and unseen. That is why the Bill is so important. The challenge is to turn those commitments into something lasting and measurable. The Bill gives us the opportunity to begin to do just that. Therefore, I am, of course, very happy to support the principles of the Bill at Second Stage and allow the further detailed work and scrutiny to begin at Committee Stage.

Mr Carroll: I congratulate the Member on bringing forward a Bill. It can be a long and painful process, and I wish her well. Unfortunately, I have not been as successful in getting a private Member’s Bill through in this mandate, but I wish the Member well.

Our party has said for a long time that Derry, Strabane and the north-west more generally have been neglected and left behind. The Member referred to the poverty statistics for Derry, and we should categorically abolish poverty in Foyle, Derry, Strabane, Coleraine, the north-west and, indeed, right across the North and Ireland. It is also worth mentioning that poverty and inequality exist in other areas. Members have accepted that, although it does not negate the experience of poverty and deprivation in the north-west. I note that the three areas with the lowest life expectancy are, not unpredictably, west Belfast, north Belfast and Derry. That is not an accident, and I will come on to that a bit later.

Too often, Belfast can be treated as a homogeneous block. I do not say that because I am from the area, but it does not often present a true picture of what is going on. When we talk about actual deprivation and inequality in the South, some people will say that Dublin gets all the investment. Obviously, there is huge investment in Dublin, but there is also huge poverty in major metropolitan cities.

Members have talked about the inequality and deprivation in Derry, which is real, but I did not hear any mention of the fact that the richest person in the North, Philip O'Doherty, is from Derry. I presume that he still lives in Derry, but he is from that area. We need to talk about the fact that we have billionaires and wealth in this society. We need to talk about making billionaires history and taxing them out of existence. The question is how we tackle that wealth inequality and recognise that just because people come from the same area or constituency does not mean that their life experiences or interests are same. Billionaires do not have the same interests at heart as people who are working or people who are unemployed, whether they are from Belfast, Derry, Dublin or London. I would be keen to hear, in a general sense, whether the Member considered including in the Bill measures to tackle wealth inequality.

Partition was mentioned as being one of the main reasons why the north-west and elsewhere are deprived and neglected. I think that that is true. There is no disagreement on that point. We had a situation of uneven and combined development in the North of Ireland, the north-west and Ireland, largely as a product of the colonial relationship with England and overindustrialisation to serve the interests of empire and not the interests of working-class people. Places like Derry and west Belfast were purposefully underfunded, because those communities were treated with suspicion or seen as troublemakers. Therefore, the regional inequality is by design.

Generally, the North was designed as a map of sectarian division and class exclusion. Our cities and towns were designed with a sectarian logic. That is not an accident, which is in part why they are deprived and unequal, as well as dividing working-class people generally. I argue that regional gaps exist, not because of a lack of framework or policy or even ambition but because of the calculated results of sectarianism and imperialism. I do not want to be dismissive — a framework is all well and good — but, generally, we have too many strategies and frameworks. My concern is that, if they are not implemented, nothing is done with them. That is not to be flippant towards the Bill sponsor, and other Members have made that point more generally.

I also firmly believe that it is not only a mistake but a politically unsound economic approach to be fixated with using FDI or international capital to save the day. Wealth does not trickle down. Not only is it a question of jobs and sectors being engaged in the war industry — some parties welcomed the likes of Raytheon when it came to Derry because they were just concerned about jobs — but we have to recognise the role played by those companies when they pull out of areas. Former industrial heartlands, mostly in parts of Antrim and other areas, the majority of which were primarily Protestant working-class areas, were massively impacted on by job losses because big international capital decided to pull out of them. We saw job losses in places like Antrim and Ballymena, effectively creating a rust belt in those areas. The market of capitalism is ruthless and does not care which community it leaves to go to rack and ruin in the pursuit of profit. You cannot wait your whole life for international capital to lift people out of poverty or, in my view, to tackle regional inequality. We saw the closure in the past few years of Japan Tobacco in Ballymena, and job losses at the Michelin plant, Wrightbus and Caterpillar, along with the closure of Caterpillar's Monkstown plant. It is a risky strategy. Those international corporations do not have the interests of working-class people at heart.

On regional inequality, we should recognise that the North as a whole has been neglected by the British Government for decades, and the UK is one of the most regionally unequal countries in Europe. The North is obviously on the extreme periphery of that. We need to see an assault on wealth inequality across the islands if we are going to abolish poverty. We argue that any internal disparities that exist between Derry and Belfast, or east and west, are subdivisions of a broader structural neglect that has been shaped by class and reinforced by partition. British capital extracted what it could from the North, leaving the contradictions to fester and the people to fight among themselves, which they still do to this day.

I want to mention briefly, as other Members did, the total neglect of Donegal, which is a railway desert. Billions of euros have been put into the M50 and Luas in the South — obviously, they are important projects — but Donegal remains the largest region in Europe without a single kilometre of operational track. That is a disgrace and an absolute outrage.

Unionism has been rightly criticised about neglect and regional inequality and the part that it has played in that since the foundation of the state. It is guilty as charged. The question that we have to ask, however, is this: what have nationalist Ministers from Derry and the north-west done to challenge regional inequality? They have not done anywhere near enough. That is not because of personal failure or because people are not interested but because we cannot challenge or address regional inequality through the straitjacket of this institution.

I want to ask the Member a few questions on the Bill and would appreciate her getting back to me. Clause 1(3)(f) mentions:

From my reading of the Bill, there is no penalty or punishment in place for Ministers who fail to provide those targets. Did the Member consider that? Was that part of the consultation process? If it was, I would like to hear more about that and why it was not adopted in the Bill. If not, would she be open to amendments in that regard? Clause 6, "Guidance and research", states that "The Department may" — I have written "x, y and z" but it is 1, 2 and 3, is it not? No, it is a, b and c. Why did the Member not use the word "must" rather than "may"? That is a bit of a technical issue. However, "must" obviously compels Departments to do things, rather than just suggesting that they do.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Gerry. Minister, over to you.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Thank you, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I really welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Regional Balance Bill. At the outset, I want to congratulate the Bill sponsor. I very much appreciate the effort that she has put in to get the Bill to this stage. I think that it is fair to say that we each respect the emphasis and priority that the other has placed on the particular issue of regional balance.

The objective of greater regional balance has been included in the Executive's Programme for Government. It is one of my four priorities as Economy Minister. Within my Department, we now have Invest NI targets for delivering investment outside of greater Belfast. We have delivered a 22% increase in student numbers at the Magee campus, with a record number of students in the last academic year, and a 12% increase in student numbers at the Coleraine campus of Ulster University. We launched new branding to encourage visitors to Fermanagh through the Hidden Heartlands campaign. Early results from that are really encouraging. We now have local economic partnerships in all council areas across the North. Project Gigabit delivers gigabit-capable broadband to premises that would not be commercially viable otherwise and has already connected more than 3,800 premises.

Median weekly pay for full-time employees was highest in Belfast and lowest in Causeway Coast and Glens across 2024 and 2025. Mr Bradley referred to that earlier. While I agree with some of what Mr Bradley said, I disagree on a point that I have raised with him previously. The fact is that I certainly have an emphasis on the East Derry constituency and Causeway Coast and Glens from my perspective as MLA for the constituency and as Economy Minister. In 2024, the gap between Causeway Coast and Glens and Belfast was 21·8%. Over the year, with the emphasis that we are placing on regional balance and narrowing those gaps, that had closed by two percentage points. There is a long way to go — absolutely — but we are seeing signs of progress.

Regional imbalances are deeply entrenched, as we all know. It will take years of steady work to overturn them. That is why I strongly support the aims and principles of the Bill. Earlier today, I met the Bill sponsor, Sinéad, and gave her my commitment that I will work constructively with her and my ministerial colleagues to ensure that the Bill delivers on its intended policy direction. I have recommended to the Executive that we support the Bill with some amendments — Sinéad and I had the opportunity to talk about some of those today — to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose and that Ministers are empowered to drive regional balance forward rather than creating new vetoes. There has been discussion about that issue in the Chamber today, including about where the obligations and responsibilities should sit. I am sure that we will come back to that discussion. There needs to be an obligation on every Minister, and I am open to discussing how we bring that together to ensure that any new processes help officials to develop policy better and deliver better public services rather than slowing down public administration with unnecessary bureaucracy or, worse, more scope for legal challenge, with all the cost and delay that that entails. We should also ensure that the Bill supports rather than cuts across some of the existing duties, such as our equality duties and those under the Rural Needs Act. Again, Sinéad and I had the opportunity to discuss that earlier.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I just want to mention the judicial review, which you raised with me earlier. Any public authority exercising any statutory power can potentially be subject to judicial review. The threat of review should not prevent us taking forward legislation. It is about ensuring that we put in place as many safeguards as possible to prevent those reviews. However, if we fear judicial review, not one piece of legislation would come out of this place.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sinéad, are we referring to a specific judicial review or judicial reviews in general?

Ms McLaughlin: It is just related to the Minister's comments about the potential for that.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree with her that, if we place statutory duties on any body, there is always the risk of judicial review, as there should be, because that is the whole point of putting legal duties on bodies, Departments and other agencies. It is about getting the balance right and ensuring that what we are asking those Departments and bodies to do actually delivers the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. That is what we collectively need to try to achieve, and I am certainly very willing to work with you as we progress through the various stages of the Bill. Obviously, the Bill will go to the Committee now, and I gave the commitment today that my officials will work with you and the Committee as the Bill progresses, and I will work with Executive colleagues to try to shape it into something that delivers exactly what we all want it to deliver: better and greater regional balance for all the areas that we represent. I wish you very well with the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone for their contributions today. On the whole, the debate was widely positive, and I was really encouraged by many of the comments from across the Chamber.

I want to address some of the recurring comments made by Members, because there are many issues that we have considered in detail throughout the progress of the legislation. No Bill that comes to Second Stage in the House does not get changed, amended or improved as it goes through the various stages. I welcome the comments from and support of those across the Chamber who are seeking to improve the Bill to make sure that it delivers what we want it to deliver. I am ambitious for the Bill, and I believe that others are ambitious for it as well. I will work with everybody in good faith.

Mr Delargy and Mrs Middleton rightly recognised the progress that has been made by successive Ministers and Departments, including on regeneration in Derry. I agree with that. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill is intended to complement and strengthen that work and to put permanence and continuity right into the heart of it. As the previous Minister for the Economy told me directly, a Minister for the Economy cannot achieve economic balance alone; we need the whole of government to pull together. That is probably why I am standing here feeling a bit confused about the issue that has been raised about the Bill being Executive-driven.

I want to make good law, but I cannot do that if it is being said that the institutions are failing. Do we therefore have to make bad law because we have a bad Executive and a bad Assembly that cannot cope with good law? That concept is wrong from the very beginning.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I will indeed, in a moment. The golden thread is to have all Departments feed into the Bill, set out what they want to achieve, what their targets are, what they want to measure and what funding will be required, as well as for them to evaluate and review the Bill and make it fit for purpose. One Minister cannot do that. There has to be a commitment from the whole of government. Sometimes, that is a big ask in this place, where dysfunctionality takes centre stage. It does not, however, make any sense to keep on making law if we are bad at the job that we do.

Mr O'Toole: I thank my colleague for giving way. It occurred to me that, on the point about the single-party veto, the argument was forwarded that the DUP might veto action in this area. It is probably worth saying that DUP Members are going to vote for the Bill to pass its Second Stage tonight. If, however, there were a scenario in which the DUP might veto something that we wanted to do, would you not therefore be giving them a pre-emptive veto by not even doing it in the first place simply because they might veto it at some point in the future?

Ms McLaughlin: I do not really know where to go with that. It does not make sense, and I cannot make it make sense. This is about having a whole-of-government responsibility. Regional imbalance is not created by one Department, but it can be solved by all Departments working collectively in order to close the gaps that are caused by the inequalities that, in one form or another, exist in all our communities. Those inequalities are not uniform, but they probably exist in every single constituency. There therefore has to be a whole-of-government responsibility, or else the legislation will not work. By its very nature, even if we say that one Department and not the whole Executive will drive it but that all other Departments are going to feed into it, that is a whole-of-government response. I do not know. Addressing regional imbalance will be pulled into the Executive in any case.

There is an argument to be made for the transformation and reform of the institutions because of the dysfunction that there is at the heart of this place. The SDLP has been pushing constantly for reform of the institutions, but things such as progressive politics and policies that will turn people's lives around and change how we do business here should not be pushed back or vetoed by one party. That should be the ambition. The ambition should not be to keep something away from people because they are going to ruin it for you. We are all elected, and we all represent people in our areas. The Bill applies to everybody. I therefore want that to be central to everybody's thoughts.

As I said, the responsibility for policies that help shape economic development sits across government. Every Department should be alive to the role that it can play in narrowing the gaps between places. Mr Brett made an important point about Belfast and its wider catchment area. The story of Northern Ireland is not that Belfast has uniformly thrived whilst everywhere else has stagnated. I am very alive to that conversation. When Mr Brett took us to his constituency, he very deliberately brought us to Impact Training, which is an organisation that is trying to change the lives of people who have been left behind because of poor educational outcomes. It offers training and apprenticeship programmes that equip individuals to excel and to avail themselves of opportunities that are strategically placed close to his constituency, but, even so, they still experience barriers.

Julie Middleton referred to the fact that we can allow Belfast to succeed while at the same time addressing the challenges in and discovering the untapped potential of other places.

It is not an either/or. I am sick of the either/or argument. The Bill is especially but not exclusively for the north-west. Again, I make no apologies for some of the indices that I have mentioned. There is a natural direction of travel. We know that the north-west has experienced extreme inequalities in a number of areas, but the Bill is for every part of Northern Ireland that has felt left behind. Having said that, it is important to emphasise to Members that there is a case for economic development in the north-west that extends far beyond a desire to correct historical imbalances.

Investing in city regions is a proven way of driving economic growth because of the benefits of agglomeration economies. I have studied some of the research papers that have come out of the OECD. We got an excellent paper from the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre and have commissioned many RaISe papers regarding where growth is and how to drive growth. It is about how we unleash and unlock the potential of places that can give back much more than the investment that they require to be put into them. Derry is one of those places. As our second city, it offers a unique opportunity, and we should keep championing it.

Mr Delargy and Mr Honeyford mentioned the cross-border dimension of regional balance and the potential to strengthen that aspect of the Bill. I will welcome those discussions being had at Committee as well, because that is another untapped resource. We are doing good work in Derry. We have close working relationships with our counterparts in Donegal, but that could be strengthened. The Republic of Ireland has recognised our region in its economic development planning. We could strengthen on our side to make sure that we maximise that. I welcome those contributions and am very open to looking at that issue further as the Bill progresses through the Committee Stage.

Mr Honeyford made an important point about understanding why regional imbalance happened in the first place, and I totally agree with him. The framework should help us understand not simply where disparities exist but the factors that have allowed them to develop and persist. But, please, folks: this is about the future. I want to look to the future. I want to learn from the past, look to the future and build the best places that we can build. How will harking back to the past help our children to get a good job here? It is about being innovative and looking at what we have on this island and across these islands and building on those mechanisms.

Members across the board mentioned the performance of Invest NI. I am glad that others mentioned that, because I am sick of doing so. As someone who has invested a lot of time in campaigning to reform Invest NI from way back in, I suppose, about 2005, I am determined to see further changes. The Bill supports that ambition. We have to remember that the duty and the responsibilities of all Departments and their arm's-length bodies will be a factor in that. Our colleges also have a lot to give to that overarching, strategic framework.

It is important to say that the Bill does not tell Invest NI where individual companies should locate but recognises that government has an enormous influence over the conditions in which those decisions are made. That is fundamental. I go back and forth to the chief executive of Invest NI, and I have a lot of sympathy for him. There is a lot that is outside his area of responsibility over which he has no control but government does. It may not be within the purview of the Economy Minister, but it could be within the purview of her colleague the Infrastructure Minister or of the Department for Communities or the Department of Health. Over 35% of citizens being economically inactive has an impact on the economy. It has an impact on foreign direct investment. It has an impact on people's ability to grow a business in the city that they want to grow it in.

We need a set of conditions for investment in all parts of Northern Ireland. That means that everywhere should have the infrastructure, qualifications and health outcomes to succeed or have access to those jobs nearby. Regional balance is not about guaranteeing where investment will go but about making sure that every part of Northern Ireland has a genuine opportunity to attract it.

I also recognise some of the concerns that the Minister and other Members have raised about how the Bill will operate in practice. I thank the Minister: she has been generous with her time. We have talked about the matter on many occasions, and she has been supportive of my Bill. Way back, I wanted the Economy Department to take the legislation forward, but, in the absence of that, I did it, because I strongly believe that the only way forward now is legislation. We need to make it permanent. A Minister or a policy can come and go, but the Bill will remain. It will be a statutory obligation that will have continuity and permanence throughout the mandate and beyond.

Members raised points about the measurements. The measurements have been consulted on extensively, but they are not an exhaustive list, Gerry. Certainly, there is a lot of flexibility in the Bill, with the intention that we can grow, improve or change things, should there be a demand for that.

Kate Nicholl made an important point about datasets. I am a bit of a nerd-head about the datasets and how we can properly account for our population. I have spoken to Claire Sugden about this because she has introduced a Bill on ageism. We really need to know our data, because it will tell us about the future, our future workforce and why we might be in a situation in which we need to bring in workers to hold up our systems and provide our public services. Data is fundamental to driving our economy, and we do not look at it enough. The framework asks every Department to feed in its data, so that we can see how to tackle regional imbalance together. We are already considering where population growth should be reflected more clearly in the measurements in the Bill. I am open to looking at that further. The Member is also right about the importance of data linkage. Sometimes, it is the small things that we get so wrong here. If we are to properly understand regional disparities and measure whether we are making progress, Departments need to be able to draw on the best available evidence.

Mr Delargy and Ms Finnegan raised the possibility that the framework could be blocked at the Executive table. I think that I have gone through that point. It is a legitimate concern. We live with the dysfunctionality of this unreformed place every day, but I cannot think of how we might develop legislation, especially legislation that is as deep and meaningful as I wish the Bill to be, without considering a whole-of-government approach. If there are ways in which we can strengthen the Bill to address that concern, I am very open to examining them in Committee, but the whole-of-government approach has to take place, because the Bill will not work unless it does. I appreciate the feedback that we received from the Minister and the Department today, and I look forward to working constructively with the Minister. I think that we work well together. I look forward to working with the Department and the Committee to address those issues as the Bill develops.

Some Members rightly highlighted the potential cost of the legislation. Nothing in government is cost-free. I always say, "If you want to make an omelette, you have to crack a few eggs". Nothing is cost-free, but a lot of the Bill is about analysing and bringing together data. All Departments do that statistical work; it is about bringing it together.

Obviously, the framework's ambition will have cost implications, but for some Departments, the ambition is already there — for example, the Department for Infrastructure's ambition will be to deliver the A5 — and will have an impact on closing those regional disparities. It is not about new money; it is about using resources effectively, which will have better outcomes for our communities and be more constructive in many ways. If you grow your economy, that pays for itself. That is the objective here. It is about making people healthier and wealthier, raising wages, closing the gaps between those who have and those who have not, and driving education and skills. That drives investment to areas and attracts growth to them as well.

In the consultation, the majority of respondents considered that the Bill would have a financial impact, but, as I said, that will be manageable. Only a small minority of respondents considered that it would be prohibitively expensive. Research prepared by RaISe indicated that the cost of the Bill likely depended on the ambition of the framework but noted the potential for economic benefit and that higher economic performance in some regions could increase economic activity and productivity in those places.

Ms Middleton rightly mentioned the importance of accountability. I was acutely aware of that while developing the legislation, and the Bill is deliberately structured to be ironclad in that regard. Gerry Carroll asked what the punishment would be; I really struggled with that when developing the Bill. It is hard to give an answer to that. We struggled hard to get an answer. Lots of things happen in this place in relation to policy, and there seem to be no consequences at all. We are making it a statutory obligation for Departments to feed into this, and we in the Assembly, via evaluation and review, can then hold the Departments to account.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Is this accurate? It is something that the Member wanted to do, but she was advised, or whatever the best way to describe it is, that it cannot be done or is difficult to do. Is that a fair assessment?

Ms McLaughlin: Probably, but I am not giving up yet.

With accountability in mind, we included three provisions to ensure that the legislation has teeth and cannot be ignored, but, again, the punishment that the Member talked about is probably not there. First, under clause 1(3)(f), the framework must:

and I included the baseline year so that progress can be tracked. That was the one that the Member mentioned. Secondly, under clause 3, the Departments must not just report on how they have met the duties but evaluate their progress so far. Thirdly, under clause 4(1)(c), the Department must not only report on activity but evaluate progress made.

Mr Brett and Ms Finnegan raised the specific challenges facing rural populations. Some rural areas are exactly the regions that have been left behind by regional imbalance. Too often, they lack the infrastructure and connectivity that more urban areas can sometimes take for granted. I want and expect the Bill to deliver for those areas as well — their needs are different, obviously — by ensuring that the economic development reaches those regions, whether urban or rural, small towns or larger urban centres. The Rural Needs Act 2016 placed a duty on public authorities:

but it did not contain a baseline, measurable outcomes or targets. That was the missing link, and they understand that now. Departments reported on the exercise of their functions; by contrast, this Bill has learned from those shortcomings, and we have included provision for a baseline so that we can track success or failure alongside measurable targets and outcomes. That is important if we are serious about ensuring that the legislation delivers for rural communities as well as towns and cities.

I look forward to engagement and consultation with rural organisations and representatives from rural areas during the development of the Bill. I welcome Ms Armstrong's support for the Bill and particularly her point that our postcode should not determine our access to opportunity. That really goes to the heart of what I am trying to do. Before I finish, I want to recognise the contributions from my colleagues Matthew O'Toole, Mark Durkan, Cara Hunter and Colin McGrath. They have not only spoken in support of the Bill but have been strong champions of it throughout its development. I am really grateful for the support. As I said in my opening remarks, no Member takes a Member's Bill through here on their own; we get lots of support along the way, be it from our colleagues here in the Assembly or our parties.

In conclusion, I hope that today offers another step forward for legislation that could rebalance our economy, provide a new way in which to make decisions and give everybody a fair opportunity. There are legitimate questions about some of the detail of the Bill. I have listened very carefully today to those points, and I am open to working through them and improving the legislation as it progresses. I hope that the legislation before you today will be even better when at its latter stages. Fingers crossed. There are issues for scrutiny and engagement as we move to Committee Stage, but they are not a reason for us not to progress the principle of the Bill today. People do not want the Government to hand them success, but they want a chance to earn it for themselves. We have a key role to play in this place to make that happen by ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland feel that they have a fair stake in our economy. That starts with paying attention to places that have been left behind and tilting the balance in their favour so that everyone can succeed. I look forward to working with the Minister, the Committee and Members across the House. I hope that the House will support this stage of the Regional Balance Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Regional Balance Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Anybody who wishes to stay for the Adjournment debate, please stay. Anybody who wishes to leave, please leave.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Keith Buchanan to raise the matter of road conditions in Mid Ulster. Keith, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you, sir.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that we have a full House here, so I will try to keep my remarks short. I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue of road conditions in Mid Ulster. Broadly speaking, the debate could cover any area of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the debate has been delayed from a few sessions before recess due to timings etc.

When roads fall into disrepair, it is not merely infrastructure that suffers; it is the daily lives of families, carers and those in local business. Roads and rural roads are at the heart of rural communities, the safety of schoolchildren and the reliability of emergency services. Today, the state of our road network tells us a story of underinvestment, incorrect prioritisation and short-term fixes. It tells of communities left isolated, rural routes allowed to deteriorate and a system that patches problems instead of solving them.

Minister, I appreciate that you have figures on the number of potholes fixed over the past few months. I think that 10,000 was the magic number in May or June. We talked about that number of potholes being fixed, which is positive, in that it keeps things moving. However, there is simply not enough money being spent on preventative works to roads. Pothole repairs are simply reactive maintenance and badly spent money. I know from my previous world of engineering maintenance that when you are playing a reactive game, you are losing. For too long, the Department's approach has resembled triage: a crisis-driven scramble to patch what is broken, rather than a thoughtful investment in what sustains us. We have treated potholes like symptoms, not signals. We have poured funds into surface fixes while structural integrity quietly erodes beneath our feet.

Minister, I have a great working relationship with the staff on the ground, and I commend them. To be fair to them, they do an excellent job. They are a great bunch of people, and I get on very well with them. I deal with them almost weekly. However, please give them the tools to solve the issues. Part of my constituency is covered by the Mid-Ulster (North) and Mid-Ulster (South) section offices, and I see different approaches there. I see work being carried out on repairs at the right time of year and, in most cases, in a timely manner. I see roads with potholes that are marked with yellow circles for months and no repairs in some areas of Mid Ulster. When it comes to action, is there a different approach in Mid-Ulster (North) and Mid-Ulster (South), more broadly? Maybe you could cover that in your remarks, Minister.

Minister, we are spending money on new footpaths. It will come as no surprise that I am not a fan of active travel. I have no issue with it broadly speaking, but I am not a fan of it when other bits of infrastructure are not being addressed. The existing footpaths are not maintained and, in some cases, are barely passable. We are building new but not maintaining old. I am told that there is no budget to repair the existing footpaths, but that is not an excuse.

Minister, the pothole repairs that we see being carried out are just about standing still with demand. It is the beginning of September, and the weather is starting to change. Over winter last year, the roads deteriorated very badly, and that was with only wet weather and very little extreme cold. If serious investment is not put into the network this year and in future years, what we saw last winter will be good compared with what is to come. The roads are literally falling apart.

There is one other point that I would like you to address in your comments, Minister, if you can. It is about reporting potholes online. If you report a pothole, the report disappears, but the pothole is not actually fixed. It may go on to a list or whatever, but the fact that it disappears means that you continuously get more reports for the same pothole. If people could log on and see that a pothole has been reported, they would not need to report it, rather than seeing that pothole coming off the list and not repaired.

Over the past five years, the Department for Infrastructure has paid out nearly £33 million in public liability claims. That is not investment; it is compensation for damaged vehicles, personal injury and property damage and loss. It is the cost of neglect. We talk about the cost-of-living crisis, but how many people have had avoidable damage done to their vehicles, adding another cost to their lives, who simply cannot or have not claimed?

Minister, I will talk about active travel. I have no issue with active travel, broadly. I listened to a debate, prior to recess, in which the term "prioritisation" was used. Minister, why did your Department build a footpath to Loughry college in Cookstown on the A29 at a cost of £430,000, which leaves Cookstown at the Dungannon Road, when there is already a footpath on the Tullywiggan Road going to the same location? Your Department built that, yet there are real active travel requirements, such as those at Upperlands, where people and schoolchildren walk to school daily on the road towards a blind bend. There is no resolution to that issue. Just 100 metres from that magic footpath, the Sandholes Road, which is the road leading to the main industrial area of Cookstown, is in a terrible state.

Why are we building what is good to have but not getting the basics done? How many people install a new kitchen in their home when the roof needs to be replaced? That just does not make sense. One night, six vehicles were parked on that same road — the Sandholes stretch, although I could be talking about numerous roads across Mid Ulster — having been damaged by one pothole. By the way, that same pothole has come back and has been filled in twice since. It does not make sense. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, over £8 million was paid out. Of the 5,643 claims that were concluded, a staggering 4,615 were due to potholes. Those are not isolated incidents; they are representative of systemic failure. While the Department may settle claims, it cannot settle the frustration, the disruption or the danger that poor infrastructure brings to our daily lives.

Let us not forget that rural roads make up over 60% of our network. They are often the most neglected roads, yet they are vital arteries for our isolated communities, farmers, carers and buses etc. As a party, we have always been clear that there must be regional balance when it comes to investment in our roads and surfaces. That principle must apply to any road maintenance strategy. It is vital that funding is allocated fairly across the Province, with a clear focus on those areas that are often left behind and particularly on rural roads. The regular maintenance of our roads matters to all road users. Road safety is a concern for us all. Ensuring that our roads and footpaths are well maintained and swiftly repaired must be a priority for the Minister. To be fair, I have recently seen work on the Castledawson roundabout and the Moneymore dual carriageway, both of which are A roads. The work on both of those is very welcome. That kind of work needs to continue and be rolled out across Mid Ulster in order to see road conditions improve more broadly.

Minister, I will touch briefly on your 'Road Maintenance Strategy'. The strategy indicates whether A-class, B-class and C-class roads are in good, average or poor condition. I appreciate that C-class are less-used roads, but 4·39% of C-class roads are classified as being in poor condition. For B-class roads, it is 2·79%, and, for A-class roads, it is 2·3%. I appreciate that A-class roads are used by more vehicles, but that document indicates that C-class roads, which are the more rural roads, are left behind.

The same amount of money is not being spent on those roads.

Under the heading "Quality Maintenance" which comes after action 2, the document states:

That is quality over quantity, which is fair enough.

Another point in the strategy concerns street works. I noticed this on social media not 10 minutes ago. Hillsborough is not in Mid Ulster, but, if you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will bear into Hillsborough. A road there was fixed only weeks ago.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It is OK, Mr Buchanan. My geography is not too bad.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. My understanding is that that road was fixed only weeks ago. A utility company has since been in, a hole has been dug and it has now been patched with a poor repair. An excellent job had been done in Hillsborough — I am not promoting Hillsborough for one second — but a utility company has been in and dug it up and done a poor, shoddy repair, and that will cause damage. I highlight what has been done in Hillsborough because that has just come up on social media, but that happens across Northern Ireland, not only Mid Ulster. I am not blaming the utility workers, who have to do their job, but their repairs are, at times, not good enough.

I appreciate that the document refers to the quality of maintenance. As I mentioned, I have an excellent working relationship with your engineers on-site, Minister. It is good to get them out on-site: do not stop that. It is important, when they go out on-site, to be able to have a debate and agree on what will or will not be done. Do not take that away, Minister. They are all trying to do a job, but they need the tools.

Minister, I could go on. This is a genuine conversation to address what people see daily. It is not an attack on you but an attack on where you spend the money. Do not build new footpaths if we cannot maintain the old ones. I could go to Tobermore and literally not be able to walk down the footpaths. That does not make sense. There is no money, but it would not take a fortune to maintain those footpaths. The verge is overgrown, so people cannot walk on them. I could probably pick out an area in every part of Northern Ireland that is like that. Why are we building new footpaths when we cannot maintain what we have? It does not make sense.

I will appreciate your response, Minister, and I hope that other Members appreciate that this is a genuine conversation. I want to see the roads in Mid Ulster maintained and not only the rural roads. For the number of heavy vehicles that come into Mid Ulster for industry the road network is not maintained well enough and the money is not spent cleverly enough. Minister, I appreciate your presence here today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin. Emma, you will have up to five minutes, as will other Members who are called to speak.

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

I thank my constituency colleague Keith for bringing the topic to the House for debate. The state of our roads and the problems that our constituents face as a result of defects is, I am sure, an issue that affects all MLAs and something on which we spend a lot of our time working.

I commend the Minister for the work that she has done thus far on the matter. The previous contributor referred to pothole maintenance and how potholes are being filled, and I am sure that he will reflect on the fact that Minister Kimmins has produced a new strategy to change the way in which pothole repairs are done. The old system was a frustrating one, in that one pothole was repaired, while a couple of minor potholes around it were left. There will now be a complete resurfacing of the area that is rough, and that is to be welcomed.

I also commend the work of the section engineers. Perhaps unlike Keith, I am focused on one part of the constituency, which is the south Derry part, so I am lucky to be in the Mid-Ulster (North) section. I do not have enough good to say about Conall McKee and his predecessor Neil Bratton. They are accessible, respond to me and are always doing their best with a limited resource, like Johnny Graham and Mark in the other section office. The two offices work really well hand in hand to make sure that our roads are as safe as they can be.

We know that the state of our roads is not a new problem. It has been an issue for some time, and, west of the Bann, the quality of our roads has always been inferior. I often say to constituents that, realistically at this stage, we are driving cars that were made for an autobahn on roads that were made for horses and carts. Part of the problem is that a lot of our roads, particularly our B-class and C-class roads, do not have bases, so we are fighting a losing battle. As we go into wintertime and harsher weather conditions, we see that more and more.

I thank the section engineers for the work that has been done recently at our end. We had been lobbying for a number of resurfacing schemes for some time, and we have seen them successfully delivered. Our constituents appreciate that. I know that the Minister is working to improve things in a difficult context with a limited budget and competing priorities. There is an onus on all of us to work together to ensure that the best infrastructure is available to all of our constituents.

Mr McNulty: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Adjournment topic, and I thank Mr Buchanan for bringing this important debate to the Assembly this evening. It is an issue that he has particular interest in, as does my SDLP party colleague from Mid Ulster, Patsy McGlone, who has been a steady champion for Mid Ulster for a generation. Mr McGlone recalls that road infrastructure in Mid Ulster was the subject of Mr Buchanan's maiden speech to the Assembly almost 10 years ago. He is still banging the drum. Yes, we are all getting older and, hopefully, a little wiser.

At the time of Mr Buchanan's maiden speech, the Magherafelt bypass was nearing completion. It has since proven to be a great success, providing the town's residents with welcome relief from the heavy traffic logjam. Patsy McGlone, as chair of the Assembly all-party group on the built environment, as well as a representative for the people of Mid Ulster, welcomes such projects, the jobs that they bring and the economic boost and support for economic development that they provide. However, as predicted, the downstream impact is that traffic now moves more quickly to Moneymore and creates a bottleneck in that small town, and, 10 years later, a little further on, Cookstown is still waiting for the long-promised bypass.

Patsy McGlone has an office in Cookstown and, obviously, is there frequently. He talks about how the traffic continues to use the Westland Road as an unofficial bypass around the town and how it remains chock-a-block at most times of the day. His hope and the hope of everyone from Cookstown is that it will not be another 10 years before there is substantial progress on that project or a solution provided in Moneymore. The reality is that the Executive prioritise high-profile schemes like the A5 and the A6 — they are regionally and nationally significant roads that merit progress — but, as the courts have ruled, the Executive are even prepared to break the law in order to see progress made on those schemes and thereby stymie progress on all major road projects. Worthy as those schemes are, their progress or lack of progress represents choices made by successive Ministers, their Department and the Executive.

Choices have also been made when it comes to our rural roads network. There are around 25,000 kilometres of roads in the North, more than 18,000 kilometres of which are rural roads, but the rural roads network in Mid Ulster has been starved of investment for a long time. We all know about the buckled rims, the ruined tyres and the danger that is caused by swerves to avoid the serious potholes on our rural roads. That is the result of a serious lack of maintenance of the North's roads, not just rural roads but those in our cities, towns and suburbs. Maintenance of the roads network in a rural constituency like Mid Ulster is vital to rural communities and the rural economy.

The Minister's new roads maintenance strategy, which was published in July, aims to use technology to better target available resources and raise the standard of maintenance across the network and use environmentally sustainable materials. That seems contrary to the assertion of the chief executive of the Mineral Products Association (MPA) — the industry body for road construction — that the A5 dual carriageway could have been the first carbon-neutral carriageway on these islands had proper processes been followed.

Without adequate investment to begin with, we will continue to see the further deterioration of our roads network. It is not enough to allocate additional funding for road maintenance when or if those funds become available throughout the year, as the Minister has done previously. As the SDLP has long argued, to be truly sustainable and effective, a properly resourced road repair and maintenance strategy needs to be an integral part of the Infrastructure budget. That requires a different approach by the Minister. It requires support from her Executive colleagues, including Ministers from her party. It requires the Executive collectively to make difficult choices and stop making excuses — just stop it. When Ministers are criticised for making political choices, it is not sustainable for those Ministers to complain of cuts to their budgets or the block grant. It is the responsibility of the Executive to make the case to the British Treasury for sufficient funding, and it is the responsibility of individual Ministers to make the case to the Executive and to their party colleagues for sufficient funds for their Departments. It is then the responsibility of the Minister to choose how to allocate those funds.

Of course, an Executive that could agree a multi-year Budget or, at this point, even a single-year Budget would put the Minister in a much better place to choose to resource a properly funded maintenance —

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

Mr McNulty: — strategy for our rural roads.

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

Mrs Erskine: Minister and Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will give me some latitude when speaking on the issue because, albeit that I am a Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA, I represent an area that Mid Ulster District Council falls into, and Dungannon and places such as that would be seen as mid-Ulster.

The issue that we are discussing is one that every one of us hears about every day. The question that I want to ask, however, is simple: when will people see the difference on the ground? Our constituents do not drive on strategies, press releases or digital surveys; they drive on our roads, and they are not seeing the impact of the investment that is talked about in those press releases. Far too many roads are in an absolutely disgraceful condition, and nowhere is that more prevalent than in our rural communities. Rural roads are competing in a system where roads carrying the greatest volume of traffic will naturally attract priority. However, I am finding it difficult to get even urban roads fixed.

We have heard about technology being used to identify where roads are deteriorating and about the car that is supposed to travel around Northern Ireland imaging our roads, but where is that car? How much is being spent on it and how much on technology? People do not need another photograph taken of a pothole; they need the pothole fixed. We cannot become world leaders in identifying potholes while remaining incapable of fixing them.

Minister, I want to turn to road safety. Road safety cannot simply mean telling people to be more careful. Road safety means government taking responsibility for the infrastructure that it controls. Let me take you to Dungannon. I have lobbied and shouted for five years for the road at Moygashel to be resurfaced. The condition of the road through that village is completely ridiculous. At present, there is a sinkhole at a junction that has a temporary repair. There are cones around it, and my colleagues and I have been told that it will take weeks to repair. That is a road hazard. That is a busy junction, and the number of near misses already is shocking. Why is that not a priority?

Furthermore, utility work is taking place in Dungannon, and a diversion was put in place via Milltown. I had to fight for weeks to get white lines sorted in that area beforehand, as drivers were being diverted through an unfamiliar place for them. They would not have seen the road markings at a mini roundabout. It was going to cause problems, so I do not understand why such things are not being prioritised.

We then come to the issue of claims. Claims caused by poor road surfaces are now in the region of £1 million per year. That should concern us because every pound spent in compensation is money that could have been spent on preventing the damage in the first place. Minister, I know what you will say today. I accept that budgets are constrained and that the scale of the problem is enormous, but accepting the problem is not solving it. After the announcements and all the strategies, surveys and press statements, people are entitled to ask, "Where is the delivery?". We need proper resurfacing rather than endless temporary patching. I am sick, sore and tired of going to the portal to report a pothole, and then, literally within days or weeks, the pothole emerges again. People get very frustrated about that.

The test is whether people can leave their homes in the morning and travel safely on a road that is fit for purpose, and right now that is simply not happening for many rural communities, so my plea, Minister, is this: fix the roads and give rural communities the dedicated investment and priority that they deserve.

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

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I thank Keith Buchanan for securing this important debate and for the tone and manner in which the issues have been raised. I appreciate that we are all acutely aware of the challenges. As I have said many times in the Chamber, this is not unique to any MLA's constituency but goes right across the board. I welcome the fact that every Member who spoke in the debate acknowledged the need for proper investment, because that is key to a lot of the issues that have been raised. Our road network is a £37 billion public asset. It is relied on every day by families, businesses and emergency services. As we all know, when the network deteriorates, that is felt by everyone who travels on it. Due to the significant budget cuts that Westminster has been making for over a decade, we have not been able to fund roads maintenance to the level that is required to sustain it. Since 2015, the Department has been operating a limited service, dealing with the most critical defects while deferring the maintenance that prevents those risks from emerging in the first place. We will take forward the examples that you gave, Deborah. I do not know why those issues have not been addressed or brought to my attention, as you will appreciate, but it is important that serious defects such as those are prioritised, so we will certainly take that forward.

This is not a stable position for us to be in, as we know. It is the managed decline of the network, and we are now seeing the consequences of that in very real terms: a £2 billion backlog, roads deteriorating faster than the Department can repair them, and an increase in failures such as flooding and landslips. That creates more unpredictable conditions for the public while also pushing up the longer-term costs, claims and disruption. As Members will agree, if we continue on that path, there will be more reactive repairs, reduced resilience and growing pressure on public finances. The impacts are not contained in my Department; they are felt in Health, in the economy and in communities across the North. They cannot be addressed by my Department alone. Protecting the road network and the people who rely on it requires collective Executive ownership. It requires a shared recognition that stable, sustained investment is essential to moving from a position that is reactive to a failing road network to one that is preventative.

Recently, I was pleased to secure Executive agreement that investment in critical infrastructure such as roads and waste water should be prioritised. I delivered that message loud and clear to the British Secretary of State when the Executive met him yesterday. The Executive are united on our need for a fair funding settlement in order to effectively recover and deliver better public services, including roads maintenance and our roads infrastructure. However, even within the constrained envelope that is currently available to me, I have made sure to front-load investment in our roads this year, ensuring that a stable maintenance programme can take place ahead of the winter period, which, as we all know, speeds up the deterioration of our roads. We saw the significant effects of that last year and at the start of this year. For me, it is about being more proactive and knowing what can happen, and I hope to continue to build on that investment when we have an agreed Budget.

In the past financial year, using the finite resources available in my Department, I made additional short-term investments in excess of £40 million that were designed to address the most safety-critical concerns across the network. The additional funding allowed the Department to deliver a more enhanced package of structural maintenance work than was previously envisioned. This was predominantly made up of large-scale patching, extending existing resurfacing work and bringing forward work that would otherwise not have been completed in the 2025-26 financial year. Some of that work will have addressed existing recorded potholes — Mr Buchanan referred to some of the numbers that we quoted at the time — and some of it will have been to repair potholes that had not yet met the criteria but would undoubtedly have required action in the coming months. In the Mid Ulster constituency, the additional allocation enabled resurfacing works that included Stangmore roundabout and Carnteel Road in Dungannon; the Pomeroy Road near Donaghmore; the Hillhead Road at Castledawson; and the Drumgrass Road near Cookstown.

During the 2025-26 financial year, my Department spent £5·6 million on structural maintenance resurfacing, £935,000 on road recovery resurfacing on minor roads; £642,000 on drainage improvement works; and £2·38 million on carriageway patching across the mid-Ulster district.

Other works included just over half a million on grass cutting and weed control, £235,000 on road-marking renewal and £1·1 million on drainage system maintenance and footway clearing.

My Department has recently completed £1·4 million of surface-dressing works across Mid Ulster to preserve the life of the existing road network. Since the start of the current financial year, in the north of the district, approximately £1 million has been spent on resurfacing works at the A6 Castledawson roundabout and the A6 Glenshane Road at Coolnasillagh, Curran and the Knockloughrim link road. In the south of the district, resurfacing works are ongoing at Aghafad Road and Fintona Road, Clogher. A substantial resurfacing scheme is planned for the A4 Annaghilla Road between Ballygawley and Augher. I have also allocated £1·67 million of road recovery funding to the district, and works are ongoing in both local section areas to rejuvenate the minor road network.

I was pleased to take forward numerous road safety schemes in Mid Ulster. Mr Buchanan may have referred to some of those in his criticism, but four additional schools in Mid Ulster have benefited from the part-time 20 mph school zones, the completion of the £1·9 million Creenagh Bridge replacement, which included carriageway realignment and footway works, and the recently completed Dungannon Road active travel scheme, which will link existing active travel infrastructure in Cookstown to CAFRE's Loughry campus, the Mid Ulster Sports Arena, local businesses, residential properties and amenities in the area.

As an elected representative, I appreciate the concerns and issues that Mr Buchanan raised, but he will know that, through legislation, I have a duty to invest in active travel, and a certain percentage of the budget has to be directed towards it. We are continuing to work towards that target, but we have not met it. Schemes such as that enable communities to be more connected. It is also about not just providing links for existing usage but encouraging more people not to get into private cars and to use alternative methods.

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will indeed.

Mr K Buchanan: I appreciate the point that you have to spend so much on active travel. I do not disagree with that; I agree. I will not drill into the Cookstown one. It is built now, but the money could have been better spent on active travel schemes that would have done more. However, my point is that we cannot walk on the existing footpaths. We could all make a list of such footpaths across Northern Ireland. Walking is a form of active travel, but we cannot walk on existing footways. They are not well enough maintained. I appreciate that the new ones are of benefit, but the old ones are not being maintained.

Ms Kimmins: We look at that within the existing budget. It is not just about new, shiny schemes. I want to really emphasise that point. I, too, have had that discussion with my officials. We need to ensure that what is already there is in a useable condition. That includes things such as ensuring that footpaths are well lit. Street lighting and such things all contribute to ensuring that people will go out and use those different methods: walking, cycling etc.

We all use our roads, and even the smallest repair, as many have said here this evening, and as I have heard many times in the Chamber, can have a big impact when it comes to better journeys for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. I am pleased that the repairs that we have been able to make are providing a real and tangible difference. However, I am not complacent. I understand that there is still much more to do, because the overall condition of the network has suffered from years of underfunding long before I was in post.

To underpin that short-term work with longer-term resilience in the network, as Members have mentioned, the new road maintenance strategy, which was published on 27 July this year, aims to introduce a data-driven approach to maintaining the road network, ensuring that resources are used more effectively and efficiently. Let me be very clear — I have said this at every juncture in the development of the strategy — I did not want the strategy to be done for the sake of it and sit on a shelf. We are starting to see the implementation of what has been set out in the strategy. This is very important, and I want it to be prioritised. I want it to be straightforward and clear so that people can understand what we are doing, why we are doing it and what impacts they will see in the time ahead. It is really about looking under the bonnet of every aspect of road maintenance and improving our approach to how we do things.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: Yes.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, just before summer recess, I raised with you in the Chamber — this speaks to road maintenance — the issue of road inspectors who will carry out the work to make sure that the road maintenance strategy is being implemented and put in place in the way that it was intended.

As your colleague Emma did, I place on record my thanks to Brendan and Johnny in DFI Roads. They have worked on some fantastic schemes with me over the summer for schools and so on. The road inspectors piece would help those staff.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, I will give you an extra two minutes because of the interventions.

Ms Kimmins: I am not even halfway through.

This is a good opportunity for me to outline where the strategy comes in. There is a lot of talk about what the digital survey will actually do. It will reduce the need for inspectors to go out as often and the reliance on manual surveying. We do not have enough staff to do all those things. We will do the digital survey annually, which is more than we have been able to do previously. The digital survey will pick up at an earlier stage the interventions that we need to make and identify them. Keith outlined some of the percentage figures for rural roads, and we will now have a full picture of the condition of our roads from the first full, complete digital survey. That covers some 26,000 kilometres of road — someone may correct me on that, but it is in and around that for the whole of the North — and that is huge. It took months to undertake the survey, but we will do that annually to ensure that we continually pick up on the issues. It is important to raise the point about the annual survey because utilities reopening the roads has been mentioned, and the survey will help us to pick up on any issues. As it stands, the resources available for inspecting utility reinstatement means that only a small percentage of works are inspected. We simply do not have enough staff, and a sample percentage of inspections is carried out. We will now be able to see the reinstatements on a more regular basis. We are looking at the warranty periods and how we ensure that the work is done to the correct standard.

I appreciate that a lot of it will take time to bed in, but I hope that Members hear, loud and clear, that we are taking it very seriously. We are looking at how we can do things better, albeit with limited resources, but it is not all just about money; it is about taking a different approach to road maintenance. One of the key issues in the strategy is about how we do more reactive maintenance. We should not fill one pothole when there are four or five more beside it. In some of the recent repairs to roads, there has been larger-scale patching to cover a bigger section of the road that may not require a full resurfacing or where there are other priorities before that road will be done. That will help to build in resilience, and it will reduce the number of times that we go out to the same location.

The strategy was launched at the end of July, and we are only at the start of September. I hope that people will see the difference over the coming weeks and months. We know how important our road network is for all the reasons that have been outlined. I will not go into much more detail on the strategy, but I hope that what I have said gives a flavour of the very practical things that we are doing as a result of the strategy. Earlier, I mentioned that I have front-loaded my investment in roads within the existing budget that we are operating from while we are in negotiation, which is a significant increase in my opening budget for roads last year, because it is important to get ahead of the road maintenance issue. It means that we have prioritised roads over other issues, but there are ongoing negotiations with the Secretary of State about funding. He knows, in no uncertain terms, what we need to deliver here. We recognise the condition of our rural roads, and I have doubled the road recovery fund this year to get ahead of the maintenance issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: OK. I think that I got through half of it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for the good Adjournment debate.