Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Good afternoon, ladies, and thank you for joining us today. We have with us the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill; the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly; and junior Ministers Pam Cameron and Aisling Reilly. I believe that we have just over an hour. I will ask you to make some opening remarks, and then we will divide the time up between us. I have asked members to be succinct and to the point, so I hope that we will stick to that.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Thank you very much, Chair and members. It is great to be back in front of you. Thanks for rearranging: I was sick when we were to come before the summer, so I appreciate that. It has been a busy summer for everybody. We are all glad to be back at it, hopefully having had a bit of a rest.

A highlight of the summer was the success of the Open and the fact that so many people visited our shores. The 153rd Open was a huge success. We attracted something like 300,000 golf fans, which brought great advantages not just to the north-west but wider than that. Also over the summer, we appointed a number of commissioners: Joe McVey is the new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, and Claire Keatinge is the new Commissioner for Public Appointments. We very much look forward to supporting them in their work, and the Committee will want to do likewise and work with them.

In June, we introduced legislation to establish an inquiry into the mother-and-baby institutions, the Magdalene laundries and the workhouses and an associated redress scheme. That is a vital piece of work, and I thank the junior Ministers, who are taking the lead on that important legislation. We and the Committee have heard many very harrowing stories of the experiences of women and children, so it is important that we get it right. We really appreciate the work that the Committee is doing in that regard. The experiences of far too many people are rooted in the systemic misogyny and treatment that they endured at incredibly vulnerable times of their lives, many of them while pregnant. All of that was completely inhumane and nothing short of cruel. There are people, who were children then and are now adults, who have been let down in every other possible way over the decades. I really hope that we can get legislation that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of all those who have suffered and who want access to truth and justice. I commend the Committee for that work. We will continue to work with you.

We have the Programme for Government — our shared plan and our Executive priorities — to deliver what matters most to people. One of the most urgent issues is ending violence against women and girls. Sadly, we all know too many families who have been left devastated as a direct result of such senseless violence. Unfortunately and so sadly, over the summer, we saw the devastating situation in Maguiresbridge in Fermanagh, where the lives of Vanessa Whyte and her children Sara and James were brutally cut short. Those three lives were taken in the most harrowing and barbaric way, leaving behind a trail of complete devastation for their families but also for the local community. Some members, who are closely embedded in that community, will know that even more. It is a scourge, and tackling it is a priority for me, the deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers in our office. Our desire is to ensure that we get to a point where we have a society in which women and girls feel safe and are safe in their homes, their workplaces, the streets or anywhere that they go.

As part of our strategy in that regard, we have launched our change fund. We are getting really good feedback — hopefully, you are too — about the funding that is reaching grassroots communities and making a real difference. At a local level, the change fund is investing in a raft of grassroots initiatives that are empowering youth groups, councils, sporting organisations, businesses and schools to tackle violence against women and girls head-on. Last week, the deputy First Minister and I visited Craigavon Integrated College, the former school of Natalie McNally, who was tragically killed. We spoke to the pupils there, and it was so heartening to see that, on the children coming back on day 1 of year 12 — fifth year in my terms — this was the area that they had chosen as a priority. We were enthused by that and thought that it is a great example of how the whole of society is listening as regards all of us playing our part in that area. As you all know, change happens by local communities and the next generation knocking their heads together, so we were pleased to see that happening.

We clearly have a lot more to do to deliver across all the priority areas that we have identified. We have identified a new delivery unit, which will be laser-focused on the Executive's priorities to drive reform across public services, making sure that the priorities that we have identified get the attention and support that they need to make a real impact. The Executive agreed that the first topic of focus for the delivery unit should be waiting lists. I am glad that progress has been made in that endeavour already. That is the starting point. The Executive has discussed other areas into which we may move the delivery unit to drive issues on.

The Executive met last week, and there was unequivocal support for action on the racist and sectarian incidents that we saw over the summer. There was unequivocal condemnation from the Executive of the attacks that we have seen in recent months, going as far back as May. It is very clear: no one should ever feel intimidated or terrified in their home, society or community. Everybody has the right to be and feel safe. Collectively, we all say no to racism in society. Even the events of recent days should give us all cause for concern about what is happening in society, and particularly about the people who are involved in that behaviour. Delivery of the refugee integration strategy is being taken forward. It includes key building blocks to make progress across that important area.

Helen McCarthy, the new Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA), has not yet been before the Committee. You will get a chance to meet Helen, who is a breath of fresh air about how we need to transform and deliver public services. She is determined to bring in people from our universities and others with expertise to help us do things differently. Her knowledge and expertise will be really significant in driving forward that transformation. That is why we launched our Office of AI and Digital over the summer. We embrace the new world that we all live in, where technology has huge responsibility in helping us achieve some of the things that we want to.

We hope to be able to announce the successful candidates for the roles of Irish Language Commissioner, Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition, and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. That was also work that we engaged in over the summer. We carried out a considerable number of interviews, and we are close to finalising those.

That is it from me by way of an opener, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with the Committee. It has worked out as timely, with this being the first week of the new Assembly term. We can talk about what we will be doing in the Department and reflect on what we have achieved so far but also on our shared role in leading the Executive, with a particular focus on the Programme for Government and its priorities. A significant amount of work has been carried out, not just by the team in the Executive Office but across the Departments. We have made a strong start on all those priorities, and I will touch briefly on some of them in my opening remarks.

We have invested millions of pounds in childcare and early years to support families. The childcare subsidy scheme has already saved eligible working parents around £8 million since it was launched in September 2024. The Committee will be aware that the Executive have committed to investing £55 million this year across a range of childcare actions. We have got £27·5 million for a SEN transformation project. We hope that that will be truly transformative. We all know the challenges faced by those parents in trying to get an appropriate place, care and education for their child. An additional 3,000 places have been created. However, we know, looking to future years, that the demand will continue to grow, and the Executive must rise to meet it. I welcome the fact that no child with SEN is without a place at this stage — finally — but, in future, we want that to be dealt with at an earlier stage of the year. We are working towards that happening to give certainty to parents and remove the anxiety. It is important that it is the right place for the child as well. We all know constituents who have concerns about that.

We have allocated millions of pounds to dealing with waiting lists. Almost 59,000 additional outpatient, diagnostic and inpatient procedures have been delivered. That update was announced by the Health Minister just last week. We are well on track to meeting the Programme for Government target of 70,000. However, we are acutely aware that people do not see the waiting lists that they are not on; they see the difficulties that they have with accessing GPs and in waiting far too long to get the treatment that they need. That is a significant piece of work, but I welcome the fact of those 59,000 additional outpatient, diagnostic and inpatient procedures. I also welcome the fact that the transformation fund has invested £61 million in the multidisciplinary team transformation project. We will be able to see that rolling out over the next number of years.

As the First Minister touched on, we have created the delivery unit and the Office of AI and Digital., which works under the CSTA. That is a new post, and the CSTA will drive the digital and AI transformation across the Civil Service. We often talk about frustrations with the way that things are done. We are very conscious that, if we continue to do things in the same way, we are likely only to get the same results. Those are initiatives driven by the centre and our leadership to try to ensure that we see genuine transformation of the way that we do business. That is closely tied to the improvement of outcomes and efficiencies, which is key. It cannot be just another layer of the activities that happen within Departments.

That is just a small flavour of some of the things that we have been doing. We will provide updated reports on progress against all nine priorities. I am sure that you do not want me to go into all the detail of that here this afternoon, but I wanted to give you a flavour of some of the real, tangible progress that has been made and delivery that has taken place. While some people do not see that if they are not impacted by it, right now in Northern Ireland, there are many thousands of people who have seen the benefit of those initiatives and that delivery and drive by the Executive.

The Executive Office is pushing forward in a number of policy areas. Michelle mentioned the event at Craigavon Integrated College. It was timely that we were able to go to that at the beginning of this school term, particularly in light of the tragic events of the summer. That was a challenging but very worthwhile event. It was good to see so many young people there to hear about the challenges being faced by the McNally family. I have said this many times before: I am always in awe of their bravery and courage to continuously step forward in very difficult circumstances to tell people their story and a little bit about who Natalie was as a person. They are doing all that because they do not want to see another woman or girl lose their life. They do not want another family to have to suffer what they are suffering and have gone through. It was a challenging event. As we have said, our ending violence against women and girls strategy will have been successful if we do not have to hold conferences talking about that type of violence. However, we know that there needs to be vigilance. It is a multigenerational thing. It is so important to engage with young people, particularly in calling out misogynistic attitudes that sadly, as we know, can give rise, among a small minority, to terrible and tragic outcomes. We do not want any other family to go through that.

As you know, we published our ending violence against women and girls strategy and delivery plan. I am really pleased that we not only got the £3·2 million out the door but were able to secure an additional £2·2 million. That issue was raised the last time that we were at the Committee. Of course, £3·2 million and an additional £2·2 million will never be enough to do what we need to do, but we will continue trying to drive forward on that agenda. As you know from the framework, that drive is across a number of different delivery partners — good organisations on the ground — and giving them funds directly . It is also about working with district councils, schools and youth groups. You will be aware of the recent launch, in conjunction with that, of the PSNI campaign about calling out those types of behaviours.

The historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme received 5,494 applications before it closed to applications in April. The majority of those have already been determined. As anticipated — I know that the Committee discussed this — there was a surge in applications in the weeks just before the closure: around 350 came in in that time. That has meant that processing of the applications has taken a little bit longer. It is anticipated that the processing will be finalised and the work will be completed by the end of November, depending on the trickiness of some of those remaining cases. That represents a significant amount of work. A lot of money has gone out the door and into the hands of people who suffered and fought hard for justice and recognition. The scheme is a small thing that we have been able to do, but it has meant a huge amount to many people. It means that about £106 million will have been given out during the redress scheme. As you know, we also have support mechanisms in place to provide other help to victims; it is not just about redress payments.

I turn to the disturbances on our streets that happened periodically throughout the summer. In the past couple of days, we have seen some really appalling scenes — absolutely appalling scenes. This is a good opportunity for all four of us who are sitting here to express our collective dismay at what has happened and to reiterate our strong opposition to any threat, intimidation or violence, regardless of what it is fuelled by. In those cases, it has been fuelled by racism. You will be aware that we engaged on the issue over the summer. We were able to move fairly quickly to offer local councils additional funds to work with local communities on social cohesion issues. That was an urgent fund. However, we recognise that tackling the problem requires not just emergency funds after the event but long-term interventions. It has to be about improving social cohesion and making sure that our schemes are delivering outcomes. We have to listen to people and understand their concerns, but also work on social cohesion. Throughout that period, we were in regular contact with the PSNI, local councils and local representatives on the ground.

There are a number of other areas, but I know that the Chair will not want me to continue by going through those in detail. I will finish there to leave an opportunity for questions. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, both, very much for coming along today and for your contributions. We are 20 months in, and we have 20 months to go. We have not seen the updated good relations strategy from the review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC). There is no operational plan against the delivery framework for the refugee integration strategy. There has been no progress on any area of equality policy. There is no evidence that the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme is going to be better focused on tackling the core issues. Meanwhile, we see a lot of very unedifying bickering between political representatives from both your parties. I put it to you that we are not seeing progress on those pieces of work because, politically, it suits both your parties to keep this place divided and to keep people suspicious of each other. If you can provide me with tangible evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks, Chair. I do not agree with your assessment, as you would expect. We are all tasked with trying to build a better society here, and I believe that that is everybody's determination. We might have different views on different issues at different times, and that is OK. However, the real work is about being focused on building a good society, a fair society and an inclusive society. That means building on good work that has been done up to this point. I share the frustration around some things not being able to be done as quickly as we would have liked, including the review of T:BUC. However, I can tell you that we are actively working our way through that right now, folding in the work that was done on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT). I would much prefer that it had been dealt with long before now. However, these are the parameters within which we are working. Both the deputy First Minister and I have been actively working with officials on T:BUC. We believe that really positive things can be developed as part of the refreshed T:BUC, not least that it will reflect where we are wider in society, including the fact that we are a more diverse society. Things have moved on so much since T:BUC was designed 10 years ago. However, the principles are the same: inclusivity; building a better and more prosperous society; and ensuring that everybody has a fair share. We hope to come and talk to all Executive parties about the T:BUC strategy.

On equality legislation, I know that the Committee has done work on equality gaps. I really want to see that piece of work, because I believe in creating a society that is based on equality and fairness. I hope that that work will help to inform how we go forward.

We launched the refugee integration strategy in May. We are actively working with all stakeholders — we held workshops over the summer — on the action plan and how we can advance that even further.

We had a meeting on the Race Relations Order 1997 with officials yesterday. That work will come to the Committee. It is a big piece of legislation — even bigger than I envisaged at the outset — and a huge piece of work that we want to work with the Committee on. It is about updating outdated legislation on race relations. The legislation is from 1997, so it is very out of date, and we have a lot of work to do to update it. We actively worked through that with officials yesterday to get it to the next stage. As you know, we have said that we will bring it forward in this mandate, and that is still where our focus is.

As you also know, we work across Departments on CIT, including with DOJ. We have had engagement with the Justice Minister on how we might go forward. CIT has been extended for two years, but you are right: for how long will we talk about communities "in transition"? We have to get to the point at which we just talk about building communities up. That is where all our minds, including the DFM's and mine, are focused. A huge raft of work is happening in that area. We hosted a number of meetings about the incidents that happened during the summer in particular. It is about working with all stakeholders. The issues that we have seen on our streets will be tackled not by one policy but by all of society working together. At times over the summer, there has been a policing response. At other times, there was a council response, and, at others, the response has been by our officials. Collectively, we are committed to working with all stakeholders to improve the lives of everybody here, including in some of the areas that you touched on.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely.

I completely disagree with your analysis, Chair. The role that the First Minister and I have is departmental and strategic. In a shortened mandate, it is incredibly important that we keep a close watch on what is strategic, remaining focused on that and on driving delivery against the nine key priorities. We have been doing that. A significant amount of work has taken place in the Department. The Chairperson will be aware of the constrained budget environment. We were very pleased to secure additional funds, but they were limited — there were some funds for ending violence against women and girls and some for Together: Building a United Community — which leaves little room for layering on additional actions. It means that we must look at what we are doing and whether we can do those things better.

I advise the Chairperson — I have no doubt that she is fully aware — that we have a good relations strategy. Together: Building a United Community is still in place. We are operating that, and we are putting out, with incredibly positive evaluation and feedback, many millions of pounds on everything from sports schemes, Urban Villages projects and capital interventions to work, undertaken in the most difficult circumstances, to bring about social cohesion. We still have the racial equality strategy in place: it runs to 2025, as you are aware.

The work that we are doing is very much moving forward on the timeline. We have prioritised the key strategic issues that we need to drive forward, but we continue to ensure that everything moves forward at pace. I hope that, throughout this Assembly term, you will be updated on progress on the areas that you mentioned.

I will quickly touch on this: going out from the Department is £104 million for the severely injured victims' pension and £106 million in HIA payments. That represents a significant amount of work in the Department. When you look at the many schemes that we are rolling out under the ethnic minorities scheme and T:BUC, for example, you see that a huge amount of work is being done.

When it comes to new achievements, ending violence against women and girls was very much a priority for us when we came in, so I am really pleased that that strategy has been published and that there is not just a strategy but a framework. I am really pleased with the hugely positive feedback on the benefit of that work from people on the ground, including women's groups, organisations and councils.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I am just conscious of time.

The First Minister mentioned the tragic, very sad news in the past few months of the murder of women and their children in their homes in our communities. For the most part, the murders were carried out by men. The two-year delivery plan for the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework, under the heading "Working better Together", states that "specific NI report(s)" will be commissioned to:

around

We are approaching the end of the first year. Has that research been commissioned? How is it being focused? As the deputy First Minister said, there is an additional £2·2 million. That is public money. Without the evidence and research, how can we make sure that it is really tackling the core issues? I would like an update on the research, please.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I understand it, that research has already been commissioned, and we are waiting for it. As you said, we want to make sure that the schemes are doing what we want them to do and meeting the strategy's intended outcomes. The approach of the entire team to developing the strategy and action plan, not only in our Department but across other Departments, has been a real exemplar because it was a co-design process right from the outset.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, but can you give us specifics on the research? Who has been commissioned to do it? What is the timescale? My question is really about that.

Mrs O'Neill: We can get that to you. I do not have it in my notes. One thing that you will receive, if you have not received it today, is a look-back on what has been achieved in our first year. We have reported that to the Executive, because we said that we would keep doing that so that we could be held to account on progress that has been made. We did that at the previous Executive meeting. The Committee will receive that update, if it has not already done so. It is in train. Hopefully that will give a bit more information. If information on who is doing the research and its time frame is not in the update, we will make sure that you get that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. OK. I am conscious of time. I have two more questions, but I will only ask one of them.

Deputy First Minister, as you know, the First Minister and you were invited to attend a Committee meeting at the end of June, but the First Minister was unwell. The Committee team made informal enquiries to see whether you could come in the first week of July, and we were advised, again informally, that you were in London. I said to the team, "That is fair enough". It transpired that you were in London at Wimbledon. We were not yet in recess. I am wondering what judgement you exercised in prioritising going to Wimbledon over coming here to hold yourself accountable to the Committee. We had not had a briefing from you on the Programme for Government or had you in front of us since last September. What judgement was exercised, and how did you feel that claiming travel expenses for your trip to Wimbledon was a good use of public money? I am just giving you the opportunity to respond to that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Chairperson is aware, I was fully ready to come before the Committee at the scheduled appointment time, which was the week before. We were unable to do so, because the First Minister was unwell. The Chairperson knows that I contacted her and offered to come on my own rather than disrupt the Committee. I gave you that opportunity, Chair, and you said that you were happy to reschedule, because, understandably, you wanted both of us to be here. I was not scheduled to be in front of the Committee the next week. As I understand it — I played no part in the communication between the Committee and the Department — a simple query was made about whether there would be availability during the next week, and you were told, factually, that I would be in London. That is a fact. Nobody "misled" anybody.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I did not say that I was "misled". I am asking you —

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Apologies if you were misquoted at the time, because you were quoted —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Under those circumstances — in light of the fact that you had not been here and held yourself accountable to the scrutiny Committee — should you not have thought, "Actually, this is a leisure trip, as opposed to a business one"? When I first heard, I thought, "Look, if it is business, that is fine". However, if it was just a leisure trip to London, should you not have made yourself available to the Committee and come with the rest of your Ministers to engage with our MLAs?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Again, if you were misquoted at the time, we can address that after the Committee meeting. I understood that you said that you felt that you had been "misled", which is a very serious allegation, and I take it seriously. If you did not say that, I welcome your clarification that you did not. As I said, I was invited —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, choice words were used. I felt that we had been misled. If we had been advised, "She will not be available because she will be at Wimbledon" —. Choice words were used.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will simply reiterate the fact that I was scheduled to appear in front of the Committee and that I was available to do so. Indeed, when we were not able to because of the First Minister's ill health, I offered to come along. I was not scheduled to come to the Committee the following week. I was otherwise occupied. I had been officially invited to attend that event as deputy First Minister. I attended it as deputy First Minister. As I understand it, it was communicated clearly to you, factually, that I would be in London, and no further questions were asked by you or your team. I was in London.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We were not yet in summer recess. I would not say that you were in London on business.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Sorry. Excuse me. I was in London as deputy First Minister. I was in London on the back of an official invitation. It was communicated factually and accurately to this Committee. As I said, I made myself available to this Committee as I always do. I was not scheduled to be in front of this Committee that week. I made myself available when I was scheduled, and it was indicated to you that I was willing to come on ahead. I have nothing further to add to that.

Mr Dickson: Thank you both for joining us today. I will be as brief as I can. There are a couple of areas that I want to cover. The Chair has already dealt with one, which is the racial unrest that we saw over the summer holidays and, sadly, in the past few days as well.

I appreciate that it is a massive task and one that we do not have total control over in Northern Ireland. There are, sadly, dangerous and dark forces right around the world but, specifically, across the United Kingdom that are agitating a lot of this in the background. Can you help us from a political perspective, with your parties and in the Chamber, to get out a strong message — the messages that you have given are welcome — that, when politicians use inflammatory language and words, those have consequences? When people make remarks about those who are vulnerable adults — human beings in hotels — saying that they are being given mobile phones, iPads, resources and money, and benefits and access to health, none of which is true, can you make that clear and myth-bust the misinformation that is given?

I appreciate that all the programmes, all the money and all the resources that you put forward are valuable and have a long-term effect, but we have a problem, and the problem is here. It is today, and it was in a car park a few days ago. If human beings are legally here in the United Kingdom, exercising their right to be here, we must bust those myths. What will you do to attempt to bust those myths?

Mrs O'Neill: Our united Executive statement last week was a strong starting point to do exactly what I know that you also want to achieve. I think that we all want to achieve it, to be fair. The myth-busting does come down to us in the political sphere, but it is much wider than that. That is a point that we put to the Chief Constable yesterday. All agencies have a role to play. People take and absorb a lot of information from social media that is completely incorrect and made-up nonsense, to be quite frank. All of us who hold elected office have a duty to call that out and correct it as best we can.

We, too, at an Executive Office level, feel frustration insofar as immigration is not a devolved area, therefore a lot of the information is held at a Home Office level and is not even communicated here. That is not good enough, because we have a lens to apply to our local community here in how you can manage immigration, for example, as one area. We all need to think about this. The myth-busting needs to come from every quarter, so, when people are saying that a certain community is involved in criminality, the police need to say whether that is correct or not and to provide that clarity. If people are saying that it is because such-and-such a nationality has all the housing, housing associations and the Housing Executive need to call that out for what it is and correct that information.

I am determined that we work with all partners, because we will be successful in shaping this society only if we work in partnership. All partners need to step up to challenge that myth. We do not have the problem to the same extent as elsewhere just because of the numbers here. You absolutely captured it when you said that this is about people. This is about people who have come here and about members of communities who have lived here all their lives. This is about how we have a cohesive society and dispel the nonsense that leads to some of the antics and dangerous things that we see on the streets. What we saw at Connswater the other day makes me alarmed about where all this could go.

We all need to be equally alarmed, but the Executive Office has challenged all the British Government Ministers on the fact that immigration is not devolved, and therefore we do not have some of the information that could help to counter some of the things that you have identified.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate that a lot of the stuff has come from the top and does come from the top, but can you go back to your colleagues in the Executive, and, where they have public-facing roles and arm's-length bodies, wherever it happens to be — job markets or doctors' surgeries — can we get a campaign out to bust those myths from every Department? When the public comes into a doctors' waiting room, the job market or the local council leisure centre — all the public spaces — can they see a poster showing them that the First Minister and deputy First Minister say that it is not true, those are lies, and this is the truth? For goodness sake, be proactive and do something like that.

Mrs O'Neill: Even in advance of today, we discussed that at our most recent Executive meeting. For example, they are people who work in our health service. They keep our health service going. They are our healthcare workers, nurses and doctors. They work across every aspect of our society. The conversation that we had was about how the health service and health trusts promote that message even more. It is for all of us; I accept that. I am very happy to play a leadership role in trying to make sure that we all do more.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I have said repeatedly that political leadership is incredibly important across all the political parties, not just those in the Executive. In the Assembly, we should be united when we say that all racism is wrong and, indeed, that all threats, intimidation and violence are wrong. If we start from that position, which is a value-based approach, it makes the message clear, no matter what incident we are called to comment on. At the press conference last week, I reflected that the number of times that we have to come out to condemn things is saddening, because we do not want those things to happen. The fact that it happens on such a regular basis is not just dismaying but a call to action to tackle the issue.

I say, from the outset, that there are two distinct and different issues. Immigration is a big and growing issue, not just in the UK. We have seen it in Ireland, mainland Europe, the US and beyond. We have seen protests on the streets of Australia and other places. It is a growing issue. There is a discussion to be had about immigration and migration. We will not always agree on those issues; we know that. I do not support uncontrolled migration. I think that the Government have lost control of migration, and they need to get a grip on migration.

We also need to be very clear that there is a space to discuss those issues and people can have that discussion. That is entirely separate from the line that is crossed, albeit by a minority — a message to send to the victims is that it is a minority of people who are engaged in crossing that line into threat, intimidation and violence. It is appalling; it is wrong; and it is unanimously and unreservedly condemned. Anybody who saw the scenes in the past couple of days will share that horror.

It needs leadership at the political level, but it also needs action in Departments, by the police and via our projects and schemes to do everything that we can to tackle it. They are wholly different issues that are, at times, conflated and ought not to be. We have to have the space for a discussion, but we need clear condemnation and a clear separation of the type of behaviour that is unacceptable.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Just one more question.

Mr Dickson: I want to come to the legislation about mother-and-baby homes. There are a number of issues around that, and the Committee will work its way through that. There are some key areas that have been flagged up to us already about the proposed legislation as it sits. One issue is around the vexing question of the posthumous date. Specifically, the Committee will be working on that area. We hope to have cooperation from TEO should we move some form of amendments.

The other area is the incredible work that has been done by the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA), Fiona Ryan. Her term of office is coming to an end. A lot of the issues are common issues. Concerns have been raised with her about mother-and-baby homes and such things, but they do not fall within her remit. Can we can look at that specific role, expanding the remit and perhaps even expanding her current term of office?

My final question is about how it will ultimately be paid for, and that includes the United Kingdom Government's contribution. If you look at the documentary that was broadcast on ITV in the past couple of weeks, you see that there has been quite a lot of commentary about the UK Government not wanting to engage at all about the homes in England. There is an area in the legislation about how we can achieve fair and genuine reparations from those institutions that caused the abuse in the first place.

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that. We very much have a listening ear when it comes to the Committee's deliberations around the legislation and the amendments that you may propose. Hopefully, you will feel the whole way through that we want to be engaged. We are acutely aware of the sensitivities around that whole area. I know that there are very strong feelings about it.

We are extending the role of COSICA for two years. That, hopefully, answers your question. On the remit and role of the office, I will take that away and look at whether there is any other scope.

How it is going to be paid for is the big challenge for us, obviously. There are limited resources. How do you do the right thing on the funding? Emma mentioned some of the figures earlier that we are dealing with in terms of making the payments. They have to be paid for. We raised the issue with the Secretary of State last week around what their contribution will be, given that a lot of it happened under the period of direct rule. It therefore stands to reason that a contribution will flow from that. Obviously, there are the two sets of payments: the initial payment, and then what comes at the end of the public inquiry. We are looking at quite a quantum of resourcing. We are determined to push institutions and the British Government to play their part. We have to play our part, but we have a big funding gap. It is our responsibility to try to meet that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The big challenge is that we have a number of those legacy schemes. We often call them legacy schemes, but, as we are all very aware, it is not legacy for the victims and survivors: they are living with it day in and day out, and they are feeling the impact. They are still feeling the pain, and they need other help and support. There is no doubt that we want to be as generous as we can be within the confines in which we have to work. That is why we have made the scheme as flexible as it is. It is the most flexible and straightforward of the schemes across the UK and Ireland. We have made that decision. We have also made the decision to look at redress in parallel with an inquiry. That is quite unprecedented. We estimate that the cost of the current proposals is around £60 million.

As Michelle said, we have made that case to the Secretary of State. We made the case to the Chancellor when she was over. I am not optimistic about getting additional funds from them for that. However, the case that we make is very straightforward. We are dealing with issues that happened many decades ago, but, ultimately, the payment of those schemes is coming out of the block grant, which is the money that we are given for everyday services. There is very often a tension between those things, because, of course, if you make a decision to spend that money on a particular thing or to extend or expand, that money is coming from current activities. That is not a good position to be in. It is not a fair position for the people of Northern Ireland. We have made that case to the UK Government. They can call on other resources that we cannot. That money is coming from our block grant and the proportion of money that we are getting for the actions announced by the Chancellor and other UK Ministers around everyday services. It is a very difficult decision to make.

Mr Gaston: Good afternoon, Ministers. I have a little housekeeping before I get into my questions. Did you, First Minister, meet or attempt to meet the Chair before this meeting today? You did that previously. Does that apply only when you are likely to face questions about a sex offender who was working as a Sinn Féin press officer?

Mrs O'Neill: Chair, I am sure that you can confirm that we did not speak before this Committee meeting.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We did not.

Mr Gaston: That is good. That is encouraging, but it is an indictment —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is one question. Go ahead. You have two more.

Mr Gaston: It is an indictment —. No, you said that we would be broken into minutes today. You had 13 minutes, as did Stewart. I hope that you will be fair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is the Chair and the Deputy Chair. I am in the Chair, so I will decide.

Mr Gaston: Regarding that meeting that you had, you still have not produced the handwritten notes that have been requested. Are you going to wait until the Information Commissioner's Office tells you to release them before you do?

Mrs O'Neill: Chair, I am not getting engaged in something in which Timothy is competing with the Information Commissioner's Office. That is beyond our office. We do not take anything to do with FOIs. There will be a due process.

Mr Gaston: Maybe you can answer this question for me, First Minister: are we speaking to the First Minister for all today, or are we speaking to the First Minister of no alternative, who continues to eulogise terror and attend commemorations?

Mrs O'Neill: You are speaking to Michelle O'Neill, First Minister.

Mr Gaston: We have that cleared up.

Moving on to my questions about the Equality Commission, which, indeed, is a budget line that sits under your Department, I want to pick up with you its bizarre attempts to challenge the Supreme Court ruling. First Minister, did you tell the Equality Commission to "butt out", or do you tell only unionist MPs to do that when they raise the issue of your party, Sinn Féin, blocking the MOD's coming to a jobs fair in Londonderry?

Mrs O'Neill: I hope that the Equality Commission gets on with doing its work as quickly as possible, because it is important that we have clarity here on the Supreme Court's ruling. At the heart of all that, as with the first topic that we discussed today, is compassion. We have a trans community that feels under attack. It is important that we are very mindful of that when we speak.

On the Supreme Court ruling itself, the Equality Commission has set out that it has more to do. I wish it well with that. I hope that we can get to the point where we have consistency applied across all our public services.

Mr Gaston: Do you agree with the Equality Commission's approach?

Mrs O'Neill: I would much prefer that we —.

Mr Gaston: Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling? Do you respect it?

Mrs O'Neill: If you would let me answer the question: I would much prefer that we had clarity in the here and now, but we do not. It is quite complicated. The Equality Act 2010, which was relevant to the Supreme Court's ruling, does not pertain here. Therefore, the Equality Commission has work to do. Let it get on with doing its work and bringing forward advice that we can all look toward.

Mr Gaston: On ending violence against women and girls, I have raised, a number of times, my concern about the co-design partners. At no stage were any gender-critical voices involved in the co-design of the strategy to end violence against women and girls. We have had the Northern Ireland Women's Rights Network in front of the Committee. It is very sceptical. I believe that, since it came here, it has been given a platform. I trust that future policy documents will reflect its thoughts and have its input.

First Minister, a number of your officials have been unable to answer this question: can you outline what a woman is?

Mrs O'Neill: Ah, now. I really wish that you were genuinely interested in the topic, but you are not.

Mr Gaston: I am.

Mrs O'Neill: You are here to cause division. So be it: that is on you, not the rest of us.

Mr Gaston: It is up to you to clarify that. You have been asked a number of times, and you have dodged the question. Now is your opportunity.

Mrs O'Neill: Stop showboating. Look: our job here is to create a society that is fair, equal and inclusive. We all await the Equality Commission's recommendation. When you talk about the definition of a woman, you always ask about it in relation to the strategy. We have a very comprehensive strategy to end violence against women and girls. It was co-designed with many partners. It is leading the way in the work that we want to deliver on here. Its success will be to focus society's attention on preventative work. I am so glad to see it in action, the progress that is being made and all the feedback that we are getting that it is actually making a difference. However, we have an awful lot of a journey to go. It will take all of society to work together.

The strategy is a framework that is intended to end all violence against women and girls. It does not get much simpler than that. If you cannot understand it, that is on you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Deputy First Minister, do you have anything to add at this point?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I want to add simply that I was deeply disappointed — not surprised, I have to say, but deeply disappointed — in the Equality Commission's advice on that. It should have taken the opportunity to stand up for women, particularly in two areas: fairness, particularly in sport, and safety; for example, the safety of women in prisons and safe spaces. Those are supposed to be guaranteed under the law. Instead, it has got itself tied up in some issue around there being no diminution of rights. I, as a woman, never consented to a diminution of my rights; for them to be watered down and for those safe spaces and that fairness not to be created. The Equality Commission had different options available to it. We should absolutely fall in line with the Supreme Court judgement. While the substance of that case was around the Equality Act, of course, it dealt with the treatment of "woman" and "man" as dictionary definitions, effectively, within legislation. The references in the document are to a "woman". I do not accept a redefinition of "woman". I do not accept it, and, I think, the vast majority of women do not accept it. The word does not require people to define it, because to define it in that document is to redefine it, and I do not accept that redefinition.

It was a missed opportunity by the Equality Commission. I know what a woman is, I am a woman, and the Equality Commission needs to put out some advice that stands up for and protects women.

Mr Gaston: So —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry. Before you come back in, Timothy: you may have just one more question, and then we need to move on.

Mr Gaston: That was a clear and concise answer from the deputy First Minister. The First Minister, once again, failed to answer the question. She talks about ending violence against all women: should the same not have applied years ago, when Yvonne Dunlop was murdered in a firebomb attack in my town of Ballymena? In the past, you eulogised Thomas McElwee; indeed, I am looking at a tweet from the 40th anniversary of his death, in which you said:

I cannot understand the next bit — I had to get it translated — but it said, "He died for Irish freedom."

You seem selective about the violence that you want to end against women and girls. All violence is wrong; it always has been wrong. You produced this document, but you do women a disservice when you cannot call out that murder as being wrong. To this day, you stand over what that man did. To me, that is a shame on you and a terrible indictment on your office —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy —.

Mr Gaston: — and it shows that power sharing —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Excuse me. Please stop talking.

Mr Gaston: — will never work.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. We will let the First Minister respond, and we will then move on. Go ahead, please.

Mrs O'Neill: Chair, you have heard me say on numerous occasions that I regret every single loss of life throughout the conflict. Our job as today's generation of political leaders is to build for the future. We have to look towards the future, find ways to heal the wounds of the past and give families access to truth and justice. I hope that we can get there with the legacy proposals that we are yet to see from the Irish Government and the British Government. They must be human rights-compliant and command the support of the maximum number of victims and survivors, including the Dunlop family.

Mr Gaston: There was an alternative.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Excuse me, please. Carál.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I want to talk first about North Belfast, if you do not mind, because the subject was raised earlier. I appreciate the statement that was made last week. It was appreciated by many people. I remind members that it was an issue of sectarianism as well. UDA individuals were allegedly involved, although, apparently, it was not the UDA organisation — I cannot get my head around that one. Four Catholic families have been asked to leave, and now the individuals involved have moved on to people who are not white.

The briefing papers mention the Community Relations Council (CRC), CIT and others. Apart from expressing political condemnation, which we all do and are all tired of doing, what can we do? Those people lived in a so-called shared housing scheme. From speaking to two of the families, I know that they had waited years for a home. They had reared kids. Three or four generations were living under one roof. They got a home and are being put out and left homeless. This is almost the same question as Stewart asked about racism: what practical steps can we take to make sure that, in 2025, something like that, with families barricading themselves into their home, does not happen again? That is my first question, and it leads on to this one: will there be a review of CIT and the Community Relations Council in the context of all that?

Mrs O'Neill: I am happy to kick off. The scenes that we witnessed particularly in your constituency of North Belfast were abhorrent, whether the families were being driven out because of sectarianism or, more recently, because of racism. Those "-isms" are two sides of the one coin. Words matter when things like that happen. That is why it was important that we made a collective Executive statement to drive home that strong political leadership message. As I said earlier, however, we need all our agencies to play their part. In some cases, families were raising concerns and saying that they felt intimidated and that they could not go out onto the street wearing a GAA jersey. That is not acceptable. That is not the kind of society that any of us wants to live in, and that is why, when it comes to all the work that we are doing on good relations and identifying issues when they arise, we need all agencies to step up and play their part. There cannot be any no-go areas for people in our society. We need to create more and more shared space and more and more shared housing opportunities for people. The good relations piece requires a collective effort.

Due to the problems that we saw over the summer, we have secured additional funding to go into planned intervention projects in areas that have been identified. There is so much work going on in the CIT areas, some of which are in North Belfast. We have to remember that the issues are not widespread, but one pocket is one too many. We have been involved in the good relations programme. Part of our holistic review of T:BUC will incorporate good relations and what that looks like. We have been able to secure additional funding for good relations over the past year, yet those things are still happening. It is about political leadership and the agencies stepping up, and I commend all the parties that worked together, because a multi-agency and multiparty response is the correct response to those things.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will add to that. As I said, a very strong and clear statement from the Executive — on a regular basis, unfortunately — is required to call that out. I always say this and will reiterate it: as we know, it involves a small minority of people. They cross a line into criminality. From the victims' point of view, feeling that harassment and that threat and feeling that they have no choice but to leave is absolutely wrong. It is a minority. It is a challenge across Northern Ireland in those small pockets. It is not just about sectarianism or racism. I was speaking this morning to a family up in the north-west who are feeling under a huge amount of pressure and have received an official threat, via the PSNI, from dissident republicans because of his anti-drugs work and his background in the police. That is totally unacceptable. We do have it everywhere.

When we look at the racism that has played out across the UK and Ireland, we see that it is not just coming from one source. It is bubbling there. It is fuelled by social media. It is a big challenge for us all to take on. We need to work with the PSNI. Yes, I agree that the PSNI needs to come down hard on the criminality, not just in these instances but when it comes to any remaining aspects of paramilitarism, but, in addition to that, we need to have programmes that really work. I know that the junior Ministers have been out and about, and I think that most of you have seen them at various events, particularly to do with good community relations. They have been talking to people who do a huge amount of positive work with young people and others to change attitudes and tackle those issues. We do not see the positive things very often. We see the bad things. That work needs to continue.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I accept that, but we are talking, in 2025, about the UDA terrorising families in their own home. We are also talking about people who wax lyrical about the safety of women, and it was the women who were barricaded into their own homes because of gangsters who are drug dealing. Let us call it for what it is. All the excellent work that you do and people on the ground do is not getting to the ears of the UDA. That is what we need to do.

I will move on to my next question, Chair. I saw reports in the media — you mentioned it in your opening statement — about the commissioners. I want to get this right: they have been offered posts but have not been confirmed. That is one part. Will the local delivery unit have a responsibility to ensure that the Irish language strategy is delivered? Will that work be accompanied by the work of the commissioner? The strategy has been delayed for so long that the case has gone to court twice to have it produced. Indeed, not having all the other strategies that were agreed in previous negotiations is, at the minute, practically denying people their rights. What will happen with those? I appreciate that it involves another Department, but, when it comes to the overall PFG piece, will they be brought along as well? It would be a really bad news story to get agreement on the commissioners, who are really welcome, and then have a Department sit on another strategy that will give people entitlements and equality. Maybe you need to go back and get a response. It is about the success of the PFG.

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for all that. I think that I said in my introductory remarks — I know that some of this has been trailed in the media, albeit it is not all finalised with dotting the i's and crossing the t's — that we have successfully conducted the recruitment process for the two commissioners, that is, the Irish Language Commissioner and for the Ulster Scots and british heritage, as well as that for the director of the Office of Identity and Culture. That is good work, and we hope to be able to announce those commissioners publicly in the coming days when we have all that area tied up.

That is a good development. It is a real opportunity for us. It is a fresh opportunity for us, as the make-up of our society is much changing. Even if you reflect on the past 10 years, you see that we are far more diverse, and that diversity is a strength. I do not think that we speak about that enough, so there is an opportunity to rethink identity and cultural expression in that new office. That is very much our responsibility, so I am glad to be able to speak about progress on it. Obviously, the Irish language strategy, which I hope is delivered, because it has been so long delayed, does not fall into the remit of our Department, but it must be delivered. It is a previous commitment. I would like to see all the strategies out so that we can get moving on. We need to move to the space where we have a society that is inclusive, people are respectful of one other and we do not denigrate the other's cultural expression or identity just because we do not like it or it is not ours. We have an opportunity to do something better here.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The delivery unit is a new concept for us. As we know, however, it is not a new concept for Governments elsewhere. Some have been more effective with it than others. Undoubtedly, we want the delivery unit's work to be focused and linked to the Programme for Government. In that sense, therefore, the strategy is a departmental strategy in the Communities Department. The focus of the delivery unit will initially be on supporting the Health Department to tackle waiting lists in particular. That engagement has already commenced, and we have had direct engagement with the Health Minister on that important issue. As I said, that is why I welcome the initial 59,000 additional appointments, but much more needs to be done, and much more can be done on that transformation. That is the unit's focus at the moment.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My time is up.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much.

Mrs O'Neill: You are very obedient.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I try.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much, Ministers, for coming along today. One of TEO's key responsibilities is to improve relations, outcomes and governance. A theme of delivery is being threaded through that. I have to say that I am really dismayed at how toxic the environment is in this place. We have only returned; this is our third day back. It is not a nice environment. There is a great deal of toxicity, and we can see it quite clearly in Ministers' statements and statements in the Assembly. How will you improve relationships? You are both the leaders. As the two principals, do you see those poor relationships in your Department?

Mrs O'Neill: The real question for us is this: are we delivering on a day-to-day basis on the issues that we have identified as our priorities in the Programme for Government? The answer to that question is yes. Emma spoke about some of the areas, and I am happy to reflect on some more. We are 17 or 18 months into the Administration, and it is a shorter mandate than ever. We are halfway through it, and, at that halfway juncture, I am proud to say that we have launched a Programme for Government. I am proud to say that we have secured an additional £1·3 billion for public services and that we have launched our childcare package. We have made huge strides forward.

Have we more to do? All day long — absolutely. However, 2,500 children are in a funded preschool place this September because of the work that we have advanced across our Executive priorities. More families are getting support with childcare, and we want to do more. We have our strategy to end violence against women and girls. Magee is an area that you will be very much be interested in. Reports from last week say that, in the past year, Magee has seen more growth than it has in the past decade. That is a significant achievement in moving forward. We have seen significant pieces of legislation come forward, the primary care expansion plans and the more than £120 million in transformation projects, with more to come. We have built really strong foundations on which to build, and we are committed to doing that together in our leadership of the Executive Office.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I often think that you have to look at the reality of the situation. We will have differences: there will be differences across all the political parties and with the Opposition. All of us get frustrated. I get frustrated when somebody makes a political point to get a clip or headlines or whatever. We all do. There is no doubt about that. However, at the heart of all this is the fact that, as the First Minister outlined, 99%-plus of the time is spent getting on with things, pushing things through the Department and trying to get delivery. The key word for all Governments at the moment is "delivery" because of the frustrations that there are. I have said before in the Chamber that I am frustrated. It is almost impossible now, from a standing start, to get a new capital project up and going, with money secured, through all the processes, business cases and procurements and to get diggers on the ground within a single term. Sometimes that is impossible within two or three terms. That is not good enough. The people out there whom we serve want to see delivery. A large part of what we do is about driving that delivery through the system and looking at improvements and at transformation. Those are not things that will grab the headlines. That is the frustration.

I can look down the list of what has been done. Yet there is a narrative out there, because what is picked up are points of disagreement. Right from the outset — I have said this before — and from the first day that we were in office, we said that, yes, there are things that we feel passionately and strongly about and things that we disagree about between each other, including what we say, how we do things and what we believe. We have a right to say that, and we should say it. That is what politics is about: getting out there and saying that. However, it is also about working together despite differences.

We are never going to be of the same political agenda, but we can focus on how we drive down those health waiting lists, get more money into people's pockets for childcare and grow the economy in a difficult economic climate. Those are big things on which, I suspect, there is consensus not just between Michelle, me and the four of us, but across the Committee. You can see those points of consensus. It is not the stuff that might make it on to 'The Nolan Show' in the mornings, but it is the things that are important to those who are impacted by them.

Ms McLaughlin: I accept that. However, when you look at the Pivotal report, which is a review of the Programme for Government that measured some of the outcomes and improvements that have been made, you see that it is pretty damning about the outcomes from the first 18 months of this Government. It is not just us around the table, coming as we do from all our different political backgrounds, who say that; people in the wider community are not feeling those improvements and do not feel that the measures that have been taken have been successful enough to improve their life. That goes right from childcare to the A5, Lough Neagh and other things. People do not see that advancement or those improvements.

It is really not helpful, for example, that your leader made comments yesterday about the "First Minister for all" and said that that was "unsustainable". If you share the same views as him, the chances of your Department being able to deliver are very poor, and I am concerned about that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will respond to some of those points very quickly. Gavin, as leader of the DUP, is entitled to express a view, which is a very important view, in my opinion.

Ms McLaughlin: Is it your view? You are the joint leader of this Government. If that is your view as well, I am concerned that we will not be able to deliver well on any targets or deliver any outcomes if you are both locked into a way that is absolutely toxic. No business out there could do business if it had two leaders or directors in the boardroom who have that toxic relationship. It just would not work.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: To answer your question, some people, perhaps particularly those who are in the media, are obsessed with trying to look at relationships and potential factors in them. So much of what we have done has shown a collegiate approach where we have consensus. We have also dealt with our differences in a mature way. Michelle has a completely different set of views to mine. We will disagree at times about attitudes and the things that we do. I have called Michelle out for things that she has done, and she does the same to me.

Mrs O'Neill: I have called you out.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Do you know what? That is politics: we have different views. When it comes to a particular issue, for example, Gavin, in my opinion, was absolutely right to say what he did. We know people in the north-west who want to join the armed forces. That is a minority community, but those people have rights as well. He calls out that exclusion.

Michelle is not going to agree with me or Gavin on that. That is the way that it is, because we are not from the same political party and we have very different views.

The Pivotal report is a good opportunity to say, "Look, this is a challenge for us". Why do people not hear about the delivery that has happened? I could not disagree more with that Pivotal report. It is a nonsense to say that things have not been delivered when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Look at childcare: £55 million was secured, and £8 million in benefits is already in parents' pockets. There are 2,500 additional places, which is up from the 12 or so hours to the full 22·5 hours. There are 3,000 additional SEN places. As I said, £60 million-plus was secured for SEN transformation.

I can go through each area. What difference has there been in health waiting lists since we came in? There have been 59,000 additional inpatient, outpatient and diagnostic procedures. That is significant for all those people who are going through those. We secured over £200 million, which was ring-fenced for that waiting list initiative. The North/South waiting list procedure is back in place to enable people to get accelerated support. That has now been widened out to the European Union. Over £100 million has been invested in transformation projects through the transformation board, agreed by the Executive and out hitting the ground.

If I went out to people and said, "How much money has been invested in Lough Neagh?", how many could say to me that £20 million has been prioritised across projects and capital to tackle the issues in Lough Neagh just this year? That is a significant amount of money. A Lough Neagh report was agreed by the Executive. If people do not know about it, we need to take that on board as well. We need to communicate that better — absolutely. There is much more to be done. I am not complacent, and I am not naive. Things are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There is much more for us to do. That demonstrates, however, that, although there is a report that says that nothing is being done, the facts tell a very different story. We need to get that message out there.

Mrs O'Neill: Emma is absolutely right. When you look at the list of achievements, you see that they are significant, but we are not complacent. We know that they are strong foundations on which we need to build. We made our third jobs announcement in recent months in your own backyard, and over 250 jobs have been created. That is all a direct result of changing policies and of regional balance being a real feature. You cannot ignore the fact that Magee university has now had its biggest change in the past year. Those are all a direct result of this Executive delivering.

The point about complacency is absolutely right. We need to think about how we communicate all that better. Do you know what does not make the news? When we deliver on those projects. Do you know what does not make the news on an ongoing basis? The successes that we have had to date and the progress that we are making on ending violence against women and girls. It does not make the news when we are constantly out and about, engaging and presenting a united front for the Executive. What does not make the news is good news, progress and delivery.

I often hear people say that the Executive do not make the hard choices. I hope that that is not the space that you are in. I am not prepared to push hard-pressed households into paying for more while public services are on the decline and when that is not of those households' making. People who say that we should make the hard choices mean that we should charge people more. That is not how we are going to operate. We are trying to fix and transform public services and to change things around. We will both continue to drive home the message that we have made significant progress but that we have an awful lot more to do. Our sleeves are rolled up. We are in there day and daily making a difference and trying to deliver for people, and we will continue to do so. Ultimately, however, the people will decide on those delivery points. We have a Programme for Government that people can measure against at the end of the mandate, and I have no doubt that they will absolutely take the opportunity to do so.

Ms McLaughlin: I have one more.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Very briefly, because we want to move on.

Ms McLaughlin: Pivotal more or less gave you a school report card saying that you could be doing better. I absolutely agree with that. Advancements have been made in some areas, but they are not being felt in people's life. I was at a childcare event upstairs today. You tell the people who were there that everything is hunky-dory and going well —.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not saying that.

Ms McLaughlin: Do not tell them —.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important not to misquote that, because —.

Ms McLaughlin: We are all representatives of our constituencies.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have made a good start.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Ladies —.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We recognise that much more needs to be done. We want to make sure that there is no complacency.

Ms McLaughlin: We need more delivery.

Mr Kingston: I have some questions about growing our economy, which is the first priority in the Programme for Government. Defence spending is increasing significantly across the UK and Europe in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In Northern Ireland, however, defence spending is significantly lower than the UK average and is at £100 per head of population in 2022-23 compared with the national average of £370 per person. On the plus side, First Minister, we have world-class companies here that form part of the global defence supply chain, so there is huge growth potential for our economy in that sector. Are you pursuing those opportunities with the Labour Government?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. A lot of that is unclear, but, for us, growing a globally competitive and sustainable economy is written in lights in our Programme for Government. That is about how we create more jobs and how we will ensure that people's standard of living and wages are higher. Productivity is very important. The Economy Minister has set out her four-point plan for growing our economy. That means reaching to all the things that can advantage our economy.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: From my point of view, there is a difficult global economic climate. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of uncertainty out there. That is something that we need to consider. During Question Time on Monday, we touched on the international relations strategy. The international context is changing week in, week out. Just today, we have seen the really worrying news about Poland. Poland is now well over 4% of GDP in its defence spend. It is significant that it is very much heading towards 5%. That reflects a serious concern, particularly where Russia is concerned. When you look at Ukraine, you see that its defence spend understandably is up 34%, but everyone is spending more on defence because we live in an unstable and insecure world, and people are very mindful of that.

Sadly, the context is difficult, but there are undoubtedly opportunities for our businesses. I have certainly been pushing the UK Government to increase defence spend per head of population. It is only right. That is taxpayers' money being spent on defence. Increasing our defence spend per head of population is important across the UK, but Northern Ireland should also see the benefit of that. We have excellent aerospace and defence companies, many of which have contributed to the war effort in the defence of Ukraine, for example, and elsewhere. That is a key area of promotion for us. We should champion it, and our Economy Minister should champion it much more. In recent weeks, we have seen the big UK contract that is worth £10 billion with Norway. It is not just about MOD spend that has potential for Northern Ireland; we know that all European countries that have had too low a spend as a percentage of the GDP have promised to increase it. There is an opportunity for our companies, and we are well positioned to take advantage of that. I would like to see Ministers at, for example, the Farnborough International Airshow and other events as we move forward in order to really promote the excellent companies that we have.

Mr Kingston: Thank you. First Minister, for those young people who choose to pursue career opportunities in the armed forces, do you consider that to be a legitimate choice?

Mrs O'Neill: It is for individuals to decide what career they might decide to take up, whether that be in the British armed forces or as a teacher, a cleaner in a school or a caretaker in a school. It is for individuals to decide what career path they choose.

Mr Kingston: It is a legitimate choice for them, then?

Mrs O'Neill: It is absolutely everybody's individual choice where they might decide to take themselves forward. You are referencing the issue of the British Army attending a jobs fair in Derry. I absolutely agree with the local council's decision on that, particularly because of the sensitivities around the role of the British Army on Bloody Sunday in Derry. The reflection of the councillors was a wise one, and there are plenty of other opportunities for individuals who want to pursue a career in that to go elsewhere and do so.

Mr Kingston: First Minister, I have listened to your words today. You have talked about wanting to:

You spoke about "an inclusive society". I am mindful of the fact that, just yesterday, army officers in a bomb disposal unit were clearing a security alert in Craigavon. Almost on a weekly basis, people welcome the British Army when it comes to clear explosive devices that would put the public at risk. Do you consider Londonderry to be a no-go area for the armed forces?

Mrs O'Neill: Let us not get sensationalist.

Mr Kingston: Is that not what you are saying — that it is a no-go area?

Mrs O'Neill: Let us not get sensationalist.

Mr Kingston: That is not sensationalist. It is the reality of what you are saying.

Mrs O'Neill: The bare facts are that there was a jobs fair in Derry. The local councillors, who have a mandate from the people of Derry city and Strabane, decided that it would not be appropriate for the British Army to be at that jobs fair. That was a very reasonable approach for those local councillors to take —

Mr Kingston: Reasonable?

Mrs O'Neill: — and that view should be respected. Stop trying to conflate things and make them into something that they are not. I think that that was a very reasonable request on behalf of the people of Derry and Strabane.

Mr Kingston: You just said that it was a legitimate choice for young people to pursue.

Mrs O'Neill: As too is being a teacher, going into politics or any other field that someone may want to enter. It is entirely their own call. It is not my choice.

Mr Kingston: Do you support that political choice —

Mrs O'Neill: It is not my choice.

Mr Kingston: — to inhibit the choices of young people?

Mrs O'Neill: This is not about —

Mr Kingston: That is councillors imposing their political views.

Mrs O'Neill: Do not ignore —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, one wee second. I think that you are badgering a little bit. Could you just refrain from that a little?

Mr Kingston: I have a duty, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mrs O'Neill: I will just say one final word on that. The DUP might not like the outcome of the decision of the councillors on Derry City and Strabane District Council, but, in my opinion, it was the right outcome. It was the right thing to do for the people of Derry, and everybody just needs to move on.

Mr Gaston: First Minister for all, huh?

Mr Kingston: That is an appalling comment from you, First Minister. As your party eventually and belatedly changed its position on the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it will also eventually accept that people have a right to pursue a career in the British armed forces. Many are doing so, and you are not giving the leadership to help society move on. For someone who has talked about healing the wounds of the past, you are perpetuating the wounds of the past and not challenging people.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I would like to comment on that as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, please.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am always amazed at the incredible bravery of those who serve in and sign up to join our armed forces. I had the opportunity in the past number of days to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Irish Guards, which has a rich and incredible history.

That is a legitimate career path. It is a necessary pathway for protecting the United Kingdom, and, quite frankly, for the protection of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is what they are stepping up to do. This is one of those issues on which I disagree very strongly with the First Minister. In her answer to an earlier question, the First Minister said that there should not be any no-go areas, yet the councillors in Londonderry have created a no-go zone for the British Army. Plenty of people have a history. Plenty of people have a very toxic history and a not legitimate history, yet we are told very often that we need to move on and forget about the past whenever that is brought up. It is absolutely wrong to tarnish the armed forces in such a way.

People have a choice. There are those who will perhaps not want to join up. However, there is a minority community in the north-west with a strong and proud record of being in the armed forces. Those young people should not be denied that opportunity by councillors. Nobody is forcing the councillors to sign up. They do not have to sign up, but they are denying others and young people the opportunity to have that career because of their political views about an understandable and legitimate decision by a minority community. That is wrong. There should not be a no-go zone up there. The decision was wrong, and it is legitimate for our politicians to comment on that.

Mr Kingston: An essential part of the role of joint First Ministers is engagement with other heads of state and their Administrations in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Surely the United States of America should be at the top of our list, given the amount of investment that it brings to Northern Ireland. Whatever one thinks of the current incumbent, it should be at the top of our list.

Mrs O'Neill: Surely the starving children of Gaza should be at the top of your list and everybody else's list —

Mr Kingston: Everyone is concerned about what is happening in Gaza.

Mrs O'Neill: — because that is the biggest humanitarian crisis of your time. I am very comfortable with my decision not to represent the Executive at a state banquet in Windsor Castle with President Trump.

Mr Kingston: That does not mean that we cut ourselves off from that entire Administration, who represent the biggest investors in Northern Ireland —

Mrs O'Neill: Indeed I do not.

Mr Kingston: — outside the UK.

Mrs O'Neill: Indeed I do not. I have had plenty of engagement with people across the American Administration and will continue to do so. However, at a time when the world is looking on at the biggest humanitarian crisis of our time, when starvation is being used as a weapon of war, when the world is moving increasingly towards a militarised agenda to the detriment of all people across the globe, the priority should be ending the genocide in Gaza. At this time, the priority should be every international voice making itself heard and stopping Israel acting with impunity. That is what you should be concerned about and what any right-minded person should be concerned about right now.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: From my point of view, President Trump is pursuing the same policy in the Middle East and in the region as President Biden, so that is a continuation. As much as we would like to think that we have huge significance in that issue, quite frankly, our not meeting President Trump will make no difference whatsoever to it. However, we have to recognise that the US Administration are incredibly important to Northern Ireland.

I have had the great honour to meet many presidents of all political views, many of whose politics I do not share. However, I meet that person because of the office that they hold and its importance to our Administration. That is acutely the case when, for example, there are the ongoing fluctuations, decisions and discussions on tariffs. They potentially have a direct impact on our businesses and economy not only in Northern Ireland but across the UK.

I was really pleased to hear that His Majesty The King had extended the invitation to the devolved nations and regions, including Northern Ireland, to participate in state visits, because those are occasions when you get to talk, albeit briefly, with the actual president. They are also opportunities to engage with people from right across that Administration. A significant delegation comes with the president on state visits, members of which are tasked with doing a wide range of work across many different areas, particularly the economy, but I suspect that defence spending and other important defence issues will be on the table as well. It is important for us to be represented. I count it as a huge honour to have the opportunity to do so, regardless of my personal feelings and the politics. If we were to engage only with political leaders with whom we politically agree, we would not often talk to too many people, so you have to step up and get beyond that.

Mr Harvey: Ministers, one of the initiatives that has had an impact on local communities is Urban Villages. Will you tell us how you feel that that initiative has worked and how it can be expanded to other areas?

Mrs O'Neill: We are looking at Urban Villages 2, if you like, to try to build on the success of the previous programme. We are actively working our way through that as we speak. It was part and parcel of the wider review of T:BUC. Hopefully, we will be able to talk a bit more to the Committee at some stage about the developing thinking on Urban Villages 2. Yes, all the feedback and analysis that we have on the success of those projects speaks volumes about how we have successfully been making a difference in communities.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Urban Villages was one of the signature projects of Together: Building a United Community, which is often referred to as T:BUC. As Michelle said, as we head towards T:BUC 2, we are doing a significant evaluation of not only the original strategy but the signature projects. We are finding that huge swathes of that document are still relevant. We would like to see better integration. In my view — I think that this is a shared view — it is not only about promoting good relations across the two main communities but a really good opportunity to integrate new incomers and address social cohesion issues. There is a lot of commonality in the interventions that are required. That is one big opportunity in that, and our team is working through it.

Much of the strategy is fit for purpose. It is very much about the key problems and identifying the progress that has been made while saying that there is more work to be done. It is a really good opportunity for us to look at those signature projects and say, "Are they still fit for purpose?". Many of them will be. We have had sports, summer camps and youth interventions. There are potentially more opportunities to look at music, building on the huge success of the Crescendo project, and to consider a signature project around that.

The evaluations of what Urban Villages has achieved have been really good. It has not been without its bumps — absolutely not. However, we want to see it roll forwards. It is all about creating and increasing social capital in communities. One big thing for us is the fact that it is for not only urban communities. Urban Villages, by its very nature, is an urban-based scheme, but we can see some benefit to rolling out the concept to include rural communities and expanding it. We are looking at what that criteria might look like. I am conscious that many people around the room will have had some of those projects and their success in their area. There has been a lot of learning from those projects as well.

Mr Harvey: During the summer, we saw sectarianism raise its head once again across sections of our communities. Can any particular initiatives be developed to further improve relations in our communities?

Mrs O'Neill: We have touched on that throughout the session. There is a whole range of things. There is not just one solution; there is a whole range of initiatives. It is important that they are more localised so that some of the challenges that people know about on a very local level can be identified. It will take all society working together. It is about working with our councils in partnership and with other statutory agencies. It is about our strategies being up to date and reflective of the diverse society that we have. We have good foundations on which we can build to do even more.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There are still big challenges out there. Although the evaluations have been really positive, with, for example, well in excess of 20,000 young people having come through our T:BUC summer camps and many tens of thousands of people involved in those projects, problems remain. You need only look at your social media accounts. The amount of sectarian abuse that I get on social media is appalling. If you click on those people's accounts, you can see from what political perspective they are coming, but that abuse is not on. That shows that there are underlying sectarian attitudes, and I am sure that it is the same across the piece. The abuse needs to be stamped out, and we need to do more.

I always say —. [Interruption.]

Mrs O'Neill: Somebody is trying to stamp it out upstairs.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Somebody is doing an Irish jig upstairs. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Somebody has gone to find out what is going on.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I always say that it is about respect. It is about trying to demand respect for our identity and for expressions of that identity. It is also about giving respect, however. I often say that, in Northern Ireland, we are all much more comfortable coming together at a mela or something else that is in celebration of somebody else's particular identity and cultural expression than we are celebrating the cultural identities that we have here. I am incredibly proud of my cultural traditions, and it grieves me when people do not view them in the same way in which I do.

It is therefore about education and about trying to create an environment of respect, but it is also about holding our displays in a respectful way. That requires a lot of work. I often say that how we deal the very different identities in this space is one of the big outstanding areas from the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That issue has created tensions for many decades, and it is difficult to resolve. We do not underestimate the difficulty, but tackling sectarianism will absolutely continue to be at the heart of the strategy as we move on to the next phase of interventions.

Mr Harvey: I have a couple more questions, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Just one more, Harry. Go ahead.

Mr Harvey: The reshuffle of Labour Government Ministers provides an opportunity to highlight again the barriers and friction experienced by Northern Ireland companies when accessing the UK internal market. What representations are you making to highlight the impediments resulting from the Windsor framework? Moreover, the Lord Murphy review has identified many of the ongoing problems but has totally failed to provide any solutions. Will you be meeting the Government to address the report's failings?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Lord Murphy review was a missed opportunity. There are clearly significant challenges. Some are based on a misunderstanding, with companies asking for paperwork and following processes that are not required. Those challenges can generally be worked through, but doing so takes time and causes a headache for businesses.

In other cases, processes are still in place. I will reiterate what I have said many times before: the UK Government made a promise to get rid of any barrier to internal UK trade. Through 'Safeguarding the Union', they promised the people of Northern Ireland that we would have unfettered internal UK trade, but they have not delivered it. They are letting down the people of Northern Ireland. They must deliver. I have taken the opportunity at every single engagement that I have had with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other relevant UK Ministers to raise the continuing problems with the Windsor framework. It is unnecessary and bureaucratic. It is process for process's sake. They could easily get rid of it without there being any danger or threat to the EU single market, and they should do so. It places a completely necessary burden on businesses. The Government can get on with getting it sorted, and they need to do so, and do so urgently.

Mrs O'Neill: We are where we are because of Brexit. We are where we are because we now have the Windsor framework, which puts us in a completely different scenario. I welcome the fact that there are ongoing efforts to resolve any issues that present barriers to trade. That is good, common sense, and we should continue to advocate for that. The Minister for the Economy is doing that through her work with local business organisations to highlight the genuine issues that have arisen.

Pragmatism is needed. We need to find solutions and to give businesses certainty. That means finding solutions to improve things. I welcome the more general reset between the British Government and the EU on moving forward. That will be crucial if we are to get a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement. Hopefully, we can get that soon, because it will address some of the challenges that we face in a post-Brexit reality. Those are the issues and challenges.

We have to consider the Murphy review in more detail. We will not have an agreed position on the issue.

Dual market access is a hugely significant advantage for us. You need only look at the recent evidence from companies such as Denroy to see how they have taken a great opportunity from dual market access. Lots of our companies can do likewise, so we need to grab with both hands the opportunity that we have with dual market access while working out the practical, day-to-day things that we can resolve. That means working consistently with the Labour Government.

You asked about relationships. I have no truck with the Labour Government in London. They are another version of the Tories. When you look at the austerity agenda, you will see that, over pensioners and welfare payments, they have reached for militarisation. The Labour Government's agenda is certainly in question, but it is for the people who vote for them to analyse that. For my part, it is in their role as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement and on their work with the Irish Government in that regard that I engage with them.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Ministers.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the focus on delivery. If you are not here, however, that delivery will not happen. I am one of three members of the Committee who is not represented on the Executive, and, as I observe from outside, the Executive look volatile. From my perspective and that of my constituents, it would be unforgivable if we did not see out the mandate. I would like a commitment from you, and I am hearing it, that you will make every effort to ensure that that does not happen. That concern is coming not just from the media or from people who want to create mischief. Yesterday, one of your Ministers wrote to another Minister about an issue that should be talked about around the Executive table.

There may be four parties on the Executive, but there is one Government. I do not see any form of collective responsibility. Even as I listen today, it is disappointing to hear how divided and how polarised you seem to be. I want reassurance that you will do everything that you can to see out the mandate. Ultimately, delivery come through legislation. Legislation falls if all this falls. Ultimately, it is about actions on the ground. It is not about strategy — strategies are a starting point — but about our need to get to the point of implementation, which is the most critical thing. That is your job, and it is our job.

I agree with other members' comments about how the past days, weeks and months have felt so toxic. People out there do not want to see that from us. They are fed up with us. They are fed up with the six years of no Government that created the disgrace that is public services now. We will not improve public services if we continue to delay transformation. Will you speak to that?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that. I assure you that I am here to make politics work, that I am here to see out the mandate and, despite all the challenges and limitations of a devolved Administration with limited fiscal powers, that I am determined to work with others to do our best for citizens. We have made a good start against the delivery points, but we do not tell people that enough, and we need to do more. We also need to build on what has been achieved.

That having been said, I will slightly disagree with you. Yes, that the institutions were not up and running is a factor, but we had almost 14 years of Tory austerity, and those years really decimated our public services. We are trying to build something from a broken standpoint. Delivering the transformation agenda will therefore take time, but really exciting transformation projects — we mentioned some of them — are already in play, with more to come in the autumn. It will take time for people to see a tangible difference, but, ultimately, politics is about delivering for people, and I want people to feel that difference, so we need to continue to roll up our sleeves and make it happen.

Let us build on the advances that we have made with childcare, and let people see our investment in Lough Neagh, because, given the myriad issues, the resource and capital funding is so significant. Let people see waiting lists continue to come down, and let them see a difference in their lives. We are absolutely committed to doing that work together.

We all take responsibility for different things that are said. I made the point earlier that the media thrive on such things rather than on the good news. We all have lifting to do by better communicating to the public that we are here to serve them.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. Most of us can be feisty at times. I will hold my hands up and say that I can be feisty at times, depending on the issue. As Michelle said, however, it is about trying to work together on the big issues on which there is consensus.

On reflection, even just taking today, I do not think that it comes as a surprise to anybody that there are different views on some of the issues. We do not agree on the definition of a woman; we do not agree on whether the council should have excluded the army from the jobs fair; and we do not agree on the Windsor framework. Those things are not a big surprise to anybody. There will be a lot of issues on which we do not agree in that political space, and, undoubtedly, that is the politics of it. Those are big issues, and they are talked about out there. We will take positions, and it is also right that if one of us does something with which the other disagrees, we will call that out. We do call it out, and that is what people expect from us as well.

Ultimately, we have said that an awful lot of it is about focusing on consensus. I am really pleased that we got the first Programme for Government agreed that any Executive got agreed in an 11-year period. The approach that we took was to ask what the issues are on which there is consensus and what the big issues are with health, education and growing the economy for people on the ground.

There are challenges. The fiscal environment is challenging, and we do not anticipate good news. Our view is that we will not be getting any additional money come the Chancellor's Budget in late November. We therefore have to look at what we are doing and try to do it in a way that delivers for our people. The global investment environment is poor, so there will not be a huge number of announcements and positive news, week in, week out.

Our services need transformation. That is not an easy task, but we are prepared to do the work. Michelle is absolutely right: people sometimes accuse the Executive of not making the hard decisions. When we ask them what those hard decisions are, they talk about introducing new rates or charges for people and closing hospitals: those types of things. We are listening, and we understand how tough life is at the moment, given the cost-of-living pressures that people are experiencing with childcare costs and other costs increasing. Yes, there are decisions that we are not going to take, but that does not mean that we are not taking other decisions that are difficult and challenging. We are trying to deliver.

To reassure you, our focus is on delivery against the nine priorities. Those are the agreed priorities of four parties. I challenge any country in the world to be able to work in a four-party coalition in a quick way. It is not an easy system to operate, but we have the determination to do so by working together. That does not mean that we will not have the odd fight. It does not mean that there will not be big issues, and big political issues, but those are wholly different from the work that we are trying to do in the Departments on bread-and-butter issues.

At times, I have been asked about strategies that have been agreed and put out. People do not know about them, not even people in that Assembly, because they were agreed and put out without controversy, so they were not covered in the media. That is a challenge for us with an awful lot of what we get agreed. As I said, over 150 papers have come through the Executive, so over 150 Executive decisions have been made on issues in this mandate already. That is a significant amount of work across many different policy areas, and it demonstrates that consensus working.

Ms Sugden: Ministers, there have been10 murders of women, men and children in the past 10 weeks. We have an ending violence against women and girls strategy. I put it to you that the focus on the victim, even in its title. We have a big problem with male violence in Northern Ireland. In eight of those 10 cases, men are connected to them. How do we drive that message home to achieve change? I appreciate that a wider societal change is required, but it is difficult to feel as though anything is genuinely happening when we have had such an horrific statistic presented to us in just a matter of weeks.

Mrs O'Neill: From the strategy's outset, we knew that we could not just flick a switch and that everything would automatically be better. I only wish that that were the case.

We mentioned being in Craigavon on Friday. It was those pupils' first day back, and the whole cohort of boys came along to listen in order to understand what their role is in this. It is important that we take them with us, because at the heart of the strategy is prevention. It is about early intervention, so it is about education in schools and about what is heard in the sports club or wherever. It is about reaching people where they are. That is why the success of the programme, which will take a number of years before we see a tangible difference, will be measured by getting to the point at which we are taking a real, preventative approach to the misogyny that we see so engrained in our society. That is when we will start to see a real difference.

Some of the projects on which we have had feedback, such as the Clonmore Youth Club work, go right into our rural community. People talk to the young fellas who have come up to the GAA club or the soccer club about their role in all of this. I hope that they will then grow up with a different mindset from that of people older than them.

I wish that we had a quick fix for the problem. It gets very scary when we start to see the level of violence. It is male-perpetrated violence, so we have to reach young boys. Some of the Active Bystander campaign has been very successful. I do not have the figures in front of me, but some of the analysis that has been done shows that the number of impressions — that is, the number of people who have seen it on TikTok, Facebook or Instagram — is significant. The demographic breakdown is also significant. That campaign has to be on repeat if we are to get the message through.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The scale is significant. Any death is a death too many. We often talk about the deaths of women and girls. At the event in Craigavon, their names were read out, and they went from the unborn to babies and toddlers right through to women in their 80s. Violence against women and girls does not discriminate on the basis of age, location or class. It visits too many women across the piece. That really struck me when I was listening to the McNally family. One of Natalie's brothers said, "We never thought in a million years that this would ever happen to us and that we would be a family in the circumstance of our sister being murdered". That is so true, I have no doubt that every family affected feels that.

It is not just the deaths. Just this week, I read that, since 2020, there have been 92 attempted murders of women and girls in Northern Ireland. It is a common issue that exists not just here but across the country. It is a big issue to tackle, however. There were over 29,000 domestic abuse reports made in 2024-25, of which well in excess of 70% were perpetrated by men in that environment. Any murder, of a male or a female, is wrong, but there is a particular issue with male violence towards partners in relationships. It is not an easy issue to tackle, so the work has to start early. There are attitudes and issues coming through that end up with a minority of people, and it is, of course, a minority, carrying out those appalling acts.

The process has been positive, in that its co-design was inclusive. All our partners are deeply frustrated at the continuation of the problem, but that does not in any way mean that we will desist from doing the work. We will continue to roll it out. We will also learn from people on the ground. We will learn about what works and then roll that work out.

When it comes to targeting males through that work, we have the research, but I also read that, I think, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council picked up some local council funding to support, through White Ribbon NI, work that is being done with, for example, young soldiers and members of the armed forces on what healthy relationships look like and other issues. There are therefore really good examples, which, hopefully, we will be able to replicate to target the work a bit better at the underlying issues.

Ms Sugden: May I have one last question?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): No, sorry. We really have to move on.

Ms Murphy: Thank you both for coming in and briefing us. I will stay on the topic of ending violence against women and girls. I want to mention the horrific events that happened in my constituency in July that led to the deaths of Vanessa Whyte and her two children, James and Sara. I acknowledge and thank the First Minister, who came down to offer her support to the local community at the time.

The deaths have raised more urgent and uncomfortable questions for us all across society about what we are doing to address violence against women and girls. First Minister, you mentioned some of the funding streams that the Department has allocated to date. What are the schemes made up of?

Mrs O'Neill: First, what happened in Maguiresbridge was horrific. As a mummy and a granny, I cannot begin to imagine what that family is going through and how any family can comprehend and deal with the impact of that scenario. If there is one thing that we can talk about that unites us, it is the issue of ending violence against women and girls.

I was in Maguiresbridge, and I walked with a representative from each of the parties. That, to me, sent a very strong message that ending violence against women and girls is something that we are collectively committed to prioritising and targeting.

We talked earlier about some of the figures, such as the initial funding of £3·2 million that we secured. That was immediately got out on to the ground, and we can see it making a real difference already. Money that went to the bigger, more regional is making a huge difference already. We have also identified additional funding that we have allocated to help build on what has been achieved.

The junior Ministers chaired a meeting recently of the ending violence against women and girls group. Every one of the organisations that is represented on it is reporting progress on the actions, particularly in the projects with which they are involved. The actions have to hit the mark across all areas. There are groups meeting to discuss different topics, particularly education. It is so important that young people be made aware from a very early age of what a healthy relationship is. Those things are crucial.

A lot of good work has been done on the respect, inspire, support, empower project (RISE), which is a Key Stage 3 programme. It is good to see that. If we can reach young people at that very early age when their mind is much more of a sponge, the message will land, and that is important.

I mentioned Clonmore Youth Club and about looking at leadership skills and tackling attitudes. The White Ribbon NI campaign is expanding its listen, learn, lead programme, and there is also Youth Action. So many good things are happening, and we need to build on them by going out and meeting young people where there are. We are reaching them and shaping them through going out to them. That is why the local change fund is really important.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is also important to emphasise that there is really good communication with and read-across from the domestic and sexual abuse strategy that the Department of Health and the Department of Justice introduced. Officials from both groups sit on the other's body. That is a wider piece, but there is huge read-across.

Very often, for many women, the most dangerous person is their partner. Very often, there is a history of domestic abuse. There are ways in which we can work in collaboration. It is such an important thing that we do. It is one of the things that we are looking at through the Programme for Government, and, hopefully, the next time that we are in front of the Committee, we will be able to talk a bit more about how we are trying to break down the silos in Departments and trying to crack the cross-departmental teams to make sure that we are looking at everything in the broadest sense.

It is not an issue that can be solved by the Executive Office alone. There is a Justice element, a Health element, a Communities element and an Education element involved. It is truly an issue with which all Departments are involved and for which there is really strong political consensus across all the parties. At the end of this term, if there is an issue on which we can say that we have worked together, pushed forward the agenda and made a difference, this is the one that, hopefully, we will be able to stand together and say that we have.

Ms Murphy: That cross-departmental piece will be key, especially in the Departments of Education, Justice and Health. As you said, First Minister, it is about reaching young people when their mind is like a sponge and they can be shaped.

I will stay on the subject of the Programme for Government. Can we get an update on the commitment to the redevelopment of Casement Park, as well as to investment in grassroots sport?

Mrs O'Neill: The project got new momentum when we received the allocation of £50 million from the British Government a number of months ago. That gave us a bit more understanding and certainty about the funding envelope with which we are working. If you look at all the funding that has been committed thus far, we are talking about £170 million having been allocated. It is an Executive flagship project, and it is time to get the stadium built. It is time to move on and allow us to work together to invest in sport as a great enabler of building communities and investing in people. I want us to invest in sport across the board, but I want us to get on with delivering Casement Park, because, for Gaels, it will bring such a significant benefit to not just Belfast but further afield. It is important because of the job creation that it will bring and what it will mean for investment in sport. The Minister for Communities will be making an announcement about investment in soccer tomorrow.

Those are all good things. We just need to continue to build on them. Let us get Casement Park done. Let us end the delay and find the way forward, which is absolutely within our grasp. I am determined to work with others, including the sports Minister, to ensure that we get to that juncture.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much. I apologise that the session went on for a long time, but we have covered a lot of ground. I would like to think that you will accept an invitation to come back to Committee within the next couple of months.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am conscious that we did not allow the junior Ministers to speak at all, unfortunately —

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We could not get a word in.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — after all their preparation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know. We will issue an invitation. There are a couple of other queries, but they can be answered via correspondence. I am sure that other queries will be raised. Thank you for now.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you very much.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you.