Official Report: Tuesday 15 October 2024

Mrs Erskine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take a point of order after Members' statements, Mrs Erskine. We will proceed with Members' statements in the first instance. The usual rules apply.

Mr Sheehan: I want to outline my concerns about the Department of Education's RAISE programme. When Minister Givan announced that £20 million was coming from the Shared Island unit in the South to help tackle the issue of educational underachievement here, I welcomed that as a really positive development. However, RAISE, as the programme has been named, fails to hit the mark. For some reason, the Minister and his officials have constructed a bizarre and complicated formula for determining the eligibility of schools to access funding under the programme.

Why is it bizarre? While the funding was designed to support children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds — the children who are most likely to underachieve in education — the Minister and his officials have designed a scheme in which two thirds of grammar schools, many from the leafy suburbs, are eligible for funding, yet there are schools in some of the most deprived areas in the North that will not receive funding. For example, Bunscoil an tSléibhe Duibh in Ballymurphy cannot access funding, nor can Gaelscoil na Móna in Turf Lodge or St John the Baptist Primary School in Andersonstown. It is those schools and the young people who attend them that require this intervention. Traditionally, free school meals entitlement would have been used as the key indicator when making an intervention such as this, but, on this occasion, Minister Givan has decided to move away from that. In a system with such limited finances, we must ensure that we get bang for our buck. To do that, we need to target our resources where they are most needed. We must invest based on objective need and, in this instance, that is simply not happening.

Recently, I sent questions to the Minister to outline my concerns — to say that I was not satisfied with the answers that I received would be an understatement. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to go back to the drawing board, scrap his bizarre eligibility formula and bring forward a proper programme that delivers based on objective need.

Mr Brett: It is my pleasure to congratulate the phenomenon that is Isla McManus, the 11-year-old from my constituency of North Belfast, who this week made it all the way to the final of Junior Eurovision. Isla, despite her young age, managed to see off hundreds of other young people from across this island to make it to the final, which was on our television screens on Sunday.

North Belfast is rightly proud of all that she has achieved, from becoming an internet sensation at the age of eight for her rendition of 'Dance Monkey'

during the pandemic to almost representing North Belfast on the world stage in the grand final of Junior Eurovision. That is something of which we can all be hugely proud.

Just last week, I had the pleasure of opening a new autism-specific classroom at Seaview Primary School alongside Isla, who, for many years, campaigned for better provision for those living with autism. She has used her singing ability to help her cope with autism and to inspire young people anywhere in Northern Ireland also living with autism by showing them that, despite that, they can continue to achieve their dreams. I pay tribute to her mum, Alana, Seaview Primary School and Integrated College Glengormley. Day and daily, they encourage Isla to achieve her dreams.

Any Members who are interested can see Isla singing at weekends in Belfast city centre as she raises funds for her next competition. Those competitions take place right across the world. I put on record my congratulations to Isla, and to those in North Belfast, and we look forward to her winning Junior Eurovision next year.

Ms K Armstrong: I congratulate all community transport operators across Northern Ireland as part of Community Transport Week. As many Members who have listened to me long enough will know, I worked in community transport for a couple of decades before I came to the House, so it is only right and fitting that I congratulate my former colleagues and friends.

The theme of Community Transport Week is to celebrate community solutions, and I can honestly say that the Community Transport Association (CTA) provides community solutions. Some people think that it is a statutory organisation and a statutory provider of transport. It is not. The Community Transport Association is made up of a number of organisations, led by volunteers who provide transport in their own communities. I encourage all Members, if they can, to reach out this week to their local community transport provider.

There are over 100 community transport groups across Northern Ireland. Some receive funding from the Department for Infrastructure to provide the Dial-a-Lift service, while others do not. Those others include the Churches, Scout groups, football clubs and GAA clubs. They are across Northern Ireland, all adding in their own way to helping and supporting people to get access to services across their communities. That is what they do. They provide a lift to the hairdresser's, take people shopping and get older folk out of the house. They make sure that people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, have access to local services.

They are often pressurised into doing a lot of hospital transport runs, which take the vehicles out of the local community. It can cause a bit of an issue and a bit of tension when some people really want their community transport driver to take them to an appointment that can sometimes be emotional and stressful. I hope that, in the future, the Department of Health will reconsider its contracting method to enable community transport to be funded to help provide those services.

Today, I would really like to thank Armagh Rural Transport, CDM Community Transport, the Down Armagh Rural Transport (DART) Partnership, Easilink Community Transport, Fermanagh Community Transport, Lagan Valley Rural Transport, Newry and Mourne Community Transport, North Coast Community Transport, Out and About Community Transport, South Antrim Community Transport and, in my own area, Down Community Transport. In the urban areas, I will not forget the Disability Action transport scheme and, up in the north-west, Bridge Accessible Transport.

Those people give up their time to make sure that others have access to services. They provide more than a transport service, as they play a pivotal role in communities. I remind all that they are drivers who go to the door and who find out whether Mrs Smith or Mr Jones is well. They are drivers who care for people. They make sure that they are OK and can get out and access services. Community transport prevents loneliness, and it is one of the building blocks that enables communities to exist. Thank you so much to all our community transport providers across Northern Ireland.

Mr Gildernew: Beidh an Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhíothú na Bochtaineachta ann an tseachtain seo. Is ábhar í an bhochtaineacht a bhfuil Comhaltaí ag dul i ngleic léi le fada an lá, agus tá an straitéis frithbhochtaineachta ar cheann de phríomhthorthaí na hoibre sin. Caithfidh an straitéis frithbhochtaineachta bheith ag forbairt léi i rith an ama, straitéis ina ndírítear ar neamhionannais a laghdú agus rochtain ar sheirbhísí riachtanacha a chinntiú. Trí aghaidh a thabhairt ar bhunchúiseanna na bochtaineachta agus trí dhíriú ar réitigh fhadtéarmacha, caithfidh an straitéis sochaí atá níos cothroime, cuimsithí a chruthú ina mbeidh deis ag gach aon duine barr a chumais a bhaint amach.

Ceann de na hiarrachtaí lárnacha a rinneadh leis an straitéis frithbhochtaineachta ná bearta maolaithe a chur i bhfeidhm i ndiaidh athchóiriú an chórais leasa. Tugadh isteach na bearta sin chun daoine a chosaint ar leasuithe leasa a rinne Rialtas na Breataine, mar shampla cáin seomra leapa agus na teorainneacha sochair. Chuidigh íocaíochtaí maolaithe le go leor teaghlach ar ioncam íseal a choinneáil ón anás, rud a chuir ar a gcumas a dtithe a choinneáil agus tuilleadh fiachais a sheachaint.

Tá daoine go fóill buartha, agus tá an brú orthu ag méadú gach lá dá bhfuil ag teacht. Tá an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin tiomanta ar straitéis frithbhochtaineachta mar thosaíocht lárnach, agus an ceart acu. Caithfidh an tAire Pobal an straitéis a fhoilsiú gan a thuilleadh moille.

Mrs Erskine: In recent weeks, there has been a marked increase in rural crime, including agricultural machinery theft, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The effect of that on farmers and the rural community is devastating. As I have said many times in the Chamber, many in our farming communities are at breaking point. Costs have risen, and poor weather has contributed to a perfect storm in farming communities. Then, the actions of a few thieves who come along and destroy a farm operation causes added stress to farming families. That is deplorable. This weekend saw a number of separate thefts of agricultural machinery. Between September and October, a high volume and value of machinery has been stolen, including tractors, quad bikes, power tools, a topsoil screening machine and strimmers. Damage was also caused to an excavator.

The PSNI is asking the community to be vigilant and to ensure that they secure their property on rural farms. Recently, I met the PSNI locally. We discussed the recent spate of agricultural thefts. Yesterday morning, I spoke to the police about incidents over the weekend. Police have urged the public to take up the offer of policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) trailer marking to act as a deterrent, ensure that CCTV is in working order, keep machinery stored safely away at night and, most importantly, report any suspicious activity or incidents of theft. They appeal to anybody with information — I appeal to them from the Chamber today — to bring that information to the police. If you see suspicious activity, please report it, because it may be crucial in helping to catch those responsible.

Mrs Guy: I congratulate those involved in getting the NI childcare subsidy scheme live. A few weeks ago, at the all-party group on early education and childcare, we heard from the Early Years organisation, which is responsible for the implementation of the scheme. It worked intensely to get the scheme live and continues to work with childcare providers, parents and carers to make sure that any wee bugs in the system are worked out and that it continuously improves for users. Such dedication to ensuring the success of the scheme deserves huge credit.

While the subsidy scheme is hugely welcome, I acknowledge that work is under way to develop a business support scheme. Those interventions must be only the beginning of sustained and expanded support for our childcare and early years sector.

I want to see the scheme going beyond preschool children and parents who are eligible for tax-free childcare. School-age childcare provides children with space to learn, play and develop alongside their peers before and after school and during holiday periods, providing carers and parents with vital additional time for work and other activities. The subsidy scheme must grow to include those children.

As policymakers, we are well aware that expensive childcare has a disproportionate effect on low-income families. While those on universal credit are eligible to claim back a portion of their childcare costs, they can still face unworkable fees. While there are measures to stabilise providers, such as day-care centres, childminders and home childcarers, I want us to go beyond stabilisation to see a step change in how we value those who work in the sector: they are highly skilled people who are essential to our society. I look forward to understanding how Departments will work together to ensure that our childcare workers feel valued, have career progression and training opportunities and are better paid.

Ms Sheerin: An issue that is affecting an increasing number of my constituents and that we see coming in waves every summer is bus passes for rural dwellers. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to put a question for oral answer to the Education Minister in the Chamber, but, unfortunately, I was not able to ask him my supplementary question on the review of the home to school transport policy.

I am receiving loads of messages and phone calls from very frustrated parents who find themselves between a rock and a hard place because the Education Authority does not normally consider the range or nature of the curriculum that is offered when it gives out bus passes. That leaves us in a situation where, although a pupil may live within three miles of their closest available school, because of the curriculum that it offers, particularly at A level, that school might not be suitable for them. On the other hand, we have constituents who live more than three miles from all schools who are offered a bus pass to the school of their choice, based on their subject preferences. There is a discrepancy and disparity there, with pupils being discriminated against, unable to access the subjects that they need to study to get into university, because of a bus pass. At a time when parents face rising costs across the board and we are trying to support parents with the cost of childcare, we cannot impose the cost of a bus pass on them. I urge the Minister to look at the criteria and to apply them more fairly.

Ms Brownlee: I highlight a remarkable initiative that took place in East Antrim last Thursday, which was World Mental Health Day. Two of our most historic landmarks, Chaine Memorial Tower in Larne and Carrickfergus Castle, were illuminated as part of a campaign called, "Passing Waves: Hope Through Light". That unique light and sound display, created by artist and musician Ryan Vail, took place to promote mental health awareness. The event, which was organised by Extern, in partnership with Northern Ireland Alternatives and Wonder ARTS and with support from the Executive Office, aimed to shine a light on the importance of mental health and send the message that hope is in reach, even in the of darkest times.

The work of Extern, a key partner in the event, is invaluable in addressing the complex mental health challenges faced by individuals and families in our community. Extern counsellors support people who are dealing with anxiety, depression, trauma, addiction and grief. The impact of their work, particularly their holistic, person-centred approach, is life-changing. Many of its clients speak of new-found confidence and improved mental health achieved through counselling and peer-led support groups, such as Larne Momentum, EMBRACE, Man On and Carrickfergus Hub Improving Lives Locally (CHILL).

While it is encouraging to see men of all ages breaking down stigmas around mental health, it is alarming to see the increasing numbers of young people who are caught in the cycle of addiction. Extern's work supports those individuals by recognising and addressing the underlying traumas that lead to substance abuse. The initiative, which was launched in 2020, has supported over 2,500 individuals and families in the Larne and Carrickfergus area, providing therapeutic and practical help in collaboration with local groups such as Wonder ARTS and Northern Ireland Alternatives. That has been crucial to delivering that care. Participants have reported significant improvements in mental health and well-being, reduced substance use and enhanced emotional resilience. I commend the project team and the community for coming together to address the pressing challenges. The event reminds us that hope, connection and support are all critical in navigating our mental health struggles. I encourage anyone who needs help to reach out. Let us continue to promote and support such initiatives, which are essential for the well-being of all in our community.

Mr Gaston: Two weeks ago, the First Minister became embroiled in the Michael McMonagle scandal. While the Dáil has found time for a debate on the issue today, MLAs in this Chamber had a mere 30 minutes to question the First Minister. Many of those questions remain unanswered and, indeed, need serious scrutiny. We heard plenty of sound and fury from the Benches to my right that day, but, a week later, the only motion that has been submitted on the issue — a motion of no confidence in the First Minister and the Economy Minister — sits in the Business Office with only a single signature on it. The truth is that, right across the Chamber, the parties have, once again, given Sinn Féin a bye ball. It appears, to date, that, for the vast majority of MLAs, child protection is secondary to protecting the institutions.

The First Minister's claim that she made when she was before the Executive Office Committee on Wednesday 2 October is simply not compatible — I cannot stress that enough — with the images that have since emerged in various newspapers. The First Minister's claim simply is not credible, and her reputation is in tatters. It is clear that there is an obvious desire on the part of some to sweep the issue under the carpet. Let us not forget that Minister Murphy is linked to the scandal as well. He sought to blame the British Heart Foundation for employing McMonagle without due diligence. We now know that the foundation contacted his party in August 2023. What did Minister Murphy's party tell the British Heart Foundation as it sought to do due diligence checks? When he spread dangerous misinformation about the duty of employers when it comes to paedophiles, where were the demands for his ministerial head?

The Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim, Mr Philip McGuigan, having signed off on Michael McMonagle's pass, did not immediately revoke it when the abuse came to light. In fact, it was cancelled only within the past number of days. My goodness: where is the accountability? Where in the House are the genuine concerns for safeguarding issues? A few days ago, I stood in the Chamber and addressed primary-school children who were here on a visit. Does that not chill every decent-thinking Member in the Chamber? The question is this: what will we do about it? Am I wrong in my belief that it will just be swept under the carpet? There are interesting precedents. Peter Robinson stepped aside when scandal swirled around him. Arlene, now Baroness Foster, was forced from office over the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scandal. Will the First Minister step aside —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — while those issues are investigated?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: I remind the House —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat.

Mr Gaston: — that the DUP has it in its power —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: — to do something about it.

Mr Carroll: I raise the tragic killing of Mary Ward, who was brutally killed in south Belfast around two weeks ago. Mary was originally from west Belfast, and the community there and across the city are deeply horrified by the killing of that young woman. I publicly extend my deepest sympathy to the family, with whom I have been in communication. Tragically, Mary was not the only woman killed in recent weeks; if reports from yesterday's debate are correct, probably five women have been killed in the past six weeks. Every one of those women had a family, a community and a story to tell, but they were killed and taken far too soon. I publicly extend my heartfelt sympathies to all families who are experiencing something unimaginable but, unfortunately, all too frequent.

The society in which we live has a problem with misogyny. It has a deep problem with violence against women, who often do not feel safe in their own home. That is completely unacceptable and tragic. The response from this institution to violence against women has not been strong enough. We need more than condemnation. Condemnation is important, but we need more. We need proper funding for organisations like Women's Aid and an increase in the availability of women's refuges and safe places where people can go if they are at risk of violence. Crucially, we also need financial support and a means for women and others to escape violence and partners or ex-partners who target them. For financial reasons, women are not able to simply get up and leave.

Those issues need to be addressed alongside the disgraceful fact that intimidation points are still not awarded to women who are victims of domestic violence. That is completely unforgivable, and it needs to change as a matter of urgency. I call on the Communities Minister to do that. Somebody could be a victim of domestic violence two, three, four or five-plus times and still not get intimidation points because the person who carried it out was not a member of a paramilitary organisation. Alongside that, we need to see tailored housing for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. Those issues need to be addressed. If they are not, we will probably come back to this unfortunate and tragic issue time and again.

Mr Martin: I want to raise the importance of speech and language therapy (SLT), its effectiveness when it is used as an early intervention and the current prevalence of need for it in Northern Ireland. We already know from research that a two-year-old's reading ability can strongly predict their later attainment at school. Therefore, intervening early has innumerable benefits.

A recent report by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which was very appropriately titled 'We are the Village', cites the following statistics that I feel it is important for Members to hear. Some 90% of early years providers have seen an increase in the number of children with speech and language and communication needs, and community paediatricians have witnessed a 91% rise in that group. From 2019-2023, there was a 196% increase in the numbers of children who hold a special educational needs (SEN) statement in nursery and in primary 1. As of June 2023, there were 104 whole-time equivalent vacant SLT posts in Northern Ireland. That is a rate of nearly one in five. In 2021, 2,444 children were on waiting lists for SLT. In 2023, there were 4,527. That represents an 85% increase over that period alone. Those four sets of statistics should be sobering data for Members.

I will highlight three modest asks. The first is that we increase the SLT workforce by raising the number of commissioned undergraduate places in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that, in 2023 and 2024 respectively, there were an additional 10 and 12 additional places for students from the Republic of Ireland, but that brings challenges for the royal college in Northern Ireland. It must then facilitate placements in the trusts without any additional funding for placement educators and with no guarantee that the new students will stay in the Northern Ireland workforce on completion of their course. We desperately need additional SLT workforce members, but once therapists qualify, they should remain in Northern Ireland and support our children. My second ask is for the introduction of a professional SLT adviser across the Department of Health and the Department of Education to assist in driving forward positive policy change. My final ask is for the inclusion of additional SLT content in undergraduate and postgraduate teacher training.

For school-age pupils, the challenge is now how we manage and support those children who are already —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Mathison: The Strangford ferry has been suspended from the start of this week to allow essential maintenance work to be carried out at the quayside. Of course, that essential work is welcome, and it is good to see its being delivered. However, I put on record my concerns about how the Infrastructure Minister handled the process. When I asked questions about the level of community engagement prior to the suspension and the announcement about it, I received no evidence that engagement was carried out with the local community in any meaningful way.

That has left many local businesses in a difficult position, having had little time to prepare for the service suspension.

I say for anyone not from the area that to drive from Portaferry to Strangford is a 50-mile one-way trip and not one that local people choose to make when the ferry can have you across the lough in 10 minutes. It was, of course, welcome when a passenger replacement ferry was announced, but it takes a break for a chunk of the afternoon and crucially, in my view, provides no evening crossings. That has the potential to have an impact on the night-time economy of both villages. The Portico centre in Portaferry, as just one example, has raised concerns around how its evening events will be attended with no ferry crossing for anyone wanting to travel across the lough. Local bars and restaurants are preparing for a potential loss of trade as a result.

I am unclear about why not even a couple of evening crossings could have been included in the replacement ferry service to support local businesses. Again, that speaks to me of a lack of engagement from the Minister and, perhaps, a lack of understanding of the impact on those communities of the loss of the ferry service.

I hope that the Minister will rethink the passenger ferry evening provision and keep under review all the wider mitigation measures that are in place. With increased numbers of foot passengers making the journey in the mornings, it is vital that we are confident that onward bus provision is also adequate. That needs to be kept under close review as well. The works are, of course, essential, but better mitigations are required. I hope that the Minister will take action in that regard.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

Mrs Erskine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of a woman in Donaghadee. Should that become a murder investigation, she will be the fifth woman murdered in Northern Ireland in six weeks.

The Justice Minister was unavailable to come to the House yesterday to address Members on that very issue. Mr Speaker, have you had any indication that she plans to make a statement today? There is a need for leadership and to reassure women and girls that the Executive, particularly the Department of Justice, are listening and will respond to those concerns quickly. I know that the Minister has addressed meetings by video message in recent days, but can you indicate whether you have been informed that the Minister is available today or when she plans to offer reassurance in person to women and girls in Northern Ireland?

Mr Speaker: I have no knowledge of what the Minister's functions are at the moment. It is a matter for the Minister to explain that to the House or, indeed, for the Justice Department. I direct the Member to seek an answer from that place.

Members should take their ease for a moment while we move to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thirty years ago this month, the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) announced its cessation of violence. That announcement came a month and a half after the Provisional IRA had announced its ceasefire. Thirty years is, by any measurement, a long time; it is more than a generation. It is also more than the length of time that those organisations were engaged in armed campaigns. In short, it is more than enough time for those organisations to have finally got off the stage, but, as we know, that has not happened.

Our society has been transformed since the 1990s, overwhelmingly for the positive. It is also important to acknowledge that incidents of violence related to what is euphemistically called the "security situation" in Northern Ireland, be those shootings, bombings or other paramilitary-style attacks, have fallen in the past decade according to PSNI data and as published in the reports of the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC). However, such attacks still happen, and, as the shooting of DCI Caldwell showed, there are still some determined to use deadly violence for political ends.

Paramilitarism continues to blight too many communities, especially working-class ones. Some say that we should not even use the term "paramilitary" in 2024 because that word confers a kind of political purpose or legitimacy on the organisations. While I see the logic in that argument, it is also important to confront the political influence that those organisations seek to wield and to understand the broader historical context of political violence in Irish history. The use of violence or the threat of violence or the implication of violence at some point in the future has been a constant in political life on this island and especially in the North for, literally, centuries. However, we are not here to enter into debate about the legitimacy of any or every armed campaign going back to the 17th century. Suffice it to say that one of the core purposes of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement was to mark a clear and unambiguous break with what had gone before. Any scintilla of legitimacy that armed groups claimed before 1998 was gone, because anybody who wished to pursue a united Ireland, as I and my party do, had a clear structure and democratic path to achieve that end and anybody who wished to protect the Union with Britain could be assured that the Union was guaranteed to remain for as long as the majority in the North so wished, and governance inside Northern Ireland would be specifically designed to embed inclusion and multiple safeguards for all traditions.

To be clear, I and my party never believed that violence before 1998 was legitimate or necessary or is worthy of mythologising — quite the opposite — but we recognised that a political solution to our appalling conflict would need to be as inclusive as possible. Yes, that meant talking to groups and representatives of groups, republican and loyalist, that had been engaged in violence and, indeed, recognising that many of those had a contribution to make to building peace. Opposing violence ultimately necessitated talking to those who were engaged in it, but, in response to some of the pathetic false equivalence thrown up by parties, specifically one party in the Chamber yesterday, let us be clear that this is 2024, not 1994 or 1998. Talking to representatives of armed groups to bring about peace as people were dying is not the same as talking to representatives of armed groups engaged in widespread criminality 30 years on who have no apparent intention of getting off the stage and getting off the backs of communities. Conflating John Hume's role as a peacemaker with indulging armed gangs in 2024 is as stupid as it is offensive. It is a deflection tactic.

Let me tackle a few other myths. First, the motion is aimed at challenging persistent and unacceptable paramilitarism wherever it arises. Republican and loyalist paramilitary structures remain in place in different parts of this society. Some still seek political influence, either via acts of violence or other forms of direct or indirect pressure, but most are involved in one form of criminality or another, including drug dealing, racketeering and protection money, where they extract money and power from working-class communities while offering nothing but coercive control in return. The motion is not simply aimed at loyalist paramilitarism; it is aimed at all forms of paramilitarism, republican and loyalist. To avoid any doubt, let me say that it includes displays of what we might call "paramilitary exceptionalism" — the idea that paramilitary structures or former leaders get to play by different rules from everybody else. Yes, for the avoidance of doubt, that includes bringing a republican colour party onto the streets during a deadly pandemic while other people's relatives died and were buried alone.

It is also vital to differentiate between communities and paramilitaries: they are not the same thing. That is particularly important for loyalist and unionist working-class communities, many of which I am proud to represent. To be absolutely clear, loyalist communities have pride in their flag. They are proud of their military service for their country and proud of the industrial prowess they helped to build, especially in this city. I have the greatest respect for all those things, which have nothing whatever to do with armed criminal gangs. To conflate the two is offensive to the hard work and service of people in those communities. Those communities, along with other working-class communities, have real needs in relation to housing and education that this place has failed to address for too long. I want better for those communities, but I will not accept that those paramilitaries or their representatives have a say on housing when, according to the most recent Independent Reporting Commission data, nearly 200 households were forced into homelessness because of paramilitaries. Nor will I accept that they should have a say in education or young people's prospects when they continue to profit from a drug trade that ruins young lives and continue to carry out punishment attacks.

Just as it was pathetic back in the 80s and 90s to hear representatives who supported economic bombing campaigns complain about unemployment when those groups were tearing apart the economic fabric of towns and cities, so today it is hard to hear certain groups call for much-needed economic development of areas whilst they extract money and well-being from those areas. Indeed, paramilitarism itself costs the NI economy £750 million a year — a figure that is in the Programme for Government.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Does the Member agree that that figure is probably a low estimate of the actual cost?

Mr O'Toole: The Member makes a lot of sense, and, indeed, I will come on to talk about the Programme for Government and why it needs to have more specific targets and aims and why it needs to focus on tackling that cost. The Member makes a good point.

What do we do? First, transition must have an end point. The process that is known as "transition" or "transformation" feels sometimes like it has been going on longer than 'The Mousetrap', with the performers refusing to leave the stage. Week after week, we read in tabloid newspapers about the exploits of organisations with daft names, as if they were characters in 'Sesame Street' or 'The Beano'. All the while, they go on inflicting harm on the working-class communities they purport to represent.

It does not have to be this way. Our motion calls for a fundamental review of the tackling paramilitarism programme. We want to ensure that every penny and every action is relentlessly focused on ending the scourge of paramilitarism, updating our Programme for Government to include clearer timelines, targets and unambiguous aims — yes, that includes a clear rejection of attempts by organisations, or groups linked to those organisations to influence, without a democratic mandate, the political and policy process. Should those organisations wish to seek to influence the democratic mandate, there is a route to stand for election. They can register with the Electoral Commission, or they can form a body corporate and register with Companies House or the Charity Commission. There are lots of other community groups, including groups involving other former loyalist and republican paramilitaries, that do it in an upfront and transparent way. As I said, our motion calls for a fundamental review of the programme. We need to ensure that every penny is focused on clearly bringing to an end the influence and presence of such organisations and to be clear that every penny spent on the programme is aimed towards that goal. If people were honest with themselves in the Chamber, it would be hard to say that we can justify every penny that is currently being spent on those programmes on the basis of that test. It may also mean encouraging other law enforcement agencies, including HMRC, to work more closely with the PSNI in tackling the proceeds of those paramilitary crime lords.

In 1994, we were promised a democratic future. Men — leaders like David Ervine, Gusty Spence and, yes, David Adams — who had pasts but were clear that they wanted to build a future and others promised us that democratic future. Thirty years on, it is time to claim that future. We do not have to accept the abnormal as normal.

In the final months of conflict, awful things happened. In the past couple of weeks, we have been reminded of them with the death of Gina Murray, who fought for justice for her daughter, who was killed in the Shankill bomb. Last Friday night, I was in O'Toole's pub, my uncle's pub in Loughinisland, where victims of that atrocity still have received no justice. We owe it to them and to all those whom we serve now and who will come into this society in future —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — to take the final step —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and turn the page on paramilitarism —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and the spectre of the gun.

Mr Gildernew: I very much welcome today's motion. It is particularly well timed, given the level of public anger about the two separate Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) meetings with DUP Ministers in past weeks.

When the LCC was founded almost a decade ago, many hoped that it would be instrumental in facilitating loyalist paramilitaries who wanted to transition away from violence and criminality eventually to leave the stage. It is fair to say, however, that the LCC not only has failed in that regard but has failed to prevent the backsliding of loyalist paramilitaries away from transitioning and into increased activity and criminality in recent years. Whatever was said about it at its founding a decade ago, we can now say with certainty that the LCC has become a mouthpiece for organised criminal gangs that terrorise communities through fear and coercive control.

The increased level of activity by loyalist paramilitaries is deeply concerning and needs to stop. The UVF and the UDA regularly engage in intimidating and threatening behaviour against anyone who opposes them. On top of that, their criminal empires are expanding at an alarming rate, with more and more drug dealing and extortion in loyalist areas. The UVF and the UDA are also strongly suspected of orchestrating the race riots during the summer in Belfast, where our migrant communities were attacked and businesses targeted.

Loyalist paramilitary groups have no place in our society, and they should have disbanded long ago. It beggars belief that any Minister would think it appropriate to consult such groups on matters of public policy. Instead of shutting down and deplatforming them, the DUP seems intent on rewarding them with unprecedented access to its Ministers. We already know that the LCC lobbied the Education Minister, Paul Givan, to block the establishment of an Irish-medium school in east Belfast. That is completely unacceptable.

So far, no information about what was discussed at last week's meeting with the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has been published, despite repeated calls for it to be released. The public have a right to know what was discussed, and, in the interests of transparency and openness, Minister Lyons has a duty to provide that information. He needs to publish the minutes of the meeting with the LCC, along with a list of attendees, as soon as possible. In addition, the Minister needs to come to the House and make a statement detailing exactly what was discussed and, in particular, whether any demands were made by the LCC, and, crucially, his response to any such demands. I thank the Member who tabled the motion.

Mr Harvey: I will make a few points on the Opposition motion. The presence of organised criminality continues to be a scourge on many communities across Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on us all to challenge the continued existence of paramilitary organisations and all groups that are involved in criminal activity. It remains, as it has always been, our position as a party that, where evidence exists that individuals have been involved in criminality in whatever form, they should face the full rigour of the law. It is worth reminding ourselves that equality under the rule of law is a key pillar of any democracy: all are equally subject to it and protected by it.

The gravity of the issue for society therefore impresses on us all the need to take collective responsibility not only to stand up and call out such criminality but to tackle its root causes and, in this instance, challenge the continued existence of paramilitary organisations. Although some Members are relative newcomers to the principle of the rule of law, many on these Benches have worked a lifetime to uphold and protect it.

The greatest erosion of the principles of law and justice in respect of paramilitarism ever to occur was, of course, as a result of the Belfast Agreement. Unlike the Opposition and other parties around the Chamber, our position on dealing with paramilitary criminality was the same in 1998 as it is today. It was wrong to engage in criminality then, and it is still wrong today. That those who previously championed the early release of convicted criminals should now lament this party for seeking to support those who have a past, have served their punishment and want to move on to build a brighter future is an irony that will escape few.

A distinction must be drawn, as other Members have said, between those who wish to move out from under the shadow of paramilitarism for good and those who wish only to continue to use such structures for their own criminal exploits. We must actively seek to help and support individuals and communities who genuinely wish to secure a better future beyond what, in many cases, is all they have ever known.

The Independent Reporting Commission has said very clearly that, without such engagement, there is no credible path to ending paramilitarism once and for all. The process requires good faith from all parties. As part of that progress, programmes such as Communities in Transition, Urban Villages and Building Successful Communities have all played their part in assisting that transition. Much good work has been achieved in communities across the traditional divide. It is important that learning from previous implementation of the various phases of those schemes is used to ensure that future programmes are tailored to achieve the best possible outcomes.

No one who genuinely wants to move on and leave their past behind should be left behind by either the House or society at large. It has often been said that just having a past should not preclude you from having a future. It is important that the Executive support communities and individuals to achieve that future. The DUP will continue to support those who genuinely wish to leave the past behind and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. This is an area where my party and the Opposition have much in common.

It is crude to put a figure on the harm, destruction and suffering caused by paramilitaries, but the draft Programme for Government does so, and that figure alone should cause us to stop and think. The coercive control of gangs costs a minimum of £750 million, and that cost is borne almost exclusively by the people in the areas over which the paramilitaries exert the coercive control. The cost refers to paramilitary harm, but there is also the cost of lost opportunity. If some of the role models in your community are thugs and the people in positions of influence are gangsters, what hope does a young person have? Indeed, research by the Children's Commissioner demonstrates that some young people are the victims of criminal exploitation that is intimately connected to paramilitarism. That causes harm at home, at school and in the community from the earliest years onwards. It can have a disturbing, emotional and psychological impact on the rest of those children's lives.

The motion correctly refers to the sinister and negative presence of extortion, intimidation and violence and, most notably, the undermining of the rule of law. We saw that most starkly in August this year with the racially motivated targeting of attacks on legitimate businesses, which, according to the police, paramilitaries were behind. When I and other elected South Belfast reps engaged with some of those business owners, they told us that they had continued to pay protection money, so they were particularly aggrieved that their businesses were subsequently attacked.

We also need to grasp that almost all paramilitary groups have mutated in some way. Very few have gone away, and almost all have turned into something else, although exactly what has occurred varies from place to place. In too many places, we now have a situation where people are community workers by day and thugs by night. Fundamentally, everyone has a right to live free from threat and coercion, be it in their own home or in their community. The threat may be direct, or it may even be subtle through, for example, the display of flags on lamp posts or on public property. That means that there is not only coercion by thugs but no realistic way of reporting to the police domestic violence, drug dealing or assault. Indeed, the reality is that, if someone becomes the victim of threats in their home, they are the one who gets moved, not the perpetrator. I have supported far too many constituents in South Belfast who were intimidated in their homes, had their homes attacked and had to uproot because their safety in their homes could not be guaranteed. It is barbaric and immoral.

The basic challenge here, a generation on from the agreement, is to ensure that civil authority applies everywhere equally and that influence over communities and public services is derived exclusively from democratic mandates. We feel that the motion should have included reference to some of the work on tackling paramilitarism that is outlined in the draft Programme for Government and asked that that be strengthened by adding a stand-alone mission on peacebuilding. That would include not just tackling paramilitarism but preventing the hidden harm of the psychological and emotional trauma that arises from paramilitary control; ending the normalisation of exposure to violence from an early age; and removing symbolism that is designed to re-emphasise and leave no doubt about paramilitary presence. It is long past time that we moved on. I support the motion.

Mr Beattie: It is a sad state of affairs that paramilitaries continue to exist and exert control over government and society in such a negative way. We have allowed that to continue while we inadvertently take sides, accept our own narratives and excuse our own positions.

When I was leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, I never met the Loyalist Communities Council. I had no issue with meeting it, but I made it clear that, if I was going to do so, the one and only thing on the agenda would be the disbandment of paramilitaries. I would have done anything that I could to help it achieve that aim. That would have allowed the LCC to rebrand itself and become a genuine community council, with women's groups, civic groups, religious and business organisations, sports teams and charities — not paramilitaries — coming to the fore to represent and speak for loyalism. We have seen that happen in the past with individuals. I know former paramilitaries who are on the peace line every night doing fantastic work. We have seen it with the Action for Community Transformation (ACT) initiative and with the Resurgam Trust in Lisburn. It can be done. If loyalist paramilitary groups really are interested in beginning the process of transition, they can start by stopping recruitment, stopping the collection of membership subscriptions and allowing members to leave without paying a penalty for not being involved in criminality, organised crime, coercion, drug dealing or the exploitation, including sexual exploitation, of their communities.

Criticism of a Minister for meeting representatives of structured paramilitary groups is justified. A Minister's only interaction with such groups should be to persuade them to leave the stage. Instead, they have been given a platform where they feel that they have influence. If they have influence, they feel that their existence is justified.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. He is making some powerful points. Further to a report by his former colleague John Kyle — he has done some interesting things, although I do not agree with all of them — that, I am sure, the Member will reference, does he agree that there is a difference between a conversation that says, "Tell us a specific date on which the transition will end and you will be an entirely legal organisation", as the report says, and a conversation that is an open-ended policy discussion without any end point that legitimises a group's existence?

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

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was going to mention that, and I will, if I get to it. The Member made the point well.

I criticised the Minister, but let us not look at that incident in isolation. The Provisional IRA army council is not the military wing of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Provisional IRA army council. That in itself is an insidious element of our politics in Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that Sinn Féin Members went to Maghaberry in 2016 to meet dissidents and promote their aims. The Cold War stand-off between those who lead our Government will continue and stop society from moving forward.

I want to make three points. The first is about the use of language. Of course, we have used the term "paramilitaries". I have used it.

It is a simple descriptor, but the reality is that they are organised crime gangs, child abusers, drug dealers. Few Ministers would meet representatives of those groups if the headlines said, "Minister meets drug dealers" or "Minister meets child abusers".

My second point is on enforcement. The paramilitary task force needs more resources to enable it to dismantle those criminal groups — all criminal groups, regardless of what flag they fly or what colour they represent — and a commitment is needed from MI5, the National Crime Agency (NCA), His Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Force to work with the task force in a joined-up manner. The action plan on tackling paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime needs to use more stick than carrot, and it must work proactively to help groups to transition. If that means the transition of small groups, it can be that.

At the end of the day, there is no point in treating paramilitaries as criminals or drug dealers, putting them through the courts with evidence, getting them sentenced and then sticking them into a separated prison regime where they are called "Brigadier". They then get the kudos of being a brigadier, get released back into society as a brigadier and infect their society once more. We have to look at that. Members might remember that, in 2016, I tabled a motion to enable us to deal with that. It failed because political parties did not support me.

My last point is on something that the leader of the Opposition raised: the Northern Ireland Development Group has given us 10 recommendations for what it might be possible to do next. Its report, "Reframing the debate: Ending Loyalist Paramilitarism", by Rev Chris Hudson, Dr John Kyle, Trevor Ringland and Professor Graham Spencer is well worth a read. I will not go through all 10 recommendations, but I ask all Members to look them up. The report makes it clear that recruitment has to end, as I mentioned. It recommends:

or transition — use whatever word you want.

It also recommends:

because, when you say the word "loyalism", it is linked with paramilitaries, and that is just not fair.

Mrs Dillon: It has been 30 years since the loyalist ceasefires and 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, which provided a historic and inclusive political process aimed at ending conflict and building a peaceful, stable and prosperous future for everyone across our society. The process offered everyone in our society a path away from violence, a path that should have been and needs to be embraced by all. Yet, here we are, decades later, still dealing with the scourge of paramilitarism in our community. There is no place in our society for paramilitary groups; there is no role for paramilitary groups; and there is no excuse for the continued existence of those groups. The peace process laid down the path, and anyone who continues to hold on to paramilitarism does so at the expense of our community, our future and the prosperity of our people.

Sadly, paramilitarism has not disappeared; indeed, it has mutated, as is outlined in the motion, from an ideology to a front for criminality, control and criminal gangs engaging in drug dealing, extortion, moneylending, sexual exploitation and violent intimidation. We hear about that all too often at the Policing Board. They prey on the very people whom they claim to defend, suffocate community cohesion and crush economic development. Despite the tireless efforts of genuine community activists, the PSNI's paramilitary task force and the tackling paramilitarism programme, the groups persist, and their persistence has caused enormous harm. For far too long, there has been a level of tolerance of those groups that is simply intolerable, and we must be bold enough to say, "Enough is enough". Those criminal gangs have no democratic mandate and no place in the governance of the North. Their influence is toxic, undermines the rule of law and erodes the foundation of our democracy.

I support the motion. It is crucial that we put an end to paramilitary activity once and for all. The harm that they inflict on our community is profound. They foster fear and stifle investment and economic opportunity and a democratic, peaceful way forward. We need to ensure that everyone in our community benefits from that peaceful way forward and that they see their place in it. We need to ensure that they feel their place and that they see a safer, more prosperous and united future for all our people.

Mr McReynolds: Over the weekend, I was reflecting on what to say on the motion, and I remembered how, a number of years ago, when I was a deputy lord mayor, I was invited to give a welcome speech at a mental health conference that was taking place in Belfast. It was running all day, but I asked if I could stay on after the welcome to hear some of the speakers before making my apologies. One of the speakers used a phrase that, I feel, I now use on a weekly basis and that the leader of the Opposition used: in Northern Ireland, we have "normalised the abnormal." We educate our young people separately at an enormous cost — parental demand for that is higher than ever — and progress has been slow since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. We all know the importance of this place and the doors that a functioning Assembly can unlock for key policy decisions, but, for five of the past seven years, we have not had Ministers in post to make key decisions like those on the issues at Lough Neagh. I was in briefings on that last year, when civil servants knew the problems and the solutions but, without a Minister in post, were powerless to do anything about them, which delayed our ability to intervene. Thankfully, our AERA Minister is taking steps to address those issues today.

We come to the crux of today's motion, and it stuns me to even say these words out loud, but we have the:

and the recent meetings of not one Minister but two. I appreciate that there are only so many hours in a day and that our Ministers have long days, with multiple competing interests. However, it is only since becoming an MLA that I truly appreciate the importance of the Chamber and the opportunity to ask questions of Ministers on the issues that matter to me and to my constituents. If there is an issue, I will take that rare opportunity, if afforded one during the weekly ballot, to plant a seed or an idea in a Minister's head in the hope that, some day, it will bear fruit for the benefit of my constituents or for the issue.

We can all sit now and argue that the meetings brought groups along, gently coaxed them away from illegality and will not dictate to Ministers, but representatives of groups that the Home Office has proscribed as terrorist organisations are in a room with the people who can make society-changing decisions at the expense of the legal organisations that represent the hard-working, disadvantaged and moral groups in all our communities. I am an East Belfast MLA. We have our issues in East Belfast, with shows of strength from groups brought in from across Northern Ireland; drug dealing; coercive control; people being made homeless by paramilitaries; coercive murals, which a councillor from another party once described to me as more akin to street art in 2024; and violent murders. Our constituency office on the Newtownards Road deals with the impacts of paramilitarism. That was evident a few years ago when paramilitary groups preyed on food banks to take advantage of vulnerable individuals and their communities — the same communities, we are now told, that they care about. Lastly, we have one of the most attacked and threatened sports clubs on these islands: East Belfast GAA. It is a positive, welcoming and inclusive club that has received threat after threat. That not only disrupts the club but impacts on our Police Service, disrupts the local community and impacts on children. It is my understanding that the Communities Minister has still not fulfilled the club's request to meet following the last hoax incident.

We are now in 2024, which, as we heard today, is 26 years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. It was never meant to be plain sailing or without bumps in the road. However, groups representing paramilitaries having a seat in the room with Ministers at their request is stunning, and the defence that I have seen of it and heard in the media in recent days is even more so. Those groups destroy lives and hold Northern Ireland back, and they belong in the dustbin as relics of our troubled past.

I want to normalise the normal here and have a society that is free from paramilitary control, built on reconciliation and based on making this place work for everyone. That includes working alongside all of you in the Chamber today. We must all be strong and united in our condemnation of the continued existence of those criminal gangs, and I hope that the motion passes unanimously.

Dr Aiken: I thank the leader of the Opposition for bringing this valuable debate to the Chamber. One of the issues facing the Assembly and, indeed, society in Northern Ireland is that we have given agency to so-called paramilitaries when instead, as my learned friend behind me has said on many occasions, we should call them for what they are. This is mafia gangsterism. It is organised crime, organised child abuse, drug dealing and extortion. Those are things that should have left society in Northern Ireland a long time ago.

I am talking about not just one part of the community but all parts of the community. Those things are prevalent in areas such as north and west Belfast, but they are also prevalent in Londonderry, Bangor, Carrickfergus, Ballyclare and Antrim. Those things should not be happening 25 years on. One of the reasons why those things happen is that we have given those organisations agency for far too long. They should have gone away 25 years ago.

The fact that we still give them agency gives them a degree of legitimacy that they do not have. Anybody who understands anything that is happening around the world, particularly in areas where this sort of mafia conspiracy exists with various groups, and looks at the communities that they infect — that is what they do — will ask, "What happens to those communities?". Are those communities vibrant, with good cultural life, good economic opportunities and good health outcomes? No, they are not. They are the elements of society that are left further and further behind.

One of the most damning indictments of this place and, indeed, the Executive and the political parties over the years — regrettably, to some degree, our party has been involved in this — is that we have never tackled the problems fully head-on. One of the things that we must do, instead of talking about it, is to engage in it. Primarily, this is an issue for justice and policing. We can talk about the economic, social and cultural issues, but, until the malign influence of those who perpetrate violence in our communities is removed, we will get nowhere.

We have heard time and time again from the PSNI about how constrained it is and time and time again about how other agencies are not coordinated and enabled to work together. We have talked about a lack of direction from the top. Every one of those things should have been addressed. It is primarily a justice issue, and it is an operational matter that should focus the attention of not just the Justice Minister but the rest of the Ministers in the Executive. That needs to be progressed at pace.

It is ironic that a member of one of the organisations came to me not so long ago to complain about the harassment that he felt from HMRC. He felt that every one of his business dealings was being dealt with microscopically and, every time he went to the airport, the Border Agency stopped him and asked him where he was going. He was particularly asked about how he managed to afford holidays in Spain and everything else. If that is what puts fear into those groups, why are we not building on that? Why are we not progressing that? Why are we not making that a priority for the Assembly and the Executive? That is what we should be doing right now. We should not be debating paramilitaries and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland; it should have gone a long time ago.

If there is anything that we should do as Assembly Members, it is reinforcing the message to the Northern Ireland Executive, the Justice Minister and the agencies to get on with it and solve the problem. We will not make things better for our disadvantaged communities while they suffer from the mafia-type gangsterism that is in our society. We need to move on from that.

Ms Egan: I condemn paramilitary activity and organised crime. I hope that all my colleagues throughout the Chamber will agree that that needs to be thoroughly eradicated from our society. It is criminal gang behaviour that creates a chill factor in communities that want to move past division and focus on moving forward. As the motion notes, that behaviour prevents the overall stability of peace and progress in Northern Ireland.

The longer the legitimacy of paramilitaries is enabled in our everyday practice and we do not tackle the hidden harms and impacts of exposure to violence, the longer it will take to build a future of safety and fulfilment for those who deserve so much more.

The draft Programme for Government estimated that paramilitary activity costs the Northern Ireland economy at least £750 million a year — division creating not just social and cultural hate but costing progress on this place's finances. Whether it is the resource pressure or the demand of so-called protection money from local businesses, it all adds up. All we need to do is look at the Department of Justice's Ending the Harm campaign to highlight the vast amount of hidden harms that paramilitaries and those associated with them cause. As legislators, we have a responsibility to consistently and continuously call out the groups that control, coerce and harm the communities that we represent and serve.

An academic from Queen's University recently said:

One strand of that exploitation is paramilitary-related gendered coercive control, including demands, threats and harms to women in those communities. An example of that is the exploitation of poverty and motherhood to prey on women's vulnerabilities, including control of children. Those women are being forced to navigate their safety in an environment in which they have double the fear. We must deliver change for innocent, everyday people in our communities who find themselves at the hands and control of those dangerous, third-party forces and for people whose lives have already been so manipulated and exploited by those groups that they find themselves complicit in crimes in the structures in which proscribed organisations exist.

In June, we got new data on the perceptions of paramilitarism from the Northern Ireland life and times survey. Still, 18% of those surveyed felt that young people were being influenced too much by paramilitary groups, and 16% felt that paramilitary groups had a controlling influencing on their area. We are making progress but there is still an inescapable hold on so many in our communities. We need a cross-departmental, zero-tolerance approach so that we, as leaders in our communities, can model behaviour and send a clear message to those who are exerting power over others.

In recent weeks, I have heard from victims of paramilitary criminality. They have been hurt that Ministers met an umbrella group that represents paramilitary organisations. There should be no conversation to be had with those groups other than to tell them to disband.

I think that I am one of the few MLAs who was born after the ceasefires. Paramilitaries and those involved in criminality have had 30 years now to transition. It is far too long. If you have not done so already, you need to leave the stage. My generation was promised peace and prosperity, and a life free from the coercion of those groups. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many in the communities that we serve. In my constituency, I see paramilitary flags on lamp posts, some outside primary schools. I hear of coercive control, of drugs debts and recruiting in those communities. People feel that they cannot escape them. It is not good enough that we have not tackled that 25 years later.

Peace and freedom from those criminal gangs must still be a priority for the Assembly, protecting those whom we serve. That is why Alliance has been calling for peace to be a pillar in the Programme for Government. It must be strengthened and solidified as a stand-alone mission so that we can tackle paramilitarism once and for all. However, we need to be clear that it takes every person in the House and every Minister to come on board.

I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion.

Mr Gaston: I feel the need to remind the House that if we are going to talk about the ongoing presence of paramilitary organisations, we need to address the elephant in the room, which is the IRA army council that oversees Sinn Féin. The motion, which, I believe, was written with the best of intentions, is calling on the First Minister and her deputy:

Really? I remind the House that, on 20 October 2015, an assessment on paramilitary groups was published by the NIO. That report was commissioned in the aftermath of the Provisional IRA murder of Kevin McGuigan. It made clear that the IRA retained an army council, which, members believed, oversaw both the PIRA and Sinn Féin with an overarching strategy, retained departments with specific responsibilities and still had weapons that had not been decommissioned. Where is the democratic mandate of the army council that oversees the lead party of government?

In February 2020, the PSNI reconfirmed that it still believes that the Provisional IRA army council oversees the IRA and Sinn Féin. That statement was echoed by Garda Commissioner Drew Harris. However, we do not have to go back to 2020 to find reports that point out the continuing role of the Provos in Northern Ireland. I note that the Executive Office was not present, just a few weeks ago, at the launch of a report entitled '"When you know what they are capable of": Paramilitary-related Gendered Coercive Control' by Aisling Swaine, produced by Foyle Women's Aid. The Justice Minister thought that it was important enough to be there, but the First Minister did not. I wonder whether that was because the contents of the report left the "First Minister for all" feeling uncomfortable. I wonder whether the First Minister has read the report.

Consider the contents of pages 24 and 25 of that document:

That is the reality of the fear that the IRA continues to engender in Northern Ireland right up to the present day, yet the motion calls on the First Minister to introduce a comprehensive review of the tackling paramilitarism programme. Ach, come on. I remind the House that, due to the perverse Belfast Agreement, the Executive are led by someone who tells us that there was no alternative to IRA terror; no alternative to the murders of Cecil Cunningham and John Haslett, two RUC officers murdered by the IRA 53 years ago today; no alternative to the murder of Herbert Kernaghan, an off-duty UDR man who was shot in front of children as young as six years old while delivering fruit and vegetables to a primary school in Rosslea 45 years ago today; no alternative to the murder of 22-year-old soldier Alan Stock, killed 41 years ago today by IRA terrorists hiding behind a tombstone at the end of a command wire; and no alternative to the murder of RUC dog handler Samuel Todd, who died 34 years ago today, a few days after being shot by the IRA.

The House is in no position to lecture on the harm of paramilitarism when its very existence is evidence that, for some, violence pays.

Mr Carroll: I support the motion. We still have a problem with paramilitary organisations not only existing but dictating life, intimidating people and whipping up sectarianism and racism in society. Stormont has not only played a role in allowing those organisations to exist but has, often, funded them through front organisations and has elevated them above other important groups in society. I strongly condemn the recent elevation of the LCC by the Communities Minister and Education Minister. You cannot talk about ending paramilitarism whilst having an open door to organisations that prey on working-class communities, vulnerable people and everybody. At the same time as meeting groups such as the LCC, Ministers refused to meet hundreds of organisations, including the Equality Coalition, the Cliff Edge Coalition, the Women's Policy Group, Conradh na Gaeilge and the Department for Communities' own gender equality strategy and anti-poverty strategy co-design groups, to name but a few. That is shocking stuff. There is no room for them to meet anti-poverty groups, yet the red carpet is rolled out for paramilitary organisations. You could not make this stuff up.

An obvious question is this: why or how do paramilitary groups still exist? In part, it is because of direct action taken by some Stormont Ministers to elevate them and to operate a guarantor system for them, but it is also because of Stormont's role in maintaining, deepening and overseeing a divided society. Paramilitary groups rub their hands with glee when they see segregation in housing and education being maintained.

We have to talk about Stormont's economic strategy, which has left many people at the mercy of paramilitary organisations. How many people have gone to paramilitary organisations to seek a loan when they cannot afford to pay rent because of the cost-of-living crisis, benefit sanctions and so on? Those groups thrive on the economic deprivation and misery that Stormont has promoted through its policies. Will older people be going to paramilitary organisations for loans this winter because of the cut to the winter fuel payment? I do not know, but the question needs to be posed and answered. Paramilitary organisations act as gatekeepers, keeping people in misery. They act to thwart any attempt to have class unity and people fighting collectively against the Government and their policies.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the role that loyalist paramilitaries played in the race riots that took place in the summer in Belfast and other parts of the North. We have to challenge robustly the nonsense that some people have put out that there was no paramilitary involvement but rather that it was members of those paramilitary groups with a different hat on who were engaging in the racist violence. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck: you know the saying. All the talk of legitimate concerns about migration further bolsters paramilitary organisations' role and position in communities. I repeat: there are no legitimate concerns when we are talking about immigration. Rather, there is misinformation that needs to be challenged and called out by Ministers, especially in the House. That has not always been the case, as some have given succour through the repetition of that dangerous point.

I support the motion, but an obvious point that is missing from it concerns the role of state forces, particularly groups such as MI5. I have raised that issue previously in the context of its spying on journalists. How many activists, political reps, MLAs, trade unionists — anybody who challenges the status quo — are spied on, pressured or threatened by that organisation? How many people are pressured or threatened into becoming informants? We do not have the answer to that. We know that many, and probably all, paramilitary organisations are riddled with MI5 informants. We therefore need to disband those groups, which instil fear and terror in people here.

We also need to end the practice of public bodies encouraging victims of violence, particularly victims of racist violence, to engage with the "community". That, quite often, is code for paramilitary organisations. I have experienced that and have worked with people who have been victims of racist violence who were told to engage with community leaders. What is meant by that is, in fact, leaders of paramilitary organisations. That issue was raised at the Committee for the Executive Office a matter of weeks ago, and I can confirm that it happens. Unfortunately, it is commonplace. The control that those terrible organisations have over people's lives needs to come to an end.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the First Minister to respond to the debate. First Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on this important motion. As other Members have indicated, the fact that we are having this conversation more than 26 years after our peace agreement is unbelievable and underlines the fact that more needs to be done to bring an end to the scourge of paramilitarism.

There is no doubt that our society continues to suffer an unacceptable burden as a direct result of paramilitarism and that, in addition to serious violence, threats of violence and criminality, those gangs continue to inflict hidden harms on individuals and communities. As many Members have said, that includes child criminal exploitation, violence against women and girls and the extortion of hard-working local communities and businesses. It is clearly a very serious problem that requires a zero-tolerance response from government.

We have not shied away from the issue of paramilitarism in the draft Programme for Government. Members have referred to the fact that we noted in the draft Programme for Government that its estimated cost to our society is:

Members will be aware that the Executive programme on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime is jointly funded by the Executive and the British Government. It is investing £16 million a year in work to support individuals and communities experiencing paramilitary harm, as well as to break the cycle of violence. The origin of all the work in that programme was the Fresh Start Agreement of 2015. That is the agreement that led to changes being made to the Pledge of Office taken by all Ministers, under which we make clear our individual and collective responsibility to achieve a society free of paramilitarism. That is a pledge that we all must take seriously.

The programme started delivery in 2016 by acting as a coordinator for responding to the recommendations of an independent panel. Following the comprehensive review of the programme in 2020, a second phase began in 2021. That was endorsed by all the parties in the Executive at the time. That phase was based on a redesign of the programme to reflect the review's finding that, while good progress had been made against individual actions, overall impact had been difficult to measure. Phase 2 is now in its fourth year. Departments, statutory bodies and the community and voluntary sector are working in partnership to deliver an ambitious and innovative programme of work that systematically addresses this serious problem. Today, like many others, I acknowledge the contribution of all the partners that are key to delivery of the programme.

There are three overarching linked themes: keeping people safe, which involves putting pressure on criminal groups; increasing community resilience, which is about supporting communities to resist exploitation and harm; and increasing protective factors for those who may be vulnerable to exploitation for many reasons. There is a range of interventions, such as projects for specific groups or individuals who are at risk; support for those who have been victims of harm or have transitioned away from groups and are making a positive impact in their communities; and early interventions aimed at widespread prevention.

Focusing on properly understanding the problem and its root causes has been a key feature of the work since 2021. In many cases, the root cause is simply organised criminality. A new phase of the programme's public awareness campaign launched on 4 October. It expands on the previous illegal moneylending campaign. It highlights a range of specific ways in which paramilitaries harm people and communities through violence, the grooming of children, drugs, exploitation and abuse. Raising public awareness of those issues has a real-life impact and gives people the chance to openly discuss the impact that it has on their families and on communities.

For a number of years, the programme has led the way in describing the involvement of children with paramilitary groups as grooming and exploitation. It has also funded research that has enabled the development of a system-wide approach to child criminal exploitation led by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health. That shift in public language was clear just this summer, when we saw images of adults placing bricks into the hands of children during public disorder. Describing those shocking scenes as exploitation allows for an appropriate response from the police, the courts and those in charge of child protection and safeguarding. That, in turn, ensures that children get the right support to help them to move forward to a more positive future. I am really encouraged by recent figures that show that, whilst there were 18 recorded paramilitary-style attacks on under-18s between 2016 and 2020, there has been only one recorded since 2020. However, that one attack is, of course, one too many. I believe that the change in attitudes and in the way in which we talk about paramilitary attacks is making a real difference.

We know that paramilitaries can adapt their means of coercive control. That means that there can be no room for complacency. We also know that there is much more work to be done. A report that was published last month on the link between paramilitary coercive control and gender-based violence by Professor Aisling Swaine makes for harrowing reading. It is not just the horrific violence and threats from those groups that makes tackling the problem so complex; it is the fear created by their very presence. We are committed to working in partnership across the Executive to ensure that there is a joined-up approach. The design of the newly launched strategy to end violence against women and girls is supported by the tackling paramilitarism programme.

The development of partnerships across government and wider society has equipped organisations and communities with a wider set of skills and abilities to achieve positive outcomes. Progress towards those outcomes is starting to show real impact. I refer in particular to the Communities in Transition (CIT) project, which is delivered through the Executive Office. Quite literally, tens of thousands of participants have been involved in initiatives delivered by CIT through the Executive Office. It has invested £20 million across eight areas to strengthen community resilience to paramilitarism, criminality and coercive control. As a result, huge progress has been made on community safety in areas such as Lurgan, Carrick and Larne; restorative practice capability to mediate and resolve conflict has been enhanced through the Striving Towards a Restorative Society (STARS) project; and thousands of individuals have benefited from health and well-being and employability support across all areas. Through the Raising Aspirations project, young people have been steered away from involvement in and recruitment to paramilitarism; instead, they have been given opportunities for positive pathways in life.

The Independent Reporting Commission commented on the importance of developing the community environment in areas where paramilitaries operate. We agree that CIT should be part of a long-term holistic response to addressing the socio-economic needs in communities. The IRC also reports annually on the progress towards ending paramilitarism and has been strongly supportive of the CIT programme and its cumulative impact. It sees the work of the programme as bearing fruit and sees the need for long-term sustainable funding to tackle paramilitarism and transformational work to address socio-economic issues.

The recommendations from such reviews, the data from the programme and the consideration of the wider strategic context were all factors that led to a recommendation by the Justice Minister, as lead Minister for the programme, to extend phase 2 for a further two years until March 2027. That recommendation was discussed and endorsed by the Executive just last month. The extension allows work to progress with ministerial support. It also ensures stability and continuity of service for the next two years for the individuals involved in the programme and the communities that they support.

As Members are all too aware, the pervasive nature of paramilitarism requires our commitment to a robust, long-term and collaborative approach. For the past eight years, the programme has been testing and refining what works. From the outcomes that have are being seen, we all have a much better understanding. The focus of the programme's two-year extension will be on the interventions that have the greatest impact and on ensuring that they are embedded and scaled up where appropriate.

As a Government and a society, we must all seek to deliver lasting change in how we deal with paramilitarism. That is down to the collective leadership, because that is a crucial part of ensuring progress.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs O'Neill: Let me get through to the end, if you do not mind. You will have a chance to respond to the debate.

As stated in the Programme for Government, those who are most vulnerable to paramilitary harm are more likely to come from areas of deprivation and to experience poor health and educational outcomes and are less likely to be active in their communities. That is totally unacceptable in 2024. That vicious downward cycle needs to be broken, as our communities all deserve so much more and so much better.

We all have a part to play in addressing the scourge of paramilitarism. That means that interventions that have been proven to work and that demonstrate value for money must be supported and continue to evolve beyond the lifespan of the programme. Given the significant progress that has been made and our recent decision to extend the programme, we have asked our officials to engage with DOJ on how the learning from CIT can be built on and enhanced, which includes looking at refreshing the research that identified the target areas. The extension period will be an opportunity to consider how good practice can be captured and shared more widely across the system. That will involve a review prior to the end of the programme to inform decisions on what future work is needed and how best to carry that out. We must all, again, lend our collective support to that important work.

Whilst everything that I have set out demonstrates that good work is being done, I must also make it absolutely clear that, 26 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, there is no role for paramilitary groups in our society. There should be no acceptance or, equally, tolerance of their continued existence. The Independent Reporting Commission recommended that both Governments and the Executive explore the concept of group transition. That option needs to be actively considered as a way of urgently and conclusively bringing paramilitarism in our society to an end. In the meantime, the message across the Chamber must be clear and resolute: it is long past time that paramilitaries disbanded, and there should be no acceptance or facilitation of active paramilitary groups in any public policy discussion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude and wind up the debate. Sinéad, you have 10 minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the contributions that Members have made to the debate, and I thank the First Minister for responding to it. It is clear that, more than 26 years after our peace agreement and 30 years on from the republican and loyalist ceasefires, it should be a source of shame and disappointment to us all that paramilitarism still exerts a toxic and corrosive influence in all the communities that we represent.

Many Members across the House expressed their frustration about the hold that those organised criminals have over our young people in particular. I hope that the debate represents an opportunity for all of us to come together on the issue and for progress to be made. As mentioned in the debate, paramilitaries are nothing short of organised criminal gangs that want to trap us in our divisions and exploit our young people for their own gain.

Opening the debate, the leader of the Opposition clearly laid out that the paramilitaries have nothing to offer our society and that their influence is totally pervasive. The damage that they inflict on communities runs deep and has the most perverse impact on the most vulnerable among us. Many masquerade as protectors of communities, but we all know far too well that they prey on the fear and intimidation that they inflict. Colm Gildernew indicated that the LCC was acting as a mouthpiece for criminal gangs.

Beyond the direct influence of paramilitaries in communities, it is also hard to ignore that, driving through some areas of Derry and lots of other areas across the North, you can see their insignia and symbols dotted around the landscape and on lamp posts. I agree with Paula Bradshaw that those symbols and flags create an intimidating and menacing culture of fear in communities across Northern Ireland. They drive really poor relations and create an environment in which nobody in Northern Ireland wants to live and nor should they. It is a failure of this place to get serious about regulating the flying of flags. Today should be another opportunity to reiterate our calls for that to take place without delay through binding legislation.

It would be remiss of me not to mention recent research by the Foyle Family Justice Centre on the impact of paramilitarism on women and its connections with domestic violence. The report on that research calls it an unseen aspect of today's paramilitarism and one that is hidden in plain sight. I pay tribute to the women who came forward and told their stories, which were often harrowing and deeply distressing. Their lives were permeated by fear not only of the abuser but of the threat that underlies the abuse. The report's 10 recommendations must be implemented, and the new framework of "paramilitary-related coercive control", which was developed as part of this research, should no doubt form a new and key part of our response. The issue must also be tackled through the new ending violence against women and girls strategy, and I am really concerned that the new strategy commits only £3 million to tackling the entire issue over two years. Perhaps, in response to the First Minister's point, money could be found in the other pot, the Communities in Transition pot, for supporting ending violence against women and girls.

Of course, the actions of paramilitaries that I and others have described in the debate are well known, and the condemnation is equally well rehearsed. What do we do about it? Our motion calls for the review of the tackling paramilitarism programme. I am aware of much of the good work of that programme and those who work tirelessly to address the issue. We recognise that some progress has been made, with paramilitary-style assaults and intimidation reduced. However, it is much less clear to many people whether the Communities in Transition element of that programme is effective. In some cases, we have seen how community gatekeeping has been reinforced. The community resilience interventions funded by Communities in Transition are important. However, with a spend of over £19 million, the public rightly ask whether that represents true value for money.

Mr O'Toole: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will she agree that, while there has been lots of talk in the Chamber, including from the First Minister, about agreeing on the need to tackle the scourge of paramilitarism, what we actually need is the review of that programme with a specific focus on when and what the end point will be, not simply a continuation of funding for those programmes in an open-ended way but funding them with a clear goal for what the end point is?

Ms McLaughlin: I absolutely agree with the Member, and I am coming on to that.

I am not sure that the current approach represents true value for money and whether it will lead to the end of paramilitarism once and for all. In a recent answer to a question for oral answer, the deputy First Minister said that paramilitarism represents a:

That is a worrying underestimation of the scale of the problem. When paramilitary representatives are being invited into the heart of government and given privileged access that many in our communities, including community organisations, could only dream of, it is hard to see how the Executive Office's work can be effective when the very Ministers in the Executive are meeting paramilitaries. Many Members expressed their disappointment and anger at the Education Minister and the Communities Minister, who have denied multiple meetings with grassroots community groups and voluntary organisations yet find the time to meet paramilitaries. The Education Minister has turned down over 205 requests for meetings, but he managed to find time in his diary for a meeting with the LCC after it sent him a one-line email request. Now, that is access.

Our Government cannot continue to pander to paramilitary organisations. Indeed, as Gerry Carroll said, we cannot have a revolving door for paramilitary groups.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: OK.

Mr Carroll: Does the Member agree that it is not even the principle of meeting those groups, which is one thing, but that it is the elevation of them above other groups, which, as you and I mentioned, have not met those Ministers?

Ms McLaughlin: Steve Aiken made that point in his address as well, and I totally agree with Connie Egan's assertion that it is long past time for those paramilitaries to leave the stage and to do so for good. We need to see an end point, as Matthew just said. That end point was unclear in the First Minister's response.

Our current approach is clearly not working, and we must not let this Assembly mandate end, as the previous one did, with very little movement made and organised crime still able to control communities. The contributions from Members across the Chamber during the debate affirmed that there is cross-party support and agreement for change on the issue, but the Government must deliver a better society and reconcile our people. I urge the Executive and the Assembly to step up to the challenge and support our motion and stamp out paramilitarism once and for all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease for one minute before we move on to the next debate.

Mr McCrossan: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and up to 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Daniel, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I stand before the Assembly today to address a crisis that has been allowed to grow and worsen by the day under the lack of leadership of the Executive. It is a crisis that is affecting tens of thousands of families right across Northern Ireland. There is no constituency, family or community that is not affected by the real, serious challenges of the crisis.

Housing is not just about having a roof over your head; it is central to our well-being, our economy and our futures. Yet, we are facing an unprecedented housing emergency that requires immediate and decisive action: not words, excuses, delays, collapsing institutions and disappearing, but action.

It is a basic, fundamental right that people should have access to quality housing, yet over 47,000 households are currently on the social housing waiting list. That figure has grown exponentially in recent years. It means that tens of thousands of families are living in uncertainty, unsure when or if they will find a place to live or to call home. It is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and it is affecting people in a very serious way. Not having the basic provision of a home affects their well-being, their health and their ability to function in society.

The situation has been going on for years and years. People have been on housing lists for years. People have died while waiting to be housed in Northern Ireland. Is that really acceptable? Is that the legacy of the House? Is that the legacy of consecutive Executives and their failure to resolve the issue and the growing demand for housing in our society?

This year, the Executive managed to secure funding to build only 400 social housing units. It is a number so low that, if we were to continue in that trajectory, it would take 250 years to house everyone on that waiting list. That is an absolutely shocking indictment of how this place functions and how the Executive prioritise, or not, housing for people across our communities. To make matters worse, the budget cuts of nearly 40% to the Department for Communities' capital funding have crippled its ability to invest in new social housing projects. In contrast, in other UK regions, long-term capital budgets and decarbonisation funds have enabled continuous investment in housing infrastructure. Here, however, we are completely left behind. What is worse is that we recognise the problem, yet it continues to get worse.

The challenges around social housing are not new. They have long been a very dark shadow over this Building and at the heart of government, but they have become more pronounced in recent times. In recent times, the right-to-buy scheme has led to over 120,000 properties in Northern Ireland being sold. It has left our Housing Executive with just 86,000 housing units, representing a total deduction, since the 1980s, of 58%. We are not building houses — we do not have enough to go round — yet we are selling the ones that we do have. Someone point to me what is wrong with that picture. It is making the situation worse.

The Executive really need to address the crisis, and they need to address it now, with fresh and ambitious ideas and a housing supply strategy that not only replaces lost social housing but increases significantly the homes available to meet current and future demand. We will not get that by standing still. We will make the situation worse. We will have more people struggling on waiting lists and with their lives, which adds to other pressures on the Department of Health and other aspects of the social and economic challenges that our society already has.

The proliferation of second homes and short-term holiday lets is another challenge because it is pricing people out of their local communities. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Causeway Coast and Glens, which has the highest average house prices, at £242,985, despite being one of the most deprived council areas in the UK. Young people are being priced out of their communities, and that is eroding the very fabric of our local economies and cultures.

Meanwhile, our private rented sector remains under-regulated, costly and, often, substandard. Some 13% of households are in the private rented market, with average weekly rents of £109 and rising when compared to social housing rents, with no effective mechanism to enforce the decent home standard, and many tenants, especially those on low incomes, are often forced to live in very poor conditions. We hear about them every day in our offices. The rising costs of rent, coupled with increased energy and food prices, are pushing more people into debt and homelessness, with a staggering 70% increase in households presenting as homeless due to the loss of rental accommodation over the past few years.

Housing is a vital part of our infrastructure. Yet, it is not being given the priority or investment that it deserves. We are seeing a 60-year low in housebuilding across Northern Ireland. That situation is exacerbated by underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure, which has stalled development of an estimated 19,000 new homes. That is some legacy for this place and how the Executive function and how they really prioritise one of the greatest issues at the heart of our people's concerns. Without urgent upgrades, particularly in areas of greatest need, housing development will remain blocked, and the cost of housing will continue to rise.

Mr Stewart: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not. I am tight for time, Mr Stewart.

The SDLP has long advocated for solutions to these interconnected issues and has called for an immediate declaration of a housing emergency. Send a message to our people that the Executive are taking this crisis seriously and will step up and act, not just put a slight slant in the Programme for Government and say that it is a priority, with no time frames, no plans on how they will achieve it and no measurable outcomes whatsoever, which is typical of how the Executive function. They put out the words with little action to follow, and the crisis gets worse. The hamster wheel continues, and people continue to suffer. There is no greater crisis than homelessness in our society. People should not be suffering in that way.

It is not just the responsibility of the Minister for Communities; it is a collective one for the entire Executive. It is one that lingers from the Executive Office, right through every Department, and it needs to be a key priority for the Executive. They need to come together, remove the silo working and put people at the heart of some of these objectives.

We urge the Minister:

Some might think that that is overly ambitious, but, for the people I speak to daily who are sleeping on sofas — some are sleeping in our emergency departments — it is a very serious problem, and it points to one reality, which is the failure of the House to address the critical need of our people.

Furthermore, we need a renewed commitment to tackle chronic homelessness, strengthen protections in the private rented sector and introduce a new, robust, empty homes strategy. With at least 21,000 properties lying vacant across Northern Ireland, we have a clear immediate opportunity to address short-term housing needs. That does not mean pumping £28 million into temporary accommodation that is not fit for purpose, spending £7·6 million on non-standard accommodation, such as B&Bs and hotels, and £15·4 million on temporary single housing lets. That represents an increase of 543% since 2016-17. What a legacy for the Executive.

When we are out, all smiles, and the cameras are flashing, remember the consequences of the failure of the Executive to address homelessness in our society. An increase of 543%, and that does not even paint the full picture, because people are being put into units that are not suitable for their needs. We are talking about vulnerable people in our communities, people who are being put into areas that do not have the infrastructure to support them with regard to their well-being, mental health or addiction, or to police the challenges that they face. It is failing. It is taking a typical sticking-plaster approach, instead of sitting down and working out a strategy, investing in that strategy and achieving outcomes that provide people with homes for the future.

We must capitalise on this moment to bring about real change to create a Northern Ireland where every family has a home that they can afford, where communities thrive and where no one is left behind. The SDLP is calling for immediate action. I know that all Members recognise that there is a serious problem, but unless we sit down, discuss it properly and lay out a strategy, more people will be left behind. It is the core function of the Executive to ensure that we end poverty; to ensure that we end homelessness; and to ensure that everybody has the same opportunities in life to thrive and build a good life for them and their families. I urge the House to support this important motion and to recognise this crisis.

Ms Ferguson: In my capacity as Sinn Féin housing spokesperson, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Housing is a human right that is recognised in international human rights law as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. What connects all our people here — our workers and families — with us, as public representatives, is our being united on the fact that everyone deserves a safe place that they can call home.

First, I acknowledge the formidable front-line housing and homelessness prevention providers who operate locally, day in and day out, to provide vital person-centred wrap-around support for those who are being failed by our housing system. I also acknowledge the many organisations that provide housing advice. As we move forward in tackling housing once and for all, it is critical that, as a matter of urgency, they are placed on a longer-term sustainable funding model. The situation that we are facing can be described as a perfect storm, as we face challenges right across not only our social housing sector but all housing tenures. Those challenges include shortages of social housing; a decline in suitable secure and affordable private rentals; continued increases in house prices, which, even in my constituency of Derry, average £180,000 for a first-time buyer; and growing levels of homelessness.

The most commonly cited reasons for homelessness include accommodation no longer being reasonable, sharing breakdowns and loss of private rented accommodation. On the last point, the onus is on the Minister for Communities to act to end no-fault evictions in the private rented sector and to work to support the banning of unjustifiable letting fees. Work must also be progressed to introduce rent regulations, as provided for in the Private Tenancies Act 2022, alongside work to significantly improve housing fitness standards.

Many of the longer-term challenges mentioned today are inextricably linked with the impacts of 14 years of Tory austerity, which has decimated our public services, destroyed our living standards and demoralised those who work at the coalface of our housing system. However, we have a draft housing supply strategy that sets out the strategic context and has five core objectives relating to the creation of affordable homes; homelessness prevention and intervention efforts; improving housing quality; building thriving communities, including through shared, mixed-tenure developments; and decarbonisation. The draft strategy enshrines a cross-departmental approach that prioritises housing, from infrastructure and land needs to capital investment, and sets out proposals for long-term policies and interventions. The Minister for Communities should act urgently to publish the housing supply strategy.

We also have a Programme for Government that takes us to 2027 and sets a direction for the remainder of the mandate that rightly includes increasing housing supply and tackling homelessness. The Programme for Government acknowledges that good housing and health and well-being are interdependent and that access to housing is relevant to educational attainment, job opportunities, thriving communities, sustaining our rural communities and maintaining people's stability so that they can thrive.

We are all responsible for housing. Housing delivery requires collaborative working across central and local government as well as the third sector and private sector, as we often see housing information through our local development plans.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Sorry. I just want to get through.

In the first instance, we should also look to the significant expertise that already exists across our housing sector, such as in the Housing Executive's place-shaping teams, in planning departments, in building control departments and in our construction industry. Where there is weak capacity, we should build and strengthen it. Significant work has been progressed in individual Departments. For example, last week, Conor Murphy launched a consultation on low-carbon heating technologies in residential buildings, and that consultation is open to the public until 31 December.

Nonetheless, we need to collaborate continually across our 11 local councils and nine Departments on the issue of housing. The Executive and the Assembly have a collective vision of access to a secure, adequate and affordable place to call home for everyone. We know that our housing system must urgently be rebalanced to place an emphasis on the delivery of not-for-profit and affordable public homes on public land for the public good. We know that housing supply and delivery will benefit significantly —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Ferguson: — from multi-annual budgeting, as it will from the recruitment of vital staff.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee for Communities along with my colleague Maurice Bradley, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion calling for the declaration of a housing emergency.

The Democratic Unionist Party acknowledges the broad thrust of the motion, although I will highlight some alternative wording that we would have preferred. The motion rightly points to the "growing crisis in housing availability", the "inadequate supply of social housing", "underinvestment in waste water infrastructure", the "growing impact of second-home ownership" — Mr McCrossan also referred to houses that have become short-term holiday lets — the:

and the:

The motion also:

for housing. I presume that the SDLP is referring to its housing Ministers and others in that expression of regret.

As is the case with all Departments, the Communities Minister is managing many competing demands on departmental resources. We know that he is seeking the necessary funding and resources to address those interconnected issues. He is working with other relevant Ministers, local councils and housing bodies to expedite solutions to increase the availability of social, affordable and sustainable housing. That includes pushing for borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive so that it can borrow against its considerable assets to fund significant additional social housing. We also know that the Minister is working to bring the draft housing supply strategy to the Executive as soon as possible. We expect the issues highlighted in the motion to feature in that strategy.

We would have preferred the wording of the motion's final clause to call on the Minister to work with the Minister of Finance to secure a commitment that future budgetary allocations, including Barnett consequential funding, should reflect the need to provide more social, affordable and sustainable housing in Northern Ireland as an immediate and stand-alone priority of the draft Programme for Government. I have now put that alternative wording on the record. We recognise the need for additional housing of all categories as being an urgent priority and an emergency for the Assembly and the Executive.

Ms K Armstrong: I make my contribution today feeling quite frustrated. It will not shock the SDLP, but we support the motion. It is, however, only part of the solution to our housing crisis. We know that we have a housing crisis. The Minister agreed in the House that there is a housing crisis, but asking a Minister to declare a housing emergency will not resolve the problem.

Yesterday, a number of us met experts in the housing field. They set out to us the barriers to our housing programme, and those are as follows: Northern Ireland Water (NIW) is blocking development, because, as we all know, there are no cranes without drains; power connection delays from Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) are preventing developments; there are planning delays owing to red tape, which breaks people's hearts when developers are trying to build developments; and there is a lack of local development plans from our councils. We lack construction workers, because skilled people here are disappearing off down South or across the water for jobs or because we are not training enough people in the skills that are needed for the future of housing. We spend too much money on crisis rather than prevention of homelessness. Private rentals have halved in number since 2019.

We know that all that is happening. The issue has been outlined in the Programme for Government, so the Executive are looking at it, but I go a step further to say that it is time for action. We need short-, medium- and long-term actions. To be honest, those were set out in the draft housing supply strategy 2022-37 that was consulted on. We have a long-term housing supply strategy. My frustration is that the Minister has said, on a number of occasions, "I am about to bring forward the housing supply strategy and get it published". What is the delay? I want to hear the answer today. If we all know what all the barriers and problems are, what is the delay in getting the housing supply strategy published? There is no excuse for the delays any more. The strategy was written a while ago. If the Minister wants to put his fingerprints all over it, well and good, but get it published. As soon as it is published, it can influence future Budget planning, and other Ministers will know exactly what their role is in fixing the housing crisis.

Short-term things that we should bring forward include improving existing homes so that we do not have people living in premises that have mould or damp. We need to instruct the Housing Executive to stop selling homes in a crisis. We need to change the legislation and get it moved forward. We need to use the time now to ensure that all the barriers are identified and to get buy-in across the whole Executive so that each Minister will play their role in taking the barriers away. For instance, where is the infrastructure commission? That has been talked about for a while. We desperately need people to have a look at Northern Ireland Water to find out what the heck is going on, because, if we cannot build houses, we will add to the 80,000 people who are without a home to call their own.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I agree with many of her points, which are well made. On the infrastructure issues and the capacity in Northern Ireland Water, the only suggestion that we have been given to date is that the solution should be developer-led. Given the pressures on our housing associations and those who are building affordable homes, surely that approach is not viable in the current financial climate?

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you. Developers are already contributing. In my constituency, a pumping station worth £1·3 million has been put in to service a private development. They are already doing it. In the meeting that we had yesterday with the experts in their field, it was clear that they were saying the same: developers are already doing it. However, we need Northern Ireland Water to confirm the type of pipes that developers need to connect into so that the system can work. We need a clear, honest approach to housing. It becomes more and more frustrating to hear people say, "We must throw money at the problem". If the Minister had a billion pounds today to build houses, he could not do it because of the barriers: Northern Ireland Water, the lack of development plans and all the problems that are there.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. She has made her points well, and I agree with most of them, but this is a crisis for the Executive. It is up to Ministers to work collectively to resolve the problem of building houses. It is not good enough that one Minister hides from the other; they need to work collectively. The problem with the Government is that they work in silos. That is why we are in a situation that worsens by the day.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you for that, Mr McCrossan, but I say, "Back at you", because, to be frank, Nichola Mallon was the previous Infrastructure Minister, and she did not sort out Northern Ireland Water. We are living with the consequences of that.

Another reason why the housing crisis is so acute is the continued division of our society. Housing for all has not progressed as much as was originally intended. Housing developments should be open to all, enabling inclusive communities where people live together irrespective of age, disability, race, religion, cultural background, sexuality or gender. Where are our mixed-tenure plans? Where are our shared housing plans? In some areas, we find that, if a person's face does not fit, graffiti is painted on their home, and posters threatening maintenance crews are erected. The rise in intimidation is appalling. In my constituency, we have suffered from the disgusting antics of bully-boy loyalist paramilitary groups who want only people whom they can control to have access to social homes. The number of people who are forced into crime by those gangs is a dreadful indictment of the failure to end paramilitarism, as we discussed earlier. Prostitution of girls and boys, drugs, black market cigarettes and alcohol, and paramilitary lending leave many tenants feeling abandoned to the criminals who think that they control housing estates. We should concentrate on providing a better society. A housing supply strategy with clear objectives and time-bound targets is needed now.

Mr Allen: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. Despite some of their pontificating, I thank the Members opposite for tabling it. You would nearly believe that they had not recently been in the Executive, but we will leave that aside, because the people in our communities need us to be working together. I am interested to hear the Opposition's plans: I am no apologist for the Executive, but I have not heard the Opposition's alternatives.

It is undeniable that Northern Ireland is in the midst of a housing emergency. The figures and statistics, which represent real people, speak for themselves. As of March this year, 47,312 households were on the social housing waiting list. That represents a 1·8% increase from December and a 4·9% rise from last year. To put that number in context, it would fill our national football stadium, Windsor Park, two times over. Twice. I have sat in that stadium many times and seen the size and scale of it. The number of households on the social housing waiting list would fill it twice. Is that the true reality of our housing crisis? I ask that because I have delved deeper into it, as have other Members, and have had many constituents come to me, time and time again, to highlight that they have been taken off the housing waiting list because they did not receive a letter to renew their application or do not recall receiving one. Therefore, I question whether the statistics before us are a true reality of our housing crisis. The number on the social housing waiting list represents individuals and families who are living in overcrowded conditions, sofa-surfing, sleeping on floors or stuck in temporary accommodation — if they can get it — that is far from schools, work and their support networks, upon which many of them rely.

We must recognise social housing as the critical public service that it is and recognise that it requires a plan of action. While meaningful change will take time, we must lay the foundations now for building solutions to the crisis. The key to addressing the housing emergency is to build more homes, but, as other Members have stated, simply building more homes is not the sole solution to the problem. An ambitious target of delivering at least 5,000 social homes per year is required, but we cannot say that in isolation: we need to create the conditions to build up to that. As I have said, simply building more homes will not be enough on its own. We must adopt a place-shaping approach by integrating housing with local infrastructure, services and amenities for the benefit of entire communities. We must create homes not just houses, learning from global examples in which integration has been a success.

Adequate financial resources are essential. Empowering the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to borrow is key to its investing in existing housing stock and building new homes. Reforming the planning system, which my colleague the Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee will touch on in more detail shortly, is vital to speeding up approval for social and affordable housing. Public land, particularly derelict land such as that identified by the BUILD project in the greater Shankill, should be made available for mixed-tenure housing. There are many examples of projects like BUILD that have done tremendous work to highlight the plight of dereliction across that community. We need a proportionate rethink of how we assess housing need in areas.

There is available land. We need to be proportionate and balanced in how we address that. Community involvement in the planning process is crucial. Local stakeholders should help to identify suitable locations, and affordability must be at the heart of new projects. The Minister for Communities is not here, but I look forward to hearing from his colleague, who used to be in the post, on the proposals that he intends to bring forward. We have the intermediate rent offering coming forward, but, again, that, on its own, will not be enough to address the crisis that is before us. We need to look at how we can scale up that project and deliver more.

Almost 20 years ago, in a presentation to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, representatives of housing bodies here highlighted the scale of the crisis, but it seems that what they said was either unheeded or the steps and measures that were taken at that point were not sufficient to address the challenges that Northern Ireland faced. Standing still is not an option. We owe it to future generations to act now by setting clear targets, increasing funding and utilising public land effectively.

The Good Friday Agreement laid the foundations for peace, but we have failed to build on those foundations when it comes to housing and so many other aspects of public life. Now is the time to right that wrong.

Mr Bradley: The motion recognises that the housing crisis in Northern Ireland is due to insufficient social housing, underinvestment in waste water infrastructure and rising difficulties for first-time buyers. In my constituency and in my council area, Causeway Coast and Glens, we bear the brunt, perhaps more so than some other areas. Not only do we have a serious waiting list but we have the added problem of many private lets moving into the Airbnb market, and displaced tenants seeking Housing Executive accommodation are adding stress to the existing housing list.

I agree with many of the points raised by the proposer of the motion, Mr McCrossan, and other Members, but I urge that we create a joined-up strategy. To combat one of the major obstacles facing the supply of housing, particularly social housing, that strategy must include the Department for Infrastructure. That obstacle is the lack of infrastructure for waste water, water, power, and sewerage capacity. Added to that are planning delays and a proliferation of second homes, many of them lying empty.

Yes, we are in the midst of a housing emergency, and we need to allocate resources to address those issues. We need to collaborate with councils and housing bodies to build 50,000 homes by 2032. That is quite a target. It shows the dire need to address the housing shortage across Northern Ireland.

The motion seeks a commitment to ring-fence any Barnett consequential funding for housing. As a party, we cannot support that, as it would impinge upon all other Departments in the Executive. Going forward, it would set a worrying precedent permitting all other Departments to ring-fence key elements of their budget for private projects.

We support the motion, except for the last paragraph, and the amendment. We look forward to something being done in the House to address the dire need for housing across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: I support the motion because it is clear, as others have said, that we are in a housing crisis. Whilst I agree with so much that was said across the Chamber today, I do not think that I can add much, particularly after my colleague and self-professed housing nerd, Kellie Armstrong, made some key points about how this is a multifaceted problem. The solution is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem and building houses.

I want to use a bit of time to shine a light on a group that is so often overlooked when we talk about housing and homelessness. I do not believe that I have heard anyone else speak about young people who have experience of care, who are acutely vulnerable to the housing crisis. Those young people are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They face unique challenges when they transition out of care at the age of 18. Far too many find themselves without the housing that they need to make that successful transition into adulthood. They have very specific issues that are not thought about, perhaps, when we look at the crises of homelessness and our housing system.

In 2023, there were 365 care leavers aged 16 to 18 in Northern Ireland. About 75% of them were in education, training or employment. However, because of the challenges that face them when transitioning out of care and holding down a successful tenancy, those young people are particularly vulnerable. That is so frustrating, because we all know when a young person in care will turn 18. It is not a surprise: we have their date of birth, and they are in the system. Why is it that so many of them find themselves struggling with unsuitable housing or even homelessness once they reach adulthood? At Committee, we heard of an 18-year-old who spent his birthday alone in a hotel room because he had to be removed from his care the day before. Those are the issues.

For me, when we look at a housing crisis, it is so multifaceted. It is not just about putting money into building new houses. There are ways in which we need to help people to sustain tenancies, and there are ways in which we need to give support to the communities that need it most.

What is missing, for me, is joined-up thinking right across Departments. Those with responsibility for health, housing, education and social services should all be working together to ensure seamless transitions into tenancies and placements. It is about planning and coordination. It is not acceptable that we are failing so many families, so many communities, and, from my point of view, so many young people who are particularly vulnerable.

One of the questions that is related to my point is this: where is our youth homelessness strategy and plan? We were promised it by April 2024, and still we are seeing rising numbers of young people presenting as homeless. In 2022-23, 2,186 young people aged 16 to 25 presented as homeless. The Housing Executive has recognised that —.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, of course.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for making very valid points. That is a huge issue of concern for us all, and it presents to us in our offices every week. Does she agree that there is a disproportionate impact on young single men in particular, who are healthy and well but cannot get enough points to get housed quickly enough, which leads to a particular issue for them with homelessness? I see examples of that every day.

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

Ms Mulholland: What I see is partly linked to our planning issues and the reticence of developers and our council planning committees to approve single lets and single-bed accommodation. That is a really big issue, and we need to look at the need versus what is being put out there. It is a question of need versus what is going to make money, in some respects.

The Housing Executive has been asked for a youth homelessness draft plan. We were supposed to get it in April 2024, and we will ask for it again. That will be an important step, but we need to ensure that it is implemented quickly and resourced. For me, this is also about rural areas, where young people often feel even more isolated and unsupported. Day and daily, we are seeing young people being moved into hostel accommodation or HMOs that are outside their rural area, where they would have some semblance of support. That is another important issue.

As my colleague said, the problem, particularly in rural areas, is about not just the number of homes but the infrastructure, or more accurately, the lack of it. The roads, the waste water systems and even the basic services that we need in order to build more homes are simply not there or are too outdated to support new developments. Again, that problem exists in some villages in my constituency, where developers are waiting on the sidelines, land has been acquired and they are not getting planning approval because of the waste water systems. That is happening across Northern Ireland, so the solution is not just to build more houses.

Another barrier to addressing the crisis is the division that still exists in so many parts of Northern Ireland. Just this morning, I received a text message from my constituency office to say that a family turned up to paint their new house in an area of Ballymena only to be told, "You are not welcome here". They are having to give up the tenancy. We believe in shared housing and mixed-tenure developments, but, as we talked about in the previous debate, too many people are asserting control in communities, which is impacting right the way through. For me, that reflects straight back to paramilitarism and other issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sian. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. Therefore, by leave of the Assembly, I propose to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be John Stewart.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for her question. My Department has taken a number of steps to improve patient flow at the Altnagelvin Area Hospital. An enhanced minor injury unit was opened in March this year. It is a Phone First-led service that operates from 8.00 am to 9.00 pm, seven days a week. It is my expectation that the unit will see some 20,000 minor injury patients a year, and thus 20,000 people will avoid the need to attend the emergency department (ED).

My Department has also commissioned an enhancement to the Altnagelvin ambulatory care unit, which operates from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm, seven days a week. It is expected that it will provide almost 20,000 bookable appointments a year. A consultant-led respiratory hub is also available, with clinics operating two and a half days a week and offering capacity for 1,200 patients each year, as well as providing seven-day respiratory consultation cover for the emergency department and inpatient referral.

The Western Health and Social Care Trust has established a control room in the hospital to proactively manage the flow of patients through the hospital site and into community services. A discharge coordination team is promoting earlier discharges and improved weekend discharge rates for patients who have been assessed as medically fit. In addition, the trust has engaged with GP practices to embed direct referral pathways from primary care to the "Hospital at Home" service. Work between the trusts and care homes is helping to avoid admissions for residents, with plans in place to manage agreed conditions by care home providers. As well as redesigning seven general residential beds to increase capacity for patients with dementia, the trust will open a further 11 beds for dementia patients and eight general nursing beds to help improve flow through and discharge from Altnagelvin.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for the update on that range of measures, Minister. Unfortunately, things are not improving, despite the fact that we have the minor injuries unit and the other measures that you mentioned, and despite the fact that, on a weekly basis —

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Ferguson: — there is an urgent escalation of people being removed from their beds and placed in corridors. Is additional work needed to address gaps in specialisms among medical staff and reduce the number of people waiting? In Altnagelvin, 28% or 29% of people —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Ms Ferguson: — wait for more than 12 hours in A&E.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that supplementary question. We are trying to remove the second assessment. A lot of people end up in a hospital because they start off with an assessment from their GP and are then sent to the emergency department of an acute hospital, where they are assessed for a second time. The future is to do away with that second assessment, wherever possible, so that the GP can refer the patient directly to a specialist service in the hospital. Some hospitals, as well as having emergency departments and minor injuries units, now have urgent care departments. That is what I am talking about: a situation where you can be referred by a GP directly to an urgent care department. The theory behind that is that you have more specialists. The future of healthcare, moving from the past of healthcare, is a development towards having fewer generalists and many more specialists. That is the future. That is the direction of travel.

Mr Durkan: I commend the heroic efforts of staff in the emergency department at Altnagelvin. Will the Minister provide an update on the Western Trust's business case for an enhanced emergency department at Altnagelvin?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I visited Altnagelvin a few weeks ago. We looked at some of the new facilities, and I was updated on the fact that there is a plan for a new emergency department. I will have to write to the Member if he is looking for exact details of what stage that outline business case is at and the timeline for its completion.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be well aware of the overcrowding in A&Es across Northern Ireland, with increased pressures inside the departments and ambulances regularly stacked up outside departments for up to 12 hours. What work is the Department undertaking to reduce average waiting times across our A&E departments?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. To address ambulance handover times, which are critical, my Department has taken steps to improve waiting times at emergency departments. Reducing those handover delays has been a key priority because of the impact that it has on the Ambulance Service's capacity to respond to calls in the community, particularly category 1 and category 2 emergency calls. A regional process has been issued by my Department to all the geographic trusts for the release of ambulances from outside EDs when the Ambulance Service has an outstanding category 1 or category 2 call. Trusts have been working with the Ambulance Service to introduce new care pathways for patients to provide alternatives to conveying all patients to an ED.

I would also say that it is about the flow, as the Member will be aware. When I started in the Department, one of the cost savings that were put to me, which I could not countenance, was cutting a significant number of hours of domiciliary care. If we were to do that, even more patients who are ready for discharge would be stuck in a bed, particularly in an acute hospital, and, if those beds are not vacant, the people in the ED who are trying to get into those beds would be stuck in ED and, therefore, the people in the ambulances would not get into the ED. It is all about the flow. I assure the Member that we are well focused on that in the Department.

Dr Aiken: The Minister will be aware that, often, the sooner a patient can be triaged, the better the outcome is for that patient. Can he provide an update on the work to introduce a telephone triage service locally?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. One of the strategic priorities of the urgent and emergency care review that was published two years ago was the introduction of local and, ultimately, regional Phone First services that would be akin to the 111 telephone services that operate in other parts of the United Kingdom. Local Phone First services are now available in all trust areas. They provide initial advice and triage for people who are considering attending urgent care services. My Department is also exploring the possibility of introducing a regional HSC 111 telephone triage service that will bring those local services under one, easy-to-remember telephone number, subject, of course, to business case development and funding availability.

Officials have been engaging with counterparts in England and Scotland to get a better understanding of how services there operate, including the introduction of a mental health hub as part of any new service. That hub, if introduced, would provide mental health assessment and support, including signposting callers to other relevant mental health services.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I fully recognise that the current situation is unsustainable. I am determined to see urgent improvements in the area. I am aware that, unfortunately, a significant number of families are on waiting lists to access support services and an increasing number of children with disability are on the edge of care. I am also aware that, regionally, the limited availability of residential care for children with disability has resulted in a decimated residential short-break service, with a number of residential short-break units being repurposed to provide longer-term care to children with disability.

A children with disability summit was convened by my officials last month to consider potential options in respect of improving access. The summit was also attended by senior representatives from each of the five geographic trusts and senior representatives from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). It was agreed at the meeting that each trust would develop a proposed children with a disability short-term action plan that it would submit to my Department for active consideration in terms of suggestions and estimated costings regarding what is needed to imminently attempt to alleviate some of the significant pressures experienced with children's access to overnight short breaks.

I want to fully acknowledge that, in the very near future, active consideration will also need to be given to the medium- and long-term plans that each trust will need to consider to fully address the long-standing issues that have existed in the children with a disability service. It is important to recognise that overnight residential short breaks are only a part of the continuum of services needed for children with disabilities, and the opportunities to expand support services that can be provided in the community are also being actively considered.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that work is ongoing. However, in the debate last week, the Minister acknowledged the documentary 'I Am Not Okay'. Those families and many others will want to know the answer to this question: when will we see increases in respite provision and long-term residential provision? Unfortunately, we are now arriving at that situation.

Mr Nesbitt: There are two issues that we need to address. One is the physical infrastructure — the houses and residential places that we need — because we do not have enough. Professor Ray Jones has some thoughts about how we should reconfigure. There is also the appropriately trained staff. Even if we had the money and the physical infrastructure, do we have the staff to undertake a major increase in provision? The answer to that, I am afraid, is, "No, not in the immediate term". There will have to be training and recruitment. Also, we are concerned, as we are with all areas of the workforce, about the retention of staff.

Can I give the Member an answer to that? I am afraid that I cannot give you a timeline. I can say that, this week — hopefully, as early as tomorrow — I will be presented with proposals by my officials, who are working tirelessly on the issue. If it is as early as tomorrow, that is something that we might be able to discuss at this week's meeting of the Health Committee, and I would welcome that very much.

Ms Hunter: The SDLP recently met the families in the hard-hitting documentary about their lives and how lack of respite services has impacted on them. They referenced facilities that have capacity yet are not fully used. I was going to ask you, Minister, whether money was the simple issue here, but you referred to staffing issues. Will you talk us through a little more on that and where we go from here?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. When Professor Bengoa was here last week, in the morning we visited a residential social care site in north Belfast where the point was made to us that there were five beds in the unit but only two were being funded by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. It would be lovely to say that we can find the money to say that the trust could now fund all five, but the point was made that, even if that money was available, the staff are not available. That then becomes a workforce challenge on top of the financial challenge, and solving either of those is not something that can be done in the short term.

I want to be realistic, but I also want to be optimistic. I want to give a little hope and say, not least because of that devastating but brilliant documentary, 'I Am Not Okay', that it is very much on the radar of the Department and I am determined to do something about it.

Mr Crawford: Minister, the recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme was incredibly effective and impactful in driving home the challenges and pressures that some families face. Will the Minister commit to leaving no stone unturned in finding a resolution, and does he agree that it is essential for his Department to continue to work with key stakeholders, including families and even new independent voices such as the recently appointed autism reviewer?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. Yes, I agree with everything that he said. It is a difficult challenge that does not easily lend itself to short-term fixes, but, as I said, hopefully this week and potentially tomorrow, we will start the process by looking at options.

I am pleased to see Ema Cubitt in place as the autism adviser. She has got off to a great start. I heard her on the radio not long after she was appointed, and she is clearly determined to be independent, which is exactly what she should be, holding people's feet to the fire, including those of the Department and mine.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. During construction of the new maternity hospital at the Royal Victoria, as part of routine monitoring, the contractor reported levels of pseudomonas aeruginosa (PsA) in the domestic water systems. Action was taken to remediate that. The contractor continued to test the water and provided a set of samples immediately prior to handover. The results of those samples were reviewed, and they met contractual obligations.

The building was then handed over in March of this year. Following that, the trust put the water systems in the building into operational mode and ran a period of steady state. During that period, the trust took samplings from all the water outlets in the building. PsA, I am afraid, was detected in a significant number of those outlets.

The current issue involves the detection of PsA in the domestic water systems. The trust assures members of the public that it takes steps to prevent pseudomonas aeruginosa colonising in its plumbing network in order to protect the vulnerable patients in its care. That includes regularly testing the water systems.

The trust is currently commissioning an independent review of the water systems at the maternity hospital. The review will be undertaken by leading industry experts and will inform next steps for the trust under the relevant design and construction contracts. In tandem with that independent review, and subject to its final outcome, the trust is developing remediation options for the water systems. Remediation works could significantly impact on timescales for occupation of the building. Belfast Trust staff continue to provide excellent care to women and babies through the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service. I am told that service delivery has not been impacted on as a result of the delay, but, obviously, mothers and families are being denied access to the new maternity hospital.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. Prior to the latest announcement, I submitted a freedom of information request to ask what the cost of the delay was. I was told by the Belfast Trust that that was commercially sensitive information. Given the vast sums of public money involved, will the Minister commit to informing each MLA of the total cost of the delay to the build? The answer that I, as a democratically elected MLA, was given was completely unacceptable and lacked transparency.

Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge what the Member has said. The only potential confidentiality issue would be with who was responsible for PsA being in the water systems in the maternity hospital. There are ongoing discussions about that. The Member may be aware that there previously was an issue with the water systems in the critical care building on the Royal Victoria site, although I am assured that that was of a different origin and resulted from a different set of circumstances, which, as I understand it, led to a financial settlement with the contractor. The circumstances in this regard are very different, but openness and transparency, particularly to MLAs, is required, allowing for the fact that there may be some commercial sensitivity along the way.

Mrs Dodds: The cost of the new hospital has more than doubled since the initial business case was produced. We also know from questioning at the Health Committee that pseudomonas aeruginosa in acceptable levels was present in the water systems at handover. What role did the Department of Health play in the handover? Does the Minister have confidence in the trust to deliver the new capital projects?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that the Department played a specific role in the handover. The building was commissioned by the Belfast Trust, and there was a commercial relationship with a contractor.

My difficulty is one in a broader sense: the contractor ran some tests, and, based on how those contracts are managed, PsA levels were found to be acceptable. Those tests, however, did not replicate how the water systems would operate once the hospital had been commissioned and was fully operational. When the trust did further tests, we discovered that the levels of PsA were not acceptable. It is a very serious problem that may take a very long time to fix. As the Member will know, the hospital has been subject to delay after delay for years, the consequence of which is that the cost of building it is now eye-watering. When I first saw the figure written down on a piece of paper, I thought that there had been a typographical error. It is phenomenally expensive. Spending the money to fix the PsA issue, particularly if the costs fall to the trust, will put even more pressure on an increasingly pressurised budget.

Mr McNulty: Minister, what reassurance can you give midwives at Daisy Hill Hospital's maternity unit who, given recent actions and inaction by the trust, are concerned that your Department and the trust are systematically dismantling maternity services at our hospital in Newry city?

Mr Speaker: Minister, answer that as you wish. It does not relate to RVH.

Mr Nesbitt: As the Speaker suggests, your question has very little relevance to the question posed by Ms Ní Chuilín. I gently say this to you: there were some workforce issues with midwives recently in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, and the trust dealt with those as best as it possibly could handle them. I am not aware of any plans to dismantle maternity services at the Daisy Hill Hospital.

Ms Egan: How is the Minister's Department monitoring the current risks in the domestic water systems across all trust areas?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. On foot of the pseudomonas issue that arose at the maternity hospital at the Royal Victoria Hospital, we are reviewing how every trust monitors the water supply in all their facilities.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I recognise that arrangements for clinical negligence indemnity are a matter of concern for GPs locally. In the financial year 2023-24, £1 million of funding was reallocated from other areas of the general practice budget on a one-off, non-recurrent basis to support GPs with indemnity costs. As part of the 2024-25 general medical services (GMS) contract, which was agreed with the Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee in May this year, £38·9 million of funding was released for repurposing as a result of the incorporation of the quality and outcomes framework and specified enhanced services into the core contract, and with funding for clinical waste also moving into the core funding. Of that, £5 million was allocated to GP practices on a per capita basis for indemnity costs. That was an interim measure, pending identification of the long-term model of indemnity.

Documentation outlining the detail of the contract agreement set out how reallocation of funds to the GMS envelope would work. Further clarification on those arrangements was issued to all GP practices on 18 September. I am aware, however, of the issues raised by the Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee in relation to the outworkings of the 2024-25 GMS contract, including the funding for indemnity. Indeed, I met the chair of the General Practitioners Committee, Dr Frances O'Hagan, this morning. We discussed those concerns and explored options for moving forward. We will continue to engage with the committee representatives on that issue.

Looking at the longer term, a number of possible indemnity options have been identified, ranging from the current model to state intervention, which includes a number of state-backed model options.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the BMA has highlighted the fact that many GP practices have seen no real benefit from the £5 million in the 2024-25 GMS package that was announced by the previous Minister, does he agree that it is important that we get a long-term model of GP indemnity right? If not, that will continue to act as a chill factor for GPs who wish to practise in or remain practising in Northern Ireland.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a very important issue. Having spoken to Dr O'Hagan and some of her colleagues this morning, it is clear that there is at least a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the current arrangements, which is causing some disquiet among general practice doctors. That needs to be resolved at pace.

It is, however, at least as important to note that we are discussing an interim measure and that we need to move to a solid-state, long-term solution to the question of indemnity. During the discussions, we talked about several issues that might help to resolve it. My officials were keen to say that, by the end of calendar year, if not well before then, they hope to be in a position to sit down with Dr O'Hagan and colleagues and present what, we hope, will be an acceptable long-term solution to the issue. As the Member said, GPs here feel exposed in a way that GPs in other areas of the United Kingdom do not. That is clearly a problem, with the sort of potential consequences that the Member has outlined.

Ms Bradshaw: I want to drill down into the funding that GPs received on a per capita basis. Was that additional money or money that was within the current contract and rejigged?

Mr Nesbitt: It is my understanding that there was a negotiation, not just about the money that would go into the general medical services contract but about the work that that would cover. There was a rejigging of the services that were to be commissioned. It is not necessarily accepted by all, but my officials are very clear that money was ring-fenced — £5 million — for the indemnity of GPs. It is fair to say that it is pretty well known outside the Chamber that GPs are not on the same page as me on that. I have proposed an independent arbitration process to look at the contracts and tell us who is right and who is wrong. If we are wrong, we are at fault, but we are confident, as are the GPs on the other side, that any independent assessment will find in our favour.

Mr McGrath: Minister, the medical fraternity is quite clear that it was offered money for GP indemnity. Was that not the case? We all lobbied for that, and we were told that it was being delivered. However, GPs found that, although they got the money, it had been removed from other parts of their contract. That is a sleight of hand that has to be sorted out because it is impacting on face-to-face delivery for people in our communities.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member's use of the term "sleight of hand" will be deeply resented by officials in the Department of Health. I encourage you to eyeball them and make that accusation. There was a very frank, honest and robust discussion this morning on the issue. My officials are absolutely certain in their position, and I have seen no evidence to make me doubt that. If the Member wants to use language like that, I encourage him to eyeball the officials, put it to them and let them respond.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that primary care will have a very important role to play in helping to resolve our totally unacceptable waiting times? Will the Minister give an assurance that he and his Department recognise the value of the primary care elective scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Absolutely: I have talked often about a "shift left" for healthcare delivery. By that I mean getting healthcare out of hospitals and into the community and primary care practices. The primary care elective service is hugely important in providing five key pathways in dermatology, gynaecology, vasectomy, minor surgery and musculoskeletal health. More important than that, however, it is about prevention and early intervention. Only if we do that will we be able to transform how we deliver healthcare. If we do not transform, as Professor Bengoa warned us last week, by the year 2040, Health will require the entire Executive Budget: 100% of it. There will be nothing left for schools, roads or anything else. It is imperative that we get on with that transformation. Professor Bengoa made clear that every country, particularly every country in Europe, is seeing its budget for healthcare rising. The challenge is to decelerate that increase as much as possible. Primary care and GPs play a crucial role in delivering that.

Mr Speaker: We have a minute left of your time, Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: OK. The redesign of the current serious adverse incident (SAI) procedure is important and one of my Department's priorities. We are undertaking extensive engagement with a broad range of stakeholders. That includes the Patient and Client Council engagement platform, which comprises five individuals with lived experience of the SAI procedure.

I will give way to the Member for a follow-up, if that is possible.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his answer and for giving way. Minister, I want to understand the value of the engagement that has happened. Are you satisfied that that is doing what it should be doing?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry: I did not quite catch that. I acknowledge that the SAI procedure, as currently constituted, is not fit for purpose. I am determined that we bring one forward that is efficient, fast and patient-centred.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. This is, of course, a very important area that we are discussing. I have not yet had a briefing on the number of responses, so I am not even aware of that, never mind whether they are positive or negative. I am aware of the strong campaign against some of the proposals. I re-emphasise that, because we are moving from the 1967 Act, which gave cover only for a number of infectious diseases, to all-hazards protection, which includes biological, chemical and radiological hazards, I felt that it was important to put all the options on the table for a public consultation. It is not for me to decide in advance that I will rule out any option. Indeed, had I not included some of those options, there might have been another campaign to ask why I had not done so.

I point out to those who think that some proposals are draconian that the 1967 Act already provides for a magistrate's order that a person suffering from a notifiable disease that presents a serious risk to others can be removed or detained in hospital for a specific period. It empowers authorised officers to "do all acts necessary" to give effect to that order. That is in sections 3A(1) and (2) of Part I of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

Mr McGrath: Minister, if there are numerous objections to a specific part of the consultation, will you give an undertaking that, if that is the will of the public, you will remove those specific clauses from any future Bill ?

Mr Nesbitt: No Bill has been written, and the Bill's composition will be dictated to an extent by the public's reaction to that consultation process. However, it will also be up to the Assembly and the Committee for Health to decide the shape of the Bill. Again, I do not feel that I am the only person making decisions here.

I shall use the consultation to try to shape the Bill. You know that I am personally not in favour of forced vaccinations, but it happens. During COVID, for example, over-50s in Italy were subjected to forced or compulsory vaccinations. I will shape the Bill as I feel best, but I will bring it to the Chamber and to the Committee, and I will ask you to help me to shape it so that we get the right balance between protecting population health and upholding human rights and personal liberties.

I have to say to the Member that a draft equality screening, a draft assessment of disability duties and a draft human rights assessment were published alongside the Bill.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. We do not have plans in that area, and the reason is that we are following Great Britain on the advice and roll-out of that vaccination.

Mr Harvey: Minister, do you think that that might change?

Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid not.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns when you move services from one place to another. Yes, the Northern Trust is consulting on removing emergency general surgery from the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine to Antrim Area Hospital in Antrim town. That is a live consultation, and it is only when we get to the end of that process that the trust will present the Department with an outline business case.

The emergency department will stay at the Causeway. If somebody is in a bad way, the important thing is to stabilise them. That is the absolute priority. I am seeking and, to some extent, getting assurances that, once that is done, it is not life-threatening to move that patient to Antrim Area Hospital for the emergency procedure that they need.

It just makes sense logically, wherever possible, to separate emergency surgery from elective or planned surgery. It is deeply frustrating, if you are on a list — it does not matter whether you have been waiting for a month, a year or five years — to wake up at 6.00 am on the day of your procedure only to get a phone call or message to say that the procedure has to be postponed because emergency surgery is taking place in the theatre that you were supposed to go to. How deeply frustrating is that? To achieve the productivity and efficiency that I seek from the trust, it makes sense, as a matter of course, to separate emergency and elective surgery, but it has to be done in a safe way. I assure the Member that, before any final decisions are taken about moving any services from one hospital to another, the safety of patients will be the priority concern.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. If you look at a map of Northern Ireland and take the health proposals, you will find that nearly all specialist services are centred in and around Belfast, part of which is in Antrim. That leaves those of us on the north coast, right through north Antrim and east Londonderry, with one hospital, which is Altnagelvin. That puts lives in the Causeway coast and glens area at risk.

My preferred outcome, having listened to all that was said at that meeting, is option 5, not option 7. I would like to know — nobody can answer this — how they arrived at option 7.

Mr Nesbitt: I know how they arrived at option 7, and that was by listening to the clinicians. I visited the Causeway Hospital and Antrim Area Hospital one day a few weeks ago, and I met some clinicians who were involved. I have to say to the Member that their view was that that option was not, as the trust put it, their "preferred option"; in the view of the clinicians, it was the only and the essential option, otherwise services would be closer to the danger of collapse.

I understand that, for everybody, healthcare is personal and local and that, in an ideal world, everybody would like an acute hospital at the end of every street, but we cannot do that. We have to reconfigure how we deliver our services. I have acknowledged in the House that there will obviously be a tension between clinical opinion and community opinion. One of the challenges for us is to say to people that the proposed move under option 7, as the Member calls it, of general emergency services from Coleraine to Antrim is only half the story. That half of the story is taking something away from people who access the Causeway Hospital, but the other half is that we are going to put something in. We will make the Causeway Hospital an elective overnight stay centre. That means that a lot more efficiency will be delivered, as elective procedures will not have to be cancelled because of emergencies. Better outcomes will be delivered, with the proviso that we will carefully assess any potential patient risks in moving services from one hospital to another.

Mr Nesbitt: Pay and workforce challenges are among our most pressing, difficult and intractable issues. I acknowledged previously, for example, that, with pay rates in Health and Social Care (HSC), it is difficult, if not impossible, to compete with Sláintecare, particularly in the border areas. The Western Trust and Southern Trust have particular problems because it is now so easy, with the road network transport arrangements, for people to base themselves here but work for Sláintecare.

We have many vacancies across the Health and Social Care workforce. All I can say to the Member is that we are very aware of that and we do what we can. Part of the challenge, because we cannot necessarily compete on salary, is to put together a package that is attractive to people. Carál Ní Chuilín made the point in last week's debate on social care in north and west Belfast that people are burnt out. The job is not attractive; there is no work-life balance. If you do not have a good work-life balance, you do not have a good workforce and you have problems in your workforce. The Member is identifying issues that we are aware of but do not have easy solutions to.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you. Having previously been a social worker, I understand that. The Minister mentioned the shift left: social workers are out there every day of the week on the left and at the coalface.

Will the Minister provide an update on what meetings he plans to have with trade unions and representative groups to address the issues that he has highlighted?

Mr Nesbitt: Meetings, particularly between officials and stakeholders, including the unions, happen all the time. I am more than happy to engage when appropriate. I want to see a workforce in which there are no vacancies and where people are as content as possible in their role because they feel that they are being cherished and well rewarded. I came to this role from the Economy Committee, where the Member's colleague Conor Murphy talked about good jobs. We had several debates in that Committee about what a "good job" is. You might say that a good job is being a consultant or surgeon and not a hospital porter, but we need hospital porters. A good job must embrace hospital porters, and that means that they wake up in the morning looking forward to going on a shift and feel that they are well rewarded, respected and honoured for doing their work. Those are the principles that I want to apply, and that filters down through officials in the Department, who are doing the day-to-day engagement. I am always more than happy to engage directly with unions and other stakeholders.

Mr Nesbitt: I very much enjoyed the visit with the Member to Carrickfergus and East Antrim, and I thank him for the invitation. It was useful to see at first hand the convincing case that the Castle Practice has made for an investment in its premises. The pharmacy is among the top three busiest in the whole of Northern Ireland.

I am fully committed to the further roll-out of the MDT programme. Of any transformation that has taken place since the Bengoa report in 2016, MDTs may be the shining example of a successful initiative. A bid for funding for the wider roll-out of MDTs across primary care has been submitted by my Department to the Northern Ireland Executive's transformation fund. There is a question about whether that will be successful, given that the fund is £47 million per annum but is across every Department. If the bid is successful, it is proposed that the roll-out will progress in two tranches during the five-year window of the fund's existence.

Mr Stewart: That is welcome news, and I welcome that commitment. Will the Minister provide an update on where the East Antrim GP Federation sits within that proposed roll-out?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure whether it was the practice manager or one of the doctors in the Castle Practice who felt that East Antrim had been knocked out of its place in the pecking order. The next three proposed federations for MDT are North Belfast, the South West, which is Fermanagh and Omagh, and, indeed, East Antrim. All are hugely deserving of the programme, and it is my firm hope that, if the transformation bid is successful, we can move at pace with the East Antrim roll-out. It is something that the Member will have heard GPs raise on more than one occasion as being important for their area.

Mr Speaker: I call Dr Aiken. We have less than a minute for both of you.

Mr Nesbitt: We received £122 million in June monitoring, which was very welcome. It has made a good contribution to the deficit. However, following an additional push for savings from our arm's-length bodies, the gap is now a reduced but still significant £130 million to £135 million.

I commend the trusts, which have made unprecedented savings in excess of £200 million this year.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Health. I ask Members to take their ease before we return to the previous item of business.

Mr Stewart: I welcome the opportunity to continue the debate, which is worthwhile and, obviously, emotional for many of those who are involved. So far, regardless of disagreements, there has been a collective will among spokespersons that we need to see change. That collectiveness needs to be emulated in the Executive across all Departments. The Member for North Antrim made that point.

Housing is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about dignity, security and opportunity. Yet, for far too many families and individuals across Northern Ireland, the right to adequate, affordable and safe housing, sadly, remains out of reach. Northern Ireland faces a housing emergency. The waiting list for social housing continues to grow, with over 47,000 households waiting, many of them in urgent need. They are not just numbers but families, children, elderly people and vulnerable individuals who are being forced to live in inadequate or temporary housing conditions. Across the Chamber, we all know that the many people who come into our offices daily are just crying out for support. Many of them have points far in excess of the number that would ordinarily guarantee them the house that they need, but they cannot get that house because the stock is simply not there. For each of those people, this is a crisis and an emergency.

Years of underinvestment coupled with growing demand and a lack of housing construction, together with the right-to-buy scheme, have created a perfect storm. It is incumbent on the Executive to collectively find a long-term solution and strategy to tackle the growing housing waiting lists.

My party colleague Andy Allen elaborated on many aspects of the matter that relate to the Department for Communities, but I will touch on it from an infrastructure point of view, as we look to tackle the biggest obstacles to new and affordable homes. First, the limits affecting the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's ability to borrow are hamstringing it in its fundamental role. In the 1950s and 1960s, it built, on average, 15,000 new homes a year. We are nowhere near that now; in fact, we are at zero. We need to begin to replicate what we did in the '50s and '60s. That will be achieved by, first, opening up the ability to borrow and then building on the back of that.

The second obstacle — a number of Members discussed it — is in the limitations on our infrastructure. Number one among them is the capacity issue at Northern Ireland Water. In East Antrim, for example, whole areas are being blocked because there simply is not enough capacity in the system. Across Northern Ireland, tens of thousands of houses are stuck in that process because there simply is not capacity for them. In my intervention on the Member for Strangford, I talked about the developer-led aspect of that. The Member made the valid point that developers are offering solutions, but, for smaller housing associations with smaller projects, such as first-time affordable homes or social houses, the bandwidth and budget for them to be developer-led are simply not there, and those necessary projects are therefore being held up in process. Something fundamentally needs to be tackled, and that is one of the biggest infrastructure issues that collectively affects the entire Executive in housing terms — affordable, social and first-time-buyers' homes — and across the economic piece. So many aspects of our society are being held back by that.

The second limitation is in planning. We have waxed lyrical here on a number of occasions about the problems of the planning system. It has been 10 years since planning was devolved to councils, and, sadly, that simply is not delivering and something has to change. We talk about local area plans. They were meant to be produced by 2019, but most councils are still developing them. We need a strategy that will encourage single-occupancy dwellings, social housing projects and first-time-buyer projects, rather than just big housing projects, to go ahead. That simply has to be tackled, and, if the Department needs to get involved from the centre, we would welcome that.

Earlier in the debate, my party colleague made the point on the housing aspect, but, collectively, the Executive need to tackle housing as a cross-departmental issue and do all they can to resolve it.

Ms Hunter: Most of us in the Chamber are fortunate enough to have a home of our own. It is the place where we feel safe, comfortable and grounded. It is the foundation on which we build our lives and raise our families and the place that embeds us in our community. Simply put, it is fundamental for a happy life and a life well lived. Yet for too many in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency of East Derry, a safe and affordable home is a dream. For them, it is out of reach, and as the dream slips out of reach, we risk breaching the social contract that we have in this place to provide for each and every constituent and offer them a good standard of living. Everyone in our society has a rightful expectation to have a home in which they can feel safe — a home that brings them stability and where they can grow while staying tethered to their community.

However, the writing is on the wall, and Northern Ireland is in the middle of a housing crisis. As of June this year, there were over 45,000 people across the North on the Housing Executive's waiting list. Research from Ulster University showed that private rental stock has shrunk by 50% over the past seven years. The Simon Community has also noted that a staggering 26,000 households are legally classified as homeless, with over 4,500 children, which I find heartbreaking. Thousands more people are deemed to be in housing stress: in other words, in desperate need of a home.

I am sure that, like mine, all our constituency offices are inundated with immensely stressed people who are desperately trying to secure a home as they struggle with feelings of hopelessness and anxiety in their quest to find a place to live, and many of them have children. In my time as an MLA, I have come across many homeless people who have children with complex, special or physical needs. In one awful case in my constituency, there was an incredible single mother, who has two children with a variety of needs, and they live in their grandmother's living room. You can imagine the lived experience of those children: they cannot invite people back to their home, they cannot play in the home and there is no suitable garden. Those are the times when memories of your childhood are made. That is something that I really recall, and I am doing all that I can to find that lovely family a home.

To underline the rapidly deteriorating situation, data from PropertyPal shows that the average number of enquiries per rental property during the pandemic was just 19, but it has now rocketed to 89, and my constituents are no strangers to that fact, given that we are in the Causeway Coast and Glens council area. After years of chronic failure from the Executive to get a grip on the issue of housing in the North, there is no longer any time to waste. Indeed, the circumstances that we find ourselves in are so dire that homelessness and housing insecurity in Northern Ireland have been noted as an issue of concern by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The committee has highlighted particular concerns about households with dependent children, many of whom are young children and infants, living with family in temporary accommodation. Whilst we are acutely conscious of the crisis facing our healthcare system, as was discussed during Question Time, and the environment, the truth is that our housing situation is equally as awful and must be prioritised immediately. I argue that if you do not have access to a home, it is very hard to have a stable life.

I will draw attention to a particular issue in my constituency, which includes the north coast. We have particular challenges with second-home ownership, which is spiralling out of control. We have no formal register of how those homes are being used and virtually no mechanisms to prevent them from ending up in the hands of the wealthy few to be used as holiday homes, while normal people — my constituents — struggle each and every day to find a place to raise their children. It is crazy, and not keeping data on it is a huge gap and loophole in our law. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council estimates that up to 50% of properties in Portballintrae and 31% in Cushendun are second homes. Those figures give an understanding of how Airbnbs and holiday lets impact on local properties. Currently, there are over 1,000 properties listed as holiday homes, which eats into the availability of housing for parents, families and young professionals. I note that people I went to school with cannot afford a home because the price of houses has gone through the roof. Those people lose their sense of community and there is no craic because nobody can afford to live there. It is really important that we — the Executive and Members across the House — note that housing is the number-one issue. We desperately need investment in it. We definitely need to regard housing as an absolute priority.

Mr Gaston: During my 11 years of involvement in politics, at local government level and now in central government, housing has been by far the number-one issue that I have encountered. Housing availability in North Antrim has been at a critical level for a number of years, as there are simply not enough houses being built to match the growing demand. As well as having a growing and ageing population, my constituency has a number of thriving industries that attract people to come there to work. The natural progression for those people is for their family to relocate to the area. All those factors have played into the problem in North Antrim. The position has grown to be a Northern Ireland-wide problem that is exacerbated by our sewerage network's limited capacity for new builds.

I will concentrate my remarks on issues that I have with the Housing Executive. I must say that housing casework is the most frustrating of casework. Finding a solution is largely outside our control, apart from ensuring that a constituent has the maximum number of points. Those employed locally by the Housing Executive are a credit to the organisation, but the fact is that there are simply not enough houses to match the ever-growing demand for social housing. Take Ballymena, for example. Over the past 20 to 30 years, the Housing Executive has demolished hundreds of houses in Ballykeel, in Ballee and on the Doury Road. Sadly, those houses have not been replaced, and the lands have been turned into grassed areas. Given the limitations of the sewerage infrastructure, if there were now a desire to replace the houses, it would simply not be feasible to do so without an on-site solution, first, to separate rainwater from waste water and, secondly, to deal with it.

Before leaving the subject of the Housing Executive, I highlight the need for an overhaul of how houses are allocated. The points system is out of date and fails growing families and single adults. A greater priority needs to be given to allocations made under good house management practices. Where applicable, that will allow two cases to be resolved under one move. I think of a case that I have in Bendooragh, where a family with three children, all over the age of nine, are crammed into a two-bedroom house, thanks to an award of a mere 14 points. The Housing Executive confirms that, although there is overcrowding, it will consider overcrowding for homelessness under "Accommodation not reasonable" only when there is severe overcrowding of properties. In the case that I mentioned, the family are deemed to be one bedroom short and have to make do with 10 points for overcrowding, owing to there being no exceptional circumstances, and four points for having been on the waiting list for four years. The Housing Executive will not extend the house or sell it to the family to allow them to extend it themselves. If the Housing Executive were to attach a greater priority to good house management, that family would have a better chance of being rehoused whilst another case, for someone needing to downsize, would be resolved.

Housing associations are making some progress locally, but the projected number of builds lags well behind the number of houses required. With rent at an all-time high and no real long-term security for tenants, coupled with a greater reliance on co-ownership for people buying houses, the need has never been greater to see a change in gear in how the Housing Executive provides and allocates houses. The need will continue to grow, and, without serious investment, homelessness will continue to be a growing problem in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Declaring a housing emergency is an important step in recognising the scale and seriousness of our housing crisis. I am happy to support the motion to that effect and because of the issue's impact on human health and well-being. It is also important, however, that we move from recognising the problem and understanding the systemic root causes to there being meaningful action and investment. The solutions proposed in the motion would help lessen some of the worst impacts of the housing crisis. I hope to introduce a private Member's Bill on housing, and I hope that Members opposite and across the House will support it in the period ahead.

There are almost 21,000 vacant homes across the North. At the same time, over 47,000 households are waiting for social housing.

That equates to over 88,000 people, which is greater than the population of Derry, and 75% of the people on that waiting list are in housing stress. Bringing vacant properties back into use as social homes as quickly as possible will lift tens of thousands of people out of homelessness and housing stress. In the Chamber, in May, the Communities Minister said:

I am glad that the Minister is on the same page as me and, maybe, others in the Chamber, and I look forward to further engagement with him and his officials on how to bring vacant properties into public ownership.

Given our current waste water capacity constraints, bringing vacant properties into use as social homes would be a relatively quick and efficient way to expand our supply of affordable homes. I note, however, that the waste water capacity issues do not apply to student accommodation and hotels, which, it seems, go up every day or every month.

We urgently need to make up ground for the time lost and targets missed. Failure to deliver on previous social housing targets is beyond regrettable; it is absolutely shameful. Failure to meet social housing targets and the gradual reduction of targets have directly contributed to rising homelessness. The inadequate supply of social housing has also forced people into the under-regulated and unaffordable private rented sector. Many people who would have been entitled to a secure, affordable Housing Executive home a generation ago find themselves paying an average of £1,000 a month for a private rented property in Belfast. That is completely unaffordable and out of control. It also points to the fact that we need rent controls. The issue partially accounts for the difficulties experienced by first-time buyers: how can you scrape together a deposit to buy your own home when the cost of renting means that you cannot save at the same time?

One way through the crisis is to build more social homes. The draft housing supply strategy aims to deliver 100,000 new homes by 2037, but I note that the motion suggests a target of:

In order to make proper headway in tackling the housing crisis, we need to set more ambitious targets that reflect how many people are in desperate need of a secure and affordable home. There are over 47,000 people on our social housing waiting list as we speak, and 4,000 of them are in my West Belfast constituency. The most recent Budget allocation of funding for new social homes was for 600 this year initially, but that number is now 400, compared with a target of 2,000 homes. It is time for the Executive to stop cutting DFC's capital budget, put their money where their mouth is and start investing properly in social housing.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure, yes.

Mr McNulty: Does the Member agree that there needs to be an Executive-wide commitment to support the Communities Minister in addressing the housing emergency, including a commitment from the Finance Minister to allocate the necessary funding and investment to upgrade the waste water infrastructure and a commitment from the Infrastructure Minister to overhaul our planning processes to prioritise housing?

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I agree, generally, but we would have to make sure that the planning process was not overhauled in order to have unsuitable homes built in a quicker timescale. We would have to make sure that the homes were built properly. The other points that the Member raised are well made, and I generally support what he has suggested. The obvious point is that, for the building of some homes, there are no waste water infrastructure problems. I note that there are no problems for new student accommodation and hotels. I add that point to the debate again.

The call for any additional Barnett consequential funding emanating from new housebuilding in England and Wales to be ring-fenced for here is welcome. Some Members made reference to expanding the Housing Executive's borrowing powers: we have to be cautious. Any attempt to allow the Housing Executive to access borrowing that does not score on public expenditure must not involve the reclassification of the Housing Executive. That would be privatisation by a fancy name and is not the solution for increasing supply. Private finance and subsidies for private developers have no place in tackling our housing crisis. They caused and exacerbated the situation in the first place.

Another solution to the housing crisis is incredibly simple and effective: a ban on no-fault evictions. Every day, across the North, private tenants are issued with eviction notices. Often, they are told that their landlords are selling up, only to see their property let re-advertised online with a dramatic hike in rent. That is completely unacceptable. Sometimes, tenants are given no reason —.

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

Mr Carroll: OK, fair enough.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No worries. Thank you.

I call the Minister of Education, Mr Paul Givan, to respond on behalf of the Minister for Communities. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to represent my colleague and good friend Gordon Lyons. He is engaged in important business in America this week on behalf of the Department. I am coming home when it comes to the Department for Communities: it is one of the Departments that is hugely important, because it touches on so many aspects of people's lives. Today, we are dealing with housing, and Cara Hunter summed it up well when she talked about the importance of a house and what it means to people: a safe place and somewhere for your family to live. The absence of that creates difficulties and challenges in people's lives and can have a really negative impact. I thank everyone for their contributions and will turn to them in due course.

First, the Assembly has already passed a motion declaring a housing crisis. That was in April this year, which demonstrates the ongoing importance that Members give to the issue. The Communities Minister recognises and shares the concerns that Members and others continue to raise on housing supply, the issues that impact on it and their consequences. Minister Lyons remains concerned by the high need for social homes, the increasing waiting lists, the pressure on the homelessness system and the increasing pressure on our private rented sector.

Many Members have spoken about the lengthy waiting list for social housing. That is important, but we also need to ensure that there is provision for housing for everybody in our society. Often, getting on to the housing ladder is incredibly difficult for young people. It is right that we create a society in which people aspire to own their own homes. It cannot always be that the solution is social housing. It is a vital component of the housing market, but many of the contributions spoke to the provision of social housing being the default position: I want a society in which people can access their own affordable home and buy their home. That is something that we should all support. Those who believe that it should always be a social house often own their own home, yet they seek to remove the right of some to purchase their own home. That is something that we need to give serious thought to.

The housing Minister has stated on numerous occasions in the Chamber that we need a whole-system approach to address the issues that impact on supply. That means that the challenges that impact on supply cannot be addressed by the Department for Communities alone. An Executive commitment and funding to match it will be required. It is important to note that decisions on the allocation of any available capital are for the Executive as a whole to make. That is why I welcome Sinn Féin's support for bringing forward the housing supply strategy. Minister Lyons is working on that this week. Whilst he is not here, he is still engaging with officials on that. Sinn Féin has been pressing for that strategy to be brought forward, and I am confident that, when it is brought forward, it will get support, because the Minister has been doing extensive work. However, the resource needs to follow. My party does not hold the Finance Ministry, so, when that strategy is agreed and supported, let us make sure that the same pressure is applied to other Ministers to enable my colleague to bring forward the proposals that will be in the strategy.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister giving way. I am sure that Minister Lyons is doing important work in America; I look forward to hearing about it. I hope we in the Assembly do not get another letter from America.

Will the Minister pass on to Minister Lyons, as he develops the housing supply strategy, that there needs to be an urgent conversation with the Infrastructure Minister on what is meant by the idea of a developer charge. Ms Armstrong made some reasonable observations on the practicalities around that. It is important that we understand promptly what is being talked about, because, at the minute, it feels very tentative and somewhat vague.

Mr Givan: The Minister has been engaging with all Ministers and will continue to do so. That is why it is important that we recognise that a whole-system response is required. In proposing the motion, your colleague Mr McCrossan, who is one of the most capable Members in the House, failed to provide constructive opposition. He offered no solutions. He showboated around criticism and highlighting fault. He lacked the detailed knowledge that, to quote Ms Mulholland, the "housing nerd" has on the issue. He outlined the need for collaboration on councils' local development plans. On the construction industry, any recognition of the inflationary pressure on the costs associated with building new homes was absent. That pressure is replicated elsewhere, and collaboration with other Ministers is required to move forward.

I welcome Mr O'Toole's comments. He assured us that the SDLP intended to be a constructive Opposition. That was lacking, however, when the initial commentary was made; indeed, there was a lot of political posturing around the Assembly not being up and running and paralysis. I say this to the SDLP: you stood in the shadow of Sinn Féin when it kept this place down for years. You did not step forward. We want to get the Executive working on a stable footing. However, for SDLP Members to pontificate as though they are paragons of virtue when it comes to political stability is not lost on us when we look back on the many years when the SDLP was one of the leading parties: this place was not particularly stable then.

The housing Minister is working to bring his final housing supply strategy to the Executive as soon as possible. From the outset, that strategy was developed recognising the necessity of the whole-system approach and so that it would be responsive to a Programme for Government. It will provide a framework to drive that priority forward. Recently, as part of the work to finalise the strategy, the Minister met the Infrastructure and Finance Ministers to discuss the need for ongoing collaboration and action on some of the strategic issues that impact on supply. That included crucial issues that I have mentioned, such as water infrastructure, planning and finance. Many Members spoke about those issues. At those meetings, the Minister emphasised once again that action will be required to address those issues, if any of the supply strategy is to have a chance of succeeding.

We are at a point where it is more important than ever to sustain and increase the annual level of new housing starts that has typically been seen here over the past decade. Over the last few years, the number of homes that we were building has started to fall, but, without full Executive commitment, reversing that trend simply will not be possible, and we will inevitably slide into a housing crisis similar to those being seen in London, Edinburgh and Dublin.

Alongside finalising the strategy, Minister Lyons has continued to push forward with what he can do, as housing Minister, to address housing issues. Minister Lyons continues to allocate the majority of his Department's capital budget to the provision of new social homes. In the past three years, his Department has invested over £510 million in the social housing development programme to start over 5,000 new social homes. This year, the Minister would have liked to start 2,000 new social homes, but his Department was not provided with the capital resource to fund that. I do not necessarily blame the Executive for that. This is where I appeal to colleagues that, rather than criticising the Executive on the issue, we in the Executive should consistently make a case to the Labour Government. They were meant to come in and get rid of Tory austerity, and many in the Chamber championed and heralded the day when Labour would take over; in fact, the SDLP is the sister party of the Labour Party. Yet the Labour Party is bringing in even more austerity. I wonder why the SDLP MPs sit on the same Benches as the Labour Government. They might need to revisit that, given the way in which the Government are failing to provide this Executive with the resources that they need.

No Executive Minister is happy with the budget that they have received. Minister Lyons was particularly disappointed, because starting 600 social homes this year is not where we need to be. He has stated that he will do everything that he can to increase that number. Additional funds have been allocated in the June monitoring round, which is welcome, but the overall budget remains short of what is required. The Minister will continue to bid for further funding to support the social housing development programme and help to deliver much-needed additional new social homes.

I thank everyone for their comments and their contributions to the debate. Setting aside some of the political points, I think that every one of us believes in and agrees on the need to provide much more support for people who need homes.

We all deal every day with constituents who come to us with housing issues, and I think that, collectively, we want to get to a better place with the matter. The housing Minister is leading on that work. With the support of colleagues in the Executive and the Chamber, we can deliver to meet the need.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mark Durkan to conclude and wind on the motion. Mark, you have 10 minutes.

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

I thank everyone for their contributions on a critical issue that is quickly deteriorating to the point of no return. The debate has been healthy, but it cannot serve as yet another debate on the dire state that is the housing crisis in this region.

We have heard about our ever-worsening statistics: 47,000 households are on the growing waiting list; 35,000 households are in housing stress; over 4,600 children are living in temporary accommodation; and housebuilding has fallen to a 60-year low. What was once unimaginable here has become an everyday occurrence. Homes are the foundation on which people build their life and are the building blocks of a thriving society. Our motion is constructive. It contains suggestions and solutions. We will not be lectured on being a constructive Opposition by an Executive that do not do construction.

While we welcome the fact that housing is a priority in the Programme for Government, it merely notes that it will prevent homelessness by:

Today's reality for many families and individuals is that homelessness is far from brief but is becoming increasingly common and often recurrent. Homelessness is a deep hole that is extremely difficult to escape. That situation been made doubly difficult by the decimation of homelessness prevention programmes, which undermines the efforts of the organisations that were, rightly, lauded by Ms Ferguson, who works so hard in that field every day. I commend those organisations, the staff of the Housing Executive and the staff of our housing associations, who deal with extremely stressful situations and do their best as they work with people who are in stress in a system that is buckling.

Homelessness breeds hopelessness. The Executive need to do more than to build hope, however; they need to build homes. The PFG promises to deliver affordable homes and to bring forward the housing supply strategy for 100,000 homes over a 15-year period. It does that at a time when fewer than 600 new social homes will be built this year, falling woefully short of targets. In the same year, it is highly likely that we will sell off 400 or 500 Housing Executive properties, with the Minister refusing to even consider a moratorium on the right-to-buy scheme. That is just nuts.

The reality is that warm words have not and will not deliver on promises. The Executive's track record on housing is pretty dire. In April, we were advised that the housing supply strategy, which was billed in the previous mandate as the answer to all our housing woes, was in good shape and awaiting Executive approval. Meanwhile, the targets on social housing completions have not been achieved for four out of the past five years. The cuts that have been imposed on DFC's capital budget will allow just a fraction of the target build, and that situation is not likely to improve any time soon. The proposed cuts to the housing association grant and total cost indicators (TCIs) could sound the death knell for the social housing development programme, with only 17 out of 61 potential schemes being considered financially viable. Mr Carroll asked where we are on the restructuring of the Housing Executive. Gerry need not worry about the Housing Executive borrowing, because by the time that it is allowed to build again, there will be nothing left for it to borrow against.

Instead of tangible progress, we have witnessed an Executive that are focused on optics and headline-grabbing sound bites with no real follow-through. Even more troubling than that is the fact that we have a Minister who continues to avoid scrutiny. The Opposition welcomed the Speaker's ruling on accountability a few months ago following Minister Lyons's refusal to answer Assembly questions. There has been some improvement in that over the intervening months, but, when I recently requested data on the number of children who are living in temporary accommodation, the Minister did not provide that information. We did, however, get it via FOI. If the Minister who is charge of housing is unwilling to, at least, be transparent, what chance do we have of the Executive's admitting their shortcomings, recognising the need for improvement and genuinely ensuring that thousands of families can secure a home?

The information revealed that over 4,600 children are currently living in temporary accommodation; children whose lives are unstable, moving from hotel to B&B and unable to put down roots. They have no space of their own, live out of suitcases, have nowhere to do homework or enjoy a family meal and have no friends to call in for in the street. Building families and society on such an unstable footing means that a huge cohort of children has been left without their village and the support networks that are essential to build their lives.

We live in a society where obtaining an emergency placement in your home town has become a luxury. One case that stands out in my mind is that of single mother with a child who has profound disabilities. That child requires round-the-clock care and regular access to the GP and, often, visits Altnagelvin Area Hospital, where health staff are familiar with their specific needs. After losing their private rented accommodation and becoming homeless, that family has been shifted miles away and stripped of that vital support network. The most vulnerable do not stand a chance in the current system.

We are no longer just Generation Rent; we have become "Generation B&B". Temporary accommodation costs are soaring; £34 million in the previous financial year. There has been a tenfold increase in non-standard accommodation spend over the past five years. It is worth remembering that the next time that financial constraints are used as an excuse for the Executive's lack of creativity. It is no surprise that we have seen a significant increase in spending in that area after the removal of funding for homelessness prevention programmes, but it should be a concern that increased demand will have a knock-on effect on the private rental market, pushing up prices and plunging more people into debt and further risk of homelessness. Temporary accommodation has been used as a sticking plaster, as Mr McCrossan said, for the gaping wound of the housing shortage, but, rather than stemming the flow, it is actually sucking millions of pounds out of the system and sucking the life out of the people who rely on it.

The catastrophic impact that the underfunding of water and waste water infrastructure would have on housing development was understood — it has been understood for a long time — but the Executive have chosen not to act. Even now, there is a notable lack of cooperation between DFC and DFI to get a handle on that growing issue. Responses so far have been pretty vague and underwhelming. Sadly, it does not inspire confidence that the issue will be improved, never mind resolved, any time soon. No detail has been given as to what level of funding might be required or how that would work. There are so many questions, and, to date, we have not had any answers.

Two major housing projects in my constituency have been brought to a standstill. It is unacceptable that thousands of homes in an area with one of the highest rates of homelessness have been placed in jeopardy as a result of that issue. We need to see clear and measurable plans moving forward, even exploring cross-border options where practicable. It is evident that that is a barrier to the housing aims that are outlined in the PFG.

Andy Allen spoke well. I know that he is very passionate about the issue. He bemoaned our lack of ideas. He then proceeded to steal my thunder on the ideas that I was going to put forward on planning and the reuse of public land.

Kellie Armstrong spoke, one minute, about the need for collective responsibility and, the next minute, about Nichola Mallon's failure — as, I think, she put it — to deal with the waste water issue when she was a Minister. As Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon went to the Executive with a Living With Water plan, seeking a £1·4 billion budget. The Executive agreed, but the budget vanished. She went with proposals for an infrastructure commission, but, as I said last week, it has been sucked into the Executive Office, where all good ideas go to die.

Lastly, the empty homes strategy could make a significant impact if utilised effectively. It is perverse that, in a society where more people are becoming homeless, the number of vacant properties is increasing. We do not need to reinvent the wheel here; models in other jurisdictions could be adapted. Furthermore, the reuse of those properties would circumvent the hurdles that water infrastructure is placing in the way of new builds.

A few Members mentioned the hidden hand of paramilitaries and how they exploit and abuse the housing system and exacerbate the housing crisis. That makes the Minister for Communities and his stand-ins pandering to them all the more preposterous.

I will finish by reminding Members that housing was a central driver in the fight for civil rights in Northern Ireland.

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

Mr Durkan: I commend the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate that. You were on a roll, but I have to be strict with everybody.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It pertains to the previous debate and, indeed, to other business yesterday and today. By my count, we are missing at least four Ministers at the minute. Minister Lyons was in America, unable to respond to today's debate; I welcome the Education Minister's stepping in. The deputy First Minister was not here today to participate in the debate on paramilitarism. Minister Long was not around yesterday for a question for urgent oral answer on the femicide crisis. I am aware that Minister Murphy is in Germany. I support the fact that he is getting jobs, and, thankfully, there is no business facing him. However, will the Speaker's Office examine, as a bare minimum, better joining-up with the Ministers' diaries. We sit in plenary only two days a week, and it is profoundly concerning that about half of the Executive can simply not be here when there is urgent business.

I would flatter the constructive Opposition to think that it is simply because they are scared of responding to us [Laughter.]

I am sure that it is not just that, but I would like a Speaker's ruling or some kind of examination of it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apart from the comment about us all shaking in our boots, Matthew, I will bring it back to the Speaker's Office. Thank you.

Members, take your ease while we change the top Table for the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Matthew O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to be brief.

I move today's motion as two shocking reports are published by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). The first, which has come in the past few days, relates to the motion and calls for the river basin management plan, which is now three years overdue, to be published. The other one was published today, and it is shocking. It talks about the unsustainability of the current pressures that we have placed on nature in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that, of all the crises that we face in this society and all the urgent things that we discuss, including paramilitarism and housing, which we have discussed today, the crisis that we have created in our biodiversity and nature in this region cannot be overestimated or overstated. Clean and plentiful fresh water is essential for life. It is a fundamental human right that is critical for food production, recreation, culture, human health and well-being. However, with blue-green algae smothering Lough Neagh for two years in a row, it goes without saying that the health of our rivers, lakes and streams has risen up the public agenda here in Northern Ireland. Our motion recognises that fact, as well as the importance of upholding our legal obligations in relation to fresh water. That is what we are doing today. I hope that the Minister, who I know takes these issues seriously, will see us doing our job today of accountability as a constructive Opposition.

The response to the crisis in Lough Neagh serves in many ways as a metaphor for how the Executive, and previous Executives, have worked: problems have been ignored and allowed to build up, and evidence and warning signs have been ignored. Although the response in this case has been well-intentioned, it has, so far, been inadequate, given the scale of the challenge. As the Executive congratulate themselves on the release of the Lough Neagh action plan, which contains some good intentions but not enough meaningful action, their compliance with basic environmental law is in question. The result is that a third of our rivers, lakes and streams fail to meet legal thresholds for water quality.

This issue affects constituencies throughout this region. It is also a cross-border issue; as we know, one of the rivers that flows into Lough Neagh originates in Monaghan. Believe it or not, we already have a strong regulatory framework that should protect fresh water and our fresh water environment. Our fresh water should be not only a participant in agriculture but a driver of tourism and fisheries, but we are losing both of those opportunities. The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (NI) 2017 require DAERA to develop and implement river basin management plans over a six-year cycle. Those plans are critical. They should contain a full set of environmental objectives, alongside a programme of measures aimed at achieving them. Like many of the policies and plans that have been put together by the Executive, they have been delayed, and, when they have been published, they have been lacking. As I said, the most recent round of this plan is a legal requirement, but it is three years late; it was due in December 2021. I acknowledge that the Minister sitting here today is not responsible for a significant proportion of that delay, but he is in office now. Not only has it not been implemented but it has not been approved or published.

What is more, what has been produced has been criticised as inadequate. I mentioned the Office for Environmental Protection. Although it is not a full independent environmental protection agency, it is the only body with the power to hold DAERA to account. I welcome the fact that it is doing just that today, and that it has done that over the past few days. It was scathing about the Department's attempt at developing an effective management plan. It criticised the plan's weak and generic objectives, the lack of clear and specific plans to achieve the targets that it set, and the lack of clarity on funding for any meaningful delivery of the river basin management plan. In summary, the body tasked with holding the Government to account here in relation to their environmental duties casts strong doubt on whether the river basin management plan will meet any of its targets. It raises concerns that DAERA could be in breach of the water framework directive regulations. That is a damning indictment of the Executive's environmental performance. It goes back a long time. Much of it can be traced back to the implementation of the Going for Growth strategy, which multiple parties, and the serving First Minister, had a role in delivering.

The absence of a robust river basin management plan therefore threatens water quality in our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Any further delay is unacceptable. As I said, a plan is critical for the delivery of any improvement in Lough Neagh and a whole range of assorted issues. The Lough Neagh action plan, such as it is, was hailed as the solution to the issues facing the lough, but it displays many of the same fundamental weaknesses of which the Office for Environmental Protection has already been critical.

We acknowledge that this stuff is not easy and that the motion is not —

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

Mr O'Toole: — going to change everything. We acknowledge that the Minister cannot solve the problems overnight, but the first step is to publish the plan and meet our legal obligations. I think that the Minister wants to do that, but he will respect the fact that we have a job of scrutiny to do by holding him to account for delivering on it. The Executive need to get serious about the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding in our region and do something about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I advise Members that the debate is shorter than usual, so we need to keep fairly strictly to the time allocated. I will take 15 seconds off anybody else who tries to go on. That is how I am going to play it. Thank you very much indeed.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Michelle, you will have five minutes in which to propose the amendment and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have three minutes. Over to you, Michelle. I will give you five minutes and 15 seconds.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the proposer for tabling a motion on this important issue. The Democratic Unionist Party wants to see a concerted and cross-sectoral approach taken to addressing both the sources of pollution and the means of improving water quality, be that in Lough Neagh or in rivers and lakes across Northern Ireland. Our river systems are a precious natural resource, but, tragically, in some instances, they are becoming nothing more than open sewers, in which habitats are destroyed, biodiversity is lost and lasting socio-economic damage is caused to those living and working in affected areas.

Water is fundamental to sustaining life and growing our economy. A multi-agency approach is imperative in order to address poor water quality. Any plan needs to be underpinned by targeted initiatives to prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Further enforcement action must be proportionate and justified for those who repeatedly or deliberately pollute our rivers or lakes.

The Minister outlined an intention to finalise the ongoing review of the most recent draft of the river basin management plan by December. I understand that that will introduce a new programme of measures, and, given recent interventions by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the OEP, it is appropriate that he be afforded the space to ensure that the final plan represents a fair outcome for all sectors that are impacted on.

River basin management plans are an opportunity to focus on localised issues of concern and to identify solutions specific to those catchment areas. Some concern has been expressed in recent years that that localised focus has been weakened, including in the recent draft, which was consulted on. Does the Minister intend to proceed on that basis, or does he recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach for all of Northern Ireland may not be appropriate? Will he consult on the final river basin management plan? Will he ensure that future implementation and governance structures are catchment-based? Those are important considerations, and I ask the Minister to address them in his response if he can.

Partnership working is crucial, and any programme of measures needs to be co-designed rather than imposed in order to maximise the success of implementation and outcomes. That means that DAERA, DFI and their arm's-length bodies, such as the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and DFI Rivers, need to work collaboratively with local councils, households, businesses and, in particular, our farming industry.

Although we may have sympathy with what the OEP said about the need for water body-specific environmental objectives as part of the river basin management plan, there is also the question of proportionality. Northern Ireland Water (NIW) will undoubtedly be constrained by its budget and by the lack of movement on constitutional change that might allow it to raise the capital funds needed to address sewage overflows and pressures facing water infrastructure. That does not mean that other sectors should carry an inordinate or disproportionately high burden. The scale of the contribution made by agriculture, for example, will depend on a guarantee from the UK Government about the level of funding available to support farm businesses directly or through rural development budgets. We want to see drastic improvements in water quality, but budgets are finite, and not just those in the public sector. Progress must therefore be sustained and sustainable. The plans should therefore avoid broad-brush approaches to enforcement. There should be targeting of deliberate and repeat offenders, and that should go hand in hand with advising and educating all sectors with responsibility for preserving water quality. There should be consistency in enforcement and punishment. A blind eye should not be turned to the repeated crimes of a public authority while farm businesses are heavily fined. Any river basin management plan should recognise progress achieved to date and ensure close synergies with existing strategies and projects such as the Living With Water programme and the soil nutrient health scheme.

The Executive will also be required to press ahead with policies that encourage green growth and deliver agricultural policy that adopts a results-based approach to farming with nature and gives clarity on ammonia. A river basin management policy may set the strategic direction for achieving water quality, but the real litmus test for success will be in the outworking of those headline Executive policies. Wider agreement between the Executive and HM Treasury on a fair, long-term and needs-based fiscal framework would assist the third cycle river basin management plans immeasurably. The impact of chronic underfunding of public services is clear in the regression in water quality and the condition of Lough Neagh. Part of the solution is the restoration and retention of adequate funding of our Departments. We can have all the world-class policies and plans that we want, but they are useless without the necessary funding.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Nicola Brogan. Nicola, you have three minutes.

Miss Brogan: Ceart go leor, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat.

As a member of the AERA Committee and Sinn Féin spokesperson on the environment and climate, I am happy to speak in support of the motion.

Ensuring that we have safe, clean water is one of the fundamental responsibilities of any Government. The quality of our water, as a primary natural resource, is first and foremost a public health issue, but it also affects everything from biodiversity protection and food-chain security to major industries such as tourism and agriculture, and even personal pastimes like angling and swimming.

The worrying explosion in blue-green algae in Lough Neagh and waterways across Ireland has provided a startling visual reminder of the necessity to protect our waters. An updated river basin management plan is essential to ensuring that we can address the issue of water quality in as effective, efficient and holistic a manner as possible.

I am pleased that the motion acknowledges the need to address the issue on an all-Ireland basis. As an island, our waters are obviously deeply interconnected, and it makes no sense to take a piecemeal approach to their protection. As with all environmental and biodiversity issues, we should tackle this with a single all-island strategy. The Government in the South recently announced a major river basin management plan. I urge the Department to work closely with its counterparts to ensure that the one in the North is as complementary and cooperative as possible. It is an issue for which we must all take responsibility. Working together across all relevant Departments and with all relevant partners, we can restore and protect Ireland's waters for our future generations. That starts with a new river basin management plan.

I support the motion.

Mr Blair: Rivers are a vital part of our everyday lives, impacting on biodiversity, tourism, recreation, fishing and, of course, drinking water. The combination of agricultural run-off, sewage and invasive species is recognised as a major contributor to our rivers becoming unhealthy. Add to that the effects and consequences of climate change, along with years of degradation and underinvestment from previous Ministers and, of course, stop-start governance, and it is no wonder that water quality across Northern Ireland is not what it should be.

The Minister has been working to address the issues. The newly released Lough Neagh action plan outlines various initiatives focused on enhancing water quality across all water bodies in Northern Ireland. Additionally, the environmental improvement plan is crucial in showcasing the Minister's dedication to improving water quality. The plan adopts a holistic approach to safeguarding, enhancing and conserving our waterways and water bodies.

The motion references the link between the Lough Neagh action plan, the environmental improvement plan and a river basin management plan but does not acknowledge work that is under way, such as the recruitment of an enforcement task force; the awarding of £450,000 to initiatives to develop proof of concepts and potential solutions in respect of blue-green algae; and the progress made on the review of fines and penalties for environmental crimes.

We know that a river basin management plan is in draft form. It is being prepared and consulted on. However, as the Minister has pointed out, time is needed to review emerging information on water quality. That includes reports from the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Office for Environmental Protection. Therefore, while we may feel frustrated by delays, we should be encouraged by the commitment that the Minister has made in the Lough Neagh action plan and the environmental improvement plan.

It is essential to recognise the wider challenges that the Minister and the Department face. To begin with, progress is constrained by tight budgets and resource pressures.

The Department needs financial backing to encourage change and best practice in the agriculture sector while ensuring sufficient resources for effective regulation, testing and reporting. We know that other public services such as the NHS also demand attention, but neglecting to allocate sufficient resources for environmental protection will lead to substantial costs in the future.

Progress necessitates a coordinated interdepartmental strategy. For example, DFI needs to focus on advancing waste water infrastructure through Northern Ireland Water as waste water systems and septic tanks contribute significantly to elevated nutrient levels. Cross-border collaboration is crucial to protecting a single biogeographical unit that transcends borders.

I am confident that the Minister will deliver a river basin management plan that addresses the concerns raised in the motion and paves the way for a more sustainable and resilient water management system in Northern Ireland. That is why I can easily support the amendment and have no difficulty in supporting the motion. However, it might help a little, in setting context to all of this —

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

Mr Blair: — if the proposer of the motion occasionally acknowledged the number of Northern Ireland Executives that his party has sat in, including those in which his party held —

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

Mr Blair: — the Environment and the Infrastructure briefs.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You would have thought the other Deputy Speaker would remember the time limit. Mr Butler, you have three minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion on the failure of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to meet the deadlines for the river basin management plan reflects a critical issue that is both urgent and, dare I say it, a little fluid. The fundamental failures identified in the motion relate not only to the missed deadlines but to the inadequacy of water quality management in Northern Ireland, which is an area that is as essential to public health as air but is far less celebrated. While one might be tempted to start by pointing fingers or drowning in the technical jargon of water regulations, let us boil this down to something simple: our rivers and lakes, which are supposed to be the lifeblood of our ecosystems and human health, are in trouble. That is not just an inconvenience: it is our environmental heritage and a public health crisis wrapped in algae and pollutants.

Water is not merely a resource to be exploited; it is a human right. Clean water is essential for drinking, agriculture and recreation. It is also vital to public health, and the state of Northern Ireland's water bodies is a health hazard. According to the Office for Environmental Protection's recent report, the majority of rivers and lakes are not meeting the required standards, with widespread contamination by persistent pollutants. That poses a clear threat to human health, with increased exposure to harmful substances such as ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (uPBT) substances. Those are not the kind of toxins that you wash away; they accumulate in your body and stay there like an uninvited guest at a party.

Those pollutants also damage our ecosystems, leading to the deterioration of biodiversity, which, frankly, is like pulling the rug out from under environmental balance. It is not just about saving the cute otters or majestic herons, though we should do that; it is about the intricate web of life — the fish, plants and insects, which are all doing their bit to keep nature ticking over — that the water bodies support. Waterways like Lough Neagh and, indeed, Lough Erne are not just picturesque postcard material; they represent Northern Ireland's heritage and are a crucial part of our identity. Lough Neagh, the largest fresh water lake in the UK, is a hub for agriculture, fisheries and tourism, but the state of water management threatens its ecological future. If we continue to allow pollutants to flow unchecked into our rivers and lakes, we risk losing not only the fish and the birds but a critical part of what makes Northern Ireland Northern Ireland. That is Northern Ireland.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely

Mr McNulty: As a youngster, I spent my summers playing in the streams, lakes and rivers of south Armagh around Slieve Gullion, skimming stones, fishing and building dams. I will never forget the excitement one summer's afternoon when a fish swam down the river in which we were building a dam. I was trying to catch that fish, which was a wonderful experience from my childhood.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Is the Member making an intervention, or are we having a tourist board meeting?

Mr McNulty: I still regret that I never caught that fish, and thinking about it still makes me despair.

Does the Member agree that the river basin management plan from DAERA and its Minister should learn from what is being done in the South? First, there has been a huge financial commitment in the South. Secondly, there has been a more localised approach. Thirdly —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member —?

Mr McNulty: — there are local catchment fora. Would we not benefit from local catchment fora to improve our waterways and bring the fish back into our rivers?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member will have an extra minute. I remind Members that they have the opportunity to speak if they wish to make their own statement.

Mr Butler: I cannot believe that you have given me only a minute to respond to that. The Member had more time than most of us have had to speak [Laughter.]

Fair play. Thanks for the intervention. In answer to the Member, absolutely. The thing to remember is that water flows both ways. The Republic's plan only began to be embedded at the start of September. I know that we are on a globe and it tilts a bit, but water runs from the south as far as it runs to the north. We are in this together. I will have to truncate my speech and get to my last paragraph, which I am gutted about.

The motion rightly demands immediate action from DAERA on the delay, which is not just a bureaucratic inconvenience but has tangible, damning consequences. The river basin plan needs to be updated, published and, crucially, implemented. It is about safeguarding public health, supporting biodiversity and ensuring that Northern Ireland's water systems remain a vital part of our shared heritage on this island. I was warmed by Mr Blair's words on the commitments that the Minister will, hopefully, make.

Mr McMurray: I referred in my maiden speech to Ratty saying to Mole:

As an outdoor instructor, I always take that to heart.

The quality of the rivers and lakes is a serious issue. The most recent DAERA statistics show that less than one third of our rivers achieved good or high ecological status, and none achieved good chemical status. In fact, improvement in the ecological and chemical status of our rivers has largely stalled since 2015. The dismal state of our water bodies is a result of years of disregard for the environment, and, while action is needed, it will take time to turn the situation around. A river basin management plan will be an important step on the way to tackling poor water quality. It is a vital road map for the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. It is important that the plan is effective and of high quality.

The plan should have been in place a long time ago. It is due to our failure to reform the institutions that we are now several years behind. The issue is another example of how poor governance has consequences and how stop-start government impacts on us all. It is the politics of dysfunction.

Since taking up office at the beginning of this year, Minister Muir has made water quality one of his top priorities. He has worked at pace to publish the Lough Neagh action plan, and, given its importance, it is right that that work was expedited.

Since the Assembly returned, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Office for Environmental Protection have published independent reports on water quality and on the draft river basin management plan respectively. The reports contain valid and constructive criticisms: for example, the Office for Environmental Protection expressed concern that the draft river basin management plan does not set out specific:

Minister Muir has accepted all the recommendations of the Office for Environmental Protection's report, and they will inform the river basin management plan. The findings in the Northern Ireland Audit Office's report will also be considered. It would be wrong to rush ahead and publish the river basin management plan without taking the time to properly consider and integrate the important learnings that those reports have to offer.

DAERA also has an important role to incentivise and regulate the agriculture sector. As with anything, change can come about only when we can bring the sector with us. The Minister will need financial support to incentivise change and best practice in the sector and to facilitate effective regulation, testing and reporting.

As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I am also aware of the crucial role that the Department for Infrastructure and NI Water must play. The Infrastructure Minister must work to ensure that NI Water is fully funded to address the historical underspend in our waste water infrastructure. We must also urgently find a long-term sustainable funding solution for NI Water.

The debate shows that tackling the quality of our water bodies is hugely complex and challenging, and partnership working will be essential to make positive change. We need to ensure that we set ourselves up for success with the river basin management plan

As it can be and with the necessary funding in place.

Sorry about that noise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. Hmm.

I call Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I do not know what the noise was, but, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I share the concern that the latest river basin management plan is nearly three years overdue. In any arena, that is bad practice, but, given the crisis in Lough Neagh and sewage being dumped in waterways, it is reckless, although we have to remember that, as the previous Member to speak indicated, the Office for Environmental Protection has criticised the draft, asking whether it complies with DAERA's legal obligations.

The river basin management plan sets legally binding, locally specific environmental objectives that underpin water regulation. Maybe that is why it was shelved. Previously, DAERA adopted one river basin management plan for each river basin district, but it now proposes to produce a single river basin management plan covering all districts. I do not know how that is consistent with the locally specific targets and areas that are set out in the plan.

The Office for Environmental Protection published a review of drivers and issues affecting biodiversity in the North. It was no surprise to me to find that two of the main pressures are land-use change and pollution, which are obviously directly connected to agricultural intensification. Excess nutrients in the form of fertilisers and animal waste are driving biodiversity loss. In that regard, Lough Neagh is the canary in the coal mine. The ongoing neglect and exploitation of the lough is just one example of the long-term neglect of the natural environment. In that context, the latest river basin management plan sitting on a shelf unfinished, inadequate and without any proposal for environmental objectives does not cut the mustard.

I support the motion, but, without an updated river basin management plan, the Lough Neagh action plan will not deliver on water quality. I take the opportunity to state that, on 3 November, a march for clean water has been organised in Belfast city centre in line with protesters who are doing the same in England. I encourage anybody who is watching or taking part in the debate to attend that demonstration.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing this important topic to the Assembly today. Failure to address more broadly the contamination of our inland waterways by producing a revised river basin management plan for Lough Neagh and our river basin districts is an indictment on the Department, statutory bodies and associated agencies.

As other Members have stated, water is an essential natural resource that we all rely on to sustain us. Fresh water is needed for human and animal consumption. It is needed for the aquatic life that it sustains in fresh water rivers and lakes and, in fact, for entire ecosystems. An Audit Office report from September 2024 highlighted that the deteriorating water quality in Lough Erne, which is in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, is largely due to outdated waste water infrastructure having to cope with increasing demands.

We delude ourselves, if we think that the problem will go away, and that is why it is imperative that the final publication and implementation of the river basin management plan is given the utmost urgency. Implementation and action will be the precursor to action on other fresh water lakes and rivers. The issues facing Lough Erne that I have referred to are not unique but are symptomatic of a broader crisis in Northern Ireland's waste water management.

Northern Ireland has more overflows per head of population and per kilometre of pipe than any other region in the United Kingdom. That leads to regular pollution incidents not just in Lough Erne but in other key water basins, such as Lough Neagh and the River Blackwater, also in my constituency. Those watercourses are key attractors for tourism; they are a key asset in the economy; and they support local businesses, such as eel fishing at Lough Neagh. As water quality deteriorates, the tourism industry will be affected, making lakelands less attractive to visitors. However, the environmental damage of pollution could be much longer-lasting. Once nutrient levels in our lakes and rivers reach a critical point, reversing the damage becomes more challenging. Algae bloom created by excess nutrients cause oxygen levels to reduce so much that they create dead zones and aquatic life becomes unsustainable.

A more strategic approach to managing Northern Ireland's water resources is needed. Not only does the physical infrastructure need upgrading but more effective regulatory measures need to be implemented to prevent pollution. The publication of the river basin management plan would be a good starting point to show that the Department is serious about its aim of addressing the pollution in Lough Neagh and across Northern Ireland's inland waterways.

As my colleague Robbie Butler said, this is about safeguarding public health, supporting biodiversity and ensuring that our waterways remain a vital part of our shared environmental heritage. For that reason, I support the motion calling on DAERA to fulfil its obligations under the water framework directive and proceed with haste to final implementation.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. The importance of the issues outlined in the motion cannot be overstated, and I am grateful to Members for bringing them to the Floor today.

In responding to the motion, I will outline the current position regarding the third cycle river basin management plan, which is in draft.

I also wish to use this opportunity to reassure Members that, while the plan has not yet been published, improving water quality in water bodies across Northern Ireland is one of my highest priorities.

The situation at Lough Neagh has been decades in the making. It is a sobering wake-up call for us all. As the Minister with primary responsibility for water quality, I accept that it is far from what it should be. There is no quick fix, but, while I do not underestimate the huge challenge that lies ahead, I am optimistic. I will advise Members of some of the important work taking place across DAERA that, I believe, will set us on the road to recovery.

I turn first to the main topic of the motion: the river basin management plan. Under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017, DAERA must review and update the river basin management plans every six years, setting out how water quality will be improved across Northern Ireland. The draft third cycle river basin management plan for 2021-27 takes an integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. It contains a programme of measures, setting out the actions required to protect and improve all water bodies — river, lake and marine, coastal and transitional — and groundwater. It was published in April 2021 for a six-month statutory consultation period. While the plan was finalised in October 2022, it could not be published without Executive approval due to its cross-cutting nature, and it now needs to be brought to the Executive for approval ahead of publication. However, there have been major developments in water quality issues since the draft river basin management plan was completed.

We are all aware of the devastating impact of nutrient pollution on our waterways, particularly at Lough Neagh. The issues have been highlighted in reports from the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Office for Environmental Protection, and our initial plan to tackle them head-on is outlined in the recently Executive-approved Lough Neagh action plan. The draft river basin management plan is being reviewed in the light of the findings and recommendations in those reports. As stated in the Lough Neagh report and action plan, the review will be completed by the end of December 2024 and subsequently published, subject to Executive approval.

In particular, the Office for Environmental Protection's report, 'A review of implementation of the Water Framework Directive Regulations and River Basin Management Planning in Northern Ireland', which was published in September, makes 16 recommendations to the Assembly, Executive and DAERA. The recommendations aim to improve the effectiveness of the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 and their application, increase the likelihood and pace of meeting environmental objectives and the wider obligations and commitments that depend on them and strengthen their interaction with other measures.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. To be absolutely clear, is his intention to publish the river basin management plan subject to Executive agreement, or is he able to publish it without Executive agreement?

Mr Muir: I will not be able to take many more interventions because I need to get through my speech — it is important that I do so — but that is not a discourtesy to anyone else.

I have to take the plan to the Executive for approval, so, hopefully, the Executive will agree it. I just need to abide by the law.

My officials and I have already engaged constructively with the OEP. I welcome the report as a positive contribution to DAERA's focus on the water environment. I did not reject the report; I accepted the recommendations and have had constructive engagement with OEP. Furthermore, it is a timely reminder of the work that is required to improve water quality by not only the Government but the public and private sectors, including local government and the wider community. I am working with my officials to consider the recommendations in the report in detail and to provide a full response by the start of December, in line with the required time frames.

I am aware of DAERA's statutory responsibilities with regard to publication of the river basin management plan, and I assure Members that I take them extremely seriously. On that basis, I am giving that work my highest priority, with a view to bringing the third cycle river basin management plan to the Executive for approval as soon as possible. In doing so, I will seek to achieve a balance between the completion of the delayed third cycle and being ready to take forward work on the next cycle.

Following the Executive's approval of the Lough Neagh report and action plan on 18 July, my focus has turned to implementation. The motion demands immediate action, and I am committed to that reality. Before I continue, I will remind Members of what the report from the OEP stated by quoting from it:

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will just finish the quote:

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. It is an important issue. I talked last week about the need to review the performance and non-performance of the Executive. To be clear, the Minister has read out that the impact of not having Stormont or Ministers in post for five years has been a deterioration in the condition of our environment, which impacts public health and everything else that we have discussed today.

Mr Muir: Yes. I will stand here and be held accountable for what I do in the Department, but I will not be accountable for the stop-go government that has impacted on our environment and public services in Northern Ireland. I am working hard to address those issues. I am working hard to work with people, but I need time to do that. The loss of two years of this mandate is also affecting our ability to introduce legislation because we have a constrained mandate. I am focused on the future, but it was important that I quoted from the report.

I am pleased to report that good progress has been made on a number of actions, including the development of the Lough Neagh science platform, the launch of two small business research initiatives and the implementation of the inter-agency blue-green algae monitoring protocol. I am fully committed to implementing the remaining actions as quickly as resources allow. However, it has always been clear that, given the size of Lough Neagh's catchment, the Lough Neagh action plan must be seen in the context of the environmental improvement plan. I was therefore delighted that that was published on 27 September, after approval by the Executive. It will deliver a cohesive and integrated approach to environmental protection, which is key for any meaningful, sustained improvement to water quality across Northern Ireland.

In addition, although the river basin management plan remains in draft, I can assure Members that work to improve water quality is continuing while we await the publication of the plan. The short time allowed for this response precludes me from mentioning many more examples, but I can advise that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has held several working group meetings for key stakeholders to consider sector-specific measures. Work is also continuing on the delivery of a number of initiatives, such as the soil nutrient health scheme. That scheme has been recognised globally as a way to provide farmers with data to help them improve their nutrient management, farm performance and environmental sustainability. That important scheme will help to address nutrient pollution, which has been identified as one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, and that was highlighted in the OEP report that was published today.

I welcome the report, and I intend to consider other policies and measures that will go some way to reducing pollution, improving habitat conditions and reducing biodiversity loss. DAERA's environment fund covers the water quality improvement strand of the grant funding, which is administered by NIEA and focuses on community and voluntary delivery of water quality improvement.

In outlining actions to improve water quality, it would be remiss of me not to mention the excellent collaboration taking place with colleagues in Ireland and GB. I place the highest priority on engagement with colleagues in GB and Ireland. Sharing learning, expertise and knowledge will be crucial if we are to address the complex water quality issues that affect us all. It is something that I have mentioned at the North/South Ministerial Council and the inter-ministerial group.

Finally, I need to mention resources. DAERA, like all other Departments, is working with a very tight budget, underpinned by significant resource pressures, and, while our ambition and determination remain high, the pace of progress in addressing the problems at Lough Neagh and other waterways across Northern Ireland will depend, to some extent, on the funding available. Achieving a substantial improvement in water quality will take many years due to the complex nature of the issues. The issues were decades in the making and will be decades in the fixing. The changes required are fundamental, and many will require significant investment. My vision is to have an environment, where our water bodies are at good status or better, support biodiversity and contribute to the health and well-being of everyone. There is a significant amount of work to do alongside our stakeholders, which will take time and resources.

In the seconds that I have left to speak, I will mention two key actions that are critical in the weeks ahead. One is the publication and consultation on the nutrient action programme (NAP), which is critical. If Members are going to back the motion today, they need to back me on the actions that we need to take. The other is for us to work together to find a way to address the need for infrastructure investment in waste water infrastructure. We need to tackle the agricultural issues, but we also need to tackle the issues associated with waste water infrastructure. I am determined that whatever I do will be fair and proportionate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Tom Buchanan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Tom, you have three minutes.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I do not intend to go through what everyone has said, other than to say that fresh water is an essential and natural resource. As we approach the issue before the House today, there is no doubt that everyone wants to achieve the same goal, and that is to see a vast improvement in our water quality, our rivers and lakes across Northern Ireland.

We all recognise that our rivers are a precious commodity and a natural resource. As my colleague who moved the amendment said, there are areas where our rivers have been turned into nothing more than open sewers. We face a deplorable situation, and it has a huge impact, resulting in the loss of habitats and biodiversity and in lasting socio-economic damage for those living and working in affected areas across Northern Ireland.

Although the Minister outlined his intention to facilitate the ongoing review and bring forward the third cycle river basin management plan, it is important that every opportunity is taken to home in on local concerns about water quality and identify solutions specific to those catchment areas. In some areas, concern has been expressed in recent times that that localised focus has been diluted, with little consideration being given to the voice of the people in those areas in relation to possible solutions. I hope that the Minister does not intend to proceed on that basis but recognises the importance of the voice of the people. I hope that he will ensure that future implementation and governance structures are catchment-based. Any future river basin management plan must recognise the progress made to date through existing strategies and projects such as the Living with Water programme and the soil nutrient health scheme. Indeed, independent businesses are leading the way in building knowledge and capacity around environmental sustainability and the potential risk to water quality.

Of course, enforcement must avoid a broad-brush approach. That will mean targeting deliberate and repeat offenders while providing advice and education to all sectors with responsibility for the preservation of water quality. There is always the concern that the scale of fines faced by farm businesses is unfairly inflated in comparison with that faced by other offenders for similar offences. We need to see more consistency in that area. I agree with the Minister that finance is a huge problem and needs to be addressed in order to tackle the huge issue of poor water quality in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Tom. I call Mark Durkan. Mark, you have five minutes in which to wind up.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the consensus that our water resources are too valuable to neglect, but we have heard that rhetoric before and it has not translated into action. The lackadaisical approach to water management for so long, including the degradation of our rivers and lakes and the inability to meet basic water standards, is unforgivable. We can no longer turn a blind eye to an issue that not only affects our natural environment but, if ignored, will have dire consequences for public health, the economy and our way of life. While the Minister and his Executive colleagues congratulate themselves on publishing an action plan for Lough Neagh and an overdue environmental improvement plan, the real issue of repeated non-compliance with environmental law lurks just below the surface. The new Executive seem more concerned with being seen to do something than with taking meaningful action. Rather than focus on real, lasting change that will benefit future generations, they prioritise appearance over substance.

I hope that the Minister can get the support that he needs. From experience, it has not often been forthcoming. On that note, it was not until the very visible crisis at Lough Neagh that the wider body politic was stirred into action. It took the toxic green algae blooms to prompt the Executive's green transition, but I worry that their version of "going green" might be toxic in its own way.

As the OEP's chief scientific officer, Robbie McDonald, pointed out:

It was not happening in secret. The issue has been crying out for action for years. The language in today's OEP report could not be starker. The pressure applied to our land and water is unbearable and unsustainable. Please heed the experts. We cannot afford to waste precious time dithering while the degradation of habitats and species threatens the agri-food industry and the local economy.

Rather than taking proactive measures to prevent issues before they escalate, the Executive seem to act only when situations reach a crisis point, and that is with a legal requirement in place. I am not filled with hope for the remainder of the mandate, given the oblique recognition in the draft PFG, which does not equate to specific environmental objectives or clear plans for how DAERA intends to meet the ambitious 70% target of water bodies achieving good chemical status in just over two years. Given that water quality has not improved but rather has significantly deteriorated, with the percentage of our lakes that are in good ecological status falling from 24% to just 14%, meeting that target may require a miracle, but we can pray.

DAERA has consistently failed to meet deadlines and is currently in breach of its basic duty to deliver a river basin management plan. It is now three years overdue: another casualty of political collapse. The reality is that, without that plan, the PFG's environmental ambitions will be nothing more than words on paper. The plan needs to be published and implemented, as our motion calls for, not just to be reviewed and strategic measures introduced, as the amendment calls for. The amendment constitutes a watering down — for want of a better expression — of our motion. The longer that we delay, the more costly and difficult that it will be to reverse the damage. Without decisive action now, we risk permanent harm to our environment, and the only legacy that we will leave behind is one of neglect and destruction.

I am disappointed and surprised that other parties have indicated support for the amendment. We urge the Minister to explore an all-Ireland strategy, and I know that he has raised that issue at the North/South Ministerial Council. If there is any chance of reversing the harm that is being caused to our environment, and of meeting basic legal targets, we need to start with a proper river basin management plan that can underpin much of the work that the Minister needs to take forward in the years ahead. We need action now. Without it, Northern Ireland's water systems will continue to deteriorate. I implore the Assembly to support the motion. It is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just been informed that the former Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast and Senator, Niall Ó Donnghaile, has been removed from his party and charged with having sent inappropriate messages to a person under the age of 18. That is another serious safeguarding issue.

Following Niall Ó Donnghaile's resignation from the Seanad, the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, thanked him for his diligent service. I suspect that the First Minister was aware of the serious safeguarding issue at that time. I therefore think that it is appropriate to ask the Speaker to provide time for the First Minister to return to the House to give a fulsome statement of the facts of what has happened. Day by day, each statement that is made, whether in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, brings with it more questions about the serious issue of safeguarding at the heart of the government in not only Northern Ireland but the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Member for the point of order. I will ask the Speaker to consider the issue, and we will report back as we feel is fit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diane Dodds to raise the matter of breast cancer waiting times in Upper Bann. Diane, you have 15 minutes.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so I am very glad to be able to bring the topic to the House this afternoon. Sadly, everyone in the Chamber will know someone who has been affected by breast cancer. It is a disease that can terrify women, but it is important that we continue to promote the message that early detection and treatment save lives. Breast cancer is the most common cancer globally, with around 2·3 million cases every year. It represents one in eight cancer cases in both sexes and a quarter of all cancers in women. Mortality can be as high as 70% in some resource-constrained settings around the world, but early detection methods continue to increase the chances of survival. When caught in its earliest, localised stages, the five-year relative survival rate of breast cancer is 99%. Northern Ireland should be striving for outcomes that are in line with the very best anywhere in the world.

I welcome the Health Minister's recent commitment to move towards a more common approach for breast cancer referrals. It is important that all women have the same opportunity to be assessed and treated as early as possible. It has been clear for some time that there are significant variations across the different trusts. From my constituency perspective, the Southern Health and Social Care Trust has struggled. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to look up the most up-to-date statistics on the My Waiting Times NI website. For those who are waiting for an initial outpatient assessment with breast surgery sub-speciality in the Southern Trust area, the wait is five weeks for cases that are deemed to be urgent and 24 weeks for routine cases. Therefore, in this week of October 2024, if a woman requires surgery that is not deemed to be urgent, that surgery will not take place until the end of March 2025. That is a sobering statistic for the House to consider.

For treatment that is subsequent to the first assessment, the wait for routine cases is 191 weeks, but the wait for urgent cases is 172 weeks. Appallingly, the waits for the most concerning cases, which are those that the consultant deems to be red-flag at assessment, are taking, on average, 39 weeks. That is absolutely unacceptable. Indeed, it is disgraceful. That is the length of a pregnancy, sitting waiting on surgery after you have been told that you are a red-flag case. If ever there was an example of why we need to sort out waiting lists and allow all patients the same access to services, surely that must be it.

A number of different departmental targets on breast cancer have been in place for many years. One target is that at least 95% of patients with a suspected cancer who are referred urgently by a GP should begin their definitive treatment within 62 days. Again, the figures have been very poor in the Southern Trust area. For quarter 3 of 2023, the percentage of people who were beginning that treatment within 62 days was recorded as being between 10% and 30%. For the following quarter, it was 29%. In the first two quarters of 2024, it was only 22% and 36%. That performance trails significantly behind those of other parts of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that, in relatively small services, sometimes the illness of a key member of staff, a retirement or a resignation and the failure to appoint a replacement can have a significant impact. We must have the review as quickly as possible so that we can best serve women in our area.

Another departmental target for breast cancer is that all urgent referrals should be seen within 14 days. Those are women who have found a lump in their breast and have been referred for an urgent appointment by their GP. The most recent data for those cases was published on 26 September, and it covers the three months from April to June 2024.In the Southern Trust, only 10·8% — one woman in 10 — were seen within the target time. That compares with 82·6% in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area over the same three-month period. Shockingly, and I widen the debate, in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust that figure was only 7·7%, and in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, it was 4·8%. Only 4·8% of women who discover a lump in their breast are seen within the required time. I think that we will all agree that, when we consider those statistics, women are being very badly served by that part of our cancer services. It has become a postcode lottery, and that is simply not good enough. This is a time-critical service, and this is not good enough.

I am grateful to Cancer Focus NI, which assisted me in calculating the prominence of breast cancer locally. We are fortunate to have a wealth of excellent charities and third-sector organisations operating in this field and supplying many vital services. In the Upper Bann constituency, over 100 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer each year, with well over 1,000 living with breast cancer, and approximately 20 will die from breast cancer each year. For Northern Ireland as a whole, an average of just under 1,500 women and 11 men are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. One in eight women is expected to face a breast cancer diagnosis during their lifetime, and, on average, more than 300 women die in Northern Ireland each year as a result of breast cancer.

The World Health Organization launched a global breast cancer initiative in 2021 to try to reduce mortality rates by 2·5% per year by 2040 and save 2·5 million lives. Its three key pillars of action were health promotion for early detection, timely diagnosis and comprehensive breast cancer management. Those are relevant for everywhere in Northern Ireland. Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer among women globally, and it represents approximately a quarter of all cancers that occur in women each year. With one in six cancer deaths in women worldwide, breast cancer is also the leading cause of cancer deaths across the world in women.

We can all play our part in seeking to prevent future generations from experiencing breast cancer to the same extent. We need to dispel the myths and fears, counter any misinformation, and educate and help women to feel empowered to seek help. Supportive care, including psychological, spiritual and emotional, is required for those navigating a breast cancer diagnosis and for their families. We are fortunate that so many of our third-sector organisations help with that. Studies show that increasing physical activity can significantly reduce the risk of cancer by as much as 20%. Soberingly, more than one in two of us will be diagnosed with some form of cancer.

Macmillan Cancer Support published analysis earlier this year revealing that cancer survival rates in the UK are as much as 25 years behind other European countries. The UK's survival rates for several common types of cancer are now only reaching what countries such as Sweden and Norway achieved in the early 2000s, and sometimes even earlier. If UK survival rates matched the best in Europe, thousands more people who are diagnosed each year would survive their cancer for at least five years. As well as showing considerably poorer survival rates for bowel, prostate and cervical cancer, the comparison shows that survival rates for breast cancer are lagging up to 10 years behind.

When researching and working on today's debate, I was absolutely astounded by those figures.

There is nothing for any of us to be proud of when we hear them out loud. The statistics for the Southern Trust or, indeed, any other part of Northern Ireland cannot be defended in any way. No one in the House should even begin to try.

The review of breast cancer services is long overdue. I hope that no time will be wasted in bringing forward that review and its conclusions so that we can better serve women in Northern Ireland. Every effort needs to be made to fill outstanding vacancies in the Southern Trust. We need to make sure that breast cancer services operate at their optimal capacity. That will include other providers, including external providers, if they can assist us with waits in the Southern Trust or other trusts across Northern Ireland. One thing is sure: no stone should be left unturned to turn around that absolutely appalling situation.

I know that you, Minister, will be alarmed by the statistics that emanate from your Department, and I know that you have announced a review. I encourage you, on behalf of women not just in Banbridge, Lurgan, Portadown and the area in between that I serve as a constituency representative but across Northern Ireland, to act decisively to turn around this appalling situation and make sure that women get the health service in relation to breast cancer that they deserve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call John O'Dowd. John, you have up to six minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. For the record, I speak as an MLA for Upper Bann.

I thank Diane for bringing the topic to the House. It is an important subject. I have no doubt that the Minister shares the concerns of all Members about the waiting times and lists for breast cancer treatment, whether it is in the Southern Trust area or on a broader scale.

I am acutely aware of the financial pressures that all Departments face and of the impact that decades of underinvestment and austerity have had on our public services. When you cannot deliver cancer services in a timely, effective and efficient manner, regardless of whatever else is going on in Departments, that is the measure against which we all must measure ourselves and say, "Well, if we cannot do that, there is an issue not only for the Minister of Health and the Department of Health but for the entire Executive and Assembly and our entire society".

There are challenges and opportunities ahead. The Minister's announcement of an urgent review of how regional breast cancer services are delivered is welcome news, but it also brings a challenge to local elected representatives: we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to the contents of the consultation, the engagement around the consultation or proposals that may flow from it. As long as that review has at its centre an equitable, accessible and effective service, if those goals can be achieved, we have to be open to new ideas. We, as political leaders in our communities, have to give leadership on some of those matters.

When researching for today's discussion, I noted that, since the return of the institutions, a number of questions have been lodged by Members with the current and previous Health Ministers. A response to one of my colleagues stated that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust was given recurrent investment for a third consultant to be appointed to Craigavon Area Hospital's breast cancer services. The date for that was June 2024. Does the Minister have information about whether that appointment was made? Was the trust successful in making that appointment, and, if so, has it had any positive impact on challenging the waiting lists? I also note that non-recurrent funding for additional capacity from the independent sector was made available to the Southern Trust during the same period. Has that had a positive impact on the waiting lists?

As Mrs Dodds said, the issue primarily impacts on women. Men can have breast cancer as well, but, for anyone who has discovered a lump on their breast and is waiting for their first appointment, surgery or whatever it might be, it is a frightening experience. It is only right and proper that we, as political leaders, ensure that they have the right services. Even before someone gets to their first appointment, they have to get access to their GP. That goes back to the primacy of primary care in the health service. Rightly, today's focus is on acute services, as it often is, but being able to get access to a GP quickly after that worrying moment of discovery is vital as well.

We need breast services. The regional formula that the Minister will come forward with has to be based on equitable, accessible and effective delivery. For our health service to be truly effective, access to primary care is key in all these things.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Doug Beattie.

Mr Beattie: My hearing is going, do you know that? It really is.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am not very quiet, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: That is what it is.

I thank my Upper Bann colleague for bringing this to the House. It is an incredibly important issue, and she articulated the detail of it extremely well. No doubt, in the debate, we will all mention the same statistics as she mentioned. The reality is that it is not about statistics in many ways: it is real life. It affects real people, and, when those real people get a lump and know that they possibly have cancer, it has a real effect on them as a person and on their families. It affects their health but can also be a financial issue.

The reality is that many women are concerned about breast screening and breast cancer services across Northern Ireland. I am concerned, as we all should be. Women's health has been highlighted in recent months in relation to many issues beyond this. I think of the Ladies with Letters and the issues surrounding smear tests and the motions in the Assembly calling for a women's health strategy. I know that there has been a significant campaign to maintain breast cancer services at Craigavon Area Hospital. Women's health is really up there and is incredibly important, nothing more so than breast cancer services and breast screening.

Cancer patients and their families deserve so much better than what they currently receive. Far too many people are forced to wait for far too long for a diagnosis and for treatment. Cancer is a disease that does not wait; it often thrives in any periods that delay intervention. The problems are especially bad in breast cancer services. In the three months from April to June 2024, only 11% of patients in the Southern Trust area were seen within 14 days. The target is 95%. Eleven per cent were seen, but the target is 95%. Yet, in the neighbouring Western Trust, that figure was 83%. Southern Trust 11%, Western Trust 83%. It is not acceptable for women in one trust area to have to wait significantly longer to be assessed than women in another trust area, but that is the postcode lottery that women are running at the moment.

I welcome the recent announcement of a new regional waiting list for breast cancer assessment, which will enable women to access the earliest available appointment across the Province. That comes back to the discussion about whether people are willing to travel a bit further to get treated more quickly and effectively. The answer has to be, "Yes, I believe that they are". In the modern era, there should be no reason for any patient or individual to have to wait so long for cancer treatment, care, diagnosis or support. There has to be greater collaboration across trust boundaries in order to target funding to equalise waiting times, establish regional pathways and renew the drive for rapid diagnostic centres and clinics that started in recent years. All of that could have happened to a much greater extent if the cancer strategy had been implemented as was originally envisaged. Instead, it suffered greatly in the absence of the institutions, combined with the absence of a needs-based Department of Health budget allocation. There can be recriminations one way or the other — I will leave those up to whomever — but it now falls on the Minister to force through his regional strategy to make sure that women get a better outcome than they do now.

I finish by thanking Diane Dodds for bringing the topic to the House. It is a timely and good debate. There is more that we can do as elected representatives to help women access the treatment that they deserve and need.

Mr Buckley: I thank in particular my colleague Diane Dodds MLA for bringing the matter to the Chamber. It is an issue that she has championed and sought to raise awareness of during her time as DUP health spokesperson, a member of the Health Committee and an MLA for Upper Bann.

As Diane rightly points out, there is an issue of urgent concern for our community in Upper Bann. Unfortunately, in our constituency, there has been a worrying trend of delays being faced by those seeking timely diagnosis and treatment. As we are all well aware, early detection of breast cancer is critical to having successful outcomes. That story has been repeated so many times. I am sure that Members across the Chamber can recount such circumstances, whether it be of family members, friends or constituents who have had that early detection and have been able to receive appropriate treatment and who, in many cases, are now living a full life because of it.

Reports have consistently shown that women in Upper Bann and those being treated in the Southern Trust area wait longer than they should for breast cancer screenings, test results and follow-up appointments. In considering that, we recognise the devastating potential that delays can have on patients' physical health and, indeed, their mental and emotional well-being throughout their cancer journey. The quarterly Health and Social Care report revealed that only 14 women were treated within 62 days of an urgent GP referral, a statistic of which, collectively, we should be ashamed. Some 25 women were treated beyond 62 days of an urgent GP referral. That is just one example of the failures to ensure timely, efficient treatment.

I say to the Minister that we are not here to be alarmist. Our health service, by and large, performs a fantastic job across Northern Ireland. I can recount stories of people who have accessed the system having nothing but praise for the professional service that they received.

I say gently to the Minister, however, that there is a growing concern in the Southern Trust area and, in particular, in Craigavon, where some of the major issues with screening arise. My colleague Doug Beattie mentioned one of them, and a particular one is cervical cancer screening. Anybody who listens to the testimony of those families cannot but be totally moved by the journey that they have been on. There is a lack of confidence there. I am interested in whether the Minister recognises that confidence issue in the local community, and I want to know what steps the Department will take to deal with it.

Members, every one of us recognises that funding is a vital part of improving our health service, but that funding must be considered and underpinned by plans put in place for reform in order to ensure that strides towards early detection and efficient treatment can take place. I welcome the recent announcement by the Health Minister of new initiatives to address the unacceptable waiting times for breast cancer services. It is absolutely necessary that we address any inadequacies in regional waiting lists and give women access to the earliest appointments that are available to them across the Province. In keeping with that, it is my hope that a wider review of breast cancer services can be completed by the Department as soon as possible. That is a point that all Members who have contributed mentioned.

I am well aware of the communities and charities in my constituency that offer so much support to those who have had a cancer diagnosis. We have many organisations and many people — they may have experienced it themselves and are giving back — helping women who find themselves in the most difficult circumstances. I have no doubt that, as they continue to give their time to help those in much need, they will provide an open door to the Minister in respect of any review, in order to ensure that services are adequate for those who are suffering.

I again thank Diane Dodds for securing the Adjournment debate. Each of us is aware of the scientific advances in breast cancer treatment. It is time that we stand together and advocate for change that will, ultimately, save lives. Early detection saves lives, and timely treatment gives hope.

Mr McGrath: This is a timely debate on a very important issue. It relates to Upper Bann, but, as the SDLP health spokesperson, I know that breast cancer can impact on people anywhere.

We have mentioned the nuances whereby there are slightly different outcomes depending on which trust area you reside in. I know, from various discussions that the Minister has had over the past number of weeks and months, that we have to move away from the silo mentality within different trusts to try to ensure that people get the best possible outcomes no matter where they live. Whilst it is important that outcomes are benchmarked across trusts, we also need to look at the international picture, because I am not so sure that we have the best outcomes here compared with America or other parts of Europe. It is about striving to get the best possible outcome for people — and that outcome is early detection. We know that, with breast cancer and all cancers, early diagnosis gives you the best opportunity to survive.

Receiving the information that you have cancer must be absolutely frightening. You can instantly feel like your life is crumbling away from you. It must be even more frightening to hear that you are in the later stages because of delays in the health service. You will know that it would not have had to be that way if the proper resources and services were in place to help. That is not a criticism of the Department, because it can only do what it is doing, and it only has so many people and so many pounds. However, that does not help the person who gets a diagnosis and wonders, "Could that have been picked up quicker?". As John O'Dowd mentioned, it is vital that people can access primary care quicker so that they can be signposted. The important issue is getting the diagnosis.

Breast cancer is horrendously cruel. The treatment can be debilitating and life-altering. The medications can make you lose weight and then gain weight. You can lose their your hair from the chemotherapy, and your body will be affected if you have a mastectomy. We are becoming a more image-driven society. Many women experience a real battle whereby they beat the disease but lose their self-image and self-esteem. Early diagnosis is important because, if you survive, there is a life beyond the diagnosis.

I want to make a tiny call-out. Breast cancer is a condition that can affect men. Men are also diagnosed with breast cancer. Although the numbers are very small, it is important to throw it in, in case any men who have had breast cancer are listening to the debate. We need to break that stigma. If men find lumps, they need to make their way to their doctor to try to get the all-important treatment. That additional stigma might prevent men from reaching out.

I have the utmost admiration for those who have overcome the illness. I want to take a few seconds to reflect on the case of a very close friend and former Member and SDLP party leader, Margaret Ritchie, who suffered from breast cancer. She overcame it. We journeyed with her through that process, and you could see her personal approach in wanting to fight that illness. She was lucky that it was diagnosed relatively early and that a good service was in place to wrap around her. We are so grateful and thankful that she has recovered from that and progressed very well. It would be wrong to have this discussion without mentioning how Margaret has been a beacon for people in South Down — our area — who have seen her journey and seen her joining the support classes in the community. She has provided, through her experiences, a personal story that people have been able to tie into.

I absolutely support the debate — it is really important to have it — and I hope that we can get some updates from the Minister on how we can continue to ensure early detection.

Mr Donnelly: I thank Mrs Dodds for securing this very important Adjournment debate. I am here in place of my colleague Eóin Tennyson, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here but wanted us to be represented. It is certainly a subject that he considers to be very important. He is unable to be here because he is unwell rather than for any other reason.

The issue is clearly very important for women across Northern Ireland. I note the disparity in waiting times. Across the Southern Trust in particular, the waiting times are incredibly shocking. The figures for the Northern Trust and the South Eastern Trust that the Member quoted are, again, very shocking for women who live in those areas.

As other Members have pointed out, early detection can lead to successful treatment and reduce the risk from this terrible condition. Women should certainly be encouraged to check their breasts for anything new or unusual and to attend screening when they are called. As Colin pointed out, the same goes for men. I was one of those men a couple of years ago: I found a lump and had a scan. It was a very worrying time. Thankfully, everything was OK, but it is very worrying when you find something wrong with your body, and the idea of waiting for a long time, not knowing what is going on, is incredibly distressing.

I welcome the Health Minister's announcement about taking a regional approach to dealing with breast cancer waiting lists in particular, which will ensure that patients will be seen at the earliest available appointment, regardless of where they are based. That is absolutely the right thing to do. We know that each trust has different services available for cancer treatment. For example, there are rapid diagnostic centres in two trusts. Access to those services should not be a postcode lottery. We need a single-system approach to health and social care in Northern Ireland, with specialist and regional hubs, depending on the services available in each area, to remove barriers to treatment. The statistics that have been quoted today are a grim reminder of the real-life consequences of the dysfunction and lack of urgency in ensuring reform of our health and social care services. We must remain committed to that crucial transformation to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland receive the highest quality of care when they need it most.

A cancer diagnosis can be devastating, and waiting for treatment is incredibly distressing. As Doug Beattie mentioned, the cancer strategy needs to be funded and delivered. As has been mentioned again and again, early detection and timely treatment are what people in Northern Ireland deserve. Thank you for securing the debate today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thank Diane Dodds for securing today's Adjournment debate. I welcome the opportunity to recognise the situation that so many people living with breast cancer find themselves in.

Naturally, much of the discussion about our breast services focuses on performance, and quite rightly so. Since becoming Health Minister, I have had the opportunity to meet a number of people who are living with breast cancer or, indeed, supporting those who are doing so. A key takeaway for me from those discussions is that our breast services in their current format are not performing as they should, hence my desire for reform. I want to be clear that that is by no means a reflection on the dedication and commitment of the staff who work day in, day out to deliver those services. Staff have made an enormous contribution; I wholly endorse that idea. The issues with the services do not sit with the staff who deliver them. The issues that need to be addressed are systemic, and I intend to address them.

I wish to deliver a more equitable, sustainable and timely service to deliver better outcomes for patients and more resilience for our staffing complement throughout the region. The particular concern of the Member who secured the debate is the waiting times in Upper Bann. The key hindrance to the breast service's performance in the Southern Trust and a contributory factor to long waiting times is the ongoing challenge of staff availability. In the current delivery model, each trust relies on a small team to deliver its breast services. Therefore, if even one staff member is on leave, falls ill or suffers a bereavement, it can have a catastrophic impact on the trust's performance. Over the past 12 months, staff shortages have had just that effect on many occasions. Mr O'Dowd asked whether a third consultant had been appointed in the Southern Trust, and I can tell him that it is the case. To some extent, that has helped to stabilise the service, but there is still a waiting list backlog, and workforce issues remain: one GP with a special interest has, I believe, gone to another trust, there has been maternity leave, and other issues have affected that small team disproportionately.

Members will also be aware of the introduction of Encompass to our health and social care services. It is a major step forward and an exciting innovation. However, with any major change in the way that we work, it takes a little time to adjust, and that impacts on service delivery. As happened in other areas of the UK where a similar system was introduced, there has been an expected downturn in capacity in the South Eastern and Belfast Trusts, and that is expected to be the case when the Northern Trust goes live on 7 November and when the Southern and Western Trusts go live in 2025.

Departmental officials and trust staff have worked tirelessly to provide short-term interventions to address the waiting times and backlog. That has included inter-trust transfers, increased waiting list initiative funding for red-flag patients and the coordination of mega clinics on evenings and weekends. We are all aware that breast services here have been under severe pressure for some time. Regionally, we have never met our 14-day target for all red-flag assessments. According to the latest cancer waiting time statistics, between April and June of this year, just 31% of patients were assessed within 14 days of their red-flag referral. The target is 100%. Only 36% of patients started treatment within 62 days of their referral. That target is 95%. Conversely, 91% of patients started treatment within 31 days of diagnosis. It is a clear indication that addressing the wait for assessment is a priority issue, and, once a diagnosis is provided and a decision to treat has been made, the service should be much timelier.

That is why I recently announced that single regional waiting lists for breast assessments will be implemented in the coming months. That will enable patients from across Northern Ireland to access the earliest appointment available to them, wherever that might be. I want to deliver equitable access to breast services. I want to end the unacceptably long waits. I want our staff to have a more resilient service. The patients of the Upper Bann region have been highlighted here today. To me, it is unthinkable that somebody from that area who might wait for weeks for a breast assessment could, if they lived just a few miles up the road, wait for only days. That regional inequity in access to breast cancer services will end.

More challenges need to be addressed to deliver a service that meets the needs of all who require it. For that reason, I have asked for a wider review of services to be undertaken at pace. Engagement with clinicians, people with lived experience of cancer and cancer charities will all be central to the review. My overriding priority is to secure better outcomes for patients, and the review will include examining options from consolidating the number of locations where assessment and surgery are provided. At the same time, it will consider how aftercare and chemotherapy are provided, and those services should, I believe, be provided as close to home as possible. I am confident that patients are prepared to travel for specialist assessment and treatment, but they want follow-up and continuing care to be as close to their dwellings as possible.

A few other areas were mentioned during the discussion. It is unacceptable that our cancer outcomes are not better than they are when compared with other countries, and that is why we need reform, a point that Mrs Dodds made.

I said that I want to tackle health inequalities. For me, that is short for three things: health inequalities, which are about outcomes; health inequities, which are about unequal access to services; and health literacy, which means people understanding how to access health and social care in Northern Ireland. On that theme, the rapid diagnostic centres will be very useful, but you need to know that they are there and how to access them. Even if you know how to access primary care and your GP, they need to be open and responsive when you reach out to them.

My final point is on the subject that Mr Buckley raised: confidence. Confidence is absolutely key. If we do not trust our doctors, nurses, clinicians and surgeons, how can the health service operate? I met some of the ladies from Ladies with Letters, and Diane Dodds was in the room at the time. Clearly, confidence is not there. Trevor Harbinson was in the room, not long after he had buried his wife, Erin, who should be alive today. She should be alive today, but she was failed by our system. That is my motivation. Let Erin Harbinson be the last. Let us change the system. Let us make it equitable, accessible and world class. That is my ambition.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Diane. Thank you, Minister, and I thank you all for the respectful debate that we have had this evening.