Official Report: Tuesday 06 May 2025

Mr Speaker: Before I call Members to make their statements, I want to mention that, today, we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of VE Day. There is an excellent exhibition from the War Memorial Museum in Belfast and the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) over in the other facility. We are also holding an event at 1.15 pm to mark the tremendous occasion when fascism was defeated and the war in Europe came to a conclusion. We are very thankful that that was the case.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It might seem strange coming from me, but I congratulate Dungannon Swifts Football Club on its victory in the Irish Cup final. Well done. It was a mighty achievement for the team, the whole club, its loyal supporters who have stuck with it through thick and thin, and, indeed, the whole community, so well done. Bad luck to Cliftonville Football Club. Like many people, I had hoped that we would bring the cup back to North Belfast. Regrettably, it was not our day.

I want to address the post-match incidents. I reiterate what Cliftonville FC said in its statement; it will engage fully with all relevant statutory bodies. It had those engagements prior to the match and it will certainly have them post-match. Like the club, I condemn, on record, the completely unacceptable behaviour of a small minority of fans.

Genuine fans were caught up in those incidents. We have been contacted by many people who were at the game on Saturday afternoon, including some who were part of three generations of the same family and had brought their grandkids with them. They were caught up in the middle of it; it was really terrifying for them. They said that health and safety concerns need to be addressed at a minimum. We will discuss the policing operation on the day, both prior to and post the match.

I also take the opportunity to condemn the people who were behind threats to Catholic residents in the Skegoneill area of North Belfast. There are reports that the PSNI visited several homes in the area to inform residents that they had been targeted by a criminal gang. My understanding is that at least one family has moved out and others are talking about doing the same.

Let me be clear: sectarianism, regardless of where it presents itself, has no place in our society. Anyone who intimidates or threatens people simply because of their faith or identity needs to be challenged and called out by all of us. Political leaders here need to make it clear that they reject that vile behaviour and, indeed, the thugs behind it.

Miss McIlveen: Bobby Sands was not a freedom fighter. He was a convicted criminal; someone wedded to violence; a member of a brutal terrorist organisation that was responsible for the murder and maiming of thousands. To honour his legacy is to reopen the wounds of the past. For the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA and their families, that is not distant history. It is lived pain. It is the empty chair at the dinner table.

The First Minister's attendance in Twinbrook on Sunday was a wilful decision to reopen that hurt. As we are all aware, the ministerial Pledge of Office requires an unambiguous rejection of violence and paramilitarism. Glorifying, through speeches or shrines, people who broke the law is a gross abdication of those duties. There are serious question marks over the role of others in that event, in particular Mr Sheehan and Mr Baker. Political leadership demands moral clarity.

Social media remains fertile ground for radicalisation, and the glorification of figures like Bobby Sands, Séamus McElwain or Jim Lynagh emboldens a new generation to romanticise violence. The First Minister is the first one to point out the harm that can be caused on such platforms when abuse is targeted towards women and girls, including those in the public eye, but what about the women and girls who were left bereaved or whose lives were indelibly scarred when their father, grandfather or brother was barbarically attacked by the IRA? Do they not matter?

The hypocrisy on display by Sinn Féin is breathtaking. Sinn Féin attacks the DUP support for our unionist culture and identity because of the distasteful actions of a few, yet it has absolutely no problem giving full-throated support for the veneration of terrorist godfathers within their own communities. For republicans and for the First Minister, it is a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do".

Glorifying terror will only poison the future. There is an onus on all of us to lead with integrity, truth and a shared commitment to peace.

Mr Dickson: This week, as we mark the anniversary of Victory in Europe, we do more than just remember a military triumph. We commemorate the birth of a new Europe — a Europe built not on vengeance but on reconciliation; not on division but on a shared sovereignty and human rights.

The end of the war in Europe in 1945 was not just about the defeat of fascism; it was about the courage to imagine a different future. Treaties and institutions that followed, from the United Nations to the European Convention on Human Rights, were drawn up even as our cities still smouldered. They represented a profound belief that peace must be built on justice and that no nation can secure its future alone.

As we reflect on that history, we must reflect on this uncomfortable truth: our collective memory has failed to honour properly all those who made victory possible. Recent research has revealed that only 24% of us in the United Kingdom are aware that soldiers from Jamaica and Kenya fought in that war; only 34% of us know about the sacrifices that were made by Muslim troops; and a mere 43% of us recall the contribution of Sikhs. However, when we are told the history and learn that 2·5 million soldiers of the Indian army, about 1 million African personnel and tens of thousands from the Caribbean fought, we all agree that they deserve equal commemoration.

Let us remember individuals like Private Clarence Trimm, a black Canadian soldier who was born to British Guyanese parents and first tried to enlist at 15 by growing a moustache to look older. He was killed in Germany two weeks before VE Day, having fought to liberate the Netherlands. Consider also Noor Inayat Khan, a Muslim woman of Indian descent who served as a British spy in occupied France. Just before she was executed at Dachau concentration camp, her last word was "Liberté". Those stories matter. They remind us that the fight against fascism is truly global and that our remembrances must be equally inclusive.

Fascism has thrived on division. Our answer then and now must be peacebuilding and honest remembrance in a way that makes room for every story, every sacrifice and every community that stood together against tyranny. That is how we will truly honour VE Day, not just as history but as a living commitment to the values for which so many fought and died.

Ms D Armstrong: I rise to note sporting success in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and congratulate Dungannon Swifts Football Cub on winning the Irish Cup final in a thrilling match against Cliftonville on Saturday at Windsor Park. It was a superb achievement, with the match being decided on penalties. Every player played his part in ensuring that the cup was brought back to Stangmore Park in Dungannon. The celebrations continued right up to yesterday, when the team did a tour of the town in an open-top bus.

Congratulations must go to Rodney McAree, the son of the well-known Joe McAree, for steering the group of talented and inspirational players to victory. It has been a huge effort by all the coaching and backroom team. Thanks go to them and to the many volunteers who have contributed to the success of the club, which has had such a positive impact on people, young and old, in Dungannon.

I commend the "Swifts" supporters for the superb atmosphere in Windsor Park on Saturday and for their decorum after the match, unlike some others, which has already been referenced. I was at the match on Saturday and witnessed the huge celebrations that erupted in Windsor Park. The team made dreams come true for people, young and old, and made so many people across south Tyrone very proud. I wish the team well as it progresses to the UEFA Conference League qualifying rounds and hope that the players can get some well-earned rest. I ask for your indulgence, Mr Speaker: perhaps you would be willing to grant a Speaker's reception for the players and the team on this wonderful occasion.

On another note of congratulations, Kate McDade, a year 12 student from Mount Lourdes Grammar School in Enniskillen, won a silver medal in the 200 metre breaststroke at the Irish Open Championships while representing Enniskillen Lakelanders. Despite competing against the best swimmers in Ireland and former Olympians, Kate held on to achieve a personal best and, in a hotly contested final, secured the silver medal. That achievement is testament to her hard work and commitment to her sport. I send my warmest congratulations to her.

Mr Speaker: Although I would be delighted to host the Dungannon Swifts, I would be standing on the toes of the Communities Minister, who is responsible for organising such events. Perhaps that is the direction in which the Member needs to head.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak more about the crisis in NHS dentistry across Northern Ireland. Thousands of people, many of whom are my constituents, are being silently and systematically cut from one of their most basic healthcare needs: dental care. Over the past two years alone, more than 53,000 NHS dental patients have been removed from practice lists. That is not just a statistic: that is 53,000 individuals, including children, pensioners and low-income workers, who are now unable to access the care that they were promised as part of our National Health Service.

A lack of NHS contracts is causing much frustration. In 2023, 114 dentists handed back their NHS contract. Today, out of 360 dental practices across Northern Ireland, only two are fully NHS. Let that sink in. That means that people across my constituency — from Claudy to Dungiven, Feeny, Coleraine and beyond — are ringing round dentists in desperation. One constituent with whom I recently spoke was shocked to receive a letter saying that his dental practice would no longer offer NHS treatment. The message was blunt: go private or go elsewhere. However, where is "elsewhere"? As one NHS dentist bravely said, their practice is at full capacity. The system is beyond strain. Although we are told that investment is on the way and reform is promised, patients are being left behind right now.

We are not just losing services; we are witnessing the dismantling of the founding promise of the NHS, which is that care should be based on need, not on the ability to pay. The reality now is this: if you cannot afford a private dental plan, you are out of options. At a time when family budgets are so tight, no one can afford that extra £20 to £30 a month for dental care.

This is not simply about inconvenience. It is about preventable pain, early diagnoses being missed and long-term health conditions that start in the mouth but end in emergency rooms. The Department of Health says that £9 million has been invested, but the British Dental Association says that that falls drastically short of what is needed. Dentists are walking away because they cannot survive under the current funding models. It is truly unsustainable, and, for my constituents, I feel that it is unjust.

I ask this: is this the end of NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland? We in the SDLP say that it cannot be and that the current situation cannot continue. We need urgent interim funding to retain what NHS provision we have currently, fair contracts for dentists and a ministerial commitment that no citizen should be denied care based on their postcode or their purse. Oral health is not a luxury but a right, and it is long over time that we treated it as such.

Mr Sheehan: Bhí Lá Domhanda na Sábháilteachta agus na Sláinte san Obair ann an tseachtain seo a chuaigh thart. Tá sé tábhachtach aitheantas a thabhairt don obair atá ag dul ar aghaidh le háiteanna oibre a dhéanamh níos sábháilte agus níos sláintiúla.

Thuairiscigh Feidhmeannacht Sláinte agus Sábháilteachta Thuaisceart Éireann gur cailleadh 19 n-oibrí san áit oibre sa Tuaisceart le linn 2022. Sa tréimhse chéanna, tuairiscíodh gur gortaíodh 239 nduine go trom. Bheir na figiúirí don bhliain 2023 le fios dúinn go bhfuair 10 bás agus gur gortaíodh 233 dhuine san áit oibre. Is fíor gur laghdú é sin, agus laghdú a gcuirimid fáilte roimhe, mar sin féin, ní thig linn ár maidí a ligean le sruth. Tá an líon i bhfad ró-ard go fóill. Is tubaiste é nuair a mharaítear duine ar bith i dtaisme san áit oibre, nó fágann siad ina ndiaidh teaghlach a bheas faoi bhrón is faoi chrá croí lena mbeo.

Ní leor dúinn bheith ag caint ar shábháilteacht san áit oibre — caithfimid beart a dhéanamh de réir ár mbriathair. Caithfear infheistíocht chuí a dhéanamh i gcórais sábháilteachta, san oiliúint agus sa mhaoirseacht. Lena chois sin, caithfimid cultúr a chothú ina dtabharfar tús áite do shláinte agus do shábháilteacht na n-oibrithe. Tá freagracht orainn uilig sa Tionól, go háirithe agus beartais phoiblí á leagan amach againn, tá freagracht orainn a chinntiú go ndéantar gach beart is féidir le líon na dtaismí agus na mbásanna san áit oibre a laghdú, agus a laghdú go mór. An té a théann chun a chuid oibre ar maidin ba chóir dó bheith cinnte go bhfillfeadh sé chun an bhaile go slán sábháilte tráthnóna.

Mar sin de, iarraim ar an Tionól seasamh go diongbháilte lena ngealltanas áiteanna oibre sábháilte córa a chruthú do chách, beag beann ar an earnáil a bhfuil siad ag obair inti nó an taobh tíre arb as iad.

Mr Buckley: Sinn Féin's Danny Baker attempted to have an item listed in today's Order Paper to condemn my attendance at an Apprentice Boys parade in Lisburn. It fooled nobody. The business is not in the Order Paper. I note, however, that the Sinn Féin MLA who was so keen to discuss that matter, Mr Baker, has not shown up in the Chamber. Perhaps he is away somewhere polishing his brass neck. My colleague Mr Givan once said that that Member should:

It appears that he is doing just that.

Just this weekend, that man — Sinn Féin MLA Danny Baker — was among a crowd that wreaked havoc in south Belfast. What did we see there? We saw rioting; a police car's window being smashed; chants of, "Orange bastards"; IRA chants and songs; the targeting of a Polish war memorial; the ripping apart of poppy wreaths that had been laid by the Polish community; and an IRA flag. What else? We saw Danny Baker promoting the illegal use of flares at football games, yet that Member saw fit to deflect from that and try to target a parade in Lisburn that was attended by thousands of people and at which Lisburn Apprentice Boys put on a fantastic display.

The Member is fooling nobody. The slur that he attempted to place on the community in Lisburn is nothing short of disgraceful, but it lays bare the crass sectarian acts that he has engaged in time and again. How quick has the Sinn Féin West Belfast Member been to condemn the actions of Kneecap: the chants of "Kill your MP"? There has been no comment from Mr Baker in that regard. That may not be surprising; maybe it was a tad embarrassing, because it was Sinn Féin's policy for many years to target and kill MPs in this country. We take no lectures from the party opposite when it comes to standing up and speaking out for victims of terrorism across the community.

Mr Baker was not finished. At the weekend he attended an event, smiling next to a memorial to Bobby Sands, a man who planned the bombing of Balmoral Furniture Company. It is ludicrous: the Member wants to gaslight Members across these Benches, yet his sectarian actions are laid bare for all to see. Perhaps it is time that he came to the Chamber and faced up to the reality, rather than hiding away and scurrying about in corridors so that Sinn Féin Members can take their seats as British members of this state and, indeed, the Crown.

Mr Tennyson: Reports over the weekend of the far-right Israeli Government's plans to expand and prolong their illegal occupation of Gaza, which are tantamount to ethnic cleansing, are deeply concerning. Far from delivering peace and security, those plans will only add to the mounting civilian death toll and the destruction of the Gaza Strip.

It has been more than eight weeks since humanitarian aid entered the Gaza Strip, which is the longest blockade on aid since the start of the war. Children are starving, and hospitals are running out of basic medications. The situation unfolding before our eyes is unconscionable, as Palestinians are subject to collective punishment in breach of international law. The question is how much more suffering people in Gaza have to bear before the UK Government and the international community act.

The Government must, as a bare minimum, suspend arms sales to Israel and recognise the state of Palestine. It is only through a sustained ceasefire; the cessation of hostilities; the flow of humanitarian aid; and a two-state solution recognising the rights and dignity of both Israelis and Palestinian people, that lasting peace and security can be delivered.

Mr Gildernew: First, I also acknowledge Dungannon Swifts, congratulate them on their fantastic victory at the weekend and welcome the great lift that it has given the whole town. As I said last week, it is part of a remarkable treble of cup final appearances by three Dungannon clubs that are right beside each other. Unfortunately, the rugby club did not get over the bar at the weekend, but it was heartening to see its members welcoming home their colleagues in the soccer club. I also wish our ladies' hockey club all the very best in its final, which takes place next weekend.

Déanfaimid Lá Domhanda na Croise Deirge agus an Chorráin Dheirg a cheiliúradh ar an tseachtain seo chugainn, agus tá sé tábhachtach aird a tharraingt ar obair na n-oibrithe leighis sin. In áit a bheith ag rith ón bhearna bhaoil, is é rud a ritheann siad isteach inti le beatha daoine a shábháil. Ón chrith talún go dtí an fód cogaidh, ní theipeann ar a dtiomantas.

Le bliain anuas, tá beagnach 1,600 ball foirne agus oibrí deonach ó Chumann Idirnáisiúnta Chorrán Dearg na Palaistíne (CICD) ag obair gan sos gan scíth le tarrtháil agus tacaíocht a chur ar fáil in Gaza. Dháil CICD 1.6 milliún de earraí fóirithinte éigeandála, agus chuir siad leigheas éigeandála ar fáil do níos mó ná 100,000 duine.

Maraíodh cúig dhuine dhéag nuair a bualadh cúig otharcharr agus inneall dóiteáin, mar aon le feithicil de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe, "ceann ar cheann" an 23 Márta in al-Hashashin. Chuir CICD i leith Iosrael gur d’aon turas a dhírigh siad ar a bhfoireann. Tá sin ag sárú an dlí idirnáisiúnta. Caithfear Rialtas Iosrael a thabhairt chun cuntais; tá sé dochosanta scaoileadh leo sin a shábhálann beatha daoine.

Agus Lá Domhanda na Croise Deirge agus an Chorráin Dheirg á cheiliúradh againn, ba mhaith liom obair na heagraíochta sin a mholadh. Bheir siad dóchas agus coimirce do dhaoine atá faoi léan is faoi thubaiste. Ní mór dúinn aitheantas a thabhairt dá gcuid oibre, ní mór dúinn an ceart a sheasamh dóibh, agus ní mór dúinn cur ina gcoinne siúd a dhéanas iad a ionsaí.

Mrs Erskine: A lot of people feel blue today. One town in particular has been painted blue and white in honour of the mighty Dungannon Swifts, who beat Cliftonville in the Irish Cup final on Saturday. What a final it was. When I congratulated Dungannon Swifts in the Chamber on their semi-final win, I said that there would be 90 minutes between us and getting the cup, but it turned out to be a nail-biting finish with extra time and penalties. You could tell how much the win meant to Dungannon Swifts on Saturday. It was the first time that the club had lifted the trophy, and it certainly put to bed the disappointment of 2007, when the club missed out on an Irish Cup win.

Deserving of credit are manager, Rodney McAree, and club chairman, Keith Boyd. However, there was no prouder father in Northern Ireland on Saturday night than Joe McAree. He has been such a big part of Dungannon's journey. Rodney grew up with the club, and the win is down to the dedication of those men through the years. I am absolutely delighted for them. The captain, Dean Curry; the goal-scorer, John McGovern; and all the team deserve credit. Last night, Dungannon had a hero's welcome for them. From Stangmore Park to Market Square in Dungannon, the streets were lined to celebrate, and people did so in style with Philomena Begley, the queen of country herself.

The achievement was hard fought for, but it has inspired a generation. On Saturday, I put a request to the Communities Minister that we recognise the historic win. For south Tyrone, for Dungannon and for Dungannon Swifts, it will live long in the memory. Congratulations to every person who made it possible, and may the celebrations in Dungannon and south Tyrone continue.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McMurray: Yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the Newcastle Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) station. The RNLI is the largest of the lifeboat services operating around the coasts of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well as in some inland waterways.

The station was established in 1825 in Rossglass in Dundrum Bay under the auspices of the then County Down district association of the institution. It was moved to St John's Point coastguard station, where it remained until 1843. There was no lifeboat in Dundrum Bay until the institution placed one in Newcastle in 1854, following numerous wrecks. One tragedy of note was in January 1843, when 73 men from Newcastle and Annalong lost their lives in a storm at sea. Other incidents included the stranding of the Great Britain in 1846 and a call-out that, according to old log books, was made to a Spitfire in the bay during the war effort of the 1940s.

Newcastle station operates two lifeboats: a D-class inshore lifeboat, which it has had since 1994, and a Mersey-class all-weather lifeboat. The Mersey will be retired later this year and replaced by an Atlantic 85, a state-of-the-art, inshore lifeboat with a top speed well over twice that of the Mersey-class lifeboat. As Newcastle is a busy coastal town with many visitors, the D-class is the busier of the two Newcastle lifeboats.

Thirty RNLI medals for gallantry have been awarded to the station: four gold, 19 silver and seven bronze. More recently, two members, Shane Rice and Trez Dennison, were awarded the Royal Humane Society award for the life-saving response that they made to the call of a local resident who had fallen not at sea but in his house. The crew members attended the scene and ensured that treatment was given until medical attention was received. That saved the man's life.

On Thursday past, I visited the station and met the crew as they took the Mersey and D-class out for their weekly practice.

Launching the all-weather lifeboat on a shout requires 12 to 15 people. The boat generally launches within 10 minutes of the pagers going off. If a demonstration of teamwork was ever needed, the launch of those boats would be a good start.

I have been lucky enough to spend a lot of time exploring the inland and coastal waters. I have also been lucky in that I have not had to call on the services of the RLNI. That said, while not by any stretch a safety blanket or, indeed, an excuse for taking out a boat with poor training or a lack of skills, it has always been a reassurance that those committed men and women of the institution are in place, should an unforeseen accident occur. Thank you and happy birthday to the RLNI's Newcastle station.

Mr Speaker: I call Connie Egan. Ms Egan, you have between one and a half and two minutes.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I call for urgent action on the Queen's Parade regeneration project in my constituency of North Down, following yet another delay in the commencement of construction.

That £50 million project was agreed six years ago, with agreement that the first phase would be the public realm scheme in Marine Gardens. To date, we have had nothing. However, the site has been derelict for much longer than that — for decades, in fact. It has been derelict for longer than I have been alive. The people of Bangor and our local business community have been let down time and time again, and they have lost hope.

I will recap the timeline that we have endured. Planning permission was granted in autumn 2022. In January 2023, the Marine Gardens scheme was awarded a grant of £9·8 million from the Levelling Up Fund, and the developers assured us that we were on track for works to begin in early 2024. In January 2024, we were told that it would be summer 2024. Promises were given in September that works would begin in October. That was pushed to November and then to January at the beginning of this year. When that deadline was missed, we were told that it would be by the end of April 2025.

On the final day of April, I tabled a priority question for written answer, asking the Minister of Communities, whose Department owns the land, when the works will begin. His response was that they were "more complex than anticipated". With all due respect, Minister, that will not give the people of Bangor much hope. The disruption and delay cannot continue. The people of North Down deserve answers and better than that for their city.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you make a ruling on whether Jonathan Buckley's comments about Danny Baker were in violation of the Standing Order on Members' Statements, which states that they cannot:

Mr Speaker: I am happy to look at and take advice on that.

Mr Buckley: Bring it on. Bring it on.

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

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

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to present this petition to you on behalf of the school council at Ashgrove Primary School in my constituency. The petition has been signed by over 600 people, including parents of school pupils and members of the local community. It requests that the Department for Infrastructure installs a safe pedestrian crossing at Ashgrove roundabout. The petition is titled, 'Deliver Safe Crossing at Ashgrove Roundabout to Protect School Kids and Public'.

The request came directly from the pupils who make up the school council in that primary school. They raised their concerns about their safety and that of their fellow pupils to me. They have to cross the road at the roundabout twice daily to attend school and return home. They invited me to walk to school with them early one morning and to see the roundabout. We arrived at 8.20 am, and, upon crossing the road, I found straightaway that it was a very dangerous situation. The school council joined me on 21 November at a meeting with Department for Infrastructure officials at the site to show them just how difficult the situation can be. The pupils were very eloquent in articulating the issues, and, indeed, they had their own options for a safe crossing. Doing that is quite difficult for any person, be they an adult or a child, so for the children to assess the situation and come up with their own design is applaudable.

I am sure that, as elected reps, we all understand that, while we can make arguments for particular requests, one would struggle to find a stronger argument than seeing primary-school children in high-vis vests, explaining the dangers that they face from that busy stretch of road, which mean that they often have to dash between cars.

It is disappointing that the Department for Infrastructure's response so far has been that there is not enough traffic or that there has yet to be an accident at the site. That does not justify not installing a safe crossing. Whilst I understand the budgetary pressures that all Departments are under, primary-school pupils should not be required to put themselves in danger each day simply to receive an education, and they should not have to wait until an incident occurs and someone gets injured or worse for action to be taken.

The campaign has been a fantastic example of how children and young people can come together over a common cause to demand improvements in their local community. I thank the school council and school community of Ashgrove Primary School for their commitment to it. I also thank the wider community, the over 600 people who took the time to sign the petition and everyone who shared it on social media and with friends and family. The number of responses shows the strength of feeling in the community about the need to ensure the safety of pupils at the local primary school.

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

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in tourism sectoral format. The meeting was held in Armagh on 16 April. I represented the Northern Ireland Executive and was accompanied by Minister Gordon Lyons MLA. The Irish Government were represented by Minister Peter Burke TD, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, who chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with Minister Lyons, and I make it on behalf of us both.

The Council welcomed the report of the chair of Tourism Ireland on the work of the board since the last NSMC tourism meeting in June 2024. Ministers noted Tourism Ireland's activity during that period, including the large number of marketing campaigns and events undertaken, ensuring seasonal spread of visits through the marketing of the island as the home of Halloween and the promotion of screen and sports tourism.

The NSMC welcomed Tourism Ireland's continued focus on embedding sustainability in its marketing activities. Ministers welcomed a presentation by Alice Mansergh, chief executive of Tourism Ireland, on its marketing plans for 2025, highlighting the extensive marketing activity for the year, and noted that sustainable development is at the core of Tourism Ireland's plans for 2025.

The Council noted developments in tourism cooperation on sustainable tourism and the newly established joint strategic coordination group.

The NSMC noted the ongoing work to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity in the tourism sector. Ministers noted the ongoing collaboration between the relevant tourism agencies on the Shared Island-funded Wild Atlantic Way and Causeway Coastal Route tourism brand collaboration project and the future Shared Island projects under the Shared Destinations programme 2025-2030, including three projects across the border region — Carlingford Lough, UNESCO Cuilcagh Lakelands Geopark and Sliabh Beagh — and a Tourism Ireland international marketing and development programme to maximise the economic impact for each area.

The NSMC approved Tourism Ireland's revised business plan for 2024 and its business plan for 2025 and recommended the budget/grant provisions, which have been agreed by both sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers. The Council noted Tourism Ireland's annual report and accounts for 2023, which have been approved by the Comptrollers and Auditors General (C&AGs) and laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Ministers granted consent to Tourism Ireland to pass a resolution to amend the memorandum and articles of association following a review to update those documents.

The NSMC noted that terms of reference for an organisational capacity review of Tourism Ireland have been approved, with the review to commence in the second quarter of 2025. Ministers agreed that the implementation of any recommendation from the review will be submitted to the NSMC for approval.

The Council agreed to hold its next NSMC tourism meeting in November 2025.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Mr McNulty: Today, Minister, the House will debate a Sinn Féin motion on voting rights in the North for the election of the president of Ireland. I and my party wholeheartedly support that. We are quite disappointed, however, that, although you mentioned in your statement the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route and how those tourism brands will be coordinated, there was no mention of Ireland's Ancient East. I am trying to understand why discussion about that brand was not tabled at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Where is progress on that, given that Ireland's Ancient East was included as a priority in your 'Delivering the Economic Vision: A three year forward look and 2024/25 Action Plan' for completion by January 2025?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Work continues with all the tourism agencies to progress collaboration on the brands across the island. It is my understanding that Fáilte Ireland is undertaking a review of the Ireland's Ancient East brand in order to understand its impact and how it can be improved.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, your statement outlines that Tourism Ireland's annual accounts have been signed off for 2023 only. In light of the Audit Office's declassification of your Department's annual accounts, do you share my concern that we are now two years past 2023 and have not had approvals for Tourism Ireland's accounts?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It takes time for the reports to be approved by the C&AG in each jurisdiction and laid in the respective Houses. I believe that all the processes are being followed as we would expect them to be and that the accounts for 2024 will be presented in the near future.

Mr Delargy: Is the Minister able to provide an update on the extension of the Fáilte Ireland branding?

Dr Archibald: There is an action in the tourism vision and action plan, which the Member for Newry and Armagh mentioned, to incorporate regions of the North into the Fáilte Ireland regional branding. Significant progress has been made in bringing the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route together through an ongoing Shared Island project, which has already included extensive research and for which applications for a small capital grant scheme are now being assessed. Discussions are at an advanced stage between Tourism NI, Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland to incorporate Fermanagh into Ireland's Hidden Heartlands. As I mentioned in my reply to Mr McNulty, Ireland's Ancient East is currently under review by Fáilte Ireland.

Mr Honeyford: The biggest single threat to ongoing tourism numbers coming north is the electronic travel authorisation (ETA), yet it has not been mentioned. The upcoming Open, to be held on the north coast, is an incredible opportunity; we are looking at having 280,000 visitors, a high percentage of whom will come through Dublin Airport. The ETA will impact on those visitors in large numbers. What progress is happening on exceptions for Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I share the Member's concern. It is something that I been active on since I came into post, as was my predecessor. The issue with the ETA is its potential to disincentivise tourism in the North, particularly among visitors who come to the South and want to travel north. It can also be seen as a potential barrier for overseas visitors when they are planning their trips. Tourism has grown substantially here in recent years, and there is considerable potential for further growth. We all share the ambition to promote that, but the ETA is a rather big fly in the ointment.

I see tourism as a key priority, and, as you mentioned, 67% of our overseas visitors come via the South. Therefore, I have been making representations to the British Government, as you would expect me to, and I have asked for a meeting with the relevant Minister from the Home Office. I hope that that meeting will be forthcoming in the near future.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I was going to ask you about Ireland's Hidden Heartlands. I am assured that, yes, that is being kept in development. Did the two areas — North and South — discuss the divergence in VAT at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting?

Dr Archibald: That is an issue that I have expressed real concern over, and there is potential for the South to reduce its VAT further. That is concerning to those in the hospitality and tourism sectors, so we have made representations to the British Government, and I have engaged with colleagues on the impact on a North/South basis. I, along with the Finance Minister, will keep that issue on the agenda, and it was reflected very strongly by the business community. I met some tourism providers in Fermanagh, and it was a key concern that they expressed, so I will continue to raise that issue in all my engagements.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you provide some detail on the Tourism Ireland business plan for 2025?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. The business plan has been completed in accordance with agreed guidance issued by both Departments with responsibility for public expenditure. The business plan focuses on increasing the value of overseas tourism to Ireland by 5·6% per year on average over the next six years until 2030. Within that, there is an enhanced target of 6·5% revenue growth on average each year for the North specifically, and that recognises the upward potential ahead. Sustainability remains at the heart of the business plan for 2025, with a focus on sustainably supporting economies, communities and the environment whilst inspiring visitors to come to the island. Tourism Ireland will continue to focus on higher revenue per carbon markets, with a commitment to more sustainable tourism supported by a dedicated slow tourism, environmentally friendly itinerary.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, Tourism Ireland's remit is to:

What is the Minister's assessment of the way forward for Northern Ireland realising its tourism potential in the Mourne Mountains area, with £30 million of city deal money now at risk?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, we only became aware last week that, unfortunately, the National Trust did not feel that it could continue with the project. It will be for councils, in the first instance, to bring forward other proposals and to work as part of the Belfast region city deal group to bring forward proposals as to how to utilise the funding that is available to it. As a Department, we will support the group in those efforts.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, I noted in your statement the welcome commitment to address sustainability challenges. What actions are being taken to help our tourism sector become more sustainable?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That is a focus that is being brought by Tourism Ireland in its work, and there is significant interest from consumers, as you would expect, when they are making their plans to travel, in looking at the potential impact on the environment. More and more people are trying to assess that as they are making their plans. That is also reflected in the tourism vision and action plan that the Department has brought forward and developed in partnership with the industry here in the North. I am happy to write to the Member with some more detail on the specific actions in that plan.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her statement. How is the local tourism sector performing?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Tourism here and across the island has grown substantially in recent years, and there is considerable potential for further growth. As I mentioned already, Tourism Ireland is targeting an average of 5·6% revenue growth for overseas tourism year-on-year to 2030 and, specifically for the North, a target of 6·5% year-on-year growth. With ambitions for the longer term, Tourism Ireland envisages that it can double overseas tourism, specifically to the North, to £1·3 billion by 2035.

The year 2025 will be a really important one for golf, with the Open taking place at Portrush this summer, bringing thousands of visitors and showcasing our beautiful landscape to 500 million households across 150 countries. Partnerships to promote the destination at scale overseas are under way with the media. In 2023, spend by overseas visitors to the North had reached £672 million, demonstrating recovery compared with 2019, pre COVID, of 15%.

The majority of tourism spend in the North is sourced from incoming overseas visitors, at about 56%. Of the 70,000 tourism jobs across the North, around six out of 10 depend on overseas tourism. Tourism is one of the largest shared indigenous industries across the island. With 70% of tourism jobs outside Belfast or Dublin, it is a crucial economic driver for our rural communities.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you referred to Ministers granting consent to Tourism NI to amend the memorandum and articles of association. Can you outline why that was necessary and why a capacity review of Tourism Ireland is required?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The changes to the memorandum and articles of association in the constitution were in line with Irish company law, as they had not been updated since Tourism Ireland's inception. The impact of that is purely administrative, such as updating the names of relevant organisations where they had changed. For example, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board changed to Tourism NI. It was changes like that. The only operational impact relates to how the board meetings can be called or held to allow for electronic notification and for meetings to be held by video or online.

The capacity review aims to evaluate and enhance the current operational structure, resources, capabilities and effectiveness of Tourism Ireland. The review will consider staffing levels, structure, locations and the skills base of the teams. It is important to note that any recommendations in relation to the outcome of that review will come back to the NSMC for approval if they fall under its remit.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. Late last week, I met a group of local vintners, and I must declare an interest as the director of a hospitality company. Those vintners expressed deep concern about the challenges facing the sector in relation to increased costs around energy, increase in rates and wider challenges in trying to compete with tourism hot spots like the city of Derry, if you are from Strabane, or Fermanagh, if you are living in Omagh and operating a business.

You said that there have been discussions in the South in relation to a reduction in VAT. On numerous occasions, you have also said that you have had discussions with the British Government about a potential reduction for hospitality here in Northern Ireland. What has happened to progress those discussions? Has there been any indication at all from the British Government that that would be favourable? If not, what is your Department willing to do to throw a lifeline to the hospitality businesses that are deeply struggling right across Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I recognise the challenges that he has outlined. When I speak to businesses, they express similar concerns. As he will know, when I was Finance Minister, I initiated a cost of doing business research project, which I anticipate will be published in the near future. Part of the rationale for initiating that research was to have an evidential base on which to engage with the British Treasury in respect of the issues that are being reflected to us every day as local representatives.

As part of the upcoming spending review, there is an opportunity to make that case again. We are dealing with the British Treasury, and I do not think that any of us in the Chamber agree with some of the decisions that it has made in recent months. We have to bear that in mind. We will make as strong a case as we possibly can. It is our job and my job, as Economy Minister for the North, to champion issues on behalf of our businesses, and I will continue to do that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I am surprised to see nothing in the statement about the semiquincentennial of US independence. What is Tourism Ireland doing to promote the Chester Alan Arthur ancestral home in Cullybackey or that Dervock was home to the paternal ancestors of William McKinley, the 25th president of the USA?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It was not something that came up as part of the discussions at the meeting. I am sure that the Member could write to me and ask for some of that information, and I would be happy to provide it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you rightly said that you need an evidence base on which to engage with the UK Government on VAT. You will also need an evidence base to stand, hopefully with the Irish Government, against the pernicious ETA, which is an existential risk to cross-border tourism. It was not mentioned in the statement, as has previously been said, which is concerning. Are any specific actions being committed to monitor the impact of the ETA through talking to tour operators? Is Tourism Ireland focused on that? What is the specific output, because we need evidence to understand what impact it is having?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is something that we are doing. The Department is engaging, as you would expect, with all relevant partners in the sector and collating information so that we have a case to make when we are in discussions with the Home Office. As I said, I am hopeful that we will meet with the relevant Minister in the near future. I will continue to highlight the challenges that the sector faces here. In the immediate term, although there have been concerns about the potential impact, we are now beginning to see the actual impact and things that are being reported. As the Member rightly said, it is important to collate that information, and we are doing that.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. I have received notification from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a further statement.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in trade and business development sectoral format, which was held in Armagh on 16 April 2025. Minister Gordon Lyons MLA and I represented the Executive, and I chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Peter Burke TD, Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. The statement has been agreed with Minister Lyons, and I am making it on behalf of us both.

The NSMC welcomed the overall achievements of InterTradeIreland since the previous sectoral meeting in October 2024, including achieving a business development value of £115 million in 2024, which is well in excess of its target.

Ministers acknowledged the valuable support that InterTradeIreland has provided for small and medium-sized companies through its trade and development programmes, such as the Acumen programme, Go-2-Tender programme and the advice and support provided through its Trade Hub.

The Council recognised the positive impact of the innovation and technology programmes administered by InterTradeIreland, such as the collaborative innovation pathway, which has provided support to over 900 SMEs. Ministers noted InterTradeIreland’s ongoing research work, which includes the recently launched report, 'The changing nature of trade on the island of Ireland', and the completed research into the business development ecosystem.

The NSMC noted that InterTradeIreland is leading on the delivery of the women’s entrepreneurship and clustering strands of the Shared Island enterprise scheme with the launch of eight pilot programmes for women entrepreneurs in 2024.

Planning is also under way for TCI Global — The Competitiveness Institute — cluster conference in Dublin in October 2025. The Council noted that InterTradeIreland hosted a successful venture capital conference in Dublin in March 2025 for almost 900 attendees, which highlighted current sources of equity funding and provided a collaborative environment for innovation.

The Council approved the InterTradeIreland 2025 business plan and recommended the budget/grant provision. The NSMC noted InterTradeIreland’s annual report and accounts for 2022, which have been certified by the Comptrollers and Auditors General (C&AG) and laid before the Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas. The annual report and accounts for 2023 will be laid shortly.

Ministers noted the work taken forward by InterTradeIreland as it leads on the women’s entrepreneurship element of the Shared Island enterprise scheme. The Council welcomed the presentations from entrepreneurs who have benefited from the supports provided by the women’s entrepreneurship pilot programmes. The NSMC appointed a board member to the board of the trade and business development body, InterTradeIreland. Ministers welcomed the presentation by Everoze on offshore wind and hydrogen opportunities on the island of Ireland and noted the opportunities available through joint working to deliver mutual benefits in line with the economic and decarbonisation strategies of both jurisdictions.

The Council agreed to hold its next NSMC trade and business development meeting in November 2025.

I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome questions.

Mr O'Toole: My party is probably the strongest supporter of strand two in the Chamber; we championed the creation of the North/South Ministerial Council. However, I am afraid that you have given us an update on trade and business matters on the island of Ireland without mentioning dual market access and our unique proposition, which is apparently a priority for your Department, or, indeed, the tariff crisis that is creating a global trade war. People will not take the NSMC seriously if you have meetings and such things are not even talked about let alone brought back to the Assembly. Were our dual market access or the escalating global trade war even discussed at the meeting? If not, why not?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, both issues were discussed. The agenda had been agreed in advance of the tariffs issue, and the issue was strongly reflected in my comments, with our concerns about the potential impact of tariffs on the island as a whole and the North specifically. I have established a tariff working group, of which the Member will be aware and on which InterTradeIreland is represented, and will be engaging with InterTradeIreland and Ministers in the South, as I am with British Ministers on tariffs and on understanding what the potential impacts and implications are as the situation continues to develop over the next number of weeks.

Dual market access is a significant driver for our local economy, and InterTradeIreland and Invest NI obviously have a role to play in helping to support businesses to maximise the potential opportunities. That was discussed and raised.

Mr Brett: The Minister's statement rightly highlights the EY report that was published this year, which highlights the importance of the UK internal market to businesses in Northern Ireland. Does her Department understand the difference between an all-island economy and all-island trade? In that context, do she and her party regret championing the Northern Ireland protocol?

Dr Archibald: It is undeniable that we have an all-island economy. We have highly integrated supply chains across the island, which was significantly recognised in the negotiations that led to the protocol and, then, the Windsor framework. There is a huge potential benefit for us through the ability to localise our supply chains. Particularly at a time of global uncertainty, we should look to understand where our supply chains are and how we can support businesses to develop them.

I have no regrets about championing the North's economy, the all-island economy and the need to recognise that we have highly integrated supply chains across this island and North/South trade that must be protected. I equally recognise that our trade with Britain is really important, which is why we need to minimise frictions North/South and east-west. As Minister, I will continue to work on that.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will InterTradeIreland's programme remain current in the new economic landscape?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. InterTradeIreland's confirmed programmes and key activities in the 2023-25 corporate plan are not only relevant but key to the assistance that cross-border SMEs need to grow. InterTradeIreland continues to make a valuable contribution through its trade and development programmes for small and medium-sized companies that are trading across the border and in both jurisdictions, as I have reflected in comments to other Members. InterTradeIreland plays a role in helping businesses from here take the first step in exporting and in developing their supply chains across the island to maximise the benefits of dual market access and is particularly well placed to do that. It also has a key role in supporting our understanding of the impact of tariffs and our response to that.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that InterTradeIreland has exceeded its targets. It is positive news that we have an economic body that is working and delivering for us. It is essential that we work together on opportunities across the island for the benefit of everyone. The Minister named a couple of live issues, including the delivery of renewables through offshore and hydrogen. Give that InterTrade has exceeded its targets, should we not show greater ambition for sharing the island, delivering greater economic benefits through setting higher targets and allocating further budget to InterTrade? Are we curtailing ambition and delivery?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. At the NSMC, research that had been undertaken by Everoze on the potential for offshore wind was presented to us. InterTradeIreland will put an increasing focus on that over the current year. It will look at further research programmes in renewables, including offshore wind and hydrogen. There is potential across the island. As the Member will know, InterTradeIreland is also responsible for the delivery of cluster funding that is coming via the Shared Island enterprise scheme. There are opportunities in that work to look at how we, as an island, can maximise the potential in the renewable sector.

Mr Delargy: Minister, thank you for your statement. You mentioned clustering: will you outline some of the purposes and benefits of clustering?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The concept of clustering is based on the idea that companies benefit from mutual support, knowledge exchange and innovation, which, ultimately, enhances the competitiveness of the members of the cluster. InterTradeIreland has an important role in exploring future cross-border opportunities, as I just mentioned to Mr Honeyford. A number of areas of the economy have the potential to be further developed on an all-island basis, and InterTradeIreland is well placed to support that work. Clustering can support businesses in becoming more innovative and more productive, which very much aligns with the principles of my economic vision.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, how were you assured about the accuracy and validity of the figures on the business value achieved in 2024, given that the most recently audited and published accounts were for 2022, with those for 2023 to be laid? Will you include detail on the report of £115 million of business development value, which exceeded the target? What was the target? How much was it exceeded by? I ask that bearing in mind that the amount achieved in 2022 was £119 million.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not sure that I have in front of me the detail that she asks for, but I am happy to share that with her. As the Member will be aware, the Assembly was not sitting for a number of years and that held up the process in some of the laying of accounts. That is why we have a bit of a backlog there. That is being addressed, and we are moving through various accounts for different North/South bodies being laid as required.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you mentioned the vital work around supporting women entrepreneurs, including the eight pilot programmes that InterTradeIreland led in 2024. What is your assessment of that work, and when will it be evaluated?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. That is an area of work that I am particularly excited about. We have a lot of work to do in encouraging female entrepreneurship and closing the gap in their ability to access support and, importantly, finance. InterTradeIreland undertook pilot programmes in 2024, and €8 million in the Shared Island enterprise scheme is targeted at female entrepreneurship. We heard from two female entrepreneurs — academics, actually — who benefited as participants of some of the pilot programmes, and their testimony to the effectiveness of those programmes was quite something. InterTradeIreland is evaluating the pilot programmes with a view to rolling out further programmes in the coming year. There will be more announcements and more to talk about in relation to that in the near future.

Ms Dolan: Minister, you kind of touched on this in your previous answer, but what programmes will InterTradeIreland focus on in the coming year?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As well as some of the work that I have already referred to, InterTradeIreland will seek to take forward its ambitious plans, such as an economic policy forum, and to continue to build on the success of the trade hub. It will also look to develop and undertake further research programmes, some of which I mentioned to Mr Honeyford, including on offshore wind and hydrogen, artificial intelligence and digital transformation, services, trade and sectoral ecosystem research. InterTradeIreland is coming to the end of its current business plan and will be developing its corporate plans for 2026-28, so that work will be going on over the course of this year as well.

Mr McNulty: Does the Minister agree that InterTradeIreland should be proud of its achievements since its formation, often outperforming its own expectations, and that that has been powerfully positive to see? Does the Minister also agree that extolling and building on the successes of bodies such as InterTradeIreland, which provide significant enhancement to people's lives across the board, represent a more inclusive and constructive way of building support for a new, united Ireland than a narrow approach always with a tribal focus?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I agree with the sentiment behind it. When you look at the huge increases that there have been in cross-border trade over the 25 years since its inception, you see that InterTradeIreland has been successful. It is well placed to support businesses and the development of the all-island economy, and that is something that I am certainly happy to work with it on.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement states:

I understand that the report is to focus on domestic trade developments, namely Brexit, the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. Some unionists said that they returned to the Chamber because the Government said that the all-Ireland economy was no more. Minister, will you spell out how trade has changed on the island of Ireland because of the protocol?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I said to Mr McNulty, over the past 25 years, we have seen enhanced trade across the island, and that has developed further since the introduction of the protocol.

Brexit created barriers for businesses here and in Britain. They face significant challenges in their trade that are reflected in the export statistics, where we well outperform Britain. We have seen enhanced trade across the island, both North to South and South to North, over the past number of years following the introduction of the protocol. That is just a matter of fact.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Members may be aware that I have already put on record my analysis of my Department's budget, which is that it represents a quadruple challenge. Those are, first, to spend the money wisely on waiting lists; secondly, to mitigate the damage to other services from the Executive's decision to ring-fence £165 million of the existing budget for waiting lists; thirdly, to press on with the reform of healthcare delivery; and fourthly, to balance the books.

Today, I will put a primary focus is on the first challenge. I am sure that every Member agrees that we need to bring a sense of urgency to tackling the unacceptable waiting lists across a number of specialities. Far too many patients are waiting far too long for assessment and treatment right across Northern Ireland. Our waiting lists are truly appalling. A genuine desire to improve that situation was one of the motivating factors for the MLAs whom I represent as a party to take up the challenge of coming back into the Department.

When I took up the office of Minister of Health just over 11 months ago, I stated that tackling the waiting lists would be one of my main areas of focus. I have been clear to Executive colleagues that dealing with the backlog will take unprecedented levels of intervention, action, support, investment and time. The plan to tackle our elective care waiting lists is the elective care framework that was updated and published again in May last year. It outlines how we need to invest in capacity building and take action to clear the backlog of patients.

It is in that context that today I announce a series of initiatives to reduce waiting times. The central focus of the plans is on reducing the long waits for care and treatment that affect all of us in Northern Ireland. We could devote time and energy today to discussing how we got here, with roots stemming from a series of decisions taken over a decade ago, but, as I have said previously, that will not improve the outcome for a single patient, so let us instead focus on the future.

While the budget for this year remains under extreme constraint, today's announcement reflects the Executive's ring-fencing of up to £215 million in this year's Budget for waiting list activities. I welcome the investment, not least because I and my immediate predecessor repeatedly called for it for over a year. To be clear, the vast majority of the £215 million investment is not new or additional investment; instead, there is £50 million of additional allocation to the Health budget, and that £50 million is very welcome. However, the remaining £165 million has had to be found from within the existing allocation, and that will have unavoidable consequences for wider Health and Social Care (HSC) provision and, I must be honest, my ability to fund reform and balance the Department of Health's budget by 31 March next. However, as that was an Executive-wide decision, I hope to get the support of my Executive colleagues in managing the challenge.

In the coming weeks, my Department will publish detailed plans and assessments on the financial pressures this year and the measures that will need to be taken in the short and medium terms. Let me make this clear: I fully support the Executive's decision to prioritise waiting lists. It provides a sharper focus that is targeted in a way to have an effective impact on waiting lists. It would have been preferable, of course, to do that through additional funding and in a much more strategic and planned manner, but we are where we are. The statement is about setting an outline for the actions that we are proposing. I know that Members will rightly want more details on cost projections, outcomes for patients and timetables. More detail will be provided later this month in an implementation plan for my Department's elective care framework. However, I know that there is significant interest already, among not only MLAs but patients, and that is why I make the statement today ahead of the publication of that implementation plan.

In general, we will invest across three areas: red-flag and time-critical services, capacity building and backlog clearance. For red-flag and time-critical treatments, investment will be made to expand core capacity across a number of high-risk specialties. That will help make those services more sustainable and reduce reliance on the independent sector. For capacity building, the initial focus will be on areas where the infrastructure is already in place so that we can utilise all available resources — for example, uncommissioned theatres or unused scanning sessions. Significant reforms and improvements have already been made in recent years on the development of elective care centres right across Northern Ireland, and I expect that this investment will further accelerate that.

With so many patients waiting for so long, I have told my Department that I want every single opportunity and inch of capacity to be utilised. Given the current significant levels of waiting-list initiative spend on endoscopy and diagnostic imaging, Health and Social Care core capacity in those areas will be expanded in the first instance, with further investment in other areas including urology, breast surgery, dermatology and cardiac surgery.

Other areas where capacity will be expanded include trauma services. Expanding trauma capacity will improve performance against the 48-hour hip fracture target and the seven-day access target for all other fractures. Increasing trauma capacity should have a benefit for orthopaedic capacity, as one is often offset against the other in crisis.

On the waiting-list backlog, our first step on the journey will be a focus on our current waits of over four years for assessment and treatment. Building the workforce and infrastructure required to sustainably reduce the time that patients wait will take time, and, clearly, independent sector capacity will be required to help in that regard. The HSC will need to be sufficiently agile to allow the timely issue of contracts to existing and new independent sector providers. Partnership working with the independent sector will include outsourcing to their facilities and expansion of insourcing contracts across a number of general specialties, including ophthalmology, cataracts, orthopaedics, general surgery, gynaecology and ENT. I also intend to expand primary care elective services where there are long waiting times for assessment in areas such as dermatology, minor surgery and gynaecology. It is estimated that £2·9 million would allow the service to see and treat approximately 16,500 patients this financial year.

In addition, I have decided to allocate £10 million towards mega-clinics to help an estimated 20,000 additional patients. As Members are aware, mega-clinics provide groups of patients with a one-stop shop that can involve, for example, surgical review and anaesthetic preoperative assessment in a single appointment. Other initiatives for the year ahead involve targeting long waits of four years or more, including hip, knee and other orthopaedic treatments, tonsillectomies, hernia treatment, gallbladder removal and colonoscopy. Funding will also be targeted at specialist procedures where there are long waits impacting particularly on women and children. This will include women waiting on gynaecology mesh removal procedures and children waiting for procedures such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube fitting, squints and scoliosis procedures.

The role of the voluntary sector in healthcare cannot be overstated, and I am pleased that there is already a strong partnership between the sector and my Department. It is something that I am keen to expand and build on further to promote and develop initiatives that provide support to those on waiting lists. In that context, work is under way by my Department to deliver a £500,000 waiting well programme to support those on waiting lists and a £1 million cancer charities programme to deliver cancer work in the community to reduce pressures on statutory services.

Addressing the current waiting times and the associated capacity gap will also require an increased focus on demand management and an expansion of core capacity, coupled with an increase in productivity and efficiency. My Department will work across the primary and secondary care interface to ensure that patients are being managed in the most appropriate setting and that capacity is being expanded on a sustainable basis across the HSC.

While improvements in efficiency and productivity have been made by trusts in recent years, there remains scope to secure further gains by optimising the resource available to trusts. It is imperative that trusts ensure that appropriate focus is given to deliver service improvements, with implementation of good practice across the patient pathway to help to drive improved quality, equity and efficiency. An expansion of pre-operative assessment capacity to ensure that patients are fit and ready for treatment will be another important area for investment.

I remind Members that investment at this level will need to be sustained for at least five years to bring hospital waiting times down to acceptable levels. Building our workforce and the infrastructure required to sustainably reduce our lists will take a collective effort.

I also plan to establish a waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme. I know how important it is to have the scheme up and running as quickly as possible. For that reason, the scheme will be initiated on a phased approach. An initial £10 million will be invested. The scheme will commence in June 2025. It will give patients who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland and are on an HSC treatment waiting list the option to seek and pay for treatment in the private sector and have the cost reimbursed up to the cost of the treatment by the HSC in Northern Ireland. The first phase will allow reimbursements for treatment in the Republic of Ireland. The second phase will see the geographical scope of the scheme extended to all European Union countries. By opening up the scheme to the EU, patients will have a greater range of providers to choose from. I want to ensure that the scheme targets the patients who have been waiting a long time for their treatment. Therefore, in line with the strategic direction to target long waiters, patients will be able to access the reimbursement scheme if they have waited on an HSC treatment waiting list for two years or more.

I hope that the Assembly will enthusiastically support my focus on the longest waits and on delayed treatment for our youngest in society. The statement is the first in a series of announcements. As I have said, an implementation plan will follow later this month. I assure Members that I have relayed to my Department the urgency at which progress must be made.

We are in only the foothills of what will be a long, uphill trek. It is long past time we began. I am very pleased to be the Minister to make this start, but it will require future Ministers, Executives and Assemblies to maintain the course. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McGrath: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Of course, we welcome anything that can be done to address waiting times. However, I am concerned that the plan continues to rely on outside providers, over whom we have no control, and repurposes existing staff complements, when unions tell us that staff are already worked to the bone and some already work in the private sector, and that all that is underpinned by a mere £50 million extra at a time when trusts are being asked to make even more savings. With Encompass now in place, often, we cannot get access to up-to-date figures on waiting times, waiting lists or even the number of beds. Will you commit to publishing monthly the number of patients who are waiting at the start of each month, the number who have been treated each month, the number of new patients and the number of patients who are waiting at the end of the month, so that we can see whether those initiatives by the Executive are working?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Encompass is a marvellous system. It needs time to bed in. I know that there is frustration — I feel it too — when some trusts are unable to report the data that we would like to see. On his substantive point, of course, I want to be open and transparent about what we are doing with £215 million. I would have thought that, at least, a monthly update would be appropriate.

Ms Ferguson: I very much welcome your statement, Minister, particularly around the initial £10 million for the waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme that should, hopefully, commence in June for people who have been on a HSC waiting list for treatment for the past two years.

On the expansion of primary-care elective services where there are long waiting lists, particularly for assessment in gynaecology, can you give a breakdown of that £2·9 million, what will be allocated to gynaecology and, in particular, how many people it would impact?

Secondly, if you will indulge me, in relation to building the workforce and infrastructure, will you consider commissioning a specialist endometriosis service?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before the Minister answers, I remind Members to not give long preambles or to ask more than one question.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the two questions. On the question about the £2·9 million, we hope to treat 16,500 patients with that. It will be for the implementation plan to break that down further, so you should be able to study that by the end of this month.

Commissioning new services is not on my agenda, with exception of the waiting list reimbursement scheme of £10 million, which is pretty much the son of the previous Republic of Ireland reimbursement scheme. However, as I said, it will be expanded beyond the Republic to all European Union countries.

I still have the quadruple challenge of mitigating the decision to ring-fence £165 million for waiting lists and funding the reform, because if we spend money on the waiting lists and bring them down but do not do the reform, the waiting list numbers will go back up. I am afraid that introducing new services is not top of the agenda at this time.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. Tackling waiting lists is important, but, obviously, I want to see the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) at the top of the list in the commissioning of theatre space. What are the Minister and his Department doing to ensure that the SWAH does get that extra commissioned theatre space? We want to see a bolstering of elective surgery there.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. As I have said before, tackling the waiting lists will require a cocktail of actions. You have the cross-border scheme, which is being turned into a waiting list reimbursement scheme, will be Europe-wide by the time that it is fully functional and will have a requirement to use the independent sector. However, the first port of call is to see what more we can do in our own health and social care system. When we were made aware that up to £215 million was being ring-fenced for tackling waiting lists, one of the first points that I made to officials was that in the South West Acute Hospital, there are two wards and two theatres that have not yet been commissioned. I want us to look at how we maximise their capacity and use them.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the actions that he has outlined. It is really important that we tackle waiting lists, particularly for long waiters and those who are on critical and red-flag lists. However, we often hear at Committee that there are people who are on multiple lists across multiple trusts, so what assessment has taken place on the current state of those waiting lists? Has use of a regional waiting list service, such as that for breast cancer, for other specialties been considered?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I want to make it clear that I want regional standardised services right across health and social care delivery. As I have said to the chairs and chief executives of the trusts right from the very beginning, they may be five geographically located trusts, but, in my mind, they operate as one trust. That standardisation and regionalisation is very important in ensuring that we do not have a postcode lottery.

Was there another point that I missed? [Inaudible.]

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Through the Chair, please.

Miss McAllister: regional implementation.

Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, we will be open and transparent in measuring the effectiveness of any implementation plan. This is big money. These are people who are either extremely vulnerable and/or who have been waiting for far too long on waiting lists. It is extremely important to me that everybody, not just Members but every citizen of Northern Ireland, understands how well implementation is being carried out across health and social care delivery.

Mr Chambers: Today's statement will be hugely welcome news for many of the people across Northern Ireland who are on waiting lists. The Minister uses the word "urgency" in his statement. Will he give a commitment that his Department is approaching the issue with the urgency that patients and staff want to see and that he wants to see, and will continue to do so?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I hope that I can give him that assurance. The fact is that this is May 2025 and we are due to have an Assembly election in May 2027, so I have to proceed on the basis that I have a maximum of two years left as Minister of Health. As the Member knows, we have a new permanent secretary in Mike Farrar, who is going to be with us for at least a year. I am hopeful that we can extend that to two years so that we can work together to try to deliver on the quadruple challenge that I have outlined. In order to do that within 24 months, the bottom line is that you have to approach everything that you do with the utmost urgency.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. We know about the very concerning waiting times for cancer referral, diagnosis and treatment. Will you give us detail on how the combined initiatives will begin to have a positive impact on waiting times? How impactful will they be on bringing those waiting times in all cancers back within target?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her interest in cancer, which is another area of focus that I identified 11 months ago when I took up post. There is £85 million in that £215 million that is going to be for red-flag and time-sensitive matters, including cancer care. As I said, it will take up to five years to get all the lists back to acceptable levels, including those for the various cancers. There will be more detail in the implementation plan, which you should have before the end of the month.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. This is a welcome statement that says all the right things, but, of course, we need to see the plan and how it will be implemented. That is the most important thing.

I will rehearse a question that I have asked many times before. The waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme will allow a reimbursement for someone who wants to go to Dublin, Galway or wherever to have their hip fixed if they have been on an HSC waiting list for longer than two years. However, that assumes that that person can get the money up front to pay for the treatment. What about a person who has been on an HSC waiting list for eight years? I received a letter from the chief executive of the Western Trust that stated that the average waiting time for a routine hip replacement there is nine years. What about a person who has been on that waiting list for a very long time but cannot get the money and will not be able to access the scheme? How is that bringing equality to health provision in Northern Ireland, and what can we do about that? That is —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I think that we have the question.

Mrs Dodds: — hugely important.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. The waiting list reimbursement scheme is just one of a number of mechanisms, as I outlined in my remarks. It is part of a cocktail that will involve using HSC capacity and the independent sector to expand. I point out to the Member that the budget for the waiting list reimbursement scheme is £10 million, which means that there is up to £205 million to be used in HSC and the independent sector.

I agree that there is an equity issue: you have to be able to afford the treatment outside our jurisdiction to be able to claim the money back. To be clear to Members: we reimburse only what the cost of the procedure would have been under HSC; it does not cover travel or accommodation, including that of, say, a partner. However, it is a good scheme. If you had seen my mailbag over the past 11 months, you would know that nearly every Member has called for the reinstatement of the cross-border scheme. That is being done according to the will of the House.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement today. There is certainly a lot in it. While the ambition is welcome, it is concerning that mental health services are noticeably absent. The Minister will be aware that thousands of people across Northern Ireland are suffering on mental health waiting lists for treatment and even assessment. Will the Minister confirm whether mental health provision will be included in forthcoming investment and reform programmes?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. He is aware that I have campaigned on mental health issues since being elected a number of years ago. I am aware that we are yet to address that. I assure the Member that the fact that my remarks did not cover that area does not mean that it will not be covered or that I have in some way lost interest in it. I recognise the fact that it is a very important area, and we will seek to do what we can on it over the next 11 months.

Mr Robinson: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, will you indicate, for those whom I represent, what benefits the investment will bring to Causeway Hospital, specifically with regard to using theatres or scanners and its becoming an elective hub?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I mentioned the SWAH. I also want to see a significant amount of the money being invested in the Causeway Hospital and Daisy Hill. I say to Members that no hospital will close on my watch. We need every square yard — every square metre — of available HSC space not just to deal with the unacceptably long waiting lists but for a great number of procedures. The theory and principle behind separating emergency and elective surgery are sound: it means that there should be a minimum number of cancellations and maximum efficiencies and productivity. I look forward to updating the Member with more detail on what part of the £215 million will go to the Causeway Hospital.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the statement, Minister, and I welcome your and the Executive's commitment to reducing the number of patients on our unacceptably high waiting lists. You highlighted the waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme, which will allow patients from the North to seek treatment in the South and, eventually, across the EU, with the cost of that treatment being reimbursed by the HSC. Obviously, I welcome that initiative. I am one of the MLAs whose letters asking for it to be started again are in your inbox, so I welcome the fact that it will begin in June.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question?

Mr McGuigan: I agree about the equity issue and urge the Minister to look at that. He said that he has set aside £10 million for those who have been on the waiting list for two years. Will he ensure that that £10 million is spent fully, even if it means reducing the two-year target that he set?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. In response to his question, I cannot guarantee the spending of the £10 million, because it will be spent whenever people come forward and ask to be included in the initiative. This will never happen, but, were nobody to come forward, the £10 million would have to be reallocated. I imagine that we will not have any particular difficulty in spending the £10 million during this financial year, but we shall see.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work that he is doing to reduce waiting lists. Minister, I joined you on a visit to the South West Acute Hospital. I recall that, during that engagement, you specifically asked to see the uncommissioned theatre space. Like my fellow MLA from Fermanagh and South Tyrone Ms Erskine, I ask this: can you detail how soon that capacity will be utilised? Not only will that help a great number of patients on waiting lists, but it will serve as a further clear illustration of confidence in the long-term future of the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. As I said, this is an opportunity to reassure communities, not least those in Enniskillen, Coleraine and Newry, that their local hospitals are here to stay and that they have specific roles. In the case of the South West Acute Hospital, it is important to stress that there are not only two uncommissioned theatres but two uncommissioned wards and that, as an elective overnight stay centre, it is therefore in an ideal position to start to do a lot of good work in tackling waiting lists, if we can get the workforce together to utilise those theatres and wards.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I greatly welcome today's announcement. It is brilliant to hear the news about the cross-border initiative, the two phases and the cancer plan. It is all good stuff in the statement. Thank you for listening to Members who lobbied on that.

Minister, you mentioned really positive stuff about the gynaecology waiting lists and mesh removal. Will your implementation plan that will be published later this month include a breakdown of targets and timelines specifically for mesh removal or for gynae more generally? Will the detail of the plan be that specific?

Mr Nesbitt: That is certainly my intention.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement; it is welcome. My question is on the specifics of the waiting list reimbursement scheme. The Minister's announcement just over a month ago on the reinstatement of the cross-border scheme was so welcome, and I was inundated with queries, so, on the back of today's statement, I expect a lot of specific queries. Minister, you talked about it commencing in June. Is there potential for retrospective applications for reimbursement for treatment, and, if so, when could they be made? For people who have treatments booked and planned but are thinking of moving them to save themselves thousands of pounds and for those who are booking operations in the short term, have you any idea of when the scheme will be in place?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member, who raises an important point. Unfortunately — it is unfortunate, I think — there are no arrangements for patients who have already spent money on private treatment to be reimbursed, because the scheme will be open only to pre-authorised treatments, so we cannot work retrospectively. Like the Member, as a constituency MLA, I have been approached by constituents who ask, "I am on a waiting list for the private sector. I am about to spend a significant amount of money on a procedure. Should I hold fire?". I am not, I am afraid, in a position to offer that level of advice.

We are working with the health authorities in the Republic, so, clearly, we cannot simply book blocks of its resource, and, as I said, we are still in the foothills of organising this. We are working urgently, which is why I say that the scheme will open next month, but, on what we will offer from next month and the sequence of procedures within that, we are not there yet in our negotiations with the Republic. I am sorry not to be more definite, and I understand what it is like to sit there, having committed maybe £15,000 to a procedure that is coming up in July, and wonder, "Could I save that 15 grand for my children or my grandchildren?". I get that, and we will get the answers as quickly as we can.

Mr McNulty: Minister, since you took up your post, I have been tormenting you about the reintroduction of the cross-border healthcare scheme. Along with other Members, I was seeking to represent the desires and needs of our constituents who have been languishing on waiting lists, in fear and, often, in pain and with impairments, so this will bring huge hope and relief to those people.

Minister, you mentioned the implementation plan for the introduction of mega clinics, and you also said that no hospital will be closed, which is wonderful to hear. That will be reassuring for the people of Newry, south Armagh and south Down. Will Daisy Hill be a mega-clinic under the implementation plan?

Mr Nesbitt: I welcome the Member's comments. Will Daisy Hill be a mega-clinic? If the question is, "Will there be mega-clinics at Daisy Hill?", the answer will probably be yes. The only mega-clinic that I have visited was at Belfast City Hospital. It is about using space and workforce on a Saturday. In the clinic that I saw, for example, a lot of patients who had been on waiting lists for a long time had come for validation, basically, to be asked, "Do you still need the procedure?", and, "Have you got worse over the years?". Patients also had their pre-operative anaesthetic consultation there. The patients whom I observed on that Saturday at Belfast City Hospital were told, "You will be in the Mater Hospital next week"; it is that good.

At the moment, I do not have the detail on where the mega-clinics will be located, but I see no reason why Daisy Hill should not be on the list of prospective venues.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, like other Members, I welcome the reintroduction of the cross-border healthcare scheme and its extension. Many people have called for that, and, bluntly, many people want to have procedures while they are still around and can live a constructive life. Ultimately, however, it is true to say that that scheme, with people having to pay up front and then reclaim, and, indeed, the widespread use of private healthcare are representations and manifestations of the failure in our public healthcare system.

Will the Minister set out his aspiration for when, in the long term, we can minimise the assumption that has been created in our healthcare system that you have to go private to get elective care? I acknowledge that reintroducing the scheme is an important and welcome step as a stopgap measure for people who are suffering, but does the Minister have an aspiration to move us back to the principle of a publicly funded healthcare system that is free at the point of access?

Mr Nesbitt: Let me stress again that the cross-border scheme represents £10 million out of £215 million. Nearly every MLA in the House has contacted me about reinstating it. I am conscious of the equity issue that, if you cannot afford private healthcare, you are at a disadvantage relative to people who can afford to pay up front. I gently disagree with the idea that everybody now believes that they have to go private to get elective care. It is not particular to this place. For example, in March, when I was in Washington, I visited Georgetown University Hospital. It was built in 1947 but recently had an $800 million extension, including the biggest ED that I have ever seen. Every corridor of that ED had trolleys backed up, with patients lying on them. When I asked what was going on, I was told, "This happens 365 days of the year". That is a brand-new facility in the United States. I have also had correspondence from somebody in the Algarve in Portugal who spent two days on a trolley before having what they considered to be lifesaving surgery. It is not just us, but of course I support the principle of having the resources, the workforce, the equipment and the medicines to deliver world-class healthcare free at the point of delivery.

Mr Gaston: Like other MLAs, I welcome the statement. Minister, your statement lays out the fact that you are reintroducing the waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme, which will permit people who are on a waiting list for at least two years to seek certain treatments in the Republic from June, and that the scheme will be rolled out later to permit people to seek treatment across the EU. I welcome the announcement, but can you enlighten us as to why a similar scheme cannot be deployed to utilise space in the NHS in the rest of the UK, which does not have the same waiting list problems that we have? That would save people having to travel as far for their much-needed treatments.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As I have just said, our issues and challenges are not particular to us in Northern Ireland, so I do not accept that premise. The waiting list reimbursement scheme is based on the cross-border directive, which allowed patients to be reimbursed for treatment outside Northern Ireland. Other work is ongoing with independent sector providers within Northern Ireland. We are also looking at the capacity in Health and Social Care, not least building up our workforce, because it is primarily, although not exclusively, by building up the workforce that we will become less reliant on the independent sector.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you talked about building the workforce and the infrastructure required to tackle waiting lists in the long term. Many will ask how that can happen with more and more investment being funnelled into the private sector, as the statement makes clear, and more and more people being trained within the health service who will be working in private hospitals. Using the facilities of private hospitals and clinics will mean less investment in our own hospital estates and infrastructure. What action are you taking to tackle the growth of the private health sector?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. The fact is that we do not have the capacity exclusively within our health and social care system to tackle waiting lists in a timely manner. As I said, there has to be a cocktail within which money will go to the independent sector. Is that really good news? No. I would much rather all the money were devoted to our own workforce, our health and social care system and our six trusts, including the Ambulance Service. In an ideal world, we would not have a reimbursement scheme in which people are reimbursed for going outside Northern Ireland. We would not have an independent sector. However, that is so far from reality that it is hardly even aspirational. We have to do it as we can. Among all the elements of the cocktail, my priority is our own health and social care workforce and the health and social care system.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

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

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025. That is SR 2025/61.

Article 2 of the order extends the provisions allowing courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence, wholly or in part, using audio or video conferencing systems, which are commonly referred to as live links. It is primarily video systems that are utilised to facilitate the attendance of persons participating in any court or tribunal hearing remotely. The provisions are in addition to legislation that allows the use of a video link for a specific witness or defendant with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access to a digital tool that has proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic until 24 September 2025.

Members will recall, from the debates on similar motions for approval in 2024, that we are planning to put in place new primary legislation to provide a long-term legislative solution for live links in our courts and tribunals. The Justice Bill was introduced last year and is currently at Committee Stage. Meanwhile, this further extension will allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. It will continue to offer an avenue for wider access to participation in the courts, where a judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice.

I am conscious of the concern expressed in past debates on similar motions about relying on emergency-related legislation. I remain keen to have the new legislation in place as soon as reasonably practical, but that now rests with the Committee, as it takes forward the Committee Stage of the Justice Bill. I wish that there was a practical alternative to continuing to rely on those provisions as temporary measures, but it cannot be denied that, despite all the efforts made within the resources available to my Department, there remains approximately a quarter of cases that have been with the Crown Court and the Magistrates' Court, adult and youth, for more than three years.

I am equally conscious that improvements in case processing times have levelled off after a period of successive improvement, despite the efforts made to increase throughput. The average time from an offence being reported to a case's completion in court is now 191 days. It has remained broadly at that level for a while, in contrast to 149 days pre-COVID.

There remains support from court users, particularly those who advocate for victims of crime, for this avenue of participation to be available, subject to judicial approval, to those who would prefer not to attend court in person. I believe that the use of the provisions aligns with the commitments made or reflected in the Victim Charter. I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly and thank the House for taking the time to debate it.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I will speak briefly as Chairman of the Committee for Justice. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The Minister outlined the intention of the statutory rule, and it is not my intention to repeat that. The current Committee for Justice has previously considered a number of statutory rules to extend those provisions, and its position has not changed. As Members will recall from previous debates on motions to extend the provisions, the Committee asked the Department for its views on whether the continued use of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 was appropriate and proportionate in a post-COVID environment. The Committee also requested details of the Department's plans to make permanent provision for the use of audio and video links.

As I said then, and as the Minister has reiterated this afternoon, the Committee was advised that the Minister was satisfied that there remains a clear role for the continued use of the provisions in order to tackle the backlog of cases that have accrued during and since the pandemic and may take until 2028 to clear without extra resources. The Department also advised that it was the Minister's intention to include provisions for the wider use of live links in the first Justice Bill of the mandate. The Committee was assured that reliance on the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 is, therefore, an interim arrangement.

As the House will be aware, the Minister now plans to make permanent provision for the wider use of live links by way of an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage. The text of the proposed amendment was included in the Committee's call for evidence on the Justice Bill, which closed at the start of last month. The Committee will now consider any evidence that it received on the use of live links as it works through the detail of the Bill and the amendments.

As I stated at the beginning of my contribution, the Committee's position on today's motion remains the same: most, if not all, Committee members are broadly supportive of the use of live links. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 10 April 2025 and was content to recommend that it be approved by the Assembly, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report. That report was published the following day, and the Examiner raised no issues with the technical aspects of the rule. Therefore, on behalf of the Justice Committee, I support the motion. As the justice spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party, I reiterate that our position is reflected in that of the Committee.

Ms Ferguson: We support the extension of the current live links provision as a short-term measure. Longer term, we need to deliver robust permanent provision and enhance participatory rights, particularly for victims of crime. The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime has, rightly, raised the importance of the issue. Whilst it is critical that that access be maintained, the Justice Bill will provide a comprehensive framework for the provision in primary legislation. We recognise the benefits for children and other vulnerable victims of being able to remain in a safe place and provide evidence in a child-friendly and neutral environment. We want to work collectively to support the delivery of a fit-for-purpose and modern legal system and Courts and Tribunals Service and speed up access to justice.

Important concerns for consideration in the wider debate are the provision of adequate safeguarding for vulnerable individuals; technological reliability; the guarantee of adequate understanding; the provision of consent; access to good legal representation; upholding fair trial standards; and protecting the rights of individuals.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I call the Minister of Justice, Naomi Long, to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions on the order. The importance of making live links available to those who find themselves, often through no fault on their part, engaged or compelled to engage in the justice system should not be underestimated. They can provide an avenue of communication that may reduce stress or other pressures that participation in a court hearing might bring. That has been reflected in what has been said during this short debate. It is important to recognise that, unlike other Departments, the Department cannot change that provision by regulation; it requires primary legislation. That is why it is written into the Bill that is before the Committee. I look forward to that being brought forward with the rest of the content of the Bill.

I hope that Members are satisfied that this is very much an interim measure and that more detailed proposals lie in the Bill that is with the Committee. Hopefully, we will now be able to move forward with this temporary provision. We will, of course, need to renew the provision later this year, because it will expire towards the end of September. We will continue to do that — hopefully, with the cooperation of the Committee — until such times as the primary legislation is passed in the House.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As Members will be aware, the order seeks to expand powers that were introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months until 24 September 2025. The specific powers that are included in the order concern the way in which registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or a stillbirth. Although they can opt to come into a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do that over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between a doctor and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members.

It will be clear to the Assembly why those provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and sometimes vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate, even when the services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, however, the arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of the registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic, efficient and productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most importantly, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like small things, they can make a big difference.

In short, though the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, modern and efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should look to make the temporary powers permanent rather than continuing to depend on the Coronavirus Act.

We have used the time that was provided by the earlier extension order to progress the permanent powers. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which passed its Second Stage in the Assembly on 7 April 2025, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme, which recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Members will know that losses early in pregnancy are not recognised by existing legislation and that, currently, only losses that take place after 24 weeks are provided for. Those losses cause real pain and heartache for parents across the community, and I am determined that we should recognise them in a similar way to schemes in Scotland and Wales. The Bill will provide a legal basis for a new voluntary scheme, which we will consult on later this year. Regulations will set out how it will operate, and the required delivery mechanisms are being developed by my officials and in the Department of Health. The Bill will also rectify the differences in registration processes for some couples.

Today's extension order will, consequently, provide the time that is required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and make permanent the powers in the Coronavirus Act. It will also afford space and time to make provisions for a baby loss certificate scheme and provide the time that is required to allow the primary legislation to complete its passage. As was set out in earlier debates on these matters, I understand the concerns of some Members about using the continuing extension. As has been seen in today's statement, however, and through their own reflections, Members will be aware that the Bill is making its way through the Assembly. Its progress will depend on the Committee for Finance and the will of the Assembly. I commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will reflect briefly on the Committee for Finance's deliberations on this secondary legislation, which we have discussed in various forms in the Chamber. The Committee has had extensive written and oral briefings on the legislative provisions and the Department's work on the matter. The Committee has also previously agreed a number of statutory rules that were made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. I should note that the extensions provided by these statutory rules will be rendered unnecessary when the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill is currently at Committee Stage, and there has been widespread welcome for it.

In April 2024, departmental officials indicated to the Committee their hope that delegated legislation could be used to ensure that the continued use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 would no longer be necessary, meaning that the secondary legislation that we are extending today would no longer be necessary once the primary legislation that is in front of the Committee and that received its Second Stage a few weeks ago is complete. Unfortunately, it turned out that primary legislation was required, with further extensions to the provisions of the Coronavirus Act being necessary. At its meeting on 26 February 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed statutory rule/SL1 and content to extend the temporary provisions under the Act until 24 September 2025. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 9 April 2025. The Examiner of Statutory Rules did not draw this rule to the attention of the Assembly, and the Committee therefore recommended that it be approved by the Assembly.

The Department has expressed the hope to the Committee that the Bill will have completed its legislative process by 24 September 2025, meaning that no further extensions to the Coronavirus Act will be required. While that hope is noted and we share the desire to move away from the secondary legislation provisions, the Committee will obviously have to have appropriate time to scrutinise the Bill. That is especially important as the Committee has noted that there has been no consultation on the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions that are emotive by their very nature, so we will have to consider them with sensitivity. As per normal procedure, the Committee will undertake a call for evidence on the provisions of the Bill, and we will shortly discuss the Bill timetable.

The Committee supports the motion to extend the regulations as per the Minister's remarks today.

In a party capacity, I will say that we welcome the fact that, although slightly later than we had all wanted, the Bill has been brought before the Assembly and, indeed, the Committee. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising it in detail.

Ms Dolan: As progress is ongoing on the development of permanent legislation in this area, I recognise the need to extend these provisions, which are now considered as the normal process for registering deaths and stillbirths. I know that the changes to the registration process have been viewed as positive by stakeholders, the public and funeral directors, and not providing for an extension would be a retrograde step. I look forward to the completion of the permanent legislation, which also includes the baby loss certificate scheme. That is a welcome advancement.

Mr Frew: I am a Member who has been desperately frustrated at the continuing extension of this power, because I believe that the Assembly should reflect on everything that it did around the Coronavirus Act 2020, the harm that it caused our people and the role that the Executive and the Assembly played in that harm.

Notwithstanding all that, I recognise that this provision — Part 3 of schedule 13 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 — was all about ensuring the effective and efficient registration of deaths and stillbirths and to assist in taking away some of the rigmarole that families have to go through when they suffer bereavement on the loss of a family member or a baby. I believe that such legislation should have been brought in before the pandemic. It really is, if you like, the Executive and the law catching up with technology, so I welcome the provisions. It is probably the only aspect of the Coronavirus Act that I wholeheartedly support, so, of course, I want to see it placed on a permanent statutory footing.

The Chairperson of the Committee highlighted the Committee's frustration at how we have been told one thing and then told another about how this can be put on a statutory footing. First, we were told that it could be secondary legislation, and then we were told that, no, it had to be primary legislation.

No matter what format has to be used, we need to ensure that the people who suffer loss and bereavement do not fall back into the way things were done before.

Now that we have the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill before us, having gone through Second Stage, the pressure is off for extensions, because we can now read the text of the provisions in the blue pages of a Bill. Whilst the extension takes us to 24 September, there really is no issue with pressure in having a further extension in September, and that is coming from someone who has been deeply frustrated by the extensions going on and on. The reason I say that to the Minister and the Department is that, if the Bill were purely about the registration of deaths and stillbirths, I do not think that the Committee would have any issues with going through our procedures as fast as possible, coming out the other side and giving the Department the concise nature of the scrutiny of the Bill, getting us moved on. A clause in the Bill repeals a section of the Coronavirus Act once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Whether that happens in September, December or March does not really make a difference, because people will not see a change to the provision. We should be concerned about the time that the Committee takes to scrutinise the Bill, which will make the provision permanent, because the Bill includes other elements that the Committee Chair rightly highlighted, such as the baby loss certificate and the registration of births by same-sex couples.

The Committee has a duty to scrutinise all those measures thoroughly, as it does and has done with other Bills. The pressure is off with regard to extensions and worrying about September deadlines. The sooner the Committee can get on with its work of scrutinising the Bill, come to conclusions on it and make any amendments that we see fit and the sooner parties in the Assembly can make amendments that they see fit and we have good legislation coming out the other side, the better. An extension of six months is neither here nor there.

I welcome the extension and welcome the fact that the Bill is in the hands of Committee members so that they can scrutinise it and so that the Assembly can scrutinise it. We have already had a touch at Second Reading. We are going to Committee Stage now, and Consideration Stage is after that. I commend the extension.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for bringing the order forward. If the extension were not made, the current regulations would fall tomorrow. That would mean that bereaved families would once again have to attend in person to register deaths and stillbirths. It would mean an end to the electronic transfer of documents between medical practitioners, registrars and funeral directors, and it would create an increased strain on an already overburdened healthcare and death management system, so thank you very much for bringing forward that extension.

I am someone who, at a very young age, had to go in person to register a death, and it was horrendous. We were still in the process of having a wake and had to get the death certificate sorted out. The electronic means is important.

I want to make the Committee and the Minister aware that the funeral directors' body is supportive of the extension; I am sure that they are well aware of that. Indeed, I had contact from S Clarke and Son, a funeral director in my constituency in Newtownards. They are keen to see the extension, because it will be in the period when the Committee will be looking at the provisions for a permanent solution to be brought into Northern Ireland. As those funeral directors said, in order for that to happen, the order must proceed.

The extension will allow the temporary measures to become permanent. It would enshrine in law a system that has been proven to be efficient, modern and compassionate. I have to agree with that, having been through the system more recently, when I knew that the death certificates would come from the funeral directors, meaning that I did not have to sit in a council office and wait for that piece of paper to be produced.

We support completely the Minister in the extension. I am amazed at Mr Frew: it is the first time I have heard him say that he agrees with a piece of coronavirus legislation. That is a first. It is not something, of course, that any of us want to have to go through with death certificates, but, like Mr Frew, we agree with this.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Everybody who indicated that they wished to speak has done so, so I call the Minister of Finance to conclude and wind on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the work of the Committee and the Committee Chair on the matter and acknowledge the concerns that have been previously raised by the Committee about the delays in bringing forward the legislation. Mr Frew has managed to speak against an extension and in favour of an extension in one speech, which, in itself, is a work of verbal art.

Without straying and seeking the wrath of the Speaker, I will say something about a lengthy Committee extension. While my officials are working on this, they are not working on something else. When the Committee is working on this, it is not working on something else. There is a consequence to Committee extensions. I await the Committee's report on that, and I await the will of the Committee and the Assembly on the matter, but no one should leave the Chamber believing that there are no consequences from an extension to the Committee Stage of a Bill.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Today, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Period Products (Department for Communities Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. The introduction of the draft regulations is required under the Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022.

The draft regulations mark another important step in the journey to making universal access to period products a reality and complement similar legislation from other Departments. Under section 2 of the Act, I propose to specify the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, the Local Government Staff Commission, the Northern Ireland Library Authority, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland, Sport Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. That means that those public bodies will make free period products available to staff and visitors on their premises. Some bodies that fall within the remit of my Department are not specified in the draft regulations, as they did not meet the definition of a "public service body" as set out in section 9 of the Act. They are Ulster Supported Employment Limited, the Northern Ireland Museums Council and the North/South language bodies.

Once the regulations are made, there are further steps that my Department and the specified public bodies will need to complete. First, my Department will consult the relevant bodies on the guidance to be issued. The specified bodies will then consult on the ways in which products can be obtained, where they will be located and the types of period products that will be available. Following that, the specified bodies will publish a written statement on the arrangements that are to be put in place. My officials have been liaising with the arm's-length bodies on how the regulations will be implemented, and I am pleased to report that the Department's public bodies have fully embraced the scheme.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise as Chairperson of the Committee to support the motion. The Period Products (Free Provision) Act, passed by the Assembly in March 2022, marked an important step in addressing period poverty and was rightly warmly welcomed. At its meeting on 30 January this year, the Committee considered the 11 public service bodies that the Department had listed as subject to the duty to ensure that period products are obtainable free of charge by persons from bodies across our cultural and sporting landscape as well as, for example, the Library Authority and the Housing Executive, as set out by the Minister. Having sought and received some additional details from the Department, the Committee agreed on 27 March to recommend that the Assembly affirm the statutory rule.

Briefly, as Sinn Féin spokesperson, I also welcome the increased availability and, indeed, visibility of the products. It is about inclusion and dignity, and it is welcome to see more and more of our public spaces providing free period products.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Colm.

No other Member has indicated to speak, so it is over to you, Minister, to conclude the debate.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Committee for its support, and I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next item of business will be Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Questions 8 and 15 have been withdrawn. Tom Buchanan is not here. I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The Loughs Agency has a clear statutory remit and delivers a necessary public function on a cross-border basis. The performance of the agency is evaluated in line with the agreed framework document, and a review of its performance is published in the Loughs Agency's annual report and accounts.

On the issue of value for money, I take assurance from the governance arrangements that are in place for the agency and my Department's oversight.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his answer. The answers to recent questions from me have exposed the fact that the Loughs Agency maintained three boardrooms yet secured zero prosecutions for illegal netting in 2022 and 2024 and very low numbers in other recent years. The commercial salmon fishery has been suspended for many years, yet the Department that once regulated that has a wage bill for 2024 of almost £1 million and other costs for that year of over £500,000. Is it the case that, even by the low bar of cross-border bodies, it is hard to justify the existence of the Loughs Agency?

Mr Muir: I strongly believe in the value of the Loughs Agency and cross-border working. I have responded in detail to the questions for written answer that the Member has tabled to me. The Member raised the issue of prosecutions. The agency has a statutory duty to protect the fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Dealing with illegal nets is only one part of the remit of the agency's conservation and protection directorate. The conservation and protection directorate operates a hotline that the public can use to report suspected pollution events or illegal fishing activity. Staff members are on call to respond 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

In 2024, the agency inspected over 1,600 fishing licences, detected 133 illegal fishing incidents and dealt with 216 pollution incidents. Since 2015, it has successfully prosecuted 85 offenders for water quality offences and 111 offenders for angling-related offences. The key objective of that directorate is to provide a highly visible, public-facing approach to enforcement to act as a deterrent to the illegal activity that is taking place in the first place.

On the issue of the boardrooms, which Mr Gaston seems to have an interest in, the agency can hold meetings at its headquarters and its two regional offices. Those meeting rooms are used extensively outside of board meetings to support the day-to-day running of the agency.

Mr Brett: Cross-border bodies seem to have a particular issue with producing and laying their annual accounts in the Assembly on time. Will the Minister outline the work that he is doing to ensure that the Loughs Agency complies with its statutory guidance?

Mr Muir: It is important that they are laid on time. Having these institutions back is important, as there was a lot of catching up to do as a result of previous periods when the Assembly was not sitting. I am engaging with the Loughs Agency on the issue as it is important to ensure that we keep to a proper procedure.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the detail that he has provided in his answers. How is the Minister working with not only the Loughs Agency, as a cross-border body, but his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to improve water quality in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: My Department cooperates with counterparts in Ireland to improve water quality through the North/South Ministerial Council's areas of cooperation, such as the environment, and the Loughs Agency, as an implementation body. The Loughs Agency is collaborating with East Border Region and Inland Fisheries Ireland, and, in Northern Ireland, with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Ulster University and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, on the new PEACE PLUS-funded catchment action for local management (CALM) project, which will see a range of actions to improve water quality being implemented in several cross-border catchments including the rivers Strule and Finn. I note the new commitments on water quality in the new Irish Government's Programme for Government: I am engaging with the Irish Government: I had a meeting with Darragh O'Brien recently, and I will be having further meetings with other Ministers about how we can implement that for the benefit of all people across the island of Ireland.

Mr Muir: A total of 121 schools and 1,701 parents or guardians responded to the survey, which closed on 10 January this year. Responses are being analysed, and a report will be finalised in the coming weeks. The information that was generated from the survey, together with engagement with key stakeholders, will form part of an ongoing review of the scheme. Options to refresh the scheme will be taken forward as part of the Northern Ireland food strategy framework action plan. I intend to publish the action plan at next week's Balmoral show, which I am looking forward to.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. When you launched the scheme late last year, you mentioned the decline in participation in it. What action do you propose to address that decline? Is the future of the scheme secure?

Mr Muir: I am keen to keep the scheme. When I was at primary school, I was one of the people involved in selling the milk, so I have a background in this. It provides great nutritional value for young people. I want to consider the survey responses so that we can find better ways to promote and increase uptake. Whilst we are still going through the survey responses, the indications are that there is support for the scheme, with the majority of schools indicating that it offers good value for money, and the majority of parents believing that it is an important scheme and that milk provides a range of nutritional benefits for their children's diet and development. As I said, I support the scheme, and I look forward to taking actions to promote it as part of the Northern Ireland food strategy framework action plan.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, will you elaborate on how the school milk subsidy scheme helps to deliver on the strategic priorities that are outlined in the Northern Ireland food strategy framework?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. As I said, I will launch the food strategy framework action plan — we are probably going to develop an acronym for that — at the Balmoral show next week. It will be really important that we follow up on that launch. A key priority in the strategy is to enable improved diet-related health outcomes through education. The framework focuses on making healthy, nutritious and sustainable food the food of choice. The framework recognises the importance of a healthy, balanced diet at all stages of life. That is particularly the case for children as it impacts on their growth, development, educational attainment and long-term health and well-being. Intervening early to create healthy eating habits helps to give children and young people the best start in life by embedding in them a positive relationship with food. For that reason, I intend to ensure that the school milk subsidy scheme is refreshed as part of the food strategy framework action plan targets over the next two years.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for recognising that uptake of the scheme has reduced. The dairy industry and, indeed, the scheme suffer from insidious advertising by groups such as Viva!, one of the leading vegan charities, which launched a video entitled 'Dairy is Scary'. Will the Minister join me in condemning such applications of advertising, and outline what steps the Department is going to take to promote milk as a healthy food supplement?

Mr Muir: We will do that next week at the Balmoral show. Dairy is not scary for me; it is healthy and nutritious, and I enjoy it as part of my daily diet. The Balmoral show will be a great opportunity to showcase the excellent quality food that we have in Northern Ireland, not just to people from Northern Ireland but on a wider platform. It is important that we do that. We should be proud of those standards.

I will say that I have written to the UK Government about my concerns about any potential trade deal with the United States of America. We should not undercut our farmers in the UK. We have good-quality food: we want to be able to protect the industry and sell that food to a wider market.

Ms Hunter: Minister, will you commit to ensuring that any changes to the scheme will not disproportionately affect low-income families or rural schools?

Mr Muir: That is one of my main concerns. You are right to highlight that. We want to make sure that we do not do that. We will engage on it as part of a co-design process, because we want to make sure that it benefits rural areas and people who are less well off. It is important that we do that.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 4 and 14.

The recent spate of wildfire incidents is very concerning, as wildfires not only have the potential to have devastating impacts on the environment but are a risk to life, homes and farms. We must all unite to strongly condemn the actions of the individuals who started those fires. I urge anyone with any information about people who were involved in those activities to contact the police.

I pay tribute and give special thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) for all its work. The Health Minister and I met the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service last week to thank it for the work that it does, and I put that thanks on the record here today.

To try to prevent wildfires and to reduce their impact when they do occur, my Department works with others, especially the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Close working across government and beyond is required to tackle those deliberate acts of rural arson and prevent wildfires. Working together, we issue communications that highlight the risk of wildfires and actions that should be taken to prevent them. We have made available the departmental specialist wildfire vehicles for the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service to use during wildfire incidents. We also seek to develop wildfire management plans in high-risk areas or designated sites.

In addition, my officials continue to work with key partners in the Fire and Rescue Service and the Department of Health to finalise a robust, cross-cutting and effective strategy to address the scourge of wildfires in the medium and long term.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you referred specifically to "deliberate acts of rural arson". Have all the fires been attributed to that cause? Are the fires all deliberate arson attacks or have some started in other ways? Has the percentage been determined?

Mr Muir: My engagement with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has shown that the overwhelming majority of the fires have been deliberately set. It is only by the grace of God that nobody has been killed by the fires in Northern Ireland. I again urge anyone with any information to pass it on to the police. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has undertaken significant work in recent weeks in response to the fires. I praise the service for the work that has been done in very difficult circumstances.

Our attitude to the fires must be clear: we should not see them as headlines that come and go. We need to have a different attitude. That should be that, if we know anyone who lights such fires, we must contact the police and be prepared to give evidence to take it to court. That is absolutely key. I am working on the strategy with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the Department of Health, but that is a medium- and long-term issue. We need a different attitude to the wildfires, which are having a devastating impact on our countryside. It is very distressing to see the damage that we have caused to our countryside.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, what more could be done, for instance, through the media, to educate people about wildfires? I am talking not only about young people, because older people are doing it, as well. What more could be done to educate people about what happens when they do those stupid acts?

Mr Muir: The media have strongly profiled the issue. Last week, I was with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service in Ballynahinch and Lisburn, and we put out media updates subsequent to that visit to raise the profile of the practical implications. We have a role, as elected representatives, to profile the communications and encourage people with any information to bring it forward to the police, because we need prosecutions. We need to see people in court, but that requires people who are prepared to give evidence. We also need to be conscious that what people may see as a localised fire can very quickly spread and have devastating consequences. People need to be very conscious about their behaviour in the countryside. We have seen that people have lost their life in other parts of the world, and that is my concern about the wildfires.

Ms Murphy: Minister, what engagement have you had to date with local farmers, given that they can help to prevent and manage the fires?

Mr Muir: The Department has previously engaged with specific forums and intends to re-establish that as part of the strategy associated with the wildfires. Engagement with people is important. There will be a consultation and engagement about the prescribed burning period. I have put on record my belief that the period should be reviewed, and I will welcome people's engagement with the consultation on that. It is important that we have a proper and informed discussion about the arrangements that are in place. I am conscious that the Republic of Ireland's prescribed burning period ends six weeks before ours and that the penalties associated with that are different. I want to engage with the farming community in particular on that.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister tell us how re-wetting peatlands can help to control the spread of landscape fires in the Mournes?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Andy. That is a really important issue. Re-wetting peatlands leads to improvements in the height of the water table, which increases the wetness and the growth of key plants that naturally limit the dominance of the shrubs, heather and grasses that favour drier conditions and burn more readily. A water table that sits at or close to the peat's surface also limits the capacity of uncontrolled fires to burn into the peat layer and smoulder, leading to less severe fires.

The Member raises an important question. I have a peatland strategy that is now with the Executive for approval. We need to restore our peatlands across Northern Ireland. That can contribute towards so much, particularly in relation to the issues that we are discussing. Let us do that and move forward to improve our environment and prevent wildfires occurring in our countryside.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the impact of sewage pollution on water quality. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) undertakes an extensive water quality monitoring programme in Northern Ireland's rivers and lakes. NIEA's river waterbody monitoring indicates that 53% of river waterbodies are impacted by agriculture-related pressures and that 25% by sewage-related pressures. The percentages include a significant number of waterbodies, some 21%, that are impacted by sewage and agricultural pressures.

The research, which was led by AFBI and published in October 2020, examined substance-flow analysis for phosphorus in Northern Ireland's food system. Of the estimated 1,530 tons of phosphorus lost to water, 62% was determined to be from agricultural sources and 36% from sewage, of which 24% was attributed to waste water and a further 12% to septic tanks.

The approved environmental improvement plan for Northern Ireland sets out my commitment to improve water quality, including the requirement to publish the third cycle river basin management plan and the associated programme of measures. Work to improve water quality will require collective action across government, the public and private sectors and wider society.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for that thorough response. Will you provide an update on regulation and enforcement arrangements regarding sewage pollution by Northern Ireland Water?

Mr Muir: I can answer that question in a number of ways. The third cycle river basin management plan has been with the Executive for approval for a while, and I continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on it.

If Members will bear with me, I will explain this a bit more. When NI Water was established in 2007, a statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) was put in place, and it has remained in place. A number of years ago, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency exited from the element on drinking water. People should understand about SORPI that, when dealing with regulation or enforcement against NI Water for sewage pollution, the historical underinvestment must be taken into account. Therefore, in many instances, Northern Ireland water is getting a by-ball for pumping sewage into our waterways. That is not tenable, and, as Minister, I will be honest and fair to all polluters in Northern Ireland. That is why I am engaged in a formal process to get the views of NI Water and DFI on our exiting that arrangement and putting Northern Ireland Water on the same platform as all other polluters in Northern Ireland. I will make a final decision on that in the forthcoming weeks. It is just not tenable that Northern Ireland Water should be treated differently from other polluters. It is a corporate polluter and should be treated as such.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you set out your views on NI Water and SORPI. However, you have also said that you want to give the Infrastructure Minister and her predecessor time and space to come up with a funding solution. They have had time and space, and there is no funding solution. Heads appear to be stuck in the sand. What pressure are you bringing to bear on the Infrastructure Minister to come up with a plan to invest in NI Water? The situation is getting worse, and our water is in crisis. What pressure are you bringing to bear on your ministerial colleague?

Mr Muir: I am on record as saying that I will support the Infrastructure Minister in funding bids for Northern Ireland Water. That is the kind of person that I am. I will support that investment, which needs to take place. The pressure that I am bringing to bear relates to the regulation and enforcement arrangements for Northern Ireland Water, as I outlined, and the set-up that has been in place since 2007. It is not tenable to have that in place. NI Water, in its current state, is not fit for purpose. What is happening in Northern Ireland with regard to sewage pollution in our waterways is nothing short of a thundering disgrace. It is wrong. Belfast lough is likely to become the next Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland due to the level of pollution that is occurring. The lack of investment in waste water infrastructure is not just holding back economic investment and housebuilding but destroying our environment. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road. It is for others to step up and take decisions on it.

Mr Chambers: Minister, do you share my disappointment that there is not one specific mention in the Programme for Government that suggests any solutions to tackle the pollution in Belfast lough? We both realise that it will be the next Lough Neagh.

Mr Muir: The Programme for Government sets out areas of commitment, one of which relates to improving the environment. In the environmental improvement plan, we have actions that I seek to take as Minister. Clearly, what is required with regard to waste water infrastructure is investment. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has set out its views on that: people would do well to pay heed to them.

Mr Muir: I have now received confirmation that the dilapidation Bill is within the legislative competence of the Assembly. I am seeking approval for the introduction of the Bill at the earliest available opportunity from my Executive colleagues. Once Executive approval is received, I will seek to have the Bill introduced, with the Speaker's agreement, as soon as possible.

Mr Brett: Dilapidation impacts not only on town centres but on communities in my constituency. In lower North Belfast, the communities of Skegoneill, Shore Road and Jellicoe are blighted by Japanese knotweed on unregistered and unowned land. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will try to bring the Bill to the House as soon as possible to ensure that residents, not only in North Belfast but across Northern Ireland, benefit from its new provisions?

Mr Muir: Yes. I am keen to see the Bill on the Floor of the Assembly. When we were returned here in 2022 — it is just about the anniversary of that election — we were clear that the public wanted us to deliver for them. The dilapidation Bill is a key tool by which we will do that.

Dilapidation is a real blight on communities. It affects the neighbourhoods and causes lack of investment in the area. That is why I am very keen to have the Bill tabled. It has been fully reviewed with regard to its competence and legal perspectives. Hopefully, it will get Executive approval; I can bring it here; we can debate it; and the Committee can scrutinise it. It will be a positive thing for all communities across Northern Ireland, particularly in some constituencies. To be fair, you have been a strong advocate of the Bill. Let us get it on to the Floor of the Assembly.

Mr Donnelly: I agree with Mr Brett that dilapidated buildings are a blight on our towns and villages, including in East Antrim, so I am keen to see the Bill progress. How will the Bill enable councils to take action to protect our built heritage?

Mr Muir: It will have a particular impact on that, because, during the policy consultation, stakeholders expressed concerns that, under existing legislation, there was no special consideration or protection afforded to listed buildings and no requirement to consult planning colleagues prior to the issuing of notices. Stakeholders suggested that that had resulted in the loss of a number of buildings that had been allowed to fall into disrepair by owners. We have sought to ensure that the Bill will afford protections to listed buildings and that it will be binding on councils to consult relevant planning colleagues before taking any action. That will properly address heritage issues and be more proactive, allowing actions to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in those important buildings.

Councils currently have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of a listed building. I also declare for the record that I am a member of Ulster Architectural Heritage.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, I hope that you will agree that the track record of this place in looking after our built heritage has been abysmal. In fact, answers to recent questions that I have raised with the Minister for Communities have revealed that there is no funding to support owners of listed buildings to help them to restore or make safe those buildings. In fact, if you delve further into that, Minister, you will find that there is a minimal fund of, I think, around £300,000 that is supposed to deal with that entire section.

Mr Speaker: Can we get a question, Mr McCrossan?

Mr McCrossan: Minister, what are you doing to work with the Minister for Communities to ensure that we protect our built heritage, which is falling down around us daily?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the issues that the Member raises. I am very supportive of built heritage: that is why I am a member of Ulster Architectural Heritage. By tabling the Bill, hopefully, my Department will be able to progress some things around that. I am conscious of the issues in the Member's constituency, particularly in Sion Mills, for example, where there are important buildings that we want to protect. I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to get the Bill before the Assembly.

There is also a role for district councils, because they already have powers around this. Sometimes, they are reluctant to use them. From my time in Ards and North Down Borough Council, I remember that there were listed buildings on which we had to lobby for action to be taken. We got it taken, but it required perseverance. Once a building has gone, it is gone, and we have lost that key fabric in that community. That is why I am keen to progress the Bill.

Mr Muir: My Department carried out the most current official assessment of bathing water sites in Northern Ireland during the 2024 bathing season. The bathing season runs from 1 June to 15 September. During that period, weekly monitoring and assessments were carried out at 26 identified bathing water sites and seven candidate bathing water sites.

I am pleased to report that Northern Ireland’s bathing waters performed well. All 26 identified bathing waters complied with the required bathing water quality standards. Twenty-two were classified as "excellent", a prerequisite for the coveted blue flag award and an indication of the highest water quality standard. Two met the "good" standard, and the remaining two met the "sufficient" standard.

Seven candidate bathing waters were also monitored in 2024. The classification for those sites is preliminary and currently based on two years of data. One site was classified as "excellent", two as "good", three as "sufficient" and one as "poor". It should be noted that the addition of a second year of samples in 2024 led to some improvements in classification at those candidate sites, and a full four-year dataset is required to classify with confidence.

It is my intention to formally identify the seven candidate sites before the commencement of the 2025 bathing season. My Department publishes the results for all identified and candidate bathing waters on the DAERA and nidirect websites.

Mr McGrath: Given the popularity of sea swimming and the significant disparities in the levels of potential faecal contamination at bathing water sites across the North, with no more than 17 colony-forming units (CFU) the measurement at Tyrella; up to 690 at Crawfordsburn; up to 1,900 at Warrenpoint; and up to 6,100 in Brompton Bay, in the Minister's constituency, will he commit to commissioning a review of the bathing water regulations, as recommended by the Office for Environmental Protection?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the issue that the Member has outlined. There is a different situation as regards water quality in different bathing areas. I also know that sea swimming is a popular sport that people undertake. I undertook it on Christmas Eve, and I think that I will stick to running. That is my focus.

We need to be conscious of the report of the Office for Environmental Protection on the matter. It is a welcome report. I spoke to officials last week, and they are working through the recommendations from that. We will consult further on a number of matters arising from that. One of the biggest issues arising from the report is an extended season. People may be out swimming today, before the start of the official, designated season. We will take that work forward.

The important announcement today is on those seven sites. That is not to say that all is fine. A lot of work needs to be done. We need to address the pollution of our waterways, whether that is from sewage or from agriculture. That is something else that we are talking about today and something that I am determined to do.

Ms Finnegan: The Minister will know that, for a long time, Lough Neagh has been a vital amenity area for local communities. Of course, bathing activity there has been significantly impacted by poor water quality due to blue-green algae in recent years. Given recent instances of blue-green algae on Lough Neagh, what progress is his Department making to address that for the benefit of local communities?

Mr Muir: The Department continues to implement the Lough Neagh action plan. It is really important that we do that. Specifically in relation to the question and bathing water sites and Lough Neagh, as you have raised it, among the seven new sites being formally identified is Northern Ireland's first inland site at Rea's Wood Nature Reserve on Lough Neagh. The primary focus of the bathing water programme is to provide good public health advice to bathers. It is particularly important for Rea's Wood, given the ongoing blue-green algae problem.

As part of the Executive's approved Lough Neagh action plan, my Department leads on an inter-agency group to ensure that timely advice is provided to swimmers at the site. That is an important intervention that we are taking. We need to do a lot of work to improve water quality, but it is also important that we take action on bathing waters.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions

Mr Muir: No problem. A number of SBRIs are particularly relevant to Lough Neagh. One of those is phase 2 of the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry initiative. That is ongoing and has proven very successful. It is important that we are conscious of that: I will say a bit more about it next week in the run-up to the Balmoral show.

The other issue is the monitoring of blue-green algal blooms by the UK Space Agency. That is ongoing. There is another issue with the number of firms that we have appointed to explore how to manage the blooms. Presentations are due from those firms in the next number of weeks so that we can see how their work is progressing.

It is important that we take all those initiatives forward, but we also need to make fundamental interventions on agriculture and waste water infrastructure to address the flow of excess nutrients into the lough.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that concise overview of the various SBRIs. Will you expand a little on what success of the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry initiative will look like?

Mr Muir: We have appointed two firms for that, with the potential of a third coming online. That provides a solution for the farming community by moving excess on-site slurry or manure and turning it into a resource that we can use to generate energy and potentially export. A number of sites are in place to do that, including one that is near us, in Dundonald. I recently visited that site. I do not know whether the Committee has visited it, but, if not, I encourage it to do so, because it is a very good example of how we can move the management of livestock slurry to a better place.

Mr Muir: I am conscious of those issues; I have received questions for written answer on them. I am also aware of the vesting process and the ongoing legal challenge. If the Member is referring to specific examples, I encourage him to write to me so that I can give him a more definitive reply. We have to respect the rules on the definition of an active farmer.

Mr Bradley: With the entitlement deadline looming, will the Minister convene an urgent information meeting for all impacted farmers to advise them on the matter? Has he visited any affected farms recently?

Mr Muir: The Department for Infrastructure is the primary lead on that matter. I am aware of the concerns, but I am also conscious of the ongoing legal issue. As a Department, we will discharge our responsibilities in line with our legal duties.

Mr Muir: We are taking a significant number of actions, and there are actions that have to be taken across government and society. There are many sectors that sit outside my Department's remit that are relevant when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those that relate to energy and transport. Those actions are reflected in the climate action plan (CAP), which is with the Executive. I will be able to go out to consultation on that climate action plan once I get agreement on it from the Executive. I will engage in a 16-week consultation on the climate action plan, which runs from 2023 to 2027. Included in the climate action plan are actions on agriculture, waste, land use, land use change and forestry cover. Responsibility for those areas sits with my Department.

Beyond that, on the subject of implementation of climate change legislation, my green growth strategy is also sitting with the Executive for agreement. That is concerned with giving opportunities for good green jobs and restoring our environment. It is important that we are able to move on with that so that we can grasp those opportunities for Northern Ireland. Also, we will soon go out to consultation on the Northern Ireland climate adaptation plan, and we are interested in views on that.

Lastly, the sustainable agriculture programmes continue to be rolled out by my Department in the context of climate change being the biggest risk to farming. It is important that we give farmers the tools to respond to that and build resilience. There is so much that we can and should do on climate change.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What engagement have you and your Department had with the UK and Irish Governments on climate change?

Mr Muir: I have engaged heavily with my counterparts in the UK Government and in the South. I raised the issue with the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council in Edinburgh late last year. I have engaged with my colleagues in DEFRA and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I also recently met Darragh O'Brien, Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy. There is significant liaison across the UK and Ireland.

There are significant challenges ahead on climate change. The Met Office projections for the years and decades ahead are dire; they fill me with lots of worry. Now is not the time to turn our backs on climate action and net zero. I take my advice from respected scientific, evidence-based organisations such as the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), not from X or vested political interests. The CCC report outlines the real benefits of energy decarbonisation in energy security and lower bills. It is important that we continue that journey so that we avoid continuing to push people into fuel poverty and so that our economy looks outwards — towards our European partners — for collaboration on those issues. Now is the time for action, not to reduce our ambition for this place or on climate change more broadly.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Colm. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency continues to receive reports of odour relating to Granville Industrial Estate, particularly Granville Ecopark, which is an anaerobic digestion plant. I am aware of the concerns of local residents, and my inspectors in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency continue to work with the company and other permitted sites in the estate to improve the control of potentially odorous emissions. My inspectors will continue to regulate the permitted installations in the Granville Industrial Estate to ensure that permit conditions are complied with and will take appropriate enforcement action in line with DAERA's enforcement policy where necessary. Granville Ecopark is working towards complying with an enforcement notice relating to odours that NIEA issued to the company on 7 March 2024.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

Minister, can you give an update on progress on the issue in Killeeshil from the former Northway site, now known as Sawgrass Substrates?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the concerns about that. I do not have anything on that to hand, but I will write to you, and, if necessary, we can meet to go over it. I am conscious of the concerns of your constituents — you articulate them eloquently — and I am happy to engage with you on that.

Mr Muir: Last Thursday, I launched a consultation on the nutrients action programme for Northern Ireland. It is important to set out why I have done so. It is a legal requirement. We should also be aware of the priorities of the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) for the forthcoming year. The chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, Dame Glenys Stacey, recently outlined those priorities:

Nutrients are a key priority for the Office for Environmental Protection, and they are a priority for me because that is a direct action from the Lough Neagh plan. A number of actions, including the consultation on the nutrients action programme and restricting the use of fertiliser with phosphorus, arise directly from that action plan.

This is about putting farming and our environment on a sustainable footing. A previous scientific study indicated that poor water quality was attributable as follows: about 62% to agriculture, 24% to waste water and 12% to septic tanks. The NAP is about the 62%, but I do not ignore the contribution that waste water makes. Northern Ireland Water needs to step up. I will be fair but unrelenting in tackling all polluters.

The consultation document states that Northern Ireland agriculture is operating a significant phosphorus surplus. We need to tackle that. There are 28 proposals in the nutrients action programme consultation, which are firmly based on science and evidence. We would do well to look at the consultation and consider the science and evidence behind it. Many of the proposals have been trailed.

I understand the importance of education and incentivisation, which are key pillars of the Lough Neagh plan, but we also need stronger regulation and more enforcement if we are to seriously address the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding at Lough Neagh.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister. What will be the impact if the policy proposals outlined in the consultation are not proceeded with?

Mr Muir: Let me be clear: business as usual in Northern Ireland is not an option. If we do not proceed with the proposals set out in the nutrients action programme, we will consign Lough Neagh and many other water bodies across Northern Ireland to further deterioration and, ultimately, to ecological collapse. The longer we delay taking more stringent measures, the more that they will be required and the more costly the clean-up will be not just for Lough Neagh but for many water bodies across Northern Ireland.

I have thought over it, and I say this: the nutrients action programme is key. The reputation of our agri-food industry is at stake. In Northern Ireland, we are at a crossroads. The nutrients action programme has practical proposals to turn things around. People often look at this place and not, let us be honest, with a sense of pride. They look to Stormont with frustration at the inability to take difficult decisions and turn things around. The nutrients action programme is about difficult decisions; I acknowledge that. In March last year, I was at Lough Neagh with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and I set out the fact that difficult interventions would be needed. I will walk with the farming community every step of the way as we turn the situation around, but we need to grasp the proposals and proceed. If we do not, we face a dire future for Northern Ireland. I do not want the scenes that have unfolded for the past two years and again this year to be repeated for the rest of my lifetime. We have to change course.

Mr Muir: The responsibility for that sits with the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Finance. From recollection — I need to check Hansard — I said that I would formally raise the matter with them. I have not done so yet, but I will take that up this week.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, how much is being lost to the agricultural community in single farm payments by those losing land along the A5?

Mr Muir: I do not have that information to hand. If I can gather it, I will write to the Member.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan, for raising a key issue for me. I am glad that you have raised it. TB is a vital issue for the farming community in Northern Ireland and for my Department. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged to agree a blueprint for the future on the issue. Significant work has been undertaken in my Department, led by the Chief Veterinary Officer, and I am grateful for that.

Tackling TB requires a holistic approach that has to be based on the three pillars that were set out in the Chief Veterinary Officer's report last year: people, cattle and wildlife. I am committed to doing that. It will take a while to change course. It is a significant issue that I inherited as Minister, and I have been open and honest about its challenges, but we owe it to the farming community to drive down the level of infections in herds. The blueprint sets out a way forward for us to do that, and we will consult on measures that come from it, particularly in relation to wildlife, over the time ahead. A lot needs to be done, and I thank stakeholders for sticking with us so that we can work together on it.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr McAleer for a quick supplementary.

Mr McAleer: Minister, you will appreciate that TB has a serious economic impact on farms and a serious emotional impact on farmers. Somewhere in the region of 20,000 cattle each year have to be culled as a result of that desperate disease. From looking at the TB plan, we are talking about it being eight or more years before we start to tackle the wildlife intervention piece. Do you understand why you might stand accused of kicking the can down the road?

Mr Speaker: A brief answer, Minister.

Mr Muir: I am not kicking any can down the road. I am abiding by process and taking into account the outcome of the previous judicial review. It is very important that we do that. One thing that I will do as Minister is be honest with people about things. I will not lead people up the garden path and make them feel as if something is going to happen when I know in my heart that it is not. We have to follow the procedure, science and evidence. We have to make sure that we do not pick and mix the science and evidence. We have to be honest about the situation as it presents to us and consult on that. We will do that at pace, but we will do it right. Many measures are set out in the blueprint, and I know that it will be a stretch for many people in my Department and the farming community, but we owe it to them to work on those issues.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr T Buchanan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for missing my question slot by a few seconds. I was not in my place, so I apologise for that.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that. I understand that the doors were locked because of the event that was being held, which might have delayed a few Members. I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Crawford: 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. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Colin, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Crawford: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I propose this important motion on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. It is a crucial and compassionate motion, which advocates for those who cannot speak for themselves: our loyal companions. The motion is not merely about animal welfare. It is about who we are as a society and how we treat the most vulnerable amongst us.

Our call to action begins with the articulation of our unwavering belief in the highest standard of welfare for dogs in Northern Ireland. That belief is not aspirational; it is achievable. It is our duty to ensure that every dog, regardless of circumstance, is treated with dignity and care. These animals are not merely property; they are sentient beings that rely on humans for their care and protection, yet, too often, they are failed by weak enforcement, inconsistent policies and, tragically, unnecessary euthanasia.

I take this opportunity to commend the tremendous work of organisations such as the Dogs Trust, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery today, and countless other rehoming charities across the Province. These groups operate with dedication, embodying compassion and commitment, and often fill gaps that are left by statutory authorities. There is no doubt that, over the past few years, those charities and organisations have been working at over full capacity. They work tirelessly, often with limited resources, to ensure that abandoned and stray dogs are given a second chance at life.

However, as we commend, so too must we express our concern. There is an undeniable gap in support and oversight from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that undermines the enforcement of crucial animal welfare legislation by local councils. That gap places an undue burden on councils and their officers, which often results in inconsistent standards of enforcement across different regions. The current system is fragmented, under-resourced and inconsistently applied. Councils are tasked with enforcing the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, yet many lack the expertise, funding or political will to do so effectively. DAERA must step up and provide clear guidance, adequate resources and proper scrutiny to ensure compliance.

Currently, dog pounds have various options available to them if a dog is not reclaimed after a five-day period in their care. They can sell the animal to the public, rehome it either themselves or in conjunction with a rehoming organisation or, in extenuating circumstances, keep the dog until the owner is identified or until it can be reunited with its owner. However, another extremely alarming option is the current policy that allows for the euthanising of healthy dogs after a mere five days if not reclaimed. That is both worrying and unacceptable. That is not enough time for owners to be located, for rescuers to intervene or for the animals to be given a second chance. What makes it even worse is that some stray animals that come into a pound need more than five days to recover before being rehomed. Each life is precious, and to end one prematurely is an abdication of our moral responsibility. That is not just inefficient; it is inhumane. In 2025, with advances in microchipping, social media and rescue networks, there is no excuse for such a callous approach. Other regions have extended holding periods and prioritise rehoming. Why are we lagging behind?

Chance of a Lifetime, a scheme run by the Dogs Trust, transports dogs in Northern Ireland pounds that would usually be euthanised to Dogs Trust rehoming centres in Great Britain to enable them to be rehomed there. Northern Ireland is typically overpopulated with dogs and has too many strays to handle alone. That scheme gives healthy dogs a second chance at life.

In Northern Ireland, there is currently no specific licensing or regulation of pounds or kenneling facilities, and they are not required to be inspected by local councils or external agencies. How do we know whether the five freedoms are being met? We want dog pounds and kennel facilities to deliver the highest standards of welfare for animals in their, albeit temporary, care and to endeavour to meet their full range of needs, including freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from fear and distress, freedom from physical discomfort, freedom from pain and freedom to express natural behaviour by providing them with sufficient space.

We are all aware that the COVID-19 pandemic brought about a puppy boom, yet there are next to no regulations on breeding, and there are inconsistencies in how breeding licences are issued and how councils inspect breeding establishments. Issuing breeding licences should be faced with complete scrutiny in order to ensure that we do not continue to add pressure on to rehoming organisations. There are also questions around how some of those breeding establishments treat their animals. The lack of unannounced inspections leaves many concerning questions.

Furthermore, when breeders are unable to sell puppies, they are often abandoned and left for animal charities to rehome, adding to the burden that is already placed on them. Therefore, we echo the Dogs Trust's call for a comprehensive legislation review that mandates all animal welfare establishments, including dog pounds, to be licensed and subject to regular, unannounced inspections. That is not an invasive measure but a necessary step towards ensuring transparency, accountability and, above all, the well-being of the animals in those facilities.

We call on the AERA Minister to review current council dog pound and kennelling policies. Such a review should prioritise humane practices, focusing particularly on the distressing practice of euthanising healthy dogs. We want the Minister to bring forward a "no euthanasia" policy for healthy and rehomable dogs across all facilities. That approach should be standardised across all councils, which would offer a baseline standard of operation that will be essential in the delivery of the highest standards of animal welfare and will allow for consistency in delivering for animals.

It is also critical to acknowledge that the licensing and inspection process that we are advocating for is about fostering a culture of concern and accountability. Regular and unannounced inspections will serve to reassure the public and reaffirm our commitment to animal welfare.

Let us set a precedent today for Northern Ireland and beyond that we are determined to protect those in our care and to ensure that they live in environments that are safe, healthy and nurturing. Let that be our legacy.

Mr Blair: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Blair: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to the Ulster Unionist Party Members to my right for bringing this crucial issue to the Chamber today. The motion rightly highlights the invaluable contributions of organisations such as Dogs Trust and numerous rehoming charities that play a central role in safeguarding the welfare of animals in Northern Ireland. The Alliance amendment does not seek to overlook the dedication and unwavering passion of those organisations and their many volunteers. Those individuals invest their time and energy wisely and tirelessly in order to find loving homes for animals, to rehabilitate those that have suffered and to advocate for improved policies. Their commitment is nothing short of extraordinary. Through their hard work, many animals that would otherwise face uncertain futures are given a second chance to be loved and cared for.

Our amendment aims to recognise the ongoing efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to address the objectives that are outlined in the motion. Specifically, the amendment highlights the Minister's commitment, which is already in place, to exploring the need for inspecting and licensing rescue and rehoming organisations and bringing forward relevant legislation thereafter.

At this stage in the mandate, it is evident that the Minister is devoted to fulfilling his undertaking to prioritise the enhancement of animal welfare. For instance, he has pledged to introduce Lucy's law or something close to it in Northern Ireland, effectively banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens and prohibiting the use of shock collars as training devices. Members will have received much correspondence on that issue, and I, like others, have met people who are keen to see those matters develop and evolve.

Moreover, I eagerly anticipate more information regarding the Minister's forthcoming animal welfare pathway. As part of that pathway, he recently announced a new expert advisory group on dog breeding standards that will implement actions to ensure that dog breeding practices in Northern Ireland align with best practice and are enforced through strong legislation. The advisory group will also review recommendations concerning canine fertility clinics, a pressing issue that requires urgent attention in Northern Ireland. By collectively championing the strategic initiatives proposed by the Minister, we can drive significant change that will enhance the welfare of animals throughout the region.

While we celebrate the progress that we have made, we must also recognise that considerable work still lies ahead, especially in our councils. It is essential that animal welfare becomes a top priority across all levels of government in Northern Ireland. However, I stress — it must be made clear — that the legislation is clear: responsibility for non-farmed animals ultimately rests with district councils. The Department acknowledges that it has no legal authority to intervene and remains focused on farmed animals. That is where we are. Additionally, the Department regularly engages with councils to ensure, as far as possible, a joined-up approach.

Our collective aim should be to collaborate, with the Department's support, on developing a standardised approach across all councils. That will not only foster consistency in our animal welfare policies but, hopefully, prevent the unnecessary euthanasia of animals. Although the percentage of stray dogs being euthanised has remained below 5% for several years, we must do everything that we can to ensure that such outcomes do not occur at all. That low figure of 5% is another example of the excellent work done by animal rescue charities and dedicated animal welfare volunteers.

The all-party group on animal welfare, which I chair, continues its vital work to strengthen collaboration among the Department, councils, stakeholders and the public, thereby improving our unified approach to animal welfare. That group remains crucial in raising awareness not just in the Assembly but outside it of animal welfare issues, including those under discussion today, and in championing legislative change that safeguards our beloved companion animals.

Alliance supports the essence of the motion but believes that our amendment strengthens it by acknowledging the Minister's commitments, which he has already expressed, regarding the regulation of rescue and rehoming organisations. It also urges the Minister to uphold his prior pledges to improve animal welfare across Northern Ireland by bringing forward his animal welfare pathway. It is important that we use the current and developing frameworks, some of which were recently announced by the Minister, to do that. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with resource efficiency as well as with working collaboratively for best outcomes. It is essential that, in the 21st century, our councils, inspired by the work of dedicated charities and volunteers, are better equipped to uphold the welfare of our animals. This represents a long-term commitment to creating a more compassionate society, and I strongly urge Members to support our amendment.

Mr McHugh: I support the motion and affirm my commitment to the highest standards of animal welfare across the North. The way that we treat animals reflects our values as a society. I commend the vital work of Dogs Trust and other rehoming organisations and charities. Their dedication, often in the face of limited resources, is inspiring. They step in when public systems struggle, and they deserve our deepest gratitude.

The Assembly must ensure that our current animal welfare system is working in councils. We must support councils to achieve that. The policy of euthanising healthy animals after a short period is unacceptable. It reflects not a lack of compassion from front-line staff but a failure of the system in which they work and the support that they need. That is why I welcome the call for a review of council dog pound and kennelling policies. We must have a standardised approach across all councils that prioritises animal welfare, ensures regular unannounced inspections and enforces the licensing of all establishments. However, we cannot ask councils to do more with less.

I am disappointed that funding from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to support councils in fulfilling their statutory animal welfare duties has been cut. It appears that it is the responsibility of councils to deal with non-farmed animals. That decision undermines the very goal that we are trying to achieve today. If we are to expect councils to carry out thorough enforcement, compassionate care and proper oversight, we must give them the resources to do so.

The motion is not just about policies; it is about principle and compassion. Let us give councils the tools that they need, support the organisations that do essential work and ensure that no healthy dog is excluded due to systemic failures.

Mr T Buchanan: I support the motion. A dog is known as a man's best friend, and, therefore, the welfare of such lies close to the heart of many. Dogs are not just pets; for many, they are members of the family. Therefore, there is a collective responsibility on all of us in the House to ensure that they are treated properly and protected from those who would neglect them or cause them harm.

I commend the incredible work of the Dogs Trust and the many other rehoming organisations that work tirelessly to rescue, rehabilitate and rehome dogs in need. On many occasions, those organisations do so under financial constraints. Their dedication and compassion are truly inspiring, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Despite the best efforts of those organisations, DAERA's lack of support and oversight in relation to councils' enforcement of animal welfare legislation is of grave concern. Indeed, it is alarming to note that, while laws are in place to protect the welfare of dogs in Northern Ireland, the implementation and enforcement of those laws are often inconsistent and inadequate. I note that the amendment from the Alliance Party completely excludes councils from their role in enforcement. While the proposer of the amendment said that the amendment strengthened the motion, I take a different view: the amendment weakens the motion, because it leaves out councils completely.

The euthanisation of healthy dogs after just five days, if they are not reclaimed or rehomed, is not only heart-wrenching but, surely, raises questions about our values as a society. Can we really justify taking the life of a healthy dog simply because it has not been reclaimed within a certain time frame? That policy is nothing short of appalling, to say the least. The Dogs Trust has been a vocal advocate of change to legislation to ensure that all animal welfare establishments, including dog pounds, are licensed and subject to regular unannounced inspections. Only then can we be confident that all dogs in such establishments are being held in safe and humane conditions and that their welfare is being protected.

When it comes to dog pounds and kennelling policies, a standardised approach across all council areas must be a priority for the Minister and his Department. I think that the Minister will agree that the current system is fragmented and that it is unacceptable that dogs in different parts of Northern Ireland are subjected to different standards of care. It is, therefore, the Minister's responsibility to urgently address the issue by reviewing councils' dog pound and kennelling policies, including the euthanising of healthy dogs, and bringing forward a standardised approach that prioritises the welfare of those animals.

Minister, I look forward to action rather than words, when we can be assured that we have created a future where all dogs in Northern Ireland are valued, protected and loved. Let us, in the House, set a standard for others around the globe to follow.

Mr McGlone: I also support the motion and thank the Members for tabling it. As an SDLP MLA for Mid Ulster, I am proud to support the motion and to stand up for the highest standards of animal welfare in Northern Ireland.

With regard to the amendment, I look forward to the Minister placing some substance on the words:

I am not sure about the words "work to actively examine the case". I also hope to get a time frame for the date for the relevant legislation, please, Minister.

I recognise the commitment of my colleagues on Mid Ulster District Council. They have consistently championed animal welfare and led the way in calling for better protection — especially my colleague Councillor Malachy Quinn — not least through their efforts to establish an all-island animal cruelty register. That is exactly the kind of practical cross-border cooperation that we need, and I agree that it must be on both sides of the border to make it happen. However, those who abuse animals should not be able to escape accountability by simply moving across the border, as is presently the case.

I also commend the Dogs Trust, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) and the many charities and volunteers who provide a lifeline for animals every day. Their work is motivated by compassion, not profit, and often fills the gaps left by government policy. Those gaps are wide. We should all be alarmed that healthy dogs can be euthanised after just five days in council-run pounds. For many of us who were brought up with dogs and in farmlands, they are our friends and family friends. To see or hear that that has happened within five days is heart-wrenching.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is totally immoral to euthanise dogs that are healthy and rehomable within five days and that we should move forward in seeing a no-euthanasia agenda? Does he also agree that we should thank animal charities and communities for the impeccable work that they do?

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

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat.

I have paid tribute to them. Yes, I agree, because those dogs have been part of our families and to think that someone else just so casually gets rid of them after five days is heart-wrenching. The routine euthanasia of healthy dogs is outdated, inhumane and entirely unacceptable. It should only be considered when an animal has untreatable ill health or presents a serious and unmanageable behavioural risk; otherwise, we are failing in our duty of care.

Councils are entrusted with enforcing animal welfare legislation, but, too often, there is a lack of consistency, rigour and transparency in how that duty is carried out. While DAERA must provide stronger leadership and oversight, councils have a responsibility to ensure that enforcement is not reduced to a tick-box exercise, and they require the resources to fulfil that. The result is inconsistency, confusion and cruelty. A dog's fate should not depend on its postcode.

There is variation between councils in the North on how animal welfare policies are implemented, particularly in the area of dog pound contracts and practices. Each council is responsible for its own dog warden services and pound contracts, often outsourcing to different private or charitable providers. As a result, policies on holding periods, rehoming practices and euthanasia timetables can differ significantly.

On the rehoming and rescue partnerships, some councils have established strong relationships with rescue organisations and make consistent efforts to rehome unclaimed dogs, while others have less proactive engagement, leading to higher rates of euthanasia. Councils vary also in how publicly they report on seizure rates, euthanasia figures and the conditions of their contracted facilities. The lack of standardised reporting makes comparison difficult and reduces accountability. At present, dog pounds and kennels are not uniformly licensed or regularly inspected by DAERA, and each council has its own approach to oversight, if any. Mandatory licensing and unannounced inspections are urgently needed.

With regard to enforcement against animal welfare offences, while councils enforce the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 for companion animals, the resources, training and priorities that are allocated to that enforcement differ, leading to inconsistency in how cases are investigated and prosecuted. Where the wider dog control framework is concerned, particularly the licensing system and the enforcement of microchipping requirements, stronger regulation would help to reduce the number of stray dogs and relieve pressure on council pounds and rescue shelters. That inconsistency is at the heart of calls by organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the USPCA and many others for a standardised regional approach that has common policies, mechanisms and transparent accountability.
Therefore, across all councils: our shared ask is: a no-euthanasia policy for healthy dogs that are able to be rehomed; mandatory licensing and unannounced inspections for all pounds and kennels; councils to publish regular data on euthanasia rates, rehoming efforts and adoption efforts; a comprehensive review of dog control and welfare policies, ensuring that they reflect best practice and current standards; and a renewed commitment to an animal cruelty register that is developed in partnership with colleagues in the rest of the island.

Again, I am proud that our SDLP team in Mid Ulster has been to the fore in pressing for change, but councils cannot fix this alone. It requires leadership from the top from DAERA and the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sin a bhfuil agat.

Mr McGlone: The way that we treat animals reflects the kind of society that we want.

Ms Murphy: I support the motion and thank the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party who tabled it. I concur with most, if not all, of the comments that have been made. With that in mind, we should ensure that animal welfare is important and is protected as much as the welfare of anyone. I echo the sentiments of the Dogs Trust and other rehoming organisations, such as Bright Eyes Animal Sanctuary in my constituency, which does fantastic work to rehome animals and provide training and education on animal welfare for the community. It operates a strict no-kill policy and relies entirely on donations from the public to carry out its fantastic work.

We are lucky to have some of the most robust animal welfare legislation on these islands, and that is a testament to the importance of animal welfare and, indeed, animals to our communities. Legislation is only as good as its implementation, so I fully support the call for a comprehensive review of councils' animal welfare policies and agree that we should have a standardised approach across all those areas. We need to support councils in ensuring that they have an agreed approach when they implement those policies. Of course, as has been mentioned, that requires funding. The 90% drop in the number of stray dogs that councils put down between 2010 and 2020 shows what can be accomplished when councils have the resources to effectively enforce good animal welfare procedures. Therefore, I support the calls in the motion for a review and for uniform standards for councils. We would like to see an end to the five-day euthanasia policy, and we urge all stakeholders, including the Department, to work together to ensure that our companions are treated with care and dignity.

Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak on this matter; however, if our cockapoo, Max, sees this and realises that I did not speak, I suspect that he would never forgive me. I speak as a very recent dog owner. I have always been very passionate about the protection of animals, but, with owning a dog in particular, you see that there is a real humanity to them. In the evenings, when watching a movie, Max will get up from one sofa, go across to the other sofa and curl up in a ball. He then sighs, as we would, in the corner. I have to say that he has been a real blessing to our family.

On this particular topic, I was surprised when I learnt that there was not mandatory licensing and that there were not unannounced inspections for pounds and kennels. To pick up on the point that my right honourable colleague across the way from Mid Ulster mentioned, an anti-cruelty register would be incredibly useful for Northern Ireland, as would a more standardised approach across all these areas, for that matter. I agree that the amendment weakens the motion. I give credit to my colleagues across the way — the Ulster Unionist Party — for proposing the motion. It is clear and concise and lays out in very cogent terms what should be happening. We will certainly be supporting the motion.

In closing, I thank the Dogs Trust for all the work that it does in Northern Ireland in protecting vulnerable animals and looking after them. All Members are aware of that, but it is worth mentioning this afternoon. Thank you to the Dogs Trust.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion, and I appreciate the Ulster Unionist Party's tabling it. The current approach to dog welfare in some council areas is simply not good enough. The system is inconsistent and under strain and, in some cases, results in healthy dogs being put down after just five days. That raises serious concerns about not just policy but whether we are meeting even the most basic standards of animal welfare. Across Northern Ireland, councils are managing animal welfare with limited facilities, outdated infrastructure and unclear direction. In many areas, the service sits within wider environmental functions and does not receive the priority or support that it needs. That has real consequences not just for animals but for public confidence in how the law is being enforced.

Constituents contact me regularly with concerns about animals that they believe are being neglected or mistreated, and, too often, they feel that those concerns go nowhere. They report issues, they expect action and they hear nothing back. There is a real sense of helplessness, and I share that frustration. In too many cases, even where there is clear evidence of suffering, the response is slow or, worse, does not happen. Often, the animal welfare officer will say that the legislation is not strong enough for them to take appropriate action.

When the public services do not step in, it is often the community organisations that fill the gap. In my constituency, Causeway Coast Dog Rescue does the kind of work that people expect the councils to do, responding to welfare concerns, taking in vulnerable dogs and helping to rehome them. However, it is a voluntary group, with no statutory powers and even fewer resources. That is not sustainable and, frankly, not fair. There is no consistent policy on rehoming, no mandatory licensing of pounds, no requirement for unannounced inspections and no public reporting of euthanasia rates or rehoming outcomes. Furthermore, there is no meaningful oversight from the Department. That is a systemic failure, because it allows poor practice to continue unchecked.

This is not a new issue. I have raised concerns about the system repeatedly over the years, but the Department has shown little urgency in addressing it. At times, it feels as though the status quo is being tolerated, despite the clear evidence that it is not working. That approach fails animals and the public, who expect better. The idea that a healthy dog can be euthanised after only five days simply because no one came to claim it is hard to justify. Euthanasia should never be routine. It should be a last resort, only used when there are serious health or behavioural risks. That is not what is happening in parts of this system.

The motion sets out practical, reasonable proposals: a consistent approach across all councils, mandatory licensing and inspections, proper data collection and transparency, and a review of policies that permit the destruction of healthy animals. Those are not difficult tasks; they are the basic foundation of an appropriate and responsible animal welfare system.

I will not support the amendment, because it appears to shield the Minister from criticism. That should not be our priority. We need to be honest and, at Question Time, the Minister said that he was an honest Minister. I appreciate the work that is being done and the proposals that he is making to try to progress animal welfare, but this issue, which is specific to councils, is being overlooked again. The amendment takes councils out of it, as other Members have said. While we debate, healthy animals are being put down because the structures to protect them do not exist. We cannot delay action on this any longer. The issue does not stand alone. We have seen the same lack of enforcement and oversight in cases of illegal breeding, with reports of dogs being shot when they are no longer profitable. That is cruelty, and it happens in the absence of proper regulation. If we want to close the door on that kind of abuse, we need to start by fixing what is happening in our public systems.

Animal welfare should not depend on where you live or which council you fall under. The current system is too fragmented, too under-resourced and too far removed from the standards that people rightly expect. We should ensure that no healthy dog is destroyed simply because the system ran out of time, space or options. We need accountability and policy that is finely aligned with public expectation as well as our standards in animal welfare.

I support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Claire. Our next speaker is Mr Andrew Muir, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes to respond to the debate.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to put on record that I am fully supportive of any actions that we can take to advance the welfare of animals. Indeed, when I took up the post, I made it clear from day 1 that animal welfare was one of my priorities. I was therefore pleased that one of my first engagements as Minister was a visit to the rescue and rehoming centre run by the USPCA in Newry.

I agree with the sentiment outlined at the start of the motion. I passionately believe that all dogs in Northern Ireland should be subject to the highest standards of welfare, and I have no hesitation in commending the work of all the organisations involved in rescuing, rehoming and rehabilitating dogs so that they can find new, trusting and forever homes. I am continually impressed by the fantastic work undertaken by the sector, which is why I was delighted to meet, late last year, the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group (NICAWG) and seek its views on my forthcoming animal welfare pathway. It is crucial that the sector and government work together to advance the changes necessary to deliver the best animal welfare standards. I am pleased to learn that the Dogs Trust was recently appointed chair of the group, and I am looking forward to visiting its rehoming centre in Ballymena very soon.

In addressing the motion, I feel that it would be beneficial for Members if I set out the responsibilities of my Department when it comes to dog control and animal welfare. My Department is responsible for enforcing all farmed animal welfare legislation and legislation relating to the transport and slaughter of animals. My Department is responsible for dog control and animal welfare policy and legislation. However, my Department is not responsible for the enforcement of legislation, and it is clearly and legally not the statutory agency. That power and responsibility lie fully with district councils. Therefore, it is not appropriate for my Department to direct councils on how to deploy dog wardens or animal welfare officers, nor does my Department instruct councils in how they discharge their legal duties to deal with stray dogs or investigate the abuse of companion animals.

When the Dogs Order was passed in 1983, and then, when the Welfare of Animals Act made its way through the House in 2011, it was recognised that councils were best placed to deliver dog control and animal welfare enforcement services. That is because councils have the ability to understand local circumstances and to deliver services for citizens that are appropriate to their localities.

Ms Sugden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Ms Sugden: Minister, will you confirm that yours is the sponsoring Department for the legislation that governs council enforcement, and so, if that enforcement is not working, you have the opportunity, potentially, to review or change the legislation?

Mr Muir: What we are talking about is primary legislation, and, yes, of course you can amend primary legislation. With regard to the animal welfare pathway that we are outlining for the rest of the mandate, however, I lost two years of the mandate because one party downed tools and walked out because the going got tough. I am trying to catch up on that time, and I have to be clear about what I can achieve in the mandate. I would like to do lots more, including primary legislation, but I am not able to do that within the shortened mandate. We have outlined what we plan to do with the animal pathway, and I will talk a bit more about that.

If these institutions stay up, there will be, obviously, an opportunity to introduce primary legislation on this issue in the next mandate. We can have a discussion on that, but we are focused on the actions that we can take now. I have real and serious concerns. I recognise the issues raised in the motion, but issues are regularly raised with me about breeding establishments and the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. That is where the concerns coming to me are, and that is what we are seeking to respond to.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the, often unheralded, work of council dog wardens and animal welfare officers. Neither has an easy task.

Dog wardens, for example, keep our streets, parks and livestock safe by dealing with out-of-control or stray dogs. Regrettably, dog wardens are at the forefront of dealing with a minority of irresponsible owners who do not care for their dogs or the lives of others and have no regard for the dog control laws.

When the Dogs Order was debated in Westminster in the early 1980s, there was a well-documented problem with stray dogs in Northern Ireland. Indeed, that is confirmed in an edition of 'Scene Around Six' from 11 March 1982 — a programme that some people may be aware of — that can be seen in BBC Archive footage. We do not have similar scenes today because of the effectiveness of councils' dog warden services.

How our councils have evolved their service delivery to reflect the changing times is notable. When a stray dog is collected by the dog warden, euthanasia is not the immediate response. Councils and their dog wardens have worked tirelessly to build contacts with communities, and, crucially, with rescue and rehoming centres. Indeed, each council has strong relationships with rescue and rehoming centres. In fact, some council pounds are operated by rescue organisations.

Each of the 11 councils has advised my Department that the preferred course of action is to find a new home for unclaimed stray dogs. In the 2023-24 reporting period, the 11 councils impounded almost 3,000 stray dogs. Of those dogs, 40% were returned to the owner or reclaimed; 43% were passed to animal shelters; 13% were rehomed directly, sold or moved on by the council pounds; and only 4% were, sadly, euthanised. It is regrettable that any dog has to be euthanised, but councils have informed my Department that there are some situations in which that is, sadly, the only course of action. Councils say that they will only euthanise a dog when it is clear that the dog cannot be rehomed because it has an illness or injuries from which it is not likely to recover, is aggressive or has been involved in attacks.

The bottom line is that the power to put a stray dog down after five days is a discretionary one that each council uses sparingly. I disagree with the motion, which suggests that the best course of action is for me, as Minister, to intervene and remove the decision-making powers from councils. Each council has the scope to shape and deploy an enforcement strategy that meets local needs, and that is only right. I am concerned that the thrust of the motion would see me take that ability away from democratically elected councils — on which nearly every party in the Chamber has representatives — and have central government impose a one-size-fits-all policy. I disagree with that. Crucially, officials from my Department have not been advised by council officers that any immediate reform of the legislation is needed to deal with stray dogs. If Members have concerns about service delivery or performance by their local councils, I urge them to elevate them through the appropriate channels, including via the relevant councils and councillors.

My Department supports councils by meeting regularly with council officers to provide guidance and share understanding of how dog control and animal welfare legislation should operate. Furthermore, there are regular meetings with council representatives on the Northern Ireland Dog Advisory Group. My officials have liaised extensively with the group on dog control and ownership matters, and I have previously attended dog warden conferences. My Department also hosts regular multi-agency meetings with the councils and the police to share experiences and coordinate responses where necessary. Our councils remain an integral part of the Paws for Thought group, which continues to work collaboratively to disrupt the trafficking of low-welfare pups to Great Britain. I hope that we can deepen that cooperation through my desire to launch a campaign to promote responsible dog ownership.

The Dogs Trust is absolutely correct to call for animal welfare establishments to be inspected and licensed. I am pleased to say that I have talked about that requirement with representatives from the Dogs Trust, and, as highlighted, with the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group late last year. That is why a key component of my animal welfare pathway, which will be launched very soon, will involve bringing legislation to the House to mandate the inspection and licensing of rescue and rehoming organisations. The legislation has the potential to raise standards across the sector and any proposals will be subject to public consultation in due course.

At this stage, I am not minded to require dog pounds to be licensed. Based on the information provided by councils, dog pounds in Northern Ireland fall into three categories: those that are operated by councils; those that are operated on behalf of councils by rehoming-type organisations; and those that are operated on behalf of councils by commercial boarding kennels. The Dogs Order states that, when a council chooses to use a commercial boarding kennel as a pound, the boarding kennel must have a valid licence to act as a boarding kennel. The licence is provided by my Department and is conferred on the business only after it successfully completes an inspection. If a council continues to use a rehoming centre, I anticipate that the forthcoming proposal under my animal welfare pathway will require the rehoming organisation to have a licence. Therefore, the only potential gap is pounds that are operated by councils themselves. Given that councils are statutorily responsible for the licensing and enforcement of companion animal welfare, they would, in essence, be marking their own homework. However, if we cannot trust the enforcer of animal welfare legislation, who can we trust?

I welcome the passion of Members in seeking sensible solutions to advance animal welfare legislation here. Rescue and rehoming charities provide a fantastic service for Northern Ireland and support the endeavours of the council dog warden service. I want Northern Ireland to be a place where dogs are valued and cherished because of the companionship and love that they bring. However, the reality is that a very small minority think that they can discard their dog because looking after it has become an imposition or the breed is no longer in fashion. We need to engage with, educate and inform current and prospective dog owners so that they make the right choices — we should give them the information that they need.

Where there are failures in ownership and breaches of the law, there should be enforcement and consequences. The law already provides for a range of offences, including failure to license and microchip a dog, right through to letting a dog stray and failing to be in control of a dog. In the past year, the 11 councils have issued nearly 24,000 warning letters; over 1,200 fixed penalty notices for failure to obtain a dog licence and over 500 fixed penalty notices for straying offences were issued; and a further 142 prosecutions were initiated. I strive for a society where we do not have to resort to enforcement and warning letters and where fixed penalties and prosecutions are rare.

We have a challenge to rise to, namely for responsible dog ownership to be not just an aspiration but the norm. I say this to Members: if you want progress, get behind my vision and, collectively, we can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland who have an interest in the well-being of animals and the public.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Andrew McMurray to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Andrew, you have five minutes.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I am in broad agreement with the sentiments that have been expressed about dogs and other animals and the companionship that they give. Apart from the differences between the motion and the amendment, the main difference between Mr Martin's views and mine is that, in my house, poor Max would not get very far in trying to lie on the couch. Do you know what I mean? If that is the biggest difference between us, we will be all right.

Like everyone else who has spoken, I wholeheartedly support the sentiment of the motion. I want to see all those involved do what they can to protect and advance animal welfare, whether of farm animals, wildlife or pets. It is for that reason that I commend the work of the many rehoming organisations and charities, including those that are represented here today, that look after dogs and other pets that are in need with such dedication.

I commend the Minister for the actions that he has already taken to improve animal welfare. He has pledged to introduce Lucy's law to Northern Ireland, which will greatly improve the welfare of puppies and kittens, and he is prohibiting the use of shock collars as training devices. The Minister is also bringing forward an animal welfare pathway, which will include a new expert advisory group on dog breeding standards. We look forward to seeing the details of that new pathway.

On the motion, the Minister has made it clear that he is committed to exploring the need to inspect and license rescue and rehoming organisations and to bringing forward relevant legislation thereafter. He has also explained why the licensing requirements for dog pounds are already adequate. It is clear that the Minister is playing his part, as far as he is legally able, in looking at policy and legislation. We have to recognise that enforcement of animal welfare is a matter for councils not DAERA. That is rightly the case, and the Minister has outlined clearly and compellingly the reasons why it would not be appropriate for his Department to direct councils on how to carry out their duties. That does not preclude working together to advance welfare standards in the sector. I am pleased to hear that DAERA already engages regularly with councils and the animal welfare sector to help create a standardised and joined-up approach. As my colleague John Blair pointed out, that is where we need to direct our efforts to, ultimately, improve animal welfare.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Andrew. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Robbie, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I may not use the 10 minutes. I will take the opportunity to thank each and every Member who spoke in the debate. We are definitely a nation of dog lovers. That was evident from those who spoke in this very important debate. They spoke with humanity and compassion that, sometimes, we do not show to each other. It is interesting that we can come to this point in the day and talk so eloquently about a subject that actually resonates with many of our constituents out there. I am not sure whether Members are aware of that, and it may be useful when it comes round to elections, but it is evidence that we are genuinely a nation of dog lovers. You see how news reports feed off instances and acts of animal cruelty. Those news items are often at the top of news cycles. That is why it is important for us to talk about them.

In their input to the debate, Members have mostly been singing off the same hymn sheet. I remember the Minister saying, at the start of the mandate, that animal welfare would be one of his key priorities. As anybody who has any history here will understand, if it does not say something in a Bill, in legislation or on a piece of paper, we cannot take each other's word for it. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we have a compressed mandate. However, that, in and of itself, is no excuse for not ensuring that we put the detail down.

That is the purpose of the motion. It has five points. Whilst I accept that there have been words of encouragement from the Alliance Party and words to suggest that those points would be addressed, I ask other Members to consider what has been left out of the amendment, particularly the commitment to eradicate the five-day target that some councils have. I also challenge the Minister's point that previous legislation confers powers to councils. Every party agrees — maybe I will get to it when I pick through my notes — that the disparity of approach by different councils and the postcode lottery that exists may point to our taking that role primarily, through primary legislation and the changes that need to come from that. Regardless of whether it happens in this mandate, we need a consistent approach across all councils. That will require us, as the key legislators, to do it.

I put on record my party's particular thanks to the Dogs Trust NI. Every party did that. To give a sense of the scope of its work: last year, it rehomed 1,576 dogs. That was done by one voluntary charity. I also thank the USPCA for its advocacy in this space and its insistence on the priorities that needed to be captured in the motion. The Assembly must — I think that it will — commit to the highest possible standards for the welfare of dogs in Northern Ireland. We cannot justify a system that allows healthy dogs that could be rehomed to be euthanised after just five days. Dogs that demonstrably pose no risk to public safety should be at no risk, especially in council-run facilities that ought to provide protection and not premature death.

Members will know that provision by community and voluntary agencies outstrips statutory provision. We saw that very much through the COVID pandemic. There is a case of it in my constituency of Lagan Valley. The work that the rehoming charity Almost Home does out of its own pocket is phenomenal. It does not apply the same rules that we do in statutory functions such as councils. I will not be hard on councils, except to say that they struggle to interpret the legislation that has been passed over the past number of years. I will go back to a very public debate that took place in Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, not so long ago, about a dog called Max. It was about the XL bully stuff. Now, people will have their views on that legislation, but I will say that councils struggle to apply the legislation because it is multilayered and not instructive enough. Unfortunately, because our animal and dog welfare legislation is not complete enough, councils then find themselves in the eye of the storm. The difficulty in that instance was that dog wardens, who were legitimately trying to do their best, had to work within the confines of legislation when they either could not see its full scope or did not understand how to fully address it.

To improve outcomes, we need to see the proper licensing of all dog kennels and pounds, coupled with regular unannounced inspections. We must bring in a consistent standard with clear accountability that ends the postcode lottery. Councils should be required to publish regular data on their euthanasia rates and their rehoming and adoption outcomes. We cannot fix what we cannot measure.

A full review of dog control policies is overdue. That would ensure that such policies reflected modern animal welfare science and practice, not outdated or inconsistent approaches. We must finally revisit the entire dog licensing system in Northern Ireland, because responsible ownership starts with clear legal obligations, proper licensing and microchipping being consistently enforced so that we can better prevent stray dogs ending up in already overstretched pounds. To be fair to the Minister, he outlined a number of key priorities that will require some fine-tuning, one of which was Lucy's law, and the third-party sales of animals, which we really need to get to grips with.

A change in attitudes will not happen overnight, but it will not happen at all, if we do not have a more proactive and committed approach from the Department and those in the Chamber. Warm words will not save a single dog, but policy change will. Let us be clear: this is a test of our compassion and our willingness to act. The public and the public who are animal lovers expect better. More important, Max the cockapoo, Minnie the St Bernard and all our dogs and those out there that the public own and love deserve better.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Robbie.

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

Mr Kearney: I beg to move

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

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Tá mé breá sásta an rún seo a mholadh, ar ábhar atá ríthábhachtach agus fíorshuntasach do shaoránaigh Éireannacha anseo sna Sé Chontae.

Sinn Féin urges all Assembly Members, regardless of their political perspective, to support the motion, which calls on the Irish Government to fulfil their responsibility and finally extend the right to vote in Irish presidential elections to the hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens living in the North of Ireland. It is finally time for an Irish Government to resolve that democratic deficit and to set the date for a referendum on allowing Irish citizens here to have their say in presidential elections. By speaking with one voice on the issue, our Assembly can powerfully affirm the principles of parity of esteem, mutual respect and equality in the Good Friday Agreement.

Central to the agreement of our peace settlement was the recognition of the birthright of every citizen in the North to identify as Irish, British or neither, if they so choose, and to be accepted as such. The agreement included a key provision that the Irish Government would amend article 2 of the Irish constitution, granting the right to full Irish citizenship. The duty of the Irish Government is established clearly under article 2, which underpins the birthright of everyone born on the island of Ireland

Equally, the right of those of us in the North who are Irish to identify as Irish citizens is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement.

Twelve years have passed since 2013, when the constitutional convention in Dublin voted overwhelmingly — by a margin of 78% — in support of extending the franchise to Irish citizens living in the North and abroad. That was an important recognition of the reality of hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens living in the North of Ireland and of the vast Irish diaspora that populates the globe: North America, Australia, the European Union and elsewhere. That position has been further endorsed by all the main parties in the Southern state.

Due to a lack of progress on the proposal to hold a referendum, Sinn Féin brought legislation to the Dáil in 2014 to give effect to the recommendations of the constitutional convention on presidential voting rights. In 2017, the Irish Government agreed to a referendum on amending article 12 of the Irish constitution to meet their obligation, but no progress has been made on that to date. Notably, the 2020 Programme for Government contained a pledge to extend presidential voting rights to Irish citizens in the North and beyond, yet nothing was done about that. In another backward step, the current Government have failed to prioritise the extension of the franchise in presidential elections in their current Programme for Government. That is a regressive omission and a further denial of clearly defined and recognised rights of Irish citizenship, running counter to the popular democratic will of people across the island.

Here we are in 2025, with the presidential election on the horizon, and, despite years of promises and commitments from Dublin Governments, we are no further forward. Irish citizens in the North of Ireland are still disenfranchised from participation in the democratic process to elect the Irish head of state. That is in marked contrast to the welcome progress that has been made in the provision of other rights and equality measures across the Irish state. Consider, for example, 2015, when Ireland legalised equal marriage through a national referendum, following recommendations from the same Irish constitutional convention. Extending the franchise to all Irish citizens is an appropriate and proportionate constitutional position to adopt. Its introduction will be an important reflection of the momentum for constitutional change that has been gathering all over Ireland, North and South.

Moreover, the office of uachtarán na hÉireann, the president of Ireland, is held in hugely high regard and respect throughout the world. Recent international developments have shown that the office of the Irish president can have immense political, diplomatic and moral significance in the context of international relations. In a world that has shamefully remained silent during the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the current Irish president has shown courageous leadership in his appeal to world leaders to break their silence and call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The incumbent president of Ireland has been an exemplar by using his office to make a true, meaningful difference as a strong advocate of the primacy of international law, multilateralism, peace and justice.

Irish citizens living in the North of Ireland should have the right to a say in the future role and influence of the Irish presidency. Our rights as full Irish citizens are fully guaranteed under the Good Friday Agreement and in the Irish constitution, but those rights are not being engaged. The unacceptable democratic deficit should end. The Irish Government should act now. There is no excuse for continued prevarication or delay. The right of Irish citizens in the North to vote in the next Irish presidential election must be progressed and delivered.

I sincerely hope that the Assembly will endorse this call with one voice on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem for all of us who share the Irish national identity in the North of Ireland.

Mr Brett: The House will be aware of the saying that impersonation is the greatest form of flattery. I am sure that the leader of Aontú in the Irish Republic will be impressed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP's having spent today trying to impersonate him. I am sure that Mr Tóibín is smirking and smiling as he sends both parties into a political tailspin. The leader of the SDLP has been on the radio today, putting forward the policies not of Hume or Mallon but of Vicky Pollard, in saying, "Yes, these people should have the extension of the right — no, they shouldn't — yes, but no, but yes, but no". The national chairman of Sinn Féin has been wheeled out to prove Sinn Féin's republican credentials, because it has not moved the debate on Irish unity forward one iota. Those parties have spent today arguing with themselves about who has advanced the cause of Irish unity more. Today, we heard the leader of the Opposition say that the SDLP had done more than any other party on strand two. The Member for South Antrim said that Sinn Féin did that. Nationalism cannot even agree with itself on the issue.

The House and, indeed, those watching on television should be in no doubt that today's debate is about the fact that Aontú outsmarted, outmanoeuvred and out-greened Sinn Féin, which is using the debate as an echo chamber to cover up the failings of its republican movement. The former Steward of the Manor of Northstead, former Member of Parliament for West Belfast, Mr Gerry Adams, proclaimed to the world that Irish unity would be delivered by 2016.

The current president of Sinn Féin said, in light of the most recent Assembly election, that a border poll was inevitable, and the current First Minister changes the timeline depending on what day it is. What have they achieved? We have Sinn Féin bringing a motion to the Northern Ireland Assembly, begging the Irish Government to introduce a referendum. That shows how far forward the issue of presidential voting rights has moved.

We on these Benches have huge respect for anyone who wishes to identify as Irish here in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that the Irish Government have absolutely zero interest in advancing the issue. The recently agreed Programme for Government by the parties in the Republic of Ireland makes no mention of it; they are not interested. More importantly, those who live in the Republic of Ireland have absolutely no interest in the issue either. Despite being told that the Taoiseach-in-waiting Mary Lou McDonald would herald in a change on the issue, the people in the Republic of Ireland rejected Sinn Féin in the recent Irish general election and re-elected the current Government. Polling last Sunday in the 'Sunday Independent' highlighted the issues that are of importance to those who live in the Republic of Ireland. Do you know what percentage of people in the poll were concerned about Irish presidential voting rights for those in Northern Ireland? Zero per cent. Do you know what percentage were interested in Irish unity? One per cent. The people of the Republic of Ireland, like the vast majority of those who live in Northern Ireland, are more interested in fixing the health service, delivering a world-class education system and sorting out the scandal around childcare. That is where the focus of the Assembly should ultimately be.

Be in no doubt: if the motion passes with the support of the Alliance Party, there will be no extension of voting rights tomorrow. It is simply not going to happen. The Member who spoke previously made reference to a democratic deficit. The president of the Irish Republic has no democratic legitimacy here in Northern Ireland, or in any other part of the United Kingdom. I respect the office of president. Whilst I may not have a huge amount of respect for the current office holder, I respect the office of president of the Irish Republic, just like —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I happily give way.

Mr Brooks: There has been talk of a democratic deficit. Does the Member agree that, if voting rights were extended to the Irish diaspora worldwide, which numbers tens if not hundreds of millions, the democratic deficit would fall on the people of the Irish Republic, who would be outnumbered by those living internationally?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up, unfortunately. We have indicated from the Chair before that, if a Member takes an intervention before their time is up and their time then expires, they do not get the extra minute.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. First, it is worth noting that the Belfast Agreement recognises that a person from Northern Ireland has the right to identify as British, Irish or both. That refers to national identity, but subsequent legal tests have affirmed that it also applies to citizenship. As such, a person from Northern Ireland may hold British citizenship, Irish citizenship or both. That is reflected in their ability to hold an Irish passport, a British passport or both.

Secondly, it is worth noting that the Convention on the Constitution was very explicit that it was not choosing to extend voting rights in Irish presidential elections to Northern Ireland as an entity but, rather, to all Irish citizens. By definition, that includes any person from Northern Ireland who chooses to be so regarded. However, the proposal is specifically about the citizenry as whole. There is, therefore, no need for the final three words of the motion, and there would be no change to the constitutional or sovereign status of Northern Ireland. The proposal is simply for all Irish citizens to have a vote, full stop. That may seem technical, but it is important, because no one in Northern Ireland would be forced to participate.

We should note that there is already a difference in voting rights between presidential elections and Dáil elections, in that the former are already restricted to Irish citizens whereas the latter are open to any resident of the state. That distinction would be maintained under the proposal in that the added requirement to be resident of the state to vote in presidential elections would be removed. What the motion does not cover is the potential for the move to strengthen the agreement and to advance reconciliation on the island. Reconciliation requires recognition and acknowledgement of others' identities without that necessarily weakening our own. To put it another way, reconciliation requires a generosity of spirit that is too often absent from debates such as this in the Chamber.

It would be foolish to deny that there are not complications in the implementation of the convention's proposals. Realistically, we would be looking at the 2032 elections before any change were likely to come into effect. The details of how the inherent complexities would be ironed out need not be an issue for the Chamber. The principle is clear. Indeed, it is already the case that, in 11 of 14 EU member states where the head of state is directly elected, citizens who live externally have a vote.

We would prioritise the potential for such a move to be a further step down the road to embedding peace and reconciliation; a welcome and clear recognition that the Irish identity is chosen by many citizens here and that it is acknowledged and valued without in any way diminishing the identity and, importantly, the constitutional preference of those who exercise their right not to choose that identity. Ultimately, we do not all have to choose the same national identity, but we should all wish to respect the rights of everyone in our society to maximise the benefits of all strands of the agreement. In particular, my party and I strongly encourage others to recognise the fact that respecting everyone's rights in the spirit of genuine and meaningful reconciliation makes Northern Ireland stronger and more stable. We should not miss that opportunity today.

Mr O'Toole: I speak in strong support of the motion and welcome the fact that Sinn Féin Members have tabled it. It is an extremely important subject, on which it is entirely legitimate that the Assembly gets a chance to make its voice heard. While we disagree with Sinn Féin on some things, I strongly agree with the motion, and I am glad that we are debating it today. In answer to Mr Brett's question, I do not care what the origin is of the Bill that has been mooted in the Dáil; I care about the meat and substance of the issue.

In 1998, articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hÉireann, were replaced — something for which, it is important to say, political unionism had called for decades — with new language, which I will briefly summarise. The replacement article 2 states:

That relates to nationhood and identity. Paula Bradshaw covered the fact that subsequent court cases have clarified that that can be understood to mean citizenship, which is part of the reason why people in Northern Ireland, including many people from non-traditional unionist backgrounds, non-traditional nationalist backgrounds and unionist backgrounds, are applying for Irish passports. Indeed, I have a healthy trade in my office in signing those forms.

The new article 3 from 1998 states:

In 2025, it is time to give fuller meaning and expression to what, 27 years ago, were new clauses in the Irish constitution. Extending the right to participate in presidential elections to people resident in the North is an entirely sensible and legitimate expression of new articles 2 and 3. Although I and my party are strongly in favour of a new and united Ireland — an Ireland without an international border — that is based on reconciliation, pluralism and uniting the island's people, you do not have to believe in that vision to support or be sympathetic to the motion. It does not prejudge the outcome of any future referendum, even if my view is completely prejudged.

This place, Northern Ireland, is part of the island of Ireland. One of the developments that we have seen somewhat uncomfortably in the past little while is a new definition. Occasionally, it has felt as though the primary and senior meaning of the word "Ireland" is the state rather than the island. For those of us who live in this part of Ireland and want to participate not just in the broader Irish nation but in politics on a cross-border and all-island way, it is time that we had the opportunity to vote in presidential elections. It is not a strange or unique idea. As has been said, in multiple other countries around the world, including some in Europe, such as France and Poland, non-resident citizens — that is, citizens of the state who are not resident in the precise jurisdiction — are able to vote in presidential elections.

It is also true that, for 14 of the past 20 years, the president of Ireland was from Belfast. She was somebody from Mr Brett's constituency, in fact, and a brilliant president she was. She built bridges with the unionist people of this island. I do not think that having people of the North voting in a presidential election threatens anybody's identity or vision of the future.

I have spent more of my adult life living on the island of Britain than the island of Ireland. I am now a politician here, and I make no apology for wanting to unite the people of this island in a new Ireland, but I will always be respectful not just of the unionist tradition but of many unionist people's relationship with the royal family and the monarch. I want them to be respectful of the fact that many of us would like to live in a republic and that many of us think that the true gold standard of citizenship is being able to choose your head of state. Many people in this part of Ireland, be they those from unionist or nationalist backgrounds or those who are somewhere in between or who simply do not care, would very much like to choose their president and choose a president of Ireland. It is an entirely sensible measure.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up now, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I support the motion.

Mr Butler: I sense that quite a bit of emotion and history is tied up in the issue. I acknowledge that, because, as we know, in this little place that I call home, Northern Ireland, identity matters, and people across these islands feel connected in many different ways. We have to be clear at the start of the debate that deciding who votes for the president of Ireland is not a matter for the Assembly. It is a matter, first and foremost, for the Irish voters in the Republic of Ireland and, therefore, their Parliament to decide.

To be fair, as has been recognised, this is not a new debate. The issue has come up in the Dáil and the Seanad several times over this past decade. There has even been draft legislation brought forward and a commitment to a referendum, but, so far, there has been no vote. Concerns have been raised by legislators and commentators in the Republic around the constitution, how people would register, how to verify voters who are abroad and what the political consequences would mean. Even in the Republic, the issue is far from settled.

Some have also questioned whether it makes sense to expand the vote for a role that holds limited powers. If you are not expanding what the president could do, for instance, you have to ask what you really gain by expanding who gets to choose them. It risks watering down the symbolism even further. Let us not pretend that expanding the electorate would not affect the kind of candidates who step forward. If you broaden the vote, you could also see pressure to rethink how candidates are nominated. What sorts of names would end up on that ballot paper? I say this with no cautionary sense of humour: if the vote stretches far enough for someone such as Conor McGregor, you could find his name in a race to be president. Whatever your view of him, he is hardly the kind of calm, unifying figure that you would associate with the responsibilities of a head of state. That idea may raise eyebrows, but that is the whole point. If the question is asked, the question is asked. When you change who votes, you can change what is possible.

Let me be respectful but firm. It is not a matter for us to decide. It is a matter for the voters in the Republic and their elected representatives. However, if they proceed with it, I suggest that they think even more broadly about including the wider Irish diaspora. There are more than 100,000 Irish-born citizens in Australia alone. If inclusion is the goal, let it include everyone, and let it be done through secure electronic voting without the need for polling stations. Our role is perhaps not to shape the debate but to watch with interest.

Ms Ennis: I will start by addressing some mistruths, the first of which was from Matthew O'Toole. I contend that Mary McAleese is a County Down woman, as opposed to a North Belfast woman.

Mr O'Toole: She was when she was president.

Ms Ennis: Rostrevor, to be precise.

The second mistruth was from Phillip Brett and the DUP. Despite what you may want to believe, Irish citizens living in the North are part of the Irish nation and share its identity and culture, yet we are denied a voice in choosing the president, who is a head of state representing all Irish people, not just those in the South.

Extending the presidential franchise to Irish citizens in the North would affirm their equal citizenship, reflect the all-island nature of the place in which we all live and demonstrate a meaningful commitment to inclusion. Those principles were enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and supported broadly by people, North and South. Irish citizens in the North are being denied a basic right — the right to vote in presidential elections — yet those same citizens can stand for the office of president. What kind of democracy allows someone to run for the highest office in the land but denies them a vote in the process?

The Assembly knows well the promise of the Good Friday Agreement, which is an international treaty that was voted on by the people of this island, North and South. It guarantees the right of all the people of the North to identify and be accepted as Irish, British or both. That right is not conditional or partial; it is absolute. However, recognition without rights is hollow. Today, in 2025, Irish citizens in the North, in places such as Newry, Belfast and Derry, cannot vote for their own president. They can stand for election as president, but they cannot cast a vote. That is a democratic deficit. It is unacceptable, and it needs to change.

Let us be clear: what is proposed in the motion is not radical, and it is not unprecedented. It is normal in countries that respect their citizens, wherever they live. The North of Ireland and Irish citizens in this part of our island have profoundly shaped Irish sporting and cultural identity, excelling in Gaelic games, boxing, music and literature. Former Irish president Mary McAleese, a fellow County Down woman, symbolises that influence. How ironic and absurd, then, that someone from County Down can be the president but cannot vote for the president. So much of what we know and recognise as Irish culture and identity hails from this part of our island. It is long past time that those who have helped shape our identity in the past have a say in how we are represented in the future.

In 2013, the Convention on the Constitution recommended giving citizens living outside the state the right to vote in presidential elections, including Irish citizens in the North. However, over a decade later, successive Irish Governments in Dublin have failed to act, dragging their feet, making excuses and treating people in the North like second-class citizens. Successive Irish Governments have expressed support for Northern inclusion in the democratic process for electing the head of state. Now we need to see that commitment turned into action through the delivery of voting rights. We all share the goal of an inclusive Ireland, but it is time that the Irish Government matched warm words with action by extending the voting franchise to citizens in the North. We want to work with the Government to make sure that no Irish citizen is left voiceless when choosing their president.

Mr Dickson: At the beginning of the debate, I need to make a declaration of interest. I am the chair of the Council for Democratic Elections, which is a constituent body of the Venice Commission — the international organisation that, through its independent experts, vets and verifies electoral law and electoral law changes. Both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are signatories to that international treaty. As such, Ireland will be required to submit any changes to electoral law in advance. One matter to take note of is that the Venice Commission has set a very clear standard for changes in electoral law. It states that no changes should be made in the year in which an election is scheduled except in the most urgent of circumstances.

Many states across Europe and around the world have arrangements in place for out-of-country voting, including the United Kingdom. It is interesting that Ireland has some of the most restrictive out-of-country voting regulations. For example, in order to allow out-of-state Irish passport holders to vote, substantial amendment to the current Irish voting regulations will be required, not to mention a change to the Irish constitution by referendum.

Let me turn to what the motion represents. It is about fixing a democratic anomaly that should have been resolved quite some time ago. I met some young people in my constituency recently — bright and politically engaged students from Carrickfergus Grammar School and Ulster University — who looked at situations like this and asked the perfectly reasonable question: why can someone from Northern Ireland be president of Ireland but not be able to vote in that election? Do you know what? They are right, because it does not make any sense.

The motion is not about proposing some radical change. It is about squaring a basic circle of democracy. The principle is simple: if you are eligible to hold an office and if you wish to have, as the Good Friday Agreement gives you, the right to be recognised as a citizen of Ireland, you should be eligible to vote for that office. That is simply democracy 101. The Good Friday Agreement was not just about ending our violence. It was about building a normal and shared functioning society, where rights are not just theoretical but real and meaningful. Yet, here we are, nearly an entire generation later, still having to point out those issues. That tells you all that you need to know about how far we still have to go.

I do understand that some in the Chamber may have concerns, but let us be clear about what the motion is not. It is not about changing borders or sovereignty, nor is it about diminishing anyone's identity. It is simply about making sure that when we talk about rights and identities in this place, we mean actual, tangible rights that people can exercise. Twelve years ago, the Irish Government's own Convention on the Constitution, made up of ordinary citizens and experts, looked at the issue and said clearly that they wanted a change. To those who might oppose the motion, I will ask you to consider this: if we truly believe in the principles of the 1998 agreement and if we genuinely want to build a society where all identities are respected equally, we should have the confidence to support this small but important step forward for those who wish to participate in Irish presidential elections.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: Yes.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, if we are going to respect all Irish citizens, those Irish citizens in Northern Ireland should not be treated any differently? They are not more Irish, for instance, than those Irish-born citizens in New York, Sydney or London. Northern Ireland should not be treated as a special case in that regard. If the franchise is to be extended to the Irish diaspora, it should be done internationally.

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

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much. I do not disagree. That is a debate not for this Chamber but for the Irish Government and for a referendum going forward.

At the end of the day, this is not just about politics but about people. It is about every person, young or old, who wants an opportunity to participate in the democratic life of Ireland and on this island. It is about everyone who wants to see the promises of the Good Friday Agreement made real in their everyday lives. Today, if this motion passes, it sends a message that, in Northern Ireland, we take all identities and all democratic rights seriously. It is up to the Government in Dublin: if they wish to hold a referendum and to change the electoral law to allow for those who wish to vote in presidential elections to do so, the right is theirs to so do.

Mr Gaston: In many ways, the motion in the Order Paper today sums up the problem with the wretched Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement was sold to unionists as a settlement. We were told that, if you swallow the pill of murderers being released from prison, if you accept that the IRA's political wing will have a place at the heart of government forever in Northern Ireland, if you tolerate our getting rid of the RUC after it sacrificed more than 300 officers and if you give the Irish Republic a say in how Northern Ireland is run through powerful cross-border bodies, that will be all. After that, you unionists can have peace. We will have an agreed basis on which Northern Ireland can move forward.

In case there be any doubt about the constitutional position, well, just look at paragraph 1 of annex A to the agreement. It is there in black and white, and it states:

Members, thankfully, unionism is starting to waken up in increasing numbers, having worked out that the constitutional guarantee in the wretched Belfast Agreement was a con.

Before Christmas, the nationalist and republican Alliance Party joined forces with Sinn Féin and the SDLP to support the Union-dismantling protocol, and I see from the contributions today that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — they are going to join forces again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you are almost two minutes into your speech. Could you start to address the motion in the Order Paper, please?

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. I am just going back to the Belfast Agreement, as that is belt and braces —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No, could you go back, Mr Gaston? Mr Gaston, resume your seat. You have been asked this clearly, and I will repeat it more slowly: could you, please, address the context of the motion in the Order Paper?

Mr Gaston: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have read the motion — I accept that it is different in other people's Order Paper — and it notes and talks about the Belfast Agreement and elections in the South. That is the basis of my take on the wretched Belfast Agreement. Just to reinforce the issue about the Belfast Agreement, what we had last week was, again, the protocol and the noose tightening with the commencement of the parcels regulations.

I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today, we have a motion that calls for the people of this part of the United Kingdom to be given the right to elect a foreign head of state. If voting rights for election of the president of the Irish Republic were involved in the Belfast Agreement, I would like someone to spell that out to me this afternoon, but, of course, that is not the case.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will indulge the Member.

Mr O'Toole: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Notwithstanding some of his remarks about it being a foreign head of state — he is entitled to make that statement, but, obviously, I do not agree with that — for the purposes of information, can he tell me how I can go about voting for the head of the UK state? That is not entirely clear to me. Could he advise me on how I can do that?

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. The Member usually comes in and gives something valid to the cut and thrust of the argument, but he has lost me with his intervention today. I see that he is smiling. He thinks that it was a good intervention. He has got it on the record in Hansard.

I will move back to the thrust of my speech. The Belfast Agreement was never about a settlement. It was always about a process. Some sought to dress it up by calling it the peace process — hmm, hmm — but any process always has an end point. There is always an objective to a process, so what is it? Members, it is a united Ireland, and all the Belfast Agreement is about is getting unionists to the point where there is minimal fuss. The TUV has always recognised that. Some who once said the same sold their principles for the baubles of office. They jumped on the process train some years ago without any thought for the fact that it was a one-way trip to Dublin. However, on behalf of my party, I certainly will not be supporting the motion or the process that has led us to this place. No doubt we will hear more nationalist demands, aided and abetted by their friends in the Alliance Party, through these non-binding motions in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr Carroll: It should be uncontroversial to say that everyone living in Ireland should have the right to vote for the Irish president, but that is obviously not the case. Several hundred thousand Irish citizens in Belfast, Derry and across the North are being denied their basic democratic rights in elections on this island. That shows flagrant disregard for the will of Irish citizens, North and South.

As we have heard, over 70% of members of the 2013 Convention on the Constitution believed that residents in the North should have the right to vote in presidential elections, and the suggestion that people in the South do not care about the North is, frankly, nonsense. People in the North watch and listen to presidential debates and programming on RTÉ and other channels, if they are not geoblocked, so it seems completely unfair and nonsensical that citizens are not allowed to put that information to practical use at the ballot box.

People Before Profit recognises that the powers of the Irish president are limited and that the president holds limited discretionary powers that act as a check on the power of Parliament. In practice, those powers are rarely used. In effect, the president of Ireland is a ceremonial head of state, but being above politics allows the head of state more political freedom of expression, and, as has been said, the current president, Michael D Higgins, has been a key voice in Ireland throughout his tenure. He has been an outspoken critic of the neoliberal economic hegemony of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and he has rightly characterised the housing crisis as state failure and a disaster.

He vocally supports Irish neutrality, which is increasingly being eroded by those in power who want Ireland to abandon its anti-colonial history and align with NATO, which is an imperial military alliance that is responsible for the murder of millions of civilians. He also opposed a constitutional ban on abortion services decades before other politicians finally decided to get with the programme.

Whilst recognising the limitations of the office of president, we should appreciate that Ireland is not a monarchy. The Irish head of state is democratically elected and is, therefore, accountable to the electorate, unlike the British royal family. Michael D Higgins's popularity stands in stark contrast to the platform that is given to left-wing parties in the Dáil and in the media. That does not mean that people prefer their socialist politics to be in the form of abstract speeches delivered by a ceremonial head of state who has little power. The popularity of Michael D Higgins suggests that the people of Ireland have an appetite for left-wing and socialist ideas and politics that is not being satisfied by the political establishment, North and South.

On the point about Conor McGregor, his politics are, to put it mildly, extremely dangerous, worrying and damaging. It is worth the Member for Lagan Valley noting that a poll from the 'Sunday Independent' — that radical newspaper — showed that just 7% of people would vote for him in the presidential elections, even if he were eligible to stand.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Emma Sheerin to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I doubt that I will need 10 minutes. I thank all Members for what was a lively, informative and worthwhile debate. We tabled the motion to try to progress rights, equality and inclusion. That is the thrust of the motion's objective.

I am an Irish woman who lives in Ireland. As others have stated, that right was formalised in the Good Friday Agreement. Twenty-seven years later, we can still see that Irish citizens in the North do not have the same rights as other people who live just across the border. That is something that we would like to correct.

While I am correcting things, I will say that although, like the Member to my right, I am not particularly bothered about whose idea it was, it is important to note that Sinn Féin brought legislation to the Oireachtas regarding the extension of voting rights to citizens in the North before Aontú had even been established as a political party. So, it is something that we have long felt was important.

It is something that I would like to see all parties supporting, because rights are not exclusive, and increasing rights for one group does not mean that anybody else has less access to rights. Even if it is something that you do not feel that you are going to have any interest in and you do not feel that you will ever want to vote in an Irish presidential election, allowing others to do so does not affect you negatively. You never know: at some point, you might see a candidate that changes your mind, gives you an interest and makes you want to get involved.

As has been outlined by others, the present head of state gives a voice to the Irish nation on an international stage. As others have said, we have clearly seen the importance of that in the context of the genocide in Gaza and the bravery and courage of our Irish president in putting words to the feelings of so many of us. He articulated very clearly the views of the vast majority of Irish people in completely condemning the actions of the Israeli state and the murder of innocent civilians and children and stating how we stand with the Palestinian people and send our solidarity to them. We see our own struggle reflected in what is currently happening to those living in the Gaza Strip. We rely on our heads of state to do that for us.

As has been said, the Irish head of state is democratically elected. Others have a head of state who is not democratically elected, and that is totally fine. As has been said, the Good Friday Agreement set a very clear formalised arrangement whereby, in the North of Ireland, you can be Irish, British, both or neither. All those options are open to all of us and they are all totally acceptable. I am Irish, and I would like to be able to elect my Irish president.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I will take a point.

Mr Kingston: The Member talks about the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements. Does she accept, though, that they also make clear that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom by the will of the people? Whatever the Republic of Ireland chooses to do regarding passports, the territory of Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom.

A territory cannot have two heads of state. Our head of state remains the King. The Republic chooses to give passports to people who live outside the Republic of Ireland, but, even as passport holders, those people do not necessarily have all the rights of residency. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, and we cannot have two heads of state.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely accept that the Good Friday Agreement sets it out clearly that it is down to the will of the people whether there should be constitutional change. The motion is not about constitutional change, and the King is not my head of state. I urge Members to support the motion and remind them that it is not about the constitutional question; it is about extending the right to vote for the Irish president to Irish people who live in the North.

Mr Kearney: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I will indeed.

Mr Kearney: Does the Member agree that some of the interventions from other Members have been unfortunate in the manner in which they have sought to deflect from the character of the motion and that there is, in fact, an opportunity for every Member in the Chamber, including our colleagues from the DUP, to powerfully, along with the rest of us, affirm the principles of parity of esteem, equality and mutual respect for Members and people across society who define themselves as Irish citizens? Rather than engaging in churlish remarks that deflect, there is an opportunity for them to stand with us today and indemnify the rights of Irish citizens across the state.

Ms Sheerin: Absolutely. The Member has articulated clearly the point that I was trying to make about the view of the motion and what the Chamber endorsing it would say. It is about an extension of rights, which we should all support.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a previous occasion when a motion was passed in the Assembly with a call for the Irish Government or for Dáil Éireann more broadly, I believe that a letter went from the Speaker to the Irish Government. I just wondered if the Speaker's Office could advise on whether that precedent will be followed in this case.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr O'Toole. I will take that query to the Speaker's Office and ask that you be advised of the outcome. That concludes that matter. I ask Members to take their before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has given leave to Mr Matthew O'Toole to raise the matter of the pedestrianisation of Hill Street in Belfast. Owing to the location of Hill Street, Members from the North Belfast constituency will be given priority if they wish to speak. Of course, I will do my best to allow time for everyone who wants to make a contribution. We have even got people here from Lisburn who are interested in Hill Street. Anyway, the proposer of the debate will have up to 15 minutes. Without further ado, I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that I will not use all the 15 minutes, and I would say that everybody else hopes that I will not use all the 15 minutes either.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that that will find agreement with us all. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: I thought that we would find unanimity for once in the Chamber on that.

I am glad to bring the subject to the Assembly Chamber for debate today. On the subject of building consensus, I acknowledge Damien Corr from the Cathedral Quarter Business Improvement District (BID) and Belfast's night czar, Michael Stewart, who have joined us in the Public Gallery for the debate. I also acknowledge, in the spirit of building cross-party consensus, that Mr Phillip Brett, a DUP MLA, has made a lot of noise — good noise — on the subject. Hopefully, there will be a degree of cross-party support on the issue and we can make progress.

We want to use our platform to advance a cause that should be straightforward. It should be a small, straightforward thing to pedestrianise one street in the Cathedral Quarter of Belfast. Before I go any further, those watching the debate or who might see it later on social media may want to know more about Hill Street. Hill Street and Gordon Street, which is perpendicular to it, are, as people who have been out in the Cathedral Quarter — many have — will know, are the cobblestoned streets that host some of Belfast's most famous hospitality venues. The world-famous pubs and photo and selfie opportunities outside the Duke of York on Hill Street are well known, but it also has amazing restaurants, such as Waterman House, and venues, such as the Black Box and the Oh Yeah Music Centre on Gordon Street. It is not just an asset for North Belfast; it is a regionally significant part of our central hospitality offer in the city of Belfast. Pedestrianising those streets is not just a small, local issue; it is about maximising the economic, social and cultural benefits of that brilliant hub in the Cathedral Quarter.

Lots of things in politics are really hard — they are complicated and difficult and involve trade-offs, vested interests and challenges that can be philosophical, bureaucratic and economic — and lots of other things are expensive and cost money. We live in a world of finite resources. We are a devolved Administration that does not receive enough money, and we all agree on that. Even if we raised all our own revenue, we would have a limited amount of money to spend. Lots of things are expensive and difficult to do for that reason. Lots of things are not just difficult or expensive, they are difficult and expensive. I say all that as a preamble to the debate because pedestrianising Hill Street and Gordon Street is neither difficult nor expensive. There is literally no good reason why those streets have not already been pedestrianised.

A pilot was first introduced, as, I am sure, will be pointed out in the debate, by Nichola Mallon, the SDLP Minister at the time. She set up a pilot scheme, and there was some discussion or questions at that point about the pedestrianisation of Hill Street, but, subsequently, we have heard from the Minister and her predecessor about objections to that. As far as I am aware, there are literally no live objections.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way.

Ms Kimmins: To clarify, I did not say "objections"; I said "concerns raised". There is a difference.

Mr O'Toole: OK. I am genuinely glad that the Minister has offered that clarification, because it is now on the record that there are no objections, and none of the concerns that I have heard should be insurmountable. One of the previous questions was about the location of a car park where Talbot Street meets Hill Street, and that has now changed. I understand that the scheme has been moved slightly further down the street, and that does not fundamentally change the core purpose of the scheme. There is literally no good reason why the pedestrianisation has not happened already.

One argument that has been offered and was put on the record, so it is important to challenge and call it out. Calling it out will annoy people, but the answer to a question for written answer was that austerity stopped the pedestrianisation of Hill Street and Gordon Street. It is important to say that "austerity" means a decision to constrain public spending by the UK Government and other Governments around the world, particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. It was a pernicious thing and a wrong economic and political judgement that has led to all sorts of distorted outcomes, such as a squeeze on welfare spending. Austerity has had hugely destructive outcomes for people and communities in the North and, bluntly, around the Western world, but it has not stopped five grand being spent on putting in a couple of bollards in the Cathedral Quarter, and it is absolute nonsense to say otherwise.

We devalue the importance of the debate around austerity and the seriousness of that issue by saying, "Austerity stopped us pedestrianising Hill Street and putting in a couple of bollards". Frankly, saying that insults the public's intelligence and that of the traders and those who run the amazing hospitality businesses and venues on Gordon Street and Hill Street, the staff who have to come and go from them and the people who use them.

If we really cannot find five grand to close off a couple of streets in the middle of Belfast's Cathedral Quarter, I am tempted to say that, at the end of the debate, I will happily start a GoFundMe page. I am sure that the businesses in the area and others who use it would be more than happy to stick in a few bob for us to buy the bollards and do the requisite work. I do not mean to be facetious, but, at times, we need to get real about how we use language. When we bandy about terms like "austerity" in relation to putting in a couple of bollards, we need to get real.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that people with disabilities and those who are in wheelchairs have to pick their routes very carefully? One of the challenges in this case is that because of the disadvantageous parking of traffic and delivery vehicles, which, for the traders, are really important, our disabled community is choosing not to utilise the area in the same manner as those who do not need walking aids or wheelchairs.

Mr O'Toole: One reason to minimise the number of road transit vehicles is to make the area more accessible for people who are wheeling, whether they are people with disabilities or are using prams or Motability devices. We want the area to be as accessible and used as possible. I want to maximise the number of people who enjoy themselves in Hill Street and Gordon Street, not just on Friday and Saturday nights but throughout the week. There are, frankly, amazing world-class pubs and venues in that area. I could list them all in order to curry favour with the businesses, but I will not. We all know what they are: places that we go to and enjoy at the weekends. They deserve to have what they think will help to make the area an even more beloved and successful part of the city.

We also have the context —.

Mr Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way.

Mr Kelly: I will be very brief. The Member said that he was not being facetious, but I presume that he is aware, because he has been following the issue, that the Minister made it clear last week, in answer to a question in here, that the scheme was not delayed because of costs?

Mr O'Toole: I am glad that the Member has offered that clarification. Cost constraints were put in a written answer as a reason. I am not saying that, and I did not make it up: it was put in a response to a question for written answer by Mr Brett. We can move on from that point because we have clarified it. We can park that argument, but it should not have been made in the first place. There should not have been any delay, whatever the reason for it.

There are concerns, bluntly, about the ability of the Executive, and specifically of the Department for Infrastructure. My colleague Nichola Mallon probably had to fight some of the same battles that the Minister now has to fight inside that Department. I recognise that it is not an easy Department to operate. However, we need to persuade the public that this place can deliver. We can debate lots of motions in this place that do not go anywhere, though they are important, we can publish lots of promises and we can put vague aspirations in the Programme for Government. However, it comes down to doing something as straightforward and, frankly, as easy as pedestrianising a beloved street in the middle of Belfast, which will increase its hospitality potential, make it safer, make it more attractive and protect some of its built heritage. There are cobblestones and flags that need to be protected, as was pointed out to me earlier. High volumes of road traffic, whether at peak time or vehicles using the area as a rat run during the day, does not help to protect the historic character of the area.

This is something that we can do and that should be straightforward: pedestrianising a street in the middle of Belfast. People love this part of Belfast but it has challenges. We are not allowing it to meet its full potential. In a previous debate in the Assembly, we talked about the long-running farce that is the Tribeca project. In fairness, I am not trying to pin that one on the Infrastructure Minister. That is nothing, so far as I am aware, to do with her and her Department. However, it is true to say that there is amazing potential in the Cathedral Quarter. We already have a situation in which an entire block in inner north Belfast is being left to rot. That is shameful. By the way, we have also effectively been subsidising it through rates reductions, whether in the reliefs that were offered for derelict properties or some of the exemptions that were given to the organisations that own it. When we are giving a rates exemption to a derelict block, it is ridiculous that, next door, we are also not maximising the potential of Hill Street and Gordon Street.

Let us get it done. I hope that the Minister is able to give us a date today for when it will be completed. I assume that it can be done fairly quickly. I do not think that it will involve massive amounts of infrastructure, or that any planning processes will need to be gone through. Some legislative device may be needed. I imagine that we could get unanimity in the Chamber and that, if the Minister needed to bring something forward in legislative terms, we could get it swept through the Assembly really quickly. Frankly, let us finally show the people out there that we can get something done, even if it is something seemingly small and modest. Let us support our amazing hospitality offer in the Cathedral Quarter in Belfast. Let us shut it off to traffic. When people go to Shop Street in Galway or Grafton Street in Dublin, they walk down a pedestrianised street and enjoy the feeling of festivity and being closed off from traffic. Why can we not get it done in Hill Street and Gordon Street in Belfast? Let us sort it out. Let us get it done ASAP. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here. I hope that she is able to give us clarity on when we will have the project completed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Matthew. Six Members wish to speak. I advise Members that, because two of you are not from North Belfast, I will give you five minutes. I will give the North Belfast Members seven minutes. I have all the power today. [Laughter.]

It is class. I might give an extra minute to somebody who mentions how hard it is to walk down Hill Street in high heels. Anyway, Gerry Kelly, you are next.

Mr Kelly: Thank you, a Phriómh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel like calling for equality between those of us who have seven minutes and those of us who have five minutes, but I will not need that long.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the pedestrianisation of Hill Street and, indeed, Gordon Street, which was also mentioned. I also welcome the clarity that Minister Kimmins provided on that important issue during Question Time last week. We can all agree that any plans for pedestrianisation must take into account the views and needs of those who will be directly affected. Last week, the Minister outlined that concerns have been raised by businesses — as she has explained today, concerns are different from objections — including about access for people with disabilities. I know that the Member will agree with that. Those are important considerations that cannot be overlooked. While pedestrianisation can enhance the public realm, improve safety and create more pleasant spaces, which are the intentions, it is essential that any scheme works, as far as possible, for everyone. That means recognising the needs of businesses on Hill Street, which rely on regular deliveries at different times, and how they will be affected, and ensuring that access remains available for people with disabilities and others who need it.

I support the pursuit of a workable and fair solution. It is important that the concerns of businesses on Hill Street, as well as those of other stakeholders, are fully listened to and addressed as plans develop. I welcome the Minister's confirmation last week that further engagement with stakeholders will commence in the coming weeks. That provides a valuable opportunity to ensure that everyone's views are heard and that the scheme, when it comes forward, works for everyone.

Mr Brett: I will start by paying tribute to the leader of the Opposition for bringing forward this important debate and discussion. As he rightly articulated, it is not just an issue for those of us who have the privilege of representing North Belfast or Belfast; it is recognised across Northern Ireland that the Cathedral Quarter is vital to the night-time economy, events sector and daytime economy. I also pay tribute to the Minister for coming along to the Chamber this evening. It shows important leadership. Like the leader of the Opposition, I pay tribute to Damien Corr and Michael Stewart, who are here today. For many years, since before it was universally popular, they have spearheaded the campaign and helped to ensure that some of the businesses that, a number of years ago, had objections have been able to have those managed and discussed.

It is important to put on record why we must progress the pedestrianisation of Hill Street without delay. The first and, from my perspective, most important reason is safety. Those of us who frequent Hill Street and the Cathedral Quarter on a Friday or Saturday evening — or, indeed, a Thursday evening if we have no constituency business on the Friday morning — know that it can be a very difficult place to get home from. People literally spill out on to the street as cars come up and taxis continue to use it to pick up and drop off customers. For people who have disabilities and are trying to use their wheelchair, it means that it is completely inaccessible.

On Friday, in advance of the debate, I did a walk-around of Hill Street with the gentlemen whom I mentioned. The speed at which some of the cars travel down that road during the day is, frankly, dangerous. The police were even there on Friday, trying to ensure that that did not take place. Safety needs to be paramount, and, by pedestrianising Hill Street, we can make massive strides forward in protecting safety.

Secondly, it is about the expansion of the Cathedral Quarter and its importance to our economy. At the weekend, people will have seen the success of the Cathedral Quarter Arts Festival. In September, Belfast Culture Night will return, and, again, the Cathedral Quarter will be a vital part of the celebrations and of ensuring that the cultural heart of Belfast is recognised. I hope that we will have pedestrianisation in place —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sorry; could you speak into the microphone, please?

Mr Brett: My apologies.

The Cathedral Quarter is vital to the success of Belfast Culture Night. With its return in September, it is vital that we will have progressed the pedestrianisation by then.

Its importance to our visitors has already been articulated. In particular, for those who come to visit Belfast, Hill Street is somewhere that they want to be and to spend time. That, of course, has not always been the case, and I pay tribute to the pioneers and investors who spent their money during Belfast's darkest days to ensure that the Cathedral Quarter was open and attractive to all. The investment that has taken place there in recent years has totally transformed that part of the city. It would be remiss of me not to pay particular tribute to Willie Jack, who owns and operates half the bars and entertainment venues on that site.

There are also really rich cultural heritage sites: the Ulster-Scots Agency headquarters on Gordon Street; the Oh Yeah Music Centre, which I had the privilege of visiting recently; the Black Box, which has showcased some of our greatest local talent; and Belfast Community Circus School — not the Northern Ireland Assembly — which is a really important venue where young people from across our city are able to come together and enjoy themselves.

I will not focus on the cost of the scheme, because I genuinely think that the Minister wants to deliver it and to try to do that as quickly as possible. I will not take this opportunity to try to score party-political points or to attack the Minister. She is relatively new to office, and, in the answers that she has given me, there is a genuine commitment from the Minister to trying to progress the scheme as soon as possible. She has competing demands in ensuring that the scheme is delivered as soon as possible and that people who have concerns about it are, rightly, listened to through the process. However, there is a clear consensus, from the Minister and from political parties in the Chamber, that we try to progress the scheme as quickly and successfully as possible. I look forward to hearing her remarks later today. We send a strong message that all parties are committed to trying to deliver the scheme as quickly as possible.

Mr McReynolds: I will speak in the debate on behalf of my Alliance colleague Nuala McAllister MLA, who is, unfortunately, unwell. I caution, however, that I am originally from North Belfast as well. I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate and the Minister for attending.

Five years ago, during COVID, as a councillor in Belfast City Council, I found myself talking regularly about the pedestrianisation of Hill Street and the wider pedestrianisation of the city centre. Like most people, I saw COVID as an opportunity to take advantage of the reduction in cars and people on our streets in order to deliver the radical changes needed to reclaim and reanimate public spaces. I found myself regularly drawing a comparison between Belfast and Paris, where I lived a number of years ago. To the envy of the world, the Mayor of Paris had begun to restructure and reclaim Paris during COVID, whereas here, in Belfast, I remember a few cones being put down in Hill Street. Sadly, they were being driven over by cars. What a wonderful and poetic image for car dominance in Belfast: cones, which were there to keep people safe and to deter entry, being driven over for the convenience of a few.

I also regularly found myself drawing a comparison with the Glider in east Belfast, which was opposed by a small minority at the time but made absolute sense and is now part of the furniture, bridging east Belfast and west Belfast and connecting people in ways never seen before.

The pedestrianisation of Hill Street is a no-brainer that will support the safety of pedestrians. There is, however, a wider piece that I can see as an Infrastructure Committee member, in that there is a lack of will to go for the quick wins for the benefit of the greater good. That is what the Adjournment debate is trying to achieve today. I am starting to see routinely people saying, "The computer says no", or, "Everyone must agree," or, "Let's consult again to get the answer that we know that we'll probably get". Let us reimagine our public spaces and deliver family-friendly, pedestrian-friendly public spaces that will reanimate Belfast and mirror what we see across so many major European cities. The pedestrianisation of Hill Street will involve minor works and minor costs but will achieve major change for a small but well-used area of Belfast.

Damien and Michael are in the Public Gallery. Can we, please, commit to getting this sorted urgently, and can we, at worst, to quote Willie Jack's recent remarks, have it done before the fleadh gets here in 2026 and we miss out on another opportunity? Experimenting and consulting are no longer needed, but action is.

Mr Butler: Like the previous Member to speak, I am a representative for Lagan Valley, but I speak on behalf of John Stewart, our infrastructure spokesperson.

Belfast is our capital city, and it is a beautiful city. I did not really look up at its beautiful buildings or recognise its lovely streets until I was in probably my 30s or 40s. Hill Street has now become pretty much its epicentre. It is well renowned not just locally but as part of our tourism offering, and it could offer much more. I welcome the Adjournment debate secured by the leader of the Opposition. In internal discussions, John pointed to the fact that he believes that it is not only long overdue but desperately needed.

I thank the Member for North Belfast Phillip Brett for recognising, with reference to his experience, the difficulties that people face, particularly those with disabilities, when navigating the streets. There are safety concerns for most of us, but the fact that some have to choose whether they access the street due to those difficulties needs to be addressed.

This is a matter not just of city planning but of public safety, economic common sense and civic pride, because Hill Street lies at the very heart of the Cathedral Quarter, which has become, perhaps, Belfast's most vibrant cultural and hospitality hub. Every week, thousands of pedestrians pour into the area — Mr Brett leading the charge, by the sounds of it — to support local businesses, enjoy the arts and take part in the life of the city, yet they are forced to navigate dangerous traffic. Poor signage and unclear boundaries between pedestrians and vehicles are, frankly, a recipe for disaster. I recognise that there are some difficulties with its being a historic quarter. Pedestrianisation would need to be planned and addressed sensitively, but to do nothing is not acceptable. The failure to pedestrianise Hill Street is not just disappointing; it has become indefensible. The responsibility for the delay sits squarely with the Minister for Infrastructure and her Department. We have had consultations, pilot schemes and photo ops, but what we have not had is action. Whilst the Department dithers, the public are left at risk and local businesses are left behind.

Let us be clear: pedestrianisation works. Cities across the UK and Europe have proven that, when you prioritise people over cars, the economy flourishes, footfall increases, cafes thrive, property values go up and public spaces become safer, cleaner, more welcoming and, more important, accessible. Hill Street should be the jewel in Belfast's crown; instead, it is clogged with traffic — it is a bottleneck — and we seem to be held hostage to bureaucratic inertia.

We cannot afford to wait any longer. How many more near misses, lost opportunities and frustrated business owners will it take for the Department to act? If the Minister is not going to move swiftly, she should be held accountable for standing in the way of progress. Let us do what is right. Let us pedestrianise Hill Street, not in a year and not after another consultation but now, for the safety of our citizens, the growth of the economy and the future of Belfast.

Mr Kingston: I am happy, in following my colleague Phillip Brett, to speak in support of the proposal. I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing the matter to the Floor, as Phillip did previously when he spoke in support of it.

Listening to Peter McReynolds reminded me of some of the debates that we had back in Belfast City Council days about traffic lanes, pedestrianisation and impacts on congestion. We did not always agree on those matters, but here we have one on which we do agree. There seems to be cross-party agreement on the value of pedestrianising Hill Street. It is a special street in the Cathedral Quarter and should be valued as such: it is a narrow cobbled street with the closeness of buildings around it. As part of the Cathedral Quarter, it has the hospitality venues that have been mentioned, most prominently the Duke of York; the music venues, such as the Oh Yeah centre and the Black Box; and the Ulster Scots heritage centre.

The lack of pedestrianisation has, to use a music analogy, been a cause of 'Hill Street Blues', if you remember that series, but we can now see progress being made, and I look forward to the Minister's comments. I do not dismiss the need for consultation. We need to think about all the users of the street, including the businesses there that might need deliveries to happen.

I was once in a taxi that, not at my request, took a route down Hill Street. I told the driver off, saying, "Why are you going down this route? It should not be used". It saved a tiny amount of time, maybe, and I was quite annoyed that he went down Hill Street and then Skipper Street to take a short cut. I was annoyed that he did it, and I told him never to take me that route again.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, briefly.

Mr O'Toole: I do not know where the concerns are, but there will always be someone who uses a particular rat run in a city, whether a taxi driver or someone who operates a business. Does the Member agree that the simple fact of someone using a route is not, if there is overwhelming public interest in its being pedestrianised, a legitimate concern that outweighs that or even merits real attention beyond a certain point?

Mr Kingston: I do. As it happens, there was little saving in journey time, and it was obviously an inconvenience to the pedestrians who were on the street at the time. There is little demarcation between the road and the footpaths on that street.

Most importantly, the street has character. We sometimes create areas in order to try to create authentic character, but here we have character that has existed for centuries in one of the older streets in Belfast, and it should be valued. It has the cobbles, which might not be suitable for everyone, depending, as you mentioned, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, on people's footwear, and I recognise that they might not be suitable for people with disabilities, but, again, they have character, and that is what people want when they visit a city, especially for its cultural and music venues. I also recognise that the number of people who live in the city centre is increasing, particularly in the northern sector, where there is accommodation for students and there are the night-time venues that attract them.

I am happy to lend my support — let us get this done; let us iron out any difficulties — and I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister is next. Minister, you have 10 minutes to respond to the Adjournment debate.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Matthew O'Toole and the other Members who have spoken in the debate. Like everybody here, I want to see the matter progress. I hope that most people were listening during Question Time last week when I gave a commitment, in response to a question from the Member for North Belfast Nuala McAllister, that officials have already started work to progress this. I recognise the value of the scheme. Unlike most Members who are in the Chamber now, I am not from Belfast, but I am a frequent visitor to the Cathedral Quarter, and it is a part of Belfast that I love to come to, like many others not just from Ireland but from across the world. I want to use my role to do what I can to enhance that and achieve everything that has been discussed today.

I welcome the opportunity to further confirm that commitment that work will start imminently, because it has not been made clear and has been misconstrued in recent weeks. I come back to the point that I have made in response to prior questions about austerity. It was made clear that the cost of the signage, which was estimated at around £5,000, was not the blockage. My colleague Gerry Kelly pointed that out. The blockage to the scheme's progressing at the speed that my predecessor, John O'Dowd, who was in post last year, and I desired was to do with staffing issues. I outlined in the Chamber last week that pressures had come about as a result of austerity. We have had difficulties with filling staff vacancies, and that is endemic across all Departments; Members from parties that have Ministers will know of that issue. A headline that says, "Austerity is preventing £5,000 signage implementation" is attractive, but it is not the case.

I think that we all recognise that progress has been slow. John O'Dowd and I indicated that we wanted to see the scheme being progressed. The staff working in that area were taken away to work on other issues because we had a busy winter, as many of the representatives for Belfast will be aware, due to the works at Grand Central Station and the traffic congestion issues that Belfast city centre has seen. However, I have now asked for staff to be redirected so that we can deliver this important project.

I go back the point on consultation and engagement. It has been mentioned that everybody wants to see the scheme, and questions about the delays have been asked. It is true that everybody wants to see the scheme, but we need to ensure that it is done right. While everybody will have heard some of the views and will have asked what the barriers to progression could possibly be, the Department has been having some of those engagements.
We mentioned earlier the informal consultation that happened last March, as part of which we received nine responses, which raised some issues. Members have mentioned issues about deliveries and loading times and things like that, but one of the key things for me that came out of the consultation with some of the stakeholders in the area was the number of visitors with disabilities and the problems that could pertain in terms of access to specific venues in the area. Those are really critical issues that we need to address. This is not something that is just being kicked down the road because one or two people have concerns; they are important issues. We need to ensure that we deliver a scheme that is best for the local community, best for local businesses and best for all the visitors who come to the area. It is a key part of my role as Infrastructure Minister to provide the building blocks that support our businesses and attract investment to the region. The project ticks all of those boxes. The case has been well made here today.

The Cathedral Quarter is an area of conservation. With its cobbled streets and historic buildings, it is a prime location for pedestrianisation. We see all the Instagram pictures and the real attraction that it creates. It is a charming but traditional setting. It is rich in culture, which plays a significant role in attracting tourists and providing a vibrant social setting for the metropolitan area. Providing a scheme that maximises the potential of the setting and prioritises people is key.

Officials have been exploring options that aim to minimise the impact on businesses in the area while contributing to a more pleasant and enjoyable environment, options that will facilitate a vibrant social space that can be safely enjoyed by all. I encourage all of those involved to work with officials so that we can move quickly to complete the legislative process and make the scheme a reality.

As I mentioned earlier, we have done an informal consultation. Most people were supportive of the scheme and the concept of pedestrianisation, but it is apparent that we have some issues that we need to iron out. I will try to do that as quickly as possible. We have said that it is probably a relatively low traffic volume, but we need to ensure that there is some access, particularly for existing businesses. Some have more than 650 events a year, so we need to ensure that loading and unloading times and access for people with disabilities and things such as that be accommodated in any agreed scheme. I have asked officials to undertake further engagement with those stakeholders in the next few weeks to determine a workable scheme and layout that will suit those needs.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. I genuinely appreciate her coming to give us a detailed update. She is entirely within her rights to clarify and push back on certain statements that she sees as wrong.

Given that it sounds like, if there is consensus on what is being delivered, the questions are about how it can be implemented. Will you put a deadline on delivering the work and then say to people who are interested, "We will engage with you on how we will deliver it, but it is happening by this date"?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that. It leads on to my next point. In response to questions last week, I said that it is my intention, on the back of the consultation and engagement piece that we are starting, to implement an experimental scheme to see what works best. Rather than putting something hard and fast in place that is more difficult to change because it has gone through a legislative process, that will give space for tweaks to ensure that we have an agile scheme that can be easily changed. It will not take a lot to do that, but, given the concerns that have been raised, it is important that we are serious about getting a final scheme in place that will work in the long term.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she give some detail on the proposed experimental scheme? Will it involve starting the pedestrianisation at the corner of Gordon Street so that traffic is directed down Gordon Street? What is the detail?

Ms Kimmins: I have the map. I do not know how to explain it. Essentially, the proposal that we are looking at is a new one-way system that will come in from Hill Street — I am trying to think of how to explain it, because I am not from Belfast — where 'Established' coffee shop is, across Gordon Street to the junction with Dunbar Street, where Gordon Street ends. That area would be fully pedestrianised along with Exchange Place and Commercial Court. Does that make sense to everybody from the Belfast area? I know where I am when I walk around the area, but when you put me on the spot with street names, it is a bit more difficult. Hopefully, that is clear.

Members will be aware that we are working on the new suite of transport plans, one of which is the eastern transport plan. That will set the framework for making transport policy and investment decisions for Belfast and adjacent council areas for the next 10 years. It will be a people-centred plan. This scheme speaks to how important that will be and how it can really enhance the heart of the city, along with other improvements to our walking and wheeling facilities, and enhance connections to neighbouring communities. Those improvements will help to remove perceived and physical barriers that currently impact on people's journeys. Together, the measures will improve the accessibility and inclusiveness of the city, making it a more welcoming place for all.

I pay tribute to the work of officials on this. As part of the British-Irish Council engagement that I hosted recently in Belfast city centre, we did a tour with Ministers of the transport plan and what it will potentially look like. I was blown away, but I was also proud, as Minister for the Department, because it is really exciting. Ministers from other areas were really impressed. We should be very proud of it, and I look forward to seeing it develop further, not just in Belfast but across the North.

Members who spoke previously mentioned the importance of Culture Night and other big events. I hope that, following the experimental scheme, we can have an agreed scheme in place that has gone through the legislative processes by the autumn. I hope that that gives confidence and an assurance that we hope to move at pace and find a scheme that works for everybody. We recognise that it is really important and that there is a huge demand for it, but it is crucial that we get it right. I recognise the frustration, but I do not want to be here in six or 12 months' time, when people come back and say, "You did it wrong. It is a mess. It is not working", and have to look at the legislative process again. It is a relatively short period, but I am confident that we can get it right. I want to work with not just the wider public but Members across the Chamber. I thank you all for the debate, and I hope that we can continue on a positive note to see this delivered at the earliest time possible.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That was a great debate.