Official Report: Tuesday 17 June 2025

Mr Speaker: On a number of occasions, I have indicated to Members my intention to return to the Assembly's standards of debate. Our standards of debate are often referred to in the context of the first element — the standard of remarks that are made about other Members. However, there has been a decreased focus on the second element — the concept of debate itself. If the Assembly is serious about its scrutiny role, having a strong culture of debate is vital. Our existing standards of debate — good temper, courtesy, moderation and respect for other Members — would be expected in any legislature. They simply require Members to demonstrate good manners and focus on the arguments that are being made rather than on the person who is making them.

In April 2024, I reminded Members that those standards operate alongside the legal right to freedom of expression, which means that Members may choose sometimes to express their views forcefully and in terms that other Members would not use. Members know that my general approach is that, regardless of my opinion of the views that a Member is expressing, it is my role to protect their right to express them. Requiring Members to exercise care in their language and have civility in their exchanges is not intended to, and should not, prevent passionate and robust debate. While there has to be some level of procedure to ensure that our business runs smoothly, effective Members will be able to find ways to make the points that they want to make in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.

During my time in the Assembly since 1998, I have been privileged to witness political giants who passionately articulated their cases and engaged in debate. However, they also realised that they had to take as good as they could give. The freedom to challenge and express different views in a debate is core to the Assembly's core functions of exercising scrutiny, holding Ministers to account and representing constituents. Proper debate is about having the opportunity to state your views and to listen, respond and challenge the views of others. Some Members are increasingly concentrating only on stating their opinions.

Technology has created a temptation for Members to deliver scripted speeches in the Chamber and leave shortly after doing so to issue clips of their speeches on social media. If debate was only about a series of Members reading out scripted thoughts on an issue without interaction, there would be no need for an Assembly Chamber; we could just do it by email.

I am also concerned about the tendency to raise points of order with the Chair about the normal cut and thrust of debate, rather than challenge those points.

In April 2021, my predecessor circulated 'Ten Practical Principles of Debate' to set out what our standards of debate mean in practice for Members. Today, I am expanding those principles to ensure that they focus not only on interactions between Members but on having a strong culture of debate and challenge. I have sought to capture a range of our wider procedures and conventions relating to debate, including being present to hear the arguments of others, taking interventions, being able to respond to other points and challenging those who make assertions and points with which you may disagree.

I also note Members who, as soon as they make their point in the Chamber during a debate, dash off afterwards, which is wholly inappropriate and rude to the other Members who have sat waiting patiently to hear the contribution that that Member made. Although I cannot enforce that Members stop doing that, it is not the convention nor something that I view very well. The Assembly has responsibility for making legislation that impacts on people's lives, so it is vital that Members are able to probe all the arguments before the Assembly takes a decision. It is my role to encourage the conditions that allow Members to exercise effective scrutiny and accountability in the Chamber. Having been a Minister, I want to be absolutely certain that Ministers get appropriate scrutiny and do not get off the hook easily. They need to be able to answer the questions that Members put to them. I always want to ensure that Ministers are robustly challenged. If they feel that they are being challenged too robustly, maybe they should not be in the job.

I therefore encourage all Members to take time to reflect on the principles that I have set out. I will forward this letter to all Members, including those who are not here today. Thank you for listening, Members.

Ms Finnegan: I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Rosie Tennyson, who was awarded the Spirit of Triathlon award at the Crooked Lake triathlon in Camlough a few weeks ago. That special award was established by the loved ones of Brendan Carr, a much-missed member of our community who tragically passed away. Brendan had a deep love for the triathlon. The award honours his memory by recognising those who embody courage, determination and resilience — qualities that Rosie Tennyson has in abundance.

Rosie's journey is nothing short of inspirational. She lost her mother to breast cancer at the age of nine, and her father passed away in 2003. In 2010, she suffered the loss of a child, who died in her arms shortly after birth. In 2016, Rosie lost her leg following years of battling vascular malformation. In 2018, she faced breast cancer, carrying the same genetic mutation of her late mother, and she underwent chemotherapy and a double mastectomy. Despite all that, Rosie continues to push forward. Last year, she was unable to take part in the triathlon having collapsed after suffering the effects of two rare brain syndromes, yet, this year, she returned, supported by her amazing team, and completed the triathlon with unwavering spirit.

Rosie is a devoted mother of five children, including her son Anton who lives with complex heart conditions and requires multiple carers. Her strength is seen not only in her physical achievements but in how she raises her family and uplifts her community. Rosie Tennyson is the epitome of resilience, courage and hope. Her story touches everyone who hears it, and I know that Brendan Carr's family could not have chosen a more deserving recipient of this year's award.

Mr Robinson: The weekend past was Open Farm Weekend, when townies such as me got an opportunity to connect with farms and farm families as they showcased Northern Ireland's farms and the food that comes from them.

It is an annual event organised by the Ulster Farmers' Union. This year, almost a couple of dozen farms threw open their gates for the public to enjoy and better understand the rich, rural, farming way of life and how food is produced on the farm.

As a townie with zero farming background for many generations of my family, I visited Glebe Farm just outside Limavady. Over the weekend, it provided a really interesting and fun experience for the general public, some of whom had never been on a farm in their life. Glebe Farm was just one such example, where local schools attended on Friday and the general public on Saturday and Sunday, affording them an opportunity to meet some of the animals, attend live cooking demonstrations of local produce and enjoy various other games and tours.

I thank Glebe Farm for its warm welcome and encourage anyone visiting the Limavady area to drop by its farm shop to sample the very best of local produce. I also thank the Ulster Farmers' Union for affording the wider public and schools the opportunity to learn why local farming is so important to all our futures. At a time when the local farming community has been under so much pressure, the open farm weekend venture provides a positive lift in challenging times for such a key sector in our Province's way of life.

Mr Mathison: Yesterday, the Minister for the Economy announced her plans to improve our current, post-19 offering for special educational needs (SEN) learners. It is an issue that we have discussed many times in the Chamber. Again, as many did yesterday, I pay tribute to Alma and other campaigners from Caleb's Cause and all other campaigners in that area, who have worked so hard to highlight the need for intervention and reform.

Whilst any progress and improvement is welcome, for many, yesterday's announcement did not go far enough. There is much to welcome: the new assessment and support model in further education will undoubtedly provide legal protections for young SEN learners moving through that pathway. The Minister said that she will also raise the issue of Health-based pathways with the Health Minister and will work with other Executive colleagues. However, from my perspective, that should have been the focus right back when we began to look at the issue when these institutions were restored.

It is a cross-cutting issue. It not only impacts on the Department for the Economy but it impacts on the Education and Health Departments, and it has connections with Communities. It is vital that, on this sort of issue, our Ministers show leadership, come together and bring forward real solutions, not just for service delivery, which is vital. It was welcome in the announcement yesterday that those pathways will be scoped out, improved and enhanced wherever they can be. However, legislatively, we need to have ambition for Ministers to come together and bring forward solutions that deal with the cross-cutting aspect of the issues and work for everybody. It is undoubtedly a cross-cutting issue. Those Departments will have to work together if we are to deliver change meaningfully. Each of the Departments has a role to play in supporting our children and young people with SEN. Therefore, they must form part of the solution. Ministers tell us often that they do collaborate and that they do work together, but, sometimes, it is hard to see the evidence of it, and it feels as if the silo-based mentality is embedded in our system.

I have already acknowledged the Economy Minister's plans. I sincerely hope that they support those young people who are moving out of school and into further education. However, where is the support for the pupils who are looking for a voluntary-sector placement, who need to follow a Health pathway, or for whom apprenticeships or voluntary work is more appropriate? How will their experiences be improved? There are still hundreds of children and young people with SEN for whom yesterday's announcement will not have changed anything for their future. They must not be forgotten.

Today, I call again on all those Departments to please get around the table and demonstrate true, collaborative working to deliver a comprehensive, legislative solution that will protect and provide for our young people, regardless of the pathway that they follow when they leave school.

Ms D Armstrong: I congratulate women rugby players from Fermanagh and South Tyrone following the recent announcement of their inclusion in the Ulster Interpro squad. It is a proud moment for the parents, coaches and friends of all those girls. It is no less of an exceptionally proud moment for the parents of India Daley, who has been selected as captain, following in the footsteps of another Skins women's captain, Kathryn Dane. India and her colleagues Moya Hill, Sophie Barrett, Lucy Thompson and Sophie Meeke return to the squad from previous Interpros.

This year, they are joined by fellow Skins players Rebecca Beacom and Farrah Cartin-McCloskey. That brings representation from Enniskillen Rugby Football Club on the Ulster Interpro squad to seven players. Additionally, Fermanagh and South Tyrone is well represented by Clogher Valley's Katie Hetherington and Siobhan Sheerin.

That is well-earned recognition for the consistent hard work that those girls have put in throughout the season and a great reflection of the groundwork being put in by players and coaches. I wish them well as they progress to competition. No doubt, the supporters will cheer them on during the competition.

Ms McLaughlin: Once again, I rise with a heavy heart and a clear call to conscience. What is happening in Gaza is not just a humanitarian crisis but a full collapse of human protection and public health. We must name it for what it is: a moral failure by the international community. Earlier this month, a number of doctors from British medical teams returned from Gaza. They shared a stark picture of conditions on the ground — evidence-based, first-hand and beyond denial.

The statistics from the Gaza Ministry of Health speak for themselves, and they should shake us. Twenty-two of Gaza's 38 hospitals are out of service; only 30 of 105 primary care centres are still functioning; bed occupancy is at 106%, which means that patients are lying on floors and corridors or cannot get anywhere at all; and over 47% of essential drugs and 65% of medical consumables are gone — completely out of stock. The surgical infrastructure has been decimated. In catastrophic conditions, only 50 operating rooms are functioning, which is down from 104, and just nine oxygen stations out of 34 remain partially operational. Gaza has no functioning MRI machines, and only seven CT scanners remain.

Behind those numbers are human lives. Some 41% of kidney failure patients have died during the war; 477 patients died waiting to travel for treatment that they never received; 60 children have died of malnutrition in a world of abundance; yesterday, more than 20 people were murdered as they queued for food. Let me repeat that: children are dying of hunger, and patients are dying because they cannot access care or because the care that they need no longer exists. Access to humanitarian aid and medical support is not a luxury; it is a legal right and a moral imperative.

Today, I say with deep conviction that we cannot claim ignorance. We know what is happening. It has been documented; it has been testified to; and it has been witnessed by doctors and aid workers alike. What we lack is not evidence: what we lack is action. I call on every Government, every international actor and every voice of conscience to demand immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access, protection for medical staff facilities and supplies and a coordinated plan for a long-term reconstruction of Gaza's health system, led for and by Palestinians. This is not politics; this is humanity, and it is time that we chose to defend it.

Ms Ferguson: I rise to talk briefly about equal access to services for people with cancer. Previously, I wrote to the Minister about the provision of cold caps for the treatment of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced alopecia. The response indicated that, due to system pressures, their introduction was not being routinely commissioned or prioritised, despite the fact that they are available across the Twenty-six Counties and GB. Additionally, I queried projected annual staffing costs and a timeline for the delivery of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy — a precision-targeting form of radiotherapy — for the North West Cancer Centre, which has the equipment. I was advised that, given annual staffing costs, costs could be in the region of £284,000 to recruit therapeutic radiographers and medical physicians to support the service. A lack of identified funding means that no timeline for introduction can be provided.

I raise the issue today because several local people have contacted me about income-based health inequalities. They have voiced serious frustrations that, at such a difficult time in their life, only those who can afford to go privately have options available to them in relation to cancer treatments. While I fully appreciate the need for sustained investment in primary and community care and in various specialised services, as an MLA for Foyle and vice-chair of the all-party group on cancer I have to speak up for my constituents across Derry city and the north-west who face significant health and social inequalities. I ask the Minister and his Department to explore ways, particularly in the context of the north-west, to strengthen cross-border collaboration on healthcare, to be more innovative and to work more closely on the treatment of cancers in order to deliver better experiences for patients across our small island. That includes supporting the All-Ireland Cancer Network and the development of improved cancer policy and research alongside meeting the existing need for additional services, including those that I have outlined, which, so far, have been refused. I urge the Minister to reconsider whether those services can be implemented to support the delivery of the key principle of universal health coverage so that our citizens have access to the full range of services where and when they need them.

Mr Brett: Northern Ireland is no stranger to success in sport on the international stage, but I think that I can speak for the whole House in congratulating the Northern Ireland darts team, which won the World Cup of Darts in Frankfurt on Sunday for the first time. Josh Rock and Daryl Gurney have done this part of the world hugely proud. It was the first time that the pair had played darts together, and what a success it was. They fended off challenges from teams across the globe that were more highly ranked than them, defeating the Republic of Ireland in the quarter-final and going on to win the final on Sunday evening. The whole of our Province was glued to the television as the historic 10-9 victory came late on Sunday evening. It is only right that the House expresses its congratulations. Northern Ireland is once again flying the flag across the globe.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to make a Member's statement in the week of World Refugee Day, which is on Friday. The events of the past week have cast a long, harsh light on the state of our society at present and on the collective responsibilities that we all now share. The fact that that has happened demonstrates why we need such a day. It is no longer enough to condemn racism and hatred from a distance: we must face the uncomfortable truth that bigotry continues to exist here and that it has again manifested itself in acts of violence.

What has taken place is not just a wake-up call but a stark reminder of how much work still needs to be done in order to build a truly inclusive and safe society in Northern Ireland. The fear and trauma experienced by those targeted in the riots, many of whom came here seeking safety and peace, represents an attack not only on individuals but on the values that we, as a society, claim to uphold. As of 2024, approximately 3,000 individuals across Northern Ireland were receiving asylum support. They are people who have already endured unimaginable hardship, and the recent violence shows just how vulnerable they remain. It is a clear signal that we must do more to ensure that no one lives in fear because of their skin colour, country of origin or religion.

In South Belfast, as in many areas of Northern Ireland, asylum seekers and refugees have become an integral part of the fabric of our communities and neighbourhoods. However, we must acknowledge that the process of integration is not without its challenges. Recent research from Queen's University Belfast highlights persistent barriers in housing, employment, healthcare and social cohesion. Those challenges must be listened to and dealt with head-on to ensure a successful and inclusive integration process.

Integration must begin from the moment when individuals arrive in our communities. It is not just about providing temporary accommodation; it is about giving refugees the tools and resources that they need to sustain themselves and thrive in our community. The Executive Office's recently published refugee integration strategy offers a strong starting point. It outlines a holistic approach, recognising that true integration needs more than securing a job or a place to live. In South Belfast, we have seen at first hand the valuable contribution that refugees make to our economy, our culture and our community. They are our neighbours, our colleagues and our classmates, yet many continue to face prejudice, now compounded by the threat of violence.

We must recognise that this is a pivotal moment in our society. The racist riots are not isolated incidents but symptoms of deeper, more systemic problems that are rooted in prejudice and exclusion.

Ms Sheerin: I am almost in disbelief at the continued genocide of the people of Palestine in Gaza. Just as the Israeli apartheid regime prevails, so does the suppression of any voice that dares to stand against it. We watch on as Israel murders and literally starves women, men and children to death. As the international community complies with the narrative and agenda of a rogue state, we can see the colonial systems kick into gear to silence anyone who dares criticise what none of us should be able to bear.

We in Sinn Féin stand in solidarity with all those who took part in the Global March to Gaza over the weekend, particularly the Irish contingent, and we bemoan the fact that the Egyptian authorities blocked their entry. Similarly, we congratulate and commend all those on board the Freedom Flotilla. We extend solidarity to and commend the bravery of those who took part in the Madleen's attempt to break the blockade, and we again criticise the piracy of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which illegally arrested those on board.

As tomorrow dawns close, we commend the defiance of Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh and his bandmates, who took a stand for humanity despite massive personal risk to their careers and reputations. Whilst Israel commits war crimes and starves babies to death, there is a responsibility on anyone with a platform to stand up and speak out against it. When we are able to watch live-streamed genocide on our phone screens, we should be able to speak up and stand against it. We commend all who do so and encourage anyone who has not done so thus far to start.

Ms Brownlee: I wish to celebrate the outstanding success of the Royal Landing event held in Carrickfergus on Saturday, despite what can only be described as truly horrific weather conditions. Thousands of people flocked to our historic town to witness the re-enactment of the landing of King William III, an event of deep historical and cultural significance. It is one of the key annual celebrations for Carrickfergus, drawing visitors from across Northern Ireland and beyond. I place on record a huge thank you to all who attended. A particular word of appreciation goes to the marching bands from across Northern Ireland and even from as far as Liverpool that put on a truly terrific display. We were also treated to an outstanding array of musical and dance performances celebrating our Ulster-Scots heritage. Alongside them were many local musicians who showcased their talent with passion and pride and fantastic historical re-enactment groups that made history come very much to life.

The event would not be possible without the support of our funders. My sincere thanks go to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, the Ulster Scots, Clanmil and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for their continued recognition of the fact that events such as this bring enormous cultural, social and economic benefits to our town. It was wonderful to see so many young people involved throughout the day, clearly showing that our traditions are alive, well and thriving.

A special moment on Saturday was the presentation of a new trophy, gifted by Stormont Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL) 2015 in memory of the late David Hilditch MLA, a man who, as we all know, served Carrickfergus with immense pride. Congratulations go to the Ulster Grenadiers Flute Band, the worthy winners of the award. We were also honoured to welcome DUP deputy leader, Michelle McIlveen, to the parade, and I acknowledge that support came from as far away as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, with Deborah Erskine also in attendance.

The incredible event is organised by a small group of dedicated volunteers from the Carrickfergus Historical Re-enactment Group committee. I especially thank Darren McAllister for his tireless work in the months leading up to the day. It is a privilege to work alongside him. As we look ahead to 2026, we do so with excitement and with our fingers crossed for much better weather.

Mr Gaston: I pay tribute to two outstanding ambassadors for Northern Ireland: men whose skill, determination and passion have placed them firmly on the world stage and brought immense honour to our Province and to my constituency of North Antrim.

First, I extend my warmest congratulations to Michael Dunlop, who has rightly been recognised in the King's Birthday Honours with an MBE for services to motorcycle racing. Michael is a legend of road racing, a symbol of Ulster's tenacity and a true son of Ballymoney. With 33 Isle of Man TT wins and 51 podium finishes, Michael holds the record as the most successful TT rider in history. Those are not just numbers but represent years of courage, dedication to the sport and his sheer brilliance. The Dunlop name is engraved on the very fabric of motor sport in this country. Michael has not only upheld that legacy but expanded it with unmatched resolve. He has made Ballymoney, North Antrim and all of Northern Ireland proud.

As if one sporting triumph were not enough, I must also express my heartfelt congratulations to the Northern Ireland darts team, which made history at the weekend by winning the 2025 World Cup of Darts in Frankfurt. In a nail-biting final, Daryl Gurney and North Antrim's own Josh Rock defeated Wales 10-9 to claim Northern Ireland's first-ever title in the tournament. Josh Rock's calmness under pressure and his exceptional skill have cemented his place among the world's elite, which he has taken while representing us all with humility and, indeed, class.

Although we often find ourselves speaking about the challenges that we face in this Province, it is good and right that we pause to celebrate excellence and acknowledge those who, by their talents, bring us together and lift our spirits. Michael Dunlop and Josh Rock are not only sporting champions but ambassadors for the very best of Northern Ireland. On behalf of the people of North Antrim, I offer them our congratulations and thanks. They have made history, and they have made us proud.

Mr Martin: On 7 October 2023, 1,200 Jewish civilians were murdered by Hamas. Since that day, there has been significant loss of human life in the Middle East. It is important to make it crystal clear that the death of every innocent victim is appalling, and we mourn equally every innocent life lost.

Along with every other right-thinking person, I want an end to the conflicts, a permanent ceasefire, the return of the Israeli hostages, who are being held against the Geneva Convention, and, ultimately, a peaceful, two-state solution. I acknowledge the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in the midst of conflict, and I welcome the increase in the humanitarian aid coming into the region. Although we fully support Israel's right to defend itself, we advocate efforts to find a lasting peace. The path forward requires a commitment from all legitimate and lawful parties to seek solutions that respect the dignity and rights of all the people involved.

It is our collective responsibility as elected representatives to oppose the antisemitism and terrorism that threaten not only Israel but the stability of the entire region. It is worth noting that, since the heinous events of 7 October, over 26,000 missiles have been fired at civilian targets in Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen.

Over the past number of days, Israel has carried out strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran to degrade its abilities to procure weapons-grade uranium and develop a ballistic missile system that can effectively deliver it. Iran is designated a state sponsor of terror because of its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is clear that many Iranians, perhaps the majority, oppose the tyrannical hold that their Government exert on their people. There are plenty of Arab states in the Middle East that will not say so out loud but that quietly welcome any action to degrade Iran's capacity to destabilise their countries through state-sponsored terrorism by Hezbollah and Hamas in particular.

Let us remember that Israel is fighting for its very existence. Many of those who oppose Israel seek the complete destruction of the Jewish state and its inhabitants. They scream, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". That is a rallying call for the establishment of a state of Palestine that goes from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the state of Israel and its people. Therefore, we:

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of recent events, it is clear that public confidence in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has completely evaporated. Have you been informed as to whether the Justice Minister plans to make a statement to the House, given the fact that the position of the Police Ombudsman is now untenable?

Mr Speaker: No, I have not received such notification. However, I have received notification that the Justice Minister remains unwell, so she will not be in the Chamber today. Minister Muir will respond to the debate on justice and the rule of law on her behalf.

I have also received notice that Pádraig Delargy will not be available speak to his Adjournment topic on the reinstatement of postal services in Foyle.

I also notify the House that the Economy Minister will not be in her place later and that a junior Minister will respond to the debate on a moratorium on mineral licensing.

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to update the Assembly on the Executive's draft anti-poverty strategy. For too long, there has been no joined-up, cross-departmental approach to tackling the problem of poverty in our society. That will soon change. I am pleased to announce that, following the Executive's agreement on a draft version of the anti-poverty strategy, today will see the launch of a public consultation to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the plans that we have developed.

When I took office, I made it clear that one of my priorities was to tackle poverty. After a legacy of delay in taking that work forward, I wanted to work at pace to develop a strategy that could help to make a meaningful difference to those who are experiencing socio-economic disadvantage in our society. For me, it was essential that we developed a strategy that was not only practical but sustainable and deliverable. Rather than making promises that could not be kept, my Executive colleagues and I have worked to develop a strategy that we will be able to make progress against and that will make a difference to people's lives. The strategy is the culmination of considerable hard work, collaboration and co-design. I thank all those stakeholders, particularly the members of the anti-poverty co-design group, who worked with my Department to provide their input. We often hear about the silo approach in government, but I know that Ministers and officials across Departments have worked together on the draft in a spirit of cooperation and collective ownership.

Our approach does not only look at helping to raise people's incomes in the short term, important though that is. It is equally essential that we identify and address the root causes of poverty and support people to address some of the key issues in their lives. For example, it is about ensuring that they have the opportunity to achieve in education and supporting them to address physical and mental health issues and access a range of opportunities to find well-paid and meaningful employment. For that reason, our agreed anti-poverty strategy focuses on three key pillars on which we must focus our collective efforts if we want to see meaningful change. The three pillars are: aiming to minimise the risk of people falling into poverty; helping to minimise the impacts of poverty on people's lives; and working with people to help them to exit poverty. That approach is an important step forward, and it is the right one to take, given the scale of the problem that we face. It is only through addressing those areas together that we will be able to tackle poverty in a manner that allows for continual improvement. We have also recognised the cyclical nature of poverty. For example, poor health or educational outcomes can be the impacts and the causes of poverty.

The publication of the strategy will not mark the finish of the Executive's work on tackling poverty. Rather, it marks the next important step in an ongoing process. Even in the absence of a strategy, my Executive colleagues and I have taken forward work that is aimed at helping those who are suffering as a result of socio-economic disadvantage. While some of our critics have spent their time naysaying and critiquing, we have been delivering. That was recognised in the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG), which included a range of actions that are designed to help some of the most disadvantaged in our society, by, for example, developing a growing and competitive economy and cutting health waiting times.

My Department has also helped and supported those who most need assistance, whether that is by extending welfare mitigations, getting more people signed up to the benefits that they deserve through the Make the Call service or improving affordable housing availability with the delivery of the housing supply strategy. That work will keep moving forward. In my Department, I have committed to a range of new actions in the strategy. Those include the delivery of a fuel poverty strategy and developing a new People and Place strategic framework. Other colleagues are taking similar steps. For example, the Minister of Education has committed to taking forward legislation on ensuring that school uniforms are affordable, and he has also agreed that a budget of £23 million will be available in 2025-26 to provide a 15% childcare subsidy for working parents who are eligible for tax-free childcare. I will also continue to engage with colleagues in Westminster to address issues around welfare reform and lobbying for the repeal of the two-child limit. That is not to say that the strategy is more of the same. All that work now sits, for the first time, in an integrated framework, allowing us as an Executive to effectively monitor, coordinate and deliver real-world impacts.

Poverty is not a problem that the Executive can solve in isolation. Rather, it will require government, public bodies, voluntary and community organisations, communities, families and individuals all working together to make a meaningful and lasting change to our society. That is why this statement is so important. The public consultation provides an opportunity for all areas of society to comment on the draft anti-poverty strategy and highlight any areas that they feel could be strengthened further. We are keen to hear new ideas or innovative approaches on how we should take this work forward. The consultation will be a significant engagement with society, and we will treat all contributions to it seriously and thoughtfully.

I also highlight the fact that, in order to allow people time to consider and respond, we are going beyond the normal eight- and 12-week time frames for public consultation. I have asked officials to allow a 14-week period of consultation. It will open today and continue until mid-September. The public consultation on the draft anti-poverty strategy is a significant step forward in how the Executive address the problem of socio-economic disadvantage in our society. Final publication later in the year will not mark the end of the cooperation and coordination between Departments that has been a feature of the strategy's development. Instead, it will mark the starting point for all Departments to move to implementation with commitment and a focus on delivery.

In closing, let me say that I recognise and understand the concern that the absence of this document has had for many people for many years. Today, I am taking action and doing something about that, not because I want to publish a document to simply tick a box but because I want us to have a joined-up, coordinated plan to tackle poverty. Why? It is because I see poverty every day. I witness it in the lives of people in East Antrim, who I am privileged to represent, and beyond, and we should want to make them better. I mean the pensioner struggling with rising heating costs; the mother juggling the costs of school uniforms and sports gear with all the other essentials; the father not knowing how he will afford yet another increase in rent; and the child whose ambitions and potential are not fully realised. We are talking about people, their well-being, their health and their future. That is why we need a strategy that will help us to make progress in tackling one of the most pressing issues that we face. Therefore, I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: I am tempted to ask, "Is this it?". After almost two decades that have seen poverty levels spiral, after a so-called co-design process that has seen the expertise, empathy and input of the sector left on the cutting-room floor and after a court case that found the Executive to be in breach of their duty to publish an anti-poverty strategy, does the Minister agree that this underwhelming document calls into question not just the Executive's ability to tackle poverty but their appetite and ambition to do so?

Mr Lyons: No, absolutely not, and the Member is wrong in every point that he has made. We waited for the document for 17 years, and, after 17 months in office, I have been able to bring it forward.

Let me address one of the issues that the Member raised. He said that the co-design group's input is on the cutting-room floor: that is absolute nonsense. The co-design group raised period poverty as an issue, and we have tackled that in the document. The co-design group identified the need to address fuel poverty, which we will do as part of the strategy. The co-design group identified the need to make school attendance cost-neutral, and Paul Givan is taking forward work to do just that: the RAISE programme will raise achievement to reduce educational disadvantage, and legislation is being worked on to ensure affordable school uniforms. The co-design group asked that mitigation payments be extended: the Executive agreed and extended that package. The co-design group asked us to continue to pressure the UK Government on the pensions triple lock: we agreed. The co-design group highlighted the need for a childcare strategy: we agreed. The co-design group raised issues of low pay and workers' rights, and the Department for the Economy is addressing that issue. The co-design group highlighted housing as an issue, and the Member knows only too well the work that I am doing and will continue to do in that area. The co-design group asked that we maximise and improve access to benefits. We are doing all those things and much more.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the anti-poverty strategy that you have presented to the House has been described as extremely underwhelming and not fit for purpose. It contains no targets for the reduction of poverty and fails to recognise free school meals as an indicator of poverty. It also fails to mention gender or sexuality as risk factors for falling into poverty. I was struck by the number of times that the strategy references things that you will continue to do, meaning that there are few new actions in it. Given the many weaknesses in the current draft of the strategy, will the Minister commit to listening to the feedback from the experts during the consultation period and consider some substantial changes?

Mr Lyons: Of course I will listen to the consultation. That is the whole point of it.

I will pick up on a couple of issues that the Member raised, the first of which is targets. No, there are no targets on it, because, as I have said before, targets will come later in the action plan, and monitoring will come at that stage as well. It is simply not the case that these are actions that we have already taken, but we will, of course, continue what we are doing that is working. We were not going to wait until the development of an anti-poverty strategy before we brought in some of the measures that will make a difference.

As I have just said, we will bring in more actions. For example, I am bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy and new employment programmes. The Member's colleagues in other Departments will bring forward new actions. I think that people have jumped on to a notion that there is nothing new in this. If you read the document, you will see the new actions that are there, but, of course, the full action plan will follow as well. It is easy to be critical and find things that, you may believe, are disagreeable, but we should at least base our comments on facts and what will actually be in the strategy, which the Member and others have seen.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for bringing forward the draft anti-poverty strategy. It is welcome. Are there any learning opportunities from how Scotland has aimed to tackle child poverty? What is the Minister's assessment of that?

Mr Lyons: We have the benefit of seeing what has taken place and what has worked in Scotland. The first thing that we have to recognise is that we live in a time of constrained budgets, so we have to make sure that we put the resources that we have into the areas that will make the most difference. We have not seen that in Scotland. Over the last number of years, Scotland has been spending £471 million every year on the child payment: that has hardly moved the needle on child poverty. That is why we have taken the approach of helping people who are facing poverty right now but also trying to help people not to fall into poverty in the first place. That is why it is so important that we tackle the root causes of poverty, and that is what I will focus on.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, we have been waiting for more than a year for the strategy, and I thought that more would have been included. Your strategy highlights ongoing engagement with people with lived experience and key stakeholders. How will that be meaningfully facilitated and their opinions weighted to the process? How will the Minister ensure that every Department will have meaningful and ongoing engagement, and will he report to the House and the Committee for Communities on that?

Mr Lyons: Of course, I will always report to the Committee on the issues, and we will have monitoring in place. Again, I encourage people to read the entirety of the document and to recognise and consider the fact that a more detailed action plan will be coming later.

I would emphasise that there is a consultation process. I have heard many voices over recent weeks say, "There's not enough in here". What I am not hearing much about is what people would like to see. Whenever I met groups and individuals, I did not hear specific actions that people would like to see in place. That is the part of the consultation — [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: No, that is fair enough.

That is part of the consultation process, so I would like to hear from people what they would like included and how that would tie in with Executive priorities and affordability.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his statement. As he said, it is long overdue. Would the Minister consider having an independent body or panel to oversee the implementation of the strategy and, where required, hold Departments to account?

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely right that we are held to account on the strategy. We are out to consultation right now, and the Member will see, in the consultation document, the governance structures that will be around the strategy and the monitoring that will be in place. We intend to have an anti-poverty strategy board that will be responsible for delivery under the strategy's three pillars. We will consider how those who are facing these issues and the organisations that support them will be involved in that. That is part of the consultation process so that people can give their views.

Miss Dolan: Minister, no budget has been set aside for the implementation of the anti-poverty strategy. Given the already difficult financial situation that we find ourselves in, how will you ensure that the strategy is prioritised when it comes to future budget allocations?

Mr Lyons: That was the whole point of engaging with Departments beforehand to ask, "What are you doing, what are you going to continue to do, and what new things can you do?". That is why I think that we have a realistic set of proposals that, over time, Ministers can add to. This will be agile and flexible. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will find a budget if additional budget is needed and if it is available. I encourage Ministers to speak to the Finance Minister. I encourage the Member to speak to the Finance Minister as well, because I will happily welcome any additional resource that can be committed to help to tackle poverty. I am sure that she will engage with her colleague the Finance Minister on that.

Mr Brett: Minister, the hypocrisy in the Chamber will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland. The so-called Opposition held the position of Minister for Social Development and did not deliver the strategy. Sinn Féin held the Department for Communities and did not deliver the strategy. You, Minister, have delivered the strategy. Will you confirm that all Executive parties and colleagues had the opportunity to feed in to the process?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to tell the House again that this is a Department of delivery under the DUP. We are getting things done. We have brought forward the strategy when no one else did before. We have brought forward a housing supply strategy when no one else did before, and we got housing as a Programme for Government commitment after years of others asking for it, so I am more than happy to be making progress in this area.

The Member is right to highlight the fact that not only were other Ministers asked for their input but they nominated officials to a working group. They were tasked specifically with bringing forward proposals, so, if there are issues not in the document, there should be questions to other Ministers about why that is, because everybody had the opportunity. It was before the Executive for six weeks. Other Ministers would have had the opportunity to say, "This is missing. We should add this. We should allocation more funding here as well.". I have the letters from all my Executive colleagues who responded. Obviously, they are confidential, but clearly there was support for the strategy, or it would not have gone out for public consultation.

The Department for Communities cannot tackle or solve poverty by itself. The Executive cannot tackle or solve poverty by themselves either, but we all need to work together, and that is why we have a joined-up approach where there is ample opportunity for feed-in from other Departments.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, there is growing concern, as some Members have mentioned, that the strategy attributes no new additional funding to new child-focused interventions. The UK Government announced in the spring statement that they would extend free school meals eligibility to all families entitled to universal credit. Northern Ireland should receive the Barnett consequential from that. Will the Minister commit to ensuring or, at least, attempting to ensure that the money is solely invested in tackling rising child poverty?

Mr Lyons: The reason why I have brought forward an anti-poverty strategy and not a separate child poverty strategy is that I do not think that you can separate the two. The impact of poverty on families is not unique to children. It is about family incomes and making sure that we do everything we can to raise the incomes and lower the costs for families as a whole. Free school meals is one element of that, but I go back to looking at the overall picture and the actions that we can take with the money that is available that will give the best value for money. Free school meals is one of those actions. Obviously, it is up to the Finance Minister, the Education Minister and other Executive colleagues to discuss the matter. The key question for me when it comes to my support for any such measures will be the difference that they make and whether they are the best use of the resources that we have.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for starting the consultation process. Minister, the anti-poverty co-design group had a very involved role in the early stages of drafting the strategy, but you decided to end the co-design process. You have mentioned what is in the strategy, but the co-design group is bitterly disappointed, because it sees little evidence of its initial input and most of its recommendations have been cast aside. Can you highlight for us the key recommendations that the co-design group brought forward that you have cast aside? Why have they not been incorporated into the strategy?

Mr Lyons: First, I did not bring the co-design group to an end: it came to an end. The work had been completed, and I have met the group since.

To answer the second question, I refer the Member to the answer I gave some moments ago. The co-design group raised a number of issues. For the Member's benefit, I mentioned welfare benefits; period poverty; fuel poverty; making school attendance cost-neutral; extended mitigation payments; pressurising the UK Government to maintain the pensions triple lock; the need for a childcare strategy; an early learning strategy; additional budget for a childcare subsidy; low pay and workers' rights; housing; the housing supply strategy; revitalisation of the Housing Executive; the transformation of the private rented sector; improving access to benefits, advice and support for older people; the uptake of pension credit; delivering Make the Call; wrap-around service; and helping people access benefits and the support and services that they are entitled to. I fully admit that there may be some things the co-design group brought forward that we have not included in the strategy, but to say that nothing is coming forward from the co-design group is demonstrably wrong.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for progressing the strategy today after what he correctly described as a legacy of delay. I particularly welcome the Minister's comments about moving away from the siloed approach to strategies and policies in government. Those of us who sit on the Public Accounts Committee had the child poverty report, and those are some of our key recommendations. I welcome his work alongside the Minister of Education to address some of those early intervention measures. Can the Minister outline some details of the work that he and the Minister for Education have discussed in relation to addressing child poverty?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Education Minister, because there has been extensive engagement with him in that area. He has highlighted, as I have said, that we cannot lift children out of poverty without lifting families out of poverty. He has engaged with me on a number of issues — you will see them in the strategy — about how we can help with issues such as access to education and the costs of participating in education.

I pay credit to my Executive colleague, who has delivered and is continuing to deliver in that area, be it through tackling the cost of school uniforms, addressing the cost of access to education or providing additional resource for childcare, which the Member will be well aware of, given the impact that that is having. It is important that that be included in the strategy. Just because we are doing it does not mean that we should leave it out. We want to keep doing those things and build on them, as the Minister of Education is doing. I look forward to working closely with him, because he has a key role to play in ensuring that we tackle the issue.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Minister, I am sure that you are aware that the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the anti-poverty strategy include targets. Why have you chosen to ignore that advice?

Mr Lyons: Again, that is wrong: I have not chosen to ignore that advice. As I said, the place for targets will be in the action plan. We will put targets against the actions in the strategy that we have said that we will take. I want to be in a position where the strategy is measured and where we can be held to account, so, as I said before, targets will be there.

Mr McMurray: How does the Minister envisage success being measured as a result of the strategy? Will it include targets, benchmarks and timelines that are accessible through a publicly available dashboard?

Mr Lyons: Each outcome will be underpinned by the action plan, which will be updated on an ongoing basis. A number of indicators will be used to monitor and track progress over time. That will be undertaken at the level of the pillars, and it will be done in a proactive and flexible manner. We will make sure that we use the appropriate statistics. As I said in the previous answer, I am keen to ensure that we are held to account on the issues that we have control over.

It is very difficult for us to set a target on tackling wider poverty, because that is not within the gift of the Executive alone. The Member will be aware of macroeconomic issues that impact on UK Government policy. We have seen that through the increase in oil prices, even over the past number of days. I am more than happy for our delivery on the things that we are responsible for to be measured. We have targets for that, and I have already set out some of the objectives.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. I refer to a couple of comments made by the Member for North Belfast and the Member for South Down about delay and hypocrisy. There has been no hypocrisy so great as the hypocrisy hanging clean out of the DUP, which blocked the anti-poverty strategy for a long number of years and would not allow the invaluable work that was ongoing with the sectors to continue.

Minister, will you give us some detail on who will make up the anti-poverty strategy board, what mechanisms will be put in place and who the board will report to?

Mr Lyons: My response to the Member's first comment is that only one Minister has brought forward an anti-poverty strategy, and that is me. I am glad that she welcomes the work that I have done and the fact that I have progressed the strategy and got it to the stage where it has Executive agreement. I am grateful for her thanks and congratulations on that issue.

On the governance structures, again, we are going through a period of consultation, and I will be happy to hear any other views on that. It remains an Executive strategy that will be overseen by the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) and led by an anti-poverty strategy board. The board will be chaired by the head of the Civil Service and attended by Senior Civil Service representatives from all Departments. It will meet regularly to assess the effectiveness of the strategy, agree changes and updates to the action plan and sign off on formal reports. The anti-poverty strategy board will be supported in that work by the three pillar subcommittees, which will be chaired by a representative who is nominated by the permanent secretary of the relevant Department. That is what is in the strategy at this time, but, again, we are more than happy to sincerely take views from others about how it can best be monitored.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the statement today. I want to deal in facts, as he said. There were no new policies — not issues — developed before the Executive agreed the strategy. The anti-poverty coalition was stood down by you. The child payment in Scotland reduced poverty from 26% to 22% and absolute poverty from 23% to 17%. Our Ministers put forward suggestions.

I take you at your word, however, that, in the implementation of the strategy through the action plan, we will see targets. In my constituency of North Belfast, 28% of children live in poverty. Will the action plan include constituency-based initiatives to target child poverty?

Mr Lyons: New actions will come forward. I have highlighted some of them already. In my Department, I have been working specifically on housing issues, such as the cost of housing and the cost of heating homes. It is important to note that the Executive got on with that work over the past 17 or 18 months. It would not have been right for us just to sit on our hands and do nothing, saying that we wanted to wait until the anti-poverty strategy was in place before we proceeded with some of the actions. We have been taking action.

Specific targets are for a later conversation, when there is Executive agreement and as part of the action plan. I am, however, sincere when I say to the House and the wider public that I want to hear their views on what we can do.

The Member mentioned particular figures for Scotland. There has been a decrease in child poverty there, but it is nowhere near the targets that the Scottish Government had set. Relative poverty, which is the measure used, was at 22% in 2023-24, and I believe that their target was to get it down to 18%. I also make the case that Scotland started from a lower base than we did. All that I am saying is that, if we are to tackle the issue effectively, we need to make sure that, in a time of limited resources, we put the resources that we have into the programmes and actions that will have the biggest impact on driving down poverty.

We will be led by evidence and facts. It may well be the case that, throughout the lifetime of the strategy, we stop doing some of the things that I said in my statement that we are going to do, either because they are not working or because they are not having as big an impact as some of the other actions. We are determined to get the strategy right.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

It is clear that the co-design group is very disappointed that a number of important issues that it raised were not included in the draft anti-poverty strategy. Will the Minister tell us what those issues were and why he thought that he could disregard them completely?

Mr Lyons: I have not disregarded that group's work. I met its members and asked for some of the specifics that they would like to see included that were not in there. I would like to have heard more from them, because, as I have said twice now — [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: — substantial actions have been taken. My colleague behind me urges me to say them all again. I am happy to do that, but I want to make the point that some actions have not been taken forward because of affordability issues. I could have stuffed the draft strategy with a wish list of things that I knew would never be deliverable or affordable, but I did not do that, because I am going to be honest with the people of Northern Ireland. I will put something on the table for agreement that we can deliver on and that will make a difference. I am not going to put into the strategy measures that I know that I will not get Executive support for or for which I will not get the budget.

I hope that we can be agile and flexible. If additional resource comes in, and it is proven that putting it into action a or b will make a difference to people's lives, fantastic, and we will do that. The strategy will not be set in stone. I have asked the co-design group for more detail, however. I look forward to its providing additional information. I hope that we can discuss the issues with a little bit of truth and honesty.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I represent a city that has very high levels of deprivation. Does the draft strategy propose ensuring targeted interventions to fight regional imbalance? Is it your vision to have investment in and specific interventions for constituencies such as Foyle?

Mr Lyons: I want to target poverty wherever it is found. I absolutely accept that it is a particular problem in the Member's constituency when compared with other constituencies. It is not about geographical location, however, but about tackling poverty wherever it is found. The issues that we are looking at, particularly in the draft strategy, are those that will tackle the root causes of poverty, and that is what I want to do. I genuinely want to work with the Member on that, because it is important. I have said that already. I will not be found wanting in working with everyone to help tackle poverty wherever it is found. It is in her constituency, but unfortunately it is not limited to one area; it can be found across Northern Ireland. I will do my best to ensure that we put in place actions that make a difference: to stop people falling into poverty in the first place; to stop the impact of poverty where it is found; and, importantly, to help people to get out of poverty. I will work with the Member on that.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, the strategy refers to promoting "good family structure". What is good family structure, and how will you ensure that the strategy does not stigmatise single-parent families and other diverse family types in our community?

Mr Lyons: I am not about stigmatising anybody. The actions that were brought together were a result of the evidence. I want to see young people in secure families, where there is the support that they need. I am more than happy to share the evidence base that we have with the Member, but there is no doubt about it: if you look at the evidence, you see that a wide range of family factors impact on the chances of families being in poverty, which also have an impact on children's futures. That is what we are trying to address, but let us be honest at the same time: the Centre for Social Justice reports that the break-up of family relationships is one of the quickest routes into poverty. That is a concern, and we want to help address it. Unfortunately, children whose families break apart are more than twice as likely to experience poverty as those whose families stay together. I am not stigmatising anybody when I say that: it is a declaration of fact. That is where the evidence lies. That is why we want to support families and young people so that we can ensure that they have fulfilling and complete home and family lives.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister confirm whether the anti-poverty strategy is fully costed and the necessary funding has been ring-fenced across all Departments? What specific, measurable outcomes do the Executive aim to achieve through the strategy and in what time frame?

Mr Lyons: The reason why I did not simply bring a strategy to the Executive table and throw it down in front of the Executive was that I wanted to make sure that it was realistic, affordable and deliverable. That is why I set up a working group with representatives of all Departments and asked them to come back to me with the actions that they could take forward. Those actions are what we have in the strategy. Departments have committed to delivering them, and I look forward to their doing so. At the same time, I hope that the strategy will be agile so that, when additional resource becomes available or if there are programmes that are a better use of money to tackle such issues, we can divert resources where necessary. The setting and monitoring of targets will follow in the action plan.

Mr Carroll: Amidst all the bluster with the statement and the strategy, no new money or resources have been announced. The only way to reduce poverty is to reduce prices or put more money in people's pockets, and the Minister is not proposing to do either of those things. Will the Minister indicate whether the co-design group endorses his strategy? If he wants ideas on how to reduce poverty, I suggest rent caps, rent controls and rent reduction as quick ways of doing so. The Minister could get on with that work right now.

Mr Lyons: The Member had his line written before he even heard my statement. There has been no bluster from me today: I have been straightforward, upfront and honest. I have not put together a wish list strategy that is not affordable or deliverable. I have been very honest and upfront with people. The co-design group will, no doubt, makes its views heard. Its members have already been on the airwaves making their thoughts known, although they told me that they will engage with their organisations before they make final comments.

The Member demonstrates again how he gets things wrong. In calling for a rent cap, he is proposing something that will hurt people more in the longer term. The evidence that we have demonstrates that rent caps would drive people from the market and drive up the costs for all the other homes that are left in the private rented sector.

I know that, in his world, there are very simple answers to complex problems. However, what those simple answers will do is end up hurting people more, including the people whom he claims to represent.

I believe that what we have here is a good start. I am open to hearing other people's views on that, as well as the views of other Ministers, if they want to bring forward any other proposals. However, I have here a plan that, first and foremost, will tackle the root causes of poverty. Yes, that is about increasing incomes, but it is also about making sure that we reduce costs. That is the work that I have been getting on with, particularly in housing, in order to make sure that housing is more affordable and that people can heat their homes, which is one of the biggest outgoings that they have. I will not be distracted from that work. I will keep doing it, because I am here to deliver for people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Communities on his statement. It was important that we heard from the Minister. Nineteen Members were able to ask questions on this important issue, and there was a good exchange, which I welcome.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that a further 16 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate.

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

The SDLP understands the fundamental power of a home to shape people's lives. Housing is a basic necessity — a tangible, life-shaping foundation on which families and communities are built. Let us not forget that the very foundations of our political system were born out of the housing rights movement, and it is why many of us stand here today.

The failure to confront this growing crisis has had devastating consequences. That failure is a lived reality here for tens of thousands of people today. Those people include the single mother who has to traverse three flights of stairs twice a day, toddler in tow, with a pram in one hand and a bag of groceries in the other; a new mother in emergency accommodation who is not allowed visitors, not even her mum to help her with night feeds; the man bearing the scars of conflict, who has been given hostel accommodation that is two hours away from his support network, battling the haunting pull of relapse; or the pensioner who cannot climb the stairs to reach the toilet or their bed, waiting years for a new home. That is what social housing looks like in 2025, and, every day, it is getting worse.

We were told that the Programme for Government would be ambitious. We were actually told that it is ambitious, promising nearly 6,000 social homes by 2027. However, this year, we will struggle to build barely 1,000 — half the target that the Executive set. Ministers laud that and the housing supply strategy as some sort of victory when, in Derry alone, over 6,000 people are waiting for a home. That is not ambition; it is abdication. Instead of addressing those failures, last week, the DUP proposed a motion not to deliver homes but to scapegoat immigrants and shift blame on to those with the least while letting those in power and with power off the hook.

Leadership is not about pitting people against each other but about stepping up when the public are hurting. Right now, people are sore and angry, and they have every right to be, though anger is not the problem. The problem is what we do with it. We should all be angry. Anger is a powerful tool and force for change. The Executive cannot just tell people that they will do "what matters most": they need to actually do it. For 10 years, the Executive, when we have had one, have failed to treat housing as a priority. That is why anger is spilling on to the streets. Let us be clear though: violence solves nothing, but neither does silence and, certainly, nor does neglect.

Housing is not a headline, but it is a lifeline. How can the public, and how can we in the Chamber, have confidence in an Executive who consistently fail to meet their own targets and dress up failures as success and who struggle to be held to account or to face accountability? We need to rebuild confidence in leadership, because, right now, that is in even shorter supply than homes.

We in the Opposition are not here just to criticise. I have no doubt that the Minister will stand up in response to the debate, as seems to be the pattern, and ask, "Well, what answers do you have?". We have set out answers. We do not have them all, but we can play our part in providing them. We have set out a clear road map in our 'Building Firm Foundations' plan: properly fund social housing, curb the ballooning cost of rent and temporary accommodation, repurpose public land and do it fast, address the growing number of empty homes across our communities and reuse them for people who are crying and dying for a roof over their heads, and tackle the waste water infrastructure crisis.

The people outside these walls are not asking for the impossible; they are asking for a home, an opportunity and a life not lived in limbo. They deserve better than this. I propose the motion.

Mr Allen: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Speaker: You have five minutes to propose and three minutes in which to make a winding- speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to propose the amendment to the Opposition motion and thank them for tabling it.

There are a number of aspects to our amendment. Some of it is about stating the factual context of where we are today. It highlights the Minister's stated commitment to tackling homelessness and boosting housing supply. That is similar to what other Communities Ministers have highlighted during their tenures. It acknowledges various initiatives that the Minister has brought forward to date, such as the affordable rent scheme, often known as the intermediate rent offering; the £10 million allocation to the loan to acquire move-on accommodation fund; and the decision to allow the Housing Executive to use its reserves to purchase accommodation for temporary housing.

We know only too well the challenges with temporary accommodation and the amount of money being spent on non-standard temporary accommodation and the pressures that that puts not only on budgets but on households. Many individuals and families are living in that non-standard temporary accommodation, which is wholly unsuitable for them and their families.

When we place the housing crisis in context, we can simply say that we need to build more homes. That is the true reality and scale of the crisis before us. I have outlined the measures that the Minister has brought forward, and his predecessors have brought forward others, such as working on the development of the housing supply strategy and other such initiatives. However, in the wider context of our housing crisis, those measures on their own are simply not enough. They will not address the housing crisis before us. They will not deliver enough homes for the many people who approach us, day and daily, looking for support to get a secure home. Those people are living in temporary accommodation, they are living in accommodation that is not suitable, and they are living in accommodation that needs significant investment, such as some of our Housing Executive properties.

Our amendment also laments the lack of progress. It is perhaps important to contextualise that. It laments the lack of progress on delivering borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. What do I mean when I say that? I mean that the Treasury is not giving this the urgency and priority that it deserves. Since the Minister took up his post, I have heard him state that he wants to implement borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Indeed, his predecessor, and the Minister who stepped in for a short time to replace his predecessor, brought forward the revitalisation or reclassification of the Housing Executive, and that is nearly five years in the making. We have not made enough progress on that front. I know and appreciate that negotiations have taken place. I have spoken to colleagues who have been part of those negotiations, through talks processes with the Treasury, about how difficult that is, but we must prioritise. It is imperative that the Communities Minister engages with the Finance Minister to bring further pace to those negotiations.

Our amendment also highlights the challenges with our existing infrastructure. There is no denying that, with our current infrastructure set-up, there are housing developments that simply cannot be taken forward due to the inability to connect to water or waste water infrastructure. Indeed, I have been contacted by housing associations highlighting the unaffordability or inviability of some schemes due to the cost of simply connecting.

Last, but by no means least, and perhaps, crucially, it:

That is where we need to be to deliver much-needed housing; we need to scale up housing delivery. It is forecast that we are going to deliver only 1,000 homes in this mandate. Perhaps that will increase, as it did previously, through the monitoring rounds. We have heard from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations that we need to be building at least 2,200 homes as highlighted in the housing supply strategy. I have said previously in the Chamber, so it will come as no surprise, that I do not believe that even that is enough, but I am a realist and acknowledge that there are budgetary challenges, but we need to be doing all that we can. Housing is one of the most pressing issues that we need to address. It cuts across all Departments. If we can provide good quality secure housing, it will have significant health benefits.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Ms Armstrong, you have five minutes to propose and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have three minutes.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that it is fair to say that everyone in the House knows that we are in a housing crisis, with more than 47,000 households on social housing waiting lists, more than 36,000 in housing stress, and more than 11,000 people living in temporary accommodation. As other Members have said, they are not just numbers: they are children, families and older people. Despite the growing need, we are building fewer homes today than we have in 60 years, with barely 5,000 in the past year and well short of the 10,000 that we require annually. The failure is systemic and cross-cutting.

It is not just a housing problem and, indeed, it is not just a Communities problem; it is a cross-departmental problem. That is why I am calling for an action plan that has been agreed by the whole Executive, evidencing how each Department will contribute to reducing the housing waiting lists and help to meet the new-build targets. I was delighted when the strategy was finally published because we had, at long last, a housing supply strategy. The strategy, as launched, sets the right ambition of building 100,000 new homes over 15 years, and that includes 33,000 social and intermediate homes. I would like to see us actually go past that ambition and aim for more. However, a strategy is only as good as the action that follows and, today, that action is missing.

What is holding us back? Northern Ireland Water. As a result of the underfunding of Northern Ireland Water, or however you want to put it, there are 19,000 planned homes — many of them social homes — stuck in limbo because they cannot get connected to sewerage systems. It is not just a technical issue; it is a political one. We need to deal with waste water. The Fiscal Council has already highlighted that the current funding model for Northern Ireland Water is not working. That means that our waste water is not delivering enough capacity for the number of homes that we need to address the housing crisis.

Planning is dysfunctional. Local development plans are gridlocked. Developers, housing associations and councils are all in agreement that, without planning reform, we will not meet even half of our housing targets. That means that the Department for Communities and the Department for Infrastructure must work together to fast-track approvals. We have a collapse in private rental supply. Rents are up over 8% in a year, and the number of available properties has halved since 2019. That means that people are being evicted, coming out of homes and going on to social housing waiting lists. That means that the Economy, Finance and Communities Departments must collaborate on regulation, incentives and public-private partnerships to stabilise and expand affordable rental options. As has been mentioned, we need to ensure that the Housing Executive can have borrowing powers and start to build again. I look forward to an update from the Minister on how negotiations with the Treasury are progressing. We also need to see public land being made available for housing. I look forward to the mapping exercise being completed so that we finally find out what land is available that we can put houses on.

A housing strategy without a costed whole-government action plan is just a wish list. We must hold each Department accountable, from Infrastructure to Finance and Communities to Economy, because no one single Department can solve the crisis alone. This is where I ask that a review be completed to ensure that cross-departmental strategies and plans are able to be scrutinised in a way that is not limited by the Committee structures of this place. If the Minister for Communities is taking the lead on the housing supply strategy, his Department must ensure that it monitors, collates and reports to the Committee for Communities on progress. There can be no more fudging. We have to learn from the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme and, as an Assembly, no longer accept "It is not within my Department" as an excuse. If a Minister and his Department are taking the lead on an issue as important as the housing supply strategy, they have to take the lead and report on that.

Let us be ambitious and coordinated. Most of all, let us be honest with the people of Northern Ireland. We cannot reduce housing waiting lists or meet our new-build targets without funding the infrastructure, reforming the systems and empowering the agencies that deliver homes. I call on the Assembly to back a fully costed action plan that spans all Departments, aligns with the multi-year Budget cycle and delivers on the promises of our housing supply strategy. Anything less would cause another delay, and, for too many families, delay means despair. In the spirit of working together, Alliance will support the UUP amendment.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Members who brought this important motion to the House. Lack of housing is one of the biggest issues that we face as a society. Unfortunately, it is an issue on which too little progress has been made.

Colleagues have set out the figures, so I will not go into them, but the fact that the social housing list continues to grow, month on month, is evidence enough that we are not building enough homes to meet the level of demand. The housing supply strategy sets out an ambitious target of 100,000 new homes over the next 15 years, one third of which are to be social housing. That is the scale of what is needed if we are ever to get the waiting lists moving in the right direction. As the motion states, in the Programme for Government, the Executive have given a commitment to build 5,850 homes before the end of the mandate, which shows that the Executive are serious about building more social and affordable homes. We have the plans and strategies in place; we now need to see them delivered upon.

I have to say that it is disappointing that the budget has allocated only enough capital funding to build 1,000 new social homes this year, which goes only halfway to meeting the target of 2,000 per year. I welcome the Finance Minister's comments yesterday that he will work with the Communities Minister to secure extra funding throughout the year and that housing will be prioritised. Whilst that is far from ideal, we have seen how, last year, funding was secured for an extra 1,000 homes during the year, so it certainly can be done. However, we have to be realistic, as Kellie said, about what can be achieved under our current circumstances.

It has long been Sinn Féin's view that, if we want to seriously tackle the housing shortage, the Housing Executive needs to start building homes again, and only by changing the funding model for the Housing Executive and giving it the ability to borrow money will that be achieved. To that end, former Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, initiated the revitalisation of the Housing Executive, with that outcome as a key priority. As Members will know, that change to the funding model must be agreed by Treasury. Disappointingly, it has so far refused, despite persistent lobbying by successive Finance Ministers. However, I very much welcome the confirmation from the Finance Minister that the Treasury has now agreed to consider that change as part of the ongoing negotiations on a final fiscal framework. We need those negotiations to take place as soon as practicable and an agreement found that will transform the Housing Executive and, more importantly, get the homes that we need built.

Previously in the Chamber, we have debated the benefits of building homes on public land. Sinn Féin would like to see the creation of a land management agency that would assist with identifying and acquiring any public land that is suitable for housing.

Mr Bradley: While others debate, the DUP is intent on delivering. Housing is one of the most pressing issues facing thousands across Northern Ireland, from families in desperate need of social housing to first-time buyers trying to step into the property market. The DUP recognises the urgency and is committed to action.

The gap between housing supply and demand grows wider day by day. One of the biggest obstacles is a sluggish planning system. That is why the DUP has consistently called for major reforms to speed up approvals. Without efficient planning, our ability to build the homes that we need is paralysed. We welcome the £153 million in financial transactions capital (FTC) funding for co-ownership that was announced by the Minister for Communities. The crucial investment will support first-time buyers and help to unlock over 1,000 new-build homes. That is real support, not empty rhetoric.

The DUP is proud of its record in making housing more accessible and affordable. The affordable rent scheme and the increase in the co-ownership limit are concrete steps that directly support people most in need. While others talk, our Communities Minister is delivering a clear housing supply strategy that is backed by real action.

Let us be honest: planning reform alone is not enough. Infrastructure challenges, especially around waste water, are holding back progress. If we are to meet our housing targets, we need all Departments to step up to the mark. A strong housing strategy needs a strong economic vision, adequate budgets and joined-up government.

There are many causes of the housing shortage, not least the number of buy-to-let and holiday homes that cause acute shortages in coastal areas such as Portrush, Portstewart and Castlerock. Also, owing to the scarcity of supply, rents have increased. Of course, other issues stem from that, including for transport, education and economic sustainability.

The DUP is serious about solving the housing crisis. The question — I take Ms Armstrong's point here — is this: are the other parties in the Executive equally committed?

Mr Kingston: The Opposition should be under no illusion: the DUP absolutely recognises the acute need for more social housing and, indeed, all tenures of housing across Northern Ireland. Building more homes is a priority for our party and for our Communities Minister. We will champion that need at every possible opportunity to ensure that, going forward, housing supply can better meet demand.

The SDLP motion offers nothing — that is the luxury of being in opposition — just cynicism that the three-year social housing target in the Programme for Government could be met.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: There is nothing in your motion.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, I do not have time.

The Ulster Unionist Party amendment highlights some of the practical actions taken by our Minister and new initiatives that he has brought forward to increase housing supply. Therefore, we will support the Ulster Unionist amendment.

An extremely constrained financial climate in which there are significant budgetary constraints has not dampened our ambition to meet the targets set out in the Programme for Government, including the launch of the housing supply strategy. Initiatives such as the affordable rent scheme and the FTC funding programme have resulted in meaningful progress being made on the ground. However, we acknowledge that more needs to be done.

We will call on the other Executive parties for their backing on those efforts. Housing supply, or the lack of it, is a factor that cuts across a number of policy areas, given its correlation with health and well-being, poverty and educational outcomes. There is a wide range of competing financial needs around the Executive table, and that is recognised, I think, by the Opposition, given that they have tabled motions today calling for more funding for housing, the arts and policing and justice.

The DUP has been pushing for a fairer fiscal framework from the UK Government. More funding allocated to Northern Ireland would be greatly beneficial in helping to deliver the housing targets set out in the Programme for Government. We welcome the Chancellor's announcement in the spending review that there will be an additional allocation of £39 billion for affordable housing over the next decade. We will keep pressure on the UK Government to increase funding to Northern Ireland to ensure that we get a fair amount of investment to allow us to build more affordable housing. That will be done in addition to ensuring that the current commitments translate into additional Executive investment.

Building more houses requires a multi-agency response. It is vital that local government, financial bodies and the construction industry establish a working relationship that will enable the faster construction of affordable housing.

Mr Speaker: I made a statement this morning about the standards of debate. There have since been two attempts made by Members to intervene, both of which were resisted. I remind Members that an extra minute is added to their speaking time for taking an intervention, most of which take less than 20 seconds, so they should have ample time to take one. I encourage Members to take interventions, as opposed to simply delivering a monologue and not having an exchange.

Mr Gaston: The promise of 100,000 homes by 2039 rings hollow when we cannot deliver 1,000 social homes this year. Over 44,000 people are on housing waiting lists. In my constituency, families feel the real impact of that inaction, which is worsened by such systematic failures as Northern Ireland Water's inability to support new housing developments. I met Northern Ireland Water officials last week, and the message was very clear: there are 73 waste water treatment works at capacity across Northern Ireland. At their own expense, developers are now having to connect road gullies to watercourses to free up capacity in the system to allow for connections.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Northern Ireland Water says that it needs £640 million this year to fund its investment appropriately, but it has got £321 million. There are 37,000 houses with approved planning permission, but the network has capacity for only 18,000 in specific areas across Northern Ireland. Moreover, 34 areas across 23 towns are closed to greenfield developments.

I am happy to give way.

Mr Allen: The Member highlights the issue for NI Water with water infrastructure. Does he accept that the issue does not appear to be cutting through to the Minister for Infrastructure, who has not brought forward any new initiatives?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to support the Member's comment. The housing crisis cannot be solved without first solving the problems with our waste water infrastructure.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: The Executive's lack of a short-term plan undermines their long-term promises. The maths simply does not add up, and communities are paying the price.

Illegal HMOs are adding to the strain. Members may not want to face up to it, but HMOs are pushing up rents in working-class areas. The current system, whereby all HMO applications are processed through Belfast City Council, is outdated and fails to address local needs and ensure safety for tenants. Councils need to be responsible for HMOs in their own area. For example, we are told that there are only 14 HMOs in the whole of the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. My goodness. If one goes down into Clonavon — an area of Ballymena known as a G3 area — one could find 14 HMOs operating there.

Immigration places further pressure on our limited housing stock. In Northern Ireland, we are housing asylum seekers in hotels at taxpayers' expense while failing to build enough social homes. That fuels tensions in our community. In response to a recent question for written answer, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister told me that 300 asylum seekers are currently being housed in such accommodation. The Assembly must act. The recent unrest has shown that we need to take the issue seriously. I call on the Executive to deliver a clear plan, to increase funding for social housing to meet the waiting list need, to resolve Northern Ireland's waste water infrastructure issues as a priority and to reform HMO regulations in order to prioritise safety and local oversight.

Every citizen who has paid into the system deserves a safe, affordable home. Let us show our constituents that their needs are our priority. We cannot bury our heads in the sand any longer. As a priority, waste water infrastructure needs to be sorted out, but, at the same time, we need to look at issues such as immigration and the illegal HMOs that are operating in society. They are driving up rents and preventing people from getting houses. Those are issues that people do not want to discuss, but they are issues that the people of North Antrim — my community — have sent me here to raise in order to represent them, because they are issues that are prevalent in North Antrim.

Mr Carroll: The housing crisis is one of the greatest scandals that the Executive oversee. Despite recent events and what we have heard over recent days, the housing crisis and the wider crisis in public services are not caused by migrants, migration or asylum seekers. The crisis in public services is caused by a cruel economic agenda that says that it is OK to wield an axe to the services that people need at the same time as justifying, excusing and celebrating a huge ballooning of corporate and billionaire wealth.

Migrants and asylum seekers are not to blame for the crisis. According to the people who come into my office and, I am sure, others each day, they are subjected to substandard housing, including damp and mould. They are victims of a Home Office policy that treats them as suspicious, racially profiles them and treats them as prisoners inside temporary housing. Over the past week, the airwaves have rightly been dominated by coverage of the racist pogroms, but people are organising to fight back against the housing crisis while the Minister dithers. People have been organising in Belfast, Derry and everywhere in between. I commend them for doing so. To repeat: landlords are driving up rents while the Government allow them to do so.

I support the motion in its original form. The amendments weaken it and give the Executive a bye ball and an easy time. Currently, over 49,000 —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Mr Allen: Will the Member articulate how calling for increased funding to build more homes weakens the motion?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. The amendment submitted by the Member's party removes the requirement for the Executive to act, which weakens the motion. It is not strong enough. The motion is better without the amendments from the UUP and the Alliance Party.

The UUP amendment mentions the 49,000 families who are waiting for social housing. Of those, 65% are officially homeless and 5,135 live in temporary accommodation without a permanent, secure place to call "home". That homeless figure includes over 5,700 children who are growing up in Belfast, almost half of whom live in my constituency of West Belfast, which is scandalous. My constituency has also seen an increase in poverty in recent years. We are clearly in a housing emergency, but the Minister will not admit it. The amendments do not admit that either.

There is a simple way of making sure that there is social housing for everyone who needs it. Rates of social housebuilding have been falling year-on-year. The targets in the Programme for Government and the housing supply strategy are nothing more than a pipe dream. Capital allocations for social housebuilding are paltry. By contrast, the money spent on temporary accommodation is eye-watering: £38·6 million was spent on temporary accommodation last year alone, over £12 million of which lined the pockets of hotel and B&B owners. Over £21 million of public money was spent on single lets, going straight into the wallets of landlords without any rent controls or reductions. The more energy the Executive spend on firefighting the crisis, throwing good public money after bad, the less money will be invested in building permanent social homes, and the cycle of homelessness will continue.

If the Executive truly wanted to reduce the demand for temporary accommodation, they would act to stop people becoming homeless in the first place. The Minister could introduce rent controls, but, as we heard earlier, he is opposed to them. He could introduce a no-fault eviction ban so that people could stay in their homes in the private rented sector, but he is opposed to that as well. The Executive could invest far more in homeless prevention services, such as Supporting People. Only £4·5 million was spent last year on homelessness prevention.

Another way out of the crisis —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: OK. Thanks.

Ms Sugden: Housing continues to be the most common issue brought to my office by constituents, closely followed by domestic abuse. Sadly, in our siloed government, those two problems are often treated separately. It really is not acceptable for someone who is fleeing domestic violence to find themselves stuck in a hostel or an unsuitable flat for three years, but our office has dealt with such cases. If we want people, especially women and children, to leave abusive situations, we need to provide them with safe, secure and permanent housing. Otherwise, the system is setting them up to go back.

We hear not just from victims of abuse but from older people, some of whom are in their 70s and 80s, who have been evicted from homes that they have rented for decades. Why? It is not because they have done anything wrong but because the landlord can make more money renting it as a holiday home. On the north —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does the Member share my concern that the Minister has refused to introduce a no-fault eviction ban to ensure that constituents such as hers, whom she mentioned, and mine are protected, given the lack of such legislation?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I appreciate the point. We are coming to the point where we will have to consider legislation, given that people are finding themselves without a home. It is particularly critical for older people. Last week, I was dealing with a lady in her 80s who will be evicted at the end of the month but has nowhere to go. It is a failure of this Government and society that we are not addressing such issues.

I will come back to the point about holiday lets and holiday homes and talk to the bigger impact that they have. This is not just about having a conversation about having a second home on the north coast, and it is not about telling people that they should not come to what is probably the most beautiful part of Northern Ireland. I understand why they want to do that. However, it is about recognising the impact that that has. When people are there only in the evenings and at weekends, they do not send their kids to the school or use the public services. Public services are driven by demand, and we can already see that in our schools. Kids are not going to the local schools, because there are no homes in the local area to house them. Families who need their children as carers cannot live close to where their older relatives are, and that has an impact on our health and social care system.

We cannot look at this just in terms of there not being enough roofs to go over people's heads; we have to look at the wider system. I am deeply frustrated that this is not a cross-departmental priority. I appreciate that there are issues and that money is tight, but we are doing what we always do in this Government, which is to firefight. If we do not look at this situation and do not have a genuine 10-year plan, we will see those issues impacting on all other areas of society. It is not just about bricks and mortar but about infrastructure. Others spoke to that when talking about the challenges with NI Water and planning. We are setting ourselves up for a fall, and we can already see the cracks starting to appear.

I encourage Members to look at this not just as a case of there not being enough roofs over people's heads. It is about the wider system, and housing is a critical part of that. I would like to hear from the Minister about the tangible actions that he has taken. I have raised many times, including at the beginning of this debate, the issue of second homes and tourists. I understand from responses to Assembly questions that discussion is happening, but what are we really doing? How are we addressing the issue? Ultimately, we have to build more homes, but we can do other things in the meantime. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I begin by sincerely thanking the Opposition for tabling the motion. I am always happy for there to be a focus on the subject. It is important to me and to the people of Northern Ireland. I thank Mr Durkan for his tone today, which has been uncharacteristically conciliatory. I think that he recognises some of the things that we are trying to do.

I will address some of the issues on housing that Mr Durkan raised. He said that he has set out a plan for what the SDLP would do: I accept that he has done that. However, to be frank, it is not that different from what we are already doing. He says that we need to look at issues around, for example, temporary accommodation. I have been doing exactly that by purchasing 600 homes using Housing Executive reserves to take the pressure off temporary accommodation. We have been pressing down. I have met housing associations and the Housing Executive about void properties so that we can make sure that we bear down on empty association and Housing Executive homes.

We are also working with others. For example, we are working with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on dilapidation. That is in addition to the measures that my Department is taking to look at how to reuse buildings that were maybe homes in the past and those that were not. Mr Durkan will also be aware of the announcements that I have made in the paper that I will bring to the Executive plans for how we can best use public-sector land in Northern Ireland. He identified those issues and the need to tackle waste water infrastructure problems in Northern Ireland. To be fair, those are all good ideas, but they are also ideas and plans that we are already taking forward. It is important to acknowledge that.

That brings me to the comments by Andy Allen, who proposed a reasonable amendment that outlines the challenges that we face and the problems for the 49,000 households that are affected. In that amendment, he also rightly acknowledges that some steps have been taken. I have done what I can with what I have where I am to address the issues, but more needs to be done. I am more than happy for Members to table motions calling for sufficient funding for new social housing. No one has been a greater advocate of making sure that we have that funding than me, so I am more than happy to have the debates and to make sure that we see progress on Northern Ireland Housing Executive revitalisation and borrowing.

Yet again, I tell the House this: I have used every opportunity that I have had to raise the issue with the UK Government. I have raised it with the Deputy Prime Minister. I have encouraged the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who raised it with the Prime Minister. I have raised it with every UK Government Minister whether or not it is their responsibility. I am therefore pleased to confirm what was outlined in the comprehensive spending review this month:

That is the first time that we have had it on record — on paper — that the issue is being taken forward. I am pleased that, for the first time, we have been able to secure complete cross-party consensus on the issue and that the Government have officially confirmed that they will take that on. I wish that that had been done a long time ago. I have made sure that they have been provided with all the relevant information. I have made sure that the Housing Executive is ready to go when the changes are, I hope, confirmed. In summary, we are making progress on that, so the amendment from Mr Allen and his colleagues is entirely reasonable.

Kellie Armstrong mentioned monitoring in relation to the housing supply strategy. I will say what I said earlier about the anti-poverty strategy: I have no desire for it to sit on a shelf and do nothing; I want it to be effective. There is agreement in the strategy that new legislation, policies and procurement protocols will be required to underpin that. We will identify where new powers and policies are needed to enable strategic delivery and set out a framework for implementing them.

That takes me to a point that a few Members have raised today. I will pick up on comments by Claire Sugden, who stated that we have "siloed government" in Northern Ireland and that nothing gets done. I have plenty of criticisms of the Executive and Executive colleagues at times — I keep those to myself — but, to be fair, on this issue, we have taken a joined-up approach. We have a housing supply strategy that is already making a difference. We see that in how officials work together and operate and in the fact that the Finance Minister allocated to Infrastructure an additional £16·5 million last year so that we could connect 2,300 social homes. Having a document that outlines how we are to work means that we are making progress. I often take criticism on such issues, but, on this one, there has been more joined-up work and a joined-up approach.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I am talking about a wider holistic context of outcomes. My points are about the impact on our other public services. More often than not, when we bring issues to Ministers, they say, "I am sorry: it is not in my remit", but, ultimately, it is. My biggest frustration with the Government is that, although you can join the dots of your various working groups, you are not looking at outcomes, ultimately, which is where you need better joined-up working.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry: I disagree with the Member, and I think that that is a shallow argument. I have already identified one way in which there has been greater working together; on infrastructure, that has been lined up already.

The other issue is one that the Member has already raised — Mr Bradley raises it with me frequently — which is second homes on the north coast. That issue was not on the agenda of other Ministers. I worked with the previous Economy Minister, and we are taking forward plans to address that. If she is saying that we do not work together, talk about the issues or get tangible outcomes, I have to disagree with her.

She also asked about tangible activity that we have taken part in. I have listed that in the House many times before. We have had tangible delivery on housing, not only the strategy and the commitment in the Programme for Government. The 600 homes that we are using will save —. The Member is rolling her eyes. The 600 homes that we bought will save —

Ms Sugden: It is not enough. It is nowhere near enough.

Mr Lyons: She says that it is not enough, but those 600 homes will save £75 million on temporary accommodation over the next seven years. It will save £75 million over the next seven years, because we will take that pressure off temporary accommodation. The Member does not think that that is a good idea.

Ms Sugden: No, I [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: It is not enough.

Mr Lyons: It is an innovative way —

Mr Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Mr Lyons: — to deal with the problem. It is just opposition for opposition's sake. [Interruption.]

It should be welcomed. What they are saying is that the new innovative plan that we brought forward, which will save £75 million. How many other Ministers are bringing forward plans that will save £75 million? Mr Carroll identified as a problem the fact that too much money is spent on temporary accommodation. What have we done? We are doing something that has not been done in recent years. We are using reserves to buy homes to take the pressure off that. That is a good thing. I want to see more of that.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry: I am limited in my time. I would give way to the Member, but I have already taken a lengthy intervention. I will, however, come on to Mr Gaston's points. He set out some of the issues, and I agree with him. Waste water infrastructure, in particular, is critical. I want to see action on that and explore all the options. I am more than happy to look at the plan that the Infrastructure Minister brings forward. Mr Gaston raised some other important concerns, particularly around HMOs. Work is being considered on that issue.

I take issue with Mr Carroll's point. Yes, I do not have all the resource that I want, but, for the first time, we have dedicated funds for homelessness prevention. It cannot be said that we are not doing anything on the issue when we have allocated more resource. I want to make sure that people do not fall into those issues in the first place.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry. I have less than a minute left. I would love to take another intervention, and I am always open to doing so, but I do not think that the Speaker will give me any additional time, so I need to move on.

I recognise the scale of the problems that we face. I am absolutely committed to making sure that we can deal with them. I am the one who has looked at the new and innovative things that we can do that will make a difference. I will continue to do that and to advocate for more social homes. The housing supply strategy is one example of how we are working better together.

Previously, Mr O'Toole said that he was looking forward to the publication of the housing supply strategy. It was published in December. I will finish by offering a copy of that strategy to Mr O'Toole so that he can see some of the progress that we are making. I am happy to sign a copy for him as well.

Mr Speaker: That would only devalue it. I call Andrew McMurray. You have up to three minutes, Mr McMurray.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share the Opposition's concerns about the slow progress on the housing supply strategy. The Programme for Government sets an important target of commencing at least 5,850 new social homes by the end of the mandate. If we want to meet that target, we need to make speedy and sustained progress right from the start. It is very concerning to hear that the Department will only be able to start work on 900 to 1,000 new social homes this year when the target demands more than twice that number. Even if we meet the target, we will barely touch the sides of the problem.

As many have pointed out, in the first quarter of 2025, over 49,000 households were on the social housing waiting list across Northern Ireland. In the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area alone, nearly 4,000 households are on that list. There are also over 4,000 households that have presented as homeless across Northern Ireland. They are not just statistics, as has been pointed out quite well by Mr Durkan. Families and, in particular, single individuals wait far too long for the dignity of a secure and affordable home.

Let me be clear: achieving 1,000 new starts is not good enough. I share the frustration and the sense of urgency, but I disagree —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Certainly.

Mr Allen: The Member highlighted the scale of the problem, and he also highlighted, like many of us, the fact that 1,000 new homes will not be enough. Does he support our calls for "additional capital investment" to be secured by the Department for Communities so that it can deliver more homes?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McMurray: I have another minute. That is great. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Certainly, I support the UUP amendment. I am happy to say that.

I disagree, however, with the motion's expressing a lack of confidence in the Executive. That will not build a single new home or lead to any extra funding. It does not lead to one bit of help for the thousands of people in housing stress. We need constructive action now. That is why our amendment calls for the Minister:

However, we are happy to support the UUP amendment as it is. Theirs is a much more solution-focused approach, which can help to improve outcomes and take meaningful steps towards delivering homes in communities.

To sum up, we have all heard about the practical and tangible issues that are facing housing, so I want to point out, in disagreement with Mr Gaston, that it is very poor form to place the blame for them almost solely on newcomers. Apart from that, it was a good and cordial debate. The other common thread — the main thread — is waste water infrastructure.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: I am about to sit down.

Mr Speaker: I call John Stewart to wind up on amendment No 1. You have three minutes, Mr Stewart.

Mr Stewart: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I am happy to wind up on our amendment. It has been a good debate so far and has been held in good tone. I say from the outset that there should be no room for party politics when it comes to a housing crisis and when people need a roof over their head. There should be room not for political point-scoring or rhetoric but rather for constructive cross-party cooperation. For the most part, that is what we see, and I think that we see that from the Minister, who is trying his best, often in very difficult circumstances. We thank everyone who so far has committed to supporting our amendment. We want to do that in the constructive tone that was intended, and we thank the SDLP for tabling the motion.

I acknowledge the Minister's commitment and his work to date in tackling homelessness and progressing the housing supply strategy through the document that was released recently. That needs to be seen in context. When placed against the scale of the housing crisis that we face, it simply does not go far enough. That is not a criticism of the Minister or the Department, and it is not a political swipe. It is an honest reflection on the reality that thousands of people across Northern Ireland are homeless. As we have heard already, 49,000 families are currently on the social housing waiting list, with a significant percentage of those currently deemed to be homeless. That is lamentable in 2025 in a modern society. The aim to build 1,000 homes a year simply will not go anywhere close enough at this stage to even tackle that. The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations has said that we need to build 2,200 houses a year, and that probably is not enough either. The Minister knows that, and we know that. We are dealing with difficult circumstances, and my party colleague from East Belfast has already pointed out what some of those are. There are the infrastructure issues, which we are all aware of. The fact that we cannot build enough homes or develop Northern Ireland to the level that it needs to be developed to because of capacity issues is, quite simply, scandalous. Recently, we heard that £10 million had to be allocated under the June monitoring round just to ensure that there was not a crisis in the freshwater supply. That is lamentable, and that needs to be tackled and dealt with.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: Absolutely.

Mr Allen: In my intervention to the Member for North Antrim, I of course said that the Infrastructure Minister had not taken any new initiatives regarding this matter. In the interests of accuracy, it is perhaps important to say that she has suggested the idea of developer contributions, but that will not address the scale of the problem. We need to address how NI Water is funded.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for the extra minute, Mr Speaker.

I absolutely agree. Developer contributions will solve, potentially, one aspect of it, but they will not solve the pressure on social housing because they will come at a cost, which housing associations will often be unable to afford to pay. Also, ultimately, it will be the people who are buying or renting those homes who will indirectly pay the costs of developer contributions. It will not solve the problem. It is possibly one small piece of a multitude of issues that need to be dealt with. Sadly, we are not hearing enough about those.

My colleague and others have pointed out the need for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to have additional borrowing powers. I know that the Minister and all parties in here have been lobbying the British Government to ensure that that can happen. That is vital. Fifty years ago, the Housing Executive was building 50 times the number of homes that it is building now, I understand. It is regrettable that we are at the stage now where it cannot borrow the money to build the number of homes that we need.

The final bit that my colleague pointed out was that this is not just an issue for the Communities Minister but one for all Departments and for the Executive as a whole. We need to ensure that the money is there, that the housing supply strategy can be implemented and that we go further than that. If it is not seen to be a full Executive priority, it will not get the level of support that it needs. I thank everyone again for supporting our amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to wind up on the motion. Mr O'Toole, you have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will attempt to respond to several of the points that have come up in the debate, but I will not cover all of them, because I have a relatively brief period of time. First, I want to tackle the idea that, purely by the Opposition being an Opposition, we are somehow not being constructive. We have said from the very beginning that we would be a constructive Opposition, but let me be absolutely clear: being robust and pressing the Executive for delivery on their own targets is the essence of opposition and of democracy. Some people in this Chamber may not like democratic debate and challenge and may think that we should all come here and agree with one another and wring our hands collectively and go out and pretend that we all agree with one another, but, if we were to do that, we would be failing our citizens. I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I want to make it very clear, as I did at the start of my comments, that I welcome the debate, am more than happy to be held to account and want to focus on this issue. The Member certainly cannot level that accusation at us today. I am more than happy to have that discussion and make sure that we are held to account.

Mr Speaker: You have an extra minute, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I appreciate the Minister making that clarification, and I acknowledge that we have been robust with him in the past few days. We will continue to have very strong differences of opinion on events of the past week. I acknowledge that he has at least offered a degree of explanation for what is a striking failure to deliver on social housing targets. I acknowledge that, so far, he has engaged in some detail. That is fair enough, but it is very difficult to see how the Executive can come anywhere near meeting their target — one of the very few specific targets in the Programme for Government — of 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate. If we are lucky, we will deliver 1,000 this year. That means that, in all probability, that target will be missed. In all probability, it is extremely likely that it will be missed.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Mr Kingston said earlier that we were indulging in the "luxury of being in opposition". He and his colleagues and others in the Chamber have the privilege and the responsibility of government. Our job, as the Opposition, is to hold them to account.

I think that Mr Allen asked for an intervention.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member accept that this is not just a current issue? In fact, it goes back decades, and his party held the Department for Social Development portfolio at one time.

Mr O'Toole: That is absolutely true. Yes, at one time, our party held that portfolio. We could all go back and find out that Paddy Devlin said something in a meeting of Belfast City Council back in 1970 or whatever. Fair enough. That is fine. I acknowledge that. It is a joint responsibility, but we have to take responsibility, as the Opposition, for holding the Executive parties to account.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way on absolutely every single point. I have been generous in taking interventions. I will perhaps take another in a few minutes' time.

Let me say this. The Executive will, in all likelihood, miss their social housing targets. Let us be clear about that. The Minister at least made a bid to get the amount of money needed, but the Finance Minister did not meet it.

We know that one of the other issues that is plaguing the delivery of social housing and all other forms of construction is the situation with NI Water. That is not this Minister's responsibility; it is the Executive's responsibility. The failure to even engage with the problems at NI Water is a shameful indictment of the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister. Yesterday, in the Chamber, the Finance Minister practically brushed me off when I asked him about investment in NI Water. Last week, the independent Fiscal Council said that the funding model was not fit for purpose. Yesterday, the Finance Minister said, "I don't agree" and just brushed it off.

Later tonight, about 100 miles south of here, there will be a protest. Someone has put up a social media post about the housing crisis in the other part of this island. The person who posted that message asks:

Yes, I would say that lots of people in the North are. The post continues:

Yes, I am, and lots of my constituents certainly are. It goes on:

Yes, yes, yes. I agree with Eoin Ó Broin, the Sinn Féin housing spokesperson in the Dáil, that this is not acceptable. All that the Opposition and I are asking for is that the citizens of the North, who are experiencing a housing emergency, get the same kind of opposition and the same kind of delivery that Sinn Féin is demanding in the other part of this island. Simply announcing strategies, as Sinn Féin housing Ministers did —. By the way, during this debate, which is now over, we have heard from one Sinn Féin spokesperson. That speaks volumes about the seriousness with which that party takes its responsibilities to its citizens in the North. What is good enough in Dublin is not good enough for those of us in the North. It is pathetic. Genuinely pathetic. [Interruption.]

Does Ms Ennis want to come in? I will give way. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: I have held the Minister to account. I am talking about the Minister too, because the Minister and others are responsible for their failure to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. However, they are part of an Executive in which the Finance Minister and Infrastructure Minister are unable and unwilling to engage on the most serious issues.

I will give way briefly to Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member have a concern that there appears to be a circling of the wagons by the Executive parties on the amendments, which try to remove the part in your motion that says:

Do the Member and the party opposite have any concern that there has been an attempt to gut that part of the motion?

Mr O'Toole: I agree with that, and we will not support the amendments, not because we are being difficult but because we are the Opposition. Our job is to hold to account the parties in the Chamber that are in government. Lots of important things are happening, and I welcome the fact that there is finally a serious discussion with the Treasury about the classification of the Housing Executive and borrowing powers. That is a good thing. We will be constructive in welcoming that.

I also welcome the fact that there is now agreement on some of the land use points that we raised. Progress has been made, and I do not think that the Minister is not serious about all those things. There will, however, be a failure to deliver on the target that was in the Programme for Government just a few weeks ago. There is nowhere near the budget to deliver social homes, and there is a complete denial about the crisis facing NI Water.

If Members think that the job of the official Opposition is to come in here and glad-hand, shake hands and pretend —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — that all is fine, I am afraid that they have another thing coming. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Speaker: I note that there were Noes from the SDLP.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): The Belfast Trust recently completed the multidisciplinary review of the options for the remediation works required to address the water safety issues in the new maternity hospital at the Royal Victoria site. The review has been in the form of multidisciplinary risk assessment workshops held in April and May. The intent was to determine the route forward for the building and the level of remediation works required to give assurance of safety. A recommendation on the option to be implemented was discussed and accepted at trust board level on 5 June. The trust provided the Department with a briefing document only last Thursday. It outlines the proposed remediation works to be implemented, and it includes a programme for the remedial works and estimated costs for same.

My officials and I are reviewing the document. I have already met the trust's director of strategic development to try to satisfy myself that everything possible is being undertaken by the trust to allow the maternity facility to become operational as soon as possible while ensuring patient safety. There are a number of issues with the report and proposed way forward on which my officials and I have tasked the trust to come forward with further information.

I can understand why there is a genuine desire from the Committee to receive the report, and, once the next steps are determined — hopefully that will be very soon — I assure members that the document will be shared and officials made available to brief the Committee as required.

The Belfast Trust has assured me that the safety of patients remains its highest priority in addressing the water safety issues in the new hospital. I support that position. In that regard, I can advise that the trust has confirmed that it will establish a robust flushing, management and testing regime for the water systems during and after the remediation works. The management of the regime to ensure patient safety will need to be closely monitored by a dedicated trust project water safety group.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. It has been a long-developing issue. I am glad to hear that the Minister will share that report with the Committee. The project is 10 years behind. The cost is now expected to be in excess of £97 million, and with this work, I expect, there will be a price tag as well. What is that price tag, and does the Minister know when mothers will be able to have their babies in the Royal maternity hospital.

Mr Nesbitt: First, no decision has been endorsed by me. There were three options, and I know that the trust is going for option b. That appears to have a timeline — I am sorry to say this — of 28 months. That is another two years and a bit and several million pounds.

As I said, I have met the relevant official. I have not accepted this. I cannot gild this lily; I cannot soften this. None of the three options can be guaranteed to solve the problem. The third option is to rip out all the water works and start again, and that will take even longer.

I have asked that we find an external expert because, when the multidisciplinary team looked at the three options, the majority went for option b or 2 but not everybody. Therefore, I would like an external view about whether option b or 2 is the right one, whether it really should take 28 months and whether there are parts of the hospital that we can start using while we fix the water. The area of real danger, as you know, is the neonatal unit, where the most vulnerable children are. I also feel that I need to better understand from those who were against option b why that was the case.

I am far from finished on this. There is nothing good to say, except that it is a magnificent facility that is not in use.

Mrs Dodds: I must say that everyone in the Chamber shares your frustration, Minister. You say that it will be another 28 months, and it is already 15 months since the handover of that building, so we share your frustration.

I will turn your attention to another issue relating to the Belfast Trust, Minister. Can you explain to the House how significant the fire safety concerns are that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has about the Royal Victoria Hospital? When was the trust first advised of the concerns? Is the Fire and Rescue Service pursuing an enforcement notice in relation to this?

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member said, this is a different issue. A fire safety audit was carried out at the Royal Victoria Hospital on 4 June by personnel from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service under the Fire and Rescue Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The audit found a substantial risk at wards 4 and 7, with a score rating that falls within the enforcement notice category. A follow-up meeting took place on 11 June to assist the Belfast Trust in making the necessary improvements. Another meeting is arranged for this afternoon.

I appreciate the pragmatic approach that the Fire and Rescue Service takes to working with responsible persons at audited premises to mitigate risk. In this case, the Fire and Rescue Service inspection officers continue to work with Belfast Trust officials. However, I accept the point that it does nothing to restore public and political confidence in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust.

Mr Chambers: Minister, are you satisfied that works are progressing well with the neighbouring capital project on the Royal site, which is the new children's hospital?

Mr Nesbitt: I am satisfied with the verbal assurance that I got as recently as yesterday that work is progressing on the children's hospital on time and to budget. That said, we are in the foothills of a long building works campaign. I am happy to report that the Falls Road has not collapsed, and I do not say that flippantly. Work has to be carried out in the first instance to ensure that the road is shored up, and that appears to have been done successfully.

Mrs Dillon: A Cheann Comhairle,

I apologise for not being in my place yesterday. I thought that my question had been withdrawn.

Minister, will the cost of the works at the new maternity hospital be borne by the public purse, or will it be possible to get the money back from the contractor in any way? If you do not know, when will we know?

Mr Nesbitt: I understand that the Member is curious about that, as, indeed, am I. As I understand it, the trust is still trying to figure out exactly what has gone wrong with the pipework. We know that there was pseudomonas bacteria in the pipework. That was the main issue, but, since then, I understand that some valves that have seals are, perhaps, defective. There is now a question about where that responsibility lies.

The matter is commercially sensitive. I do not want to not be open and transparent, but I do not want to say anything in the Chamber that might prejudice anything that, the Belfast Trust feels, it needs to do in liaising with the contractors.

Mr Nesbitt: An earlier independent review identified that the model of the proposed six- or seven-bedded mother-and-baby unit should be that recommended by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and that the location of the mother-and-baby unit should be the City Hospital site, which, of course, is in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. I have made clear to officials in my Department that I wish to see the issue progressed at pace — that would be a change — but, given the importance of the service, the latest position is that public health colleagues have been asked for their input to strengthen the case for a seven-bedded unit, which will help to make the unit future-proofed. Belfast Trust is at an advanced stage of developing a capital and revenue business case. It has advised that, once it receives instruction on the number of beds required, it will take six weeks from then to finalise the business case.

While the development of a mother-and-baby unit remains a longer-term strategic objective, my Department has committed to strengthening existing provision in the interim through investment in community-based specialist perinatal mental health services; the upskilling of perinatal clinical staff; the implementation of the perinatal mental health care pathways and associated guidance; the implementation of crisis intervention pathways and out-of-hours support for women experiencing acute distress; and, finally, ongoing engagement with service users and advocacy groups to ensure that care remains person-centred and responsive to the needs of mothers and families. The development of a service user leaflet to explain perinatal mental health is under way.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the details of what is happening in the interim. Minister, have you had any discussions with your counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to see whether, going forward, there might be an ability to take an all-island approach to the matter?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I have. I had some detailed discussions with the previous Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland, Stephen Donnelly, about the possibility of pitching to the Shared Island Fund for a single mother-and-baby unit that would service the whole island of Ireland. Without wishing to break any confidentiality, the response from the Shared Island unit, according to Minister Donnelly, was a hard no. That, perhaps, explains part of the delay, in that we were hoping to go down that route. That is over, however, and now we must press ahead at pace and get it done. My wife could have used that service 30 years ago.

Mr McGrath: Notwithstanding all the good work that is, you say, taking place in lieu of there being a mother-and-baby unit, Minister, has any consideration been given to providing a temporary unit? Most of the backbone of the work is provided by the staff. Whilst we wait to get the perfection of a brand new building and service, could we have something temporary? We are waiting for the Belfast Trust to deliver this, so it could be a long time before it arrives.

Mr Nesbitt: I will check once again with officials whether a temporary solution is possible. As I just said to the Member who asked the original question, it is now over 30 years ago that my wife had an episode of antenatal depression. What happened when my son was born was so far from ideal that it has stuck with us 30 years on.

Until we get the mother-and-baby unit, we will not be in the position that we need to be in. Temporary solutions sound good, but then you get into the practicalities. I will ask, however, and I will get back to the Member.

Mr Nesbitt: Encompass successfully went live in the Southern Trust and the Western Trust on 8 May. This is the first time in the history of Northern Ireland that all five geographically defined trusts have been integrated into one digital system. It is a major transformational change that will empower patients and improve access to care. Used properly, Encompass will deliver improvements to care quality and productivity. It will ensure that staff have timely access to health information, while supporting safer and more effective care delivery.

Encompass is Europe’s most comprehensive digital care record, comprising acute, community and social care, social work and mental health care. With the system now operational across Northern Ireland, all patients and service users will be able to securely access a subset of their health record, such as clinical letters, medication details and some test results via the My Care patient portal. They can also view appointments and track the progress of their treatment. My Care is already providing secure access to personal health information for over 150,000 users.

The Encompass system also offers the seamless sharing of patient and service user data with authorised colleagues across the Health and Social Care (HSC) network. Key integrations include systems for routing letters, imaging and lab results to GPs; ambulance booking and arrival management services; regional radiology and digital pathology services; and the Northern Ireland pathology information management system for laboratories.

Encompass continues to collaborate with senior trust information risk owners, the Information Governance Advisory Council (IGAC), the Information Commissioner's Office and other key stakeholders to ensure that benefits are being realised across the region within the framework of continuity of care, patient safety, information governance and cybersecurity.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Now that Encompass is in all trusts, can he assure the House that we will get full information on waiting lists, particularly cancer waiting lists, where key data has been absent?

Mr Nesbitt: The fact is that rolling out Encompass is one of the biggest changes to patient record-keeping that the health and social care workforce has ever had to face. Encompass needs a period in which to bed in and a period for validation, so, as frustrating as that may be, there have been times, and there continue to be times, particularly in the Southern Trust and the Western Trust, which are the latest trusts to adopt and go live with Encompass, when the information and data that we are getting is not fully validated. That is just part of the process. I say again that it is frustrating, but think of the prize when we get it fully embedded, operational and validated. Its impact on our ability to deliver public healthcare is unmatched, so we are in a really good position.

Mr McGuigan: The Minister has just said about Encompass:

Will he therefore outline what discussions he has had with GP representatives to determine the level of access to Encompass that they require? Will he also outline any progress that has made in any discussions?

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member will know, GPs do not have full access to Encompass, but it is my understanding, from talking to the officials who were in charge of it, that they have sufficient and appropriate access to it. Where we go in the longer term is something that I am very much open to discussing, but, at the moment, I am satisfied that GPs have appropriate access to the information that they need, which is now being held on Encompass.

Mr McNulty: At a price tag of £300 million, Encompass really should be all-singing, all-dancing. It is disappointing that GP information is not stored on the Encompass system. For the integrity and efficiency of the health service, it should be included. Minister, do you have any concerns about the teething issues with Encompass? Staff are overburdened, and some feel that they are now moving from paperwork to data work.

Mr Nesbitt: I did not catch the last words.

Mr McNulty: Data work.

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member may know, I have been out and about a lot. I have visited a lot of sites, particularly hospitals where Encompass is in use, and I do get a mixed reaction when I ask people what they think of it. I have heard some extremely negative comments, which I will not repeat in the Chamber. I have also received some particularly encouraging responses, however. The encouragement tends to come more from clinicians and consultants than from people who are, as you put it, moving from paperwork to data work.

Yes, £360 million is a lot of money. We reckon that Encompass's cash-releasing benefits will be £29·6 million over the next number of years. That is in cash terms. Non-cash-releasing benefits, I have been told, will be to the value of £514 million. It is not about the money, however, but about the ability to deliver public health through understanding much better where the problems are, particularly problems with health inequalities, in order to be able to analyse where those health inequalities occur and then tackle them proactively.

Mr Dickson: We appreciate all the benefits of Encompass. Nevertheless, there remains, particularly in primary care, a mishmash of systems that either GP practices or others across the healthcare system have procured.

In England and Wales, a major project is under way. The previous technology was very difficult to draw together, but excellent technological solutions now exist to bring everything together under central systems.

Mr Speaker: Your question, Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: What action are you taking to do that?

Mr Nesbitt: I see that as being part of the next phase. As has been said, £360 million is a lot of money. To roll out Encompass fully across primary care is beyond our financial reach. I say to the Member, however, that the next thing that I want to see is e-prescriptions. I want to see GPs being able to prescribe over the internet. I take five tablets every day. I go to my chemist, and the pharmacists tell me that they have to walk up the hill to the GP practice, physically collect the docket, come back and process it. If we were able to do such things electronically in primary care — GP surgeries and pharmacies — it would be transformational. Yet, I am told that it will be 2032 — seven more years — before that will happen. That does not equate with my seeking urgency in healthcare delivery and asking how we are doing things at pace. Although Mr Dickson validly points out that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, the one that I really want to address next is electronic prescriptions.

Mr Nesbitt: Implementing the new regional mental health crisis service is a commitment in actions 12 and 27 of the mental health strategy 2021-2031. My departmental officials and the Public Health Agency (PHA) are working in partnership to deliver on both those actions, with the hope of developing a regional mental health crisis service for all the citizens of this place.

Future state work has commenced across lifespan services, including a scoping of what a good service would look like. As part of the development of the regional mental health crisis service, my departmental officials are keeping national developments, such as specialist crisis centres in NHS England, under review.

While some individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis require their needs to be assessed and met within an emergency department, others may not. As an alternative to ED attendance, two initiatives were piloted for individuals who have mental health needs but do not require acute physical care. There is the multi-agency triage team (MATT), which is currently only operational in two trust areas, and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service's pilot initiative Hear and Treat, which is operating in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area and includes mental health professionals in the control rooms.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he concede that, in many ways, the current model serves nobody particularly well, including those who are suffering mental health crises; the other vulnerable patients, particularly those who are elderly, who have to endure the volatility of some of those who have mental health issues; and, not least, the overstretched staff, who often put themselves at risk in trying to manage the situation and administer care to all those in need. Does the Minister envisage the regional mental health crisis service being adequately resourced and equally accessible to all across the North?

Mr Nesbitt: Without wishing to scare people, the question, "Will things be adequately resourced?", tends to end up with the answer, "It could be much better resourced", although that is not to say that there are not good resources out there. The Member will know that I have campaigned on mental ill health and well-being since I was elected back in 2011. It is no longer the Cinderella service that it was back then, but there are two issues: awareness and action. We have done a lot more on awareness than we have on action. To do more on action, we need more funding and resourcing, but we also need workforce. I say again that to deliver healthcare, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicine, but all that says nothing if you do not have the right workforce in numbers, skills and commitment. That is where my primary focus is, and we need to do more to deliver those services for people who are incredibly vulnerable because of their mental conditions.

Miss McAllister: Minister, if you go to the Mater Hospital in my constituency in the evening, you will often find many police officers, many staff and many patients who are in crisis. The staff at the hospital know that those patients need help, and they want to give them help but the workloads of approved social workers and GPs are very intense and there are people falling through the cracks. What can the Minister's Department do as an interim measure, before those crisis centres are established, so that those hospitals that are often overwhelmed can get their patients the help that they need?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member mentioned that there are PSNI officers in the Mater Hospital, as there are in the EDs of all our acute hospitals. The Member will be aware that the Chief Constable, Mr Boutcher, is planning to move the PSNI to the Right Care, Right Person model, following an approach that is under way in other parts of the United Kingdom. He will argue quite rightly that the reason for that is because PSNI officers are not trained to deal with many mental health issues, so the Department of Health has been working with the Department of Justice and the PSNI. I understand that the direction of travel is the one that we need to pursue. My only concern is transition. I do not want to see a hiatus in which there is nobody around to try to deal with vulnerable people who have severe mental health and well-being issues and could be a danger to themselves and others.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, will you provide an update on the very impressive mental health community navigator service in the Royal Victoria Hospital's A&E department?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. As far as I understand it, there are ongoing discussions about the future of that service. All those services have been shown to be of benefit to patients, particularly vulnerable patients and those patients who perhaps do not know how to navigate a hospital such as the Royal Victoria particularly well. However, funding is always an issue. The best thing that I can say to the Member is that, while no definitive answer is forthcoming today, negotiations are under way with a view to trying to maintain that service.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of the outline proposal that Queen's University Belfast put forward to trial a rapid drug-testing model in Northern Ireland. Following recent conversations with interested parties, including Queen's, the PSNI and the Public Health Agency, the intention is that enhanced testing possibilities will be fully considered as part of a wider anticipated review of the current drug and alcohol monitoring and information system (DAMIS).

While the extremely challenging financial situation remains, funding for any enhanced testing service is unlikely to be available in the near future. However, we will continue to monitor the position and will seek to identify other potential funding sources should the review of the information system indicate that that type of approach would be helpful locally.

It is important to note that the drug and alcohol monitoring and information system, which is operated by the PHA but overseen by a cross-departmental steering group, continues to provide up-to-date information on substances that are of concern to service users and those who are likely to come into contact with potentially harmful substances. Under DAMIS, through partnership working with the PSNI and Forensic Science Northern Ireland, we have the ability to proactively seek the rapid testing of substances that are seen to be causing harm. That information is used to inform related advice and give alerts to service users, vulnerable groups and those who are in key services. It does not, however, provide for the ongoing testing of a wider range of substances, and it is acknowledged that enhancement in that space may be useful. However, the exact requirements for that should be informed by the review.

Subject to the completion of the DAMIS review, the resulting recommendations and securing the necessary funding, it may be appropriate to consider whether other potential suppliers should be invited to put forward proposals in that area.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. It is disappointing to hear that the pilot tests might not be successful. Does the Minister have a timeline for when the review of that information system will be complete? Could another funding option come through the North/South Ministerial Council? Last week, he gave an update on all-island working on alcohol and drugs.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have a definitive timeline for that work. It falls into a broader category. Indeed, yesterday I was with representatives from Belfast City Council talking about their Complex Lives proposals, which seem to work extremely well. I have agreed that I will try to get a multi-departmental meeting with the council on that alongside the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities. I want to place that work in a broader societal context.

Mr Speaker: Mr McCrossan is in another location so is not available.

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that work on the proposed changes to the legislation remains a key focus for my Department and that I am committed to ensuring that that work is completed without undue delay.

The public consultation on the proposed eligibility criteria for passporting universal credit recipients closed on 10 March. I welcome the openness, feedback and engagement from all who participated in the consultation. Officials are currently analysing the responses and compiling a consultation summary report that will be published on the departmental website in the coming weeks.

In the context of the extremely difficult financial environment, implementing the existing GB thresholds remains the preferred option. That will preserve parity with the rest of the UK. It is also the most affordable to the Health budget and will ensure continuity of eligibility for the most vulnerable.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I think that I can say yes to that, but I want to be specific about it; in fact, after the sitting, before the day is out, I will meet Peter McBride. The Member knows that I have asked him to be my eyes and ears in assessing the adverse cultural and behavioural issues not just in the cardiac surgery unit but across the Belfast Trust. I have some draft terms of reference for him. I want to consult the unions again — I have already spoken to them and to the professional bodies — to make sure that they are content with the terms of reference. Obviously, I want Peter to be content.

One of the specifics is the whistle-blowing policy, because it is my understanding that staff confidence in that whistle-blowing policy is low. I want to be assured that people feel that, if they whistle-blow, they will be heard properly and will not feel that they are putting themselves at risk of some sort of reprisal from management. I have no idea whether that is the case. However, if you judge it by the reported level of confidence in that system, there is certainly a problem, and, where there is a problem, there needs to be a fix.

Mr McGrath: I welcome hearing that, Minister, because many in the Health Committee who heard from the trust last week were less than assured that matters are being dealt with. When the chair of the trust refers to a complaint as potentially being just a "gripe", it makes me feel that what we are seeing is that, from the very top, the culture is not working in that organisation. If the level 5 intervention reveals a continued failing at trust board level, will you ask those responsible to stand aside?

Mr Nesbitt: I say yes to the Member. I said that I would intervene on a number of levels. Peter McBride going in to look at the culture and behaviours and where they are wrong is number 1. Number 2 will involve putting in someone external who has expertise in what I call "clinical teamwork", which is a direct reference to the cardiac surgery unit. My permanent secretary, Mike Farrar, is on top of that. One of the great advantages of having somebody steeped in healthcare delivery across the UK is that he knows names, so I have left him to liaise on that. There is a third intervention that I am working on but am not in a position to reveal. However, I assure you that the House and the Committee will be the first to know.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 was withdrawn by Mr Blair. I inform the House that Mr Blair tragically lost his father today. I am sure that the sympathies of all in the House will be with John at this time.

Mr Speaker: I call Kellie Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your kind words.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I express my condolences to Mr Blair on his loss.

Neurology was one of the areas where we were looking at a really bad situation. I need to write to the Member because I do not want to misspeak on such a serious issue.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister. Will he, when writing back, confirm whether any short-term measures can be prioritised to improve access to neurology services in the interim?

Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly give that assurance.

Ms Bunting: Mr Speaker, I express my condolences to Deputy Speaker Blair. I have been in that position, and it is very tragic and difficult to deal with, so I send him my very best wishes.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand the angle that the Chair of the Justice Committee is coming from. It is not an area that has been a focus of mine, so I am more than happy to take it away and listen to whatever the Member has to say by way of follow-up.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful for that answer. I would be grateful if the Minister were to look into the issue, because we hear that more detained persons are being sent to hospital now than prior to the scheme and that, apparently, the medical staff present in custody suites will not help police officers who suffer minor injuries in the course of their duties. For example, they are being refused help if they have been cut or spat at. If that is the case, perhaps, when looking into the issue, the Minister would consider whether that is acceptable. What is his assessment of that, should it be the position?

Mr Nesbitt: For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest, as my sister is a custody visitor. She gives me a narrative of her experiences sometimes.

The bottom line is that I thought that Health and the PSNI were getting a lot better at understanding where people should be placed. For example, people with severe mental health issues should not necessarily be put in a holding cell in a police station. The Member is taking it to a different level where there seems to be some sort of division of labour and people are refusing to offer appropriate medical support and intervention. I will most certainly take a look at that.

Ms Bunting: Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister to give way?

Mr Speaker: No, there is no giving way. You and the Minister can engage outside the Chamber.

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mr McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle,

I express my deepest sympathies as well to John Blair and his family on the loss of his father.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I have been public about this. While we have received no evidence to date that any of the people who were subject to the racist attacks are international colleagues working in delivering healthcare in the Health and Social Care system, I am aware that, last year, several valued members of the international community in the HSC system came under attack. I think particularly of a nurse in Antrim, but that was one of several attacks.

Regardless of whether any member of the Health and Social Care community has been attacked, it is beyond logic that international colleagues will be feeling the fear and the intimidation and wondering, "Are we next?". Let me be clear: it is extremely well accepted in healthcare delivery that, if we do not have our international colleagues, the healthcare system collapses — I repeat: collapses.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

Are there measures that the Minister can put in place in the event of it emerging that healthcare workers are coming under pressure as a result of the recent experiences?

Mr Nesbitt: The answer to that is, "Yes but not by the Department, by the trusts". I assure the Member that, last year, the trusts had protocols in place to help international colleagues with practical things. Some international colleagues were afraid to use public transport to get to and from work for fear of intimidation and potential physical attack. There are practical processes in place and reporting mechanisms so that individual members of our international community can alert trusts to the fact that they are concerned or fearful or that they feel intimidated. I have no particular concerns about that not being treated with the utmost seriousness by the five geographically defined trusts. Those processes are in place.

Mr Martin: I also send my condolences to John. I knew that his father was unwell, but I want him to know that I will be thinking and praying about him in the days ahead.

Mr Nesbitt: As I said earlier in the session, although you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicines to deliver healthcare, all of that is as nothing, if you do not have the right workforce. The Member has identified just one of the many areas in which we have too many vacancies, to the point where the delivery of better outcomes for the patients who need them is not there. We have a workforce directorate, whose responsibility it is to take the necessary steps, in conjunction with the trusts, to improve those rates of vacancy. I do not want people not receiving timely and proper attention when they need it.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, what particular pressures and difficulties does the health service in Northern Ireland face in recruiting consultants across not just haematology but wider specialisms?

Mr Nesbitt: There are a number of factors that inhibit the filling of all those vacancies. One is location. I think that it is well understood that some consultants are unwilling to travel to some of the points furthest away from Belfast. Belfast becomes a kind of Mecca or magnetic centre point for the delivery of healthcare. In some respects, it has to be that way, because the Belfast Trust delivers so many regional services for the whole of Northern Ireland.

We used to worry about consultants, nurses and allied health professionals going to Australia, for example; now, we have to worry about them going to Athlone, because the rates of pay under Sláintecare are much more attractive. If we cannot compete on salary, we have to look at other terms and conditions, such as working conditions and work-life balance. I want to focus on those things to try to make those roles as attractive as possible and, therefore, attract people to and, importantly, retain them in HSC.

Mr Nesbitt: As the Member will know, the BMA GP Committee did not like the contract offer that was put to it this year; it wanted another £80 million, as well as to look at things such as indemnity and National Insurance contribution hikes and the rest. I was disappointed that we were not able to discuss access arrangements in any great detail.

As the Member is aware, we put some relatively modest proposals to it that could be implemented at no cost. We are not getting into a big, detailed discussion on that at this stage, but we are moving on to discuss with that committee a new model for the delivery of primary care. That opens up all sorts of potential in primary services, not just for further investment.

I will say it again: I want to see a shift left — a shift to primary, community and social care — to take the emphasis off the acute hospitals and try to make sure that they do not have to do as many high-cost procedures. Doing so will start a funding flow towards GP services.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion the time for questions to the Health Minister. I have been taking a running note, Minister, of how many supplementary questions Ministers answer. The best, so far, is 27. There was an instance of 19, two 16s and a 14. It was you who got that 14 today.

Mr Nesbitt: I accept my relegation. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: I encourage Ministers to mix the need for detail in their answers with an ability to be succinct. Maybe I should also encourage their civil servants to be more succinct.

Members may take their ease while I hand over to the Principal Deputy Speaker.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland, the arts are one of our region's greatest strengths. I suspect that there is very little disagreement on that among the parties in the Chamber. In each corner of Northern Ireland, from theatre halls to arts centres, the arts build bridges, spark dialogue and bring people of all backgrounds together. They act as a quiet engine for our peace, holding a mirror up to our society in ways that can move us to laughter or bring us to tears in equal measure. Many of us swell with pride when people from outside Northern Ireland talk of the region's cultural assets, including shows such as 'Game of Thrones', 'Blue Lights', 'Line of Duty' and, of course, 'Derry Girls'. While news headlines, as we have seen over the past week, are too often about the worst aspects of Northern Ireland's society, our culture represents some of the very best.

The arts are also a huge boon to our economic prosperity. A 2023 report found that, in 2022, the creative industries contributed £49 billion to the UK economy and supported nearly one million jobs. That is enormous. The economic power of the arts has been recognised in other places. Recently, the UK Government announced the £270 million Arts Everywhere fund to create jobs and build creative skills for young people, yet, in Northern Ireland, we still fail to realise that economic possibility or the multiplier effect that arts investment can have throughout society.

That failure is reflected in the level of funding allocated to our arts sector, across the North. Northern Ireland receives the lowest per capita investment in arts funding of all the UK nations. Per capita, the arts in Northern Ireland receive just £5·07, which is half of what they receive in Wales, where the investment is £10·51 per head. In Ireland, the equivalent body to the Arts Council receives four times the level of commitment from the Irish Government, while the Arts Council here has detailed that government investment in the arts fell by £10 million in real terms between 2011 and 2023. That is self-sabotage, particularly when we think about our return on investment, and it should be stopped. We see a 23% return on every penny invested in the arts. Simply cutting arts funding is penny wise and pound foolish, and it should form no part of the Government's agenda. Unfortunately, when I listen to the Communities Minister, I do not get a sense that he understands the sector's economic potential. Last week, the Minister very graciously detailed the differences between population sizes and the quantum of arts funding. He seems to have no problem with the fact that Belfast receives 70% of all arts funding. Moreover, by making such basic comparisons between population and arts funding, he totally neglects his responsibility to understand the arts as a lever to help address and redress economic disadvantage and how funding should be tailored to the places with most potential.

Derry is the second city of this place. It receives 12% of the funding. I want to see every region get proper arts funding and every artist be supported, but I also want to be assured that the arts potential in our city — a city that most Members know to be bursting with creative potential — is properly supported. Realistically, how can we say that it is when organisations such as Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company and others have had their funding cut or, in many cases, removed completely or when the Riverside Theatre in Coleraine faces closure? Regional balance is not about everywhere getting an equal slice of the pie, not that we have to worry about that in this case. It is about the gap between the investment in places and their potential.

We call on the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister to work together to produce, by October, a joint multi-year funding and delivery strategy that ends short-term, opaque and unsustainable funding for arts organisations, recognises their value and places them at the heart of a better approach to boosting our economy. The strategy should include clear, transparent funding criteria, guarantee fair support across all regions and be co-designed by the sector. That is why we tabled today's motion, and I hope that it will receive broad support.

The Programme for Government does not mention the arts once. There is not a single reference in it to artists' enriching our communities and driving our growth. That is political —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: — ignorance.

Mr McHugh: Ar dtús, gabhaim buíochas leis na Comhaltaí as an rún seo a thabhairt os comhair an Tí, agus is mór agam an deis seo le plé a dhéanamh ar an dóigh a gcuireann na healaíona leis an tsochaí. Mar bhall de Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, tá suim mhór agam sna healaíona, agus tá a fhios agam, ó mo thaithí féin, go saibhríonn na healaíona agus an cultúr saol na ndaoine sin a ghlacann páirt iontu.

Is léir go bhfuil ré órga ann do na healaíona agus don léiriú ealaíonta. Tá ár dtionscail chruthaitheacha ag déanamh éachta, agus tá siad ag fáil an mheasa atá tuillte acu ar fud an domhain as. Níl le déanamh againn ach smaoineamh ar an rath a bhí ar chláir teilifíse agus scannáin amhail ‘Game of Thrones’, ‘Blue Lights’, ‘An Irish Goodbye’ agus ‘Belfast’ chomh maith le ceoltóirí mar shampla Kneecap leis an tionchar atá ag ealaíontóirí ón Tuaisceart ar an ardán domhanda a thuiscint.

Ach ainneoin a bhfuil de chruthaitheacht agus de thallann ag ár muintir, caithfidh siad deiseanna a bheith acu lena gcumas a léiriú. Rinne an Coiste Pobal plé leitheadach le hearnáil na n-ealaíon le cúpla mí anuas. Chuala muid faoi na dúshláin atá roimpi, agus d’oibrigh muid leo le teacht ar réitigh inbhuanaithe a chosnóidh na healaíona do na glúnta atá le teacht.

Ar ndóigh, maoiniú an mórdhúshlán. Is fíor nach mbíonn go leor maoinithe ar fáil in am ar bith d’earnáil na n-ealaíon. Faigheann an Chomhairle Ealaíon anseo thart ar leath an mhaoinithe a fhaigheann a macasamhail in Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag, rud a chuireann teorainn mhór leis an tacaíocht is féidir a thabhairt do ghrúpaí agus d’ealaíontóirí aonair. Is cúis mhór frustrachais í an easpa maoinithe do go leor ealaíontóirí, agus iad ag comhrac le costais atá ag síor-ardú, agus iad ag caitheamh ama ag streachailt le maoiniú gearrthéarmach tionscadal-bhunaithe a fháil, rud a dhéanann pleanáil fhadtéarmach agus, fostaíocht shlán a sholáthar an-chasta. Cuireann ealaíontóirí in iúl arís agus arís eile na himní atá orthu faoi na litreacha tairisceana ón Chomhairle Ealaíon a bheith ag teacht an-mhall — b’fhéidir míonna i ndiaidh thús na bliana airgeadais, rud a thugann ar ealaíontóirí a ndolaí a dhíol as a bpócaí féin.

Léiríonn na ceisteanna sin an tábhacht atá le maoiniú ilbhliantúil d’earnáil na n-ealaíon. Tugann an t-athbhreithniú caiteachais deireannach deis dúinn, den chéad uair le 10 mbliana, Buiséad ilbhliantúil a bheith againn, rud a thabharfaidh cinnteacht d’eagraíochtaí ealaíon le réamhphleanáil a dhéanamh.

Tá a fhios againn go léir go bhfuil an t-airgead gann agus go dtabharfar tús áite do sheirbhísí tosaigh amhail sláinte agus oideachas.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A Mhaolíosa, tá do chuid ama istigh. Go raibh maith agat. Tá mé buartha.

Mr Bradley: I rise to make a clear and urgent case as to why the arts, culture and creative sectors in Northern Ireland must be prioritised, not marginalised, in our recovery and investment strategies. Let us be honest: the arts were among the hardest hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Venues closed, jobs were lost, and the sector, which is so often taken for granted, was left to weather the storm with minimal security. The impact of that did not end when restrictions were lifted; it is still felt by artists, organisations and communities across this region. We cannot ignore that legacy, nor can we pretend that it is a problem that is unique to us. Across these islands and further afield, Governments are grappling with how to protect and sustain their cultural sectors. That is why we must look onwards, learn from other jurisdictions and implement best practice right here at home.

The arts are not add-ons. They are integral to our social fabric and economic future. They support mental health, education, tourism and town centre regeneration. They bring people together in ways that few other things can and, if we support them, offer viable career paths for our young people.

Let me be clear: the strategy must not be regional. There must be regional fairness in how we support the arts and in how that support is delivered. For too long, funding has been concentrated in Belfast. While I absolutely support our capital's cultural life, we cannot continue to overlook other areas. The potential closure of the Riverside Theatre, as mentioned, is a wake-up call and a symbol of how vulnerable the arts are outside Belfast. That cannot continue.

We need to be realistic. Public finances are under serious strain, but that is precisely why we must move away from relying solely on public money. We need to innovate and unlock new funding streams. A multi-year funding plan is essential, but we will not get there without a multi-year Budget. In the meantime, we need to act to protect what we have, invest where that is needed and reimagine how we support one of the most powerful forces for good in our society. The Assembly cannot afford to treat the arts as optional. They are vital, and they need our backing now more than ever.

Ms Mulholland: It goes without saying that, as someone who worked in the arts and as chair of the all-party group on arts, I see the arts and creative industries as vital. They are vital to our economy, our well-being and our sense of place. They are part of the fabric of who we are, and they enrich our lives, build communities and shape how the world sees us and Northern Ireland. Even with its undeniable importance, the arts sector remains stagnant as a result of a broken funding model, disjointed departmental working and repeated real-time cuts, despite the Minister's recent attempt to modestly add to the coffers.

To make matters worse, the arts and creative industries are entirely absent from the Programme for Government, as mentioned. We cannot ignore that glaring omission. The Executive cannot claim to be serious about growth while they leave out a sector that continues to provide up to £1·6 billion in gross value added (GVA) and supports nearly 40,000 jobs.

As mentioned by Maurice Bradley, the arts are not just a nice-to-have; they are a must-have. I join colleagues in welcoming the motion. The numbers speak for themselves. As I said, the creative industries contributed £1·6 billion to our economy, which was 3·2% of the overall GVA in Northern Ireland. There were 3,695 creative business sites in Northern Ireland last year, which represents nearly 4% of all businesses in Northern Ireland. That sector is growing. The biggest growth was in music and performing and visual arts, which have gone up 11% year-on-year.

Despite that impressive contribution, the creative industries are still treated as an add-on, a bonus and a flourish. My greatest concern is that the value of the arts gets lost because of where they sit in government. They are slotted into Communities, when, in reality, they should be central to our economic strategy. We have a sectoral action plan for screen but nothing equivalent for the wider arts, despite their crucial role. We are making decisions in the dark. There is a glaring absence of Northern Ireland-specific data. We do not know what people in the sector are earning by subsector. We do not measure productivity by job type. We do not track the turnover of trade or inward investment in our creative economy. Across the UK, creative services exports are worth nearly £19 billion, and 10% of all inward UK investment goes into the sector.

Where is our local picture? We do not have one. The impact survey, which the Arts Council supported, shows that the cost-of-living pressures are really hitting arts engagement hard, and we really want to see that addressed. The proposed closure of Riverside Theatre in Ulster University brings the crisis into sharp focus. That is what happens when there is little to no joined-up thinking across Departments and institutions. The arts are not just a line in a budget; they are core economic and social infrastructure. They have to be a pillar of joined-up cross-departmental growth. It is time to act.

Mr Allen: In preparing for today's debate, I read and reread a broad range of documents. I also liaised with my colleague Pete Wray, who was very helpful in bringing information together. We have heard a lot of the important information, but what stood out for me more than anything in what I read was the consistency of the message that Northern Ireland's arts sector is full of talent and potential but continues to be held back by underinvestment. The arts matter. They are not a luxury, as we have already heard. They are part of how we live, learn and connect, and they contribute directly to our economy, our health, our education system and just about every part of government. However, let us be honest. We are not treating the arts as the priority that they ought to be. As we heard, the per head investment in the arts in Northern Ireland is the lowest anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it lags well behind that in the Republic of Ireland too. That gap is well known and long-standing and has repeatedly been highlighted by the sector as a serious and ongoing challenge.

Earlier this year, the Minister said in this very Chamber:

He is right, but words need to be turned into action. According to the previously referenced Arts Council 10-year strategic plan, funding has fallen by almost half in real terms since 2011, at a time when demand and public support have only grown. Seventy-nine per cent of people here support public investment in the arts; 87% believe arts and creativity improve health and well-being; and 81% say that arts and creativity build communities. While the strategic plan makes a strong case throughout, the following paragraph from the chief executive's foreword captures the situation particularly well:

Part of the problem, as we heard from my Committee colleague, is structure. The arts touch everything, from health to education to the economy, but responsibility sits in the Department for Communities, which has a vast and diverse portfolio. That is not a criticism of the Minister; it is just a reality. The criticism that I have heard is that the arts do not always get the attention and resources that they need. That has to change. We need joined-up thinking across Departments, and we need multi-year funding, as called for in the motion, to allow organisations to plan and grow. We need local councils to be brought in as proper partners, and we need to make sure that access to the arts reaches every community —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Andy.

Mr Allen: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Andy, sorry about that. I hate cutting into people's time. It is a one-hour debate, so there are three minutes for everybody. Just a wee — ding, ding — reminder.

Ms Ferguson: Everybody in the Chamber will agree that Derry city is well renowned for its status as the first City of Culture, and, equally, everyone will agree that the success of that time was wholly due to the vibrancy, character and dedication of our local artists and our local arts organisations. We all know that the arts are so much more than a form of entertainment. They are the beating heart of culture, and they drive individual well-being, strengthen our communities and drive social and economic vitality. However, the lived reality of the working and living conditions of our artists in the North is not reflective of the contribution that they make. The Perspective Economics report commissioned by the Arts Council in 2024 was stark in its findings. On average, artists here have to generate their income from at least 2·6 different sources. Last November, in Stormont, we heard directly from talented Derry-based artist Muire McCallion and other Equity members about how they are being forced to emigrate to tell stories of home on a foreign stage. Why are we exporting our creatives and denying their contribution to their own communities?

Unfortunately, as we have heard, as a result of austerity, we have the lowest per capita investment in arts. It is approximately £5 per person here, but it is twice that amount in Wales and four times that amount in the Republic of Ireland. That needs to be addressed through additional investment and support over a longer period. Just recently, in Derry, the Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company lost 100% of its core annual funding programme, endangering staff roles, community outreach and the very sustainability of its dance studio in the city walls. We have a duty to protect that group and so many others. The arts have a significant social value. Arts Matter has suggested that, for every pound invested in arts, there is an £8 return in local economic benefits.

I want to finish by making a call to the Minister. You have rightly acknowledged the need for equitable funding, but now is the time to act. We need to rebalance distribution geographically and ensure that places such as Derry, Strabane, Coleraine, Fermanagh and our rural areas receive their fair share. We need to enable and support arts organisations, not help to close them down. We need to provide stability for key organisations such as Echo Echo. Let us collectively ensure that local artists and our locally based arts organisations are adequately and equally supported to thrive right across our island. I remind everyone that cutting arts funding is not saving; it is starving our local potential.

Mr Kingston: It is clear from the debate so far that no one is in any doubt about the importance of the arts and our creative industries sector to Northern Ireland. For a relatively small population, we punch well above our weight when it comes to those sectors, whether it be our fantastic film production industry or our rapidly growing TV sector. Appropriate funding for those areas is vital to maintain Northern Ireland's competitive as well as creative edge. Indeed, my colleague Phillip Brett and I are looking forward to attending the Studio Ulster launch in the Belfast harbour estate in North Belfast on Thursday evening. That is funded by the Belfast region city deal.

The DUP is getting on and delivering for the arts sector. The Communities Minister has announced an additional £500,000 on top of the Arts Council's opening resource budget this year. He has also increased its opening capital allocation by over 50% to £1·4 million. That investment will benefit people across Northern Ireland and shows our Minister's commitment to the sector. Despite what the Opposition might claim, there is a clear appetite in this party to see increased funding for our arts sector. In addition to the vast investment given to the Arts Council over the past two years, the Communities Minister has provided more than £2 million to his Department's partnership with Northern Ireland Screen. All that investment in local initiatives will have a positive impact on all in society and will continue to increase Northern Ireland's presence on the world stage. The heritage, culture and creativity programme that was launched by the Minister last year is the catalyst for making the case for additional funding for the sector at the Executive. That initiative is key to creating policy ideas and building partnerships in the arts and creative industries — something that will be paramount to the sector moving forward.

At a local community level, it is important that unionist communities are not left behind when it comes to funding for the arts and creative sectors. Unionist traditions and culture ought to be adequately supported by the Arts Council to ensure parity of opportunity and experience across the Province. It is vital that funding for the arts and creative industries is used to ensure participation in those areas. The arts and creative industries should be accessible to all no matter what your age or background, and funding should be targeted to ensure greater social inclusion across those areas.

Mr Honeyford: I want to look at this from an economic point of view. The arts enable and create local culture, and that is totally accurate. As was said, it is about us telling our story, but it is not just about that. It is about jobs, skills, innovation and global competitiveness. We are trying to build a vibrant region to move forward with, and the pathway for careers and opportunities for people to excel and grow is massively important.

Our screen industry is a shining example of local success. Initially it was through international investment looking for locations, but that has mushroomed into something much bigger and provides many opportunities. Belfast now has Titanic, Belfast harbour and the new Studio Ulster, which the Economy Committee visited a few weeks back. It is hard to put into words the scale of Studio Ulster and its potential for the region with its leading technology, to be able, for the first time in the world, to deliver services here for not only film and TV but also for the growing gaming industry. One of the really exciting things is the opportunity that it is opening up for young people from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds who are getting into gaming through a youth club setting, and Studio Ulster is able to engage with kids who are, maybe, at the edge of our schooling system and not fully engaged in the classroom. Once they came out of that and were engaged through a youth club setting, it created opportunities for them to develop skills and see opportunities and a future where they could grow and develop the skills that could transform their lives. It opens doors and creates opportunity for people right across Northern Ireland, and that is to be welcomed.

The industry supports an ecosystem of freelancers and small businesses. A manufacturing company that the Committee was with recently was the Deluxe Group, which started making shop fittings and now makes sets for the film industry and rides in theme parks in the States. That is a small, local company that has grown through the arts, creating jobs and bringing investment here. That is what we need to see scaled up. We want to see investment in the arts. When you have something that is working, rather than pat it on the back, we need to put investment in it to see it grow. That is where the need is, and we support the motion.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I will focus on my constituency of North Belfast, where the arts sector thrives. I want to pay tribute to some of the organisations that do fantastic work daily. The Newtownabbey Arts and Cultural Network, which the Minister visited on a number of occasions, brings disadvantaged young people together to produce their own music and make their own games. We now have young people at the forefront of developing gaming technology that is used in all parts of the globe. I pay tribute to New Lodge Arts and Arts for All, which receive funding from the Department for Communities for the important work that they do in supporting the arts sector.

North Belfast is home to some key cultural attractions. The Oh Yeah Music Centre, which will be well known to the Member for North Antrim, recently received vital funding from the Levelling Up Fund, which will ensure that artists have somewhere in the city centre where they can thrive and grow. The Department for Communities continues to support the MAC theatre in the heart of North Belfast through the Arts Council. The Arts Council, however, needs to be more reflective of the society that it serves. It needs to support the arts in all forms and ensure that its board and membership are made up of people from all parts of Northern Ireland and all backgrounds and traditions because it is meant to be a force for public good and should reflect the community that it serves.

I hope that, when the Opposition sum up their motion and rightly call for more funding for the arts, they can articulate to the House where they want the funding to come from and which programme or project they would like to see cut. I forcefully but politely disagree with Mr McHugh's remark that Northern Ireland wants to celebrate the work of Kneecap. An artist who is before the courts for chants of "Kill your MP" is not something that we want to celebrate on the world stage.

This is an important debate. The Minister has articulated once again, in his budget allocations two weeks ago, that there will be £750,000 for instruments for bands and organisations across Northern Ireland. Of course, that may not be the cultural aspiration of some in the House, but it is vital for Northern Ireland. We look forward to receiving details of this financial year's £500,000 scheme to support small venues across Northern Ireland so that we can ensure that our arts sector continues to thrive.

Mr O'Toole: Take it as read that we all care about the arts. Take it as read that the arts mean a lot to us. Take it as read that we all care about communities of all backgrounds being able to access culture in our constituencies. In my constituency, obviously, I have particular landmark cultural institutions, such as the Lyric Theatre. I will not spend much time listing them, because they are amazing and they know they are amazing. Of course, the Lyric Theatre won UK Theatre of the Year a few years ago, and, in a sense, it does not need all that to be celebrated. What the arts sector needs, bluntly, is more support.

We had a round table with the sector upstairs earlier on, and the all-party group on arts, which I sat on for a long time, engages consistently with the sector. The artists, whose day job is making the best and most impactful use of words, want more than warm words; they want a funding settlement. First, I acknowledge that, a few weeks ago, the Minister uplifted the arts budget a bit, but that came after a long-term structural squeeze on the arts budget in Northern Ireland. We on this island have a particular love — grá — for the arts, but we also have a hard bottom-line need to celebrate and support the arts because it is critical to our tourism and hospitality offer. It is also why a lot of large companies want to invest and create jobs in Belfast, Derry and other places.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member know that we have a real, live Oscar winner in the building today? James Martin, Mencap ambassador and the first person with Down's syndrome to win an Oscar, is here today. He is a living testament to what can be achieved through the arts.

I firmly agree with Andy Allen's assertion that the arts sector is full of talent and potential, but, sadly, 70%-plus of the funding is for Belfast, and the combined Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council areas only get 6%. Surely there should be more fairness.

Mr O'Toole: The Member makes a fair point about regional balance. Of course, I think—.

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

Mr O'Toole: I am glad you said that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: — for that minute-long intervention.

Mr O'Toole: The Member, in his distinctive way, has made a very important point. He comes from Newry, home of Sean Hollywood, a former SDLP politician and a brilliant champion of the local arts; indeed, Doire Finn, our arts spokesperson who convened the round table today, is related to Sean Hollywood. What we heard clearly at the round table is that artists want more than warm words; they have that in their day job. They want a funding settlement that enables them to do their jobs and not have to take second and third jobs or emigrate. Yes, support the arts in our communities. Today, I want to hear a commitment from the Minister that he will at least do his best to work with the Finance Minister to produce a multi-year settlement that uplifts.

I want to challenge some of the points that have been made today. It was said that austerity was a reason for the squeeze on the arts budget. Austerity was pernicious and awful, and I hope that we will eventually emerge from that era of economic thinking. However, Scotland, Wales and England all experienced austerity, as did the Republic of Ireland for many years, and our arts spending is way behind all of those places. If austerity was to blame, why are they so far ahead of us? That is the blunt point. Despite our particular love of the arts and need to support it, Northern Ireland has been frankly pathetic at funding it. We have failed our artists. We need to do better.

We need to produce a multi-year plan with a specific uplift. People do not expect us to match the South overnight — that would not be realistic — but can the Minister give us at least a trajectory for a multi-year plan later this year? If he wants to make that representation to the Finance Minister, he will have the Opposition's support. We are not talking about earth-shattering amounts of money in the broad scheme of the Executive Budget over a multi-year settlement. Let us work towards increasing that so that we can celebrate our artists.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Frankly, we need that to maintain the pipeline of talent for our creative industries.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, is next to speak and will respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Member for Foyle Sinéad McLaughlin for bringing the debate to the Chamber today. I agree with nearly everything that she said, and, indeed, I agree with many of the comments made by Members around the Chamber. However, as she would probably expect, I take issue with a couple of her comments. First, she said that I do not get that the arts are an important lever in tackling economic inequality: I do. I fully grasp and understand that. I wish that I were in a position to do more. I absolutely understand the impact, because I have seen that in communities in my consistency, in that of Mr Brett and Mr Kingston and in many others. The arts have a transformative impact, and I want to be able to do more. I will address that more in my comments.

Secondly, there has been a mischaracterisation of my position on regional funding. I certainly agree with the Member: I want to see regional balance. I do not think that there is that balance at the minute. We need to see more of it. When I discussed the issue in the Chamber last week or, potentially, the week before, I highlighted the fact that my constituency and my council area got 0·4% of the overall arts budget.

Yes, I understand that the Arts Council is not the only organisation that delivers arts funding. I get that many of the organisations that are based in Belfast work in areas outside Belfast and, indeed, across Northern Ireland. We are on the same page in wanting to make sure that we get that support across Northern Ireland. That is why I have taken some of the actions that I have.

Today's motion focuses on the strategic importance of the arts and the mechanics of support. I acknowledge and fully understand that engagement in the arts can have a significance that is broader and deeper than many of the issues that we deal with here. I understand the intrinsic value of the arts, which is often very personal and difficult to quantify. When I speak of "the arts", I mean their personal and intangible value, as well as the broader economic and social value that is at the core of today's debate, and that is what I will turn to now.

On the value of the arts and the funding position, let me be crystal clear by reiterating what I said in the House in January:

I understand that words are one thing, and I know that Members across the Chamber will want to judge me on my actions. I am happy for that to happen, because everyone in the Chamber knows that the current financial landscape is highly competitive and strained and that unpalatable choices have had to be made. However, even against that backdrop, I have chosen to add £500,000 to the Arts Council's opening resource budget this year. I have also increased its opening capital allocation by over 50% to £1·4 million: first, for an initiative that will put instruments into people's hands across all communities in Northern Ireland and in school groups and other musical and cultural groups; and, secondly, for a small capital grants programme that will benefit arts activity and organisations throughout Northern Ireland. That is in addition to the more than £2 million that I have provided to support my Department's partnership with Northern Ireland Screen. That pattern was seen last year, too, when I added almost £3 million in resource and capital funding to the Arts Council's opening allocation.

I will continue to invest in the arts and creative activity and to make the case for more investment from the Executive. However, in order for me to make that case, policies, ideas and partnerships are required, and the Heritage, Culture and Creativity (HCC) programme that I launched in July last year will be the catalyst for that. In the first phase, it will renew policies on public libraries and museums and, crucially, fill the policy vacuum on the arts and our historic environment.

It is also important to recognise that the financial pressures felt in the arts sector and many other areas of the Executive's work will not be dealt with solely through public funding, as Mr Bradley rightly said. We need to broaden funding sources and seek new avenues of support, ensure that our funding and distribution structures are robust and effective and work across Departments to recognise and maximise the impact of the arts. Those are all key tenets of the work being undertaken to develop the new arts policy. Rather than work in silos, the approach is intentionally collaborative and has already seen engagement between my officials and each of the other Departments and, by the way, all 11 councils, which is important. From those engagements comes a greater shared understanding of and appetite for the potential of the arts and culture to play an even bigger role across Executive priorities in health, education, the economy and so on.

Today's debate has touched on the Programme for Government (PFG) and the arts' place in it. I take some issue with the idea that the arts are completely absent from the Programme for Government. While the arts may not be captured in the PFG top priorities, if we look a little more deeply into the well-being framework, we will find arts and culture to be a key indicator across the work that is being done. We need to look at the PFG priorities as a whole and think of the contribution that people and organisations working in the arts make to growing the economy. The creative industries sector is one area in our economy with exceptional potential for growth.

On the relationship between the Department for the Economy and Department for Communities, I can say that the engagement between officials on issues to do with the creative industries is positive and productive.

The motion also proposes the publication of:

for the arts and creative industries. There are real positives to be found in multi-year funding agreements and few downsides. The practical reality, however, is that, to be meaningful, a multi-year funding plan needs a multi-year budget. Should circumstances allow for multi-annual departmental budgets, which, I believe, we will see soon, I for one will certainly embrace that opportunity.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. An exercise is going on at the minute on five-year business planning. Is his Department specifically looking at the potential for a five-year arts strategy as part of that five-year business plan? If not, might that be something the Minister will take away with him?

Mr Lyons: It is certainly something that we can look at. The Member will be aware of the outworkings of the new heritage, culture and creativity programme that we are bringing forward. I will not be found wanting when it comes to engaging with other Departments, in particular the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance, to deal with the issues that the Member raises.

As I said, there are few downsides to multi-year budgets. One of the issues that many people face in the arts sector is a lack of certainty. We can see that across the community and voluntary sector as well. People spend a large proportion of the year waiting to find out whether they will have a job at the start of the next financial year. That is where we can make a positive difference.

I believe that talent, creativity and aspiration should not be based on a postcode and nor should opportunity. Through the work that is being done, I aim to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for people, wherever they are in Northern Ireland, to participate in the arts and to ensure greater participation and engagement at a grassroots level and across all age groups. To achieve that, I want to see greater support and recognition for grassroots and community-based arts. That should not come at the expense of the people and organisations that make up the core of our arts infrastructure and whose current contribution and great potential to do more I reflected on in earlier comments. We must ensure, however, that everyone has access to the arts and to realising their potential, if they have the interest and talent, no matter what their background, location or personal circumstance.

That is all the more important when the evidence shows that people from working-class backgrounds are under-represented in our creative industries. That should not be the case, because we have talent and ambition in all our communities, and I pledge to be a Minister who works hard to make sure that the opportunity is there for everyone, no matter where they come from.

I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward to having the support of the House for initiatives such as those that will come through the heritage, culture and creativity programme, not just because we believe that the arts are good for people's well-being and for society but because we know the economic potential and benefits that they can bring.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The next Member to speak will be Colin McGrath to conclude and wind up the debate. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate. I hope that they go to show that not every Opposition debate has to turn into a slinging match and that, while Members have disagreements, there is an opportunity for us all to galvanise around a subject, have the conversations that are necessary and understand exactly what people in our communities want.

There is also a fault in the fact that we all agree. We need to come back and revisit that, because it is not just about our being in the Chamber and saying that we agree on the issues and understand the problems. We need to move on and address them, because the arts are not just a cultural embellishment; they are essential to our way of life. Their value goes far beyond their economic output and reaches into something much deeper and ultimately more profound than statistics or budget bottom lines can measure. Properly investing in the arts will impact on every facet of our lives, whether that is in education, in health and well-being or through those who challenge injustice wherever it is found. That was certainly brought to the fore in our meeting with the cross-sectoral group this morning.

The arts impact on every element of life. They probably cut across every Department, even down to the funding of some projects by DAERA, which may not be recognised as a Department that traditionally supports the arts. Such projects take place through many Departments, because the arts cut across much of our lives, yet, in Northern Ireland, we invest less in the arts than anywhere else — anywhere — on these islands. We invest just over £5 per person per year, compared with nearly £26 in the South. I echo the remarks of the leader of the Opposition, my colleague Matthew O'Toole, that, even though there are strains on budgets everywhere else, and probably more profoundly so than here, others have still managed to invest more money in the arts. The question is why. The answer is that they identify the arts as a priority, understand their importance and follow that up with funding. That funding makes what takes place a reality.

Reference was also made to the fact that a lot of artists noted that, when we had a Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — the Principal Deputy Speaker will have great affinity with that — the Executive named the arts in the title of that Department. I do not want to take away from the work that the Communities Minister does, but I understand that he has a lot of work to do, whether that is in housing, the anti-poverty strategy or local councils. Given all the work that is done in his Department, it must be difficult to focus on the arts. The Department's budget has a lot of competing areas to cover. That may be something to consider for the future. We will not rearrange our Departments tomorrow, but maybe we could consider where we place the arts. That might help them to get the priority that they need.

As referenced in the motion, it is a bit troubling that priority for the arts is absent from the current Programme for Government. The artists at the round-table event were concerned about hypocrisy. They see Ministers and MLAs turning up to opening events — some were referenced in other constituencies — but, when it comes to trying to get the funding to do their work, it is not there. They feel that that is a bit two-faced. For example, where is the Minister's support for the Riverside Theatre? We talked about wanting to move things and accepting that things need to move outside Belfast and Derry, yet the biggest theatre to be threatened with closure in Northern Ireland is based not in Belfast or Derry but in Coleraine. There was even an attempt, I think, to reference the fact that one community or other would not get the same benefit. We want to see that benefit in underrepresented communities. I do not think that closing a facility in Coleraine is doing anything to balance that. If we are talking about the economic benefits, which many Members mentioned, let us note that that theatre is in the Minister for the Economy's constituency.

I have run out of time. We could all talk about the arts for much longer. We will maybe have a much longer debate about it in future, but let us try to assist artists and give them the stability of income that helps them to do their work, which, ultimately, helps all of us.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. You will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have three minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise to express deep concern and disappointment about the Economy Minister's decision to approve seven new mineral prospecting licences across Counties Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh, effectively opening the door to full-scale mining in some of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive parts of our region. That decision is fundamentally at odds with the direction that our society needs to take. At a time when the Programme for Government (PFG) promises climate action, biodiversity restoration and a green economy, the Department for the Economy is enabling extraction practices that risk polluting our water, scarring our landscapes and locking us into an outdated model of development.

The public's opposition to the proposal was overwhelming. The Department received 2,163 consultation responses, of which 2,153, or 99·5%, were objections. What happened? The Minister ignored them. If we consult the public and then dismiss their views, we undermine trust in our institutions and our democracy. This is a slap in the face for the local communities that care deeply about the land that they live on, the water that they drink and the environment that they want to pass on to their children. The decision is part of a wider failure to protect the environment. When we look at the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scandal, in which a renewable scheme encouraged waste, at the ongoing pollution of Lough Neagh and at illegal dumping at Mobuoy, where local communities had to fight for accountability, we see that this licensing decision allows for the same pattern of disregard for public concern and environmental risk.

The Minister has argued that exploration does not equal extraction and that there are no lawful barriers, but the public are not reassured by such technicalities. They understand that, where exploration starts, mining often follows. Worse still, the decision contradicts the Minister's previous position. Before taking office, she called for a moratorium on new licences until the regulatory framework was reviewed. That is a matter of public record. What changed? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case of inconsistency. The Minister recently floated the idea of increasing tuition fees here, while Sinn Féin campaigns to abolish them in the South. What kind of doublespeak and doublethink is that? It damages public confidence.

The motion gives the Assembly an opportunity to correct course. It calls on the Minister:

It calls on us to align our actions with our environmental commitments. Words alone will not restore public trust or protect our planet.

We should be leading the way on a green industrial strategy, with clean energy, circular economy principles and sustainable development at its heart. The public are not opposed to development; they are opposed to the wrong kind of development. They want protection not exploitation. Let us listen, let us lead and let us act in the public interest.

Ms Sheerin: I rise on behalf of Sinn Féin to speak to the motion. In doing so, I hope to bring some clarity to the debate. The process of issuing mineral licences is archaic, convoluted and complex, so much so that it appears that the Opposition do not understand how it works. So, let me enlighten you all.

As it stands, there is no legal framework to introduce a moratorium on the issuing of prospecting licences referred to in the motion. The framework that we are bound to is out of date and lacks transparency. To change that, when Sinn Féin came into the Department for the Economy, it initiated a comprehensive review of all mineral licensing policies. The aim is to introduce a system that is fair and accountable and a method that prioritises local communities and the environment over the interests of corporate bodies.

From the responses to the consultation, the view of the people is clear. That must be respected, and the legal requirement to grant the licences in spite of the evidence against doing so is testament to the need for change that we are implementing. I hope that all Members across the House will be supportive as the process is worked through.

On a separate issue, some headlines have confused matters, so let me state this clearly for the record: we in Sinn Féin remain completely opposed to any plan that would allow private companies to mine our hills for gold and silver. Our opposition to that is based in evidence.

Since 2016, Sinn Féin representatives have been raising serious concerns about the proposed gold mine in the Sperrins, which is an area that, you will all know, is very dear to me. In my part of south Derry, given our proximity to the aforementioned plans, we met experts, took advice from scientists and, on the back of that, drafted a motion to bring to our party Ard Fheis; that motion subsequently became party policy.

Of course, gold and silver prospecting licences are a separate conversation. They are not managed locally. They remain within the remit of the British Crown Estate. That fact alone serves as an insight to what is wrong with our current political arrangement. We do not control our own affairs. I feel that it would be better for everyone who feels that way and agrees with us in that regard to work together with us to change it, rather than to take cheap and misguided political shots.

Sinn Féin will continue to advocate for the protection of our landscape and for a licensing regime that is transparent, accountable and guided by the principles of sustainability and public interest —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Emma.

Ms Sheerin: — and I urge everyone to join us in that endeavour.

Mr Brett: The following are not my words; they are the words of the then Chair of the Economy Committee and current Minister for the Economy, Dr Caoimhe Archibald:

The motion brought to the House today is a very good attempt by the Opposition to call out what some might say is hypocrisy, in that you say one thing in opposition and then, when you hold office and the ability to deliver that, you do something else. The Minister, in her answer to those queries, said that she was legally bound to release those licences and allow them to take place. However, most people will see that it is a U-turn in the position of Sinn Féin on the issue.

It is not a U-turn that we disagree with. I am not even sure that it is a U-turn that all members of the Opposition disagree with, given that we can see who is in attendance at the debate this afternoon and who is not.

I will leave it to the SDLP and Sinn Féin to fight amongst themselves on the issue, and the DUP will oppose the motion.

Mr McMurray: I want to make a few brief comments in support of the motion today. Alongside some of my Alliance colleagues, I am deeply concerned about the recent approval of seven new mineral prospecting licences in Northern Ireland. As we strive to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection, we cannot afford to overlook the potential consequences of such actions.

The decision represents a troubling regression of our commitment to environmental protection. Mineral prospecting poses significant risks to our natural habitats, including potential habitat destruction, soil and water contamination as well as disruptions to local wildlife. In Northern Ireland, where landscapes are among our greatest assets, we should prioritise the restoration of nature over its exploitation. Biodiversity is delicate, and, once harmed, recovery is often slow and, in some cases, impossible.

The approval of the licences came despite overwhelming public opposition, which has been referenced, with an astonishing 99·5% of respondents expressing their concerns during the consultation process. It is imperative that the Minister for the Economy listens to those expressed views and prioritises a review of the regulatory framework for mineral licensing to ensure that future decisions are rooted in sustainable practices that honour our natural resources.

I also want to clarify some issues that do not fall within the remit of the AERA Minister. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is involved only when it comes to the issue of planning. While the NIEA has indicated that the licences allow only non-intrusive geophysical and geochemical surveys, it has also assured us that more invasive activities will require full planning permission. Nevertheless, the risk of environmental degradation remains a significant concern that we cannot afford to ignore. Our landscapes and ecosystems deserve stronger protections than those currently being offered by the licences.

As Members of the Assembly, we hold the responsibility to protect our environment while embracing economic opportunities. It is no longer viable to view those two objectives as opposing forces. The Alliance Party will persist in promoting policies and initiatives that value our natural landscapes, safeguard and improve our environment and foster biodiversity while aiding nature's recovery.

We must ensure that our policies are fit for the challenges of the 21st century, especially when we are becoming increasingly aware of the implications of our actions for the environment and the species with whom we share our resources. Therefore, we support the motion and urge others to do so as well.

Ms D Armstrong: We all want to see progress across society with the building of new homes, growing the economy and providing well-paid jobs in areas often overlooked, but the motion before us may risk just that. The motion calls for a review of the current framework, but the Department is already reviewing the framework to update it. The scoping document states that the review will assess:

Of course, it is essential that environmental concerns are included, and I hope the process will also promote greater community consultation. However, the motion simply misrepresents the nature of mineral prospecting licences and risks undermining Northern Ireland's economic and strategic interests.

Let us be clear: a mineral prospecting licence is not a licence to mine; it permits only low-impact exploration, not extraction. There is no automatic progression from prospecting to mining, and each stage is subject to separate rigorous regulatory scrutiny. Northern Ireland's mineral resources are vital to our economy and our future. The strategic planning policy statement recognises that minerals are essential to a sustainable quality of life. They support construction, manufacturing, agriculture and, crucially, the green technologies needed to meet our climate goals. Without domestic sources of critical minerals, we risk deepening our reliance on imports, often from unstable or adversarial countries with lower environmental standards and human rights issues. The motion refuses to acknowledge that the global transition to renewable energy, electric vehicles and digital infrastructure depends heavily on access to critical minerals and rare earth elements, but we should not put barriers in the way of indigenous exploration that Northern Ireland can benefit from. We should strengthen the framework.

The mineral product sector here already supports thousands of jobs with 160 quarries, mines and sandpits in Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas, where opportunities are limited. You need only to look at parts of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where the development of that sector has transformed communities, particularly with companies like Mannok, formerly Quinn's, which is now a powerhouse of industry, whose roots started in a simple gravel pit in Fermanagh. In fact, 75% of quarries and pits are located in areas designated for targeting social need. Therefore, it is not just about industry but about regional development and social equity. I would have thought that the proposers of the motion would support that. Are they advocating the closure of companies in my constituency, putting jobs and families at risk?

The motion, while well-meaning, is based on misunderstanding and fear. It threatens economic growth, job creation and our ability to transition to a greener future. As public representatives, we must commit ourselves to evidence-based regulation and responsible resource management.

Mr Carroll: I welcome this important motion. The decision to grant seven mineral licences despite overwhelming public opposition flies in the face of reason, logic and science. Friends of the Earth and Save Our Sperrins — I welcome Fidelma, Cormac and others who are in the Public Gallery — have highlighted multiple worrying issues about an inadequate and predetermined consultation process, which is what has happened. They have also raised concerns about a lack of equality, strategic environmental assessments and proper environmental screening and about superficial due diligence. As we have heard on the issue of public consultation, over 2,000 people and four councils — 99·5% of respondents — objected to the licences being granted. It seems that, while the dissenting voices of the public and even of councils are dismissed and do not matter, the lobbying of Peter Mandelson and US congressmen holds infinitely more weight with the Minister and her Executive colleagues.

It has been mentioned that, in 2022, the current Economy Minister, who then held the Finance portfolio, called for a moratorium on all prospecting licences. Now, three years later, she has made a catastrophic U-turn and decided to grant them. Many people, including me, wonder why that is the case. If the Minister wants to claim that the Department's legal advice on this is sound, she should publish it. Furthermore, what is the point of Ministers if they cannot act? The Minister wants to claim disingenuously that her Department does not grant prospecting licences for gold and silver. People who live and work in the Sperrins know full well that prospecting licences are the first step to getting access to precious metals. In a bizarre neocolonial twist, the Crown Estate owns the rights to precious metals buried in Derry and receives a 4% tax on those that are mined, so this could well be to the benefit of the royal family. What an irony.

People and places are not extractable resources. Our Sperrins and areas elsewhere are not a blank slate for the accumulation of capital and wealth for shareholders, corporations or anybody else. It is not too late for the Economy Minister or the junior Minister who is standing in her place to take action and listen to the voices of local communities, campaigners and the vast majority of the public and rescind the licences. The Member for Mid Ulster talked about not controlling our own affairs: that cannot be used as an excuse to give cover to her party colleague the Minister for the Economy and her approach to do the bidding of big American, Canadian and other multinational extractive companies that are interested in only one thing: not jobs or communities in Mid Ulster or elsewhere but profit. There is no point in decrying —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: OK. Sorry about that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Gerry. Each Member gets three minutes in an hour-long debate.

David, we have added your name to the list.

Mr Honeyford: No bother. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I support the motion. It is really disappointing that, in the past number of weeks, the Department has authorised seven mineral licences to move this forward.

I have to point out that, last week, we saw Sinn Féin voting with the DUP and TUV — it looks as though it is happening again — on a public consultation on the nutrients action programme (NAP). When it comes to the environment, we see repeatedly that words are being said and games are being played, rather than actually standing up for what you believe in and say in the House. That has to be called out. Last week, we had a debate on a consultation — only a consultation — on a nutrients programme, and the Assembly voted against the consultation. Environmental issues are not the priority that they should be. We cannot ignore that; we have to highlight it. Alliance will continue to raise the environmental destruction that is happening around us, be it in Lough Neagh or with these minerals.

Public opposition to this is absolutely widespread. Most of it comes from rural and border areas. I have talked many times about sharing this island: living together, sharing this place and moving forward on that basis. However, we have heard repeatedly from the South that it does not think that we are capable of dealing with this, but it affects people in the South, so there has to be a voice, and there has to be cross-border discussion.

I met the Save our Sperrins campaign group recently. I had a really good engagement, meeting individuals and listening to their stories. One of the heartbreaking stories that a couple of them raised was about the bogland being dug up there and erased. I know that that is not quite on topic, but it is similar. It is the same area, and the same issues are being raised there. One of the guys talked about the seeming rise in cancers in children. There might not be any scientific logic to that in the area, because nothing has ever been looked at, but surely, with the stories that are coming through, we need to look more closely at licensing and have more regulation around it.

There were 2,100 responses, and 99·5% — nearly 100% — opposed it. In every council area where the licences were reinstated, there was formal opposition. That has to count for something. Alliance supports the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Our next Member to speak is junior Minister Reilly, who will respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister for the Economy, who is unavailable. The Speaker outlined that at the start of today's sitting.

Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on behalf of Minister Archibald.

The legal framework for mineral prospecting licences is contained in the Mineral Development Act 1969. It is important to note and to be clear that the Act does not cover precious metals. As has been mentioned here before, gold and silver are reserved matters and come under the control of the Crown Estate. Members should therefore be aware that the debate has nothing to do with gold exploration; instead, it concerns minerals such as zinc, copper, aluminium, lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite. Those minerals are vital for renewable technologies, including wind turbines and electricity networks.

Our climate change targets will be achieved only if we transition our energy production away from burning fossil fuels to greener renewable sources. That transition requires minerals. For example, a typical electric car requires six times more mineral inputs than a conventional car.

Recycling is an important component in increasing supply. The Department for the Economy is working with a number of local companies that are major players in the field: for example, Ionic Technologies, based in Belfast, is fast becoming a world leader in the recycling of rare earth minerals from used magnets. As well as the work on recycling, the Department supports many circular economy policies aimed at reducing mineral inputs and addressing issues with product life cycles. While the Department is pushing to increase the reuse of minerals, that, in itself, will not meet the needs of the green transition.

It is important that the licensing framework for minerals provide the highest level of environmental protection. That is why a comprehensive review of the existing mineral regime is under way. As part of that review, the Department for the Economy issued a tender last week for the required strategic environmental assessment and habitats regulations assessment. In addition, a call for evidence will take place in the autumn. The review will also be informed by developments in the EU and in Britain.

The motion calls for the withdrawal of the seven new mineral prospecting licences that the Department for the Economy granted on 8 May 2025. It also calls for:

When the former Economy Minister took up office, his intention was to implement a moratorium while the review took place.

It will, however, take a number of years to complete the research and the necessary environmental assessments, develop a new policy, carry out a full public consultation and draft and enact the legislation. The legal advice provided to the Department for the Economy confirms that, because it will be a number of years before a new legislative framework is in place, it would be illegal to put a moratorium in place.

It is also important to note that licences are assessed by officials in the Department for the Economy, not approved by the Minister for the Economy, and that it is a quasi-legal process. It should also be noted that the Department produced a comprehensive report in response to the issues that were raised during the consultation. That report is available on the Department's website. The review of the minerals regime is therefore progressing, but it is a significant piece of work, and, in the meantime, the existing legislation must be complied with.

In conclusion, it should be noted that mineral prospecting licences have been in place for many years, with no evidence of any environmental issues. The Department has received legal advice that it would be illegal for the Minister to withdraw approval retrospectively for the seven new licences or to put in place a moratorium on considering the granting of any new mineral prospecting licences. The Minister's Department will continue to monitor the work of the licensees and ensure compliance with the regulatory framework. Officials will push ahead with the review of the minerals regime, and the Minister looks forward to consulting Members and the public throughout the review. In the meantime, the Department is legally required to treat any new applications for mineral prospecting licences in line with the existing legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am slightly at a loss as to how to cover a few of the points that have been raised in the debate. It would obviously be helpful if the Minister for the Economy were here to respond, because we have just heard that she did not formally approve those mineral licences. Rather, that was done by her Department. It would be helpful if the Minister were here to explain and expand on precisely her role, what say she has in the granting of licences and what questions she has asked her officials. I am afraid that we are not able to do that because she is not here. That is a shame. Our job as the official Opposition is to hold Ministers to account. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to come to the Chamber in Opposition time and answer those questions, but I will move on.

I will respond to a few of the points. I know that Emma Sheerin is passionate about the Sperrins. She grew up there and no doubt cares a huge amount for them — I do not dispute that — but she appeared to indicate that a moratorium was not legally possible. It is important to say that, when the current Minister for the Economy was the Chair of the Economy Committee, that is exactly what she called for: a moratorium. She wrote to the then Economy Minister to ask for one. Now that she has that power, apparently she does not have it, or she is not able to put in place a moratorium.

Separately, we are told that granting the licences is a way in which to get to a moratorium, if I am understanding it correctly, or that one cannot get to a moratorium without granting the licences. I am afraid that I am slightly none the wiser. We are being corrected, and we — the Opposition — are accused of taking cheap potshots and misunderstanding how the rules work. If that is true of us, it is also true of Save Our Sperrins, the campaign group that is vociferously opposed to the granting of those new licences and has said so publicly. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot —.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot, but we are saying the same thing, or at least asking the same questions, as Save Our Sperrins.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. He has helpfully outlined Sinn Féin's position on its desire to see a moratorium. That is what the current Economy Minister called for. She went into the Department after her predecessor, Conor Murphy, had already explored whether one was possible, saw that it was not and initiated a review. I outlined that in my contribution.

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

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that, and I am glad that I gave way, but I am still none the wiser as to how that works precisely. I am afraid that the position appears to be as clear as mud, but I will move on to a couple of the other points.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does he agree that a moratorium will be completely pointless if licences are granted and approved for companies to begin and extend the process of extraction?

Mr O'Toole: They are prospecting licences, but it is true that the granting of prospecting licences creates momentum. That is part of the point: once a prospecting licence is created, a situation is then created in which someone will say, "Look, we found this mineral". I take the point that was made that that excludes the extraction of gold and silver, because that is done through a separate process, but there is very real public opposition in this part of our island to continued extraction. People are very serious about that.

To be fair, Diana Armstrong made an honest argument that was effectively in favour of mining and quarrying, which she sees as economic activity. The motion does not say that we should shut down every slate or limestone quarry in the North. It is important not to conflate the agreed and licensed extraction of building materials by quarry companies with prospecting for rare earth materials, about which there are real public health and environmental concerns in local communities. That matters because this place has an abysmal environmental record, which became worse last week when a consultation on the nutrients action plan was not supported. I repeat that this is not an assault on farmers. Farmers deserve to be consulted and are vital to who we are. However, the nutrients action plan is a key step, whether it is implemented exactly as it stands or reviewed after the consultation. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the TUV and the Ulster Unionists voted to bin even the consultation last week, while Lough Neagh, which is our greatest natural resource, becomes an open-air cesspool.

Do I have an extra minute, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You do, but I ask you to return to the motion, Matthew. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: I will. I return to the motion by saying this: if one natural resource — Lough Neagh — is being left because most of the Executive think, "It's fine. We don't need to do anything about it. We can let it drift into becoming, basically, an open-air cesspool", are we to trust that the Executive will take the Sperrins and other beautiful parts of our natural environment with the appropriate seriousness? I do not think that we have that level of trust, which is why we tabled motion. the We are serious about protecting our environment. Of course we want to see economic development and investment, but not at the cost of protecting our greatest natural resource, straight in the face of the expressed wishes of the local communities.

I commend our motion to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole: In light of the fact that the Justice Minister is not here, for which I understand that there are good health reasons, and the fact that this would be our second debate in a row for which the relevant Minister were not here to account to the Opposition —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Not moved.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Accepting that there will always be good, legitimate reasons why Ministers cannot come to the Chamber, I again ask that the Speaker's Office looks at the issue of Ministers' coming to the Chamber on Opposition days, given the seriousness of our role, to respond to our points and debates.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. I will do that on your behalf. Members should take their ease.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg to introduce the Adult Protection Bill [NIA 16/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the purposes of protecting adults from harm; and for connected purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Agriculture Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled, so there is no opportunity to discuss the Agriculture Bill. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. Further Consideration Stage is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Members were advised earlier, we have been notified that the proposer will not speak to the Adjournment topic that is in the Order Paper.